Functions of the dialogue of cultures. The concept of dialogue of cultures. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

the totality of direct relations and connections that develop between different K., as well as their results, mutual changes that arise in the course of these relations. D.K. - one of the most significant forms of cultural communication for cultural dynamics. In the process of D.K. there are changes in cultural patterns - forms of social organization and models of social action, value systems and types of worldview, the formation of new forms of cultural creativity and lifestyle. This is the fundamental difference between D.K. from simple forms of economic, cultural or political cooperation that do not involve significant transformations of each of the parties.

The following levels of DK can be distinguished: a) personal, associated with the formation or transformation of the human personality under the influence of various "external" cultural traditions in relation to its natural cultural environment; b) ethnic, characteristic of relations between various local social communities, often within a single society; c) interethnic, associated with the diverse interaction of various state-political formations and their political elites; d) civilizational, based on the meeting of fundamentally different types of sociality, value systems and forms of cultural creation. D.K. at this level, it is the most dramatic, since it contributes to the "erosion" of traditional forms of cultural identity and, at the same time, is extremely productive in terms of innovation, creating a unique field of cross-cultural experiments. In addition, D.K. It is also possible as an interaction of the actual type of culture with its own historically established cultural tradition. The post-Soviet path of Belarus and Russia in comparison with the similar development of the former socialist states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) is the best confirmation of the significance of the influence of cultural tradition (or cultural inertia) on the development of society, especially at critical stages. In everyday practice, DK, as a rule, is simultaneously implemented at all these levels. It should also be noted that the real D.K. involves the participation of not two, but significantly more participants. This is due to the fundamental ethnic and cultural heterogeneity of any modern society, which inevitably involves people in D.K. both large and small nations, as well as various "fragments" of other ethnic groups, forming a kind of "cultural reservations". Participants D.K. initially they are in an unequal position, which is due not only to the difference in basic values, but also to the level of development of each culture, as well as the degree of its dynamism, demographic and geographical factors. A more numerous and active cultural community in the process of D. will be much more influential than a small ethnic group. In the modern theory of K., it is customary to distinguish in the process of D.K.: K.-donor (which gives more than it receives) and K.-recipient (which acts as the receiving party). Over historically long periods of time, these roles can change depending on the pace and trends of development of each of the participants in the DC. The forms and principles of cooperative interaction also differ—both peaceful, voluntary methods of interaction (most often involving partner, mutually beneficial cooperation) and coercive, colonial-military types (suggesting the implementation of one’s own tasks at the expense of the opposite side).

One of the forms of D.K. are international relations. In addition to various international organizations such as the UN or UNESCO, a system of social institutions and mechanisms within China itself is widely used for interstate cultural interaction. In these cases, borrowed cultural patterns become motivations for various forms of "local" social action. For example, the real expression of D.K. may become a policy of modernization or, on the contrary, a resuscitation of authoritarian (traditional) forms of social structure, a change of course in the state national and cultural policy using foreign "blanks", trends in the development of local government structures, an increase or reduction in the number of public (including cultural-national ) associations and social initiatives. In each specific case, D.K. there are several stages or stages. The starting point here is considered to be the stage of "culture shock" or "zero" degree of compatibility of languages, behavioral scenarios and traditions of various participants in D.C. Further development of D.K. is determined by the specific features of each type of K., their status in the process of a particular intercultural contact ("aggressor" or "victim", "winner" or "defeated", "traditionalist" or "innovator", "honest partner" or "cynical pragmatist" ), the degree of compatibility of their basic values and current interests, the ability to take into account the interests of the other side. Based on the above, D.K. can take place both in constructive and productive, and in conflict forms. V last case culture shock develops into a cultural conflict - a critical stage of confrontation between the worldview attitudes of various individuals, social groups, individuals and groups, individuals and society, cultural minorities and society as a whole, various societies or their coalitions. The cultural conflict is based on the fundamental incompatibility of the languages of different cultures. The combination of the incompatible creates a "semantic earthquake" that disrupts not only the course of intercultural communication, but also the normal existence of each of the participants in the culture. Practical forms of cultural conflict can have a different scale and nature: from a private quarrel to interstate confrontation (the situation of the "cold war") and coalition wars. Typical examples of the largest and most violent cultural conflicts are religious and civil wars, revolutionary and national liberation movements, genocide and " cultural revolutions", forcible conversion to the "true" faith and the extermination of the national intelligentsia, the political persecution of "dissenters", etc. Cultural conflicts, as a rule, are particularly bitter and uncompromising, and in the case of the use of force, they pursue the goals not so much of subjugation as of physical destruction carriers of alien values. People are driven not by common sense, but by a deep psychological infection with a specific type of cultural product, fixed at the level of pre-rational conviction in their own rightness. The most real and effective way out of a cultural conflict is not to bring it to a head. Prevention of cultural conflicts is possible only on the basis of the education of non-dogmatic consciousness, for which the idea of cultural polymorphism (the fundamental ambiguity of the K. space and the fundamental impossibility of the "only true" cultural canon) will be natural and obvious. The path to the "cultural world" is in the rejection of the monopoly on truth and aspirations to forcibly bring the world to a consensus. Overcoming the "epoch of cultural conflicts" will become possible to the extent that social violence in all its manifestations is no longer considered as a lever of history.

