All over the world, Americans have a strong reputation for pragmatism. “The knock of an ax is the natural philosophy of America,” writes E. Rosenstock-Hyussy. - Not spiritualized writers, but cunning politicians, not geniuses, but "self-made people" - that's what is needed ”(Rosenstock-Huessy; cited in: Pigalev. 1997:). Americans tend to feel awkward about anything intangible. "We do not trust what cannot be counted," writes K. Storti (Storti 1990: 65). Hence the logical, rational approach to emotional problems and situations.

American researchers quite often point to anti-intellectualism as a typical feature of Americans. For a long time, Americans have viewed culture with suspicion and condescension. They have always demanded that culture serve some useful purpose. "They wanted poetry that could be recited, music that could be sung, an education that would prepare for life. Nowhere in the world had colleges proliferated and prospered so much. And nowhere were intellectuals so despised and reduced to such a low position" (Commager: ten).

In Russia, on the contrary, the word pragmatist has a certain negative connotation, since pragmatism is perceived as the opposite of spirituality. Russians are by nature emotional and tend to extremes. "The traditional structure of the Russian character<...>developed individuals prone to sudden mood swings from elation to depression" (Mead; cited in: Stephen, Abalakina-Paap 1996: 368). A. Luri talks about the cult of sincerity and spontaneity that is characteristic of Russian culture. He believes that Russians have a richer emotional palette than Americans and have the ability to convey subtler nuances of emotion (Lourie and Mikhalev 1989: 38).

The analytical mindset of Americans seems to Russians cold and devoid of a personal beginning. Americans have a measured moderation that comes from a rational mindset. Emotions do not drive American actions to the same extent as Russians. "They believe that words alone are the conductor of meaning (meaning) and ignore the more subtle role of language in communication," writes K. Storti. The Russian penchant for self-sacrifice, the love of suffering (according to Dostoevsky) attracts and beckons Americans as something exotic and hard to understand. Americans themselves tend to base their actions on facts and expediency, while Russians are motivated by feelings and personal relationships. Often Russians and Americans speak different languages: the voice of reason and the voice of emotions do not always merge together. Russians see Americans as too businesslike and not warm enough. Americans, for their part, perceive Russian behavior as illogical and irrational.

Russian emotionality is manifested in the language at all its levels (the nuance of lexical meanings, the abundance of emotional vocabulary; the syntactic possibilities of the language, including free word order, which allows expressing the finest nuances of feelings, etc.), a high degree of explicitness of expressed emotions, as well as in the choice linguistic and paralinguistic means in the process of communication. S. G. Ter-Minasova notes Russian emotionality, realized through the possibility of choosing between pronouns you and you, the presence of a large number of diminutive suffixes, the personification of the world around through the category of gender. She also points to a more frequent use of the exclamation point than in English (Ter-Minasova, 2000: 151-159).

American pragmatism is manifested in the size and nature of speech messages, which gravitate towards brevity and specificity (both in oral and written communications, which, in particular, is facilitated by such new forms of communication as e-mail, where minimalism is taken to an extreme), efficiency even in personal situations (for example, when making appointments or planning events), a certain dryness of style in business discourse, and in energetic and assertive communication strategies.

As Y. Richmond notes, in negotiations American businessmen prefer a phased discussion of one point after another and systematic progress towards a final agreement, the Russians tend to a more general conceptual approach without specifics. On the other hand, the emotionality of Russians demonstrates their interest in negotiating and establishing personal contacts, which are considered an important component of any communicative interaction (Richmond 1997: 152).

Spirit of cooperation and competition

A manifestation of psychological identity is also the way the YP interacts with other people. Cultures differ in specific gravity in them cooperation(joint activities to achieve the goal) and competitions(competition in the process of achieving the same goal) as two forms of human interaction.

American individualism is traditionally associated with competitiveness. It is common in American culture to move forward and up the corporate ladder more through competition than through cooperation with others. According to S. Armitage, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (a phrase from the US Constitution) is defined more as a personal interest, rather than the pursuit of the common good (Armitage). The principle by which Americans are brought up is the so-called. "ethic of success" (success ethic): work, move forward, succeed ( work hard, get ahead, be successful) is foreign to Russians, who believe it is immoral to succeed at the expense of others (Richmond 1997: 33). American idol - a man who made himself. In addition to the token already mentioned above self made man, the word has no equivalent in Russian achiever. In American culture, both of these concepts are key.

