City as a cultural phenomenon. Morphology and philosophy of culture

1. Content . 2

2. Introduction . 3

3. . 4

4. Early Christian communities .. 6

5. Development of Christian mythology . 7

6. The emergence of the Christian church and cult . 9

7. Making Christianity the State Religion .. 11

8. Varieties of Christianity . 13

8.1 Orthodoxy. 13

8.1.1. Orthodoxy in Rus'. 14

8.2.Catholicism.. 14

8.3 Protestantism. 15

8.4 Lutheranism. 16

8.5. Calvinism.. 16

8.6 Presbyterians. 17

8.7. Anglican Church. 17

8.8. Baptism.. 17

9. Conclusion . 18

10. Literature . 19

2. Introduction

On the origin of Christianity written a huge, essentially vast number of books, articles and other publications. Christian authors, philosophers of the Enlightenment, representatives of biblical criticism, and atheist authors worked in this field. This is understandable, since we are talking about the historical phenomenon - Christianity, which created numerous churches, has millions of followers, occupied and still occupies a large place in the world, in the ideological, economic and political life peoples and states. Christianity - (from the Greek - Christos - anointed one) is one of the so-called world religions (along with Buddhism and Islam). Christianity is widespread in Europe, America, Australia, and also as a result of active missionary activity - in Africa, the Middle East and a number of regions of the Far East. Accurate data on the number of followers of Christianity are not available. The main ideas of Christianity: the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ, the forthcoming second coming of Christ, the Last Judgment, heavenly retribution and the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. So what is Christianity. In short, it is a religion based on the belief that two thousand years ago God came into the world. He was born, received the name Jesus, lived in Judea, preached, suffered and died on the cross like a man. His death and subsequent resurrection from the dead changed the fate of all mankind. His preaching marked the beginning of a new, European civilization. For Christians, the main miracle was not the word of Jesus, but He Himself. The main work of Jesus was his being: being with people, being on the cross.

3. Prerequisites for the emergence of Christianity

Christianity arose in the 2nd half of the 1st century. n. e. in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. Religions ancient world were usually limited in their distribution by one or another nationality; for example, there were religions of the Egyptians, Romans, Jews, Babylonians, Persians; these religions, closely associated with certain states, served the interests of their masters. These religions were characterized by contempt for slaves, for slave labor. The new religion was to appeal to all the peoples of the vast Roman Empire, regardless of any ethnic boundaries, discarding various restrictive rites and ceremonies inherent in the old religions. It was supposed to appeal to all social strata of society, including slaves who could be members of new religious communities, for the first time proclaiming abstract equality in the form of equality of people before God. Its emergence was partially prepared by the attempts of the Roman state power to establish a single state cult for the entire empire in the form of the cult of the emperor declared by the god-man, equally obligatory for all the peoples inhabiting the empire. Christianity was also prepared by the mixing of different beliefs in the Roman Empire and the spread of the cults of certain deities [eg Isis (Egypt), Mithras (Iran)] outside the country in which they were originally worshiped. The new religion, reflecting the beginning of the collapse of the ancient world order, was at the same time the embryo of an ideology that was more in line with the elements of new social relations.

The ideological atmosphere in which Christianity arose was characterized by the wide dissemination of various idealistic views, religious and ethical teachings. During this period, Greek philosophy increasingly degenerated into crude idealism, mysticism, turned into theology. The ideas of this philosophy, calling for a departure from the knowledge of the natural world, nature and praising the "spirit" and mystical contemplation, were widely spread throughout the Roman Empire. The Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca (“the uncle of Christianity”, in the words of Engels) taught that the body is a burden for the soul and a punishment for it, that earthly life is only a prelude to the afterlife of the soul, that this life is available to all segments of the population. The ideas of Greek idealist philosophy also influenced the well-known teachings of the philosopher of the 1st century. n. e. Philo of Alexandria, whom Engels called "the father of Christianity." Philo taught that the material world, including human nature, is a sinful, lowly beginning, the body is the dungeon of the soul. The abyss separates the spiritual world from the material world, but between these worlds there is a mediator - the divine logos, the savior, the messiah, through which a sinful person, imbued with faith, can be saved. Philo also reworked Jewish myths about the messiah - the savior, the virgin-born demigod. This time was characterized by the spread of various mystical currents of Gnosticism, which also developed the doctrine of the divine logos - the mediator, and declared that through mysticism one could achieve the knowledge of hidden things, "wisdom", "enlightenment" and "salvation".

In the ancient polytheistic religions known at that time, the notion of an "expiatory sacrifice" to the gods for the "sins" of people who could thus be "purified" was of greater importance. Faith in divine saviors, closely associated with the annual death and resurrection of vegetation and the cult of the Sun, was also widespread in all countries of the ancient world. All these beliefs formed the basis of the Christian idea of ​​"the God-man", the "son of God", who descended to earth, accepted suffering and death in order to redeem people from "original sin".

Of great importance in the preparation of the new religion were the Jewish colonies of the diaspora, located outside of Palestine. In the quarters of the large cities of the East, where the Jewish poor huddled, they were always ready to listen to a sermon about the sinfulness of this world, about ways to get rid of the hardships of life with the help of the intervention of supernatural forces. Religious teachings spread here, preaching hatred for the "pagans", their society and state, faith in the messiah - the "savior", "God's anointed", who should come into the world and bring deliverance to this mass. The ideas of various religious movements that originated in Palestine were refracted in their own way in the diaspora colonies. In Palestine, the sect of the Zealots preached, for example, that a messiah would come, who would gather a militia and drive out foreigners - the Romans - from the country. In the Jewish colonies, the religious ideas of the messiah changed, the image of the messiah increasingly acquired an unearthly character, the arrival of the messiah was interpreted mystically, as the onset of a certain "kingdom of God", as a relief for the poor. Another sect in Palestine, the Essenes, also preached messianism and called for self-improvement. Circles of "therapists" in Egypt preached a withdrawal from the cities; those who joined this movement built their huts in the vicinity of Alexandria, led a harsh lifestyle, did not eat meat, and spent time in prayers and interviews. Such circles preached to the poor, declaring that only in poverty is God's blessing, they demanded forgiveness, mortification of the flesh, renunciation of worldly pleasures. Teachings that were a mixture of Judaism and fragments of Greek idealistic philosophy were spread among such circles. That. Christianity did not appear ready-made; the process of its formation took a long time. Early Christianity is characterized by a variety of circles, groups, currents, among which there was no agreement on a number of important issues of dogma.

4. Early Christian communities

Apparently, the first communities that recognized the new god, the savior of Christ, developed in Asia Minor, in Ephesus, Tiatira, etc., as well as in Alexandria (in Egypt); there is no scientific data on the emergence of these first communities in Palestine (of which the Christian tradition speaks).

The first Christian communities were notable for their simplicity of organization: their members held meetings and shared meals. Sermons were delivered at the meetings. Separate communities exchanged messages. Preachers were at the head of the congregations. There was still no church organization, no orderly cult, no strictly established mythology.

It is possible that at the beginning there was not even unanimity among these sects regarding the name for the new god Christ the anointed. Some recognized as their deity John, a hermit and preacher of hermitage, who was later relegated in Christian legend to the role of a "forerunner", the official predecessor of Jesus Christ. In other communities, the name of the half-forgotten Jewish-Israeli "savior" Jesus was taken for the new god, whose cult, apparently, was in connection with the name of the hero of biblical myths revered by the Jews - Joshua. It is possible that the early Christians imagined the new god as the revival of some ancient deity. Echoes of such ideas are preserved in the Gospel, where it is said about Jesus Christ: “... Some said that John had risen from the dead; others that Elijah appeared; and others that one of the ancient prophets has risen.” The outlines of the myth about the new god Christ were at first extremely vague: belief in the miraculous birth, death and resurrection of the savior god - that, perhaps, was all that united the early Christian communities in the field of dogma. They were much more united by hatred towards Rome, which was depicted as a harlot drunk on the blood of the tortured, in scarlet clothes sitting on a beast with 7 heads. The first Christians were convinced that Rome - the great harlot - would soon be destroyed, all the adherents of Rome and the devil himself would be cast down and imprisoned, and the "kingdom of God" would triumph on earth, led by Christ. After a thousand years, the devil will be released and there will be a new battle of spirits and a new final defeat of the devil. Faith in the thousand-year "kingdom of God", the so-called. chiliastic moods, known to us from the religious monuments of various peoples of the ancient world, including the Egyptians, are extremely characteristic of early Christianity, which lived in the hope of supernatural deliverance and imminent triumph over sinful and hated Rome. Christian mythology, dogma and cult took shape only later, in the struggle of numerous Christian sects, as a result of a collision with various religious movements of Greek or ancient Eastern origin. In the oldest monument of Christian literature, "The Revelation of John" ("Apocalypse"), written in Asia Minor around 69. n. e. only rebellious moods were reflected: hatred of Rome, the expectation of the imminent death of the world empire, the “end of the world”, when Christ will arrange a “last judgment”, carry out massacres on earth and establish the “kingdom of God”. The "Revelation" does not mention the stories about the earthly life and sufferings of Christ, which then filled the Gospels. The image of Christ is endowed with exceptionally fantastic features: he was born in heaven from a wife “clothed in the sun and crowned with a crown of stars,” etc. At the same time, "Revelation" shows that different currents were already fighting in Christianity at that time. Rebellious moods in the course of this struggle were not destined to win. Hope for supernatural deliverance, for "God's will", and not faith in human strength, in the possibility of struggle, dominated the minds of people.

Irina Prokhorova: We continue the cycle of programs dedicated to the culture of everyday life. This time we will talk about the city as a cultural phenomenon.

In the world community for several decades, the topic of urban planning, urban space and reorganization has been one of the important and fashionable topics, unfading, both in the expert community and in the general public. This fashion came to our country a little later: for the last five to seven years, this has also become the focus of attention.

And today we will make our modest contribution to the endless discussions and debates about what the city is and how it is changing. It is important for me to discuss the city as a certain production of culture, the city as a civilization, and how it changes, how it changes the life value practices of the people living in it, and how people themselves transform the urban environment. In general, the topic is immense, but I think that we will touch on it at least tangentially.

There is constant talk among experts about the crisis of the modern city or the disappearance of the classical city, about the fact that everything is changing and transforming endlessly. And my question will be simple: what is meant by the idea of ​​a classical and traditional city? And can we isolate any important, fundamental characteristics, despite such a variety of cities and ways of their foundation? What is a classical city in general, from which we start when we talk about a modern city?

Oleg Shapiro: A classic city is probably such a mass settlement of people who are not engaged in agriculture. Apparently, it began as a city, as a Greek policy, and since then this tradition has not changed. Recently, however, they dug up somewhere the city of Uryuk, which was 6 thousand years ago, the oldest settlement, and now there is the city of Uryuk in Germany. Everything was there: crafts, sculptures, culture, there was a social stratification of people, in general, everything was like in a real city. Therefore, it seems to me that a classic city is a population limited in space, where there is a central part, where people are engaged in non-agriculture, and they apparently have a community of citizens.

Prokhorov: When does a compact settlement of people become a city? The refugee camp is also a compact settlement, but it is not a city. Is the city still a structured space, somewhere hierarchically built?

Oksana Zaporozhets: For sociologists, when they began to define the city of the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was very important to do this through its social fabric, through social relations that arise in the city. If architects, geographers or representatives of other disciplines want to define the city through materiality, through the specifics of activity, then sociologists speak of the city of the 19th-20th centuries as an industrial center and as the specifics of the relations that arise there. Of course, we can talk about the city of an earlier period, but sociology is a fairly young science and has mainly been talking about the city since the 19th century.

Prokhorov: And the settlements of the XVIII century can not be called a city?

Zaporozhets: Of course you can. But the city falls into the field of view of sociology in the 19th century. It is clear that there was literature, there was painting, other ways of understanding the urban environment. Industrial city, emerging in late XVII I - the beginning of the 19th century, beautifully described by novelists - this is a city of loners, a city that gradually pulls a person out of the family, from close neighboring communities, and makes him independent.

Prokhorov: That is, the modern city is the beginning of the 19th century?

Zaporozhets: It is a modern city, of course, because the city dwellers at that time were usually first-generation city dwellers who had moved from the countryside. Accordingly, these are people who have lost their social ties and acquired what urban explorers considered important at the time - a certain anonymity. That is, from dense, close social control, you move to a completely different situation - you are alone in a big city where you are not very well known or completely unknown - and you acquire the freedoms of a city dweller with all the pluses, freedom of action, freedom to start certain stories from the beginning.

Prokhorov: It seems to me that you are describing the situation towards the end of the 19th century. Early XIX centuries is, of course, the birth of a new city, but the society there is still rigidly class-based, there are almost no public spaces.

Viktor Vakhshtein: A very interesting dichotomy indeed, because sociology, like any language for describing the world, sees the world from the moment it appears.

Prokhorov: World creation?

Wachstein: The creation of the world literally coincides with the creation of language. Excuse me, our language was created precisely as a response - what Oksana is talking about - to the fact that the city that gave rise to high culture ended. The problem is that for sociologists it is not properly urban. In other words, the classical city, which the culturologist likes to study through architectural monuments, is not relevant for the sociologist, because what is relevant for him is just the breakup and disintegration of it all. For sociologists, the city is a monstrous place.