1) the situation of the collision of "cultures of thinking, various forms of understanding" that are fundamentally irreducible to each other (Bibler V.S. From science teaching to the logic of culture. - M., 1998); 2) a kind of intercultural interaction, which involves an active exchange of the content of counterparty cultures while maintaining their identity. In social and cognitive terms, D.K. involves a wide range of issues, mostly of a secondary nature, on which, within the boundaries of each culture, the "opinion" of the counterparty culture is actively studied, its own parallels and analogues are sought and developed; the exchange takes place at the level of peripheral interpretations, without affecting the nuclear cognitive structures of counterparty cultures, which retain their structure and content. In social terms, it implies the presence of more or less wide "intermediate" layers, attributable to the subjects of both one and another culture.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

DIALOGUE OF CULTURES

a concept that has received wide circulation in philosophical journalism and essayism of the 20th century. Most often it is understood as the interaction, 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 teaching of science. The idea of 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 a culture filmed in the forms of the existence of science, which is typical for a well-defined culture-culture of modern times. However, in reality, culture is built and “developed” in a completely different way, so that science itself can be seen on the contrary, as an element of an integral culture.

There is an area that does not fit into the scheme of development - this is art. 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 contemporary art. In art, "earlier" and "later" are simultaneous. It is not the "ascension" scheme that operates here, but the composition dramatic work. With the appearance on the stage of a new "character" - works, author, style, era, the old ones do not leave the stage. Each new character reveals new qualities and inner intentions in characters who have previously entered the scene. In addition to space, a work of art implies another dimension of its existence: an active relationship between the author and the reader (viewer, listener). A work of art addressed to a possible reader is a work of dialogue through the centuries - the author's answer to an imaginary reader and his question to him as an accomplice of human existence. By 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. The unchanging work contains the event of communication performed in a new way each time. Culture is the form in which historical existence Man does not disappear along with the civilization that gave birth to him, but remains filled with a universal and inexhaustible meaning of the experience of being a man. 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 clear case of the 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 phenomenon is revealed in the sphere of morality: in the internal dialogic clash, moral vicissitudes are conjugated, concentrated in different images cultures: the hero of antiquity, the passion-bearer of the Middle Ages, the author of his biography in modern times ... Moral self-consciousness requires the inclusion in the personal conscience of the ultimate questions of the existence of people of other cultures. In the same vein of culture, it is necessary to understand the development of 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.), with respect to which equal competence of Zeno, Aristotle, Leibniz is allowed.

All these phenomena acquire meaning only as elements of 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 dialogue. 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 a form of 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 object of 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, a person removes ready-made schemes of communication, understanding, ethical decision that have grown together with his existence, concentrates at the beginning of being and thought, where all the certainties of the world are only still possible, where the possibility of other principles, other definitions of thought and being opens up. 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 world, 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 itself is 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 eidos - the “number” of the Pythagoreans, the “atom” of Democritus, the “idea” of Plato, the “form” of Aristotle, but also the fate of tragic poets, a statue, a character ... Thus, 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 the existence of one - dominant - work, which makes it possible to understand the diversity of works as an architectonic whole. 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 catharsis. 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 peripetia both theological, and proper cult, and handicraft, and guild ... definitions of medieval civilization as culture.

(5) Culture as the basis of dialogue presupposes some kind of internal anxiety of civilization, fear for its disappearance, as if an internal exclamation “save our souls”, addressed to future people. Culture, therefore, is formed as a kind of request to the future and the past, as an appeal to everyone who hears, is associated 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 single multi-act work, then culture thereby pushes its Author beyond the limits of proper cultural definitions. The subject who creates culture and the subject who understands it from the outside stand, as it were, behind the walls of culture, comprehending it logically as a possibility at points where it does not yet exist or already does not exist. ancient culture, medieval culture, Eastern culture is historically present, but at the moment of entering 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 a dispute of self-importance of wealthy civilizations, but a conversation of different cultures in doubt about their own abilities 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 the logic of meaning. In the dispute between the beginning of one logic of a (possible) culture and the beginning of another logic, the inexhaustible meaning of each culture is endlessly developed and transformed.

