Three cases of interaction of the dialogue of cultures. The concept of "dialogue of cultures" and the educational process

04.03.2020

The interaction of cultures, their dialogue is the most favorable basis for the development of interethnic, interethnic relations. And vice versa, when there is inter-ethnic tension in a society, and even more so, inter-ethnic conflicts, then the dialogue between cultures is difficult, the interaction of cultures can be limited in the field of inter-ethnic tension of these peoples, carriers of these cultures. The processes of interaction of cultures are more complex than it was once naively believed that there is a simple “pumping” of the achievements of a highly developed culture into a less developed one, which in turn logically led to conclusions about the interaction of cultures as a source of progress. Now the question of the boundaries of culture, its core and periphery is being actively explored. According to Danilevsky, cultures develop separately and are initially hostile to each other. He saw the “spirit of the people” as the basis of all these differences. “Dialogue is communication with culture, the realization and reproduction of its achievements, it is the discovery and understanding of the values of other cultures, the way of appropriating the latter, the possibility of relieving political tension between states and ethnic groups. It is a necessary condition for the scientific search for truth and the process of creativity in art.

The interaction of cultures and civilizations also implies some common cultural values. The dialogue of cultures can act as a reconciling factor that prevents the emergence of wars and conflicts. It can relieve tension, create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. The concept of dialogue is especially relevant for modern culture. The process of interaction itself is a dialogue, and the forms of interaction represent various types of dialogical relations.

Modern cultures are formed as a result of numerous and long cultural interactions. Modern culture is also beginning to move to a new type of human existence in culture. In the 20th century, culture is shifting to the epicenter of human existence, which occurs in all spheres of life. The dialogue of cultures is the communication of many uniquely universal personalities, the dominant of which is not knowledge, but mutual understanding.

“In the deep idea of the dialogue of cultures, a new culture of communication is being formed. Modern manifestations of fundamental problems are also connected with the interaction of cultures of different peoples. The peculiarity of solving these problems is within the framework of a systematic dialogue of cultures, and not one, even a successful culture. “The solution of these problems presupposes such a globalization of the interaction of cultures in space and time, in which the self-realization of each and every culture through the interaction of all with each and each with all others becomes a reality. On this path, the very mechanism of interaction between cultures is problematized. ” And then A. Gordienko rightly believes: “Due to the fact that the globalization of intercultural interactions assumes such a completeness of the semantic world of the individuals involved in it, which occurs only at the point of intersection of all cultural images, the individual goes beyond individual, particular limits into the cultural cosmos, into the fundamental endless communication and, therefore, into an endless rethinking of what he himself is. This process forms that “direct” perspective of human history” Gordienko A.A. Anthropological and cultural prerequisites for the coevolution of man and nature: a philosophical and anthropological model of coevolutionary development. - Novosibirsk, 1998. S-76-78

Dry formal logic, linear rationality is sometimes alien and hostile to spiritual speculation. One-dimensional rationalism contains the danger of a simplistic or false conclusion. In this regard, the medieval monks had a proverb: "the devil is a logician." As a form of conversation, dialogue implies a certain commonality of space and time, empathy - in order to understand the interlocutor, to find a common language with him. Dialogue can be a form of religious-philosophical thought (for example, Platonic dialogues) and spiritual revelation.

Intercultural interactions cannot occur otherwise than through the interactions of individual worldviews. The most important problem in the analysis of intercultural interaction is the disclosure of the mechanism of interactions. Two types of interaction: 1) cultural-direct, when cultures interact with each other through communication at the language level. 2) Indirect, when the main characteristics of the interaction are its dialogical nature, while the dialogue is included within the culture, as part of its own structures. Foreign cultural content occupies a dual position - both as “foreign” and as “own”. Thus, the mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is the result of indirect interaction, the dialogue of culture with itself, as a dialogue of “own” and “foreign” (having a dual nature). The essence of dialogue lies in the productive interaction of sovereign positions that make up a single and diverse semantic space and a common culture. The main thing that distinguishes dialogue from monologue is the desire to understand the relationship of various views, ideas, phenomena, social forces.

One of the fundamental works devoted to the problems of the interaction of cultures is the work of S. Artanovsky “The historical unity of mankind and the mutual influence of cultures. Philosophical and methodological analysis of modern foreign concepts. L., 1967. For the dialogue of cultures, the concept of “unity” is important. S. Artanovsky believes that the concept of unity should not be interpreted metaphysically as complete homogeneity or indivisibility. “The historical unity of cultures does not mean their identity, i.e. full repeatability of phenomena, their identity. “Unity” means integrity, fundamental commonality, the predominance of internal connections between the elements of this structure over external ones. We are talking, for example, about the unity of the solar system, which, however, does not exclude the multiplicity of its constituent worlds. World culture, from this point of view, forms a unity with a structure that is located in two dimensions - spatial (ethnographic) and temporal (ethnohistorical)” Artanovsky S.N. The historical unity of mankind and the mutual influence of cultures. Philosophical and methodological analysis of modern foreign concepts. - Leningrad, 1967. S-43

Dialogue implies a comparison of national values and the development of an understanding that one's own ethno-cultural coexistence is impossible without a respectful and careful attitude to the values of other peoples. The interaction of cultures acquires its specificity on the basis of the intersection of unique cultural systems.

Pushkin and Dostoevsky were formed on the border of Russian and Western cultures. They believed that the West is our second homeland, and the stones of Europe are sacred. European culture is dialogic: it is based on the desire to understand the other, on exchange with other cultures, on a distant relationship to oneself. In the development of the world socio-cultural process, an important role is played by the dialogue between the cultures of the West and the East, which has acquired universal significance in modern conditions. In this dialogue, Russia plays a special role, being a kind of bridge connecting Europe and Asia. In Russian culture, the process of synthesizing Eastern and Western cultural traditions continues. The dual nature of Russian culture allows it to be a mediator between East and West.

