Question 1 Subject of Culturology. The concept of culture dates back to ancient times. Initially, a person who knew how to cultivate the land was considered cultured. From the cultivation of the soil man rises to the cultivation of his mind. Further, the culture goes back to the cult (worship of God). In further development, culture is associated with the occult (secret, unknowable). Culture is education, as the ancient paideia (Plato) said. Each epoch developed the concept of culture. Culturology is a science that is a resource for national development. Cultural studies as a science has a number of its theories (for example, game theory, evolutionary theory, etc.). Culturology as a science has the following laws: 1. The more primitive a culture is, the more its subjects are similar to each other and the greater the level of coercion in a given culture. 2. The more cultural diversity, the more temperamental and cultural is its subject. Each culture has its own great people: Raphael, Pushkin, Tchaikovsky, Sakharov, etc. Culturology as a science has its own methods of cognition (methods of obtaining knowledge): 1. Contextual analysis. 2. Associative analysis. The relevance of cultural studies is due to the following reasons: 1. Change in basic economic orientation. Previously, society was focused on the mass production of goods, now - on the production of services. 2. The range of services is expanding.3. The society becomes more open.4. Today the main factor is professionalism and morality. 5. Broad contacts. Modern technologies require a more cultured person. 6. Culture comes out of museums, libraries. It is part of professionalism. . The subject of cultural studies is culture in the unity and uniqueness of various cultural worlds and the processes taking place in them. Culturology is a science that studies the fundamental laws of the formation and functioning of various cultural worlds. Unlike philosophy, culturology draws not only on abstract concepts, but above all on artifacts. Artifacts - the formation of artificial origin. Artifacts are both visible monuments of cultural creativity and processes occurring in a particular culture. Thus, culturology stands between philosophy and the most general concepts of the sciences that study the specific processes of social reality: sociology, political science.

Question 2 Culturology in the system of the humanities. The relevance of the emergence of cultural studies is due to the growing role of humanitarian knowledge in modern times. The relevance of culturological science is due to the emerging issues of human - conduct. By the beginning of the 20th century it becomes clear that the natural sciences cannot fully explain a person, his inner essence, therefore there are gradual sharp boundaries between the humanities and the exact sciences. By the 20th century a number of the humanities develop a scientific apparatus, they operate with their own inherent concepts, categories and laws. The main humanitarian science in modern times was philosophy. Philosophy developed a categorical apparatus for both the humanities and the natural sciences. It was also a science that developed the principles of the methodology of scientific knowledge. In this respect, philosophical knowledge was universal. Representatives of the classical directions of philosophy developed scientific systems that should explain the essence of the universe, the basic laws of its development. However, since the second half of the 19th century. philosophy loses its original all-encompassing character. A number of disciplines and directions within philosophical science appear, which are created at a high professional level, but are individualized, subjective. Philosophy in this regard loses its unifying character. At present, cultural studies have such a character. Which in this respect comes to replace philosophy. Cultural science combines all the humanities and natural scientific knowledge. The concept of Culturology was introduced in the 30s. 20th century Leslie White. Who interpreted it as one of the sections of anthropology. In peasant civilizations, the emergence of humanitarian knowledge can be attributed to the Renaissance. Science, exact knowledge is separated from theology (theology), along with science, a kind of knowledge is separated from theology that does not aspire to exact mats. formulas, naturally scientific definitions. This is how free arts, literature, and music appear that go beyond the limits of the church canon. If in the Middle Ages the fundamental scientific discipline was theology, then in the Renaissance comes philosophy. The earliest appearance of humanitarian knowledge is attributed to the ancient Greek culture of the classical period. At this time, humanization takes place, its center is not the divine principle, but man. The sophists were the intellectuals who prepared this atmosphere. The basis of the teachings of the sophists was the assertion of the absence of absolute truth, the sophists doubted the existence of a god or gods. In the existence of something that goes beyond the limits of the sensually perceived world. Since the time of the Sophists, an andropocentric dimension of culture has been revealed. As a result of the emergence of andropocentrism, the possibility of humanitarian knowledge arises, which gives scope for individual fantasy and creative interpretation of reality. SECULARIZATION of culture leads to the emergence of secular sciences in traditional society. This is how historical science appears in Greece with Heradotus and Thucydides. If earlier historical information was based only on mythology and ideas about the creation of the world, then these historians said that it was necessary to rely only on irrefutable information that was available. After the Middle Ages, a further change in scientific knowledge, on the one hand, this leads to the emergence of new sciences: sociology, political science, psychology, etc. On the other hand, there is a tendency for the fragmentation of holistic knowledge. Culturology as a science arises in order to overcome this fragmentation. It is not a set of disciplines studying culture, but involves the definition of its subject and research methods.

Question 3 Functions of culture. Despite the given examples of a critical attitude towards culture, it plays a huge positive role. Culture performs several vital functions, without which the very existence of man and society is impossible. Chief among them is function of socialization or human creation, that is, the formation and upbringing of a person. As the separation of man from the kingdom of nature went along with the emergence of ever new elements of culture, so the reproduction of man occurs through culture. Outside of culture, without mastering it, a newborn cannot become a person. This can be confirmed by the cases known in the literature when a child was lost by his parents in the forest and for several years grew up and lived in a pack of animals. Even if he was later found, these few years turned out to be enough for him to be lost to society: the found child could no longer master either the human language or other elements of culture. Only through culture does a person master all the accumulated social experience and become a full member of society. Here a special role is played by traditions, customs, skills, rituals, rituals, etc., which form a collective social experience and way of life. Culture actually acts as "social inheritance" , which is transmitted to man and whose significance is no less than biological heredity. The second function of culture, closely related to the first, is "educational, informational" . Culture is able to accumulate a variety of knowledge, information and information about the world and pass them on from generation to generation. It acts as a social and intellectual memory of mankind. No less important is regulatory, or normative function culture, through which it establishes, organizes and regulates relationships between people. This function is carried out primarily through a system of norms, rules and laws of morality, as well as rules, the observance of which constitutes the necessary conditions for the normal existence of society. Closely intertwined with those already mentioned communicative function, which is carried out primarily with the help of language, which is the main means of communication between people. Along with the natural language, all areas of culture - science, art, technology - have their own specific languages, without which it is impossible to master the whole culture as a whole. Knowledge of foreign languages ​​opens access to other national cultures and the whole world culture. Another function is valuable, or axiological - is also of great importance. It contributes to the formation of a person's value needs and orientations, allows him to distinguish between good and bad, good and evil, beautiful and ugly. The criterion for such differences and assessments are primarily moral and aesthetic values. Deserves special mention creative function a culture that finds expression in the creation of new values ​​and knowledge, norms and rules, customs and traditions, as well as in the critical rethinking, reformation and renewal of an already existing culture. Finally, playful, entertaining, or compensatory function culture, which is associated with the restoration of a person’s physical and spiritual strength, leisure activities, psychological relaxation, etc. It is impossible to recognize as justified the judgments that culture is only traditions, conservatism, conformism, stereotypes, repetition of what is already known, that it prevents creativity, the search for something new, etc. Traditions in culture do not exclude renewal and creativity. The thesis that culture suppresses healthy human instincts seems just as unreasonable. Prohibition of incest, or incest, can serve as confirmation of this. It is believed that it was the first clear watershed between nature and culture in the history of mankind. However, being a purely cultural phenomenon, this prohibition is an indispensable condition for the reproduction and survival of people. The most ancient tribes that did not accept this ban doomed themselves to degeneration and extinction. The same can be said about the rules of hygiene, which are cultural in nature, but protect human health

Question 4 Culture and civilization.

The concepts of culture and civilization are often not distinguished and are perceived as identical. They do have a lot in common, but at the same time, there are noticeable differences between them. By time term "civilization" appeared much later than the term "culture" - only in the XVIII century. Its author, according to one version, is the Scottish philosopher A. Ferposson, who divided the history of mankind into eras savagery, barbarism and civilization, meaning by the last the highest stage of social development. According to another version, the term "civilization" was coined by the French Enlightenment philosophers and used by them in two senses. - wide and narrow . The first of them echoed the one put into it by Ferposson, and meant a highly developed society based on the principles of reason, justice and religious tolerance. The second meaning was closely intertwined with the concept of "culture" and meant a combination of certain qualities of a person - an outstanding mind, education, sophistication of manners, politeness, etc., the possession of which opened the way to the elite Parisian salons of the 18th century. All the variety of points of view on the relationship between culture and civilization can ultimately be summed up in three main ones. In the first case the concepts of civilization and culture act as synonyms, there are no significant differences between them. As an example, one can point to the concept of the authoritative English historian A. Toynbee, who considered civilization as a certain phase of culture, emphasizing its spiritual aspect and considering religion the main and defining element. In the second case there are both similarities and important differences between culture and civilization. A similar view, in particular, was held by the French historian F. Braudel, in whom civilization forms the basis of culture, acting as one of the elements that form the totality of primarily spiritual phenomena. Finally, the supporters of the third campaign sharply contrast culture and civilization. The most striking example in this regard is the theory of the German culturologist O. Spengler, presented by him in the book "The Decline of Europe" (1918 - 1922), according to which civilization is a dying, dying and decaying culture. Civilization follows culture, writes Spengler, "as what has become after becoming, like death after life, like immobility after development, like mental old age and the petrified world city behind the village and sincere childhood." Culture, in his opinion, is a living and growing organism, it gives scope for art and literature, for the creative flourishing of a unique personality and individuality. There is no place for artistic creativity in civilization, it is dominated by technology and soulless intellect, it levels people, turning them into faceless creatures.