(2) The schematism of the dialogue of cultures (as a logical form) also implies the ambivalence of a given culture, its non-coincidence with itself, doubtfulness (Possibility) for itself. The logic of the dialogue of cultures is the logic of doubt.

(3) Dialogue of cultures - a dialogue not of present, historical data and cultures fixed in this reality, but - a dialogue of the possibilities of being a culture. The logic of such a dialogue is the logic of transduction, the logic of (a) the transformation of one logical world into another logical world of an equal degree of generality, and (b) the logic of the mutual substantiation of these logical worlds at their point of origin. The point of transduction is a proper logical moment in which dialogizing logics arise in their logical determination, 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 existence of cultures (ontology of 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 existence of subjects co-authoring in the discovery of the riddle of being. "Dialogue of cultures" is not a concept not of abstract cultural studies, but of philosophy striving 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 a 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, and morality. 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 experiences of beginning - to see, hear, speak, understand, - be; the history of 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.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

culture spiritual dialogue society

The whole history of mankind is a dialogue. Dialogue permeates our whole life. It is, in fact, the means by which communication links, a condition of 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 are different kinds dialogic relationships. The idea of dialogue has its development in the deep past. The ancient texts of the culture of India are filled with the idea of the unity of cultures and peoples, the macro- and microcosm, reflections that a person's health largely depends on the quality of his relationship with environment, from 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 common culture 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. Dialogue between two cultures is possible only if their cultural codes are brought closer together, if a common mentality exists or emerges. 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 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 a mediator, 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 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 achievements human society in different areas;
· 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.

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 removing political tensions 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). 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.

The problems of dialogue were dealt with by ancient Greek philosophers - sophists, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, philosophers of the Hellenistic era. The dialogue space was created by them on the basis of spiritual culture, based on the recognition of pluralism of opinions, equality of points of view, recognition of universal principles, freedom and value of the individual and society as a whole. In the Middle Ages, dialogue was used primarily for moral purposes. Abelard's philosophical treatise Yes and No (1122) is internally dialogical. And in his other work “Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew and a Christian”, he anticipated not only the dialogue of confessions, but also the dialogue of cultures.

Although dialogue, as a form of interpersonal communication, has existed since very ancient times, the German philosophers I. Kant, I. Fichte, F. Schelling really took up the problems of dialogical relations about 200 years ago, when they dealt with the problems of the subject and its cognitive capabilities, subjective and intersubjective relations. Further, developing Fichte's ideas about the otherness and interdependence of the "I" and the "other", L. Feuerbach gives rise to the study of the dialogue of the beginning of the 20th century. 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, and rightly so, the changes should not affect the "core" of culture. Modern cultures are formed as a result of numerous and long cultural interactions. In historical terms, the appeal to dialogue is always evidence of a change in the scientific paradigm. The emergence of dialogue in antiquity was an indicator that the mythical consciousness was swept away by the philosophical-discursive, critical consciousness. Renaissance dialogues show that a new paradigm is being formed, a new type of consciousness. 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. new culture communication. The thinking and being of another person is not only deepened in each of us, it is a different thinking, a different consciousness, internally vital for our being” (2, p. 80). In the modern world, the dialogue of cultures has become more complicated due to a complex of circumstances. 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 becomes 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 infinite communication and, consequently, into an endless rethinking of what he himself is. This process forms that “direct” perspective human history” (3, c.76, 78).

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. And the purity of dialogue is a matter of conscience. Genuine dialogue is always freedom of thought, looseness of judgment, intuition. Dialogue is like a pendulum, which, if deflected, then the dialogue moves. The Apostle Paul said: “There must be differences of opinion, so that the most skillful among you will be revealed” (1 Cor. 11:19). 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. In an ideal dialogue, all interlocutors listen to the voice from above, to the voice of conscience, to the truth of the whole. If the truth of the whole does not add up, then this indicates a dialogue of the deaf, that is, this is a pseudo-dialogue or its absence.