Dialogue, according to M. Bakhtin, can have the following consequences:

1. Synthesis, merging different points of view or positions into one common one.

2. “During the dialogic meeting of two cultures, they do not merge and do not mix, each retains its unity and open integrity, but they are mutually enriched Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M., 1986. S-360

3. Dialogue leads to an understanding of the fundamental differences between the participants in this process, when “the more demarcation, the better, but benevolent delimitation. No fights on the border."

The category "interaction" in relation to national cultures is generic in relation to "mutual influence", "mutual enrichment". "Interaction" emphasizes the active, intense relationship between cultures in the process of their development. The category “relationship” has a tinge of stability, static, so it does not fully reflect the diversity and result of relations between cultures. If "relationship" fixes the relationship between cultures, then "interaction" marks the active process of this relationship. The methodological significance of the category “interaction” is that it allows us to fully understand the process of development of national cultures. The category of “interaction” can be understood as one side, one of the results of “interaction”. It does not indicate the nature of the impact of one national culture on another. "Mutual influence" includes the appeal of representatives of one or another national culture to certain aspects of reality, themes, images. "Mutual influence" also expresses the practice of mastering new techniques and means of artistic expression for a given national culture. It also includes a psychological aspect: the excitement of creative energy as a result of the perception of artistic values created by another national culture.

The category of "mutual enrichment" of national cultures is somewhat narrower than the category of "mutual influence", since the latter also includes taking into account negative experience. "Mutual enrichment" means the process of increasing the mastery of artistic development of reality, stimulating creative activity and using spiritual values created by another national culture.

The interaction of cultures is an interdependent, two-way process, i.e. changes in the state, content, and therefore the functions of one culture as a result of the impact of another must necessarily be accompanied by changes in another culture. In other words, the interaction is two-way. It follows from this that it is not entirely correct to consider the form of connection between the historical past of national cultures and the current state of culture as interaction, because there is only one-way connection, since the present does not affect the past. We can assume that the category of “interaction” along the vertical is illegal. It would be more correct to call this phenomenon continuity. However, this does not mean that cultural heritage does not participate in the process of national-cultural interaction. The spiritual heritage of each nation in a rethought or in its original quality is included in the current, modern state of the culture of the nation. It is on the degree of involvement in modern spiritual processes that the degree of participation of the values of the past in the process of national-cultural interactions depends. At the present stage, the need to restore the vertical, diachronic ties in culture is increasingly being realized, first of all, the acquisition of a new spiritual paradigm, which connects the beginning of the 21st century with the beginning of the 20th century, with the spiritual renaissance of the “Silver Age” and is rooted in the deep layers of Russian history and culture. The diversity of forms of activity, thinking, and vision of the world developed in the course of historical and cultural development was increasingly included in the general process of the development of world culture. At the same time, they have deep roots and cultural differences, reflecting the features of the ethnic community in their integrity and internal relationship with the natural and social environment. Cultural differences are one of the sources of the diversity of the historical process, giving it multidimensionality. The uniqueness of each culture means that in certain respects different cultures are equal to each other. The phrase “culturally backward” is unacceptable in relations between peoples. Another thing is economically backward or culturally backward people. It is impossible to deny the development in the field of culture, and therefore the fact that there are more developed, more powerful and less developed and less widespread cultures. But it is the uniqueness of the national, regional characteristics of a particular culture that puts it on a level commensurate with others. The diversity of cultures is an objective reality. The unity of world culture is due to the unity of the historical process, the universal nature of labor, creative activity in general. Any national cultures express the universal human content. Thus, the necessity and possibility of interaction, dialogue of cultures is theoretically substantiated. The exchange of spiritual values, acquaintance with the achievements of the culture of other peoples enriches the personality. The core of the activity of the subject of culture, in the process of which he himself changes, changing, developing at the same time the state, the content of the national culture. The interaction of cultures also takes place at the level of interpersonal communication, since the generally significant values of cultures are realized in sensation. Interpersonal communication, expanding the sources of social and cultural information, can thus be an important factor in overcoming stereotyped thinking and this contributes to the mutual enrichment of the spiritual image of people.

DIALOGUE OF CULTURES

DIALOGUE OF CULTURES - widely used in philosophical journalism and essays of the 20th century. Most often it is understood as the influence, penetration or repulsion of different historical or modern cultures, as a form of their confessional or political coexistence. In the philosophical works of V. S. Bibler, the concept of a dialogue of cultures is put forward as a possible foundation of philosophy on the eve of the 21st century.

The philosophy of modern times from Descartes to Husserl was explicitly or implicitly defined in its basis as . The culture that exists in it is most definitely expressed by Hegel - this is the idea of development, (self) education of the thinking spirit. This is filmed in the forms of the existence of science, which is typical for a well-defined culture-culture of the New Age. However, in reality, culture is built and “develops” in a completely different way, so that science itself can be seen on the contrary, as an element of an integral culture.