It would be unfair to say that Russian culture is not at all characterized by the desire for competitiveness - a vivid confirmation of the opposite is the long-term competition between the two superpowers - Russia and America. However, we believe that the proportion of competitiveness in the American communicative system is greater than in the Russian one, where the predominant form of communicative interaction is cooperativeness. In the USA, there are a number of reasons that stimulate a competitive mood in communication: 1) competition as a result of the long-term development of market relations in the economy; 2) multiculturalism; 3) the wide scope of the movement of women, ethnic and sexual minorities for their rights; 4) erasure of boundaries in social relations between age groups, 5) features of the national character and the historical development of discourse.

If, in connection with the foregoing, we analyze the words team(team) and team, then we will observe a big difference between these concepts. Team- something permanent and homogeneous, united for long-term cooperation by the unity of spirit and aspirations. team- a group of individuals united to achieve a specific goal. Deeply rooted in the minds of Russians is the position of group ethics, embodied in the Soviet formula: "Stay away from the team", alien to the Americans. Teamwork as a form of cooperation in America is based on a purely pragmatic approach.

Since intercultural communication is, by definition, a form of human interaction, the mood for cooperation or competition can play a key role in how the relationship between communicants - representatives of different linguistic cultures - will develop. A clear example of the intercultural divergence between Russians and Americans in this parameter is the nature of the relationship between students in the academic environment. Here is the opinion of an American researcher: "<…>Russian students work very effectively in a group. They try to prepare for classes based on their personal skills and interests, and thus contribute to the success of the whole group. "In situations where Russians prompt each other or share cheat sheets with each other, American students prefer to remain silent. "Responsible for another is considered impolite, probably because it is assumed that each person should be able to cope with difficulties on their own. "According to the American value system, honesty in learning is that everyone does their job on their own. "American students attach great importance to fairness, or rather the principle equality. Everyone must be sure that he is doing no less and no more than others" (Baldwin, 2000).

The Russians, for their part, do not approve of the behavior of American students who sit at a distance from others and cover their notebooks with their hands. Although Russian honors students without much enthusiasm let lazy people write off what they got as a result of considerable efforts, they, as a rule, cannot refuse - it will be "uncomradely", and those around them will condemn them. Therefore, when Russian schoolchildren or students come to the attention of an American teacher, a conflict arises between value systems and attitudes towards cooperativeness or competitiveness.

Participants and witnesses of business negotiations between Russians and Americans note that the nature of interaction between them is largely determined by different attitudes towards the concept success, which is formed on the basis of the settings described above. Americans perceive success as the achievement of specific short-term goals (successful transaction, project, profit from investment), while the Russian understanding of success involves beneficial long-term cooperation - a process, not an event. From the Russian point of view, successful transactions are natural ingredients or even by-products of this kind of relationship. Americans trust the system, and Russians trust the people, so for Russians, personal trust is essential to success. As a result, Americans strive for success more purposefully, and the communicative behavior of Russians seems unbusinesslike and unprofessional to them. Russians, on the other hand, often perceive the behavior of Americans as arrogant and short-sighted (Jones).

The forms of manifestation of competitiveness in communication are also considered witty responses to the remarks of the interlocutors, which are more like a dive than an exchange of opinions; the desire to oppose the statement of the interlocutor with his own statement, comparable to him in terms of volume and amount of information; an attempt to have the last word, etc.

Optimism and pessimism

The traditional parameters for opposing Americans and Russians are also optimism/pessimism. Americans are considered "incorrigible optimists", they believe in the ability of the individual to "forge their own destiny", they try their best to be happy and consider happiness as an imperative. K. Storti in this connection quotes a poet who said: "We are the masters of our destiny and the captains of our souls" (Storti 1994: 80). He also makes an interesting observation: in American society, it is considered the norm to be happy, while for Russians, a happy mood is no more the norm than sadness and depression, because both are an integral part of life (op. cit.: 35). In the US, being unhappy is unnatural, abnormal and indecent - under any circumstances, one must maintain the appearance of success and well-being and smile. For Russians, sadness is a normal state. This gives us pleasure. They sing songs and write poems about it.