Look at the texts of our classics Simmel and Tennis. Tennis even has such a curse in the text - a grossstatter, that is, a resident of a big city - this is not a person at all, he has no social ties, he has no parents nearby, nothing holds him, nothing limits him. And for Simmel, a city dweller is a neurotic, because the constant source of stimuli from the external environment makes him an absolutely uncontrollable, uncontrollable being. And so sociologists who study community and social connections, and not culture at all, they, of course, study the city at the moment when the city that interests the person who studies the topic of culture disappears.

Prokhorov: What you describe is a typical romantic prejudice - the city as an artificial, unnatural habitat, torn from a rural idyll, turns into such an unhappy, alienated and so on.

Shapiro: I think the tradition is on.

Prokhorov: The tradition continues because at the same time, the stupid people flee to the cities and prefer to be alienated, lonely, cut off from social ties. It seems to me that there is a big gap between the really attractiveness of the urban environment - cities are growing for a reason - and some ideas about what a city is like.

A little more touch on the theme of classical cities. You don't have to be an expert in urban studies to see that cities have evolved in very different ways. We say that there should be a center, a periphery, some government buildings. For example, London, which, like Moscow, by the way, was made up of estates and villages, in a sense, unlike, however, from Moscow, does not have a center. There are several centers there, and this is not at all a city like Paris, which has a pronounced central, sacred.

Wachstein: There are two aspects here.

Shapiro: There are worse cities.

Wachstein: And we know it.

Shapiro: Let's say, some city of Midtown in the center of Texas - this is where, in fact, everything is lined up in such cells, some houses are thrown, then these cells continue to infinity, because further in the centers of these cells there are oil-producing such things. And flying over it, we can fly over the same structure for half an hour: somewhere there are houses, somewhere instead of houses there are these towers, but this is also a city.

Prokhorov: By the way, in our country, alas, there are a huge number of such industrial cities, built primarily in the 20th century. Can they be considered cities? Considering that, as a rule, there is almost no infrastructure of cultural life there: when they were building, no one thought about the comfort of living and that there should be an urban community.

Shapiro: Of course, if we take Tolyatti - probably the most odious city - it was invented as an ideal city. There is housing here, and here production is next to it. People go there straight from home.

Prokhorov: From the bedroom he moved to the factory and returned back. And so many cities, in fact, lined up with us.

Shapiro: But he could pass through the center, and there should have been a market, the Sports Palace, something else. It didn't happen at some point, it just wasn't completed. It turned out that maybe this is an extra or extra cost. But I must say that Togliatti had to die. I even once tried to write a book called Chronicle of Declared Death. While I was trying to write it, he came to life: he has an old city, and they somehow “creeped” with Samara. And in general, the city of 700 thousand people cannot, I think, not regulate itself, it has regulated itself in such a way that now it, in general, does not particularly need the production of AvtoVAZ, they have some kind of life there, and the city became more normal than it could be. What can I say about comfort.

Prokhorov: Classical cities arose from consolidations, but nevertheless, all kinds of sacred buildings, government buildings and everything else were built there, and then - quarters that sprawled. Options - for example, what you described in Midtown, Los Angeles, which has no center at all. What type of city is this? Can we say that this is a modern city, a city of the future? Or is our idea of ​​a classic city a little, so to speak, exaggerated?

Wachstein: Just like a monstrous city is a myth of a romantic nature, generated, by the way, by the ideology of the twentieth century; a city that has structure, culture, places to go, and so on. Because historical cities are really extremely diverse; if we look at the classic work of Bruno Latour, then there the city is just a few houses around the market. That is, there is a market - that's it, the city also exists, it has enough, no culture is needed. If we look at the works of Anna Harendt, they are, of course, about everything related to public communication, the organization of the public sphere. If there is an agora, there is a polis; if there is no agora, there is no polis. But at the same time, there has never been such a rigid canon that a city is something that has a center, periphery, etc.

In general, the idea that cities should be organized for the comfort of people, so that residents do not get sick of the place where they live, is the idea of ​​the 20th century. Historically, cities were created not for comfort, not for the convenience of life, and you and I live in one of these cities, which for the last 7 years has been thinking that it would probably be good not only to earn money here and spend most of the time in traffic jams , but still a little bit and live.

Almost until the middle of the 20th century, the idea that cities are needed for people does not visit the head of those involved in urban management. Because cities are concentration, cities are resources, cities are defense (but up to a point where defense is indeed the dominant function of urban development). And already at some point, including on the wave of the ideology of bourgeois comfort, the idea arises that it would be nice to go to the theater from time to time, and not step over the bodies of the workers, and so that the dogs do not rush at you from the doorways, and so that the soot does not cover your snow-white dresses with a dense layer.

Shapiro: You know, I would like to add about culture. This is also the case in the 21st century. Because, say, the city of Dubai is a city without culture, Hong Kong is a city with transport, with a transport structure, but without culture. Therefore, now in Hong Kong there is a district - Western Kowloon, where, for example, there are six theaters, an exhibition hall, etc., that is, this is a special area implanted in the city so that there is also culture, so that it is like all other cities.

Prokhorov: Listen, but there is an economy of culture, experts say that if you close the Louvre in Paris, the influx of tourists will be halved. In this sense, a very important part of the attractiveness of a big city is not just communications and everything else, but, of course, everything that is connected with culture, with cultural leisure and the availability of cultural information in the broadest sense of the word. And this is an integral part of such conglomerates. Otherwise, they lose a lot, despite the fact that, perhaps, it is good to live there and electric trains run, etc. It seems to me that this is just a very important point; Moreover, what I wanted to talk about is that culture is, perhaps, not only theaters, but the very structure of the city. If we begin to decorate the embankments, make jogging tracks, this is also part of the cultural space that changes our attitude. Why is it coming now, and to what extent can it be considered related to the revolution of urban consciousness?

Zaporozhets: There is a question here - what we mean by culture in this case. You said that culture is not only about museums. But here it is important to understand that culture is not only something that exists in some infrastructural forms - libraries, museums, parks - but also, for example, something that exists in very mobile, very unsteady forms. As a researcher of street art, I can say that, of course, street art is a very attractive component of a number of modern cities. Street art is partly embedded in the economy; people come specifically to see it, they are ready to buy postcards, prints; but at the same time it is such a non-classical consumption, maybe.

People are pleased to know the city, they are pleased to discover it themselves. And such a culture as the creativity of citizens and the creativity of visitors, in which the place is the whole city, is very conducive to this. That is, we are talking about different types of cultures, and this street culture, which is created by city dwellers, creative people, very often lacks meaning as an important component of culture. About street art, we can say: who cares, this is some kind of daub on the walls. But at the same time, people pay a lot of money (or not so much) in order to come to this city and go on a paid (or free) trip with local enthusiasts and see everything.

Prokhorov: By the way, in St. Petersburg, all the fences were painted, and it became a city attraction. I heard that taxi drivers offered to drive around the city for a very small fee in order to specifically look at it.

Shapiro: In Chelyabinsk, too, in my opinion, right?

Zaporozhets: Yes Yes Yes.

Shapiro: But nothing was painted there, thank God.

Wachstein: There, the whole city just changed itself. There is a free plot here, connected with the point at which culture really becomes a significant landmark of urban politics. If we look at the conflict between the basic metaphors of urban political elites throughout the 20th century, it is a conflict between two grand narratives. The first is modernist, built around the ideology of maximum density, because the city is conceived in this language as a place of concentration of resources. Therefore, it is very important that a person spend as little time as possible from the place of residence to the place of work, because in this case he is a producer. And of course, this is not Soviet history, this is the New York of the period of Robert Moses - a man who started as a utopian poet, then as a wonderful artist who built the city of the future as an amusement park in the city itself. And then, as observers began to notice, New York itself began to transform along the lines of this park of the future.

Shapiro: But they stopped there.

Wachstein: Yes, yes, and this is just the second narrative, because when your city is primarily a point of economic growth, then what kind of culture does it have? Culture in this description language is encoded in a very funny way. People have needs, including cultural ones, so let's satisfy them somehow so that people work better. And in this language, culture disappears - solely from the point of view of satisfying mythical cultural needs. This is what stopped Robert Moses, the real leftists, Jane Jacobs, whose genius was, in particular, that she did not use the traditional leftist rhetoric about inequality, about the urban poor, but emphasized the figure of the community. From here comes the ideology that the city is when my son rides in the yard on a swing that my father built. The city is about the social fabric, social connections, about the constant consolidation of social interactions. But at the same time, there is also no special culture there, only if we do not recode social interactions as cultural after the fact.

Prokhorov: And why? We come to different cities, we see a different way of life, different relationships, the existence and coexistence of communities. This is also, I think, an element of culture. And for me, for example, the idea of ​​the city's cultural mythology is very important. At one time I was in close contact with Norilsk and talked a lot about the fact that the problem of this beautiful city, standing on permafrost, is that there is no urban environment there.

Wachstein: Norilsk was built according to St. Petersburg patterns.

Prokhorov: Yes, according to St. Petersburg patterns, which in itself inspires and terrifies. There is a theater and a gallery, everything is there. But at the same time, in the city, when I was there, there was absolutely no feeling of an urban environment. Monuments, one or two, were ideological, people there, roughly speaking, had nowhere to make an appointment. And the first small sculptures in the city, which we partly supported, were monuments to a deer, a walrus, etc. It all seemed very funny, but it was settled in instantly, the sculptures became part of the city's mythology, folklore. People came to rub the nose of the walrus, and this walrus became part of some other student circle. It seems to me that this is urban culture, without this there is no city, the social fabric is torn.

Shapiro: There must be symbolic places.

Prokhorov: Yes Yes Yes.

Shapiro: There are always symbolic places in the city. And now we are talking with students, in fact, this is such a strange topic, because in Moscow, for example, there are places that have always been, but their significance is gradually being erased, disappearing. Let's say Lenin's library or hippodrome. The hippodrome occupies 42 hectares, you won’t believe it, one and a half thousand horses live there, just one and a half thousand horses in the center of the city, and there are almost no people there.

Prokhorov: Just an anarchist dream - free horses.

Shapiro: Yes. You understand, less and less people go to the National Library. But we cannot take it and somehow destroy it or relocate it. Therefore, these places require a new understanding and a new reading in order to revive them. But, on the other hand, they will never disappear, they have been and continue to be a symbol of the city.

Prokhorov: Look, in the 90s it turned out that there is a cultural memory of the city. In those places where, before the Soviet regime, let's say, there was a focus of hot spots, in the same place, after the revolution, all this arose again, for unknown reasons. And people didn't even know about it. It's the same with other places. It is very interesting how this cultural tradition is transmitted.

Shapiro: This, apparently, is the topology of the city and indeed traditions. The Glutton Row is the Kuznetsky Most, there is also the Bolshoy restaurant there, etc. Something will either close or open there, but nevertheless people continue to actively eat there.

Wachstein: If there really is such a strong cultural inertia, then I begin to wonder why the best smart magazine Rigi is located in the building of the first legal brothel.

Prokhorov: Life and erotica are inseparable.

Wachstein: We need to think about where exactly all our editorial offices are located. But if you go back for a second, at what point the city political elite starts coding culture as something meaningful? At the moment when the metaphor "the city as a stage" appears? Jan Gale in this sense is simply the apotheosis of this way of thinking, in which cities are created for people to walk there and enjoy life. "Don't ask me how many people live in this city," says Jan Gale, "ask me how many enjoy it."

Shapiro: Victor, and it is also important that people have free time.

Wachstein: Certainly. In order to build scaffolding in every courtyard in Moscow, it is necessary that someone has the opportunity and time to reach these courtyards.

Prokhorov: Actually, public spaces appear in the second half of the 19th century. Our favorite Impressionists - what do they describe? Absolutely new radical practices that are not very clear to us now, these restaurants where they are already dancing - this was generally a very new phenomenon then, it seems to us now that it has been around all our lives.

Shapiro: boulevards.

Prokhorov: Namely, boulevards and the emergence of public space in general are both then and now completely new phenomena.

Wachstein: There is a small historical inclusion here - what then settles down and becomes a cultural space may initially have completely different purposes. For example, the boulevard is needed for a simple thing - it is easy to shoot through, because when you have the Parisian barricades, the cannonball does not fly through all these streets. That is, you need to build understandable straight axes there, along which you put guns on both sides - and no barricades, and no Paris Commune, everything is fine, and then it becomes a place of culture.

Shapiro: This is true.

Zaporozhets: Here I would like to return to the idea of ​​stability or mobility of cultural spaces or symbolic places. Look, what depresses me, for example, as a researcher is not only the static nature and the persisting tradition of places, but also a short memory for some places, a short memory of their significance. And, first of all, in this case I am talking about the Arbat, the Old Arbat in Moscow. In the late 80s and 90s, it was a very significant space; a lot of pedestrian streets were called Arbat in completely different cities. Because it embodies the idea that Victor spoke about: the city is not for functional movement, the city is for a walk. In the city, you can stand on the street, talk to someone, watch the scenes of city life.

Today, the Arbat is a shopping street, mainly for foreigners, rare admirers of Viktor Tsoi, theatergoers, etc. It is a pity that today the history of the Arbat does not fit into the history of urban transformations - the creation of pedestrian zones, etc. For a late Soviet person, this was an important school of public, street life. Not a school of marches sports competitions, demonstrations that took place in the cities, and the opportunity to stare, walk, be a bum. Accordingly, all these Arbat ensembles, artists, etc. arose. It is sad that we have such a short memory for important city places.

Shapiro: Quite a long time ago - and here we are not talking about Greek cities, about gigantic temples, where people not only came to pray, but also led an active social life there - for example, in the Volga cities there were embankments. It's not really a new phenomenon, it's just a different perspective. As for the Arbat, it's just very badly done. Among architects, this is considered a story of great failure.

