In terms of increasing cultural alienation, growth of cross-cultural conflicts among factors stabilizing society is a dialogue of cultures. The problem of the dialogue of cultures in its present form reflects the current forms of social interaction, characterized by strengthening the universal world of cultural relations. In recent years, social, political and economic upheavals on a global scale have led to unprecedented migration of peoples, which caused cultural conflict, opposition of "our" and "foreign" cultures. This circumstance actualized the problem of optimizing the dialogue between cultures and led to the formulation of the following tasks: to investigate the essence of dialogue as a type of intercultural communication, to prove that the dialogue of cultures at the present stage is the main way to consolidate people, etc. The leading approach to the study of the stated problem is the philosophical-cultural approach allowing revealing the nature, essence and methods of realization of the dialogue of cultures. It is proved that in the conditions of cultural confrontation only through dialogue is it possible to spread humanistic values on a global scale. In the context of the modernization of Russian society, dialogue between cultures plays an important role in consolidating ethnic groups and shaping ethnic identity. The research results are focused on a deep scientific analysis of cultural processes in the context of globalization. Certain provisions may be used by public organizations in the development of programs aimed at overcoming cultural confrontation in the modern world.
Modern man and culture are in a state of searching for universal values, which, on the one hand, express the unity of the interests of humankind, on the other, reflect their spiritual uniqueness and originality. Therefore, today they increasingly turn to dialogue as a universal hermeneutic key in understanding the essence of being of a person and culture. In the recent period, in connection with the development of modern forms of communication, the dialogue has become more controversial reflected the conflict between two trends. On the one hand, due to the intensive development of communication processes, the culture of each nation, determining its spiritual uniqueness, at the same time becomes the property of all humanity. Dialogue carried out in various forms provides an increasing understanding between nations, helps to reveal their spiritual uniqueness. On the other hand, the cultural differences of nations and the encountered inability to cultural understanding and dialogue have recently become one of the leading causes of inter-ethnic conflicts.
Thus, the contradictory processes taking place in modern society provide the basis for deep and thorough study of the role of intercultural dialogue in the modern world. Taking into account the peculiarities of contemporary cultural realities, the formation of new models of communication and information interaction, we set the task to consider dialogue as the main means of preserving cultural integrity and as the most promising model of intercultural interaction. Today, it is obvious that the orientation towards cooperation, compromise, the need for dialogue is much more profitable and helpful in all areas of society, rather than setting a confrontation and ethnocentrism.
The civilizational space in which cultural interaction takes place should not be understood as a “ready” common place, where culture “enters”. In today's society there is a strong need for cultural pluralism in addressing today's global problems. Consideration of the world through the prism of sustainable Eurocentric perception cannot meet the spirit of time. It becomes obvious that the dialogue among civilizations, with their cultural future, ethnic, social features will be needed, and the thesis of the unity of world civilization will not seem false concept.
It is known that the process of intercultural dialogue is largely associated with the assimilation of not only universal, but also ethnic values in their unity and diversity. However, any restriction and "closure" only within their own ethnic group contributes to the fact that other cultural attitudes and values are strange, unnatural and inexplicable. In this context, it is important to eliminate restrictions and one-sidedness in perceiving the culture of a separate ethnos, striving for a deeper comprehension of cultural values, thereby opening the way to cultural understanding and mutual enrichment. The culture of inter-ethnic interaction involves the intensification of the process of intercultural dialogue, an in-depth knowledge of the characteristics of a particular ethnos.
The problem of optimizing the cultural dialogue today is as relevant as ever for modernizing Russia. But it acquires special relevance for the North Caucasus, whose peoples, on the one hand, are still influenced by nationalist organizations, and on the other hand, are subject to mass informational influence. All this leads to a loss of identity and the absence of interethnic harmony, an increase in aggression and confrontation.