N. A. Berdyaev explained the propensity of Russians to depression and melancholy in this way: “The vast spaces were easily given to the Russian people, but it was not easy for them to organize these spaces into the greatest state in the world<…>All the external activity of the Russian people was in the service of the state. And this left a bleak imprint on the life of a Russian person. Russians almost do not know how to rejoice. The Russian people have no creative play of forces. The Russian soul is crushed by the vast Russian fields and the vast Russian snows.<…>(Berdyaev 1990b: 65).

Americans, unlike Russians, are not inclined to complain about fate and discuss their own and other people's problems in their free time. It is well known that the question: "How are you?" Americans under any circumstances answer: "Fine" or "OK". As T. Rogozhnikova rightly states, "distance from other people's problems and revelations is a kind of self-defense and protection of one's own living space<...>You simply have to answer with a smile that everything is OK with you. It is indecent if you have problems: solve them yourself, do not burden anyone, otherwise you are just a loser” (Rogozhnikova: 315).

From the Russians to the question: "How are you?" most likely to hear: "Normal" or "Slowly." Here Russian superstition is manifested, the habit of downplaying one's successes ("so as not to jinx it") and dislike for self-praise. American optimism seems insincere and suspicious to Russians.

Confidence in the future is another important feature of the psychological portrait of Americans. With this in mind, they are not afraid to make plans even for the distant future. Russians, on the other hand, are used to living in a state of uncertainty, which has its reasons in the historical development of Russia, as well as in the events of recent years. “What are we?<...>We have our own hobby”, which “runs through the unplowed unsteady fields, where there are no plans, but there is a speed of reactions and flexibility of the psyche” (Sokolova, Professionals for cooperation 1997: 323). Russian phraseology reflects a tendency to fatalism and uncertainty about the future: maybe yes, I suppose; grandmother said in two; God knows; how God puts on the soul; what God will send; it's still written on the water with a pitchfork.Americans prefer to act on the principle: Where there's a will there's a way and God helps those who help themselves.

Western businessmen who come to work with Russians or teach business seminars complain that they have the hardest time convincing Russians to plan their activities. Russians claim that they are accustomed to living and working in difficult situations and are ready to quickly adapt to changing conditions. As a result, communication does not add up, transactions fail. It is also difficult to cooperate in situations where long-term planning is required. Russians send invitations to important events at the last moment, while Americans had other things planned for these dates six months ago. It is not easy to develop cooperation on grants and projects. Russian teachers cannot get used to the fact that the schedule of classes in American colleges and universities is drawn up six months before the start of the semester.

These psychological features also manifest themselves in the choice of communication strategies. Americans do not have Russian superstition, so their statements about the future are distinguished by confidence, as opposed to Russian caution and modality. A good illustration of this situation is the following excerpt from the correspondence between an American and his Russian friend (congratulations on the eve of buying a car):

American: Congratulations on your imminent car purchase!

Russian: I think by now, after having known us so long, you are expected to know how superstitious we, Russians, are. Never, never congratulate us in advance. So please take your congratulations back!

American: I take my congratulations back, but this superstition is another thing I cannot understand about you. For an expecting mother, understandable. But a car?

This difference is one of the most noticeable and vividly manifested in MI. In terms of communication, it lies in the fact that Russians are less concerned than Americans with the desire to avoid the unknown (the American term uncertainty avoidance is one of the important concepts of MI theory in the USA).

Tolerance and Patience

Two key concepts that are directly related to communication are patience and tolerance- are often mixed in Russian linguistic culture due to the fact that they are assigned to words with the same root. In English, the corresponding concepts are more delimited at the level of the signifier: patience and tolerance. Word tolerance is used in the Russian language rather to convey a foreign cultural phenomenon, rather than a concept that is organically inherent in Russian linguistic culture.

Patience is traditionally perceived as one of the most striking features of the Russian national character and is manifested in the ability to meekly endure the difficulties that fall to the lot of the Russian people. Americans, on the other hand, are considered more tolerant. The origins of this phenomenon are in the peculiarities of the historical development of the United States and the polyphony of American cultural life. A large number of immigrants with their own cultural patterns, traditions, habits, religious beliefs, etc. required a certain level of tolerance necessary for the people inhabiting the United States to live in peace and harmony.