(mospagebreak) The complexity and multidimensionality of the dialogue provides inexhaustible opportunities for its study. At the beginning of the 20th century, M. Buber, F. Gogarten, F. Rosenzweig, O. Rosenstock-Hussy, G. Cohen, F. Ebner and others dealt with this problem. Martin Buber is considered a classic of dialogue theory. His work on the dialogue “Me and You” was published in Russian only in 1993. The central idea of M. Buber's philosophy is being as a dialogue between God and man, man and the world. Dialogue is constructive and saving when it is carried out through God, his commandments about morality and love. It is in this dialogue that the vitality of God himself is revealed. The starting point of M. Buber's concept is the dialogic principle. A person acquires his own essence only by absorbing the universal, correlating himself with other people.

Dialogue problems were studied in sociolinguistics (L. Shcherba, L. Yakubinsky), literary and philosophical hermeneutics (H. Gadamer), phenomenology (H. Husserl, M. Mamardashvili), fundamental ontology (M. Heidegger), literary criticism and semiotics (A. Averintsev, M. Bakhtin, M. Lakshin, Yu. Lotman), in the basics of communication (A. Mol, V. Borev), etc. The interaction of cultures was studied by K. Levi-Strauss, G. Hershkovets, S. Artanovsky, S. Arutyunov, B. Erasov, L. Ionin, N. Ikonnikova and others. Intercultural communication develops as the subject intersections are built by the activity of the language. According to H. Gadamer, dialogue is a kind of application of one's own and another's.

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.

The possibility of a philosophical dialogue is the possibility of different-quality interpretations of philosophical paradigms. Dialogue is the totality of interactions through which a family of thinkers is formed. The philosopher, collecting bit by bit someone else's, recreates the true image. J. Ortega y Gasset also emphasized this feature, saying that the entire string of philosophers acts as a single philosopher who has lived, as it were, for two and a half thousand years. The dialogue that implies the idea of culture and is implied by the idea of culture is, in principle, inexhaustible. “Dialogue is only dialogue when it can be carried out as an endless deployment and formation of ever new styles of each cultural phenomenon entering into a dialogue. In the course of a complex, multi-layered dialogue of cultures, universal values are formed” (5, p. 141).

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)” (6, p. 43).

(mospagebreak) 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 mutual understanding of those participating in this process, and at the same time preserving one's opinion, one's own in another (merging with him) and maintaining distance (one's place)” (7, p.430). 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 the question of 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 only in the eyes of another culture reveals itself more fully and deeper.... 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 and mix, but they are mutually enriched” (7, p. 354). 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. “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).

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. “The mutual understanding of centuries and millennia, peoples, nations and cultures ensures the complex unity of all mankind, all human cultures (the complex unity of human culture), the complex unity of human literature” (ibid...p.390). 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.

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. “All culture is located on the borders, the border passes everywhere, through every moment of it ... cultural life is reflected in every drop” (7, p. 25). In the article “On the aesthetics of the word”, M. Bakhtin states: “Each cultural act essentially lives on the borders: this is its seriousness and significance; distracted from the boundaries, he loses ground, becomes empty, arrogant, degenerates and dies” (p. 266). Consequently, the boundaries not only separate, but also unite, revealing semantic integrity. Both 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 dialogical: 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. dual nature Russian culture allows it to be an intermediary 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” (7, c.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."

(mospagebreak)B. Sagatovsky singles out the fourth possible consequence of the failed dialogue: “an agreement could not be reached, the positions turned out to be incompatible, fundamental interests were affected, and 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 idea of a dialogue of cultures is based on the priority of universal human values. Culture does not tolerate like-mindedness and like-mindedness, it is dialogic in nature and essence. It is known that K. Levi-Strauss has always resolutely opposed everything that can lead to the destruction of differences between people, between cultures, violate their diversity and uniqueness. He was for the preservation unique features each individual culture. Lévi-Strauss, in Race and Culture (1983), argues that "...integral communication with another culture kills...creative originality on both sides." Dialogue is the most important methodological principle of understanding culture. Through dialogue to knowledge. The essential characteristics of culture are manifested in dialogue. In a broader sense, dialogue can also be viewed as a property of the historical process. Dialogue is a universal principle that ensures the self-development of culture. All cultural and historical phenomena are products of interaction and communication. In the course of the dialogue of people and cultures, the formation of linguistic forms took place, creative thought developed. Dialogue takes place in space and time, permeates cultures vertically and horizontally.