In Russian and foreign science, interest in the problem of intercultural dialogue is constantly increasing. The works of contemporary researchers point to the need to consider dialogue in the context of the globalization of culture, the dialogue of civilizations, and cultural interaction between Russia and the West. Modern scientists are also concerned about the problems of dialogue as a form of communication, reflecting the peculiarities of the transformation of the post-industrial society and the information age. It can be stated that modern science proposes various approaches that broaden ideas about the dialogue of cultures, which indicates the relevance of this problem.
This article examines the problem of the dialogue as the main vector of development of culture in terms of socio-cultural transformations. The main problem involves the solution of the following tasks: to characterize the dialogue as a type of intersubjective interaction and a strategy of intercultural interaction in modern conditions; to show that the dialogue of cultures and civilizations is a factor in ensuring cultural integrity; to consider the place of Russia in the dialogue of civilizations; to identify priority areas for optimization of ethno-cultural dialogue in modern Russia.
Dialogue as a type of intersubjective interaction and a priority strategy of intercultural interaction in modern conditions.
During the study of the dialogue of cultures in the historical-philosophical context, it was concluded that this problem originates from the times of Antiquity, continues to develop in the disputes of the Middle Ages, in the dialogical texts of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The idea that dialogue is the original form of European philosophy has been widely spread in the literature of the 19th and 20th centuries. The scope of dialogic interaction is so expanded that in modern science proves the necessity of the creation of a special branch of knowledge - dialogics, as the general scientific theory of the processes of interaction at different levels. By the end of the 20th century, the study of the identity of each culture is no longer conceived outside of its interaction with other cultures (European, Asian, African, etc.). Modern world culture is a palette of diverse cultures that are unique in their own way and must be in constant contact (dialogue) with each other. The special relevance of the dialogue of cultures becomes the end of the XX century, due to the need for understanding the features of intercultural and inter-civilizational dialogue in the context of globalization processes. In the works of U. Beck (Beck, 2001) and K.H. Delokarova (Delokarov, 2002) globalization is presented as a complex, system-forming problem, which allowed to comprehending the essence of the manifestation of the dialogue of cultures. Exploration of intercultural dialogue in the context of cultural pluralism studied by S. Benhabib (Benhabib, 2005), multiculturalism – by T. Modood (Modood, 2007), A. Phillips (Phillips, 2007), interculturalism –N. Meer and T. Modood (Meer & Molood, 2011), tolerance and compromise – by B.V. Shalina (Shalina, 2000), J.G. Janmaat and N. Mons (Janmaat & Mons, 2011).
Note that the dialogue of cultures is a metaphor rather than a strict scientific concept that acquires the status of a doctrine and must be followed in the context of the intensification of cultural interaction. Dialogue should be understood not only as a lively communication, but also as a person’s mastering world cultural values, understanding the uniqueness of another culture, and attitude to cultural heritage and modern culture. Intercultural dialogue contributes not only cultural self-development, but also realizes a positive scenario of interaction between peoples and cultures, since it is carried out in the interests of each communication party. In order to appreciate a different culture, cross-cultural literacy is required, which implies the ability to see differences in customs, traditions, beliefs of different cultures, the ability to consider cultural unity and peculiarities. In this regard, M.M. Bakhtin writes: “We put new questions to an alien culture, which it did not put to itself, we look for answers to our questions in it, and an alien culture answers us, opening new sides to us, new semantic depths. Without our questions one cannot creatively understand anything else and someone else. “With such a dialogical meeting of two cultures, they do not merge and do not mix, each retains its unity and open integrity, but they are mutually enriched” (Bakhtin, 1986).