However, one should not exaggerate the degree of American tolerance. In this sense, H. S. Kommagder is right when he notes that American tolerance in matters of religion and morality (especially in the 20th century) is due not so much to openness to new ideas as to indifference. This is conformism rather than tolerance (Commager: 413-414).

Manifestations of patience and tolerance in MC are relative. Americans do not understand why Russians tolerate domestic disorder, violation of their rights as consumers, non-compliance with laws by officials, vandalism, cheating, violation of human rights. Russians, in turn, wonder why Americans, who show a high degree of tolerance towards sexual minorities or certain manifestations of religious hatred, do not allow an alternative point of view in connection with issues such as women's rights, politics (for example, Chechnya), the role of the United States in the world, etc.

Different levels of tolerance are manifested in the fact that the Americans in the negotiation process are much more than the Russians, tend to compromise and iron out contradictions, while the Russians are prone to emotions and extremes. On the other hand, being more impatient, the Americans wait for quick decisions and actions, while the Russians tend to wait, testing the reliability of their partners and establishing closer, more trusting relationships with them. There are many cases when the Americans, without waiting for the quick results of negotiations with the Russians, refused the planned deal. When discussing painful problems at school and university, the American audience is more explosive than the Russian one.

Many authors also emphasize that the totalitarianism and authoritarianism of the Russian political system in certain periods of its history should not be confused with intolerance as a property of the Russian national character. "Russians respect power, but are not afraid of it" - this is the conclusion of J. Richmond (Richmond 1997: 35).

This conclusion, however, should not be taken as an absolute. Due to the fact that the relationship between superiors and subordinates in the United States is more democratic, there is usually a greater degree of tolerance between colleagues. Coming to teach in Russian schools, American teachers cannot accept an authoritarian tone in the relationship between the headmaster and teachers and teachers and students, which sometimes causes intercultural conflicts.

Degree of openness

Speaking of openness, it should be emphasized that American and Russian openness are phenomena of different orders.

American openness, most likely, should be considered as a communication strategy, and in this sense, Americans are more direct, explicit in expressing information and peremptory than Russians. This trait of Americans is expressed by the adjective outspoken, which do not have a Russian equivalent.

For Russians, openness in communication means a willingness to reveal one's personal world to an interlocutor. “Russians are the most sociable people in the world,” writes N. A. Berdyaev. Russians do not have conventions, there is no distance, there is a need to often see people with whom they do not even have particularly close relations, turn their souls, plunge into someone else’s life<...>, lead endless quarrels about ideological issues.<...>Every truly Russian person is interested in the question of the meaning of life and seeks communication with others in the search for meaning" (Berdyaev 1990b: 471).

A. Hart makes an interesting observation: “In some respects, Russians are freer and more open [than Americans]. At first, it seemed to my friends that the Russians were quarreling and cursing; but suddenly, to our surprise, they tone that seemed aggressive to us was actually expressive" (Hart 1998). Americans are more open in expressing their own opinions, Russians are more open in expressing their emotions.

American openness in communication is often perceived by Russians as tactless and peremptory. When surveyed for feedback after seminars and other training courses, Americans focus on shortcomings and make critical comments. Such a reaction for Russian teachers is often a shock, since the Russian approach is, first of all, a desire to express gratitude to the teacher. Russians often confine themselves to verbal criticism, and record positive reactions or, in extreme cases, cautious recommendations in writing.

3.1.2 Social identity of a linguistic personality

A man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind.

It is almost impossible to completely separate these two elements, because in the psyche they work, as a rule, together.

However, people differ in that some use predominantly rational thinking, while others use emotional, sensual.

Here we will analyze how these two types of thinking affect our lives.

1. Rational- here we include all the elements of the psyche that operate with logical information. Thoughts, ideas, conclusions, judgments. It implies logical or rational thinking.

Rational thinking is based on the logic of things. Rational - it is without time, describes objects (physical and spiritual), uses them for thinking, but does not possess these "object-images", because they are not saturated with energy component, emotions.

Logical thinking can solve any problems in the future or the past. It always thinks about another time, not about the present, because, from the point of view of logic, it makes no sense to think about the present moment. Emotions do not need this, emotion is always concentrated in the here and now. Rationality, in turn, pulls us out of the present moment. And if a person prefers "ration" to emotions, then he is rarely in the present, he cannot feel the reality of life. And emotion is a way to return to one really existing time - the present.