There is, which does not fit into the development scheme, is. It cannot be said that Sophocles was “removed” by Shakespeare, and Picasso is “more specific” (richer, more meaningful) than Rembrandt. On the contrary, the artists of the past open up new facets and meanings in the context of contemporary art. In art, "earlier" and "later" are simultaneous. What is at work here is not “ascension”, but the composition of a dramatic work. With the appearance on the stage of a new “character” - works, author, style, old eras do not leave the stage. Each new character reveals new qualities and inner intentions in the characters who have previously entered the scene. In addition to space, a work of art presupposes one more of its existence: an active relationship between the author and the reader (viewer, listener). A work of art addressed to a potential reader is a work of dialogue through the centuries - the author's answer to an imaginary reader and him to him as an accomplice of human existence. The composition, the structure of the work, the author also produces his reader (viewer, listener), while the reader, for his part, understands the work only because he performs it, fills it with meaning, contemplates, refines, understands the “message” of the author with himself, with his original being. He is a co-author. An unchanging work contains in itself every time a new execution of communication. Culture turns out to be a form in which the historical of man does not disappear along with the civilization that gave birth to him, but remains the experience of being of man filled with universal and inexhaustible meaning. Culture is my being, separated from me, embodied in a work, addressed to others. The peculiarity of the historical existence of art is only a demonstrative universal phenomenon-being in culture. The same dramatic relationship exists in philosophy. Plato, Nicholas of Cusa, Descartes, Hegel descend from the (Hegelian) ladder of "development" onto the single stage of a worldwide philosophical symposium (as if the scope of Raphael's "School of Athens" had been infinitely expanded). The same is revealed in the sphere of morality: moral vicissitudes, concentrated in different images of culture, are conjugated in an internal dialogical clash: the hero of antiquity, the passion-bearer of the Middle Ages, the author of his biography in the New ... cultures. In the same vein of culture, it is necessary to understand science itself, which in the 20th century. experiences a “crisis of foundations” and focuses on its own principles. She is again puzzled by elementary concepts (space, time, set, event, life, etc.). for which equal competence of Zeno, Aristotle, Leibniz is allowed.

All these phenomena acquire only as a single organon of culture. Poet, Philosopher, Hero, Theorist, Mystic - in every epochal culture they are connected as characters in a single drama, and only in this capacity can they enter into a historical one. Plato is contemporary with Kant and can be his interlocutor only when Plato is understood in his inner communion with Sophocles and Euclid, and Kant in his communion with Galileo and Dostoevsky.

The concept of culture, in relation to which the concept of dialogue of cultures alone makes sense, necessarily includes three aspects.

(1) Culture is the simultaneous existence and communication of people of different - past, present and future - cultures. Culture becomes culture only in this simultaneity of communication between different cultures. Unlike ethnographic, morphological and other concepts of culture, one way or another understanding it as a self-contained study, in the concept of dialogue, culture is understood as an open subject of possible communication.

(2) Culture is a form of self-determination of the individual in the horizon of personality. In the forms of art, philosophy, morality, it removes ready-made schemes of communication, understanding, ethical decision that have grown together with its existence, concentrates at the beginning of being and, where all the certainties of the world are only still possible, where other principles, other definitions of thought and being are revealed. These facets of culture converge at one point, at the point of the last questions of being. Two regulative ideas are conjugated here: the idea of personality and the idea of reason. Reason, because the question is about being itself; personality, because the question is about being itself as my being.

(3) The world of culture is "the world for the first time". Culture in its works allows us, as it were, to regenerate the existence of objects, people, our own existence, the existence of our thoughts from the plane of the canvas, the chaos of colors, the rhythms of verse, philosophical aporias, moments of moral catharsis.

The idea of a dialogue of cultures makes it possible to understand the architectonic structure of culture.

(1) One can speak of a dialogue of cultures only if culture itself is understood as a sphere of works (not products or tools). Only the culture embodied in the work can be a place and form of a possible dialogue, since the work carries the composition of the dialogue between the author and the reader (viewer, listener).

(2) Historical culture is a culture only on the verge of a dialogue of cultures, when it is itself understood as one integral work. As if all the works of this era were “acts” or “fragments” of a single work, and one could assume (imagine) a single author of this integral culture. Only if this is possible, it makes sense to talk about the dialogue of cultures.

(3) To be a product of culture means to be in the sphere of attraction of some prototype, the original concept. For antiquity, this is the “number” of the Pythagoreans, the “atom” of Democritus, the “idea” of Plato, the “form” of Aristotle, but also of tragic poets, a statue, ... So, the work “Ancient Culture” suggests, as it were, one author, but at the same time, an infinite multiplicity of possible authors. Each philosophical, artistic, religious, theoretical work of culture is a kind of focus, the center of the entire cultural polyphony of the era.

(4) The integrity of culture as a work of works presupposes one - dominant - work, which makes it possible to understand the diversity of works as architectonic. Tragedy is supposed to be such a cultural microcosm for ancient culture. To be in culture for an ancient person meant to be included in the tragic situation of the hero-horbog-spectator, to experience. For the Middle Ages, such a “micro-society of culture” is “being-in-(o)circle-of-the-temple”, which makes it possible to draw into one mystical vicissitudes both theological, and proper cult, and handicraft, and guild ... definitions of medieval civilization as culture.

(5) Culture as a dialogue presupposes a certain anxiety of civilization, fear for its own disappearance, as if an inner exclamation “save our souls”, addressed to future people. Culture, therefore, is formed as a kind of request to the future and the past, as to everyone who hears, it is connected with the last questions of being.

(6) If in culture (in a work of culture) a person puts himself on the brink of non-existence, goes to the last questions of being, he somehow approaches the questions of philosophical and logical universality. If culture presupposes a single subject that creates culture as a multi-act work, then culture thereby pushes its Author beyond the limits of proper cultural definitions. The subject, who creates culture, and who understands it from the side, stands as if behind the walls of culture, interpreting it logically as a possibility at points where it does not yet exist or already does not exist. Antique culture, medieval culture, Eastern culture are historically available, but when they enter the sphere of the last questions of being, they are comprehended not in the status of reality, but in the status of the possibility of being. A dialogue of cultures is possible only when culture itself is understood in its limit, in its logical beginning.

(7) The idea of a dialogue of cultures presupposes a certain gap, a kind of "no man's field" through which the cross-talk of cultures takes place. So, with the culture of antiquity, the dialogue is carried out by the Renaissance, as it were, through the head of the Middle Ages. The Middle Ages are included in this dialogue, and are removed from it, revealing the possibility of direct communication of the New Age with ancient culture. The concept of dialogue itself has a certain logic. (1) The dialogue of cultures logically presupposes going beyond the limits of any given culture to its beginning, possibility, emergence, to its non-existence. This is not the self-importance of wealthy civilizations, but the conversation of different cultures in doubt about their own ability to think and be. But the sphere of such possibilities is the sphere of the logic of the beginnings of thought and being, which cannot be understood in the semiotics of meanings. The logic of the dialogue of cultures is logical, in which dialogizing logics arise in their logical definition, regardless of their actual (or even possible) historical existence.