Currently, the dialogue of cultures is taking place against the backdrop of active global changes that affect all spheres of society and go beyond the borders of individual countries and regions. R. Robertson called these changes the processes of “squeezing the world” and strengthening the interrelation of its various sides (Robertson, 1992). One of the main problems of our time is the conflict of cultures, the cause of which lies in the irreversible globalization processes. Different cultures are forced to exist in the interaction with other cultures, and the collision of opposing values and stereotypes often leads to conflicts. M.M. Joshi, quoting Professor P. Dutkiewich (Carleston University, Canada) writes that “humanity lives in a world today where dialogue and conflict are opposed to each other” (Joshi, 2007). In the world, there is a growing confrontation between global and local cultures, which forms its own rules and regulations, introduces cultural values that are incomprehensible to other members of society. At the same time, the universal world is being universalized, thanks to which common cultural stereotypes are spread within a separate culture. Thus, modern sociocultural space is a kind of duality: each culture experiences the confrontation between the universal and the local, the national and the international, high and low, the elite and the marginal and the local, the national and the international, high and low, the elite and the margin. In this situation, it is important that through a dialogue in which masses of people involved with different worldviews and cultural values, it would be possible to harmonize relations between people. The Polish philosopher A. Gzegorczyk writes: “Nonviolent actions are ethically consistent behavior, guided by a distinct moral ideal based on respect and love for the enemy” (Gzegorczyk, 1992).
The modern interpretation of the dialogue requires consideration of it as the basis of a person’s sociocultural interaction, taking into account the degree of globalization of culture. Dialogue can never be essentially completed, it can occur between cultures, countries, groups of individuals, or even in the mental activity of one person. The dialogue has a clear structure, which is repeated at all levels of social existence: the subjects, the subject of the dialogue, the space of dialogue and the relationship between these three elements. The essence of dialogue as a principle of interaction remains unchanged since the formation of human society. It is unchanged in the West and in the East, in the times of antiquity and New Age, among men and women, and in this global immutability its maximum variability is rooted.
Dialogue of the West and the East cultures as a dialogue of civilizations. Russia’s place in the dialogue between civilizations
In the modern sociocultural space, the theme of the dialogue between Western and Eastern civilizations acquires a special meaning. From the viewpoint of culture, the East and West ratio can be interpreted as follows: as the ratio of the philosophy of the East and West; as an opportunity to meet two worldviews; as the ratio of Catholicism (Western) and Orthodox (East). It is also important to emphasize that the problem of the East-West relationship is also viewed as a problem within Russian culture, which is associated with an attempt to determine the historical path of Russia's development.
Thus, the “meeting” of Eastern and Western civilizations can be called an event of a planetary scale, in which cultures of different content coexist. Reality dispels the myth of the incompatibility of civilizations of the East and West. The process of “Great Synthesis” is developing, the essence of which can be demonstrated using the example of China’s development. The strategy of this development focuses the Chinese people on the combination of Western material culture with the Chinese spiritual culture. f as the main content of contemporary social and cultural development regarded as a dialogue of eastern and western civilizations, it is the Russia as the "East-West" (Berdyaev), because of its unique historical destiny is able to form a special type of socio-cultural development of civilization. The synthesis of the following opposites will form the basis of a new type of civilization: technological and ecological culture, material and spiritual principles, traditional and liberal values, etc. The historical mission of Russia is to implement this “Great Synthesis”, since in Russian culture one can simultaneously find features of all-Slavic, European and Asian cultures. Through the prism of its culture, Russia can be said to be a smaller copy or model of the world community, and its multilingualism, multiculturalism and multi-religious reflect the semantic multidimensionality and complexity of world culture as a global unity of all cultures. In this regard, it should be noted that Russia throughout the historical and cultural development has never considered itself on the periphery of the global social process; it has always been involved in all world events. This is confirmed by the teachings of N. Berdyaev on Russian messianism. Boundary position of the Russian culture between European and non-European has allowed Russia to become the central link between the eastern and the western world, claim the role of "bridge between civilizations" between the West and the East, and to assume the mission of unification of opposing parts of a whole, that is, the "world community". At the same time it means that the various contradictions between the West and the East, as well as any clash of civilizations and cultural interests of Western and non-Western countries, one way or another goes through Russian (Eurasian) area, which now becomes a place of struggle of conflicting trends in the development of mankind.
