Culturology is a young science, but it already has its own generalizing apparatus. Depending on the level of knowledge, culturology is divided into theoretical and applied.
Theoretical culturologystudies culture with the goal of theoretical and historical knowledge. She develops a categorical apparatus, develops methods for the study of cultural processes (social and cultural anthropology, historical cultural studies, psychological anthropology, cultural semantics).
First of all, the theory of culture stands out, which deals with the identification of the main forms of culture, the relationship of different cultures among themselves (their mutual influence and interpenetration), as well as the study of the interaction of cultures and non-cultural organizations.
1. Social culturology studies culture as a result of human activity. Social culturology does not focus on the personality of a person. Man is an ordinary functional unit of society that reproduces culture.
2. The psychology of culture draws attention to culture as the result of a person’s mental activity, studies it as a carrier of a particular culture.
3. Cultural semantics - studies the signs and languages \u200b\u200bof culture. Here, culture is seen as text. Any work of culture can be read as text.
4. Cultural theories. The history of culturology. Theories of culture are being studied. The personality of a person as a creator of culture and individual cultural eras.
5. Applied cultural studies (explores the processes of culture in real life)focused on the use of fundamental knowledge of culture for specific purposes. She is developing special technologies for the transfer of cultural experience. In applied cultural studies, research methods such as museology, archiving, library science and some others are formed.
Tasks of applied cultural studies:
1. The study of the real processes of cultural activity of people who create material and spiritual values.
2. The identification of the macrodynamics of the development of culture in the context of its inclusion in the socio-economic, political and spiritual conditions of a certain historical era - the definition of the structure, functions of culture, its styles, forms, ways of influencing the development of society.
3. The study of the microdynamics of the development of culture by identifying the features of creativity of prominent figures creating world cultural masterpieces, developing new styles and forms of culture, as well as determining the role of culture, its inherent means in the socialization and culturalization of the individual.
4. The identification of the main trends and patterns of cultural development, the change of cultural eras, methods and styles, their role in the formation of man and the development of society.
5. Development of the categorical apparatus (cultural artifacts, cultural compositions, cultural universals, cultural adaptation, etc.), as well as the methods of this science (cross-cultural analysis, etc.) used in the study of specific sociocultural phenomena and processes.
6. Applied culturology is focused on the use of fundamental knowledge about culture in order to predict, design and regulate sociocultural processes, on the development of special technologies for transmitting cultural experience, traditions and mechanisms to achieve the cultural level of development of certain behavioral acts characteristic of individual individuals and their social communities that act as “products”, “producers” and “consumers” in real life are defined x types, types, forms of culture.
The applied level of culturology involves the practical use of the results of cognition.
Bibliography:
1. Lectures on cultural studies. Textbook ONLINE. URL: http://uchebnik-online.com/104/11.html Date of access March 10, 2014
2. Culturology. Textbook (Belik A.A., Berger Y.M. et al.) URL: http://uchebnik-online.com/soderzhanie/textbook_9.html Date of treatment March 20, 2014
3. Simkina N.N. Culturology. Electronic textbook. Bryansk, publishing house of BSTU. URL: http: //ya-simkina.narod.ru/ Date of treatment April 23, 2014
Concept of culture
The concept of culture arose in antiquity and denoted the state of society and personality opposite to the barbaric, natural, created by nature.
First word cultura found in the treatise on agriculture " De Agri Cultura »(c. 160 BC) Mark Portia Cato the Elder (234-149 BC).
"Culture" - from lat. "Cultivation", "processing".
This term was originally used in agriculture and horticulture, when people began to notice that cultivated plants give a better crop than wild ones. Then the term began to be applied more widely: in animal husbandry, in everyday life. The best creations of man began to be called culture.
In the Middle Ages, the concept of "culture" began to serve for a qualitative assessment of personal and social creative forces.
In the meaning of self concept the cultureappeared in the writings of the German lawyer and historian Samuel Pufendorf (1632-1694). He used this term in relation to “artificial man” brought up in society, as opposed to a “natural” man, uneducated.
In philosophical, and then scientific and everyday life, the first word the cultureintroduced the German enlightener I. K. Adelung, who published in 1782 the book "Experience in the history of the culture of the human race."
I.G. Herder (1744-1803), who introduced the term scientific use in the late 80s of the 18th century the culture, pointed to its Latin origin and etymological connection with the word "agriculture". In the eighth book of his work “Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind” (1784-1791), he, describing the “education of the human race” as “a process, both genetic and organic,” wrote: “ We can call this genesis of a person in the second sense, we can call it culture, that is, cultivating the soil, or we can recall the image of light and call enlightenment, then the chain of culture and light will stretch to the very ends of the earth.
I. Kant, for example, opposed the culture of skill to the culture of education. He singled out the technical type of culture and called it civilization. Kant saw the rapid development of civilization and believed that this imbalance is the cause of many ills of mankind. "
In Russia until the middle of the XIX century. the concept of "culture" corresponded to "enlightenment", which is equivalent to the modern term "education".
Basically, culture is understood as human activity in its most diverse manifestations, including all forms and methods of human self-expression and self-knowledge, the accumulation of skills and abilities by man and society as a whole. Culture also appears as a manifestation of human subjectivity and objectivity (character, competencies, skills, abilities and knowledge).
Culture is a combination of stable forms of human activity, without which it cannot be reproduced, and therefore exist.
The following common understanding of the concept of culture is composed of three components:
· Life values
· Code of Conduct
· Artifacts (material works)
Life values \u200b\u200bdenote the most important concepts in life. They are the basis of culture.
Culture is the subject of study of philosophy, culturology, history, art history, linguistics (ethnolinguistics), political science, ethnology, psychology, economics, pedagogy, etc.
At present, culture is regarded as the second nature - an artificial environment created by man and for man.
In modern cultural studies adopted the following periodization of the history of European culture:
Primitive culture (up to IV millennium BC);
· Culture of the Ancient World (IV millennium BC - V century AD), in which the culture of the Ancient East and the culture of Antiquity are distinguished;
· Culture of the Middle Ages (V – XIV centuries);
· Culture of the Renaissance or Renaissance (XIV – XVI centuries);
· Culture of the New Time (K. XVI – XIX centuries);
The main feature of the periodization of the history of culture is the allocation of Renaissance culture as an independent period of the development of culture, while in historical science this era is considered the late Middle Ages or early New Time.
Literature
1. Avanesov G.A. Interpretation of spiritual culture and spirituality in domestic analytics in the past and now // Bulletin of Moscow University, Ser. 7, Philosophy, 1998, No. 4.
2. Apresyan R. Value controversies of entrepreneurship // Social sciences and the present, 1993, No. 2.
3. Bolshakov A.V. Culture of the XX century // Actual problems of culture of the XX century. - M., 1993.
4. Borev V.Yu., Venevitinov G.N. The interaction of culture and scientific and technological progress. - M., 1988.
5. Gurevich P.S. Culturology. - M., 1996.
6. Durkheim E. Value and "real" judgments // SociSIS, 1991, No. 2.
7. Simmel G. Philosophy of culture. - M., 1996.
8. Ionin L.G. Sociology of culture. - M., 1996.
9. Ionin L.G. Culture at the turn // SociSIS, 1995, No. 2.
10. Kirilenko G.G. The messenger of three worlds: the intelligentsia in Russian culture // Sociological Studies, 1997, No. 3.
11. Culture and the market: "round table" // Social Sciences and the Present, 1991, No. 2.
12. Rybakov F. Culture and market relations // Russian Economic Journal, 1992, No. 12.
13. Sagatovsky V.N. Russian idea: will we continue the interrupted path? SPb., 1994.
14. Sokolov V.M. Moral collisions of modern Russian society // SociSIS, 1993.
Culture structure
Culture structure - the structure of culture, consisting of substantial elements (objectified in its values \u200b\u200band norms) and functional elements (characterize the process of cultural activity, its various aspects and aspects); includes
§ education
§ art
§ literature
§ mythology,
§ morality
§ policy
§ religion
coexisting with each other and constituting a single whole. In addition, within the framework of cultural studies, its structural elements, such as
§ world and national culture,
§ class,
§ urban and rural,
§ professional, etc.
§ spiritual,
§ material.
In turn, each of the elements of culture can be divided into other, more fractional.
§ Material culture- implements and means of labor, machinery and constructions, production (agricultural and industrial), ways and means of communication, transport, household items; connected with the historical approach; most often considered in this regard, ancient cultures.
§ Spiritual culture - science, morality, morality, law, religion, art, education;
Some types of culture cannot be definitely attributed to either the material or spiritual field; they are considered a “vertical section” of culture. They seem to permeate all its levels. These are the following types of culture:
1) economic;
2) political;
3) aesthetic;
4) ecological culture.
Culture is also considered to be viewed from the perspective of the implementation of values. They distinguish between positive - negative, specific - eternal, internal - external, etc. Based on the last pair of criteria, culture is divided into subjective (development of the individual’s abilities) and objective (the process of people changing their habitat).
Objective culture, in turn, consists of many components. The most important components of objective culture are cultural universals and the cultural order. Universals (the most general concepts of culture), scientists number about 100 (among them are the calendar, number, name, family, rituals, etc.). Universals are inherent in all cultures, regardless of the time, place and social structure of society.
Cultural order- This is a set of worldviews, ideas, rules, norms that govern the relationship between cultural elements (this is written language, spoken language, scientific theories, art genres).
Objective culture is also subdivided by the nature of its localization in geographical and social spaces into the cultural area (a geographical area that may not coincide with the state framework), the dominant culture (values \u200b\u200bthat guide most members of society), subculture (national, professional, age), counterculture (a culture that is in conflict with generally accepted values).
From the point of view of the creative subject, culture is divided into individual (culture of personality), group (of a particular social community) and universal (or world).
Culture is divided into progressive and reactionary(according to the content and degree of influence on a person). A progressive culture is associated with the concept of humanism.
Culture is also considered from the standpoint of statics and dynamics. The first describes culture at rest, the second - in motion.
Culture is a complex multi-level system; its structure is one of the most complex in the world. Cultures, despite the differences between them, represent a way of society to exist in the world around it, and in every culture there are basic signs, i.e. factors of existence, without which there is no culture. These elements differ in their level of development and exist in any culture.
The main basic features of culture:
Material production (what is produced, how it is produced, i.e. technology, materials for production, labor productivity).
2. Public consciousness, ie ideas about the world (natural-scientific, humanitarian-philosophical), ways of expressing these ideas or knowledge (language, art, writing). The forms of public consciousness include worldview (ideology), science, art, morality, law, politics, faith.
3. Social psychology (mentality, temperament, subconscious reactions to the outside world - archetypes).
4. Functional differentiation with the allocation of the functions of material production, spiritual creativity, social regulation, military and others, and the degree of functional differentiation of members of society.
5. Social organization, including biosocial (family, clan, tribe), social (union of tribes), socio-political (state) systems, as well as age groups and unions, political and professional associations.
6. Information and communication sphere, which includes methods of transmitting information, types of social information, technical characteristics of communications, speed of passage of necessary information.
7. A regulatory system with such regulators as biopsychological, mythological and religious, law, morality, while regulating the distribution of labor costs, social product and social hierarchy.