Logical information always glides over the surface of reality and cannot penetrate the essence of things. It is feelings that reflect the truth of things and phenomena. Because feelings are a more serious and deep tool for understanding, awareness and orientation in this reality. The more a person is sensually developed, the better he understands reality. But certain, not “garbage”, feelings of a high hierarchical level also matter (presence in the present, measure, balance, fullness of life, mysticism of life, infinity, etc.).

If the algorithms of logic, when we experience sadness, will delay or intensify it, then our sadness will remain, turn into depression or increase to melancholy. If the same algorithms reduce it, it will decrease. But, if you do not involve rational thinking in the emotional process at all, then the emotion will completely disappear through its expression.

The more rational thinking is devoid of feelings, the more freedom of thought it has. It can go in any direction, both for us and against us. Formal logic does not care which way to work. It does not take into account our uniqueness, individuality. She cares only for certain laws of logic, the clarity of the thought process. Only when we connect feelings to thinking, then a system of thinking appears regarding our model of the world, our individuality, subjectivity. Intuitive feelings help us to process correctly information about us, our capabilities, and the capabilities of the environment. And logic is like a program that, depending on its purpose, will either help, or destroy, or remain neutral. For example, neurotic perception algorithms will worsen the quality of life. And the perception algorithms related to harmony improve it.

Rational thinking has much more plasticity than emotions and feelings. This property is based on the independence of logic from our model of the world, subjective perception, and is limited only by the possibilities of our thinking, memory, knowledge about nature. One and the same fact can be interpreted both in a good and in a bad way, both in one's defense and in one's accusation. Logic is freer in its movement than feelings. There are certain advantages in this: the ability to look objectively, from the outside, without being limited by the framework of one's perception and creative thinking. However, there are also disadvantages: you can easily get away from the main direction of thinking, get confused, stuck on something, harm yourself due to the lack of a system of relativity of our Self.

Rational thinking is like a mercenary, it doesn't matter who he works for. Whoever gives him more feelings, it works for him. For example, if we are charged with anxiety, then the rational will diligently look for all new images of anxiety that do not even really exist, plunging us into an anxious world. If, however, we displace anxiety with anger, then logic will work for anger and prove to us that we need to destroy all images of anxiety, and that they are not really scary at all, and so on.

"Ratio" always works for a specific goal, not for quality. What you order, it will give you. It follows a narrow path, unlike feelings. "Ratio" cannot capture a large amount of information at the same time. When you achieve the results of thinking, there is a conviction that you are right because of the presence of logical evidence for the conclusion made. This is like a trap of logic that does not take into account our inner subjective reality, the sensual part of our personality.

One of the properties of rationality is the fear of loss, uncertainty, uncertainty, incompleteness, lack of control. These types of fears are more common in rational people than in intuitive ones. in the world of "ration" everything should be clear, understandable, logical, controlled.

Practice: If you let go of your mind, you can see the depth of what is happening now and what will happen later.

To struggle with the rational component means to try to pay attention to the factors of the sensory sphere and emotions, to slow down abstract thinking in view of its inferiority.

2. Emotions and feelings- these are the elements that emotional thinking and / or intuition operates on.

We define ourselves as reasonable people, but in reality this is not entirely true. Emotions and feelings, invisible to our consciousness, strongly interfere with the processes of perception and behavior. They distort perception depending on the emotion that we are experiencing at the moment.

Emotions and feelings are based on informal and subjective logic. They belong to the present more than to the future or the past. Feelings allow us to become a full-fledged owner of the object, the image about which they arise.

In other words, if an object is not saturated with feelings inside my psyche, then it has no meaning for me. The more the image or object in the psyche is saturated with emotions and feelings, the more important it is for me. For example, if the correct values ​​and algorithms of behavior in a person are not supported by the corresponding emotions and feelings, then they will never be realized. A person can talk about them, teach others, but in his life he will not be able to fulfill them. Only emotions and feelings play a complex motivational role in the psyche.

Some emotions, such as anxiety, carry us into the future, make us think about the future; emotions of resentment, sadness, shame, guilt, contempt make us think about the past. But their meaning is to shape our attitude and behavior in the present to the future or to the past.

Interaction of logic and feelings.