In the fact of culture there is the being of man and his practice. Everything. There is nothing more. A meeting between civilizations is always, in essence, a meeting between different types of spirituality or even different realities. A full meeting implies a dialogue. To enter into a worthy dialogue with representatives of non-European cultures, it is necessary to know and understand these cultures. According to Mircea Eliade, “sooner or later, the dialogue with the ‘others’ – with representatives of traditional, Asian and ‘primitive’ cultures – will no longer have to begin in today’s empirical and utilitarian language (which can only express social, economic, political, medical realities, etc.), but in the language of culture, capable of expressing human realities and spiritual values. Such a dialogue is inevitable; he is inscribed in the fate of History. It would be tragic naivety to believe that it can be carried on indefinitely on the mental level, as it is happening now” (10, p.16).

According to Huntington, the diversity of cultures initially implies their isolation and requires dialogue. Local cultural isolation can be opened through dialogue with another culture through philosophy. Through philosophy, the universal penetrates into the dialogue of cultures, creating a chance for each culture to delegate its best achievements to the universal fund. Culture is the property of all mankind, as a historical result of the interaction of peoples. Dialogue is a true form of interethnic communication, which implies both the mutual enrichment of national cultures and the preservation of their identity. Human culture is like a tree with many branches. The culture of the people can flourish only when the common human culture flourishes. Therefore, taking care of the national, ethnic culture, one should be very concerned about the level of human culture, which is united and diverse. United - in the sense of including the diversity of historical and national cultures. Each national culture is original and unique. Her contribution to the universal cultural fund is unique and unrepeatable. The core of each culture is its ideal. The historical process of the formation and development of culture cannot be correctly understood without taking into account the interaction, mutual influence, and mutual enrichment of cultures.

Interaction is one of the important driving forces in the development of national cultures. It becomes the basis for a specific reflection of objective reality, reality. Spiritual culture, reflecting and mastering the concrete reality, thereby comprehends the inner meaning of the phenomena of life. The reflection of life is the basis of the interaction of cultures. Without interaction with other cultures, a fully-fledged national culture cannot exist. Isolation of one culture from neighboring near and far always affects negatively one's own national dignity and national prestige. Interaction leads to the multiplication of experience not only of one's own national culture, but also of other cultures, shows the possibility of endless and inexhaustible knowledge and artistic embodiment of reality. Interaction directs and promotes the implementation of the artist's creative searches, it is not only a condition for the manifestation of talent, but also a condition for its formation.

In the Philosophical Encyclopedia, interaction is defined as “a general form of connection and phenomena, realized in their mutual change” (p. 250). In 1987, A. Derevyanchenko's dissertation research “Methodological problems of studying the interaction of cultures” was published. The author considers interaction, dialogue as a way of culture development. Interaction is an exchange process. An important work on this topic is the monograph by S. Arutyunov “Peoples and Cultures. Development and interaction.” M., 1989. Here the author conducts a detailed analysis of interactions through the prism of considering the density of the information network of each particular culture: the “dense” this network, the longer the culture “remembers” about the innovation and identifies it as an innovation. In 1991, a collective monograph by S. Larchenko and S. Eremin “Intercultural interaction in the historical process” was published in Novosibirsk - a major work on the topic of interaction between cultures.

(mospagebreak)B. Shapinsky proposes to use the theory of marginality in culture put forward by Deleuze and Guattery, when interaction takes place precisely in marginal areas common to all cultures. In this paradigm - the identification of the general and the particular in individual original cultures - lies the main direction of researchers of the problem of interaction of cultures in modern science. Otherwise, this problem is interpreted as revealing the core and periphery of culture.

If until the end of the 80s the main trend in the interaction of cultures was the desire for their synthesis, then since the 90s the pluralism of cultures, the recognition of the real diversity of cultural and historical systems and the dialogic principles of their interaction, have prevailed. But the concept of ethno-pluralism takes into account the interests and rights of peoples as ethno-cultural communities, and not individuals, as is typical of the liberal approach. In general, the processes of interaction between cultures are more complex than previously understood, when it was believed that there was a direct “pumping” of the achievements of a highly developed culture into a less developed one, which logically led to the conclusion 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.

S. Larchenko and S. Eremin divide all interactions into three types: 1. direct intercultural interactions; 2. interaction mediation; 3.interactions of social organisms at different stages of formational development. Hence the conclusion that it is not the socio-economic foundations that underlie the uniqueness of cultures, their features must be sought not outside, but within cultures, exploring the processes of their formation and functioning (11, p. 164). N. Konovalova in her dissertation research “Dialogue between East and West as a creative commensuration of cultures (historical and methodological analysis) believes that socio-cultural foundations always underlie interpersonal interaction. Intercultural interactions cannot proceed otherwise than through the interaction of individual worldviews. A. Ablazhey in his dissertation “Methodological analysis of the problem of interaction of cultures, defended in 1994 in Novosibirsk, makes the following conclusion. Intercultural interactions are possible, but they are not of a natural nature from the point of view of the source of development of a particular culture. The mechanism of interaction is complex, multilevel. The possibility of contacts and interactions between cultures is associated with the unity of their structure, when mythology, language, religion, art, and science play the main role in the field of rapprochement of culture. Now researchers of different sciences have begun to actively deal with the problems of the dialogue of cultures.