The carrier of all the basic elements of culture is ethnicity.
Cultures are united according to different types depending on the basis of division. Typologization is the scientific method of streamlining cultural communities. Such a model is used to study the essential features, functions, relationships, levels of organization of the studied objects. There are various approaches to typologizing culture, depending on certain criteria. Three approaches are more common: economic-cultural, ethnolinguistic and historical-ethnographic.
The economic-cultural typology distinguishes cultures similar in relation to people to nature, for example, agricultural, cattle-breeding, settled, nomadic. However, such a typology is insufficient. Cultures of the same economic and cultural type, developing in different conditions, acquire significant differences in spiritual values, moral standards, political and legal traditions, and so on (for example, the culture of Russians and French).
The ethnolinguistic approach is based on the analysis of the cultural community of people who have one language and one ethnic group. Romance, Anglo-Saxon, Slavic, Scandinavian, Arab, Turkic, Latin American, etc. are usually distinguished by these signs. However, this approach is also not universal. As cultures develop, peoples acquire more and more economic and cultural skills, they are no longer differentiated by ethnicity and language, but by more complex parameters.
The historical-ethnographic approach distinguishes the cultural-historical regions and forms of community of people corresponding to them: European, Far Eastern, Indian, Arab-Muslim, African, Latin American. The typology may be based on temperament and stereotype of behavior, religion and mythology, forms of family relations. But this typology is not comprehensive.
A kind of typologization was proposed by K. Jaspers. He believed that in the middle of the 1st millennium BC there was a breakthrough - the so-called “axial time”, when a person entered the arena of history as opposed to the mass. K. Jaspers associated this with the spiritual upheavals caused by Buddhism, the activity of the Jewish prophets, Zoroastrianism, and ancient Greek philosophers. A special role was played here by “transforming a person’s reflection”, personal responsibility as opposed to tradition. "Axial time" spiritually changed a person. Therefore, K. Jaspers divided cultures into three types: 1) the culture of the “axial peoples”; 2) the culture of the peoples "who did not know a breakthrough"; 3) the culture of subsequent nations. Only the culture of the first type was developed, which survived, in essence, the “rebirth”, continuing its previous history. It was she who laid the foundation of the spiritual essence of man and his true history. “Axial” include the cultures of China, India, Iran, Judea, Greece.
Depending on the foundation, one can distinguish world and national cultures. World culture is a synthesis of the achievements of cultures of various peoples. National - is the result of creativity of various classes, social layers and groups. The originality of the national culture is manifested in the spiritual sphere (language, literature, music, painting, religion) and material life (especially the economic structure, production traditions).
In accordance with specific carriers, we can distinguish cultures of social communities (class, urban, rural, professional, youth), families, and individuals. The question of class culture is causing misunderstanding. The problem of the correlation of universal, national and class is relevant and complex. The absolutization of the class approach, the juxtaposition of the class and universal principles leads to self-isolation and cultural degradation, although taking class into account is productive if it is not taken to extremes.
Depending on the diversity of human activity, culture can be divided into species and genera. So in material culture includes: a) the culture of labor and material production; b) culture of life; c) the culture of topos (place of residence); d) the culture of attitude to one’s own body; e) physical education. Spiritual culture includes: a) cognitive (intellectual); b) moral; c) art; d) legal; e) pedagogical; e) religious.
A number of types of culture cannot be attributed only to the material or spiritual. They permeate the entire system of culture, being it, a kind of vertical section. It is an economic, political, environmental, aesthetic culture.
The structure of culture includes: a) substantial elements - the “body” of culture, its values: cultural works, norms of culture and law, religion, morality, etiquette; b) functional elements that characterize the process of cultural activity itself, which includes traditions, rites, customs, rituals, taboos (moreover, in folk, non-institutional culture, these tools were the main ones); With the advent of professional culture, special institutions arise that are designed for its production, preservation and consumption.
The structural elements of culture include values, norms, rites, rituals, and cultural patterns.
The category “value” is one of the most important in cultural studies. Value is a universally recognized norm formed in a particular culture that sets patterns and standards of behavior and influences the choice between possible behavioral alternatives. Value is that which has a special (human, social, cultural) meaning. In the world of culture there are many values: values \u200b\u200bof science (truth), values \u200b\u200bof morality (good), aesthetic values \u200b\u200b(beauty), religious values \u200b\u200b(god), etc. Subordination of values, their subordination, allocation of priority, dominant and subordinate derivatives form complex hierarchies of values \u200b\u200bthat are specific to each individual culture. The increasing complexity of social systems complicates value hierarchy systems and leads to a wide variety of values. On the one hand, this creates the prerequisites for expanding the capabilities of the individual, assumes a conscious choice, increases the role of personal potential in culture, on the other hand, the differentiation of values \u200b\u200bcontributes to the development of value, cultural conflicts, which can lead to the destruction of culture, to a radical change in value hierarchies. Values \u200b\u200bare relative, volatile, mobile. The destabilization that may arise in culture is overcome by the development of new values, which is associated with the activation of the elite layers of culture. It is the elite that develops new values \u200b\u200band "lowers" them into the lower cultural strata. A special role of the intelligentsia is associated with these processes, as a mediator between cultural layers, a producer of new spiritual ideals, ideas and values.
Often during the crises of society, in order to accelerate stabilization, ready-made values \u200b\u200bof a foreign culture are borrowed, but this can deepen socio-value conflicts within society. The nature of borrowing foreign cultural values \u200b\u200bcan be different:
Assimilation refers to the mechanical assimilation of new values, their absorption, dissolution, adaptation to existing value hierarchies;
Acculturation is associated with the attitude to other people's values \u200b\u200bas more developed, more significant than their own;
Adaptation involves creative processing and a critical attitude to the values \u200b\u200bof another culture, their conscious selection, enrichment with national meanings and adaptation to solve the problems of their own culture.
The main thing is that borrowed values \u200b\u200bdo not conflict with established value orientations, national meanings of a given culture. Otherwise, even greater destabilization, destruction of the value core of culture can occur, which leads to the loss of its identity, to self-destruction.
The dynamics of culture presupposes the adequacy of values \u200b\u200bby the social, historical, and cultural tasks of society, their special role in the processes of cultural identification. Belonging to culture is determined, including by conscious acceptance, assimilation of those value attitudes that are characteristic of it. Moreover, values \u200b\u200bare often symbolized and mythologized, expressing particularly significant national meanings, ideals and sociopolitical or ideological dominants.
The development of culture, its stability, is thus associated with the reproduction, replication, preservation and change of values.
Unlike material, spiritual values \u200b\u200bhave a certain inertia, they are more durable, not related to the boundaries of consumption, brightly humanistically colored. The criteria for their authenticity are the meanings and interests of human being.
Therefore, the level of development of a particular culture is determined not in relation to the amount of material wealth created, but in relation to qualitative indicators: the nature of spiritual values, their national identity, originality, uniqueness, uniqueness, significance for world culture.
Values \u200b\u200bhave a decisive influence on the norms, customs and rituals that contribute to the development of spiritual regulation in society. Norms, customs, values \u200b\u200bpossess enormous force of coercive influence on a person, contribute to streamlining relations between a person and society, stable organization of their activities.
Culturology proceeds from the understanding that the whole world of culture is valuable, that the value systems of different cultures are equal, that there is no culture of one’s own and another’s, but one’s own and another, and that the world is more stable and diverse.
Of particular importance for understanding culture is the language of culture. The language of culture is those means, signs, forms, symbols, texts that allow people to enter into communicative relations with each other, to navigate in the space of culture. The language of culture is a universal form of understanding reality. The problem of understanding is the main problem of the language of culture. The effectiveness of the cultural dialogue both between different cultural eras (“vertically”) and simultaneously coexisting different cultures (“horizontally”) depends on understanding.
The term “understanding” is used in two senses: as an intellectual factor, cognitive, but also as empathy, participation. The difficulty of understanding is due to the fact that perception and behavior are determined by stereotypes: ideological, national, class, sexual, - formed in humans. Understanding is apperceptive, i.e. new information is assimilated by correlation with what is already known, new knowledge and new experience are included in the system of knowledge already available; on this basis there is a selection, generalization and classification of material. The most serious difficulty lies in translating meanings from one language to another, each of which has many semantic and grammatical features. To convey the meaning of unique cultural works is quite adequately very difficult. Currently, the problem of understanding has become relevant. This is due to the profound changes in society, the aggravation of the geopolitical and socio-political situation, the deepening of various social contradictions, which leads, in fact, to a change in the type of culture.
There are reasons that have exacerbated the problem of the language of culture today:
the problem of the language of culture is the problem of its meaning. The crisis of the ideas of rationalism and enlightenment progress, in fact, the crisis of new European culture, makes us seek new meanings. These searches led to a post-industrial culture, its values, which are impossible to master without mastering the system of its languages;
2) language is the core of the cultural system. It is through language that a person assimilates ideas, assessments, values \u200b\u200b- all that defines his picture of the world. The language of culture is a way of storing and transmitting it from generation to generation;
3) understanding the language of culture and mastering it gives a person freedom, allows you to evaluate and choose the paths in culture. The degree of understanding of the world depends on the range of knowledge or languages \u200b\u200bthat allow us to perceive this world.
Thus, language is a product of culture, language is a structural element of culture, language is a condition of culture. Its fundamental meaning is that language concentrates and embodies in unity all the foundations of human life.
Languages \u200b\u200bcan be classified into natural languages \u200b\u200b(Russian), artificial (the language of science), secondary languages \u200b\u200b(secondary modeling systems) - these are communication structures that adjust to the natural language level (myth, religion, art). Of particular importance for the study of language are such sciences as semiotics and hermeneutics (philosophical hermeneutics deals with the interpretation of the text, and the text is all that is created artificially: books, paintings, buildings, interior, clothing, i.e. the text is not reduced to speech Act, in this capacity any sign systems can be considered).
1. Development of technologies for managing cultural processes
2. Designing sociocultural processes
3. Identification of general patterns of cultural development
4. Implementation of cultural experience translation mechanisms
20. Historical cultural studies are studying ...
1. The culture of individual social groups
2. Basic patterns reproduced in each particular culture
3. Ethnic-based cultural systems
4. Past and present options for sociocultural systems
The history of culture is studying ...
1. Each individual culture as a unique and original phenomenon
2. The practical guidance of culture that exists in specific applied disciplines (museology, literary criticism, theatrical studies)
3. Culture as a religious cult
4. The essence, purpose and values \u200b\u200bof culture in general
22. “Historical culturology” and “history of culture” are ...
1. There is only a history of culture, “Historical Cultural Studies” is an incorrect term
2. identical concepts: historical cultural studies, like the history of culture, study the history of material and spiritual culture
3. There is only "Historical Cultural Studies"
4. non-identical concepts: historical cultural science combines cultural approaches to the history of culture, it is more theoretical
23. Sociology of culture as a branch of cultural knowledge, studies…
- mass culture or culture created by the media
- national culture
- ethnic culture
- culture of primitive primitive peoples
24. The problems of democratizing society, changing cultural needs and goals of a person in an urban setting explores ...