(4) “Dialogic” is realized as the logic of paradox. A paradox is a form of reproduction in logic of extra- and pre-logical definitions of being. The being of cultures (culture) is understood (a) as the realization of certain possibilities of an infinitely possible mysterious, absolute being and (b) as the possibility of the corresponding being of subjects co-authoring in the discovery of the mystery of being.

“Dialogue of cultures” is not a concept not of abstract cultural studies, but of a philosophy that seeks to comprehend the deep shifts of culture; at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. it is a projective concept of contemporary culture. The time of the dialogue of cultures is the present (in its cultural projection for the future). The dialogue of cultures is a form of (possible) culture in the 21st century. The 20th century is the culture of beginning culture from the chaos of modern life, in a situation of constant return to the beginning with painful awareness of one's personal responsibility for culture, history, . Culture of the 20th century to the extreme activates the co-authorship of the reader (viewer, listener). The works of historical cultures are therefore perceived in the 20th century. not as "examples" or "monuments", but as undertakings - to see, hear, speak, understand, to be; culture is reproduced as a modern dialogue of cultures. The cultural claim (or possibility) of modernity is to be modernity, coexistence, a dialogical community of cultures.

Lit .: Bibler V. S. From science to the logic of culture. Two philosophical introductions to the twenty-first century. M., 1991; He is. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or Poetics of Culture. M., 1991; He is. On the verge of the logic of culture. Favorite book essays. M., 1997.

V. S. Bibler, A. V. Akhutin

New Philosophical Encyclopedia: In 4 vols. M.: Thought. Edited by V. S. Stepin. 2001 .

international cultural dialogue cooperation

The whole history of mankind is a dialogue. It is by its nature a means of communication, a condition for mutual understanding of people. The interaction of cultures, their dialogue is the most favorable basis for the development of interethnic, interethnic relations.

“Dialogue is communication with culture, the realization and reproduction of its achievements, it is the discovery and understanding of the values of other cultures, the possibility of removing political tension between states and ethnic groups. It is a necessary condition for the scientific search for truth and the process of creativity in art. Dialogue is an understanding of one's "I" and communication with others. It is universal and the universality of the dialogue is universally recognized” (1, p.9). The dialogue of cultures can act as a reconciling factor that prevents the emergence of wars and conflicts. It can relieve tension, create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect between different cultures. The concept of dialogue is especially relevant for modern culture. I. Herder considered the interaction of cultures as a way to preserve cultural diversity. Cultural isolation leads to the death of culture. However, in his opinion, changes should not affect the "core" of culture.

Dialogue is always development, interaction. It is always a union, not a decomposition. Dialogue is an indicator of the general culture of society. “Dialogue is not a means, but an end in itself. To be means to communicate dialogically. When the dialogue ends, everything ends. Therefore, the dialogue, in essence, cannot and must not end.” (8, p.433). According to M. Bakhtin, each culture lives only in questioning another culture, that great phenomena in culture are born only in the dialogue of different cultures, only at the point of their intersection. The ability of one culture to master the achievements of another is one of the sources of its vital activity. “An alien culture reveals itself more fully and deeper only in the eyes of another culture... One meaning reveals its depths, having met and come into contact with another, alien meaning..., between them begins, as it were, a dialogue that overcomes the isolation and one-sidedness of these meanings, these cultures... In such a dialogic meeting of two cultures, they do not merge or mix, but they are mutually enriched” (7, p. 354). Imitation of a foreign culture or complete rejection of it must give way to dialogue. “We pose new questions to a foreign culture, which it did not pose to itself, we are looking for an answer from it, to these questions of ours; and a foreign culture responds to us, opening before us new sides of itself, new semantic depths” (7, p. 335). Dialogue implies a comparison of national values and the development of an understanding that one's own ethno-cultural coexistence is impossible without a respectful and careful attitude to the values of other peoples.

Dialogue, according to M. Bakhtin, can have the following results:

1. Synthesis, merging different points of view or positions into one common one.
2. “During the dialogic meeting of two cultures, they do not merge and do not mix, each retains its unity and open integrity, but they are mutually enriched.”
3. Dialogue leads to an understanding of the fundamental differences between the participants in this process, when “the more demarcation, the better, but benevolent delimitation. No fights on the border."

V. Sagatovsky also identifies the fourth possible consequence of the dialogue: “it was not possible to agree, the positions turned out to be incompatible, fundamental interests were affected, a non-dialogical clash of the parties is possible (and sometimes necessary)” (9, p. 22). Differently directed systems of values can serve as obstacles in dialogue, which, of course, makes dialogue difficult and some cultures are reluctant to come into contact with other cultures.

The interaction of cultures is an interdependent, two-way process. It follows from this that it is not entirely correct to consider the form of connection between the historical past of national cultures and the current state of culture as interaction, because there is only one-way connection, since the present does not affect the past. We can assume that the category of “interaction” along the vertical is illegal. It would be more correct to call this phenomenon continuity. However, this does not mean that cultural heritage does not participate in the process of national-cultural interaction. The spiritual heritage of each nation in a rethought or in its original quality is included in the current, modern state of the culture of the nation. It is on the degree of involvement in modern spiritual processes that the degree of participation of the values of the past in the process of national-cultural interactions depends. At the present stage, the need to restore the vertical, diachronic ties in culture is increasingly being realized, first of all, the acquisition of a new spiritual paradigm, which connects the beginning of the 21st century with the beginning of the 20th century, with the spiritual renaissance of the “Silver Age” and is rooted in the deep layers of history and culture. . The diversity of forms of activity, thinking, and vision of the world developed in the course of historical and cultural development was increasingly included in the general process of the development of world culture. At the same time, they have deep roots and cultural differences, reflecting the features of the ethnic community in their integrity and internal relationship with the natural and social environment. Cultural differences are one of the sources of the diversity of the historical process, giving it multidimensionality. The uniqueness of each culture means that in certain respects different cultures are equal to each other. The phrase “culturally backward” is unacceptable in relations between peoples. Another thing is economically backward or culturally backward people. It is impossible to deny the development in the field of culture, and therefore the fact that there are more developed, more powerful and less developed and less widespread cultures. But it is the uniqueness of the national, regional characteristics of a particular culture that puts it on a level commensurate with others. The diversity of cultures is an objective reality. The unity of world culture is due to the unity of the historical process, the universal nature of labor, creative activity in general. Any national cultures express the universal human content. Thus, the necessity and possibility of interaction, dialogue of cultures is theoretically substantiated.