Prokhorov: I remember that in the 70s there were many discussions and scandals, in the perestroika press this was discussed endlessly.

Shapiro: Where did the idea of ​​Arbat come from? The first such street was in Kaunas - Alley of Freedom. Then we decided that we should do the same in Moscow. It was too artificial, too theatrical. Artists appeared later and were quickly replaced by merchants. Arbat immediately somehow became for some reason not a phenomenon of inner city life, but such an attraction for strangers.

Prokhorov: Then there was an artificial attempt to make something even more symbolic out of a very important symbolic place. Did not work out. When a decision is made to transform something, what does it consist of? Studied, for example, where do people want to walk? To first see how people walk, where there are some strange streams, they are not defined. I am not a fan of embankments in a monstrous state, as they were along the Moskva River, after the reconstruction they became much more beautiful. But this does not guarantee that they will go there. What are the guarantees of success?

Shapiro: I will share my personal experience. When we came up with the idea that it was necessary to make the Crimean embankment a promenade place, there was nothing there, there were artists and sellers of paintings, and places of storage. And in general, no one passed there and did not pass. We just went to Gorky Park from Krasny Oktyabr, we had a lot of objects there, and we understood that there was some kind of piece here. And then we proposed to do something there, and we immediately agreed to this, saying that we had to do it very quickly, for any money, because before the elections. And when we got down to it, it was hell: this place, we thought, is ugly, empty, forgotten, there is no one there; and now we will drive 3 billion there, for example, and no one will appear there. That was the main problem that had to be solved: why people should come there. We came up with the idea that it would be a landscape attraction, we had the idea that it would be some kind of transit, because the embankment was supposed to extend further - and to the "Red October" bridge. At least it would make some sense. Now it is transit without transit. A path without a goal. But at the same time, people go there, because this is one of the landscape stories that has been thought out to the end. And thank God, because there are few such stories. There would be a lot, maybe no one would come there. I mean, no matter how we work with sociologists, and lately, in order to sleep better, we work with sociologists ...

Wachstein: We perform the function of cleaners of conscience.

Shapiro:...Never, it seems to me, there is no guarantee. Because it is impossible to take into account all the factors, changes, moods, trends.

Prokhorov: I want to ask this. After all, this is an eternal conversation, I remember that, it seems, in the mid-2000s there were many disputes about who and to whom should erect monuments in the city. The authorities and experts argued, sometimes representatives of the urban environment joined in and said: why don't we put up those monuments that we like. I remember that it was interesting that the experts objected most of all, saying: we know, now they will instruct the devil what - cucumber monuments, something else that is ugly, that it will not correspond to high historical values, etc. And this is where a very important question arises for me: sometimes people really put up a monument to God knows who and love it terribly. Question: how to take it into account? Can we assume that people sometimes understand what they want?

Wachstein: This brings us back to the issue of city politics. It's just a very good plot, just a textbook. The problem is that there is no empirical evidence that decision-making systems that are fully delegated, that are built on public demand, on public hearings, on the fact that everything is agreed with people, they are in any way better than those , which were made by a far-sighted architect who came up with the idea: the elections had to be done quickly and, moreover, there was money left in the budget. Ironically, this is true despite our slightly populist notion that let people do what they want and it will be better. The Greater London plan was coordinated for 8 years with all interested groups, and everyone was dissatisfied. All!

Prokhorov: I remember that in the 1950s there were crazy ideas to cut huge highways through London, as they did in Moscow, unfortunately. And we imagine what kind of city it would be. The public then reared up against this madness and defended the idea of ​​crooked streets.

Wachstein: Why St. Petersburg is a city, but Moscow is not. Because in St. Petersburg everyone is on their hind legs when someone has laid a path through the park, but in Moscow, in principle, you can do anything. A city in which two-thirds of the inhabitants were not born in it. A city in which most of the people do not have their own housing, and the term for renting housing in Moscow is 3 years. You can imagine how young, mobile the city is. That is, Moscow is a special story. Old Muscovites should be studied by ethnographers. Those who preserve the spirit of this place, who still manage to reproduce it in some way. The example you describe is the highway in New York - a disgusting old dirty railroad on poles all the way through midtown Manhattan. Modernists from the mayor's office say: let's demolish all this already and do something, for example, lay a normal road. So the whole community of those quarters through which it passed stood on its hind legs, appropriated this railway, and is now one of the most attractive public places in New York.

Shapiro: Still, it was a bit of a side place, abandoned, along the embankment. Now this is an expensive place.

Wachstein: Then it was lateral, now it is central.

Prokhorov: This suggests that the transformation of the city, apparently, is the transformation of the urban environment. And here, perhaps, it is not so important how many people live in the city, but what a person finds out for himself, what he has the right to and how he is able to influence the city.

Wachstein: little fact from latest study"Eurobarometer in Russia" on the mechanics of Moscow. Who has the strongest Moscow identity? Those who came here more than 10 years ago. Neither those who were born here, nor those who came here less than 5 years ago, have such a sense of connection with this place, the right to the city, as those who feel like so-called oldtimers. This is partly a New York story.

Shapiro: There is a border between 10 and 15 years, and after 15 years again.

Wachstein: There is a border between 10 and 5.5 years - it's "I'm here in general, I earn money." Native Muscovites say: “No, we are people of the world. It so happened that I was born here, not the fact that I will die here.

Prokhorov: This is normal - a person needs to establish himself, therefore he is holier than the Pope, he is the main defender of Moscow values.

Shapiro: And the main initiator of changes in this city. There is a tradition to what extent the city determines the behavior within it. Let's say Paris - obviously, Rome - too, but more gently. I once had a story in Rome when a German citizen approached the porter and asked where he could go for dinner in the evening. To which he said: “Listen, now it’s 7 o’clock, while everything is closed, they start eating here from 10 pm.” But he is from Germany, where the 7th day is already over. These are completely different stories. Therefore, different cities define life differently. Moscow in general, it seems to me, does not regulate the life of its citizens. Hong Kong too, it's just big metropolitan areas...

Wachstein: From here, in fact, the concept of heteropolis appears, which is now being discussed. It is about the fact that the city is not the number of people and not the territory, but the degree of difference between people who ended up in one place, and between places that turn out to be adjacent to each other. That is, the city is determined by the degree, the gradient of the difference between territories and people, and not by their number. But here, of course, the big question is how to live in such a city. Nobody said it would be nice.

Prokhorov: Here we live. We fight, but we live.

Shapiro: Another important story that few people remember for some reason. In order for a city to develop, it must have different potentials - a very good area and not at all good, cheap, depressive. Because in such an area, in fact, there is a potential for the development of the city itself. If all neighborhoods are like Beverly Hills, we will get a limited number of people with a certain set of traditions. Such a city cannot develop, it has froze, it will not even become big. So, probably, not everyone in the city should live well.

Wachstein: We have come to an unexpected conclusion.

Prokhorov: This is how a person who lives more or less nothing can argue. One last question: today one of the main problems is the incredible number of multicultural communities in the city. And this is really a new phenomenon. This has happened before - for example, different settlements. But nevertheless now there is a mixing of people with different cultural traditions. From your point of view, is this a huge potential for development or is it a problem that will destroy the city? There are many pessimistic forecasts on this topic, which always surprise me a little. Maybe I don't understand something. What will the sociologist tell us about this?

Wachstein: There are people who are testing political preferences, because none of you can say: what are you talking about, we urgently need to expel all these migrants ...

Prokhorov: We are not talking about this, we are talking about what is really happening - the city has always been a concentration of very different social groups. But now, with such a great migration of peoples, a new configuration is emerging. Is there a huge potential in this, or is there still more of a danger that the city will not find a way to somehow unite this around itself?

Zaporozhets: If it was known what to do with it, this knowledge would certainly be used. I think that, on the one hand, this is a huge increase in the diversity of the city, this is part of the globalization, the great migration of peoples that is happening now. Well, it is impossible for today's city to be monotonous or less diverse. Of course, it's very different. What Viktor was talking about is huge flows of mobility, this is a constant presence.

Shapiro: In big cities.

Zaporozhets: Yes, we are talking about metropolitan areas. But cities did not live in a situation of such diversity. And they invent their own recipes for what to do with this diversity. If it could be written off somewhere, it would definitely be written off. And this is where mistakes inevitably occur. Because, for example, the same Paris chooses one strategy, extremely unsuccessful. You need to understand that part of the Parisian districts was built as such bright cities, and it was comfortable, interesting and attractive in its time. But it was understood that with such a concentration of the population, when diversity is artificially homogenized, this will not lead to anything good. Unfortunately, cities choose their strategies by trial and error.

Prokhorov: After all, in Moscow there are no districts limited by ethnicity. It seems to me that this is Moscow's advantage - such concentrations do not work out.

Shapiro: London is also divided, just not so globally. Each district is very different, there is a Pakistani district, black districts and others. In Paris it's different. Greater Paris- this is all trouble, and the center is well-being and high cost. The city is under siege. By the way, why the regions are marginalized is also unclear. They built a bright future here - and they seem to live, built a bright future in London - they dismantled all the tall buildings in the center, because crime turned out to be at the maximum level. In New York, they built a luxurious district - Harlem, and as a result, he somehow died. Bye.

Wachstein: Hipsterization is happening. On the corner of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X avenues, there's a hipster coffee shop.

Prokhorov: New York City is remarkably mobile, with neighborhoods moving all the time. The abandoned are becoming trendy, it's absolutely amazing.

Shapiro: It's the same in Berlin. He was reunited after being artificially dismembered.

Prokhorov: The situation in Moscow, from your point of view?

Wachstein: There is an interesting story here about how cities choose their diversity strategy. Because, by and large, diversity may not be reflected, as in Moscow, we simply don’t have Biryulyovo, we don’t know anything about it. This is due to the fact that the urban elite does not have a language in which to describe the process of migration, because Russia has never had a strong leftist urbanism, here modernist urbanism was immediately replaced by hipster ones. The idea that cities are what creates inequality, perpetuates it, reproduces it across generations, makes it a problem, and this problem is exacerbated by migration - well, who can now come out and do something david harvey, pronounce? We just didn't have that. Therefore, the language of speaking about the city as a machine of inequality has not been formed in Moscow. This, of course, does not mean that there is no diversity, including inequality.

Therefore, Moscow chooses a very interesting strategy. First, polyrhythmization. The Moscow metro at 6 am and the Moscow metro at 10 am are just different cities, these are people who behave in completely different ways, dress differently. You can be in the same car, but with a difference of 4 hours - it will be very different social groups. In addition, Moscow is discovering an incredible potential for self-regulation by separating these groups and their routes. Something that often becomes the subject of discussion and reflection, for example, how to make sure that 800 people who speak the Tajik language do not gather on Red Square on New Year's Eve, because all Muscovites at that moment went to spend New Year's Eve in other places.

Prokhorov: Why not speak Tajik?

Wachstein: Especially the native Muscovites who stand there speak Tajik.

Prokhorov: Those who have lived for 10 years are indigenous.

Wachstein: And they discuss the rest, like they came in large numbers. But what everyday sociology does, it just says: colleagues, wait, your diversity exists on paper, it exists on maps, representations, in cultural politics, in big numbers. At the level of everyday practice, people absolutely do not care, everyday life is a dull routine. This is a wonderful thesis - the silence of users in space, the silence of the lambs, the silence of the townspeople. 75% of the movements in urban space you make without turning on the brain. This is a routine, not reflective, in no way reacting to the diversity of urban life. Something has to happen, some kind of intervention, some kind of collision that will bring it to the surface. Therefore, these cases are rare.

Shapiro: 75% is not coverage of the entire city. The fact is that a person is localized quite to himself in a small volume. You know for sure that people from the outskirts are not really Moscow, and our everyday ideas about the endless migration from the outskirts to the center to work and back are not really true. And in this sense, Moscow is a lot of different cities. Maybe there are no clashes here simply because some people never come to the center.

Wachstein: Exactly about that and speech.

Prokhorov: What is most depressing is this xenophobic discourse that comes from the media. If we look at Moscow in terms of some mechanisms that are poorly described and understood, we will see that the city has learned to digest a huge number of people. Throughout the Soviet period, a lot of people from the republics came here, so we can probably say that Moscow has some know-how, and somewhere we can be at the forefront, which we ourselves do not realize.

Shapiro: This story with the construction hype in Moscow - it quite coincided with its time. So we're kind of behind the times here. Maybe from someone for three years, from someone for two, and someone is still behind Moscow. In this sense, some processes are running in parallel.

Wachstein: My favorite story is about the attempts of sociologists to somehow estimate the size of Moscow. It's wonderful, Moscow is a city in which no one knows how many people live in it.

Prokhorov: And thank God. You should count everything. So it's easier to live.

Wachstein: Of course, I want to calculate, how else. It is a very short tale that, according to statistics, 12.5 million people live here, and economists have calculated how much food is bought daily - by 20 million people. It can be assumed, of course, that 12.5 million Muscovites eat for 20 million, but this is unlikely. Or the fact that people from the Moscow region go to Moscow to eat is even less likely.

Prokhorov: This is not the Soviet era, when people went from Yaroslavl to buy groceries. In general, Moscow is a city of contrasts. It seems to me that the problem of urbanism and the transformation of the urban environment is amazingly interesting topic. Today, we have only touched on the tip of the iceberg, and I really hope that we will continue this conversation in the future. Thank you very much.