- cultural anthropology
- sociology of culture
- cultural science
- philosophy of culture
25. The section of cultural studies that studies cultural phenomena as a means of communication is…
- cultural history
- cultural semantics
- sociology of culture
- synergetics
The basis of culturological knowledge and its place in the system of sciences studies ___ cultures
- dynamics
- morphology
- epistemology
- sociology
27. Sections culturologists line up on ...
1. The main scientific tasks
2. Spontaneous problems
3. Sample Natural Sciences
4. The main applied tasks
28. Groups of sections of cultural studies - this ...
1. historical, history of cultural thought
2. applied, theoretical
3. evolutionary, cyclic
4. linguistic, semiotic
29. Groups of sections of cultural studies - thisPlease provide at least two answers.
1. Methodological, historical
2. Statistical, methodical
3. Political, social
4. Theoretical, applied
30. Groups of sections of cultural studies - thisPlease provide at least two answers.
1. Methodological, theoretical
2. Ethnographic, modern
3. Retrospective, promising
4. Historical Applied
31. Groups of sections of cultural studies - this
Please provide at least two answers.
1. applied and theoretical cultural studies
2. The history of culturological thought and historical culturology
3. cultural history and cross-cultural psychology
4. philosophy of culture and ethnoculturology
32. For the terms “cultural studies” and “sociology of culture” it is true that ...
2. cultural studies is part of the sociology of culture and analyzes culture in the context of social processes
3. culturology and sociology of culture study civilizational processes
4. culturology and sociology of culture - two different scientific disciplines that are not related to each other
33. For the terms “culturology” and “sociology of culture”, the statement that ...
1. The sociology of culture is based on an understanding of culture and cultural processes developed in cultural studies
2. cultural studies is part of the sociology of culture
3. cultural studies study civilizational processes, and the sociology of culture describes cultural phenomena
4. sociology of culture is the methodological basis of cultural studies
34. The field of culturological knowledge, which studies each individual culture as a unique and original phenomenon, compares different cultures among themselves - this is ...
1. The history of cultural thought
2. Sociology of culture
3. Applied cultural studies
4. History of culture
1. The structure of cultural knowledge
In culturology, as in most other sciences, it is customary to distinguish two “wings”: fundamental and applied. The aim of fundamental cultural studies is to study the cultural processes and phenomena that arise and function primarily spontaneously, based on the general laws of the flow of sociocultural life of people.
At its fundamental level, cultural studies study:
1) culture at the historical and theoretical level;
3) the functioning of cultural phenomena in society.
Applied cultural science studies, plans and develops a methodology for targeted forecasting and management of sociocultural processes within the framework of state, social and cultural policies carried out by specialized cultural institutions and public organizations.
The applied level of cultural studies is focused on the use of fundamental knowledge about culture in order to:
1) forecasting and regulation of relevant cultural processes;
2) the development of social technologies for translating cultural experience and mechanisms for achieving a certain level of development of various forms of sociocultural practice;
3) management and protection of culture, as well as cultural, educational, leisure and other work.
The areas of applied cultural studies can be sociocultural design, sociocultural policy, cultural heritage protection, cultural aspects of social work and social participation, public relations, cultural aspects of management and organizations, image-making, art business, advertising, cultural aspects of working with the electorate, intercultural organization communications, etc. The famous domestic culturologist A. Flier offers a slightly different division of cultural disciplines in theoretical-empirical-practical to the base. In the work "Culturology for culturologists," he distinguishes several sections.
1. Fundamental cultural studies, which is an area where the philosophy and theory of culture are merged, exploring the most general laws of the historical and social being of culture, and most importantly - forming its epistemology - a system of principles, methodologies and methods of cognition, systematization and analysis of the material studied.
2. Anthropology, which studies the cultural life of people at a level close to their everyday social practice, normative patterns of behavior and consciousness, immediate psychological motivation, etc. Unlike fundamental theory, anthropology (social, cultural, psychological and historical) in general is more to an empirical, measurable level of cognition. Her theoretical concepts are often laid the foundation for the development of practical technologies for managing relevant sociocultural processes.
3. Applied culturology, which is mainly engaged in the direct development of technologies for the practical organization and regulation of cultural processes in society.
2. Applied Cultural Studies
In the last decade, there has been an increase in interest in the practical side of cultural studies.
Applied cultural studies is carried out in the form of socio-cultural activities. According to experts of the Nevsky Institute of Culture, all over the world, the specialty “culturologist” has turned from a research, theoretical one into a practical one, connected with direct participation in the activities of large and small organizations, firms, humanitarian foundations and movements. The great importance of culturologists and practitioners is most clearly seen in connection with the expansion of the field of international relations and an increase in foreign investment. Modern society requires a large number of senior and middle managers who have the skills to make cultural contacts and culturally successfully implement Russian and international cultural projects in both state and commercial structures. A culturologist-practitioner realizes his knowledge and skills in such areas of activity as museum business, tourism, hotel industry. A cultural expert is also required in international commercial, research and public organizations as a specialist in cultural consulting in the development of applied cultural projects; in organizations involved in the art business and show business as a developer and implementer of cultural projects; in commercial structures, whose activities are related to intercultural contacts, in advertising and creative agencies, on television, etc. We should not forget about the cultural and educational, cultural, organizational and cultural-educational fields of activity of a specialist cultural specialist. A culturologist-practitioner not only has certain knowledge in such areas as the theory and history of culture and art; ethnopsychology and psychology of social groups; cultural map of the regions (Eastern Europe and the CIS countries; Western Europe and America; Eastern region); the basics of marketing in the field of culture, management in the field of art and show business; management in excursion and tourist activities, cultural consulting: forms and methods, workshop on cultural consulting, communication technologies of the 20th century; international organizations and centers of intercultural communication, business cultures in international business; and etc.
Socio-cultural activity involves a specialist who, to the same extent, has practical skills in implementing management in the field of culture - in the field of art and show business, in excursion and tourist activities; Practically applying knowledge of applied cultural consulting in the work of the referent in companies with foreign investment and employees from different countries; fluent in a foreign language for oral and written communication; professionally using a computer and owning the capabilities of the Internet, conducting practical training in conducting management in the field of culture; owning the skills of developing cultural projects taking into account the specifics of the tender, etc.
A special role in providing society with practicing culturologists is played by special educational institutions, relevant departments and faculties of universities. Back in 1868, Minister of Education A.V. Golovnin reported to Alexander II that Russian universities train specialists in only one direction of art. He complained that there were no educational institutions whose graduates would involve various groups of the population in the world of culture, that is, they would ensure the cultural policy of the state and individual regions.
So, for example, the studies of M. A. Ariarsky and his school of applied cultural studies reveal the process of forming a cultural environment, the patterns of human involvement in the world of culture and its practical development. Everything that Mark Ariarsky does can be described as restoring the necessary link between culture and a specific person included in socio-cultural activities.
In our time, applied cultural studies, socio-cultural activities - one of the most popular specialties. The training of specialists of this profile in our country today is carried out by many educational institutions, schools, educational and scientific centers, etc.
Practical developments and activities in applied cultural studies and socio-cultural activities are conducted and carried out on the basis of more traditional departments of educational institutions of the country: philosophy, history, art history, etc.
The complex of cultural knowledge is used in the economic environment, to model the needs of the market, in the system of marketing research; in politics, for modeling the electorate, in the implementation of political programs.
The specialists of the Academy of Slavic Culture, in particular A.G. Klimov, believing that applied cultural science exists everywhere, still attribute cultural activity to the social sector, and therefore, two fundamental concepts are distinguished in applied cultural studies - sociocultural practice and sociocultural design. Sociocultural practice is any form of activity that manifests itself in a sociocultural system that affects the relationship and the ability of people to live in this system.
Fundamental (or theoretical) culturology in the form of scientific knowledge serves as a structural basis for applied cultural studies, modeling and regulating the beginning, which creates new meanings and meanings. A person who applies scientific knowledge in practice is a carrier of applied cultural studies.
3. The interaction of theoretical and practical knowledge
Penetrating people's minds in various ways, scientific (theoretical) cultural knowledge forms the cultural environment in which a specific person lives and acts.
A. G. Klimov identifies several ways of disseminating scientific knowledge. The first way is an ordinary consciousness based on stereotypical attitudes towards science, depending on the level of awareness.
The second way is the technological environment. For example, when using electricity, we think about the mechanism of its occurrence and action and about what effects it leads to, so we penetrate the level of scientific knowledge.
The third way is special popularization, which is most often expressed in the creation of popular science and educational journals (Science and Technology, Chemistry and Life), reports, news programs on television and radio.
However, the fourth way is considered the most powerful in terms of impact - sociocultural design. Depending on the declared goals and organizational means used by socio-cultural projects, social design can be:
1) business nature: the means of a business organization are used. The goal - profit, organization of commercial social organizations;
2) political: the development of legislation that will ensure transparency (lustration) of the activities of firms, access to cases conducted by special services;
3) social: educational organizations, charity, healthcare, clinics for cats. Used business funds, but provide social functions;
4) cultural: institutions that develop cultural values. Dances, art, prints.
Sociocultural projects focus on the development of cultural values, new value relationships. New knowledge penetrates reality because it sets regulation by foundation, determining the implementation of a sociocultural project.
One example of the creation and implementation of a sociocultural project can serve as a project to support children's creativity - the St. Petersburg open competition of children's drawings and projects, “The House I Want to Live in,” included in the program of events dedicated to the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg.
The project to support children's creativity “The House I Want to Live in” is an open citywide competition of children's drawings and projects on the city, its architecture and home of the 21st century, which took place from November 2002 to May 2003. Participants could participate in it all children and adolescents from 7 to 17 years old.
The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe organizers of the competition was to create a large-scale project on this topic, which would give all the children of St. Petersburg the opportunity to express themselves in creativity, openly express their ideas about the ideal home and city, interesting not only to parents and teachers, but also to builders, to show their excitement, imagination and the desire for creativity.
Tambov State University is training specialists in socio-cultural activities, the main directions and essence of which are determined by the following tasks:
1) to resist the devaluation of culture, the “erosion” of the criteria for evaluating its values, and to help preserve the cultural continuity of generations;
2) to ensure socio-cultural protection of the right of people to access high art, to satisfy their spiritual needs, the right to personal cultural identity;
3) to create conditions for a meaningful and developing leisure time for the population, the realization of their right to art education and amateur creativity, and to help increase the leisure culture of each person;
4) stimulate the development of social activity and initiative in creating various amateur groups in the field of leisure, provide competent associations with competent and effective support and assistance;
5) to carry out a differentiated approach in working with various age and social groups of the population, including with a culturally advanced contingent, ensuring the realization of its intellectual and cultural-creative potential;
6) it is more efficient to use in sociocultural work promising and popular forms of leisure activities for the population, to master in this capacity the possibilities of screen art and the main rental channels 10
See: Modern technologies of socio-cultural activity. Tambov, 2002.
Among the types of socio-cultural activity are the following:
1) functional (informational and educational activities; organization of amateur art and amateur associations; organization of leisure and entertainment);
2) differentiated (organization of leisure for children and adolescents, youth, family leisure, leisure for middle-aged and elderly people).