Since spiritual culture is inextricably linked with religion, the dialogue of cultures “is not just the interaction of peoples, but also their deep mystical connection, rooted in religion” (4, p.20). Therefore, the dialogue of cultures is not possible without a dialogue of religions and a dialogue within religions. The exchange of spiritual values, acquaintance with the achievements of the culture of other peoples enriches the personality. The core of the activity of the subject of culture, in the process of which he himself changes, changing, developing at the same time the state, the content of the national culture. The interaction of cultures also takes place at the level of interpersonal communication, since the generally significant values of cultures are realized in sensation. Interpersonal communication, expanding the sources of social and cultural information, can thus be an important factor in overcoming stereotyped thinking and this contributes to the mutual enrichment of the spiritual image of people.

The more developed the national culture, the more capable it is of including the values of the culture of various nations into the sphere of spiritual communication, and the more opportunities it presents for the spiritual enrichment of the individual. The nature of perception depends both on the content of the values of culture, and on the complex of individual and personal characteristics of the perceiver. The perception of cultural values is carried out on the basis of a comparison of previous experience and new. At the same time, knowledge occurs not only on a rational, but also on an irrational basis. Feelings stimulate understanding or hinder understanding, set its boundaries. The perception of the foreign is carried out by comparing the element of the culture of another nation with a similar one in one's own national culture. Comparison is the basis of all understanding and all thinking. A foreign culture is assimilated only in the process of any practical, educational or other activity. Comprehension of the new, assimilation is impossible without the thought processes associated with the language. Language contributes to the mutual knowledge of nations, the assimilation of cultural heritage. A person achieves the highest cultural development when a great spiritual work takes place in himself. But he can come to this only through communication. The knowledge of the spiritual culture of another nation presupposes the emotional and intellectual activity of the subject of perception, the systematic accumulation of knowledge about the content of foreign cultural values.

The process of influence of national cultures also does not consist in duplicating the results achieved by translating them into another language, or imitating them, but in expressing the thoughts and passions of a modern person who lives by the interests of the era. In the interaction of cultures, the law always works: culture does not reject culture. In the process of interaction of cultures, two types of dialogue can be distinguished: direct and indirect. Direct dialogue is when cultures interact with each other due to the competence of its speakers, there is an exchange at the language level. Indirect dialogue in the interaction of cultures occurs within the culture, as part of its own structures. Foreign cultural content occupies a dual position - both as someone else's and as one's own. In the dialogue of cultures, the same problems arise as in the translation from language to language: understanding, getting used to the world of a foreign culture. Dialogue with other cultures is impossible without certain images of culture, both one's own and another's.

Within the framework of globalization, the international dialogue of cultures is growing. International cultural dialogue enhances mutual understanding between peoples, makes it possible to better understand one's own national image. Today, Eastern culture, more than ever before, has begun to have a huge impact on the culture and way of life of Americans. In 1997, 5 million Americans began to actively engage in yoga, the ancient Chinese health gymnastics. Even the American religions began to be influenced by the East. Eastern philosophy, with its ideas of the inner harmony of things, is gradually conquering the American cosmetics industry. The rapprochement and interaction of the two cultural models is also taking place in the field of the food industry (healing green tea). If earlier it seemed that the cultures of East and West did not intersect mutually, then today, more than ever, there have been points of contact and mutual influence. It is not only about interaction, but also about complementarity and enrichment. The existence of other cultures more and more resembles the life of two inseparable principles - “yin” and “yang” (13, p.33). The dialogue of cultures should be more pronounced in Europe's foreign policy. The cultural aspect of foreign policy should become increasingly important. The dialogical development of the concept of "culture" - this should be part of the international dialogue of cultures. Globalization and global problems contribute to the dialogue of cultures. In general, the problems of openness to dialogue and mutual understanding in the modern world are becoming profound. However, for mutual understanding and dialogue, goodwill alone is not enough, but cross-cultural literacy (understanding of the cultures of other peoples) is necessary, which includes: “awareness of the differences in ideas, customs, cultural traditions inherent in different peoples, the ability to see the common and different between diverse cultures and look at the culture of one's own community through the eyes of other peoples” (14, p.47). But in order to understand the language of a foreign culture, a person must be open to the culture of the native. From the native to the universal, the only way to comprehend the best in other cultures. And only in this case the dialogue will be fruitful. Participating in the dialogue of cultures, one must know not only one's own culture, but also neighboring cultures and traditions, beliefs and customs.

As you know, culture is internally heterogeneous - it breaks up into many dissimilar cultures, united mainly by national traditions. Therefore, when speaking about culture, we often specify: Russian, French, American, Georgian, etc. National cultures can interact in different scenarios. One culture may disappear under the pressure of another, stronger culture. The culture can succumb to the growing pressure that imposes an average international culture based on consumer values.

The problem of interaction of cultures

Isolation culture - this is one of the options for confronting the national culture against the pressure of other cultures and international culture. The isolation of culture comes down to the prohibition of any changes in it, the forcible suppression of all alien influences. Such a culture is conserved, ceases to develop and eventually dies, turning into a set of platitudes, common truths, museum exhibits and fakes for folk crafts.