Introduction

The topic of the essay is "Technological culture" in the discipline "Culturology".

The purpose of the work is to get acquainted with the concept of technological culture, namely:

Technology;

The world of technology in the space of culture;

Features of scientific knowledge;

The origin and development of engineering culture.

Technology as a cultural phenomenon

The vital activity of a person is subject, on the one hand, to biological laws, and on the other hand, to the conditions of his existence in the socio-cultural world. In animals, the goals of life activity are set "by nature" and boil down to satisfying the vital (life) needs for self-preservation, procreation, etc. The "technology" of their life activity - its mechanisms and methods - is basically genetically determined, and only in more or less modified depending on the individual experience of the individual. In humans, over the biological, vital needs, a whole pyramid of social and spiritual needs, conditioned by the culture of society, is built up.

The concept of technology is used in the literature in different meanings. Technology may mean: a set of rules for a specific production process (“underwater welding technology”); organization of any type or branch of production, including all the conditions - means, methods, procedures - for its implementation ("conveyor technology", "engineering technology"); forms and ways of using technology; application of scientific knowledge in the organization practical activities; scientific description of any activity, its processes, means and methods. Understanding technology as the organizational side of any human activity, I use this concept in the modern, most general sense.

Formation and development of technological culture

Technological culture took its first steps in the form of myth and magic.

Further development of technological culture went in two directions. On the one hand, the volume of knowledge and skills grew, which led to their separation from mythology and magic.

On the other hand, the "material", subject inventory of technological culture expanded and improved.

Technical knowledge for a long time - up to the Renaissance - had, in the main, a purely practical character. Gradually, in this knowledge, more and more space began to be occupied by information about the properties of materials and devices used in work, about the phenomena occurring in the functioning of technical devices. Thus, the beginnings of technical science were gradually born.

But in parallel with the development of technology and special technical knowledge, another process was going on in the history of culture: the development of philosophical thinking.

In modern times, both streams of knowledge - technical knowledge that has developed in practical activity and theoretical science that has matured in the bosom of philosophy - have come close and intertwined with each other. As a result, science in its modern sense was born.

After the industrial revolution, which gave in the XVIII century. an impetus to the development of large-scale machine industry, technology is increasingly merging with science, and by the 20th century. it is thoroughly imbued with it, it becomes "scientific" in its origin.

The complication of the technology of production processes, the transformation of science into a theoretical basis for production, the need to rely on scientific knowledge in the design, construction, manufacture and operation of equipment - all this has put forward the figure of an engineer to a prominent place in society.

So, technological culture consists of three main components - technology, science and engineering.

It is hardly possible in our time to recognize as justified the view that high culture is compatible with ignorance in the field of "exact" sciences and technological culture in general. The existence of technological culture as a special "niche" of the cultural space is a fact that cannot be ignored. Especially in our era, when technology, engineering and science play such an important role in the life of mankind.

Features of technological culture

1. Spiritual and social culture are focused on the "value" axis, they are united by the fact that they are aimed at creating values ​​and ideals. Technological culture is not concerned with the "value dimension" of activity.

2. From what has been said, another feature of technological culture follows: it is mainly utilitarian in nature.

3. It plays a subordinate, service role in relation to the spiritual and social culture.

4. Technological culture turns out to be a universal and indispensable condition for any cultural activities.

5. In the course of history, it evolves from mysticism to rationality.

CULTURE AS A PHENOMENON

The concept of "culture" is one of the fundamental ones in modern social science. It is difficult to name another word that would have so many semantic shades. This is explained primarily by the fact that culture expresses the depth and immensity of human existence.

There are many definitions of the concept of culture in the scientific literature. Sometimes the opinion is expressed that it is impossible to find a full-fledged definition that includes all aspects of this versatile concept. This opinion is partly confirmed by the fact that the book "Culture. A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions" by American culturologists A. Kroeber and K. Kluckhona contains more than 150 definitions of culture. The book was published in 1952, and it is quite clear that there are now many more definitions. Russian researcher L.E. Kertman has more than 400 of them. However, American authors have clearly shown that all definitions can be divided into groups depending on the aspect that is emphasized. They distinguish five main groups, one of "which can be attributed to almost any of the available definitions:

1. Culture as a special field of activity associated with thinking, artistic culture, ethics and etiquette.

Culture as an indicator of the general level of development of society.

Culture as a community characterized by a specific set of values ​​and rules.

Culture as a system of values ​​and ideas of a particular class.

5. Culture as a spiritual dimension of any conscious activity.

The systematization given above gives a comprehensive idea of ​​what meaning is now given to the concept of culture. In the most generalized sense, culture is a set of meaningful creative activity of people; a complex, multifunctional system that incorporates various aspects of human activity.

Now let's try to restore the history of the word "culture", to identify the features of its use in different periods of human history.

The word culture is of Latin origin. It was used in treatises and letters by poets and scientists of ancient Rome. Initially, it denoted the action of cultivating, processing something. For example, the Roman statesman and writer Mark Porcius Cato (234-149 BC) wrote a treatise on agriculture, which he called "Agriculture". However, this treatise is devoted not only to the principles of cultivating the land, but also to the ways of caring for it, which implies a special mental attitude towards the cultivated object. If it does not exist, then there will be no good care, i.e. there will be no culture. The word "culture" already in those days meant not only processing, but also veneration, admiration, worship. This explains the relationship between the concepts of "culture" and "cult".

The Romans used the word "culture" with some object in the genitive case; culture of behavior, culture of speech, etc. The Roman orator and philosopher Cicero (106-43 BC) used the term to refer to the development of human spirituality and the mind through the study of philosophy, which he defined as the culture of the spirit or mind.

In the Middle Ages, the word "culture" was used extremely rarely, giving way to the word "cult". The object of worship was primarily Christian, religious ideals. Along with this, very essential role the cult of valor, honor and dignity, characteristic of chivalry, also played.

In the Renaissance, there is a return to the ancient understanding of the word "culture". Under it began to mean the harmony of human development and the active manifestation of the inherent
him an active, creative beginning. But, nevertheless, the word "culture" acquired an independent meaning only at the end of the 17th century in the works of the German lawyer and historiographer S. Pufendorf (1632-1694). He began to use it to denote the results of the activities of a socially significant person. Culture was opposed by Pufendorf to the natural or natural state of man. Culture was understood as the opposition of human activity to the wild elements of nature. In the future, this concept is used more and more often to denote the level of human enlightenment, education, and upbringing.

The change in attitude to the understanding of culture is associated with a change in the conditions of human life, with a reassessment of the significance of the results of one's own labor. The craft becomes the leading type of human activity, which gives a person the right to feel like a bearer of culture. The city turns into the dominant of the living space, and city-polises were understood as the habitat of culture even in antiquity.

In addition, the era of technical and industrial revolutions, the era of great geographical discoveries, colonial conquests and the active introduction of machine production has come. The obviousness of the defining role of man in all these processes has led to a rethinking of the role of culture. It began to be regarded as a special independent sphere of human life.

Enlightenment thinkers began to pay particular attention to the concept of "culture". The French enlighteners of the 18th century (Voltaire, Condorcet, Turgot) reduced the content of the cultural-historical process to the development of human spirituality. The history of society was understood as its gradual development from the stage of barbarism and ignorance to an enlightened and cultural state. Ignorance is the "mother of all vices", and enlightenment of a person is the highest good and virtue. The cult of reason becomes synonymous with culture. Both philosophers and historians pay more and more attention to this concept. New terms appear that are most directly related to the concept of "culture": "philosophy of history", "aesthetics", "humanitarian", "civilization".

Enlighteners contributed to the fact that the sensual relationship of man to reality became the subject of rational, or scientific, knowledge. The German philosopher A. G. Baumgarten called the science of perfect sensory knowledge "aesthetics". This term was later used by some thinkers as a synonym for culture in general.

However, it was in the 18th century that the prerequisites for a fundamentally different understanding of the meaning of culture arose. The founder of a critical attitude to culture was the French thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Culture easily turns into its opposite if the material, mass, quantitative principle begins to prevail in it.

From the point of view of representatives of German classical philosophy, culture is the self-liberation of the spirit. They called the means of liberation of the spirit: Kant - moral; Schiller and Romantics - aesthetic; Hegel - philosophical consciousness. Consequently, culture was understood as an area of ​​human spiritual freedom. Such an understanding was based on the recognition of the diversity of types and types of culture, which are the steps of a person's ascent to the freedom of his own spirit.

Karl Marx considered the fundamental change in the sphere of material production to be the most important condition for the spiritual liberation of the individual. The development of genuine culture in Marxism is connected with the practical activity of the proletariat, with the revolutionary transformations that it must carry out. In Marxism, culture is understood as a sphere of human practical activity, as well as a set of natural and social results of this activity.

^ Definitions of culture. Classification.

In the variety of definitions of culture, according to L.E. Kertman, three main approaches, conditionally named by him anthropological, sociological and philosophical.

The essence of the first approach is in recognizing the inherent value of the culture of each people, at whatever stage of its development it may be, as well as in recognizing the equivalence of all cultures on earth. In accordance with this approach, any culture, like any person, is unique and inimitable, being a way of life for an individual or society. There is not one level of culture in the world, to which all peoples should aspire, but a multitude of "local" cultures, each of which is characterized by its own values ​​and its own level of development. To understand the essence of this approach, let us give the definition given to the concept of culture by Pitirim Sorokin: culture is everything that is created or modified as a result of the conscious or unconscious activity of two or more individuals interacting with each other or interconditioning behavior (P. Sorokin). It is easy to see that with the anthropological approach, culture is understood very broadly and in content coincides with the entire life of society in its history.

The sociological approach seeks to identify signs of the connection between the individual and society. It is understood that in every society (as well as in every living organism) there are certain cultural-creative forces that direct its life along an organized, rather than chaotic, path of development. Cultural values ​​are created by the society itself, but then they also determine the development of this society, the life of which begins to depend more and more on the values ​​produced by it. Such is the peculiarity of social life: a person is often dominated by what is born by himself.

In 1871, the book of the English ethnographer E. Tylor " primitive culture". This scientist can be considered one of the fathers of cultural studies. In his definition of culture, signs of both anthropological and sociological vision of the essence of this concept are visible: "From an ideal point of view, culture can be viewed as a general improvement of the human race through the higher organization of an individual for the purpose of simultaneously promoting the development of morality, strength and happiness of mankind".

The philosophical approach to culture is characterized by the fact that certain regularities are revealed in the life of society, with the help of which both the causes of the origin of culture and the features of its development are established. The philosophical approach to culture is not limited to the description or enumeration of cultural phenomena. It involves penetrating into their essence. At the same time, culture is understood as a "way of being" of society.

^ What is culture?

Culture is often referred to as "second nature". Such an understanding was typical even for Democritus, who called the world of human creativity "second nature". But, opposing nature and culture, we must not forget that culture is primarily a natural phenomenon, if only because its creator, man, is a biological creature. Without nature, there would be no culture, because man creates in the natural landscape. He uses the resources of nature, he reveals his own natural potential. But if man had not crossed the limits of nature, he would have been left without culture.

Culture, therefore, is first of all an act of overcoming nature, going beyond the boundaries of instinct, creating what is created outside of nature. Culture arises because a person overcomes the organic predetermination of his species. Many animals can create something that looks like a culture. Bees, for example, build magnificent architectural structure- honeycombs. The spider unmistakably makes a fishing tool - a web. Beavers are building a dam. Ants are building anthills. It turns out that animals create something that did not exist in nature. However, the activity of these living beings is programmed by instinct. They can create only what is laid down in the natural program. They are not capable of free creative activity. A bee cannot weave a web, and a spider cannot take bribes from a flower. The beaver will build a dam, but will not be able to make a tool. Consequently, culture presupposes a free type of activity that overcomes biological predetermination.

^ Nature and culture really oppose each other. But, according to the Russian philosopher P.A. Florensky, they do not exist outside of each other, but only with each other. After all, culture is never given to us without its elemental sub-base, its environment and matter serving it. Every cultural phenomenon is based on a certain natural phenomenon cultivated by culture. Man, as a bearer of culture, does not create anything, but only forms and transforms the elemental. Human creations arise initially in thought, in the spirit, and only then are objectified into signs and objects.

^ The most traditional is the idea of ​​culture as a cumulative result of human activity. Some authors include the concept of culture and the activity itself. Others believe that culture is not any activity, but only "technological" and its basis is means and mechanisms. Some scientists refer only creativity to culture, while others include all types of activity in it, regardless of the nature of the result obtained, etc.

Through activity, the contradiction between nature and culture is overcome. Many scientists note that culture as a phenomenon became possible only thanks to the ability of a person to act. From this point of view, the definition of culture given by the French culturologist A. de Benois is of interest: “Culture is the specificity of human activity, that which characterizes a person as a species. The search for a person before culture is in vain, his appearance in the arena of history should be considered as a phenomenon of culture. It is deeply connected with the essence of man, is part of the definition of man as such. Man and culture, notes A. de Benois, are inseparable, like a plant and the soil on which it grows.

The results of the cultural activity of mankind are usually called artifacts. An artifact is an indivisible unit of culture, a product of human cultural activity, any artificially created object. In a broader sense - the embodiment of the results of cultural activities in any material object, people's behavior, social structure, informational message or judgment. Initially, artifacts were called artificially created objects discovered as a result of archaeological expeditions in order to distinguish them from objects of natural origin. Then this word entered art history to refer to works of art. In cultural studies, this concept is used to contrast the phenomena of culture with vital organics. Everything natural is the antipode of an artifact. But even here it should be noted that cultural-creative processes can also take place outside the sphere of artifacts. If only everything visibly created is attributed to culture, then many cultural phenomena will appear as if non-existent. Imagine a yogic culture. It contains no artifacts. The yogi develops his own psychological and spiritual resources. There is nothing man-made in this case. However, the achievements of yogis are undoubtedly included in the treasury of culture.