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 actual, state of the art 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 more and more clearly recognized, 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 rooted in the deep layers. 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 "backward in culturally” 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 generally. Any national cultures express the universal human content. Thus, the necessity and possibility of interaction, dialogue of cultures is theoretically substantiated.

(mospagebreak) 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.

Mutual enrichment of national cultures in terms of the perception of other national values occurs at an unequal level. In one case, the supposed foreign work of culture is perceived as foreign and does not become a factor in national consciousness, self-consciousness, and is not included in the value system of the spiritual world of the individual. At a higher level of mutual enrichment of national cultures, it is not limited to simply acquaintance with a foreign work of art, but the creation of a new one takes place on the basis of the actual national and the knowledge of the foreign. In such cases, foreign values enter into national self-consciousness, enrich spiritual world personality.

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.

Unlike perception, which is of a one-time nature, development is a longer process and can last for centuries. In the process of perception and assimilation of the foreign, the spiritual content of the cultural environment of the nation is of great importance. Without sensory cognition, the very process of assimilation of cultural values is impossible. At one time, V. Belinsky said that the secret of the nationality of every nation lies not in its clothes and cuisine, but in its, so to speak, manner of understanding, perceiving things.

In the process of perception and assimilation of the values of national cultures, a stereotype is important, which is formed under the influence of public opinion, the media, etc. The content of the stereotype is socially conditioned. A stereotype is a kind of emotional and evaluative formation, closely related to the will, thinking, consciousness as a rational element of the stereotype. There are false and true stereotypes. A false stereotype is easier to assimilate by a person, because it is based on the reflection of the external catchy aspects of national-cultural relations that cause a violent emotional reaction and experience. True stereotypes are formed with the participation of logical thinking and reflect the objective content of reality. The surface of ideas, the lack of basic knowledge about the subject, the substitution of the main characteristics, features, secondary ones, the distortion of the essence of phenomena - the basis for the development of false stereotypes.

The process of influence of national cultures 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.

The reflection of humanitarian knowledge has a dialogic nature. A person enters into a dialogue not only with another person. He enters into a dialogic relationship with himself as with an “other”, turning his consciousness not only to himself, but also to himself. Comparing his consciousness with the consciousness of the “other” in the dialogue, a person cognizes himself as “the other” and “the other” as himself, which determines the self-development of the consciousness of the individual and ensures its cultural elevation. The dialogue of cultures is realized in the individual thought process as a dialogue of individuals. Learning a language is a better understanding of another culture. Often a hidden need to satisfy general cultural interests when learning a language leads to the development of new motives that are directly related to the content of education: knowledge of the culture of another people in its broadest sense through the language. Influence must be seen as a creative process in which the heritage of others becomes an integral part of one's own spiritual experience. Influence is rarely random and ultimately depends on consumers, oncoming movements.

(mospagebreak)M. Bakhtin outlined a new methodology for humanitarian knowledge, affirmed the central importance of dialogue in culture, the polyphony of cultures, and contributed to the emergence of a number of researchers in the dialogue of cultures (A. Batkin, G. Biryukova, M. Kagan, V. Maklin, N. Perlina and others). A “school of dialogue of cultures” appeared (V. Bibler). In the works of V. Bibler, the topic of dialogue is interpreted as a dialogic attitude towards the interaction of opposites. The communicative ethics of Habermas assumed that truth is born in dialogue, which turns out to be the basis of understanding.

Until recently, the dialogue was given a predominantly literary-philosophical form. But as a philosophical term "dialogue" began to stand out only very recently. In the Newest Philosophical Dictionary, published in Minsk in 1999, dialogue is understood as “...informative and existential interaction between the communicating parties, through which understanding occurs” (12, pp. 9-10) G. Biryukova in her dissertation research “Dialogue : socio-philosophical analysis” gives the following definition: “Dialogue is a self-adjusting adaptive system of communication, where the phenomenon of “space of communicative correlation” arises and, therefore, understanding itself arises ... dialogue is a way for individuals to clarify and understand the ideas of the common good with the goal of ensuring joint conditions for self-realization” (p.9-10).