Spengler's book was a huge success, it clearly shows many of the characteristic features of culture and civilization. However, the concept itself, based on the complete opposite and incompatibility of culture and civilization, caused quite reasonable and convincing objections and criticism.

The first two approaches to understanding the relationship between culture and civilization seem to be more acceptable. Indeed, there is much in common between these phenomena, they are inextricably linked, mutually intertwined and pass into each other. One of the first to pay attention to this was the German romantics, who noted that culture "sprouts" civilization, and civilization passes into culture. Therefore, it is quite understandable that in everyday life we ​​do not distinguish them too much.

Civilization necessarily implies some level of culture, which in turn includes civility. Some scientists, as it were, dissolve culture in civilization, while others do the opposite, giving the latter an extremely broad meaning.

Question 5 Criteria for the typology of cultures. Culturological science represented by its leading representatives for the first time clearly shows that the cultural-historical process cannot be interpreted as a kind of unidirectional movement from the point of view of one civilization. This approach is a gross oversimplification. There are various cultural worlds that are born, develop and perish, therefore world history represents the richness and diversity of these cultural worlds. Recognizing the existence of independent, albeit interconnected, cultural worlds, culturological science faced the problem of typology. Weber identified 3 types: Traditional, charismatic, rational. Traditional It is based on the sacredness of the dominant forms of tradition. It corresponds to a patriarchal community headed by a master who has a sacred status. Charismatic. It represents the power of the individual, possessing special hostile, intellectual and psychological qualities. These qualities allow this person to captivate people, subjugate them, lead them. This person is perceived as having special properties that others do not have. From the point of view of the charismatic type of culture, such a person is the criterion of absolute truth. Rational. Denies both traditional and charismatic types of culture, considers them obsolete, archaistic, violent. The rational type corresponds to the legal type of the state, which, according to Weber, is characterized by subordination exclusively to the law. Johann Jacob Bachofen and Leo Frobenius divided all cultures into matriarchal and patriarchal. This division was carried out according to the principle of male or female dominance. Both researchers represented the matriarchal type as a higher quality, and they saw a clear threat to the absolute dominance of the patriarchal principle both for existing individual civilizations and for the existing culture in general. Cultural science during its development has developed the following universality criteria for typology: a) The unity of the cultural space of the geographical environment. b) the unity of spiritual tradition c) the kinship of ethnic groups d) the unity of ways of economic activity.

Question 6 Concepts of cultural-historical types. The designation of cultural historical types put an end to the claims of Western civilization to exclusivity and monopoly on what would act as a standard of development. a cultural view of history revealed the interaction of original cultural and historical types, the discovery of these types expanded a person’s view of the complexity and diversity of processes occurring in real reality, revealed the true richness of cultural worlds. Among the most famous researchers who revealed the existence of cultural and historical types are Nikolai Donilevsky, Oswald Shpendler, Arnold Toinby. Danilevsky in his book "Russia and Europe" set one of the main tasks to show the features and uniqueness of Russian culture. The release of this culture from the Western framework of perception. He criticized "Europeanization" Donilevsky singled out the existence of 10 cultural-historical types in the whole history. Donilevsky considered the Slavic type of culture to be qualitatively new and with great potential for development, which called for the unification of all Slavic peoples led by Russia in opposition to Europe, which had entered a period of decline. Spendler singled out the existence of 7 cultural and historical types: Egyptian, Indian, Babylonian, Chinese, Greco-Roman, Byzantine-Arabic, Western. At the present time, signs of the emergence of Russian culture can be traced. Toinbee singled out the existence of 21 civilizations that differ from the primitive societies of the emerging Russian-Siberian type of culture.

Question 7 The diachronic approach to culture is historical. Its main task is to consider culture in time. The diachronic approach shows the development of culture, traces the laws of growth of the cultural tree. The diachronic approach faces the task of an appropriate objective typology of culture. The synchronous approach studies the state and processes simultaneously occurring in the culture of mankind at a certain stage of its development. In the synchronous approach, the following types of cultural communities under consideration are distinguished: racial-ethnic cultural community, national cultural community, regional-historical cultural community, East-West cultural opposition, world culture.

Question 8 Evolutionary concepts of cultural development evolutionary - emphasizes the irreversibility of cultural dynamics and argues that developments occur from simple to complex. Developing human culture improves and this determines the continuous progress of human history. Within this model, a single-line concept of cultural development and a multi-line concept stand out. According to the unilinear one, development proceeds through the improvement of the human race through the increasingly complex organization of man and society. In the process of evolution, there is a change of 3 universal stages:

a) wildness

b) barbarism

c) civilization

The passage of these stages is inevitable and obligatory for all peoples. The multilinear concept - refuses to recognize the universal laws of development, the main attention is paid to the problem of cultural adaptation, which is an adaptation to the environment. In the course of this adaptation, a complication of culture occurs, the emergence of new cultural phenomena.

Question 9 Cyclical concepts of the cultural-historical process. Cyclic models deny the evolutionary unilinear or multilinear concept of historical development. Human history is not perceived as a process that is directed towards ever greater improvement of the forms of social and cultural life. From the point of view of cyclic concepts, history is a movement occurring within local cultures. This movement is not progress, but the return of the same laws of birth and decline, which have the character of universal inevitability. Pitirin Sorokin singled out the stages of development of the cultural-historical process. Depending on the change of these stages, the dominant type of culture changes. The first such type is the ideational type. It is characterized by the dominance of spiritual principles, theocentric vision of the world, true faith. The second type - ideolistic - determines the integration of spiritual and sensual principles. Sorokin defined this type of culture as characterized by true reason. The third type - Sensual culture is characterized by the dominance of naturalism and empirical knowledge. In a sensual culture, utilitarianism (the principle of practical benefit) comes to the fore; spiritual truths are forgotten. Despite the fact that modern civilization is going through a sensual stage of culture, Sorokin interpreted the future of modern civilization optimistically. He spoke about the advent of the era of the new Middle Ages, which will be the revival of spiritual principles and new civilizational conquests. The most completed cyclic concept appears in O. Spendler's book "The Decline of Europe". Spendler develops the idea that, by analogy with living organisms, cultures go through:

a) the childhood of culture - a period of accumulation of strength for subsequent growth

b) youth-period of development

c) maturity - the period of realization of the potential possibilities of culture

d) old age - a period of decline and death of culture.

Question 10 Synergetic model of cultural dynamics. The concept of synergetics is cooperation, joint activity. Synergetics is the science of self-organization processes in nature and society. Its subject is the mechanisms of spontaneous self-formation and preservation of complex systems. Synergetics claims that there are 2 opposite and at the same time complementary principles - order and chaos, which determine the flow of cultural processes. Chaos is a necessary element in the self-development of the world, destroying it creates, and creating leads to destruction, reaching the state of its ultimate development, complex systems show a tendency to decline. The emergence of the new is inextricably linked with chaos, instability and randomness. Thus, the stages of emergence and decay, equilibrium and instability constantly replace each other.

Question 11 Cultural dualism. Dualism is duality. From the point of view of dualism, there is a struggle in the world between opposite, completely incomparable principles. Dualistic views have been known since ancient times. One of the oldest such views is observed in Zoroastrianism, which deals with the struggle between good and evil deities. Dualistic views are rather limited, because in the world, despite all the processes of struggle, the unity of opposite principles is observed. This is evidenced by the 1st law of dialectics, which represents the universal philosophical doctrine of being and the laws of development. However, from the point of view of opposite principles involved in the struggle among themselves and being necessarily limited in this respect, such unity cannot exist. The most extreme manifestations of dualism arise when the lie denies the truth, the unspiritual opposes itself to the spiritual. Many religious systems, as well as based on a number of philosophical views, culture was perceived as a kind of secondary existence, which opposed itself to the primary, more modern, more spiritual. The world of culture was considered not only as a sphere of human creative activity, but as a secondary world that opposed itself to the natural or spiritual environment. This is the essence of the concept - cultural dualism. This concept in religious and mythological systems was embodied in vivid mythological images: the image of Cannes and the image of Prometheus. According to the Bible, Cannes was a farmer, Abel was a cattle breeder. Agriculture is a sedentary existence unfolding over time. The very concept of culture is connected with agriculture. Cattle breeding represents existence in an unlimited space, and in this respect it symbolizes not a temporal beginning, but the idea of ​​eternity. The pastoralist, moving in space, imitates the idea of ​​divine omnipresence, while the farmer, attached to space, is at the mercy of constantly changing time. Therefore, God accepts the gifts of Abel, but not Kanna. The murder of Abel by Kann means the opposition of the secondary imperfect to the more primary - ideal. Culture rebels against the spirit. God places a seal on Kann, and this seal is often perceived as evidence of God's chosenness, but the meaning of the sacred text indicates its formidable and warning meaning.

Question 12 Social types of cultures in their formation and development. The main social types of culture were elite and folk cultures. The elite was the culture of the upper strata of the society of the clergy and aristocracy. In modern times in the West, these two cultures are supplanted by bourgeois culture, which acquires the status of an elite culture. Popular culture is often mistakenly identified with mass culture, but its origins can be much deeper than the origins of official culture. Folk culture contains information about traditions, myths and rituals that were the forerunners of the currently dominant type of religious belief. So in European culture, folk culture contains traditions up to Christian paganism. Mass culture, unlike folk culture, does not have deep spiritual origins. It is recent and hostile to the existence of any historical type. Mass culture is characterized by the reduction of everything to uniformity. Mass culture can be called anti-culture. One of its most striking manifestations is pop - music.