Socio-cultural activity is always carried out in one form or another, that is, in the form of a planned awareness-raising, socio-pedagogical, cultural and educational campaign aimed at any audience with the aim of conveying certain information to a previously provided object and activating it creativity.
“In its broadest form, a leisure program or form can be considered as a large, independent completed socio-pedagogical, socio-cultural action, which is due to social order, reflects social reality and at the same time has a definite effect on it” 11
Kiseleva T. G. Krasilnikov Yu.D. Fundamentals of socio-cultural activities. M., 1995.
Forms of socio-cultural activities are divided into:
1) mass (auctions, theatrical performances, festivals, olympiads, holidays);
2) group (circles, amateur associations and interest clubs, disputes, round tables, conferences);
3) individual (classes in circles and sections, interactive computer games, consultations, conversations).
The choice of this or that form of socio-cultural activity, its development and implementation require a certain responsibility, since each of them has some independence and can have both positive and negative effects on the audience and others involved in the activity.
All socio-cultural work should be aimed at animating the public mood, at creating positive thinking and constructive action, which is why many leisure technologies are included in an open information system, with which free access to information through museums, libraries, houses of science and technology, etc. . P.
People need to be promptly informed of current events in the context of reforms and should be able to participate in the discussion of problems and assessments, in the formation of informed public opinion, especially at the local level.
Theme 5. Methods of cultural studies
1. Definition of the method
Method - a method, method of research, cognitive procedure.
The term "method" comes from the Greek methods, which means "road for something", "path". The concept of “scientific method” is a focused approach, the way in which a certain goal is achieved, something is known or solved. The method in the broad sense of the word is a complex of diverse cognitive approaches and practical operations aimed at acquiring scientific knowledge. In a narrow sense, the term "method" means special techniques of scientific discipline.
This method is one of the main criteria for distinguishing a separate science from the whole diversity of knowledge.
In the XIX century. The division of sciences took place mainly in the subject and only then in the method. So, in philosophy, the subject was spirit and psychological being, therefore the science of the spirit was separated, and first of all, psychology; in mechanics - nature and material being.
G. Rickert suggested that the division of all sciences according to this criterion is unjust, since the living is the unity of the material and the spiritual. Natural-scientific methods and cultural-historical methods - this is the division that Rickert proposed. The first method involves understanding nature as the being of things (Kant's understanding, dualistic), the being of phenomena. This being is determined by general laws that are accessible to formal logical thinking. Cultural and historical methods are based on the concept of history as a single being in all its features and personality, as opposed to the aforementioned general law.
Culture as an object of knowledge emerged from its natural-scientific range at the beginning of the 19th century. Back in the XIX century. with respect to cultural studies, they were more often referred to as science, and not as culture. Both methods are to a certain extent culturological. Since we are talking about culturology as scientific knowledge, therefore, methods of culturological research must meet the requirements of scientific knowledge. In the methodology of scientific research, it is customary to separate general scientific and private scientific methods. The most common are philosophical methods - metaphysical, dialectic, phenomenological, hermeneutic, etc. Among general scientific methods, three levels are usually considered: general logical, theoretical (formalization, axiomatic, hypothetical-deductive methods) and empirical.
Socio-cultural studies somewhat alter the composition of scientific methods of cognition, since they are often aimed at studying not abstract, objective, holistic, material, but, on the contrary, are called upon to reflect and reveal the special, the specific; the objects of study are ideas, values, stereotypes, that is, objectively located in the activity-semantic field of reality.
New methods are based on some principles that, according to V.V. Ilyin, are characteristic exclusively for social and humanitarian knowledge. These principles are as follows:
1) the principle of tolerance;
2) the principle of conditionality: understanding the relativity of one’s own results, that more adequate solutions are possible;
3) the principle of apoliticality: avoiding the use of ideologies, mythologization, utopias, orientation toward prejudice;
4) the principle of anti-activism is based on the position of a theoretical scientist to explain rather than change the world;
5) the principle of humanism, based on the statement "society is a means, a man is a goal" 12
Ilyin V.V. Theory of knowledge. Epistemology. M., 1994. S. 122–125.
Therefore, for culturological research, not only the indicated methods of scientific research are justified. Non-intellectual, intuitive, figurative and symbolic ways of understanding life reality are also important. In feeling, getting along, poetry, music and other non-rational ways of mastering the world, they also occupy a worthy place in the methodological arsenal of cultural studies, especially in its activity component (some types of applied cultural studies, socio-cultural activities).
The following features are characteristic of the methodology of modern sociocultural knowledge.
1. The rapprochement of the methods of natural sciences and social sciences.
The ever closer convergence and interaction of opposing conceptual and methodological approaches: rational and non-rational, scientific and extra-scientific, exoteric and esoteric, explicit and implicit knowledge, etc. "There arises a complex methodological problem of correlating" hard "and" flexible "methods, scientific and extra-scientific approaches, the use of such tools as social-humanitarian expertise and diagnostics, situational analyzes, role-playing and imitation games for the purposes of social cognition. ”
2. Particular attention to the study and search for new specific methods of the social sciences and humanities 13
Bakirov V. Social cognition on the threshold of the post-industrial world // Social Sciences and the Present. 1993. No. 1. S. 76.
For example, in sociology in general, and in the sociology of culture in particular, interest in precisely methods of sociological research is growing.
Other methods are added to the methods of understanding, dialogue, dialectics, ideographic and nomotetic methods, situational logic, role-playing and simulation games, methods of social psychology (see below specific methods of the social and humanitarian sciences).
3. The widespread introduction of the apparatus of hermeneutics, cultural studies of understanding techniques, which causes an increasing convergence of explanatory and interpretive approaches. Such schemes combine elements of the natural sciences with interpretive methods and value approaches of science and culture in such a way that both these extreme positions are reconciled.
4. Active introduction into social cognition of ideas and methods of synergetics and the increase in this regard of statistical and probabilistic methods and techniques. Attention to random, indefinite, nonlinear processes, to unstable open systems is increasing.
5. An opinion is being formed according to which the laws of the development of nature and society determine only some limits in which the main process remains unpredictable in advance.
6. There is a turn to a specific person. L. Feuerbach said that man is the center of the whole methodology.
7. Formed and approved new regulations of human activity. The priority of tradition has been replaced by the recognition of the unconditional value of innovation, novelty, originality, and non-standard. Extensive development has been replaced by intensive.
APPLIED CULTUROLOGY IN STRUCTURE
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE
To begin with, the current name of a certain part of culturological science - “applied culturology”, quite clearly speaks about the specifics of this component of cultural science, about its special orientation that distinguishes this block of knowledge from other components of the science in question - in particular, from theoretical and historical cultural studies .
Having opened any explanatory dictionary, from, say, a classical dictionary to Wikipedia, which goes to infinity in its “openness”, we will see (however, that is understandable): applied - means having practical value; something that can find application in any field of life. The obviousness and simplicity of such a definition inevitably has the continuation (most often, purely intuitively) of the conviction that the procedure of this very “application” of knowledge is just as simple. It would be only knowledge, and to find practical application for him is not a problem. And therefore (one more inevitable, it would seem, conclusion) this applied field of cultural knowledge, identical to its simple functional use, does not require any special scientificefforts; the main thing for the development of cultural studies is the effective work of creating concepts, developing theories, and their application is a “matter of technology”.
At first glance, the logic underlying this kind of reasoning is not objectionable. However, the logically correct course of thought during the transition to the prose of life, including the life of the science of culturology, is not so unconditional: the development of culturological knowledge did not go in the supposed, logically "pure" sequence (theoretical, then applied); and the answers to seemingly simple questions are not so straightforward - where and what for "Attach" as do it and finally whatfrom the vast and many-sided culturological knowledge available, one can / should choose for practical use in a particular situation.
This kind of set of questions, or rather, the search for answers to them, sets the outline for describing the features of applied cultural studies as a subsystem of the science of cultural studies. But first, let us turn to a brief description of the plot related to the institutionalization process, with the acquisition and loss of legitimate status by applied cultural studies, as well as with its role in the development of Russian cultural studies as a whole. Of course, many aspects of the problem under consideration were and remain significant not only for the Russian science of culture, but, due to the circumstances described below, we considered it important to focus on the development of this segment in the system of domestic social and humanitarian knowledge.
Domestic applied culturology de facto and de jure:
complexity of legitimization
The institutionalization of cultural studies as a scientific branch was stimulated, like the process of "maturing" of other sciences, at least by the influence of two groups of factors. On the one hand, actually development logiccultural knowledge , led at a certain stage to the realization of the need to create a kind of unified “coordinate system” in this field of knowledge; a system that would allow us to correlate, structure, and ensure the consistency of the results obtained on the basis of “multi-genre” and multi-vector studies of the many-sided field of culture.
However, it is undoubted that the logic of knowledge for positioning a new science is never enough - there should be real interestsocial needin the knowledge that is ripening in the scientific "greenhouse". It was such an interest that, indeed, served as a powerful incentive for the development of domestic cultural sciences in general and for the acquisition of institutional status by cultural studies, in particular, in the perestroika 80-90s of the last century. Under the conditions of cardinal transformations that took place in almost all areas of life, in conditions of real and potential losses and gains on the widest social scale, the need for social subjects of different levels: the state, individual groups (political, economic, ethnocultural, religious, etc.) is quite understandable. , public organizations and corporate structures - in receipt practically applicableknowledge of the cultural factors of social processes, the mechanisms of their objective influence, the possibilities of targeted use, manipulative blocking, etc., in short, knowledge of how to work with the cultural component of the global socio-tectonic shift. Scientifically-based (although sometimes only science-like) analytical and recommendatory models of practical activity, programs and projects of sociocultural development, having supplanted abstract-theoretical constructions, took a prominent place among the products sold by specialists in the field of culture. Their relevance was determined by the search for solutions in various sociocultural areas - from large-scale issues of state cultural policy, the search for "short" ways of ethnocultural self-determination, the desire for regional opposition to overwhelming globalization, the tasks of "untwisting" candidates for ... during election campaigns to developing local cultural -leisure technologies, for example, for successful “team building” within a single corporation.
It is in connection with this multi-genre social request, the unit of applied cultural studies received a powerful impetus, an incentive for intensive development, and the fueling (in the broadest sense) of this scientific direction also played a role. Products created during this period of rapid development of applied cultural research, due to the variety of its sources, consumers, etc., of course, not all were on the surface, not all available for analysis and evaluation. However, albeit on a very limited scale, to get an idea of \u200b\u200bthis period in the development of applied cultural studies can simply be done by referring to the corresponding sections of the lists of publications, dissertations on cultural studies.
All these processes have become significant circumstances that have influenced not only the formation and development this direction in cultural studies, but also proved to be important for the development and institutionalization of cultural studies as such. It can be quite justifiably stated: the intensive quantitative growth of applied cultural studies, the expansion of their thematic spectrum, has become a kind of catalyst for the process of designing cultural studies as an independent scientific direction in the space of domestic social and humanitarian knowledge.