No nation can exist and develop in isolation from its neighbors. The closest communication between neighboring ethnicities takes place at the junction of ethnic territories, where ethno-cultural ties acquire the greatest intensity. Contacts between peoples have always been a powerful stimulus for the historical process. Since the formation of the first ethnic communities of antiquity, the main centers of the development of human culture have been at ethnic crossroads - zones where the traditions of different peoples collided and were mutually enriched. The dialogue of cultures is interethnic, international contacts. The dialogue of neighboring cultures is an important factor in the regulation of interethnic relations. The interaction of cultures is an ancient historical process, the vectors of which can also have opposite directions. The first direction is characterized by interpenetration, integration, during which the foundation is formed for resolving any conflict through dialogue. In the second direction, one culture dominates the other, processes of forced assimilation are taking place, which in the future may provoke ethnic conflict. In the process of interaction of several cultures, the possibility of a comparative assessment of achievements, their value and the likelihood of borrowing arises. The nature of the interaction of cultures of peoples is influenced not only by the level of development of each of them, but also specifically by socio-historical conditions, as well as by the behavioral aspect, based on the possible inadequacy of the position of representatives of each of the interacting cultures.

The dialogue of cultures has a centuries-old experience in Russia and can teach a lot .... The general direction of the evolution of intercultural relations appears as the activation of interaction, the expansion and deepening of mutual perception. 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 a mediator, but in itself an essential component of cultural interchange.

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. Explanations of prominent Russian theologians Orthodox Church that the task of the ecumenical movement is not the creation of some kind of uniform church failed to dispel the negative attitude towards ecumenism, which spread in the post-perestroika years under the influence of fundamentalist radicals. Dialogue between representatives of different faiths today is a dialogue of the deaf. The ecumenical dialogue does not reach its goal; as a result, the inter-Christian dialogue turned out to be practically frozen. 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.

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 differences in ideas, customs, cultural traditions inherent in different nations, 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.

The depth of the dialogue is largely determined by the interest of creative individuals, the possibility of satisfying their requests. The main way for the development of intercultural contacts is informal contacts, because when functionaries meet, representing certain organizations as carriers of administrative principles, in fact, cultural contact does not occur. It is important to expand informal contacts. 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.

(mospagebreak) Literature:

1. Saiko E.V. On the nature and space of the "action" of the dialogue // Socio-cultural space of dialogue. - M., 1999. -S.9 - 32.

2. Vostryakova Yu.V. Problems of cognition in the dialogue space of modern culture // Philosophical and methodological problems of science and technology. - Samara, 1998. - S. 78 - 81.

3. Gordienko A.A. Anthropological and culturological prerequisites for the co-evolution of man and nature: a philosophical and anthropological model of co-evolutionary development. - Novosibirsk, 1998.

4. Nikitin V. From the dialogue of confessions to the dialogue of cultures // Russian Thought. Paris, 2000. February 3-9.

5. Ivanova S.Yu. To the question of ethno-cultural interaction // The North Caucasus in the context of globalization. - Rostov-on-Don, 2001. - P. 140 - 144.

6. Artanovsky S.N. The historical unity of mankind and the mutual influence of cultures. Philosophical and methodological analysis of modern foreign concepts. - Leningrad, 1967.

7. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M., 1986.

8. Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. - M., 1972.

9. Sagatovsky V.N. Dialogue of cultures and the “Russian idea” // Revival of Russian culture. Dialogue of cultures and international relations. Issue. 4. - St. Petersburg, 1996.

10. Mircea Eliade Mephistopheles and androgyne. Translation from French. SPb.: "Aleteyya", 1998. -p.16).

11. Larchenko S.G. Social determinations of ethnocultural development. - Novosibirsk, 1999.

12. Philosophical dictionary. - Minsk, 1999.

13. Yatsenko E. East and West: interaction of cultures // Culture in the modern world: experience. Problems. solutions. Issue. 1. - M., 1999. - S. 32 - 37.

14. Lapshin A.G. International cooperation in the field of liberal arts education: the perspective of cross-cultural literacy // Cross-cultural dialogue: comparative studies in pedagogy and psychology. Sat. Art. - Vladimir, 1999. - S. 45 - 50.

Among all concepts that are difficult to understand, everything related to “culture” is probably the most incomprehensible for the guys who will take the test. And the dialogue of cultures, especially when it is required to give examples of such a dialogue, generally causes stupor and shock in many. In this article, we will analyze this concept in a clear and accessible way so that you do not experience a stupor in the exam.