Question 13 Ethnos and culture. The concept of the people as a subject of culture differs significantly from the ideas about it in other social sciences. In historical science, people are identified with the population of certain countries and states. In this perspective, it is said about the Belarusian or French peoples, but incorrectly - about the European people. The culture function takes into account marked views, but does not reduce to them. A thousand-year historical tradition consisted in the denial of the people as a subject of historical creativity. First of all, this presupposed the social division of activity into mental and physical, which was reinforced by the social domination of representatives of various types of spiritual activity. The people have ceased to be the material for the creation of separate valuable individuals who continue the great process and for the first time clearly outlined their role as the subject of history from the standpoint of Marxist philosophy. From the point of view of the essence of culture as a free value, activity, the people as a subject of culture is not a statistical group value, but a dynamic community of people, invisibly and informally really united by material, social and spiritual creativity. The people are the driving force behind the renewal and improvement of social wealth, the highest values ​​and meanings of society. A people does not appear in history all at once, the population becomes a people in a joint historical destiny, the practice of renewing the world, developing and enriching common values ​​and meanings. The path of the population to the people is never straightforward, so the people are able to lose their bearings, err and wander. The main reason for the possible degeneration of the people is objective. Creative, innovative activity cannot initially be normative.

Question 14 Language and culture. Language is an instrument of thought and an instrument of communication. Language is the medium

between all sign systems. Language is the only sign system whose signs are assigned using this system itself. The language is called pas and dance figures, musical compositions, etc. Mathematical problems are formulated by means of the language. One of the main concepts in the language is the concept of a sign. A sign is created by a person to convey a specific meaning. Therefore, the sign has a plan

content - the meaning and the plan of expression - the thing. There are signs for individual use, signs for professional use (traffic signs), signs for general use (languages). All groups of signs are mutually dependent. With the help of signs of general use, signs of professional and personal use are assigned. There are universal signs - symbols. This word came to us from antiquity and eventually moved to something that connects people. They express deep meaning. For example, the Sun is a symbol of open, powerful; The moon is a symbol of the mysterious, night. There are many symbols, and each of them has its own meaning. Along with the ethno-national dimension, language plays an equally important role in the development of culture. It is also organically connected with culture, forming its foundation, a kind of internal basis. There is no national culture outside the language. Therefore, it is no coincidence that it is language that most often acts as a criterion in the typology of cultures, for distinguishing them from each other. Emphasizing the importance of language, the German philosopher M. Heidegger said that "language is the house of being."

According to F. Dostoevsky, "language is the people." The famous French writer A. Camus said: "My homeland is the French language."

Language is the main tool of knowledge and development of the external world. He also speaks main means of human communication. Equally, language makes it possible to get to know other cultures. In cultural studies, the following functions of the language are distinguished: 1) informational - means a way developed by man to designate knowledge about the generic, specific properties of objects, phenomena and processes involved in social activities, various manifestations of feelings and intellectual experience of mankind. Language expresses, stores and reproduces such knowledge. 2) cumulative - the function of accumulating knowledge about a person's social experience. Language replaces the genetic memory inherited by each generation and provides them with the ability to rely on the cumulative previous experience and is a tool for updating it. 3) communicative - provides universal, direct and indirect communication between people. 4) coordination - manifests itself in 2 directions - horizontally and vertically. In the first case, the language serves as a means of coordinating the joint actions of people on the basis of consensus regarding the images, processes and phenomena that are significant for them. Another perspective is the need to constantly indicate intentions and actions to lead people. 5) Reflexive - one of the most important functions of the language as a way of self-knowledge and self-expression of a person. Without it, neither the formation of man nor his improvement as a subject of culture and civilization would be possible.

A. Toynbee. ON TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION AS A CRITERIA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION

This chapter has been written jointly with the GA. Avanesova.

The growth of civilization is by its very nature an upward movement. Civilizations develop by the impulse that leads them from challenge through response to further challenge; from differentiation through integration and back to differentiation. The cumulative nature of this movement is manifested both in internal and external aspects. In the macrocosm, growth manifests itself as a progressive and cumulative mastery of the external world; in the microcosm - as a progressive and cumulative internal self-determination and self-organization. Let us consider each of these manifestations, assuming that the progressive conquest of the external world is subdivided into the conquest of the natural environment and the human environment. Let's start with the human environment.
Is expansion a sufficiently reliable criterion for the growth of civilization, bearing in mind that growth includes not only physical but also mental development? We will make sure the answer is no.
Perhaps the only social consequence of territorial expansion can be considered a slowdown in growth, but not an increase in it. Moreover, in extreme cases, there is also a complete
growth stop.<...>

[Further, when comparing the centuries-old struggle of the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Mycenaean civilizations for the possession of "no man's lands" that lay at the junction of these civilizations, it is shown that in terms of the scope of territorial expansion, Ancient Egypt could not be compared with its rivals. However, according to all other criteria, the ancient Egyptian civilization was not inferior to them. The wide distribution of the Hellenic civilization in comparison with the Indian or ancient Chinese also cannot serve as a criterion for its superiority.]
The collapse of Hellenic civilization in the Peloponnesian War (a catastrophe recorded by Thucydides) was followed by a new explosion of territorial conquests, begun by Alexander, which surpassed the earlier maritime expansion in scale. For two centuries after the first campaigns of Alexander, Hellenism spread in the Asian area, putting pressure on the Syrian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian civilizations. And then for another two centuries, Hellenism expanded its expansion already under the auspices of Roman power, capturing the European lands of the barbarians. But for the Hellenistic civilization, these were centuries of decay.<...>
A branch of Orthodox Christian society in Russia has similar historical features. In this case, too, there was a transfer of power from the center that the original Orthodox culture had created in the Dnieper basin in Kyiv, to new areas conquered by Russian forest dwellers from the barbarian Finnish tribes in the upper Volga basin. The shift of the center of gravity from Kyiv to Vladimir was accompanied by a social breakdown... Social decline here, too, turned out to be the price of territorial expansion. However, the expansion did not stop there, and the Russian city-state of Veliky Novgorod managed to spread the influence of Russian Orthodox culture from the Baltic Sea to the Arctic Ocean. Subsequently, when the Moscow Principality managed to unite the disparate Russian principalities under the unified authority of a universal state (the conditional date for the creation of the Russian universal state can be considered 1478, when Veliky Novgorod was conquered), the expansion of Russian Orthodox Christianity continued with unprecedented intensity and on an unprecedented scale. It took the Muscovites less than a century to extend their power and culture into northern Asia. By 1552, the eastern border of the Russian world lay in the Volga basin to the west of Kazan. By 1638 the border had been extended to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. But in this case, too, territorial expansion was accompanied not by growth, but by decline. (T. V. C. 91-95).

Comments

In the works of A. Toynbee, the conditional attachment of civilization to a certain geographical space is emphasized. A. Toynbee introduces the influence of the natural environment and the significance of spatial distribution into narrow boundaries, believing that both too favorable and too harsh conditions do not contribute to the manifestation of creativity, which gives a “start” to civilization. Carefully tracing the territorial destinies of civilizations (their spread to the surrounding territories or retreat), he constantly emphasized that their main content is in the sphere of spiritual activity. This concept was recognized in all civilizational theories and was most succinctly formulated as follows: "The higher the degree of development of a civilization, the less its geographic attachment."
Indeed, territorial expansion and, consequently, change
The former correlation between the core and the periphery often ends with a breakdown and stagnation or even the decline of the civilizational system. However, in a number of cases, after a short-term weakening of a culture/civilization, it is also possible for it to acquire a new impetus for development. This is convincingly evidenced by the processes of the "awakening of Asia", the "revival" of Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.
However, along with the denial of the significance of territorial expansion as a criterion of civilizational growth, theories in which geopolitical expansion is perceived as a criterion of the might of civilization also enjoy a steady influence. This position is persistently affirmed in many works of Western scientists, although similar trends are also manifested in the constructions of non-Western thinkers.

W. McNeil. TERRITORIAL EXPANSION OF CIVILIZATION AS OVERCOMING BARBARSITY
Retreat of barbarism (1700-1850)

The translation was made according to the ed.: McNeil W.U. The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community. Chicago, 1970. P. 722-724.

The rapid spread of civilization, especially its western variant, resulted in a decrease in the territorial scope and political significance of simpler societies. In the Old World of the 18th century became a period of decisive collapse of the political power of the steppe peoples. Russia and China divided the steppe spaces lying between them: China captured the eastern part, and Russia got the richer western part (the Hungarian steppe went to Austria). The Chinese victory over the union of the Kalmyk tribes in 1757 meant the final stage of a certain era of world history, the last clash of the armies of civilized states with serious rivals from the Steppe.
By this time, Russia had already annexed Ukraine and the lower

Volga region. Further east, Russia established its suzerainty over the Kazakhs through a series of treaties signed at various times between 1730 and 1819, with four hordes into which the Kazakh ethnos was divided. This process did without any serious military clashes. The fate of the Kalmyks convinced the Kazakhs of the need to negotiate with one or the other of the great agrarian empires of Asia - and Russia was the closest of the two. In addition, the destruction of the Kalmyk tribal alliance convinced both Mongolia and Tibet to abandon further attempts to overthrow Chinese control.
The final destruction of barbarism and savagery, inherent in the way of life of the peoples of North and South America and Oceania, occurred only in the last part of the 19th century. However, the wide scope of the advance of the West during the XVIII and early XIX centuries. meant that the ultimate destruction of the Amerindian and Australian tribal societies was only a matter of time. Even the small islands of the Pacific suffered deep social discord in the wake of the visits of whale hunters, copra traders, and missionaries. The rainforests of South America, Southeast Asia, and the large islands of the Southwest Pacific provided more solid protection zones for primitive societies; but they proved unreliable, as hunters for gold and slaves, who came from the civilized world, penetrated into such shelters quite freely, though inconsistently.
By 1850 Sub-Saharan Africa represented the largest barbarian reservoir/territory left in the world; however, civilized and semi-civilized societies quickly penetrated here too. Muslim pastoralists and conquerors continued to sporadically extend their political control along the northern fringes of the Sudan from the Niger to the Nile and further south beyond the East African Horn. At the same time, the semi-civilized Negro kingdoms in the rainforests of western Africa were expanding and consolidating their power, primarily through organizing slave raids and various other forms of commerce with European trading posts on the west coast. Europeans began to establish their political control from the middle of the century, mainly along the coast and along the rivers inland, but these bridgeheads were still small compared to the territorial spaces of the African continent.
Similar processes took place in the north, west, east and south of the African continent. On all four sides, Muslim European and African societies proper, which possessed either a superior military-political organization, or more

more advanced technology, besieged African tribes. The old culture of simple human relations had no chance of standing up against such adversaries. Only geographical obstacles, reinforced by African tropical diseases, and political rivalry between European powers contributed to the preservation of a certain degree of autonomy and cultural independence of the African barbarian and savage societies of Tropical Africa until the second half of the 19th century.