Speaking of Russia, it is important to emphasize that it is not only a "unified" culture, but also a unique civilization, which unites a large number of ethnic groups with their own culture and form the basis of the Russian civilization. As it is known, the question of the civilization nature of Russia has an ambiguous solution. For example, I.G. Yakovenko believes that Russia is a kind of amorphous reality located between Western and Eastern civilizations. Thus, it cannot be called an independent civilization. Russia can be identified as an indefinite inter-civilization space with unstable boundaries. Despite the fact, that within this space, the synthesis of elements inherent in different civilizations is constantly being carried out, the creation of an independent civilization, according to I.G. Yakovenko, is not possible. “Within Russia, elements are being aggregated that are not folding (at least for the time being) into a highly integrated synthetic whole. Hence the problems and troubles of Russia are…… At the price of an incredible historical effort from generation to generation, our people are working to unite the incompatible elements into an effective dynamic whole”. (Yakovenko, 2013 ).
Defending the civilizational nature of Russia, O.A. Platonov uses the concept of “Russian spiritual civilization” to emphasize its difference from the Western consumer society (Platonov, 2008). From the point of view of V.Y. Pashchenko, in defining the civilizational nature of Russia, it is necessary to emphasize the peculiarities of Russian identity, in this regard, the scientist suggests the name “Eurasian civilization” (Pashchenko, 2003). The advantage of this definition is that, firstly, it reflects the multinational and multi-confessional peculiarity of Russia, and secondly, it commits Russia's recognition of the unifying mission of East and West in a single Eurasian space. We believe that Russia, with its unique historical and cultural destiny of the rich spiritual heritage, can be regarded as an independent civilization, which occupies a worthy place among other civilizations of East and West.
To the question of what Russia can offer the world in the process of inter-civilization dialogue, one can answer that one of the main wealth of Russia are the products of spiritual production, new ideas. Therefore, we will agree with the opinion of N.N. Moiseev, who believes that the "positive role could be played by the spiritual factor, the system of Russian traditions, which allows to combine many of the features of the European West and the East Pacific. Reasonable use of both these opportunities can open up quite optimistic prospects for our country” (Moiseev, 2000).
In the conditions of the conflicting nature of the modern world, caused by ethnic contradictions, it is Russia, with its vast experience of inter-ethnic and intercultural communication, is able to offer the world effective ways to resolve contradictions and conflicts.
Ethno cultural dialogue and ways of its optimization
In the space of the Russian civilization, the modern dialogue of cultures has its own specificity, which expresses the uniqueness of each ethnic culture. According to the researchers, an ethnic culture can be considered as an integral structure consisting of elements that should not be represented isolated from each other. Currently, a serious problem for any multicultural region is the problem of optimizing the dialogue of ethnic cultures. Perspective directions of this process, in our view, are as follows.
Firstly, language plays an important role as the basis of inter-ethnic communication. Being not only a means of communication between different ethnic communities, language is a necessary form of expressing the values of different cultures. Based on the fact that different cultures to a greater or lesser extent differ from each other, there is a kind of cultural distance between the languages and the different language groups. In a multicultural educational environment, this problem is solved on the basis that knowledge of the language of ethno cultural interaction will help to avoid ethnic differences, rejection of the cultural characteristics of a particular ethnos, aggression, and violence.
Secondly, knowledge of national stereotypes is of particular importance in optimizing intercultural dialogue. Based on the results of socio-psychological research on the role of stereotypes in the process of communication, it can be summarized that intercultural dialogue and understanding involves an exchange of best cultural patterns in order to spread "its" stereotypes among ethnic groups. Becoming an object of attention from other ethnic communities, some kinds of stereotypes turn into constants. In the humanities, the term “ethnic stereotype” has the meaning of stable, sketchy and emotionally colored opinions of one ethnos about another or about itself.