All the main conflicts of people are in the wrong work of feelings and logic. Separately taken logic, even if it is contradictory, will not create a significant conflict in the psyche if it is devoid of emotional and sensory content.

Suffering, like joy, is a matter of feelings and emotions. We cannot experience any thoughts from any thoughts until emotions are connected to them. Therefore, thoughts in themselves are, as it were, inanimate material in the psyche, devoid of vital energy, without emotions and feelings.

The joint work of logic and emotions can be clearly seen in the example of one of the mechanisms of psychological defenses - rationalization. A person himself does not understand how he automatically modifies the facts in the direction he needs, justifies himself, using formal logic, but taking into account his own subjective interests at the moment. For example, to justify oneself to others because of feelings of guilt, to evade responsibility, to show selfishness. Rationalization is the basis of double standards, when we believe that we can break a certain set of rules, while others cannot.

There is no unique recipe for how a person needs to be - sensual or rational. Both of these types of perception of reality are necessary for a person in a full life and a more objective perception of it. Each situation requires its own approach. Therefore, the proportions of feeling-logic may vary depending on the specific situation. You can not rely only on intuition, since it can be wrong, especially if you have not specifically been involved in the development of sensory thinking.

The best solution is one that takes into account both the rational and the emotional together, but also takes into account the real state of affairs.

The dialectics of the spiritual content of humanistic culture and the person created by it should be connected primarily with the harmonization of such essential forces as the ability to think and feel (“rational” and “emotional”).

The problem is that the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s were marked by a very noticeable scientization of our culture, which resulted in an almost complete triumph of poor forms of rationalism in all its spheres. This was most clearly expressed, perhaps, in architecture and domestic design. The dominance of straight lines, laconicism, reaching extreme rigorism, were designed for a person devoid of any emotions.

Among the reasons that gave rise to this cultural situation, one must name, firstly, the scientific and technological revolution, which turns the rationalization of all aspects of life into an objective law. In addition, it should be noted that there was an uncritical borrowing of some negative features of formal rationality with complete disregard for its positive aspects.

The protest against the illegal expansion of formal rationalism is very clearly expressed in the epigraph to the collection of poems by A. Voznesensky "The Temptation". Instead of the famous Cartesian aphorism “I think, therefore I am”, which inspired the development of modern European culture, A. Voznesensky proclaims: “I feel, therefore I exist” 1 . Probably, a humanistic solution to this problem is possible according to the formula: "I think and feel, therefore I exist."

The implementation of this principle in practice requires, first of all, the further development of a new type of rationality, which was discussed earlier. A new rationality is impossible without and without a new emotionality, which, using a well-known expression, can be defined as a "smart heart". Thus, we are not talking about emotionality in general - in this case, the ideal would be a medieval fanatic - but about emotionality, which is closely connected with the new rationality through the system of humanistic values.

A developed emotional sphere is no less important than an intellectual one in anticipating the future, which is of great importance for the life of an individual in an increasingly complex world. The creative potential of the individual in general largely depends on it, since it helps the human spirit to free itself from the chains of simple unambiguity, it, like nothing else, determines the degree of brightness of human individuality. Hence it follows that the cultivation of human emotionality and rationality has a direct impact on the development of other essential forces of man.

Thus, we once again note the regularity of the anthropological structure of culture: each of the pairs of opposites that make it up is not juxtaposed with all the other pairs, but contains them in itself, as in a chrysalis, while the imaginary juxtaposition can only be a consequence of abstraction.

1. 1.6. Biological - social

Considering the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in the anthropological structure of culture is even more convincing in the presence of this regularity.

To begin with, it is necessary to make a reservation that one should distinguish between the general philosophical and philosophical-anthropological meaning of the concepts "biological" and "social". In the first case, they mean certain levels of organization of matter, in the second, their content is much narrower, since they refer only to man.

Thus, the biological in a person is his physical substratum (body) and the elementary layer of the psyche. According to their origin, both can be structured into phylogenetic and ontogenetic. The social in a person is an ensemble of his personal properties, in connection with which the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in a person can be formulated as the problem of the relationship between the organism and the personality.

The mechanism that unites these two principles in a person to one degree or another, in one way or another, is culture, and therefore the problem of the relationship between biological and social is not only general philosophical and not only philosophical and anthropological, but also philosophical and cultural.