For the existence and development of any culture like any other person, communication, dialogue, interaction. The idea of a dialogue of cultures implies the openness of cultures to each other. But this is possible if a number of conditions are met: the equality of all cultures, the recognition of the right of each culture to differ from others, and respect for a foreign culture.

The Russian philosopher Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895-1975) believed that only in dialogue does culture come close to understanding itself, looking at itself through the eyes of another culture and thereby overcoming its one-sidedness and limitations. There are no isolated cultures - they all live and develop only in dialogue with other cultures:

Alien culture only in the eyes another culture reveals itself more fully and deeper (but not in its entirety, because other cultures will come and see and understand even more). One meaning reveals its depths, having met and touched another, alien meaning: between them begins, as it were, dialog which overcomes the isolation and one-sidedness of these meanings, these cultures... With such a dialogical meeting of two cultures, they do not merge and do not mix, each retains its unity and open integrity, but they are mutually enriched.

cultural diversity- an important condition for self-knowledge of a person: the more cultures he learns, the more countries he visits, the more languages he learns, the better he will understand himself and the richer his spiritual world will be. The dialogue of cultures is the basis and an important prerequisite for the formation and strengthening of such values as respect, mutual assistance, mercy.

Levels of interaction of cultures

The interaction of cultures affects the most diverse groups of people - from small ethnic groups, consisting of several dozen people, to billions of peoples (such as the Chinese). Therefore, when analyzing the interaction of cultures, the following levels of interaction are distinguished:

ethnic;
National;
civilizational.

Ethnic level of interaction of cultures

There are dual tendencies in this interaction. Mutual assimilation of elements of culture, on the one hand, contributes to integration processes - strengthening contacts, spreading bilingualism, increasing the number of mixed marriages, and on the other hand, is accompanied by an increase in ethnic self-awareness. At the same time, smaller and more homogeneous ethnic groups more persistently defend their identity.

Therefore, the culture of an ethnos, ensuring its stability, performs not only an ethno-integrating function, but also an ethno-differentiating one, which is expressed in the presence of culture-specific values, norms and stereotypes of behavior and is fixed in the self-consciousness of the ethnos.

Depending on various internal and external factors, the interaction of cultures at the ethnic level can take various forms and lead to four possible variants of ethnocultural contacts:

addition - a simple quantitative change in the culture of an ethnos, which, when faced with another culture, masters some of its achievements. Such was the influence of Indian America on Europe, which enriched it with new types of cultivated plants;
complication - a qualitative change in the culture of an ethnic group under the influence of a more mature culture, which initiates the further development of the first culture. An example is the impact of Chinese culture on Japanese and Korean, the latter are considered to be affiliated with respect to Chinese culture;
diminution - the loss of one's own skills as a result of contact with a more developed culture. This quantitative change is characteristic of many non-literate peoples and often turns out to be the beginning of the degradation of culture;
impoverishment (erosion) - the destruction of culture under external influence, occurring due to the lack of a sufficiently stable and developed own culture. For example, the culture of the Ainu is almost completely absorbed by Japanese culture, and the culture of the American Indians has survived only on reservations.

In general, the ethnic processes occurring during interaction at the ethnic level can lead to various forms of both the unification of ethnic groups and their cultures (assimilation, integration) and their separation (transculturation, genocide, segregation).

Assimilation processes when members of ethno-cultural education lose their original culture and assimilate a new one, they actively proceed in economically developed countries. Assimilation is carried out through conquest, mixed marriages, a targeted policy of dissolving a small people and culture in the environment of another larger ethnic group. In this case, it is possible:

unilateral assimilation, when the culture of the minority, under the pressure of external circumstances, is completely replaced by the dominant culture;
cultural mixing, when elements of the cultures of the majority and the minority are mixed, forming fairly stable combinations;
complete assimilation is a very rare occurrence.

Usually there is a greater or lesser degree of transformation of the minority culture under the influence of the dominant culture. At the same time, the norms and values of culture, language, behavior are replaced, as a result of which the cultural identity of the representatives of the assimilated group changes. The number of mixed marriages is growing, representatives of the minority are included in all social structures of society.

Integration - interaction within a country or some large region of several ethnic groups that are significantly different in language and culture, in which they have a number of common features, in particular, elements of a common self-consciousness are formed, based on long-term economic, cultural interaction, political ties, but peoples and cultures retain its own identity.

In cultural studies, integration is defined as the process of harmonizing logical, emotional, aesthetic values with cultural norms and the real behavior of people, as the establishment of a functional interdependence between different elements of culture. In this regard, several forms of cultural integration are distinguished:

configurational, or thematic, integration by similarity, on the basis of a single common “theme” that sets the benchmark for human activity. Thus, the integration of Western European countries took place on the basis of Christianity, and Islam became the basis for the integration of the Arab-Muslim world;
stylistic - integration based on common styles - era, time, place, etc. Uniform styles (artistic, political, economic, scientific, philosophical, etc.) contribute to the formation of common cultural principles;
logical - integration of cultures on the basis of logical agreement, bringing scientific and philosophical systems into a consistent state;
connective - integration at the level of direct interconnection of the constituent parts of culture (culture), carried out with direct contact of people;
functional, or adaptive, - integration in order to increase the functional efficiency of a person and the entire cultural community; characteristic of modernity: the world market, the world division of labor, etc.;
regulatory - integration with the aim of resolving or neutralizing cultural and political conflicts.

At the ethnic level of interaction of cultures, it is also possible to separate ethnic groups and cultures.

Transcuitration - a process in which a relatively small part of an ethno-cultural community, due to voluntary migration or forced resettlement, moves to another area of habitat, where a foreign cultural environment is either completely absent or is represented insignificantly; over time, the detached part of the ethnos is transformed into an independent ethnos with its own culture. Thus, the English Protestants who moved to North America became the basis for the formation of the North American ethnic group with its specific culture.