However, these “merits” in the applied field did not become a subsequent indulgence for its legitimate existence and possession of the necessary institutional status, determined primarily by the inclusion of this unit of knowledge in the nomenclature of scientific specialties of the Higher Certification Commission of the Russian Federation. As you know, the institutionalization of cultural studies in the early 90s of the XX century found its legal expression in the form of the appearance in it under the code 24.00.00. directions "Culturology". Structuring of scientific specialties inside it was straightforward, but logical (albeit not quite strictly) logical: 24.00.01. - Theory of culture; 02.- Historical cultural studies; 03. - Museology, conservation and restoration of historical and cultural objects; 04. - Applied Cultural Studies. Changes subsequently made in this section of the nomenclature led to its maximum impoverishment (which, in our opinion, requires an indispensable and more active return of experts to discuss the validity of such transformations) and, in particular, to the disappearance of such a specialty as “Applied cultural studies. "
Unable to analyze the reasons for this decision (due to the lack of their public presentation), I can only express considerations regarding some of the consequences this situation - considerations that, I hope, will add another link to the process of building a chain of arguments aimed at returning applied cultural studies as a socially significant and demanded field of knowledge to the list of scientific specialties in the direction 24.00.00 - Cultural Studies.
The main argument is confirmed daily and everywhere, saturation today's realsociocultural space as problematic, and often openly crisis points, a full-format analysis of which (first of all, to find the necessary solutions) is impossible without considering the cultural component in their occurrence, and, consequently, in the paradigm of their "resorption". Complex social processes taking place in the modern world, in modern Russia objectivelyactualize, stimulate the expansion of the scope of the application of cultural science in its practically oriented format, the use of relevant situations and tasks of knowledge about cultural factors and mechanisms, about the laws of sociocultural processes, about the features of their modification in the modern context.
It is easy to verify the relevance of this kind of research by referring, say, to the subject matter of dissertation research in the direction of "Culturology", carried out over the past decade. An argument in favor of demand is also (and perhaps above all) a huge number of executed within the framework of various management and other structures actually practical research and development of a cultural orientation, providing (along with scientific research itself) an increase in the array of results that are significant for the development of applied analysis of social problems in their cultural dimension.
Undoubtedly, the removal of the specialty “Applied Cultural Studies” from the nomenclature of the Higher Attestation Commission is a decision, as a result of which the situation de facto by no means changed as prescribed de jure."Closing the topic" administratively, on a formal bureaucratic basis, this decision did not cancel and could not in factto cancel the development of this research area, since its selection was, as already noted, not a product of someone’s “game of the mind,” but a response to an objective request made by social realitiesmodern world. The unproductive situation is determined not only by the discrepancy indicated above. There are inconsistencies of a different kind: the expansion of applied cultural analysis, which takes place de facto in response to requests from the practice itself, does not have, first of all, due to the reasons mentioned above, adequate development scientific and methodological base and methodological arsenal applied cultural studies as a special type of cognitive activity.
There is one more, scientific and ethical kind, negative consequence of the decision to remove applied cultural studies from the List - the need to “squeeze” essentially any, including practically oriented scientific culturological research in the “Procrustean bed” of the specialty “Theory and History of Culture”. In fact, researchers are forced to "mask" socially relevant, aimed at solving acute of problems today scientific developments for general theoretical constructions, based on the only possible (if the topic is not about museums and the preservation of monuments) naming specialties. It seems that it is much more expedient, logical, and simply scientific, to return the specialty “Applied Cultural Studies” to the nomenclature, allowing the dissenters to be fair indicate the nature and possibilities of using their results. To do this would be logical in connection with the constant calls made from the highest stands, “to achieve a combination of theory and practice,” “to be closer to the realities of life,” etc.
Of course, this is not the only way to restore the rights of scientific and applied research. Say, a variant based on the expansion, probably the most meager of all, of the cultural nomenclature is possible: not to reduce the direction of "Culturology" to the two-in-one formula (all culturology \u003d 24.00.01 + 24.00.03), but expand it, like other scientific areas (sociology, political science, etc.), in the form of a complete, adequate reality being studied, a list of specialties. For example, the inclusion in the register (along with the preservation of museology, the return of historical cultural science) of such positions as the history of cultural thought, cultural studies of politics (including issues of cultural politics), the cultural studies of everyday life, etc. Of course, these are just private examples, and not built list (work on it is a separate task). But they also make it clear that with this approach and conceptual-theoretical, and scientific and appliedanalysis of actual problems assigned to the corresponding subject areas become equally legitimate. Moreover, it seems that this very second path would be more productive in many respects.
Arguing the need for re-institutionalization of applied cultural studies and fighting for its full recognition, it is impossible, however, to confine ourselves only to the positives associated with the scientific and social significance of this research unit - the picture, it must be admitted, is not entirely objective and complete. The previous stage of development revealed and made quite obvious some problematic situations, a certain negative, without which it is not so easy to assert the rights of applied cultural studies. Paradoxical as it may seem, the main difficulties are associated not with external factors (say, with the machinations of enemies of culturology, which also happens), but, it seems to me, with the lack of sufficiently elaborated, substantiated and prescribed genus-species characteristics of applied cultural studies themselves. Without this necessary science-related paraphernalia, no calls for the triumph of scientific justice, no emotional requests for the social significance of this kind of research will most likely be taken as sufficient arguments for making any serious decisions.
Moreover, it can be assumed that the exclusion at one time of applied cultural studies from the list of scientific specialties was not only derived from someone's subjective (and, I am convinced, short-sighted) opinion, but also became a kind of reaction to some real costs in the segment of scientific research under consideration . In particular, one of the “irritants” could not help but become what can be described as redundancyproducts that, over the several years of existence of the specialty “applied cultural science”, were presented under its code. Indeed, along with a considerable number of quite worthy studies on cultural policy issues and on applied aspects of many other types of sociocultural practice, various kinds of work began to be dropped into this specialty, including those that came here as a result of “selection from nasty. " I mean the plot when a dissertation research, originally conceived on a sociological, pedagogical, philological profile, and, for one reason or another, was not accepted by the corresponding dissertation council, was slightly reformatted by the applicant, who found out about the existence of a new direction (cultural studies), and redirected to this niche, not yet very filled and not very strictly prescribed in its criteria. Inserting the word marker from the “about culture” set in the title and introduction, the dissertation was reincarnated immediately as a culturologist, contributing, on the one hand, to filling a thematic niche open to the entrance, but at the same time contributing to the transformation young branch in the scientific (and sometimes pseudoscientific) “vinaigrette”. Thus, quite suitable material was accumulated for opponents of legitimizing cultural studies, which can in no way be called science if it is "about everything else." Although today this situation, of course, is not typical at all, a certain projection of those times, if not to say “shadow”, is also visible in today's discussions.
This plot, however, applied not only to applied cultural studies, but to the initial stage of legitimizing cultural studies in general. As for the specialty 04, there was one more, specific trouble, when initially an array of dissertations began to grow indomitable, scientifically-applied, and methodical inherently character. A significant part of the work was devoted to the organization, technologies, techniques, methods of cultural and educational work and other traditional sociocultural practices, which were associated primarily with the word “applied”. Undoubtedly, the lack of certainty of the criteria for determining the boundaries and the specifics of applied cultural studies again played a role here. Perhaps the subjective factor also worked when, if desired, the author interpreted a particular study of the category “applied” as follows: if the name of the study relates to some practiceone way or another connected with cultural sphere, then this is a sufficient argument in order to qualify for scientific degree in applied cultural studies. How can one not recall the wise words of K. Marx that the label of a belief system often deceives not only the buyer, but also the seller.
But, nevertheless, the situation of “confusion” and blur in applied cultural science, I think, was determined not only by the fact that a significant stream of work flowed into the new and already attractive, becoming fashionable, scientific field, tied to those sociocultural practices that were traditionally considered, say , in the pedagogical block (socio-cultural activity, librarianship, etc.). Scientific-cultural component applied research is provided not by what kind of social practice the analysis is devoted to, with what kind of activity the problem being solved is connected the logic of the research movement: from the initial identification of the cultural aspect itself, the “slice” of the phenomenon or process being studied, through the analysis of the cultural factors of the occurrence and development of the problem under study, to the construction of a scientifically (\u003d culturally) substantiated model of activity containing an assessment and justification of the possibility of “working” with these factors - their strengthening , destruction, etc. - for permissionsthis problem. Thus, the target orientation here is not so much obtaining a result in the form of a description of a set of operations, methods, and techniques that provide appropriate practice (this is a “technological projection” of scientific research), but rather an exit to a model (specific, tied to social “here and now” ), containing a culturological description / explanation of the problem areas of the studied phenomenon and possible “growth points”, and more often - “transformation points”, in accordance with a social request, order, prescription - in a word, with a practical e task.
Let us consider in more detail the features of applied cultural studies in relation to other blocks of this science, but before we dwell briefly on the prevailing interpretations of the very concept of “applied cultural studies”.
Applied Cultural Studies: Multiple Interpretations
The development of applied cultural studies as a special vector of cognition of culture and as a unit of knowledge about it resulting from this process is represented by several groups of domestic publications that are far from equivalent in volume. The first group is a very few special works devoted to the basic characteristics of this scientific field, its methodological foundations, structural, functional features and other scientific and disciplinary attributes. Here it is necessary to name such names as, and others. The second group is a much more extensive, as already mentioned, array of publications representing diverse and multi-genre applied cultural studies. Another group — various general cultural studies in which one way or another addresses the question of the structure of cultural knowledge and within this framework — expresses an understanding of what the applied component of this science is. Finally, a significant arsenal of educational literature in the discipline "Culturology", where, as a rule, problems of applied cultural studies are either not represented at all, or are mentioned in an extremely meager volume.
Without dwelling on the features of these groups of publications, we only note that in each of them there is (of course, with varying degrees of reflexivity and expressiveness) a certain interpretation of what is meant by applied cultural studies, a certain set of topics and problems, which, according to the authors, correspond to this block of cultural knowledge. In order to at least to some extent present a variety of approaches, we highlight some of the most typical interpretations.
One of the most common is the identification of applied cultural studies with the development of problems of cultural policy and issues of socio-cultural design. As noted, for example, in the work, the key problem of applied cultural studies is the solution of a set of questions about which parameters of sociocultural processes need forecasting, designing and managerial regulation, what goals should be pursued, what methods and means are used, what types of cultural objects and cultural processes should be selected as controlled, at what level and at what stage this management should be carried out.
Another emphasis present in a number of works related to applied cultural studies is the allocation of such a feature as the orientation of this area to creating an enabling environment for introducing a person to the achievements of world and national culture.
One of the most persistently preserved interpretations of applied cultural studies is the understanding of this area as the totality of the whole set sociocultural practices.In this case, in fact, there is a reduction of a certain level scientific knowledge to the content of direct practical activity (most often, to its specific types - cultural and educational, cultural and educational, cultural and managerial, etc.). As before, this approach is present not only in publications, speeches at conferences, but also finds its “objectification” in situations of a new designation of often traditional types of professional activity related to the cultural sphere: for example, one can often hear about a cultural practitioner ( there is a representative of the same applied cultural science) who actually turns out to be a cult enlightener (now often an animator), an instructor-organizer in the field of leisure, an employee of a department (department) of culture in that and .. And other power, corporate structure, etc., is found in such publications and man, to apply scientific knowledge in practice, it is the bearer of Applied Cultural Studies.