Definition

Dialogue of cultures- means such interaction between carriers of different values, in which some values become the property of representatives of another.

In this case, the carrier is usually a person, a person who has grown up within the framework of this value system. Intercultural interaction can take place on different levels, using different tools.

The simplest such dialogue is when you, a Russian, communicate with a person who grew up in Germany, England, the USA or Japan. If you have a common language of communication, then you, realizing or not, will broadcast the values of the culture in which you yourself grew up. For example, by asking a foreigner if they have street slang in their country, you can learn a lot about the street culture of another country, and compare it with yours.

Art can serve as another interesting channel of intercultural communication. For example, when you watch any Hollywood family or any other movie in general, it may seem strange to you (even in dubbing) when, for example, the mother of the family says to the father: “Mike! Why didn't you take your son to the baseball weekend?! You promised!". At the same time, the father of the family blushes, turns pale, and generally behaves very strangely from our point of view. After all, the Russian father will simply say: “It didn’t grow together!” or “We are not like that, life is like that” - and he will go home about his business.

This seemingly minor situation shows how seriously they take promises (read your own words) in a foreign country and in ours. By the way, if you do not agree, write in the comments with what exactly.

Also, any form of mass interaction will be examples of such a dialogue.

Levels of cultural dialogue

There are only three levels of such interaction.

First level ethnic, which occurs at the level of ethnic groups, read peoples. Just an example when you communicate with a foreigner will be an example of such interaction.
Second level national. In truth, it is not particularly true to single it out, because a nation is also an ethnic group. Better to say - the state level. Such a dialogue occurs when some kind of cultural dialogue is built at the state level. For example, exchange students come to Russia from countries near and far abroad. While Russian students go to study abroad.
The third level is civilizational. What is civilization, see this article. And in this one you can get acquainted with the civilizational approach in history.

Such interaction is possible as a result of what civilizational processes. For example, as a result of the collapse of the USSR, many states have made their civilizational choice. Many have integrated into Western European civilization. Others began to develop independently. I think you can give examples yourself if you think about it.

In addition, the following forms of cultural dialogue can be distinguished, which can manifest themselves at its levels.

Cultural assimilation- this is a form of interaction in which some values are destroyed, and they are replaced by others. For example, in the USSR there were human values: friendship, respect, etc., which was broadcast in films, cartoons (“Guys! Let's live together!”). With the collapse of the Union, Soviet values were replaced by others - capitalist ones: money, career, man is a wolf to man, and stuff like that. Plus computer games, in which cruelty is sometimes higher than on the street, in the most criminal district of the city.

Integration- this is a form in which one value system becomes part of another value system, there is a kind of interpenetration of cultures.

For example, modern Russia the country is multinational, multicultural, and polyconfessional. In a country like ours, there can be no dominant culture, since they are all united by one state.

Divergence- very simplified, when one value system dissolves into another, and affects it. For example, many nomadic hordes made their way through the territory of our country: Khazars, Pechenegs, Polovtsy, and they all settled here, and eventually dissolved in the local system of values, leaving their contribution to it. For example, the word “sofa” was originally called a small council of khans in the empire of Genghisides, and now it is just a piece of furniture. But the word has survived!

It is clear that in this short post, we will not be able to reveal all the facets necessary to pass the exam in social studies for high scores. So I invite you to our training courses , on which we reveal in detail all the topics and sections of social science, and also work on the analysis of tests. Our courses are a full-fledged opportunity to pass the exam for 100 points and enter a university on a budget!

Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov

Functions of the dialogue of cultures. The concept of dialogue of cultures. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

DIALOGUE OF CULTURES

Definition

Levels of cultural dialogue

Download wedding salon Download games from alavar wedding

What are casual games?

The best and strongest Pokemon in all generations How to make a mega evolution

Categories

Latest Articles

The rules of the game are above ground. Above the feet from the ground. What games did you play in the yard

Prison Break Lockdown Walkthrough for Android

Liberal democracy How liberalism differs from democracy

Liberal democracy: definition, essence, characteristics, shortcomings Countries in which liberal democracies were formulated

Nicholas II Alexandrovich

Unusual, bright, curious military units of the world

Biography of Emperor Nicholas II Alexandrovich

International distance competitions and olympiads Robot competitions

Solution 23 of the exam task in computer science

Advertising

Functions of the dialogue of cultures. The concept of dialogue of cultures. The problem of intercultural relations in the modern world

DIALOGUE OF CULTURES

Definition

Levels of cultural dialogue

You might be interested:

Categories

Latest Articles

Advertising