The national level of interaction of cultures arises on the basis of already existing ethnic relations. The concept of "nation" should not be confused with the concept of "ethnos", although in Russian these words are often used as synonyms (ethnonation). But in international practice, in UN documents, "nation" is understood as a political, civil and state community.

National unity arises on a mono-ethnic or multi-ethnic basis through a common economic activity, state-political regulation, is supplemented by the creation of a state language, which in multi-ethnic states is also the language of inter-ethnic communication, ideology, norms, customs and traditions, i.e. national culture.

The leading element of national unity is the state. regulating interethnic relations within its borders and interethnic in relations with other states. Ideally, the state should strive for the integration of the peoples and nations that make up the state, and for good neighborly relations with other states. But in real politics, decisions are often made about assimilation, segregation and even genocide, causing reciprocal outbreaks of nationalism and separatism and leading to wars both within the country and abroad.

Difficulties in interstate communication often arise where state borders were drawn without taking into account the natural settlement of people and separated common ethnic groups, which gives rise to the desire of divided peoples to form a single state (this contradicts modern international documents on the inviolability of existing borders), or, conversely, they were united within the framework of a single state of warring peoples, which leads to clashes between representatives of warring peoples; an example is the intermittent feud between the Tute and Bhutto peoples in Central Africa.

National-cultural ties are less stable than ethno-cultural ones, but they are just as necessary as ethno-cultural contacts. Today, communication between cultures is impossible without them.

Civilization level of interaction. Civilization in this case, it is understood as an association of several neighboring peoples connected by a common history, religion, cultural characteristics and regional economic ties. Cultural ties and contacts within civilizations are stronger than any external contacts. Communication at the civilizational level leads either to the most significant results in the exchange of spiritual, artistic, scientific and technical achievements, or to conflicts that are particularly cruel at this level, sometimes leading up to the complete destruction of the participants. An example is the crusades that Western Europe first directed against the Muslim world, and then against the Orthodox. Examples of positive contacts between civilizations are borrowings by medieval European culture from the Islamic world, from the culture of India and China. Intensive exchange took place between the Islamic, Indian and Buddhist regions. The conflict of these relations was replaced by peaceful coexistence and fruitful interaction.

Back in the 1980s. the famous Russian culturologist Grigory Solomonovich Pomerants (born 1918) identified the following options for intercivilizational cultural contacts:

European - openness of cultures, rapid assimilation and "digestion" of foreign cultural achievements, enrichment of one's own civilization through innovation;
Tibetan - a steady synthesis of elements borrowed from different cultures, and then solidification. Such is the Tibetan culture, which arose as a result of the synthesis of Indian and Chinese cultures;
Javanese - easy perception of foreign cultural influences with a quick oblivion of the past. So, in Java, the Polynesian, Indian, Chinese, Muslim and European traditions historically replaced each other;
Japanese - the transition from cultural isolation to openness and the assimilation of someone else's experience without abandoning one's own traditions. Japanese culture was once enriched by the assimilation of Chinese and Indian experience, and at the end of the 19th century. she turned to Zapal's experience.

Nowadays, it is relations between civilizations that come to the fore, as state borders become more and more “transparent”, the role of supranational associations increases. An example is the European Union, in which the highest body is the European Parliament, which has the right to make decisions affecting the sovereignty of member states. Although nation-states still remain the main actors on the world stage, their policies are increasingly dictated by civilizational characteristics.

According to S. Huntington, the appearance of the world is increasingly dependent on the relationship between civilizations; he singled out eight civilizations in the modern world, between which various relations develop - Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Orthodox-Slavic, Latin American and African. Especially important are the results of contacts between Western, Orthodox and Islamic civilizations. On the world map, Huntington drew "fault lines" between civilizations, along which two types of civilizational conflicts arise: at the micro level, the struggle of groups for land and power; at the macro level - the rivalry of countries representing different civilizations for influence in the military and economic spheres, for control over markets and international organizations.

Conflicts between civilizations are caused by civilizational differences (in history, language, religion, traditions), more fundamental than differences between states (nations). At the same time, the interaction of civilizations has led to the growth of civilizational self-awareness, the desire to preserve their own values, and this, in turn, increases the conflict in relations between them. Huntington notes that although at a superficial level much of Western civilization is characteristic of the rest of the world, this does not happen at a deep level because of the too great difference in the value orientations of different civilizations. Thus, in Islamic, Confucian, Japanese, Hindu and Orthodox cultures, such Western ideas as individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality, freedom, the rule of law, democracy, free market almost do not find a response. Attempts to forcefully impose these values cause a sharp negative reaction and lead to the strengthening of the values of their culture.

culture spiritual dialogue society

The whole history of mankind is a dialogue. Dialogue permeates our whole life. In its reality, it is a means of implementing communication links, a condition for mutual understanding of people. The interaction of cultures, their dialogue is the most favorable basis for the development of interethnic, interethnic relations. And vice versa, when there is inter-ethnic tension in a society, and even more so, inter-ethnic conflicts, then the dialogue between cultures is difficult, the interaction of cultures can be limited in the field of inter-ethnic tension of these peoples, carriers of these cultures. The processes of interaction of cultures are more complex than it was once naively believed that there is a simple “pumping” of the achievements of a highly developed culture into a less developed one, which in turn logically led to conclusions about the interaction of cultures as a source of progress. Now the question of the boundaries of culture, its core and periphery is being actively explored.

Dialogue presupposes active interaction of equal subjects. The interaction of cultures and civilizations also implies some common cultural values. The dialogue of cultures can act as a reconciling factor that prevents the emergence of wars and conflicts. It can relieve tension, create an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. The concept of dialogue is especially relevant for modern culture. The process of interaction itself is a dialogue, and the forms of interaction represent various types of dialogical relations. The idea of dialogue has its development in the deep past. The ancient texts of Indian culture are filled with the idea of the unity of cultures and peoples, macro- and microcosmos, thoughts that human health largely depends on the quality of its relationship with the environment, on the consciousness of the power of beauty, understanding as a reflection of the Universe in our being.