Comments

A fragment from the book of the influential American historian W. McNeil, published in 1963, indicates that the one-dimensional concept of the civilizational superiority of strong political empires is still the methodological basis for some modern studies, despite the fundamental criticism of this concept, as in the above work. A. Toynbee, and many other scientists.
In 1990, W. McNeil published a long article "The book "The Rise of the West" twenty-five years later"*, which sums up the discussion of his book in the scientific world and once again reveals its main idea. He acknowledges that the book's vision of world history is both "a rationalization of American hegemony in the post-war world and a reversal of this situation on world history by showing that similar principles of cultural dominance and expansion existed before... The Rise of the West" goes hand in hand with the "big battalions", evaluating history from the point of view of the winners, i.e. skillful and privileged managers who run public affairs with little regard for the suffering of the victims of historical change. We must use our craft, as everyone else does, admire those who have dared such ventures, and view human action as an admirable success story despite all the suffering it has caused.”
Having subjected to revision a number of separate provisions of his book (related to the history of China and the level of its achievements in the period from? to the 15th century, the nature of cultural pluralism in Islamic society, etc.), W. MacNeil still considers his concept as a whole justified.
This influential historical concept, in terms of the theory of civilizations proper, is connected with the position of the world historical process as the gradual growth and expansion of the central civilization, absorbing step by step, starting from antiquity, all the rest, with the prospect of turning into 2000? into one global civilization coexisting with the surrounding ecumene**
The so-called "barbarism and savagery" received a full-fledged status of "ethnic cultures" in cultural anthropology. The expansion of various civilizations on the territory of these cultures brought these cultures far from the same fate. In North America and Australia, these cultures were subjected to total destruction, but in many territories that entered the orbit of various civilizations, they managed to survive and survive, demonstrating the ability to "ethnic revival" at the end of the 20th century.
See: McNeil W.H. The Rise of the West after Twenty-Five Years//Joiirnal of
world history. 1990. V. 1. No. 1.
See: Wilkinson D. Decline Phases in Civilizations, Regions and Oikumenes//
Comparative Civilizations Review. 1995. No. 33.

A. Toynbee DEVELOPMENT OF THE EMPIRE

The mechanisms of imperial dispensation can be grouped into three blocks: 1) controls, including communications, garrisons and colonies, provinces and capitals; 2) means of communication, including the official language and script, the legal system, money circulation, measures of measurement and the calendar; 3) corporations covering the army, civil service and civil society. (T. VII. S. 80.)

Comments

Associated with general coverage of the civilizational order, A. Toynbee's analysis provides a meaningful basis for understanding the organizational, social and spiritual principles on which empires were based as "universal states" in different periods of world history. Of course, A. Toynbee's dilution of the civilizational and imperial principles leads him to the construction of an irreversible cycle of the birth - fracture - disintegration of civilizations, to excessive generalization of the principles of the imperial structure and the loss of significant differences in the typology of empires. Meanwhile, as evidenced by many works on the history and theory of civilizations (for example, E. Shils and S. Eisenstadt), both principles are combined and interact in the history of society, although each of them has its own basis, content and dynamics.

E. Shiels. ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CENTER AND THE PERIPHERY

Cited in: Shils E. Society and Societies: A Macrosociological Approach/American Sociology: Perspectives, Problems, Methods. M., Z, S. 348-359.

The center, or central zone, is first of all the phenomenon of the realm of values ​​and opinions. It is the center of the order of symbols, values ​​and opinions that governs society. It is final and unchangeable. Many feel this immutability, although they cannot substantiate it. The main thing is that the central zone is actively involved in the formation in this society of the concept of the sacred, which exists even in a society that does not have an official religion, or is epically heterogeneous, or advocates cultural pluralism, and is tolerant of any ideological systems.

[When considering the central system of ideas, further attention is drawn primarily to the breadth of the distribution of the semantic core of culture among the vast majority of members of a particular society. Its evaluative and semantic content is also highlighted, which is associated with the understanding of the "sacred", absolute, deeply enshrined in a given culture, taken for granted. In this regard, in each specific segment of the historical period, the semantic core can be attributed to a fairly extensive amount of traditions, ideas about the world and about man, as well as beliefs that are generally significant for a given culture, which permeate ideological, religious, political, ethical, aesthetic and other concepts in the specified time period.
It should also be emphasized that the core elements may include meanings and values ​​that are common in different areas of cultural practice (for example, in the field of economic practice, religion, art, etc.), belonging to both intellectually specialized spheres of culture (“large or written" tradition), and to the everyday sphere, to folk life ("small or oral" tradition). At the same time, the most important factors determining the formation of the value-semantic core of culture/civilization are religion, art, and philosophy.
The process of isolating the cultural core becomes more complicated if we study not a specific society at a certain stage of its development, but a civilization, which, as a rule, acts as a larger systemic phenomenon, which includes different cultures, regional communities, and sometimes countries, and which, moreover, is considered in historical dynamics, covering large-scale periods of time (“longue duree”, as defined by French historians).
In this case, it would be a mistake to equate the civilizational core with the sum of the basic customs of certain peoples, generalizations of their ideologies, philosophical systems, natural-scientific ideas, religious beliefs, etc. Rather, it is supported by the continuity of long-term, large-scale forms of thinking, values, meanings and symbols inherent in a given civilization.
In terms of content, the elements and features of culture, which acquire a central character, belong to the basic areas of human life, capable of preserving and reproducing semantic tension, stimulating people to cultural activity. It is customary to refer to the circle of such areas and life problems: - fulfillment of customs related to gender, age, family relationships, love and sex, as well as work and holidays; - a certain understanding of the connection between the past and the future, as well as an understanding of joy, happiness, on the one hand, sadness, unhappiness, on the other; - attitude to the body and soul, understanding of human life and
of death; religiosity; - a certain interpretation of the relationship between the individual and the

detective, personality and society, personality and the world as a whole; interpretation of one's own and others'; attitude to law, power; - belonging or loyalty to the main or related worldview (system of myths, picture of the world, religion, ideology, system of values).
The properties of the nucleus disclosed above in the short and long term historical perspective indicate that the nuclear specificity of a particular culture/civilization can be reconstructed by specialists only through complex analytical operations, during which the main spiritual complex is distinguished, giving strength and individual uniqueness to this civilizational community.
It must be admitted that the core of civilization does not remain completely unchanged; it is not monolithic, although it consists of heavy-duty elements in terms of historical reproduction. This is caused to a large extent by the spiritual heterogeneity of any cultural core, i.e. the presence in it of rather contradictory, weakly consistent parts and elements. Its constituent elements (ideological principles, patterns of thinking, stereotyped assessments, life meanings) were integrated into the core in different periods of time, without, however, containing obvious traces of specific historical eras.
A special case in the history of civilizational synthesis is a culture with two nuclear formations or with an unsettled, antinomic core through which a split passes. This situation is often typical for the imperial community. Russian and Latin American civilizations are usually referred to as contradictory, antinomic or dichotomous civilizations.
Spiritual and semantic elements of the periphery go beyond the core of culture/civilization. Three classes of spiritual and evaluative elements and qualities can act as peripheral ones. Either these are fast-moving elements related to the operational level of social practice, disappearing from cultural circulation over relatively short historical periods of time (for example, during the period of active life of one or two generations). These can also be spiritual elements and qualities that have not acquired universal significance in civilization, but continue to function (sometimes remaining deeply rooted and active for long periods of time) within the framework of regional, ethno-national, social-estate systems. It can also be exploratory, innovative elements and qualities of activity that are capable of moving to the rank of nuclear ones over time, although in the end they will not necessarily become such.]
The central system of values ​​does not contain the whole range of values ​​and opinions that are respected and discussed in society. There are subsystems of values ​​that are inherent in different "Changing parts of society and which are distributed only within certain limits. There are such variants of subsystems that

These include the defense of some components of a large central system of values ​​and, at the same time, the complete rejection of its other components. Thus, there is always a significant amount of non-integrated opinions and values ​​that belong to the value orientations of subjects, which are either self-sufficient individuals, or groups, or areas of social practice.
[In the spiritual space of culture/civilization, the core-periphery dyad implements the following most important functions: 1. Ensures the stability of some original beginning.
2. Creates unity and structured life of different regional, social and ethno-national communities, as well as different generations of bearers of culture/civilization.
3. Provides continuity and historical reproducibility to a huge community of people in terms of numbers, cultural and social diversity and spatial scales.]