In 1994, American culturologists introduced the concept of cultural areas. ^ Cultural areas - zones of territorial distribution of cultural types and specific features. The purpose of introducing this concept was the desire to explore the spatial distribution of certain cultural phenomena, as well as to identify the relationship in the specifics of the culture of different territorial entities. For example, the distribution area of ​​Buddhist culture, Islamic culture, or any other religious and ethical cultural system. Or the area of ​​political culture based on the traditions of Roman law. In this case, the definition of the specifics of the cultural area lies in the commonality of socio-political ideals.

Another important concept related to the study of the current state of culture is the concept of "cultural dynamics". ^ Cultural dynamics - a section of the theory of culture, within which the processes of variability in culture and the degree of their severity are considered. This term appeared in the 30s. XX century on the initiative of Pitirim Sorokin, who called his global work on the history of culture "Social and Cultural Dynamics". Later, already in the 60s, the French researcher Abram Mol published an essay called "Sociodynamics of Culture".

The concept of "cultural dynamics" is closely related to the concept of "cultural change", but is not identical to it. ^ Cultural changes include any transformations in culture, including those that are devoid of integrity, a pronounced direction. Cultural dynamics refers only to those changes that are purposeful and holistic, reflect certain, pronounced trends. The antonym, antipode, of the concept of "cultural dynamics" is the concept of "cultural stagnation", a state of long-term immutability and repetition of the norms and values ​​of culture. Stagnation must be distinguished from stable cultural traditions. It comes when tradition dominates innovation and suppresses all attempts at renewal. The processes of cultural dynamics act as a manifestation of the ability of culture to adapt to changing external and internal conditions of existence. The impetus for cultural dynamics is the objective need to adapt culture to a changing life situation.

The concept of "cultural genesis" is closely connected with the concept of "cultural dynamics". Cultural genesis is one of the types of social and historical dynamics of culture, which consists in the creation of new cultural forms and their integration into existing cultural systems. Cultural genesis consists in the process of constant self-renewal of culture, both through the renewal and complementarity of already existing forms of culture, and through the creation of new directions and phenomena that correspond to the cultural dynamics of time.

“What people do with themselves, with nature, how they behave towards others, is culture, the world created by it. The broad concept of culture embraces the world expressed in language, symbols and represented in man, which is opposed to nature,” such a definition gives culture of the modern German philosopher, author of the book "The Culture of Postmodernism" Peter Kozlowski. The definition is given on the basis of deep reflections on the essence of culture and its role in the modern world. Kozlowski's book is just one of many proofs that the study of the phenomenon of culture is far from over. Rather, on the contrary, many scientists now see in culture almost the only opportunity to overcome the numerous crisis phenomena characteristic of human life at the end of the 20th century.

^ MORPHOLOGY OF CULTURE

There are many types of culture that have been realized in human history. Each culture is unique, and each culture has its own characteristics. But one can also find common features that are typical of all cultures, which are integral components of such a concept as "the structure of culture." The section of cultural studies that studies the structural elements of culture as a system, their structure and features, is called the morphology of culture. There are dozens of such components. Often such familiar phrases as national culture, world culture, urban culture, Christian culture, social culture, artistic culture, personal culture, etc. are heard. Morphology of culture involves the study of all possible variations of cultural forms and artifacts, depending on their historical, geographical and social distribution. For cultural studies, such structural subspecies as material culture and spiritual culture are extremely important. These two essential links in the structure of culture are often perceived as antipodes. Material culture, which is usually defined as the culture of everyday life and work, seems to be associated with purely physical comfort, with the need to satisfy the needs of humanity, in which it is called. Spiritual culture - the most important type of culture, including the intellectual and aesthetic activities of mankind - undoubtedly has a priority significance, since the satisfaction of the high spiritual demands of mankind is a much more sublime and essential mission. The saying of Jesus Christ, "Man does not live by bread alone," is by no means accidental. A person retains the ability to dare and create, showing inexhaustible imagination and genius, only guided by the needs of the soul. But in fairness, it should be noted that often the material and the spiritual act hand in hand. In order to bring to life purely artistic or intellectual tasks, a very substantial material, technical base is often needed. This applies to the creation of feature films, and to the proof of scientific hypotheses, and to the realization of magnificent architectural ideas. But since in all these cases the basis is the spiritual principle, it is fair to consider spiritual culture as a whole as the dominant structure of culture. As proof, we list some of the most essential forms of spiritual culture: religion, art, philosophy, science (according to Hegel, "the theoretical soul of culture").

It is possible to evaluate certain forms of culture in different ways, to see different advantages in the culture of territorial and national formations, but the degree of development of culture is determined by its attitude to the freedom and dignity of a person, as well as the opportunities that it is able to provide for the creative self-realization of a person as a person.

The structure of culture is considered by different scientists in different ways. Thus, the American culturologist L. White sees the presence in it of such subsystems as social culture, technological culture, behavioral culture, ideological culture. Soviet culturologist E.A. Orlova distinguishes two levels as the main ones: specialized and ordinary. Specialized level includes such subsystems of culture as economic, political, legal, philosophical, scientific and technical, artistic. The everyday level includes housekeeping, manners and customs, morality, practical technology, ordinary worldview and ordinary aesthetics. The list of examples of a peculiar interpretation of the structure can be continued, which, of course, is proof of the ambiguity and multilevel nature of culture as a concept.

^ Functions of Culture

The most important is the function of translation (transfer) of social experience. It is often called the function of historical continuity, or information. It is no coincidence that culture is considered the social memory of mankind.

Another leading function is cognitive (epistemological). Culture, concentrating in itself the best social experience of many generations of people, accumulates the richest knowledge about the world and, thereby, creates favorable opportunities for their development.

^ The regulatory (normative) function of culture is connected, first of all, with the regulation of various aspects of public and personal activities of people. Culture, one way or another, influences the behavior of people and regulates their actions, actions and assessments.

^ Semiotic or sign function is the most important in the system of culture. Representing a certain sign system, culture implies knowledge, possession of it. It is impossible to master the achievements of culture without studying the corresponding sign systems. So, the language (oral or written) is a means of communication between people, the literary language is the most important means of mastering the national culture. Specific languages ​​are needed for knowing the special world of music, painting, theater. The natural sciences (physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology) also have their own sign systems.

^ Value, or axiological function contributes to the formation of well-defined needs and orientations in a person. By their level and quality, people most often judge the level of culture of a person.

^ CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION

An important place in the theory of culture is occupied by the question of the relationship between the concepts of culture and civilization. The concept of "civilization" appeared in antiquity to reflect the qualitative difference between the ancient Roman society and the barbarian environment, but, as the French linguist E. Benveniste established, in European languages the word civilization took root between 1757 and 1772. It was closely associated with a new way of life, the essence of which was urbanization and the growing role of material and technical culture. It was then that the still relevant understanding of civilization as a certain form of the state of culture, an interethnic cultural and historical community of people with a common language, political independence and established, developed forms of social organization, developed. However, a unified view on the relationship between the concepts of culture and civilization has not yet been developed. Interpretations vary from their complete identification to categorical opposition. Enlightenment philosophers, as a rule, insisted on the inseparable positive connection of these concepts: only high culture gives rise to civilization, and civilization, accordingly, is an indicator of cultural development and viability. The only exception was, perhaps, only Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The call put forward by him is well known: "Back to nature!". Rousseau, not only in civilization, but also in culture itself, found a lot of negative, distorting the nature of man. He contrasted the civilized man of the 18th century with the "natural man" living in harmony with the world and with himself. Rousseau's ideas found supporters among the romantics. At the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. the contradictions that existed between culture and civilization became obvious to many: culture easily turns into its opposite if the material, mass, quantitative principle begins to prevail in it.

For the German philosopher-culturologist ^ O. Spengler, entering the phase of civilization predetermines the death of culture, which is unable to develop harmoniously in the conditions of mechanistic and artificial civilization. The American ethnographer R. Redfield believed that culture and civilization are completely independent spheres of human existence: culture is an integral part of the life of all, even the smallest and most undeveloped communities of people, the simplest "folk communities", and civilization is the sum of the acquired skills of people living in very complex and changing societies.

The Russian scientist ^ N. Danilevsky formulated the laws of the development of culture into civilization, not seeing any special contradictions in these two phases of the self-development of mankind. His compatriot N. Berdyaev in his work "The Will to Life and the Will to Culture" sharply differentiates these concepts: "Culture is a living process, the living destiny of peoples. can already be called culture. Culture is disinterested in its highest achievements, civilization is always interested ... When an enlightened mind sweeps away spiritual obstacles to the use of life and the enjoyment of life, then culture ends and civilization begins. The list of examples reflecting the complex relationship between the concepts of culture and civilization can be continued, but the above examples are quite enough to understand how diverse the attitude to this problem is. "Culture and civilization are not the same... Culture noble birth... In culture, spiritual life is not realistically, but symbolically expressed ... It does not present the latest achievements of being, but only its symbolic signs ... Civilization does not have such a noble origin ... Its origin is worldly. It was born in the struggle of man with nature outside temples and worship... Culture is an individual and unique phenomenon. Civilization is a general phenomenon that repeats itself everywhere. Culture has a soul. Civilization has only methods and tools," Berdyaev notes.

^ THE ORIGINALITY OF CULTUROLOGY AS A COMPLEX SCIENCE

Culturology, a complex science that studies all aspects of the functioning of culture, from the causes of origin to various forms of historical self-expression, has become one of the most significant and rapidly developing humanitarian disciplines in the last 10-15 years, which undoubtedly has its own, quite obvious reasons. The subject of culturology is culture, and the clearly marked interest in the phenomenon of culture is easily explained by certain circumstances. Let's try to characterize some of them.

1. Modern civilization "rapidly transforms the environment, social institutions, everyday life. In this regard, culture attracts attention as an inexhaustible source of social innovations. Hence the desire to identify the potential of culture, its internal reserves, to find opportunities for its activation. Considering culture as a means of human self-realization, it is possible to identify new inexhaustible impulses that can provide
impact on the historical process, on the person himself.

2. The question of the relationship between the concepts of culture and society, culture and history is also relevant. What impact does cultural process on social dynamics? What will the movement of history bring to culture? In the past, the social cycle was much shorter than the cultural one. Man, having been born, found a certain structure cultural property. It has not changed for centuries. In the 20th century, the situation changed dramatically. Now, during one human life, several cultural cycles pass, which puts a person in an extremely difficult position for him. Everything changes so quickly that a person does not have time to comprehend and appreciate certain innovations and finds himself in a state of loss and uncertainty. In this regard, it is of particular importance to identify the most significant features of the cultural practice of past eras in order to avoid moments of primitivization of modern culture.

All of the above is far from exhausting the reasons explaining the rapid development of cultural studies in our days.

Gradually, the terminological apparatus of this science, consisting of the categories of cultural studies, is also being formed. ^ The categories of cultural studies include the most significant concepts of patterns in the development of culture as a system, reflect the essential properties of culture. On the basis of the categories of cultural studies, the phenomena of culture are being studied.

The main components of cultural studies are the philosophy of culture and the history of culture, areas of humanitarian knowledge that began to exist quite a long time ago. Having merged together, they formed the basis of Culturology. In cultural studies, historical facts are subjected to philosophical analysis and generalization. Depending on the aspect on which the main attention is focused, various cultural theories and schools are created. Philosophy of culture is a branch of cultural studies that studies the concepts of the origin and functioning of culture. The history of culture is a section of cultural studies that studies the specific features of cultures of various cultural and historical stages.

Newer sections of cultural studies, the main parameters of which continue to be formed to this day, are the morphology of culture and the theory of culture.

Culture becomes the object of close attention of researchers in the 18th century, the century of the Enlightenment.

The German philosopher G. Herder considered the human mind not as an innate reality, but as a result of education and comprehension of cultural images. By gaining reason, according to Herder, a person becomes the son of God, the king of the earth. He considered animals as slaves of nature, and in people he saw her first freedmen.

For Kant, culture is a tool for preparing a person for the fulfillment of moral duty, a path from the natural world to the realm of freedom. Culture, according to Kant, characterizes only the subject, and not the real world. Its carrier is an educated and morally developed person.

According to ^ Friedrich Schiller, culture consists in reconciling the physical and moral nature of man: “Culture must do justice to both - not only to one rational impulse of a person as opposed to sensual, but also to the latter as opposed to the first. So, the task of culture is twofold: firstly, protection sensuality from the capture of freedom, and secondly, the protection of the personality from the power of feelings. The first it achieves by the development of the ability to feel, and the second - by the development of the mind. "

Among Schiller's younger contemporaries - ^ Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling, the brothers August and Friedrich Schlegeleim, etc. - the aesthetic significance of culture comes to the fore. Its main content proclaims the artistic activity of people as a means of divine overcoming in them of the animal, natural principle. Schelling's aesthetic views are most fully set forth in his book Philosophy of Art (1802-1803), which clearly shows the desire to show the priority of artistic creativity over all other types of human creative activity, to put art above both morality and science. In a somewhat simplified way, culture was reduced by Schelling and other romantics to art, primarily to poetry. To a reasonable and moral person, they, to a certain extent, opposed the power of a human artist, a human creator.)