1) cultural-direct, when cultures interact with each other through communication at the language level.
2) Indirect, when the main characteristics of the interaction are its dialogical nature, while the dialogue is included within the culture, as part of its own structures.

Foreign cultural content occupies a dual position - both as “foreign” and as “own”. Thus, the mutual influence and interpenetration of cultures is the result of indirect interaction, the dialogue of culture with itself, as a dialogue of “own” and “foreign” (having a dual nature). The essence of dialogue lies in the productive interaction of sovereign positions that make up a single and diverse semantic space and a common culture. The main thing that distinguishes dialogue from monologue is the desire to understand the relationship of various views, ideas, phenomena, social forces.

The methodology of the interaction of cultures, in particular, the dialogue of cultures, was developed in the works of M. Bakhtin. Dialogue according to M. Bakhtin is a mutual understanding of those involved in this process, and at the same time, the preservation of one's opinion, one's own in another (merging with him) and maintaining distance (one's place). Dialogue is always development, interaction. It is always a union, not a decomposition. Dialogue is an indicator of the general culture of society. According to M. Bakhtin, each culture lives only in questioning another culture, that great phenomena in culture are born only in the dialogue of different cultures, only at the point of their intersection. The ability of one culture to master the achievements of another is one of the sources of its vital activity. Imitation of a foreign culture or complete rejection of it must give way to dialogue. For both sides, the dialogue between the two cultures can be fruitful.

Interest is the beginning of a dialogue. The dialogue of cultures is the need for interaction, mutual assistance, mutual enrichment. The dialogue of cultures acts as an objective necessity and condition for the development of cultures. Mutual understanding is assumed in the dialogue of cultures. And in mutual understanding, unity, similarity, identity are assumed. That is, the dialogue of cultures is possible only on the basis of mutual understanding, but at the same time - only on the basis of the individual in each culture. And the common thing that unites all human cultures is their sociality, i.e. human and human. There is no single world culture, but there is a unity of all human cultures, which ensures the “complex unity of all mankind” - the humanistic principle.

The influence of one culture on another is realized only if the necessary conditions for such influence exist. The dialogue of two cultures is possible only with a certain convergence of their cultural codes, the presence or emergence of a common mentality. The dialogue of cultures is the penetration into the value system of a particular culture, respect for them, overcoming stereotypes, synthesis of original and other national, leading to mutual enrichment and entry into the global cultural context. In the dialogue of cultures, it is important to see the universal human values of interacting cultures. One of the main objective contradictions inherent in the cultures of all peoples of the world is the contradiction between the development of national cultures and their convergence. Therefore, the need for a dialogue of cultures is a condition for the self-preservation of mankind. And the formation of spiritual unity is the result of the dialogue of modern cultures.

The dialogue of cultures has centuries-old experience in Russia. The interaction of cultures took place in different areas with varying degrees of intensity. So correspondence can be considered as a factor of mutual influence of cultures. A letter can be called a socio-cultural slice of reality, passed through the prism of perception of an individual. Since an important element of culture at all times was the culture of human communication, one of the forms of its implementation was correspondence. Correspondence is the dialogue that reflects the mentality and value system of territorially limited societies, but is also a means of their interaction. It was writing that became one of the most important in the formation of a common European cultural environment and a conductor of its reverse influence on national figures. Translation is not just an intermediary, but in itself an essential component of cultural interchange.

The dialogue of cultures has been and remains the main thing in the development of mankind. For centuries and millennia there has been a mutual enrichment of cultures, which formed a unique mosaic of human civilization. The process of interaction, dialogue of cultures is complex and uneven. Because not all structures, elements of national culture are active for the assimilation of accumulated creative values. The most active process of the dialogue of cultures takes place during the assimilation of artistic values close to one or another type of national thinking. Of course, much depends on the correlation of stages in the development of culture, on accumulated experience. Within each national culture, various components of culture develop differentially.

The dialogue of cultures is most fruitful in conjunction with the dialogue of religions. In Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church has been engaged in an active dialogue with all people of good will for several decades. Now such a dialogue has stalled, and if it is being conducted, it is rather due to inertia. Dialogue between representatives of different faiths today is a dialogue of the deaf. The dialogue of cultures is important in Russia and not only in the conditions of a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country, with an abundance of various cultural and religious differences. The interaction of cultures today is largely political in nature, as it is associated with one of the few ways to relieve interethnic tension without the use of military force, as well as a way to consolidate society.

The dialogue of cultures leads to a deepening of cultural self-development, to mutual enrichment through a different cultural experience both within certain cultures and on the scale of world culture. The need for a dialogue of cultures as a condition for the self-preservation of mankind. Interaction, dialogue of cultures in the modern world is a complex and perhaps sometimes painful process. It is necessary to ensure optimal interaction, a dialogue of peoples and cultures in the interests of each of the parties to this interaction and in the interests of society, the state, and the world community.

Thus, after all the above, we can sum up.

Dialogue among civilizations is a process within and across civilizations that is based on inclusiveness and a collective desire to learn, discover and explore concepts, identify areas of common understanding and core values, and bring different approaches together through dialogue. .

Dialogue among civilizations is a process aimed at achieving, inter alia, the following goals:

· promotion of universal participation, equity, equity, fairness and tolerance in human relations;
· strengthening mutual understanding and mutual respect through interaction between civilizations;
· mutual enrichment and development of knowledge, as well as understanding of the wealth and wisdom of all civilizations;
• identifying and promoting what unites civilizations in order to eliminate common threats to common values, universal human rights and the achievements of human society in various fields;
· the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and the achievement of a greater common understanding of human rights;
· promoting a deeper understanding of common ethical standards and universal human values;
· Ensuring a higher degree of respect for cultural diversity and cultural heritage.