Каталог статей из сборников научных конференций и научных журналов- Modern culture as a basis of development of society

V. N. Goncharov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, assistant professor,

North Caucasus Federal University,

Stavropol, Russia

The phenomenon of modern culture can be successfully described in two measurements: post-industrial and postmodern [1, p. 95–100]. Culture develops as a result of interaction of these two global approaches to transformation and also to reality assessment. At the same time it turns out that the first one directly regulates ways of formation of modern social and technological realities. The second one creates and transmits the values arising in modern culture [6, p. 136–143]. Post-industrial society can be treated as a structure based on knowledge [5, p. 6–9]. However, what is knowledge for modern culture? In post-industrial coordinates knowledge is, first of all, information having practical value and serving for obtaining concrete results. Such total practicality acts as one of basic characteristics of modern culture.

The role of post-industrial vector of evolution nevertheless is stronger than the power of postmodern at all their mutual complementarity first of all because of the fact that in the world, according to G. Baudrillard, there is more and more information but less sense. The post-industrial society kind of sets postmodern mentality of the rule of the game in the subject and information worlds, forming the last in its new quality [2, p. 168–177]. Influence of postmodern proves in ways of understanding of the post-industrial direction of social development, than in real opportunities of steps for its change. Postmodern perception of the world focuses more likely on passive acceptance of post-industrial processes, stopping trying their adjustments by both individuals, and society in general [9, p. 78–82].

Culture is inseparable from history. However cultural construction takes place in various stages. N. A. Berdyaev noted that in any culture, after golden age and thinning, depletion of a creative power, removal and decay of spirit, spirit decrease begins. All culture directions change. It goes to practical implementation of power, practical organization of spirit towards its increasing expansion on the Earth's surface. This practical organization of spirit gradually distances culture from its essence, leveling its spiritual beginning and turning into civilization. N. A. Berdyaev, certainly, is right in the statement that all products of culture, including material, have a spiritual basis. When culture is churned out, regenerating into civilization, it inevitably comes to a stage of crisis development. This stage never proceeds evolutionarily. The highest wave of the cultural revolutions, destroying the systems of traditional cultural wealth and turning harmonious whole into separate fragments of the past, bears with itself a presage of new cultural sense.

At the same time there are no bases for statements that cultural innovations mean total oblivion of traditions of the past. The new type of culture forms itself more likely through polemic with previous, and then through its revival in new quality. So the Middle Ages have built the cultural space on polemic with antiquity, however, the last during this era was not only an object of criticism, but also a basis of theoretical creation of medieval theology. Voices of modern culturologists sound even more intriguingly when in relation to a present era note as, in particular, Humberto Eco that «the Middle Ages have already begun». Thus, it is possible to claim that crises in culture are a factor of updating of social memory of mankind [7, p. 123–128].

Even in the ancient time people paid attention, that if they managed to understand culture as spiritual clamps of society out of which neither the person, nor his formation in the history and development in the society of this or that type is impossible, then there is a recognition that it unites people in the society and provides connection between generations. But what is the mechanism of formation of society by means of culture? Starting with Plato, researchers of various eras answered this question differently. It, however, hasn't prevented researchers of our time from classifying all massif of developed theoretical ideas of culture by four main directions fixing such levels of this phenomenon as: development and continuation of nature, or Divine plan [13, p. 39–44]; unity of the values created by mankind [14, p. 10–16]; accumulation and transformation of social experience [8, p. 87–93]; process of production of vital styles of social development [10, p. 57–62].

Three last representations are most significant for this reviewing. They give the chance to trace process of transition from the modern to the post-modern, – as it is named now by researchers, – society [12, p. 73–78]. Culture as a method of production of vital styles which is impossible without accumulation and transfer of social experience of the past appears a source of this transformation. And though thinkers practically of all eras introduced specifications to this basic interpretation of culture, its entity remains invariable and means social memory of generations and also methods, norms and values of perception of the world by human community [11, p. 282–284].

The presented set of definitions substantially explains why nowadays when science and technology show things of information period, culture is late, reproducing industrial standards main of which is its mass [4, p. 118–124]. It is not surprising if we remember that the vital style of industrial society still is reproduced in mass scales, and time is required to accumulate in reality formed information realities [3, p. 80-85].

Bibliography

1. Бакланова О. А., Бакланов И. С., Ерохин А. М. Методологические конструкты исследования социальности современного общества // Историческая и социально-образовательная мысль. - 2016.  - Т. 8. - № 3-1. - С. 95-100.

2. Бакланова О. А., Бакланов И. С. Современная российская социальность в контексте социального конструкционизма // Вопросы социальной теории. - 2015. - Т. 7. - № 1-2. - С. 168-177.

3. Болховской А. Л., Говердовская Е. В., Ивченко А. В. Образование в глобализирующемся мире: философский взгляд // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2013. - № 5. - С. 80-85.

4. Говердовская Е. В., Добычина Н. В. Взаимные референции между реальным и виртуальным пространством: новая коммуникационная среда // Социально-гуманитарные знания. - 2014. - № 7. - С. 118-124.

5. Daraganova Yu.S. Философия науки // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2011. - № 4. - С. 6-9.

6. Джиоева Д.А., Камалова О.Н. Значение сенсорных технологий в жизнедеятельности человека // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2011. - № 1. - С. 136-143.

7. Ерохин А. М. Научно-информационный аспект исследования социокультурного развития общества в области культуры и искусства // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2015. - № 2. - С. 123-128.

8. Камалова О.Н., Карпун А.Б. Основные структурные элементы политической власти // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. - 2010. № 1. - С. 87-93.

9. Колосова О. Ю. Социальная информация в системе управления обществом: философский анализ // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2016. - № 1. - С. 78-82.

10. Колосова О. Ю. Теоретико-методологические аспекты экологической безопасности социально-экологических систем в контексте общественного развития // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2014. - № 3. - С. 57-62.

11. Лобейко Ю.А. Социальная активность личности в обществе: социально-педагогические аспекты формирования // European Social Science Journal. - 2014. - № 7-2 (46). - С. 282-284.

12. Лобейко Ю. А. Социально-психологические проблемы общения в контексте межличностных общественных отношений// Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2015. - №4. - С. 73-78.

13. Матяш Т.П., Несмеянов Е.Е. Православный тип культуры: идея и реальность // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2015. -  № 3 (82). - С. 39-44.

14. Матяш Т. П., Матяш Д. В., Несмеянов Е. Е. «Науки о природе» и «науки о духе»: судьба старой дилеммы // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2015. - № 1 (80). - С. 10-16.