Functions of culture in the implementation of the interaction of biological and social in man are diverse. The most important of them constructive, i.e., the use of a biological substrate as an arsenal of starting elements. Of great importance in the performance of this function is the content of cultural values ​​and norms that are the subject of development of the emerging personality.

The conditions and methods of education also play an important role. As experts emphasize, the distribution curve according to the conditions of upbringing and education is superimposed on the distribution curve by the amount of inclinations.

Culture performs also in relation to the biological in man selective function: it “sorts” the content of the biological in a person - it declares some of the properties of this order to be desirable - evaluates them in the categories of goodness, beauty, others, on the contrary, undesirable and accordingly evaluates them in the categories of evil, ugliness, etc.

Humanistic culture should use an extremely wide selection criterion for the biological properties of a person, this criterion is a harmoniously developed person.

In this regard, in a humanistic culture, the meaning of repressive the function of culture, which is closely related to selective culture and which plays a particularly large role in a culture of a religious type. It may consist, it seems, in strengthening the action of all other functions of culture, which should lead to the suppression or change in the nature of the action of biological properties that are undesirable from the point of view of society.

In this regard, the function of socially acceptable sewers biological properties of a person, having a dual orientation. Thus, aggressiveness can be considered both as good and as evil, but it is more productive to approach it as a biological reality. For example, zoology knows that in the animal world, males, as a rule, differ from females in greater aggressiveness. The psychology of sex notes that this difference, inherited from animals, and, of course, socially modified, noticeably affects the difference between the female and male character, and developmental psychology notes the corresponding differences in the psychology of girls and boys. Age pedagogy should draw appropriate conclusions from this. At the same time, it turns out that if she follows the path of repression, punishment for boyish fights, bullying behavior, etc., the character of the future man is deformed. This means that there is another way: the channeling of aggressiveness through sports, various games, competitions, etc.

One of the most important functions of culture is developing. In a narrower sense, it manifests itself in the development of a person's natural giftedness. It is quite clear that the performance of this function by culture is mediated by a socio-psychological factor: not every government is interested in a nation of exceptionally gifted citizens.

The developing function of culture can also be understood more broadly as the enrichment of initial biological data. In a human-centered society, this function of culture is of particular importance: society will be more dynamic and viable if each individual is given the opportunity to develop and realize his abilities to the maximum.

All of the above applies in full measure to such a function of culture in relation to the biological in man as control its biological development - its pace, rhythm, duration of individual periods (childhood, youth, maturity, old age), the nature of their course and life expectancy in general. This function of culture is especially clearly manifested in solving the problem of old age. Here, not only the achievements of gerontology and geritaria are important, but, perhaps, first of all, moral factors, that is, moral norms and forms of attitude towards the elderly, accepted in society. Humanistic morality contributes to a significant mitigation of the hardships associated with old age, and thereby pushes its age limits at the expense of the period of maturity. However, the moral consciousness of the individual himself is also of great importance in solving the problem of old age. Thus, vigorous activity inspired by humanistic ideals, an optimistic worldview contribute to physical longevity, and, conversely, indifference to people or anger, envy, inability to break out of the vicious circle of loneliness have a destructive effect on physiological processes, reduce the biological time of a person.

Apparently, one should single out stimulating function of culture, expressed in the education of the individual's ability to self-stress. Such a turn in solving the problem of the relationship between the biological and the social in man makes it possible to highlight new aspects in the question of the dialectic of his subject-object properties. In this case, the role of the object is its biological nature, the role of the subject is its social essence.

Of great importance in relation to the biological component of a human being is also the function of culture, which can be conditionally called defectological, i.e. correction of biological pathology. And here, again, we should talk not only about the achievements of the relevant sciences and health care practices, but also about the moral context of culture, which determines the direction of research and the nature of their use.

Closely related to the previous compensatory the function of culture, the meaning of which is to compensate for certain manifestations of human biological pathology by means of culture. In this case, in addition to those moments of culture, which were discussed in connection with the defectological function, questions about the distribution of types of cultural activity become important. So, for example, the compensatory role of amateur art of the corresponding genres is great for people affected by blindness, deafness, who do not speak, are deprived of movement, etc.