SOCIO-ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN CENTER AND PERIPHERY

[The socio-political nature of the periphery in macrosocial systems is dual and mobile. On the one hand, the periphery submits to the center, on the other hand, it may be able to influence it, replace it, or separate itself.]
The periphery consists of such layers, or sectors, of society that perceive orders and beliefs that are developed and assigned for dissemination apart from them (ie, by the center). The periphery is composed of many segments and covers a vast sphere around the center. Some sectors of society are more peripheral, others less so. The more peripheral they are, the less influential, less creative, less cultured from the center, and less directly embraced by the power of the central institutional system. ... Thus, the majority of the population of the periphery looks to the center as a source of guidelines, instructions and orders regarding behavior, lifestyle and beliefs.
[But all this is true for only one side of the life of the imperial periphery. At the same time, in many cases, from the periphery of the empire, independent centers continue to be preserved or re-emerge. In this case, the social forces

the pypheria of the imperial space personify themselves not with the imperial semantic horizon, but with the horizon of their specific existence and their territorial distribution; in this case, the peripheral elites try to behave independently of the problems of the central elite and independently determine their problems, showing their specialness. This distant type of relationship between center and periphery is described as follows:]
This type of relationship ... is characterized by the presence of a large distance between the center and the periphery. ... In societies of this second type, the periphery mainly ... lies outside the radius of action of the center. The farthest outskirts of the periphery from the center remain beyond its reach ... These remote zones of the periphery, in which perhaps the majority of the population of society is concentrated, have their own relatively independent centers.
[One can also distinguish an intermediate model of society, characterized by a large distance between the center and the periphery, which is filled with a whole ladder of levels of power, each of which is independent to a certain extent, but recognizes the dominant role of a large center.
An example of such multi-level, asymmetric imperial formations could be the medieval Habsburg empire in Austria-Hungary and Spain, as well as the Russian state, which are based on multi-ethnic and multi-confessional foundations. The internal political and administrative-territorial structure of such empires was multi-structural, asymmetrical, which also made the imperial periphery an extremely complex phenomenon. Each segment of such a periphery could retain its independent central-nuclear elements and features. For example, in the Russian state these were the kingdoms of Poland, Georgia, etc., the great principalities of Finland and Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Courland, etc. Such structurally multi-level state formations can persist for quite long historical periods, but they react very painfully to impulses associated with a dynamic response to the demands of the time, to the need for modernization transformations in general. Finally, it is necessary to single out societies and state structures in which the center and periphery are not far apart or are not distinguished at all. These include traditional archaic, tribal societies (for example, African). In some important respect, the ancient Greek polis adjoins such a society: people basically knew each other personally. Although in such societies the rulers were separated from the Ruled, everyone was bound by a strong sense of closeness, mutual affection.
With all the paradoxicality, such closeness of rulers and ruled, elites and masses, and, consequently, a weak dismemberment of the core

and periphery can be found in a number of modern "mass societies". Modern societies are much more complex and differentiated than traditional, let alone archaic, societies. Therefore, in today's "mass society" the proximity of elites and ordinary citizens is not manifested in situations of personal contact between representatives of the center and citizens of the periphery. Rather, a sense of approximate equality manifests itself through representative institutions, and ultimately through a consciousness of closeness, through beliefs in the commonality of the existence of certain essential qualities in all or most members of society, which are supposed to be approximately evenly distributed among them.]

A prerequisite for the formation of civilization is the achievement of a significant level of efficiency in food production, while agricultural production is everywhere the economic basis of civilization. At the same time, the development of technology, which includes not only tools and crafts, but also, more importantly, managerial skills, is functionally tied to the processes of civilization formation. Therefore, the emergence of civilization can be viewed as a revolution in the correlation between the influence of moral and production factors.

Nevertheless, the analytical criteria by which we distinguish civilization from the stage of barbarism are social, moral, and intellectual.

In the social sphere, all civilizations have:

1. The system of economic relations based on the division of labor - horizontal (professional and social specialization) and vertical (social stratification).

2. The means of production (including living labor) are controlled by the ruling class, which centralizes and redistributes the surplus product taken from the primary producers through quitrent or taxes, as well as through the use of labor for public works.

3. The presence of a network of exchange controlled by professional merchants or the state, which supplants the direct exchange of products and services.

4. A political structure dominated by a stratum of society that concentrates executive and administrative functions in its hands. The tribal organization based on descent and kinship is replaced by the power of the ruling class based on coercion; the state, which ensures the system of social class relations and the unity of the territory, forms the basis of the civilizational political system.

The formation of civilization is accompanied by a radical transformation of ethical systems, which leads to comprehensive changes in social relations. Along with the change in social relations, worldview principles also change. Already in the early stages of the development of civilizations, the moral order is provided by an independent social institution, including a hierarchical layer of priests, temples, state cults, a sociomorphic understanding of the supernatural world, in which the gods receive a hierarchical organization, which reflects the increasing complexity of earthly social orders.

At a more mature level, a special moral order is formed, in which ethical life acquires new dimensions, wider than the traditional moral order in local communities or tribal groups. The new moral order is based on the ideas generated by the educated elite. Revolutionary changes in the structure of society stimulate moral creativity, and with the development of civilization, ideas become the driving force of history.

In the intellectual sphere, civilization contributes to the development of speculative thought, the expansion of ideas about time (retrospective and prospective), the creation of exact and predictive sciences (arithmetic, geometry and astronomy), the introduction of generally accepted symbols for recording and transmitting information (writing and notation of reckoning), fixing measures of time and space, and then weight.

In structural terms, these achievements are the product of the creative activity of two new social groups, consisting of specialists completely freed from physical labor due to the redistribution of the surplus product.

An accurate measurement of the apparent movements of the moon and stars, and especially an accurate determination of the seasons, is necessary for the practical purpose of improving the regulation of rural work cycles, and these measurements are of direct use in the social sphere. However, the observation of the sky opens up human minds to the knowledge of the mysteries of the cosmos. The development of mathematics is obviously connected with the spread of administrative services and trade. The appearance of geometry was brought to life by the need for land surveying, which is of particular importance in the new economic structures, in the construction of hydraulic structures and in monumental architecture.

The development of writing and notation systems becomes necessary in the administration of complex political systems, in the management of large estates and in commercial affairs. However, the introduction of writing to replace purely mnemonic methods had revolutionary consequences, as it was used to meet a wide range of new needs of society. It was used to compose laws, record cosmological knowledge, dynastic histories (and later history itself), record transactions, contracts and acts, and also record magic formulas, which was of no small importance in early civilizations. Writing is one of the functionally significant criteria of civilization.

Subsequently, the development of civilization gives rise to aesthetic forms of consciousness. High art, with its elaborate and sophisticated styles, becomes differentiated, replacing older forms of folk art and relegating them to a secondary place. This phenomenon clearly reflects the further complication of civilized societies and the development of subcultures.

The flourishing of civilization takes place in conditions of cultural and political independence and represents the full development of creative potential and the realization of the ideas of justice, freedom, wisdom, social and individual well-being. This period ends when all the creative forces of civilization have been exhausted. When such a period comes, some societies fall into decay and become uncreative, or they break up into parties torn apart by irresolvable contradictions and internal conflicts. The first ("Ancient society") and the second ("Middle Ages") stages can last a very long time, while the last - the heyday - is usually short and lasts an average of 400 to 600 years. The subsequent stage of decline comes a little earlier than it can be observed from external manifestations (See: Armillas P. Civilization: The International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. L., 1968, V. 16. P. 218-221. In the future, when citing this edition in the text, after the given fragment, pages are indicated in brackets).

The above descriptions and summary definitions are typical for a comprehensive understanding of civilization as a complex, developed society, in which both economic factors and the social system, both moral principles for the regulation of relations, and the political structure, both practical and aesthetic knowledge are important. ideals. And of course, such a society is subject to the laws of historical evolution. However, as is often the case in "normative" expositions, apparently a holistic description of civilization does not yet reveal analytically the principles of its functioning, its structure and the interaction of various components.

In ch. II, the main provisions of P. Sorokin's devastating criticism of such summary descriptions are given.

With all the increasing diversity and complication of the meanings of the term "civilization", up to our time, in the superficial ideological consciousness, a strong "subtext" of the initial understanding of the universality of the civilizational order, suitable for all peoples, that universality, which has received a high development of European classical philosophy, often remains. At the same time, the mental atmosphere of the 19th century, which was strongly influenced by the ideas of materialism, evolutionism, progressivism and social Darwinism, was also reflected in the views on civilization as the embodiment of a high level of development, practical achievements, "good governance" and dynamism.

Naturally, in the XIX century. bearer of the universal civil d:\111allrefs\temp-studopedia.net47\SrIzCiv\Kons1.htm - %D1%82016 Western Europe, albeit torn apart by the rivalry of “nation-states”, has become a motivated beginning both in ideological and practical terms. "Civilized thinking" has developed detailed justifications for European hegemony in the world.

For a century and a half, despite all the protests or persistent research work of thinkers and scientists who identified the historical and spiritual limits of European civilization, the idea of ​​civilizational monism, unequivocally associated with the West, still dominated the ideological ideas of Western society. This dominant was based on the indisputable fact of the colonial domination of the West over the rest of the territories of non-Western civilizations. But , of course, this "basis" gave rise to a corresponding ideological "superstructure".