In the works of ^ Hegel, the main types of culture (art, law, religion, philosophy) are represented by the stages of development of the "world mind". Hegel creates a universal scheme for the development of the world mind, according to which any culture embodies a certain stage of its self-expression. The "world mind" manifests itself in people as well. Originally in the form of language, speech. The spiritual development of the individual reproduces the stages of self-knowledge of the world mind, starting with "baby talk" and ending with "absolute knowledge", i.e. knowledge of those forms and laws that govern from within the entire process of the spiritual development of mankind. From Hegel's point of view, the development of world culture reveals such integrity and logic that cannot be explained by the sum of the efforts of individual individuals. The essence of culture, according to Hegel, is manifested not in overcoming the biological principles in man and not in the creative imagination of outstanding personalities, but in the spiritual familiarization of the individual with the world mind, which subjugates both nature and history. "The absolute value of culture lies in the development of the universality of thought," wrote Hegel.

If we proceed from Hegel's culturological scheme, then at present humanity is somewhere halfway between its childhood age of ignorance and the final mastery of the "absolute idea", "absolute knowledge", which also determines its "absolute culture". Despite the fact that Hegel did not devote a single work directly to culture, his views can be regarded as one of the first holistic and sufficiently convincing precultural concepts. Hegel not only discovered the general patterns of the development of world culture, but also managed to fix them in the logic of concepts. In the works "Phenomenology of the Spirit", "Philosophy of History", "Aesthetics", "Philosophy of Law", "Philosophy of Religion" he, in fact, analyzed the entire path of development of world culture. This was not done before by any thinker. However, the philosophy of culture Hegel is not cultural studies yet.In Hegel's works, culture does not yet appear as the main subject of research.Hegel actually replaces the concept of culture with the concept of the history of self-disclosure of the "world mind".

Of particular interest to specialists in the field of philology and linguistics are the views of Hegel's contemporary - the German aesthetics, linguist and philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt, who used the Hegelian concept of "spirit" in relation to the culture of individual peoples. He considered each culture as a unique spiritual whole, the specificity of which is expressed mainly in language. Emphasizing the creative nature of the language as a form of expression of the national spirit, Humboldt studied it in close connection with the cultural life of the people. Humboldt's works, to a certain extent, marked the transition from a predominantly philosophical, understanding of culture (Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Schiller, Schelling, Hegel) to its more subject

The theme of the emergence and development of St. Petersburg, of course, is one of the well-researched and illuminated pages of Russian history. A remarkable abundance of historical documents, memoirs, various kinds of “imprints” of time, brilliant works of scientists make the historical canvas of the three-century life of the city on the Neva at first glance absolutely obvious, accessible to everyone. In this, in general, complete picture, it would seem that only private, individual details can be specified.

But if the main elements of St. Petersburg historical factology are gradually becoming indisputable, then it is absolutely impossible to state this in relation to a general assessment of the role and place of St. Petersburg in the history of the country and its culture. Of course, this inconsistency in assessments stems from the very unusual origin of the city, from the uniqueness of its history. For St. Petersburg, the word “phenomenon”, borrowed by the Russian language from Greek, is surprisingly suitable - “an unusual, exceptional fact, phenomenon”.

It is also interesting to note that in modern philosophy the concept of "phenomenon" means the appearance of an object in consciousness, correlates with the concept of essence and is opposed to it. The phenomenon of an object in the mind is not identical to its essence, and its knowledge involves the transition from appearance to essence. And the brighter the phenomenon, the more difficult the cognition. Apparently, St. Petersburg belongs to a very difficult to know objects.

It is no coincidence that in 1999-2004 the city regularly hosted international conferences "The Phenomenon of St. Petersburg", the purpose of which the organizers themselves formulated as follows: the opportunity to express as unconventional and bold opinions as you like about the real or imaginary charms hidden in the concept of "St. Petersburg" ” . It is impossible not to mention that Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev wanted to open the first conference "The Phenomenon of St. Petersburg". But it took place on the fortieth day after the death of the scientist, and the collection of works came out with a dedication to his blessed memory.

Petersburg is primarily a historical and cultural phenomenon. According to the expressive definition of K. G. Isupov, the discussion about the culture of St. Petersburg, about its true or imaginary contradictions with the “truly Russian” (“Moscow”) culture began at a time when “not a single pile was driven on the site of the future town of St. ”, when “the foundations of a new worldview ... were determined in the events of the village of Preobrazhensky, in the character and behavior of the young Moscow Tsar Peter” .

Estimates of St. Petersburg and its role in the history of Russia have long been of the most polar nature: from delight, admiration to complete rejection, almost hatred. Even at the beginning of the 18th century, official panegyrics in honor of the new capital coexisted with the gloomy prophecies of the opponents of Peter's reforms: "Petersburg will be empty." “... The theme of St. Petersburg,” noted the researcher and literary critic V. N. Toporov, “leaves few people indifferent. Far from being exhausted or finally resolved, it is characterized by a special antithetical tension and explosiveness, a kind of maximalist attitude both towards unraveling the most important issues of Russian history, culture, national self-consciousness, and at capturing, involving in its circle those who are looking for an answer. to questions." It is indicative that in 2000 the Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute published the collection “Moscow-Petersburg:proetcontra», which includedthe works of many scientists, historians, culturologists, art critics, publicists and writers, one way or another devoted to the cultural dialogue between the two capitals and almost three centuries of controversy generated by this dialogue.

It is common to look at St. Petersburg as “a kind of huge portal through which Russia could get acquainted with the values ​​and novelties of the European, at the core of its Romano-Germanic civilization” . Even the first historiographer of the Petrine era, I. Golikov, explained the intentions of the tsar-reformer in the construction of St. trade, and especially North-Western Europe, inhabited by such peoples who, by communicating with his subjects, could still contribute to their enlightenment.

A. S. Pushkin, who, by the way, carefully studied the works of Golikov, revealed the same idea as follows: “Russia entered Europe like a lowered ship, with the sound of an ax and with the thunder of cannons. But the wars undertaken by Peter the Great were beneficial and fruitful. The success of the popular transformation was a consequence of the Battle of Poltava, and European enlightenment landed on the banks of the conquered Neva.

It is known that subsequently, and in XIX , and in XX centuries, many scientists, writers, publicists understood these processes one-sidedly. It is precisely from such one-sidedness that the evaluation of St. Petersburg as a city of "non-Russian" and even "anti-Russian" as opposed to "national" Moscow often resulted. Such a view was, in particular, inherent in Slavophil thinkers, one of whose leaders, I. S. Aksakov, urged his readers to “hate St. Petersburg ... with all their hearts and with all their thoughts.”

Perhaps the publicist I. N. Potapenko expressed such sentiments with the greatest force, writing on the pages of the Nashi Vedomosti newspaper: about Moscow, however, I do not understand this geographical point at all. Let it be Tver, Ryazan, Kaluga, Chukhloma, any city, any place or village, but only so that it is in the bowels of the people ... And Petersburg - to hell with it, let it fall into the swamp, let the Germans take it, Finns, Samoyeds, who wants to. Rejected by Russia, he will perish from hunger and cold ... ". The furious pathos of these lines was largely dictated by a specific historical situation. I. Potapenko wrote them in 1918, when famine and devastation reigned in the capital of the perished empire. However, the image of St. Petersburg as an absolutely “Western”, “non-Russian” city is a very common phenomenon both in journalism and in scientific literature.

It is not difficult to trace the formation of a kind of apologetics for the city on the Neva, often based on the same historical facts as its criticism. Of course, in different historical periods, the apologists of St. Petersburg extolled it from different positions, but there were common features in their reasoning about the “glorious Petropolis”. In the first years of its existence, "Petersburg was presented to the Russian neophytes of Western teachings as a great attempt to realize, under the guidance of an enlightened monarch, the dream of the enlighteners of a rationally organized world." The poet A.P. Sumarokov exclaimed: “Our descendants will see you, Petropolis, in a different form: you will be northern Rome.”

In the first half of the 19th century, the "Westerners", arguing with the "Slavophiles", in every possible way emphasized the role of St. Petersburg as a source of progressive, European culture. At the same time, many liberal-minded authors irritated the city on the Neva as the center of all sorts of officialdom (which was naturally dictated by its capital status). A similar approach found a vivid expression in Russian fiction, in Pushkin's opposition of "a magnificent city, a poor city." It is indicative, however, that even V. G. Belinsky, with all his antipathy towards the autocratic order, saw in St. Petersburg “a way of spreading and establishing Europeanism in Russian society. Petersburg is a model for all of Russia in everything that concerns the forms of life, from fashion to secular tone, from the manner of laying bricks to the highest mysteries of architectural art ... ". Many historians and publicists, domestic and foreign, wrote about St. Petersburg as the first (and sometimes the only) "European" city in Russia, a center of knowledge and enlightenment, which, by its very appearance, stirred up "dense" Rus'.

A new and worthy of serious attention impetus to the discussion about the essence of the historical and cultural phenomenon of St. Petersburg is given, in our opinion, by the works of Academician D.S. Likhachev, republished and involved in scientific circulation at a qualitatively different level in recent times. Among them are "Peter's reforms and the development of Russian culture", "Russian culture of modern times and ancient Rus'", "Russian culture in the modern world" and others published by the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions in 2006. Certain aspects of St. Petersburg culture are touched upon by Likhachev in works devoted to N. V. Gogol, F. M. Dostoevsky and other Russian writers, in the monograph "Poetry of Gardens", etc. . Of particular interest are Notes on the Intellectual Topography of Petersburg in the First Quarter of the Twentieth Century. However, the lecture “Petersburg in the history of Russian culture”, read by the scientist at his initiation into honorary doctors of St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise on May 19, 1993, is central in this regard.

There is no doubt that Dmitry Sergeevich was literally in love with St. Petersburg. His scientific and journalistic works about the city are full of rave reviews. Petersburg, in his opinion, not only concentrated in itself "the best features of Russian culture, but it is also the most Russian among Russians and the most European among European cities." However, such assessments are not just a tribute to the traditional apologetics of St. Petersburg, they are not arbitrary, but flow organically from the whole system of views of the scientist.

Likhachev created a culture-centric conception of history. For him, the logic by which many school and university textbooks are still built is unacceptable. First, economic and political processes are analyzed in great detail, and then, at the end, by the way, the culture of a particular historical period, and even filed as a dry list of some achievements in the field of science and art. It was precisely this approach that Likhachev opposed when he criticized the Marxist theory of the historical process in its vulgarized form. According to him, the "teaching of Marxism" is "belittling the surrounding society, subordinating it to crude material laws that kill morality ...".

The history of mankind for Likhachev is first of all the history of culture. It is "culture that represents main point and the main value of the existence of both individual peoples and small ethnic groups, and states. And the meaning of life on an individual, personal level, according to Likhachev, is also found in cultural aspect human activity. The study of culture meant for Dmitry Sergeevich the study of those connections, that “inner core” that creates the structure of society, guiding the course of history to a large extent. Accordingly, the future of society was viewed by scientists as a kind of cultural project created by the past. Neither the state, nor the people, nor the individual can start life anew, "from scratch". The ability to control the future is limited by the framework of the previous culture. But history not only sets the boundaries of the possible, but also contains indications of the most promising ways of its development.

In the article “Russian Culture in the Modern World,” Likhachev noted: “Given the entire thousand-year experience of Russian history, we can talk about the historical mission of Russia. There is nothing mystical about this concept of historical mission. The mission of Russia is determined by its position among other peoples, by the fact that up to three hundred peoples have united in its composition - large, great and small, requiring protection. The culture of Russia has developed in the conditions of this multinationality. Russia served as a gigantic bridge between peoples. A bridge, first of all, a cultural one.

At the same time, Russian culture, in Likhachev's understanding, is European culture throughout its entire development. “The literature common to the southern and eastern Slavs was European in its type and to a large extent in origin,” he wrote. —<...>It was a literature close to Byzantine culture, which only due to a misunderstanding or a blind tradition coming from P. Chaadaev can be attributed to the East, and not to Europe. In the monograph "The Development of Russian LiteratureX- XVIIcenturies" Likhachev comes to youwater that the strongest cultural impact on Rus' was not the Asian countries, but Byzantium and Scandinavia. However, the nature of their influence was not the same. According to Likhachev, "Byzantine influence rose to relatively perfect forms of communication between highly developed spiritual cultures."

Literary and icon-painting traditions, political and natural-scientific thought, theology, etc. penetrated into Rus' from Byzantium. The influence of Scandinavia was different and affected primarily military affairs, state organization, and the economy. But even in these areas it was more superficial and indefinite than Byzantine. The influence of the steppe peoples, according to Likhachev, was very modest, essentially archaic. The researcher also believed that the impact on Russian culture, society and the state of the Tatar-Mongol invasion should not be exaggerated. Accordingly, Likhachev believed that “Rus' would be more natural to call Scandinavian Byzantium than Eurasia.”

Likhachev's view of the European character of Russian culture determined his views on the activities of Peter I , on the assessment that the scientist gave to the activities of the tsar-reformer in the field of culture. Likhachev did not at all consider the Petrine era as a time of break with national traditions, he denied the thesis popular with many authors that allegedly “Peter and his era dug an abyss between old and new Russia”.