Another, quite common, thesis: if the study is aimed at studying a particular type of sociocultural practices - then this is already sufficient reason to classify it as "applied." I think that the incorrectness of such a statement is obvious to any specialist, at least because of his familiarity with, say, serious fundamental philosophical works devoted to practical issues, and today's cultural-philosophical thought is actively working in this area . Therefore, the common identification of any study practices(by object) with applied(by nature) section of knowledge, at least, completely unfounded. Of course, this cultural-philosophical level of understanding of various types of sociocultural practice is extremely important as a methodological foundation for subsequent transformational steps that ensure that the knowledge becomes applied, but the presence of the word “practice” in the original description of the object of study is clearly not enough for such a transition.
Surveying the variety of applied research presented in the cultural literature, a gradual change in thematic trends can be noted. In the first half of the 1990s, as already noted, works predominated on issues of socio-cultural work and cultural policy. Along with a huge number of other publications related to these topics, a sort of “collected works” on this subject is the multi-year periodical publication of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation “Landmarks of Cultural Policy”. Cultural policy today remains one of the priority areas in applied cultural studies - undoubtedly, due to, first of all, its high socially-ordered demand. As for socio-cultural activities, this phrase is obviously gradually losing its attractiveness for applied researchers, increasingly focusing on subject fields such as the media, visual culture, creative industries, cultural management, intercultural interactions, etc. Although, we note which is often behind the titles of research, sounding modern and fashionable, hiding the traditional (in terms of approach and subject of study) vector of analysis. This is probably due, on the one hand, to the preservation in society of many established types of socio-cultural activities, and on the other hand, to difficulties real (and not “titular”, nominal) research entry into new cultural practices, poorly studied in domestic science and not sufficiently analytically represented in translated literature.
The specifics of applied cultural studies in the context of integrative cultural knowledge
As already noted at the beginning, the obvious, self-evident, most simple and widespread understanding of applied science as use of knowledge on practice. However, how such a definition is interfaced with the interpretation of applied cultural studies as one of the sections sciencescultural studies, along with theoretical and historical-cultural? We emphasize: cultural of logic, that is, knowledge, concepts, teachings about culture. Purely functional the definition of applied cultural studies, its identification only with the process use of knowledge, in fact, displays it behind the framework of the scientific space itself, and in this case there is no reason to consider applied cultural science as component science of culturology.
At the same time, it’s obvious that without emphasizing this functional vector, without exiting beyond the limits the scientific process itself, oriented in its essence not towards application, but towards an increment of knowledge, it is impossible to describe the specifics appliedsciences. In comparison with other components of the science of culturology, this specificity is manifested, obviously, in border character applied cultural studies, which, in turn, is associated with the features of the process of generating this knowledge itself, namely, with the transformation of the theoretical conceptual cultural knowledge in theoretical -technological model.This model should include (in its removed form) both the initial theoretical construct of the phenomenon (process, situation) being studied, and the underlying base scenario associated with it, an action strategy adequate to that real / hypothetical problematic situation that acts as a “challenge” for science from the side of social practice. In this regard, to this level of knowledge about culture, it is possible, with all conventions, to apply the already established (in a different context) term « glocal» , describing integration in this case globall (cultural knowledge) and lo kalne(specific problem request).
Between the “theoretical hammer” and the “anvil practice”, the conceptual-technological model cannot be a simple description of technologies, techniques, operations as such; this is even a special, but still a block of scientific knowledge, correlated not only with the “external” space for science of cultural science (in its functional parameters), but also with its “internal” content (from the point of view of structural subordination). Then the actual sociocultural technologies and procedures of action that are formed on this basis are the next step, carried out using the results of scientific knowledge, but already beyond it. The understanding of applied humanities as those who translate ideas into technology is directly related to this “exit” procedure, which conditionally encompasses both the movement vector “science culturology → applied cultural analysis” (the responsibility of applied researchers) and the vector “applied cultural analysis → sociocultural technologies”, where there is a space for the self-realization of applied technologists. Whether this can be successfully combined “in one person” is a separate issue, and not only a scientific one.
The determination of the specifics of applied cultural knowledge is often complicated by a fairly widespread mixture of such characteristics of knowledge as “fundamental” and “theoretical”, “applied” and “empirical”.
As you know, the distinction theoretical and empirical is the identification of the characteristics of each of levelsknowledge caused by such characteristics as the sources of their formation, genesis, construction methods, the degree of generalization of knowledge, the level of its systematization, etc.
When is the task to relate fundamental and appliedknowledge, then a criterion fundamentally significant for distinguishing them, is, first of all, the nature of the tasks which are / should be solved within the framework of scientific and cognitive activity (from which, of course, the differences in the means of achieving them also follow). In the case of orientation to fundamentality, the problem of development, deepening, increment is solved knowledge itselfas such; this, if I may say so, is cognition for the sake of cognition (which, of course, does not prohibit subsequently using this knowledge for purposes that lie outside the limits of cognitive tasks proper). With regard to cultural knowledge, the fundamental theoretical level is the development of the theory of culture, the deepening of knowledge about its essence, morphological characteristics, patterns and mechanisms of the genesis and dynamics of culture, the construction of explanatory models as applied to individual components of cultural space, etc. This is a process of obtaining new knowledge about culture as a whole and about its individual components; this increment is theoretically generalized knowledge of cultural phenomena and processes as such. The object of fundamental theoretical knowledge here is culture itself (in whatever interpretation it is accepted), and its purpose is to expand, deepen, change the knowledge itself about this object. Usually, engine stimulator of this type of cognition is the very logic of the scientific-cognitive process, leading to the next unknown, poorly / insufficiently known, which gives rise to the need to build the missing explanatory schemes , conceptual generalizations, etc. Of course, in cultural studies, one cannot ignore such an engine of progress as the inescapable interest of the knowing subject. How much and how to achieve the main goal will be used the above-mentioned levels of knowledge (theoretical and empirical) is a separate issue, which is in a completely different plane.
The nature of the target orientation is, we repeat, the key basis for designating the demarcation line between fundamental and applied cultural studies. As for the correlation theoretical and applied, the situation here is different: for solving applied problems, theoretical knowledge is no less important than an empirical database, and therefore the theoretical unit is also included in the structure of applied analysis (and not opposed to it). The main task of applied cultural knowledge is scientific and strategic support of practicesolving real social problems , which is based on the effective use of existing theoretical knowledge about cultural factors, mechanisms, patterns. We emphasize once again: despite the pragmatic orientation of applied cultural studies, it is by no means identical with practical activity itself or its methodological support; its meaning is to provide scientific base for practical action.
The motor, the stimulator of this type of research activity is the needs of social practice, its request or direct social order. This kind " external»Orientation creates a different understanding facility applied cultural analysis (as opposed to fundamental) - it is absolutely not necessary those areas, processes, phenomena that are designated as cultural phenomena. The object, depending on the task, can be any social phenomenon or process, the practical work with which requires understanding and taking into account cultural factors, mechanisms of influence, assessment from the point of view of cultural conformity, etc. (this question will be considered in more detail below). Of course, in the process of applied research, it can also eventuallytake place incrementculturological knowledge (through analysis and comprehension of new facts, phenomena, a new “look” at known facts, etc.), however, this task is not immanent for applied research.
Applied Culturology and Applied Cultural Studies
The characteristics of applied cultural studies discussed above relate, as has been repeatedly emphasized in the course of analysis, to its definition as a special component in the structure of cultural knowledge as a whole. These characteristics allow us to talk about the features of this block of knowledge in relation to other blocks integrated under the general name “Culturology”. However, in the transition from a description of the status and specifics of applied cultural studies in this disciplinary context to the consideration of individual research vectors in this field, to the implementation of the declared general principles in the context of selected applied cultural studies(for brevity, we denote them hereinafter as “PKI”), it becomes necessary to clarify and clarify some other issues related to this particular level of analysis. And although the subsequent sections of this publication are a comprehensive, detailed answer to these questions, nevertheless, preceding our acquaintance with it in the context of methodological canons and individual subject fields that are important for PKI, we will consider some positions that are essential for understanding the characteristics of cultural work at this stage analysis.
Theoretical and conceptual foundations and specifics of the study
One of the questions that inevitably arises when forming a research program, which one to choose a theoretical, conceptual basis as a starting point? It is clear that under the name of "theory of culture" today is presented a rather motley and multi-genre conceptual mosaic. On the one hand, the multiplicity of interpretations of culture is due to scientific and disciplinary differentiation (cultural-philosophical, cultural-anthropological, cultural-psychological, and other approaches). On the other hand, within each discipline, to a greater or lesser extent associated with the comprehension of culture, there is considerable diversity between schools, traditions, methodological foundations that determine the nature and result of this comprehension.
I note in passing that the variety of concepts and approaches is not necessarily a sign of “blurring”, the uncertainty of the content of science itself (which can sometimes be heard in discussions about the rights of science of cultural studies), and it is not necessarily a sign of its inferiority, which is also no, no, yes mentioned. Without entering into the discussion of this science-related aspect here, we note the obvious to us: the diversity of approaches to culture in the theoretical and methodological sense (axiological, symbolic, institutional, etc.) is inevitable and due to the ramified nature of the tree of socio-humanitarian research paradigms , and due to the diversity of what is meant by the phenomenon of culture in modern science. The first and second circumstance, of course, are in direct relationship, however, this is a subject for separate consideration.
For us, it is essential that the presence of a rich theoretical and conceptual palette is a kind of barrier that the researcher must overcome every time, moving from thinking about the variety of interpretations of culture to the formation of strategy and tactics specific applied research. From all this rich, generalizing cultural knowledge, it is important to choose the paradigm in the framework of which it is possible to most effectively solve specific research problems. Naturally, there is no universal advice for such a selection - in each case, practical target orientations, the nature of the factual base and other factors will influence the “cutting off of excess” and the accentuation of adequate in space “conceptual proposals” known to a specialist researcher. However, it is obvious that far from any scientific and disciplinary approaches to understanding culture can “work” in the field of applied cultural studies. Say, a widespread understanding of culture as a world of artifacts, artificially created by man of the space of his existence. Significant at philosophy culture, this concept is not suitable for a specific analysis of a specific phenomenon in a separate study. And, say, the sign-symbolic concept of culture in many cases, almost directly, can become the methodological basis of a very specific analysis, if this approach allows you to solve the problems it contains. In this sense, the choice of "supports" is not so much a search for true knowledge (which, of course, is not canceled), but a choice - from this true one - "convenient" in application, heuristic for applied analysis. An empty argument - which of the concepts of culture is better, more correct in general. And symbolic, and axiological, and other, quite justified, concepts of culture are equally important and necessary; My right, and even my duty, as a researcher, is to choose, in accordance with the task and goal to be solved, that concept of culture that will really work. For example, when we talk about studying the cultural foundations of a particular social practice (more on this later), the productivity is obvious, say, regulatory concept culture, focusing on the identification of value-normative "lining" that defines the significant characteristics of the activity of any profile.