Already in 1945, E. Huntington's book "The Driving Forces of Civilization", published at Yale University "in consultation with many American professors", contains the following characteristic judgment about what civilization is.

It is difficult to give a correct definition of civilization, as well as to establish the exact time of the transition of human culture from barbarism to civilization. Yes, such a definition is not necessary. Everyone admits that in some parts of the world savages live, while in others civilization is at a low level ... In general, it can be said that civilization begins where the transition to agriculture is made, they lead a settled way of life, establish a certain form of government and master writing. There is no adequate explanation of the highest principle of history - the constant movement forward in some basic directions. "We cannot reliably say why all the more highly organized types of animals evolved over geological periods until man appeared. We can attribute the development of civilization to divine laws or to unchanging properties of the universe, but this is only a recognition of our faith or ignorance ( Huntington E. Mainsprings of Civilization. N.Y., 1945. P. 3).

Among the main factors determining the civilizational development of society, E. Huntington considered geographic, climatic, biological, demographic (overpopulation blocks the growth of wealth), dietary (poor diet of nomadic peoples hinders their social evolution), etc. Numerous tables and graphs, supplementing the content of the fundamental book, revealed quantitative criteria for the growth of civilization as a higher state of society. The evolutionary-materialistic approach blocked the author from any possibility of comparing different civilizations and revealing the significance of spiritual systems.

This was one of the directions in which the term "civilization" was affirmed. The colonial ideology used it for its pragmatic purposes, although the term itself had a more complex and profound content (see Chapter XVI). Nevertheless, in academic science, the concept of "civilization" has become increasingly used in the formulation of general cultural and historical principles and laws of the structure and development of a complex human society. It has acquired a key importance in a number of influential general historical, sociological, cultural concepts based on an integrated approach to the study of society and the dynamics of its change.

CURRENT USE OF THE WORD "CIVILIZATION"

In Russian, the word "civilization" became widespread in the 60s. 19th century and is included in the first edition of V. Dahl's dictionary: "Civilization - a hostel, citizenship, consciousness of the rights and duties of man and citizen" ( Dahl V. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. SPb.; M., 1882 P. 574). This word is already frequently used by H.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev and N.G. Chernyshevsky when opposing social and natural principles, developed and wild states (See: Budagov R.A. The history of words in the history of society. S. 126).

Whatever the theoretical achievements of a particular scientific discipline, social thought uses words, putting its own meaning into them, reflecting not so much the "scientific picture of the world" as the ideological state of mind of a given period. The appeal to “civilizational principles”, which has already become commonplace in our social thought, still retains considerable uncertainty and a scatter of meanings. And the existing dictionaries of the Russian language no longer help us understand the meanings of the word "civilization" due to both their ideological attachment to the normative word usage of the previous era, and the rapid changes in the mentality of Russian society.

In the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language (1940), one can find a characteristic mismatch in the meanings of this word:

1. Only units. A high degree of social development that arose on the basis of commodity production, division of labor and exchange (scientific).

2. In general, a public culture that has reached a high degree of development, as well as a society that is the bearer of such a culture.

3. Only units. Use as a designation of modern European culture (Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. M., 1940. Vol. IV. S. 1222).

The first meaning, as it were, replaces the formation, but in the singular and without a “class approach”, the second, although vague, clearly diverges from the first, and the third reflects the “admiration for the West” that has not yet been outlived. In the second edition of the Dictionary of the Russian Language (1954), we find the following basic definitions of the word "civilization":

1. The level of social development, material and spiritual culture achieved by one or another socio-economic formation.

2. Modern world culture.

3. The outdated name of the third period in the development of society, which came after the two previous ones - barbarism and savagery (introduced by L. Morgan, F. Engels) (Dictionary of the Russian language. 2nd ed. M., 1984. T. IV. S. 645 ).

And here the attachment to ideology (in the first sense) is obvious, but also the removal from its early naive-enlightenment variant (in the third), and at the same time recognition (in the second), albeit the most vague, of the value of world culture. The attachment of the first meaning to formational theory is clearly opposed to the second, which turns out to be overloaded in its scope, but the list looks clearly reduced, not taking into account the diversity that had already manifested itself by that time, and subsequently expanded even more.

Among the options for the meaning of the word "civilization", which have currently developed in scientific discourse, the following should be singled out as quite meaningful:

1. Civilization is society (with all the range of meanings of this word), which means that it combines all the components necessary for the existence of society. True, this is a complex society - in contrast to a simple one, which means that it includes various kinds of subsystems, primarily political, economic, cultural and social.

However, there are also taxonomically lower ideas about civilization as a set of natural-ethno-social organisms that are formed even before the transition to a productive economy and adapted to their natural habitat, or in general any more or less definite community. Such use is carried out, for example, in the works of one of the founders of the Annales school, L. Febvre, who recognized the existence of civilizations of tribes, groups, nations, parts of continents or entire continents, individual cities, etc. Revealing the "intellectual field" of this historian, the researcher G.D. Mann writes that for L. Fevre "in the narrow and empirical sense of the word, the total number of civilizations, present and past, can be considered as equal to the number of peoples and tribes that have disappeared or are living, multiplied by the number of eras that distinguish them in history" ( Mann G.D. Lucien Febvre. La pensée vivante d "un historien. P., 1971. P. 50). According to L. Fevre, the boundaries of civilizations can cross peoples and even pass through individuals.

In these cases, we are dealing with an obvious indistinguishability between ethnic, subcultural, regional, individual and civilizational levels of sociocultural regulation. The taxonomy of regulation levels also includes the chronological principle, which makes it truly "dimensionless".

Sometimes the volume of components expands even then, as we find in the work of G. Michaud and E. Mark "On the Science of Civilizations", civilization includes the entire social reality, including the "biosocial system" and "ecosystem" at different stages of its development ( Michaud G., Mark E. Vers une science des civilizations? Bruxelles, 1981. A review of this book is given by I. N. Ionov in the collection "Modern Theories of Civilizations" (M., 1995)). "Civilization" becomes synonymous with the word "society" in a broad sense, embodying not only the unity of material and spiritual culture, but also the system of interaction with the natural environment, as well as the biological factors of being.

The breadth and vagueness of the term in this use makes it possible to use it in the titles of very different historical works, for example, the series “Great Civilizations” published in France: “The Civilization of Egypt in the Age of the Pharaohs” (F. Doma), “The Civilization of Classical Europe” (P. Shonyu) etc.

So, according to some researchers, even in Tropical Africa, many civilizations can be distinguished, starting with the ancient ones, who had a developed division of labor, built cities and states, mastered crafts and sciences, created their own architectural styles, laid trade routes to other countries, etc.

The introduction of the word "civilization" into circulation means, in essence, the historian's obligation to give a versatile and integral description of any society with recognition, albeit not always clearly formulated, of the interconnection of many elements that form the fabric of social structure, a plurality of civilizations and different paths of world history. .

However, with such a definition, the concept of "civilization" turns out to be too overloaded and vague, as a result, it essentially coincides in content with the concept of "society", which makes it necessary to introduce additional terms to denote different types of society.

G. Michaud and E. Mark proposed to semantically separate society as a “subject” of activity and “an organized ensemble of individuals connected by long-term relationships” from civilization as a result of such activity, while at the same time assigning to culture the meaning of “style”, “lifestyle and behavior, forms creations through which this society expresses itself" ( Michaud G., Mark E. Vers une science des civilizations? P. 23). The fuzziness of the framework and content of such a “society” (a group of any size and character can be considered a “subject” and persist for a “quite” long time, for example, Masons) and such a “culture” makes them non-operational in the general system of categories, leads to the fact that and in terms of volume and value-normative and functional content, they are indefinite.

The need to identify the relationship between these components gave rise to complex constructions and combinations of variables that have considerable heuristic value, although they are fraught with a fundamental difference in the definition of the leading components.

2. Civilization - like a city, like an urban society. In this form, civilization appears as a quality that separates the city from the environment and uncivilized societies on the basis of an advanced division of labor, the formation of state-political power and political-military relations between city-states. This meaning is still listed as etymologically primary in many dictionaries (including Webster's and Oxford's - see above).

Following this tradition, P. Bagby defines civilization as "a culture associated with cities" ( Bagby Ph. Culture and History: Prolegomenato the Comparative Study of Civilizations. Berkeley & Los Angeles. 1963. P. 162-163). O. Spengler also saw in the cities the most complete embodiment of civilization, which he, however, defined as a pernicious ossification of culture.

A. Toynbee clearly avoided such a connection between civilization and the city, however, he did not include a single nomadic society in his register of civilizations. The modern American scientist D. Wilkinson also believes that “civilization is an urban society” with a population of at least 10,000 people who are constantly tied to the area (See: Wilkinson D. Spatio-Temporal Boundaries of African Civilizations Reconsidered//Comparative Civilizations Review. 1993. No. 29. P. 52-53). Nevertheless, D. Wilkinson himself states the need to consider the sociopolitical areas created by the network of relations between a group of cities, and in this network of relations, one way or another, the state becomes the leading principle. Applying this approach to the history of the African continent, he finds in it at different times eighteen "candidates" for civilization, including four dead: Egypt, West African, East African (Swahili) and West Central (Congo), and the rest - "possible", or semi-peripheral (See: Wilkinson D. Spatio-Temporal Boundaries of African Civilizations Reconsidered//Comparative Civilizations Review. 1994. No. 31. S. 93).

If this approach is extended to other continents, then the number of civilizations will reach several hundred, and the study will rather represent the history of cities or states, which will become a special subject, very different from civilizational theory, history and comparative studies.