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that Likhachev did not limit the close relationship of the Petrine era with the previous development of Russia only to the 17th century. The latter fact was not in doubt by historians and philosophers long before him. Even K. D. Kavelin wrote: “During the XVII century. the new needs of the state were clearly indicated and the same means were called for to satisfy them that were used in the 18th century, in the so-called era of transformations. However, Likhachev consistently defended the thesis of the European character of ancient Russian culture, and literature in particular, throughout its existence. “Peter's reforms,” writes Likhachev, “were prepared not only by the phenomena of the 17th century. This era was a natural result of the entire development of Russian culture, which began to move from the medieval type to the type of the New Age.

In many ways, it is precisely the understanding of the era of Peter I as a logical, natural stage in the development of Russia and Russian culture and determined Likhachev's view of the essence of the culture of St. Petersburg. Even Belinsky, reflecting on the role of St. Petersburg in Russian history, asked himself the question: “One thing: either the reform of Peter the Great was only a great historical mistake, or St. Petersburg has immense great significance for Russia.” And Likhachev convincingly argued that Peter's reforms were not a "mistake", but a natural consequence of the entire historical and cultural development of the country. Consequently, Petersburg, created in the course of these reforms, naturally absorbed the best traditions of Russian culture, which was European in its essence, into its culture. Having absorbed the same European cultural traditions, St. Petersburg at the same time became a city of global cultural traditions. For the most important features of European culture, according to Likhachev, are the personal principle, the desire for freedom and susceptibility to other cultures. That is why the artistic traditions of Ancient (pre-Petrine) Rus' and various European countries of the New Age are organically combined in St. Petersburg culture.

Reinforcing this position with specific examples, Likhachev shows the influence of ancient Russian architectural traditions on the appearance of St. Petersburg. They are found primarily in the oldest buildings of the city, for example, in the layout of the building of the Twelve Collegia, in the vaults of the Menshikov Palace (“there are Pskov and Novgorod vaults”), etc. . As the historian of architecture S.P. Zavarikhin rightly notes: "... Peter's baroque, even in the presence of European influences, could not have formed so quickly if it had not been prepared by the previous, almost century-old period of development of Russian architecture" . The influence of Russian traditions on architecture was also felt if foreigners were the direct supervisors of the construction, the architects. It is difficult to disagree with I. Grabar, who wrote that the majority of "foreign" architects "themselves changed their creative manner under the influence of Russian masters" and "often completely forgot about their first fatherland and became Russians in the full sense of the word, Russians in terms of style, in spirit and feeling."

The Russian character was also given to St. Petersburg by churches, which in the 19th century began to be built in the “national” style. Characteristically, Likhachev resolutely refutes the thesis about the "imitation" of the style in which the architects K. A. Ton and A. I. Stackenschneider worked. “Imitation usually,” he writes, “separates content from form to some extent. It wasn't here. For example, bell towers were required by the laws of church worship; five domes corresponded to the Russian religious consciousness. Another feature that makes St. Petersburg related to ancient Russian cities, according to Likhachev, was the presence of guest houses in it, characteristic of "Arkhangelsk, Novgorod, Kostroma, Yaroslavl, Kaluga ...". The influence of ancient Russian traditions, of course, was not limited to architecture. “Old Russian cultural traditions,” noted Likhachev, “live in St. Petersburg both in writing, mainly Old Believer, and in music, mainly church ...” .

The close interweaving of ancient Russian and Western European traditions in St. Petersburg culture made it somewhat related, according to a number of philosophers, with the culture of ancient Novgorod. The outstanding philosopher G.P. Fedotov wrote: “Rich and complex Velikiy Novgorod. Even now we do not understand how he could combine a feat of prayer with a violent evening, a Hanseatic bargaining with a Russian icon. All the contradictions that lived in it were resurrected in old and new Petersburg ... ". Similar ideas were expressed by the literary critic and writer V. V. Gippius: “A window to Europe. Not an "invention" of Peter, as the Slavophiles excelled, but "the history of Russia from ancient times." Not so long ago we learned: ancient Russia is not only Kyiv, but also Novgorod ... Now we will finally learn: and - Petersburg. Novgorod - Kyiv - Moscow - Petersburg or Novgorod, pushed to the sea! .

It is interesting that Likhachev also drew some analogies between the historical and cultural destinies of St. Petersburg and Novgorod. In the work “On the Russian Intelligentsia”, the scientist noted: “Europe triumphed under Peter in Russia because, to some extent, Peter managed to restore that path“ from the Varangians to the Greeks ”, which was interrupted in Russia by the Tatar-Mongol yoke, and build Petersburg started it." Here he noted that it was the path “from the Varangians to the Greeks” that in Ancient Rus' was not just a trade artery, but also a way of “spreading culture”, while Novgorod was the most important center along this path.

It is significant that the connection of the Petrine era with the previous development of the country, along with the convinced "Westerners", was denied by the supporters of Eurasianism, only they endowed the cultural "revolution" that had taken place with exclusively negative characteristics. So, Prince N. Trubetskoy believed that “if Russia before Peter the Great in its culture could be considered almost the most gifted and prolific successor of Byzantium, then after Peter the Great, embarking on the path of the Romano-Germanic“ orientation ”, she found herself at the tail of the European culture, on the outskirts of civilization".

For Likhachev, such a renunciation of European intellectuals by Russian intellectuals, "playing Asianism" were, apparently, in best case unpleasant coquetry, at worst - political irresponsibility. “Actually, Russia is not Eurasia at all,” he wrote in On the Russian Intelligentsia. —<...>Russia is undoubtedly Europe in religion and culture. In the same work, the scientist emphasized: “Russia in its culture differs from the countries of the West no more than all of them differ from each other: England from France or Holland from Switzerland. There are many cultures in Europe."

Denying the postulates of “Eurasianism”, Likhachev was, of course, far from denying the influence of the cultural traditions of non-European countries on the formation of St. Petersburg: “St. appearance: Egyptian sphinxes, Chinese shih tzu and antique vases stand on the banks of the Bolshaya Neva. By the way, this is a characteristic feature not only of St. Petersburg, but also of Rome, and Paris, and London - the centers of world culture. And this is a very important feature of our city.”

This phrase brings to mind the words of N. P. Antsiferov, a brilliant connoisseur of St. Petersburg culture: “The years brought new features of imperialism into the austere and beautiful cover of Northern Palmyra. As if the victorious leaders celebrated their triumphs here and placed trophies around the city. And Petersburg received them, made them his owncreated for him(our italics. - Auth.). On the embankment of the Neva ... fit two sphinxes - with the face of Amenhotep III... And these mysterious creatures, the creation of distant times, distant lands, alien people, here, on the banks of the Neva, seem to us completely dear, emerging from the waters great river capitals of the North ... ".

The formation of St. Petersburg culture, according to both Antsiferov and Likhachev, did not at all imply blind copying of foreign samples, the formal combination of heterogeneous elements, but was the result of a creative processing of someone else's, its change in relation to Russian specifics.

As for the myth about the “foreignness” of St. Petersburg for Russia, about the lack of links between St. Petersburg culture and Russian national traditions, such a view was largely created by the reformer tsar himself, who, in the words of Likhachev, wanted and knew how his own figure, but also everything that he did. Explaining the reasons for the purposeful creation of such a legend by Peter I, Likhachev noted: “Since a greater rapprochement with Europe was necessary, it means that it was necessary to assert that Russia was completely fenced off from Europe. Since it was necessary to move forward faster, it means that it was necessary to create a myth about Russia, inert, inactive, etc. Since a new culture was needed, it means that the old one was no good.” It should be noted that the views of the tsar-reformer were quite shared by many of his associates, and often quite sincerely. They themselves rose “from nothingness” thanks to the reforms, they felt themselves the creators of the new Russia, and they were inclined to evaluate the past of the country with a degree of disdain. In the light of the novelty of Peter's reforms, Petersburg was inevitably perceived by many as an "unprecedented" city alien to "old" Rus'.

The idea of ​​a demonstrative component in the appearance of St. Petersburg in the time of Peter the Great was expressed by whole line cultural historians. So, E. E. Keller notes: “Peter’s political claims and the need for propaganda and advertising gave rise to some obligations - the obligations of the tsar himself to the capital and to the country, the obligations of capital Petersburg to Russia ...” . The conscious activity of Peter I in constructing a new image of the country became the object of analysis in the works of the St. Petersburg scientist Yu. A. Zapesotsky. Using modern terminology, he notes that the reformer tsar "carried out what today could be called a rebranding on the scale of an entire state." The conclusions of Yu. A. Zapesotsky are based on the views of Likhachev, who pointed out that Peter consciously moved the capital to the West. In a new place it was easier to create a new myth. The break with the old sign system, however, did not at all mean, as was said, a complete break with cultural traditions.

Moreover, no matter how paradoxical it may sound, but, pushing the capital to the borders of the state, Peter I , according to Likhachev, he also followed a very ancient tradition. Perhaps, so many critical and harsh remarks were made about no feature of St. Petersburg, as about its border position. Even D. Diderot, referring to the words of S. K. Naryshkin, wrote to Catherine II: "A country in which the capital is placed on the edge state, is like an animal whose heart would be at the tip of a finger ... ". Since then, many and many have been reproached for the arbitrariness of the choice of a place for the capital of Peter. However, Likhachev cites a number of historical examples that refute the opinion of an absolutely atypical geographical location Petersburg: “The following is typical: the desire of Russians to establish their capitals as close as possible to the borders of their state. Kyiv and Novgorod arise on the most importantIX- XIcenturies European trade route connectingsefaith and the south of Europe - on the way "from the Varangians to the Greeks."<...>And then, after the Tatar-Mongol yoke, as soon as the opportunities for trade with England open up, Ivan the Terrible makes an attempt to move the capital closer to the "sea-ocean", to new trade routes - to Vologda ... ".

Interestingly, for Likhachev, not only the thesis about the “non-Russianness” of St. Petersburg was unacceptable, but also the thesis that it is a cast from Western European models. This view is typical of many Western European authors both in the past and today. According to Likhachev, St. Petersburg is an unusual city, which is not only "extremely European and extremely Russian", but because of this "differs both from Europe and from Russia".

Even outwardly, St. Petersburg does not look like Western European cities that were formed in the Middle Ages on the territory bounded by fortress walls. Belinsky also wrote about this “dissimilarity” of St. Petersburg to the old European capitals: “They also say that St. Petersburg has nothing original, original in itself ... and, like two drops of water, it looks like all the capital cities in the world. But which ones exactly? It cannot possibly resemble the old ones, such as, for example, Rome, Paris, London; therefore, this is a sheer lie.

Petersburg arose in a completely different era than the ancient cities of Western Europe, and its appearance is different. Since Peter's reforms marked the transition of Russian culture "from the medieval type to the type of the New Age", then Petersburg was built primarily as a city of the New Age. It appeared in an era for which the cult of reason, rationalism, and knowledge was highly characteristic. Petersburg was built according to a clear plan, coordinated with the personal orders of the tsar, who saw in St. Petersburg an "exemplary", "exemplary" city.

Petersburg's belonging to the New Age was also expressed in the fact that it was originally planned and created as science Center and education center. It is no coincidence that Golikov, mentioned above, compared the “city of Petrov” with Alexandria, the center of the philosophical and scientific schools of antiquity. It was in St. Petersburg that already in the 18th century a layer of educated people was actively formed, the best artistic and scientific forces from all over Russia and from abroad flocked here. The development of scientific and educational institutions here is extremely fast. This feature was sensitively captured by Voltaire, who, dedicating his tragedy “Olympia” to Count I. I. Shuvalov, wrote: “Not even 60 years have passed since the beginning of your empire was laid in St. institutions and magnificent theaters ... ". Thus, the city is young, but "scientific institutions" have existed there "for a long time" - from the very foundation.

It was the "educational" role of St. Petersburg, according to Likhachev, that determined the essential features of its culture. It should be noted here that Dmitry Sergeevich, highly appreciating the achievements of ancient Russian culture, simultaneously pointed to the “absence of universities in Rus' and higher school education in general” .

True, back in 1687, the Slavic-Greek-Latin School, later called the Academy, opened in Moscow, in which young people comprehended the “seeds of wisdom” from the civil and ecclesiastical sciences, “beginning with grammar, piitika, rhetoric, dialectics, philosophy of - amiable, natural and moral, even to theology ... ". But this educational institution was not a university in the full sense of the word. In addition, unlike the European universities of this period, the Academy was under the control of the church. “Theology” was revered as the crown of learning in it, and the number of students here was small. Any attempts by the Likhud brothers who led the Academy to go beyond the limits set by church hierarchs immediately aroused a sharp outcry. For the Orthodox Church, the university science of Western Europe meant, first of all, "Latinism", an alien and hostile faith, and could not arouse sympathy.

Peter I begins the creation in Russia of a broad system of secular education, and it was during his reign that the European science of the New Age came to Rus'. It comes largely through St. Petersburg and thanks to St. Petersburg. The role of the city on the Neva as the largest, special center of science and education is connected, according to Likhachev, with such a feature of St. Petersburg culture as academism. The scientist notes that a special “tendency to classical art, classical forms", which "manifested both outwardly in architecture ... and in the essence of the interests of St. Petersburg authors, creators, teachers, etc." . According to Likhachev, in St. Petersburg all the main European and world styles acquired a classical character. Classicism, with its clarity, clarity of both content and form, naturally determined such an inalienable feature of St. Petersburg culture as professionalism, which permeates science, art, and even social and political activity.

Professionalism, in the interpretation of Likhachev, does not at all boil down to a narrow specialization, but, on the contrary, implies a close “connection of sciences and arts with education. Scientific schools were even formally associated with educational institutions. Educational establishments Petersburg traditionally provided a deep and versatile education, because the professionalism of the specialists working in them was based on fundamental education.