Unfortunately, often the author, when describing the methodological foundations of a particular study (presented in publications, dissertations, manuals), without special selective efforts, lists with a comma all the approaches to understanding culture that he knows as a basis for his own, quite private, limited to specific subject field and tasks, analysis. Of course, one can agree with the classic: “there is no superfluous knowledge,” and all that a specialist has is his real capital, which will come in handy sometime, somewhere. However, the inability to dispose of this capital, in this case, to form and justify the theoretical and methodological base for a particular case, certain research goals, is essentially identical to its absence as real navigator in the formation of strategies and tactics of analysis.
Skill to operate knowledge, that is, to select from what is required “here and now”, as you know, is the most important indicator of real professionalism, which seriously distinguishes such a specialist from just a “carrier” of information. In this regard, the transition to a concrete-applied level of cultural analysis from the level of knowledge of concepts and concepts is not a reduction “from complex to simple,” as it may sometimes seem, but the complex and creative work of a border guard specialist (as already discussed) ), which in essence should be a two-faced Janus, but not only “watching,” but also whole"Seeing" the necessary in both theoretical and practical horizons of research.
Directions and thematization of applied cultural studies
The definition of a possible thematic circle of PKI, the main vectors and directions of their development, is directly related (again!) To more general, fundamental premises - with a certain understanding of not only the specifics of cultural science as a science, but also with the interpretation of the basic term “culture”, in large least specifying this specificity. Consider some models of this kind of pairing and its consequences.
One of the prevailing and even, one can say, ingrained versions of the interpretation of culture is that which can be designated as its identification with a certain sphere social life. Adoption " sphere " approach involves the selection of those that can / should be called "cultural practices" from the entire set of social practices, and their combination forms the field of culture. As a rule, everything related to the so-called. “Spiritual life” - various types of artistic creation (traditionally - only one of them is art, although a considerable number of its varieties are true); museum and library activities; religious practice. Without entering into the discussion of the very uncertain content of the term “spiritual life” and the many questions that inevitably arise when such a “cultural area” is separated from social space, we emphasize only one position - what does this mean from the point of view of subjects cultural studies? Obviously, the thematic boundaries of the space so legalized are given by the list of those types of activities that are recognized as “cultural”, in contrast to all other types of social practices, which, if we follow this logic, should be considered as notcultural or out ofcultural. In this case, economics, politics, ecology and beyond, and further ... in other words, the entire diverse set of other types of social practices that do not fit into the given parameters of “culture” remain beyond the scope of cultural analysis. Along with difficulties in substantiating the criteria for such selection, problems are also inevitable when working with concepts such as, for example, “economic culture”, “ecological culture”, etc., unless, of course, you use the widespread and scientifically unlawful identification of these terms respectively with "economy", "ecology", etc.
Another model (which this publication is oriented towards) is based on an understanding of culture not as a special field, allocated from social space, but as a special “cut” of this space, which includes, first of all, value-normative (regulatory) and symbolic-symbolic (representative) systems of social practices. The “meeting” of ideational, normative, that is culture-formative, regulatory principle with real social practice (which, in accordance with this principle and through the corresponding symbolic system, is organized, organized, limited, formalized, that is, it becomes a cultural consistent), and provides a basis for consideration as phenomena of culture as this practice itself, and its results.
The recognition of culture is not a private, local phenomenon, but, first of all, a generally regulatory sphere in relation to any form of human activity; a system of norms, values, patterns that determine the direction of development, which mean and symbolically manifest in each of the social practices (and not only in the field of special, "spiritual" types of activity) - this approach is logically projected onto a fundamentally different understanding of the subject of cultural studies in general and applied, in particular. Firstly, with such a conceptual message, PKI should be included in the thematic space anysocial practices - economic, political, legal, artistic, religious, etc. - as real and potential objects of study. Culturological nature of their consideration - and this, secondly, - is determined angle of view these practices or their components (depending on the goal and objectives), the prism through which the culturologist looks at these objects. To distinguish between cultural studies and other sciences, it is really important that not what I study, but how I study. In this sense, to the question sometimes raised during discussions about the boundaries of cultural studies: “So, a culturologist is not someone who studies phenomena culture ?!", The answer begs this:" This is the one who studies cultural component any social phenomena and processes, including those related to cultural phenomena. ” If I study, for example, economic activity, but from the point of view of its regulatory and axiological foundations, revealing the nature of the influence of cultural traditions, stereotypes on it, analyzing the features of the used symbolic series, the mechanisms of mythologization in the field of economic consciousness of the population and the role of this factor for economic development a certain cultural era, etc., then I work as a culturologist studying economics, and not at all as an economist.
On the other hand, it is well known that a researcher who studies culture, individual cultural phenomena and processes is not always and not necessarily a culturologist, if we talk about the specifics of scientific analysis, and not about the presence of a “cultural object”. Let’s say, its aspects, “sections”, are distinguished by the economist (for example, libraries, theaters, etc.) when studying the cultural field; a psychologist, ethnologist, etc., by no means turning into a culturologist only because of the reversal of his research interest in an object from the field of culture.
Thus, we emphasize once again that the “sphere of competence” of applied cultural studies is not any particular type or even any specific group of types of sociocultural practice (which is most often presented in a few works called “Applied Cultural Studies”), but anythe type or area of \u200b\u200bactivity in which the problem situation has arisen / is being formed, the way out of which involves the analysis of cultural factors and its components that are significant for it, and on this basis, the development of an appropriate action program using cultural mechanisms that are culturally determined by “growth points”.
I note in passing one more detail, which may not be so significant, but it seems not indifferent in the situation of real applied work. Culturological analysis of a problem situation is almost always only one of component of a comprehensive study, the inevitable interdisciplinarity of which is due to the objective complexity and versatility of any sociocultural process, situation. Therefore, as a rule, the justification of the cultural component in the process of constructing a model of possible scenarios (development, transformation, promotion, etc.) is just some miteeffective use of which is ensured her conjugation with the “mites” of allies - economists, psychologists, ethnologists, etc., depending on the space of study. This remark is generated by the statement of the problem that is often found in the texts and the description of the practical significance of the study by type: “the conducted cultural analysis allows us to establish .. and thereby solve ...”. As a rule, this kind of romantic passages are either purely speculative constructions born at the desk, or the researcher’s unwillingness to reflect on what is happening in his actual practice of interaction with those same allies, which seriously reduces the bar of significance and proper cultural analysis in the context real practical movement.
Applying the term "interdisciplinarity" to PKI, it is necessary to clarify - it, in our opinion, relates specifically to each specific culturological research, and not to culturology (including in its applied vector) as a whole. This needs to be emphasized, since it is extremely common to describe the science of cultural science as interdisciplinary, which, allegedly, consists in its specificity, in contrast to the “disciplinary” clear history, philology, etc. At the same time, as a rule, the “interdisciplinarity” of cultural studies is equated, it is listed with a comma as equivalent, with the universally recognized characteristic of cultural science as an integrative science. In our opinion, such an identification is completely unjustified, but, unfortunately, there is an obvious confusion in the use of these terms in relation to cultural knowledge. If you look at it in the most general sense, you can formulate the position as follows: sign integrativity refers to cultural knowledge as such, and interdisciplinarity is a characteristic that defines a specific type of scientific research.
By virtue of the circumstances discussed more than once, culturology has grown from different roots and, naturally, has absorbed much of what has been accumulated in the relevant fields of science. This kind integrativity by birth does not mean at all that, having passed a certain path of development, having acquired its “structural-crystalline lattice”, institutional status and other scientific attributes, the science of cultural studies should continue to preserve the “birthmark” of multidisciplinary origin, expressed in its finding Inter various "normal" sciences. In fact, such “nomadic” knowledge, not rooted in its niche, lacking the attributes of an independent scientific discipline, is not a scientific discipline at all. Note that if we approach the issue of integrability / interdisciplinarity in this way, then we will find a few sciences that were not a product of differentiation of scientific knowledge, were not, for example, in the process of formation, in a situation of close interaction and mutual influence with related areas. And in this sense, integrativity is a completely understandable and justified characteristic (although, we note, its interpretations in the cultural literature are also ambiguous, but in this case we leave this without special consideration).
When we are not talking about the science of culturology as a whole, but going down to the level of specific CRPs, the concept of interdisciplinarity works fine here, which involves creating a model of the phenomenon being studied that fully reflects its characteristics, and therefore includes the results of a multidisciplinary sociocultural analysis (naturally, if this is required tasks).
In a huge number of cases, the full-scale research is undoubtedly ensured precisely by the principle of interdisciplinarity - be it issues of functioning of mass culture, intercultural interactions, modern mass media and many, many other problem areas of research. Obviously, related knowledge provided by specialists in the field of social psychology (say, about the features, mechanisms of perception of certain phenomena by representatives of certain groups - teenagers, people of the "third age", etc.); sociology (say, the social-group structure in the studied region, the foundations and typology of social differentiation, etc.); ethnologies, etc. Given the multifactorial nature of almost any sociocultural phenomenon, its specific study , in one way or another, should be interdisciplinary. I repeat that this is absolutely not the same as the statement about betweenthe disciplinary nature of the science of cultural science as such.
We note at the same time that it is hardly worthwhile to fetish the principle of interdisciplinarity (we refer here to the position of T. Benet), who, considering the problem of interdisciplinarity as applied to one of the types of applied cultural studies (“cultural studies”), emphasizes that, with all the significance of this principle, its overestimation leads to the construction of "termite mounds", towering above the disciplinary boundaries and claiming the absorption of certain research areas within the social and human sciences.
Applied Culturological Research: Search for a Common “Denominator”
The construction of an applied culturological research, in case of acceptance of the attributes proposed above, first of all, implies identification of cultural groundssubject to analysis of the process, phenomenon, social situation; cultural factors significant for the considered problem field; degree assessment cultural conformity one or another studied practice (political, environmental, educational, health-saving, informational, recreational, etc.). In aggregate, this, we repeat, allows us to identify (further - analyze, predict, design) those culturally significant circumstances that the applied cultural scientist needs to clarify in order to engage them in the proposed practical activities.
Obviously, in each case, the development of the conceptual scheme of the object is carried out taking into account many specific circumstances: goals, objectives, the proposed / sought empirical and abstract base, the social “here and now” research context, etc. However, with all the details and clarifications, the original the model of the analyzed phenomenon must be based on developments that ensure cultural(in this case, with an emphasis on cultural factors and grounds) at anddeniathat type of social practice, that class of social phenomena to which the subject of analysis itself can be attributed.
Since, as has been noted above more than once, we consider applied culture as a problem field all social space, and not some of its separate zones, the development of the conceptual and methodological base of PKI, objectively multi-subject and multi-genre, suggests, in our opinion, as one of the tasks, the formation of a kind of compendium containing a description cultural models of all the main types of social practice.Models that are most adequate for their subsequent transformation and use for applied purposes, as discussed above. The desire to achieve this goal was dictated, among other things, by the preparation of this publication, as well as some previous work. However, so far this is undoubtedly only a partially covered path.