3. Civilization as a modern type of social structure, characteristic of the highly developed countries of the West and other regions that have reached an advanced level of technological development, to some extent introduced civil, political, social and legal institutions that ensure the effective development of society, maintaining its stability and independence personality. With this word usage, it remains to keep in mind only the "modern world civilization", embodying the "new world order", entry into which is mandatory for every "normal" society.

This rejects, both in the present and in the past, the essential meaning of something non-Western, reducible to "survivals" or "historical originality", which has no meaning either for the present or for the future. The socio-cultural systems existing in the world in all the variety of historical types of past and surviving civilizations are not covered in this case by the concept of "civilization", which turns out to be only an ideologeme of the Westernized mentality.

This understanding of the word "civilization" has been preserved for almost two centuries, despite the accumulation of extensive knowledge and the development of sustainable scientific concepts that testify to the diversity of cultures and civilizations.

4. Civilization is a well-organized and humanistic society that ensures the basic rights of the individual, including the right to property, freedom of conscience and religion. This interpretation of the concept also gave rise to the habitual use of the combination "civilized behavior". It goes back to the French or English enlighteners mentioned above and is often used instead of the word "culture". In this sense, both words reproduce the meaning given to them by Western “cultural tregers” or carriers of the “civilizing mission”, who assumed the “burden of a white man” in order to bring new orders to “half-savage, gloomy tribes,” as R. Kipling put it. Although this mission has exhausted itself with the collapse of colonial empires, the former meaning of the word "civilization" is found again and again in the ideological constructions of the Westernized elite.

5. Quite often, the word “civilization” is used to embed the idea of ​​the results of human activity (“the totality of the achievements of human societies”), and then it is believed that civilization is formed by the material, technological, economic components of social life and established institutions, as opposed to cultural creativity. This usage can have both positive and negative meanings. The latter was established largely due to the impression that the work of J.-J. Rousseau, and later O. Spengler, and despite the wide criticism of subjective metaphors as explanatory constructions, this use is retained largely in order to separate the sphere of creativity - primarily culture, opposing it to civilization as a created product.

Although their concepts are generally not accepted by the scientific theory of civilizations, their interpretations are often used in social thought when analyzing the sociocultural contradictions of complex societies in the later stages of their evolution. Sometimes

When American culturologists A. Kroeber and K. Klakhohn published a list of 164 definitions of the word "culture" in 1952, they showed that in most cases this word is used along with "civilization" (Kroeber A.L., Kluckhohn C. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. N.Y., 1952. P. 291). This number very often appears in scientific publications without mentioning the fact that all these uses were grouped by them into several main groups, in which different aspects of culture or different volumes of its content are mainly emphasized.

Material factors are reduced to one summary (for example, type of economy or product), which, presumably, is of decisive importance for the whole society and even groups of societies: bronze, iron, cattle breeding, agricultural, rice, industrial, etc. "civilization". Based on the technological characteristics of various human communities, the existence of integral "civilizations" is postulated.

6. Civilization as a qualitative specificity of each of the large-scale societies that have manifested themselves in world history or are present today, with its inherent originality of social and spiritual life, its basic values ​​and principles of life construction, i.e. originality, formed by the experience of historical development and becoming the basis of its self-awareness and establishing a difference from other societies. In this sense, civilization introduces pluralism into history and modernity, largely coinciding with world religions as integral systems of sociocultural regulation. The attachment of civilization to religion is almost constantly emphasized by the semantics of its name: Western Christian, Eastern Christian, Islamic, Indian (Hindu), Buddhist. Only the Far Eastern civilization seems to fall out of this range, but precisely because it is based on a complex consisting of three religions - Confucianism, sinicized Buddhism and Taoism. Such an understanding of civilization contributed to the development of comparative studies, a comparative study of the societies of the West and the East, the religious and cultural systems of different countries, peoples and periods.

The same approach can be seen in giving the concept of "civilization" the meaning of a national socio-cultural community - in contrast to other national communities and the global system of relations - a community that has communicative unity and its own historical experience, tied to the history of statehood. Then English, French, Japanese, Arabic, Turkish, Tatar “civilizations” arise, within which world history is divided into national-state formations that interact, whether it be close communication or confrontation. Such a definition could include countless small ethnic cultures, and state formations, and large-scale socio-cultural communities. There are cases when the prestigious term "civilization" is also used to denote the collective life of ethnic communities, which is called the "ethnographic concept of civilization." However, in such cases, the term takes on a directly opposite meaning both to its original meaning and to later established common usage.

7. Civilization as a sociocultural community formed on the basis of universal, i.e. supra-local values ​​that are expressed in world religions, systems of morality, law, art. These values ​​are combined with an extensive set of practical and spiritual knowledge and developed symbolic systems that help overcome the local isolation of primary collectives. But no matter how common the word "civilization" in its other meanings, it is with this use that it has received the most stable terminological status in theoretical thought and substantiation in a theory that can be called the theory of civilizations proper.

We omit the use of the word "civilization" in relation to mankind in general in its "generic" meaning, as a set of the most general characteristics and patterns of development in the economic, spiritual or ecological-demographic spheres. Here we find ourselves within the framework of that universalism, for which all large and small human societies are only particular manifestations of these regularities. As a specific variant of such universalism, one should single out the opposition of "terrestrial" and "extraterrestrial" civilizations. Here we go beyond the real earthly history and issues, which translates the subject of research into a completely different plane.

So, the accepted use of the word is very diverse, which sometimes gives reason to doubt the appropriateness of its use as too vague and offer other options. Perhaps, in order to avoid this semantic overload, the Russian culturologist G.S. Pomeranz introduces the term "subecumene" into scientific circulation, denoting "a completed attempt at a supranational culture that has developed an independent philosophy (or world religion)". In accordance with such a high spiritual criterion, G.S. Pomeranz singles out only three special and independent sub-ecumens: the Mediterranean, Indian and Chinese, and if we single out two modifications of the Mediterranean - Western and Middle Eastern, then four.

However, the logic of historical analysis forces G.S. Pomeranets to state that the alleged “subecumens” were divided into civilizations that were in complex interaction and dialogue with each other.

As is known, any human Civilization as such, with the exception of only the wildest

and savage exists for the sole purpose of creating comfortable conditions for people's lives.

This is the only measure of the success of a civilization. . All other criteria are false.

It is the level of comfort, that is, the quality and quantity of goods consumed by the population (in the broad sense of the word) that is the main and only criterion for the civilization of a country.

There are several popular theories that flatly deny this.

1) zoological theory. She argues that civilization allegedly exists not to create comfortable conditions for the population, but solely for its "survival" and preferably "maximum reproduction" and nothing more.

But in this case, why is civilization needed at all? After all, the animals in the forests perfectly "survive and multiply" without any "civilization". Not to mention savages. It is all the more absurd when this thesis is voiced by unfortunate NS, allegedly preoccupied with the fate of the "superior race". If they see the purpose of the existence of a "superior race" only in what even the simplest microorganisms succeed remarkably well, not to mention the inferior races or just monkeys in the jungle, then what are they worried about? The higher races differ from the lower ones in that they are able to create and maintain both for themselves and for others. comfortable living conditions using the property that nature endowed them with as reason. Adapt the world around you to your needs, and not vice versa. Even chimpanzees can simply “survive”. Here in this theory, we are seeing a classic case of quality being replaced by quantity. When the number of individuals in a population, and not the quality of life of each individual representative, acts as a criterion for success.

Using a similar theory, one can conclude that the most "successful" creatures on planet Earth are, for example, cockroaches, which have existed for millions of years. On the other hand, one can come to a different conclusion that there is no meaning to life on Earth as a “reasonable person”.

And yes, it doesn't make any sense at all. In a couple of billion years the Sun will go out, and in a few more billions the Universe will disappear. Everything will come to an end anyway. What difference does it make when exactly? Linear thinking completely ignoring the qualitative component of being cannot come to any other conclusions except for general nihilism. .

2) Marxist theory. She argues that despite the fact that some civilizations show quite a lot of progress in their development, without taking special “revolutionary” measures, it always turns out that only a few consume all the benefits of a given civilization, while millions are forced, on the contrary, to work hard and end up with nothing. This concept is absolutely crazy in principle. Inequality has always existed and exists everywhere. The fact that some benefits are inaccessible to the masses or to no one at all speaks precisely of the insufficient development of this civilization, of its inability to create benefits in a quality and quantity sufficient for the majority of the population. And not about the fact that some of its representatives consume more than others. Imagine that some 200 years ago, the most powerful monarchs died from those diseases that today cure any beggar with one injection in the most shabby clinic. It goes without saying that not one of the richest multimillionaires could even dream of the Internet, mobile phones or DVDs and plasma panels some 50 years ago. All of them watched the most ordinary black-and-white TVs even without a remote control. Thus, it is clear that there can never be a situation when benefits that are inaccessible even to a few suddenly become available to the broad masses. This is nonsense. On the contrary, the benefits available to a few will sooner or later become the property of the masses as this very civilization develops. In fact, the development of civilization is precisely driven by this very minority - the elite. As soon as it is exterminated, and all its simple belongings are stolen by the plebeians (taken and divided), then it immediately turns out that there is no one to develop civilization itself, and even more so to create benefits for the masses. As a result, the masses are in a much worse position. Hence the conclusion. That for the effective development of civilization it is necessary not to oppose the elite to the masses, as Karl Marx and Co. did, but to oppose one part of the progressive elite to another part of the elite - who has died on their laurels and often undeservedly snickering. For the elite to be in a state of constant competition with each other. That's when progress begins in society.