Apparently, there is reason to believe that the most important function of culture and the social principle as a whole in relation to the biological component of a person is ennoblement initial, biological in nature moments in human activity ( eugenic function). It is impossible not to credit the adherents of sociobiology - one of the areas of Western science - with the fact that their work makes one think about the existence of biological roots of all aspects of human activity without exception. The point is, without dwelling on this statement, to look for and find these roots in each individual case and, most importantly, to look for and find ways, forms, methods of growing on this basis a viable tree of truly human, and by no means animal relationships. . So, sociobiologists very impressively show the biological background of altruism. In this regard, the idea arises of the responsibility of culture, designed to ennoble, humanly shape this source of such relations between people as mutual assistance, mutual assistance, selflessness. Competitiveness, competition, the sense of ownership, the sense of community, etc., are also biologically based, and one must learn to build a harmonious edifice of human life not away from this foundation, but on it.

So, the harmonization of the biological and social in a person through the mechanisms of culture is connected simultaneously with the harmonization of other elements of the anthropological structure of culture - object and subject, emotional and rational, spiritual and bodily, personal and social, individual and universal.

A detailed consideration of the anthropological structure of humanistic culture makes it possible to clarify the methodological status of this concept. In fact, at all stages of the analysis, it was not about substratum units, but about the functions of culture in the development of the essential forces of man. These functions form a certain system, the content of which is the image of a person, the most adequate to the characteristics of a particular society.

In relation to actual culture, the concept of "anthropological structure" seems to have constructive possibilities: starting from the concept of man, we can draw conclusions about the proper state of the anthropological structure and then about the proper state of all other cultural structures derived from the anthropological. Further along this path, the possibility opens up of correlating the results obtained with the real state of affairs and, on this basis, developing practical recommendations.

I have a book called "100 Advice from Wise Men and Great People" that is such true advice that I sometimes read it and want to write out the first 25 for you, and later on I will describe the rest. Interestingly, everything is true if you think about it.

1. Never throw mud: you may miss the target, but your hands will remain dirty. (Theodore Parker)

2. It is dangerous to deceive people because in the end you begin to deceive yourself. (E. Duse)

3. We make rules for others, exceptions for ourselves. (Sh. Lemel)

4. We are fair when we are not interested. (constant)

5. All anger comes from impotence. (Russo).

6. Violence feeds on humility, like straw on fire. (V.G. Korolenko)

7. Scolding is achieved only one third, love and concessions - everything. (Jean Paul)

8. Who cannot take caress, he will not take and severity. (A.P. Chekhov)

9. Man's pride and aggression come from a false sense of superiority. (D. Thurber)

10. Don't start anything in anger! It is foolish who boards a ship during a storm. (I. Gaug)

11. The only truly serious conviction is that there is nothing in the world that should be taken seriously. (Samuel Butler)

12. Increased accuracy is a property of ordinary natures. (S. Dovlatov)

13. It is not the place that we occupy that matters, but the direction in which we are moving. (Holmes)

14. I would not talk so much about myself if there was another person in the world whom I would know as well. (G. Toro)

15. Rationality is also impossible without emotionality. you can't learn to think if nothing can move you. (G. Belle)

16. Our emotions are inversely proportional to our knowledge: the less we know, the more inflamed. (B. Russell)

17. Emotions usually go away after a while. But what they did remains. (W. Schwebel)

18. Emotions help to master the problem, and the mind helps to cope with it. (W. Schwebel)

19. Do not see malicious intent in what is quite explainable by stupidity. (Denis Diderot)

20. Forgive your enemies. You may still have to work together. (Folk wisdom)

21. It's nice to be remembered, but it's often cheaper to be forgotten. (Frank Hubbard)

22. You can't make a friend out of an enemy with a joke, but you can make an enemy out of a friend. (B. Franklin)

23. People first act, then think, and at their leisure they regret their actions. (Ann McCaffrey)

24. Each person should think in his own way, because, going his own way, he finds a helper in life - the truth, or at least similar truths. But he does not have the right to give himself free rein and must check himself: it is not fitting for a person to live by naked instinct. (I. Goethe)

25. Everyone is arranged in their own way, and there is no person who would be a complete villain. There is no one who would combine all the virtues: beauty, restraint, intelligence, taste and fidelity. Everyone is good in their own way, and it's hard to say who is really better. (M. Shikibu)