The formation of this kind of handbook involves, among other things, a certain structuring of diverse types of social practice based on their typology. Obviously, in reality, we can only talk about cultural models of one or another type of social practice,containing a description of potentially / really significant points of cultural conditioning, cultural conformity, etc., followed by species differentiation within each type (for example, an administrative type of activity, including political practice, management, etc.).
It is well known that it is possible to build typologies on various grounds, focusing on various marker markers. One of the options that we use in research and educational practice (in particular, in the framework of studying the discipline “Applied Cultural Studies”) is the allocation of blocks, based on target characteristics various activities.
Based on this basis, we can distinguish such groups of sociocultural practices as organizational and management (including political, including cultural policy; management, etc.); life support (business, environmental, health, hygiene, etc. .); communicative (the entire field of information practices, intercultural interactions, etc.); socialization-translational (education, upbringing, incultural technologies, etc.); creative(including all types of creativity - artistic, scientific, innovative, etc.); leisure and recreational (various kinds of entertainment, tourism, fitness and much more). Recognizing the undoubted convention of this kind of division, as well as any systematization, we note, as an example, the rather useful use of this simple structure in constructing the thesaurus for the bibliographic index “Applied Culturology in the Context of Scientific Knowledge” (2003), prepared at the Russian Institute of Culturology. Given the need to reduce and correlate thematically heterogeneous and diverse studies in such classification systems, quite obvious and easy to use markers turn out to be actually in demand, and not only supposedly useful.
Of course, such a systematization is essentially just the starting point for the subsequent formation of a kind of matrix, which will reflect the existence of each of the types / types of activities at the ordinary and specialized levels; and more precisely (and subtly) circles “intersecting” in typology will be represented - because, depending on specific tasks, one or another type of activity can be assigned to different typological groups. Say, socialization elements are woven into many other practices whose social orientation is not a target orientation. However, depending on the goals (specifically applied!) Of the research, let’s say, sport can justifiably be considered as a practice of socialization in the modern world. Significant discrepancies are obvious with respect to certain types of practice, if, for example, the subject of this activity is taken into account. For example, the same sport for a professional player is a life support practice, and for a sports fan, it’s leisure and recreational activity. And the number of such “ambiguities”, of course, constantly increases with the transition from a simple separation of practices based on the sign of their goal-orientation, described above, to a multidimensional matrix that is close to social reality.
However, realizing the obvious difficulties, as well as the existence of pitfalls, in the process of implementing this idea, it nevertheless seems useless to achieve a more clear, structured, and therefore useful practice field of applied cultural science.
See, e.g., Benett T. Towards a Pragmatics for Cultural Studies // Cultural Methodologies / J. McGuigan (Ed.). L., 1997. P. 42-62; Relocating Cultural Studies: Developments in Theory and Research / V. Blundel, J. Shepherd, I. Taylor (Eds.) L., 1993; Modern strategies for cultural studies: Tr. Institute of Europe. cultures. Vol. 1. M., 2000.
See, for example, Culturology in the system of sciences and education. Annotir. bibliogr. decree. / Ed. ; comp. . M., 2000; Applied cultural studies in the context of scientific knowledge. Bibliogr. Index / Comp. . M., 2003 and others.
Having retained in the previous wording only specialty 03, the authors decided to combine the theory and the storyculture in a single scientific (!) specialty 24.00.01.- step, I dare say, completely scientificallyunreasonable, because under the same cipher came research that, by definition, differs in goals, methods, etc., although they have the same object of study - culture. But according to this logic, all sciences aimed at the study of culture could be entered in one line at all - and, as you know, there are more than a dozen of them. And the wording “history of culture” and “historical culturology” are far from identical (see Minenko for more details on the methodological definition of historical culturology // Culturology in theoretical and applied dimensions. M; Kemerovo, 2001. P. 8-16; Hakobyan of historical culturology as a scientific discipline // Culturology: from the past to the future. M., 2002. P. 189-201; Flier for culturologists. M., 2002, as well as brilliant examples of historical and cultural studies,). Perhaps this is not so essential for everyday consciousness, but not very adequate to status scientifically-organizational document.
Note that far from always in the names of the works of these authors applied cultural science is designated “on the forehead” (this is also a question of the gradual introduction of the term into scientific circulation); more significantly the content and subjectivity of their studies.
This situation is most regrettable, since the effectiveness of studying and mastering the material of the disciplines of the socio-humanitarian block depends, inter alia, on the ability to profile them in accordance with the characteristics of students' professional training. Applied culturology, in this regard, provides wonderful opportunities to “lose” many cultural topics in a subject field that is close to future technicians, doctors, ecologists, etc.
Erasov culturology. M., 2003.
Volkov V., Kharkhordin O. Theory of Practice. SPb., 2008.
We will not specifically dwell here on the well-known position that fundamental knowledge is ultimately theoretical knowledge.
For more details about this, see, for example, Fundamentals of Cultural Studies / Ed. . M., 2005. one; Bykhov experiments. M., 1996.S. 7-45.
The term “cultural” here and in other culturological texts has, as you know, not a positively evaluative character (like a “cultural person”), but a neutral statement of cultural affiliation in the above sense. Often noted semantic ambivalence, the overload of this concept in the Russian language did not give rise to any adequate solution. True, a number of authors use the term “cultural” to get out of the situation (see, for example, Cultural research. Vol. 8.SPb., M., 2006), however, it has not acquired sustainable and universally recognized use in the scientific community.
For example: City of entertainment: observations, analyzes, plots / Ed. . SPb., 2007; Mass culture and mass art. "Pros and cons". M., 2003; Baudrillard J. Consumer Society. M., 2006 and others.
The culture is “own” and “alien”. Materials of the international Internet conference / Ed. ,. M., 2003 and others.
Bourdieu P. On television and journalism. M., 2002; Leisure, creativity, media culture. Omsk, 2005; Luman N. The reality of mass media. M., 2005; Electronic Culture and Screen Creativity / Ed. . M., 2006 and others.
Benett t . Towards a Pragmatics for Cultural Studies // Cultural Methodologies / J. McGuigan (Ed.). L., 1997. P. 44.
Interesting examples of the use of the “assessment approach” are provided not only by research, but also by the real social space: for example, in Iran there is a Council for Appropriateness (an advisory body to the country's top leader). It would probably be reasonable to have Tips on cultureconsistency in each social community, which would be the most important field of application and area of \u200b\u200bresponsibility of applied cultural studies.
For example, Fundamentals of Cultural Studies / Ed. . M., 2005.
Intercultural interactions mean, of course, the interactions of not only different ethnic cultures (the most well-established, widespread interpretation), but also cultures (subcultures) that differ in other characteristics: gender, age, socio-territorial, etc. For more details see, for example, The culture is “own” and “alien”. Materials of the international Internet conference / Ed. ,. M., 2003.
Culturology as a scientific paradigm. The specificity of the culturological method of cognition.
Culturology is emerging as a humanitarian paradigm with an interdisciplinary status, integrating the methods and results of other socio-humanitarian sciences. Spec. Crops. Method:
1. problem orientation
2. The dominance of anthological (creative, collecting. Knowledge) activities
3. The multidisciplinarity of culturologists
4. Anthropological orientation
Florensky: “To know by reason - to know contradiction, to know by heart - to know completely” Kassler: “We are not able to know the philosophy of culture using only formal and logical means.”
Cultural studies uses system of methods.
1. The historical method: aims to study how this culture originated, what stages in development took place and what it became in its mature form.
2. The logical method - the researcher creates a general view of this culture, compares it with others; 3. comparative historical method. 4. Structural-functional method 5 Semiotic method 6 Biographical method 7 Modeling method 8 Psychological method
Features of the culturological method of Likhachev
He was engaged in the substantiation of the general principles of textology and the history of ancient Russian literature. Speaking about the importance of the method, he noted that “the beauty of scientific work consists mainly in the beauty of research methods, in the novelty and scrupulousness of scientific methods ... it leads to discoveries. It provides a method for discovering the truth. ”
he is primarily interested in the fateful epochs and periods for the formation of Russian culture, and is attracted by the human, humanistic content and meaning of Russian literature, art, philosophy, religion. His view of any phenomena he considers involves the study and evaluation of them in the context of culture, while the temporal, historical plane of analysis is only one of many. He revealed the special role of the national language, the nature of the national identity of Russia, manifested in the spiritual quest of the people, in the canons of Russian aesthetics, in the religious experience of Russian Orthodoxy.
The boundaries of D.S. Likhachev's cultural paradigm can be identified by several semantic lines constructing his scientific method: the integrity and design nature of culturological thought, the moral tension of a word about culture, the humanistic orientation of the culturological method, the problematic orientation of cultural studies. The most important components of the culturological paradigm become a kind of conceptual framework with which the scientist creates and explores the symbolic world of culture, while various facets of the method reveal their "similarity" in the structure of the object of cognition
The goals and objectives of theoretical, historical and applied cultural studies.
The task of applied cultural studies is the development of cultural policy, the economic and political support of cultural programs. The goals of applied cultural studies are forecasting, designing and regulating the cultural processes existing in practical life.
The theoretical field is the development of theories that allow us to identify the general laws of cultural life, to understand its essence and meanings. The goals of theoretical cultural science are holistic knowledge of the cultural phenomenon, development of categorical apparatus and research methods.
Historical culturology is a science that studies the history of civilization and culture, however, from the standpoint of not the historical, but the cultural methodology of cognition. The essence of this difference lies in the fact that the past is studied as a set of events and facts not exceptional but occurrences, situations and forms, by definition, normal, ordinary.
6. + 59 + 60 “Problem field” of modern cultural studies
1. a group of categories captures culture as a whole, including cultural-historical types of sociocultural organization, regional cultures, ethnic and social subcultural communities, ordinary, elite and folk culture.
2. A significant layer of categories captures more individual aspects of cultural studies properties and functions of cultural objects and phenomena; cultural values \u200b\u200band norms; cultural environment of cultural subjects.
3. cultural categories reflect the technological layer of being of cultural organisms: cultural modalities (evolution, modernization, progress, degradation, destruction, cyclism); cultural processes (genesis, formation, functioning, distribution, reproduction, conservation, change); cultural-integration and differential phenomena (cooperation, consolidation, solidarity, sociality, mutual assistance); cultural technology; intercultural interactions.
4. The problem of intercultural dialogue (fork in W and Russia in 15-16v)
5. Imperfection of the capitalist model of society
6. The deep cultural studies of the current financial and economic crisis are rooted in the spiritual breakdown of Western civilization, which was preceded by a rejection of the basic moral foundations of Christianity.
7. The logic of formation and the content of the concept of "culture"
1.from lat. To cultivate, process, cultivate.
2. Parenting, education, development. The ability to "cultivate the soul"
3 "Cultus" - the pleasing of God, worship veneration.
4. The discovery of culture in the modern sense of the 17-18th century. Understanding to-ry as 2 nature.
There is a contrast between culture and nature. Culture loses its original, agricultural sense. Culture as a "cultivation of the soul" begins to be perceived directly. Universalization is taking place - the regularity of the development process.
D. S. Likhachev: "The culture of the individual is formed as a result of the activity of the memory of one person, the culture of the family as a result of family memory, the culture of the people - people's memory."