And the quantity and quality of goods consumed by the masses grows along with the quantity and quality of goods consumed by the elite. For developed civilizations, it is just the opposite that there is no gap separating the level of consumption of the bottom and the top. This is due to the simple fact that a developed civilization can produce a quantity of goods at the required level of quality sufficient to meet the needs of millions, and not just a few. And as you know, one person, with all the desire, cannot live simultaneously in thousands of houses, eat hundreds of thousands of hamburgers a day, or drive hundreds of cars at the same time, even with a billion dollar fortune. In fact, all these "luxuries" are more a reflection of status than actually consumed resources. After all, it is clear that even the most expensive dinner in a luxurious restaurant cannot be more than 10 meals in the cheapest fast food at cost. And 10 times more steel and glass cannot be used for the most luxurious car than for some of the cheapest youth brands. Moreover, the price of elite real estate in no way reflects its real cost. Roughly speaking, the number of bricks and cement is not directly related to the scene of this property.

In addition, it is clear that civilization, like any system, is a single thing in this particular dimension. It is not possible for the existence of two non-overlapping civilizations on the same territory, one for the elite and the other for the masses. They inevitably interact. If the elite tries to isolate itself from the masses in its own civilization, then it thereby ceases to be the actual elite in relation to this entire space, which inevitably leads to the fact that among the masses a new elite will mature, which has much more reason to be considered as such..

3.) Scientific and economic theory .The most popular of all of the above because of the not-so-obvious absurdity

It also tries in every possible way to deny the level of consumption of goods by the masses as the only and true criterion for the development of civilization. Replacing it with such abstract things as the "development of science and technology" as well as the "quantity of production" of certain goods. The result of the abuse of such an approach is the saddest. In most cases, this leads to the fact that the population is massively employed in the production of many "useful" resources, that is, "potential goods", which nevertheless will never be eventually consumed in the volume and at the level of quality as intended. The thing is that absolutely any product until the moment of its final consumption is not a blessing, but only a resource for the transformation of which into a blessing, a number of other additional conditions are often needed, and not separately taken, but their qualitative combination. That is, we again and again face the substitution of quality for quantity. A number of examples can be given to illustrate this. For example, who is the owner of the greater good at this particular moment in time, the one who has a bag of flour in the basement, or the one who has a piece of cake in the refrigerator? Theoretically, a sack of flour is a potentially great boon, but that's only potentially. At this particular point in time, this is not the case. In order to make a real good (which can be consumed) out of this potential good, it is necessary at first. Secondly, a person who is currently unemployed is needed, thirdly, not just a person, but a person who owns the technology of high-quality production of confectionery products, and finally, a number of other ingredients (eggs, butter, sugar, cream, etc.) are needed, as well as equipment (like minimum dishes and oven). That's how much everything turns out to be necessary in order for a potential good (resource) to turn into a real good.

Another example. Even the most powerful modern computer with the highest reserves of memory and computing power, if it does not have any high-quality software installed, if it is not connected to the Internet, etc. does not bring any "good" to the user. Not to mention the fact that the criterion for the effectiveness of programs is just the opposite. The less it consumes memory and computing resources to perform the same actions per unit of time, the better.

Therefore, when they try to replace the criterion for the development of civilization with the amount of resources produced by this civilization, then this is absolutely stupid. After all, the goal of producing resources can only be to use them efficiently. If this does not happen, if the production of resources is in no way connected with their final consumption, that is, with the actual result, then there is no more sense in such a “development of Civilization” than dragging bricks from corner to corner or banging your head against the wall.

Thus, to judge the development of civilization by the “level of GDP”, that is, because how much iron and steel is smelted to produce how many steam locomotives, which will be enough to transport coal to smelt even more steam locomotives, in order to smelt even more iron and steel to smelt even more the number of locomotives, etc. etc. this is just the height of insanity.

The same applies to the development of "science", "culture", etc. If the “scientists” even invented some kind of “super technology”, or “discovered” or “researched” something there, but this Civilization does not bring any special benefits, but is necessary only for the “general interest”, then, of course, if only this “interest "not to be considered as a good consumed by these scientists themselves, as well as by other" inquisitive "citizens, then the final result of their activity is equal to zero. What can we say about those “scientists”, they didn’t come up with anything worthwhile and didn’t discover anything, but only acquired degrees by defending some absolutely useless dissertations, at best, ripping them off from somewhere, and at worst, writing a bunch of complete nonsense and for a box of cognac in front of each other "defending" their immortal opuses on some shabby pulpit.

But even the most useful discoveries and technologies are only a potential, a resource that still needs to be turned into mass goods, applying a lot of additional conditions.

The same applies to the figures of "culture". When employees of philharmonics and conservatories go to listen to each other's concerts, then what benefits do their "highly cultured activities" bring to people? Thus, again we have a case only with a resource, but not with a result.
Of course, no one objects to the fact that if people enjoy scientific, cultural, etc. activity in itself, when it boils in its own juice
do this. But the fact of the matter is that only a developed and successful one can allow some to do such things. If civilization is not able to provide these people with even the most elementary benefits up to food, then
can she afford them? Therefore, the miserable life of workers in science and culture both under the USSR and even more so in modern Russia is also direct evidence that such spheres existed and exist solely for decoration and in no way reflect the true development of Soviet or modern Russian civilization.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the most important element of any civilization is the same elite - the class of masters (masters)

Starting with the simplest farmer, from the owner of a shop or workshop, and ending with a multimillionaire who is on the board of directors of a particular corporation. Everything depends on them in the end. And also from officials denounced by the authorities to solve problems of the global level, either local or national. It is they who decide how to use certain resources. Either squander them senselessly and stupidly wasting them, or use them for the benefit of yourself and others. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the final result, and not the potential opportunities. On the contrary, even. Great potential opportunities in the process and the final insignificant result in the end speaks just about a complete civilizational collapse. About the crisis and the inability of a given civilization to exist at all in a given territory. Due to the fact that this most key link is either withdrawn almost completely (as under Soviet rule) or extremely poor quality, incapable or weak and immature as it is today. This explains why Russia, while possessing more or less high-quality natural conditions, a vast territory and a fairly good human potential for the most part, nevertheless found itself in the deepest civilizational crisis. It got to the point that the largest country in the world, with one of the lowest absolute population density indicators, is suffocating from overcrowding in megacities! This, like nothing else, shows a total collapse. For it turns out that the elite of this country is not able to create GENERALLY such civilizational benefits outside of Moscow and other large cities of Russia, so that as a result the population does not migrate en masse to where they are already sorely lacking.

In fact, if you face the truth, it turns out that the level of consumption of goods in modern Russian society has grown solely due to those goods that neither in the USSR nor in Russia were produced in sufficient quality and quantity, and are not produced to this day. The same benefits that cannot be "brought" in principle, due to their immovable properties, in modern Russia have become almost no more than in the USSR, or even less.

If the elite of any post-Soviet country only has the ability to import goods, the final production of which is organized by the elites of the West in a form ready for consumption, in exchange for tons of oil and gas, iron and steel, or in general "promises to" build democracy ", as well as for permanent departure as the elite and the rest of the population abroad, that is, to the actual places of consumption of these goods instead of creating them in Russia, then such an “elite” is worthless and woe to such a country and civilization.

Civilization - a historical socio-cultural formation that has a single geopolitical space, a homogeneous culture, a certain normative-value orientation and a specific form of integration.

Civilization - a cultural community of people with a certain social genotype, a social stereotype, which has mastered a large autonomous, closed world space, due to which it has received a strong place in the world community.

Civilization is a way of organizing the collective life of people through the social heritage in the field of economics, socio-political and spiritual life of people.

Civilization - this is an image of a special humanity on a separate land, which is created due to the common history, traditions, customs, language, religious beliefs.

Signs of civilization:

the emergence of writing;

various forms of division of labor;

the emergence of cities;

the emergence of the state;

the emergence of law (law);

humanism.

It should be noted that the concept of civilization has not yet been fully formed, although no one doubts that civilization is the main phenomenon of the historical development of mankind, displacing the concept of socio-economic formations, which was very common in the past in Marxist theory. Civilization becomes the main category of modern historical and other human sciences. But this is a conventional unit of interpretation of human history, a kind of conventional theoretical construct. This is confirmed by the fact that no one can say how many civilizations on Earth were in the past and are today. No one can name a single number of civilizations on the globe. Even the same scientist (not to mention different thinkers), A. Toynbee, names a different number of civilizations in his works (“Comprehension of History”): 21, 23, 27, of which 7 have remained by now: Chinese, Hindu , Far Eastern, Islamic, Western, Slavic-Orthodox, Iranian. In later studies, the following are the largest civilizations of the modern world:

western,

Eastern European (Orthodox),

islamic,

Confucian,

Hindu,

japanese,

latin american,

African.

Relationship between culture and civilization

There are different points of view on this issue:

identification of these concepts;

breaking and even opposing them;

recognition of the close relationship of these concepts.

Most researchers consider civilization as a certain stage in the development of culture. Moreover, civilization is most often seen as external in relation to man, the world that affects him and opposes him, while culture is always man's inner wealth, reveals the measure of his development, inner wealth, is a symbol of his spiritual wealth.

The relationship of culture and civilization should be considered in two plans (planes). AT diachronic in terms of civilization is a certain (according to most scientists, the highest) level of development of culture. AT structural-synchronous In terms of civilization, it is a certain way of expressing and organizing socio-cultural life: production activities and their technical and technological equipment, political activities and political institutions, the legal system, the education system, science and art, etc. In other words, civilization is a system of mechanisms that serve culture, and therefore is inside it, and not outside it.