According to Likhachev, it is no coincidence that it was in St. Petersburg that a special, in a number of respects, the highest “product” of world culture, the intelligentsia, appeared and crystallized. According to the scientist, the intelligentsia was a unique result of the maturity of the European spiritual tradition, and at the same time it is a phenomenon that was naturally formed precisely on Russian soil. The outstanding Russian culturologist M. S. Kagan comes to the same idea in his own way. For the emergence of the intelligentsia, according to Likhachev, "it was necessary to combine university knowledge with free thinking and free worldview behavior." An intellectual, according to Likhachev, is a conscientious person with education and intellectual freedom.

Likhachev has repeatedly noted that an intellectual is not only educated, he is also spiritually free. In Russia, under the conditions of despotism, such freedom takes on the features of a “secret”, A. Pushkin and A. Blok wrote about it. It is dangerous to express one's thoughts, but it is impossible to hide them, unbearable for a true intellectual. James Billington wrote about this tragic clash between the intelligentsia and tyranny, likening the fate of "European culture" in St. Petersburg (or rather, in Russia as a whole) to the fate of the freedom-loving palm tree from V. Garshin's parable. “The history of European culture in this city,” says his book The Icon and the Ax, “is reminiscent of the story of an exotic palm tree in the story of Vsevolod Garshin. Artificially transplanted from the hot regions into the greenhouse of the northern city, this palm tree strives to endow all the submissive plants locked in the greenhouse with the violent freedom of its homeland. Her brilliant aspiration upwards, towards the elusive sun ... ends with a broken ceiling of the greenhouse and a deadly meeting with the true climate of these places.

However, for all the emotional tension of this image, Billington's conclusions are very different from Likhachev's convictions. Dmitry Sergeevich, not without reason, considered the intelligentsia to be precisely a Russian phenomenon: “The constant striving for freedom,” he wrote, “exists where there is a threat to freedom. That is why the intelligentsia as an intellectually free part of society exists in Russia and is unknown in the West, where the threat to freedom for the intellectual part of society is less (or it is minimal). Using Garshin's metaphor, Russia's "genuine climate" did not kill the blooming green of intellectual freedom, but hardened its bearers, made them genuine intellectuals.

That is why Likhachev, among the most important aspects of Petersburg culture, calls the existence in the city of numerous voluntary associations, circles, public organizations, in which "the thinking part of society gathered - scientists, artists, artists, musicians, etc." . Many of these groups were formed professional pursuits people included in them, and accordingly contributed to the "growth of St. Petersburg professionalism" . Other groups included people different professions, but similar worldview, beliefs. Informal and semi-official associations played a special role in shaping public opinion: “Public opinion in St. Petersburg,” said Likhachev, “was created not in state institutions, but mainly in these private circles, associations, at journalism meetings, at meetings of scientists, etc. It was here that the reputation of people was formed ... ".

Among such circles was the "Space Academy", which Dmitry Sergeevich himself was a member of in his youth, and which was brutally defeated by the Soviet authorities. Governments prone to despotism have always had an extremely negative attitude towards informal associations of thinking people, not without reason saw them as a threat. However, according to Likhachev, it was thanks to them that the best features of Russian culture were concentrated in St. Petersburg. Petersburg culture has absorbed the best features of Russian culture as “European, universal culture; a culture that studies and assimilates the best aspects of all cultures of mankind.

Of course, the inclusion of Academician Likhachev's views on the essence of St. Petersburg as a cultural phenomenon in Russian history in the context of contemporary discussions does not yet draw a line under the disputes on this issue. Firstly, there is reason to believe that the actualization of Likhachev's historical and cultural scientific heritage, which is currently taking place, is only part of the modern process of recreating a holistic picture of the history of Russian cultural thought - a picture that was significantly deformed in Soviet times. And the results of this process cannot but affect the understanding of the facts and phenomena of our history. Secondly, we can assume a similar effect from the general rapid development of the domestic humanities, in particular from the improvement of the methodology of interdisciplinary research.

Finally, it seems to us that the establishment of a view of the history of the Fatherland as the history of Culture, the history of the assertion and steady expansion of the Human principle is, on the whole, one of the progressive directions in the development of historical science.

All this allows us to hope for the further development of the discussion on various aspects of the historical and cultural essence of the phenomenon of St. Petersburg.

________________________________________________

Notes

1. Cm.:Antsiferov N. P.Soul of Petersburg. L., 1991; Grabar I. E. Petersburg architecture in the 18th and 19th centuries. SPb., 1994; Kagan M.S. City of Petrov in the history of Russian culture. SPb., 1996; KellerE. E. Festive culture of St. Petersburg: essays on history. St. Petersburg, 2001; Lotman Yu. M. Symbols of St. Petersburg and the problems of the semiotics of the city // Semiotics of the city and urban culture. Petersburg. Tartu, 1984; PushkarevI. AND. Nikolaevsky Petersburg. St. Petersburg, 2000; St. Petersburg: 300 years of history. St. Petersburg, 2003; Sindalovsky N. A. Legends and myths of St. Petersburg. SPb., 1994; Smirnov S. B. Petersburg-Moscow: the sum of history. St. Petersburg, 2000; Toporov V. N. Petersburg texts and Petersburg myths // In honor of the 70th anniversary of Professor Yu. M. Lotman. Tartu, 1992; and etc.

2. Big encyclopedic Dictionary/ Ch. ed. A. M. Prokhorov. M.; SPb.,1999. S. 1270.

3. See, for example: Modern Philosophical Dictionary / ed. ed. V. E. Ke Merova. M., 2004. S. 757.

4. Petersburg Phenomenon: tr. International conf., comp. November 3-5, 1999Vseros. Museum of A. S. Pushkin. SPb., 2000. S. 8.

5. Isupov K. G.Dialogue of capitals in the historical movement // Moscow-Petersburg:proetcontra. Dialogue of cultures in the history of national identity: an- tol. / resp. ed. D. K. Burlaka. SPb., 2000. S. 6-7.

6. Toporov V. N.Petersburg and the Petersburg text of Russian literature // Semiotics of the city and urban culture. Petersburg. C. 4.

7. See: Moscow-Petersburg: pro et contra. Dialogue of cultures...

8. Spivak D. L.Metaphysics of Petersburg. French civilization. SPb., 2005. S. 5.

9. Golikov I.Acts of Peter the Great, the wise reformer of Russia, collected from reliable sources and arranged by years. M., 1788. Part 2.S. 107.

10. Pushkin A. S.On the insignificance of Russian literature // Pushkin A.S. Full collection. op. : in 10 t. M., 1958. T. 7. S. 307-308.

11. Cit. By:Merezhkovsky D.S.Winter rainbows // "City under the sea ...", or Brilliant St. Petersburg. Memories. Stories. Essays. Poetry. SPb., 1996. S. 327.

12. Potapenko I. N.Cursed City // Our Vedomosti. Jan 3, 1918

13. Smirnov S. B. Decree. op. S. 23.

14. Cit. By:Smirnov S. B. Decree. op. S. 23.

15. Belinsky V. G.Petersburg and Moscow // Belinsky V. G. Full. coll. op. : in 13 t. M., 1955. T. 8. S. 397.

16. Likhachev D.S.Selected works on Russian and world culture / scientific ed. Yu. V. Zobnin. St. Petersburg, 2006; D. S. Likhachev — University meetings. 16 texts / scientific. ed. A. S. Zapesotsky. SPb., 2006.

17. Likhachev D.S.Dostoevsky in search of the real and authentic // Likhachev D.S. Selected Works on Russian and World Culture. pp. 285-303; He is. Garden poetry. On the semantics of landscape gardening styles. Garden as text. M., 1998.

18. Likhachev D.S.Notes on the intellectual topography of St. Petersburg in the first quarter of the twentieth century // Likhachev D.S. Selected works on Russian and world culture. pp. 276-284.

19. Likhachev D.S.— University meetings. 16 texts. pp. 11-25.

20. There. S. 24.

21. There.

22. For details see:Zapesotsky A. S.Great Russian culturologist // St. Petersburg Vedomosti. 2006. 27 Nov. C. 4.

23. Likhachev D.S.Favorites. Memories. SPb., 1997. S. 182.

24. Likhachev D.S.Declaration of the rights of culture (project of ideas): first presented at St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise on the Day of Knowledge on September 1, 1995 // D. S. Likhachev — University meetings. 16 texts. S. 29.

25. Likhachev D.S.Russian culture in the modern world // Likhachev D.S. Selected works on Russian and world culture. S. 196.

26. Likhachev D.S.The first seven hundred years of Russian literature // Likhachev D.S. Favorites. Great legacy. Classical traditions of the literature of Ancient Russia. Notes about Russian. SPb., 1997. S. 30-31.

27. Likhachev D.S.Development of Russian literatureX- XVIIcenturies. SPb., 1998. S. 18.

28. There.

29. Likhachev D.S.Culture as an integral environment // Likhachev D.S. Selected works on Russian and world culture. S. 359.

30. Likhachev D.S.Petrine reforms and the development of Russian culture // Likhachev D.S. Selected works on Russian and world culture. S. 166.

31. Cit. by: Peter the Great:proetcontra. The personality and deeds of Peter I in the assessmentRussian thinkers and researchers: Antol. SPb., 2003. IV. Context. § 4.2. Peter is the accelerator of the Europeanization that had already begun before him. S. 736.

32. Likhachev D.S.

33. Belinsky V. G. Decree. op. S. 394.

34. Likhachev D.S.Petersburg in the history of Russian culture // Likhachev D.S. Selected works on Russian and world culture. S. 263.

35. Zavarikhin S. P.Appearance of Saint-Peter-Burkh. SPb., 1996. S. 102.

36. Grabar I.History of Russian art. M., 1910. T. 1. S. 1, 2.

37. Likhachev D.S.Petersburg in the history of Russian culture // Likhachev D.S. Selected works on Russian and world culture. S. 264.

38. There. S. 263.

39. There. S. 264.

40. Fedotov G.P.Three capitals // Moscow-Petersburg:proetcontra. Dialogue cultures... S. 484.

41. Gippius V.V.Sleep in the desert // Ibid. S. 384.

42. Likhachev D.S.About the Russian intelligentsia // Likhachev D.S. Selected works on Russian and world culture. S. 379.

43. See: ibid. pp. 384-385.

44. Exodus to the East. Premonitions and Accomplishments. Approval of the Eurasians.Sofia, 1921. S. 95.

45. For more on Likhachev's attitude to Eurasianism, see:Zapesotsky A. S.Dmitry Likhachev is a great Russian culturologist. SPb., 2007. S. 7290. (A number of chapters were written in collaboration with Yu. V. Zobnin, L. A. Sankin, T. E. Shekhter, Yu. A. Zapesotsky.)

46. Likhachev D.S.About the Russian intelligentsia. S. 384.

47. There.

48. Likhachev D.S.Petersburg in the history of Russian culture // D. S. Likhachev — University meetings. 16 texts. pp. 16-17.

49. Antsiferov N. P. Decree. op. S. 36.

50. Likhachev D.S.Peter's reforms and the development of Russian culture. S. 165.

51. Likhachev D.S.Russian culture in the modern world. pp. 191-192.

52. Keller E. E. Decree. op. S. 99.

53. Cit. By: Zapesotsky A. S.Dmitry Likhachev — great Russian culturologist. § 4. The image of Russia as a cultural dominant of the Petrine reforms. S. 69.

54. Cm.:Likhachev D.S.Peter's reforms and the development of Russian culture.S. 165.

55. Didro D.Collected works: in 10 t. M., 1947. T. 10. S. 192.

56. Likhachev D.S.Russian culture in the modern world. S. 195.

57. Likhachev D.S.Petersburg in the history of Russian culture // D. S. Likhachev — University meetings. 16 texts. S. 15.

58. Belinsky V. G. Decree. op. S. 394.

59. Likhachev D.S.Peter's reforms and the development of Russian culture. S. 168.

60. Cit. By: Isupov K. G. Decree. op. S. 15.

61. Likhachev D.S.Russian culture in the modern world. S. 206.

62. Cit. By: Buganov V.I.World of History: Russia in the 17th century. M., 1989.S. 287.

63. Likhachev D.S.Petersburg in the history of Russian culture // D. S. Likhachev — University meetings. 16 texts. S. 17.

64. There.

65. Cm.: KaganM. WITH. Decree. op. S. 400.

66. Likhachev D.S.About the Russian intelligentsia. S. 379.

67. See details: Zapesotsky A. S. The last Russian intellectual: to the 100th anniversary of the birth of Dmitry Likhachev // Ogonyok. 2006. 20-26 Nov. No. 47. S. 14-15; He is. Dmitry Likhachev and the Russian intelligentsia // Neva.2006. No. 11. S. 129-140.

68. Billington D. X.Icon and axe. The experience of interpreting the history of Russian culture M., 2001. S. 234.

69. Likhachev D.S.About the Russian intelligentsia. S. 371.

70. Likhachev D.S.Petersburg in the history of Russian culture // D. S. Likhachev — University meetings. 16 texts. S. 21.

71. There. S. 23.

72. There. pp. 22-23.

73. There. S. 23.

74. Likhachev D.S.Culture as an integral environment. S. 361.

75. See, for example: The most important achievements of research and developmentonscientific and organizational activities of the OIFN RAS in 2001-2006. M. : UOP In-taethnology and anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006.

First publication: Questions of Philosophy, 2007, No. 9, pp. 96-107