Thirdly, the optimization of intercultural dialogue contributes to the assimilation of not only ethnic, but also human cultural values. The main role belongs to the universal values that allow you to escape from the narrow ethnic perception of culture. Any cultural constraint ensures that other cultural patterns and values are strange, unnatural and inexplicable .From the viewpoint of M. Weber, inter-ethnic communication includes two types: patriarchal and competitive (Weber, 1990). The patriarchal type of interethnic interactions presupposes the existence of the dominance of the culturally developed ethnos towards less developed (“immature”, “primitive”). In this situation, the task is to persistently form an opinion about the equality of ethnic cultures, not to allow neglect of any ethnic group. Today it is especially important for today's youth environment. The competitive type of interethnic communication is formed in the conditions of urbanization of society, which is characterized by the selection of professional qualities, excluding any ethnic (racial) or tribal ties. As a result, a decrease in the distance between social groups is observed, and therefore only ethno cultural characteristics can become a support for maintaining the dominant status of a certain group. The reaction to the competitive way of interethnic interaction can be the strengthening of ethnic self-consciousness.
Fourth, the specific factor of optimization of ethno-cultural dialogue is the formation of ethnic identity, in this case - a sense of belonging to a particular ethnic culture.
Extensive empirical material of ethno sociological research shows that the complex of ethnic identity is a stable component of culture. Norwegian anthropologist F. Barth insisted that ethnic identity is a kind of “cultural frontier” that keeps an ethnic group from erosion, due to the existence of this invisible border of ethnic groups, with constant contact with each other, preserve and reproduce their identity (Barth, 2006).
The manifestations of ethnic identity were systematized by the Petersburg researcher N.G. Skvortsov, who identified the attributive, subjective-symbolic and interactional aspects as fundamental (Skvortsov, 1996). The attributive aspect establishes the cultural foundations acting as basics in the process of forming ethnic communities. In this context, we mean: language, historical memory, religion, material culture, reflecting the specifics of the ethnos, customs, moral norms, etc.. Cultural attributes and behavioral patterns (stereotypes) also contribute to the formation of ethnic identity. The subjective-symbolic aspect of the manifestation of ethnicity focuses attention on the identity of a person to a particular ethnic group, which is formed by awareness of common cultural values. The interactional aspect focuses attention on the awareness of a person of their cultural differences.
Fifth, not the least place in the system of factors contributing to the optimization of the ethno cultural dialogue is occupied by humanitarian disciplines, the content of which is intended to form not only the breadth of views, orientation to universal values, but also love for the historical homeland, national culture, strengthening of ethnic identity An important role in this case is played by the axiological dominant of the educational process, which allows to root the most stable and priority values in culture, to identify the distinctive features and originality of cultural norms, to determine the relationship between cultural elements within a particular ethnic culture..
Thus, in the modernization of Russian society, intercultural dialogue should take the form of cultural consolidation, which involves the integration and consolidation of cultures, given their ethnic and cultural characteristics. For example, in the North Caucasus polyculture macro region, the main consolidating link may be religion as the spiritual core of any society. Of great importance is the ritual of Caucasian culture, which can be considered as a peculiar mechanism for preserving unity and cultural harmony in addition, an important role in optimizing the dialogue of cultures is played by multicultural education, the main task of which is to introduce interactive training based on the consideration of man as a unique world of culture.
Nationally, humanity is heterogeneous and this heterogeneity, on the one hand, gives rise to misunderstanding, alienation, tension between nations and is the source of conflict; on the other hand, national heterogeneity contributes to a deeper knowledge of other people and their culture, promotes spiritual mutual enrichment, the desire to understand world culture. The dialogue of cultures provides unique opportunities for international dialogue. That is why in Russia recently international meetings, conferences, forums, symposia on the preservation and development of culture are held. These events optimize the dialogue of cultures and contribute to the strengthening of relations between nations.
Purpose of the Study
Based on the review of the subject field and the objectives set in the article, the aim of the work is to study the main characteristics of the dialogue of cultures, taking into account ethno-cultural characteristics and modern inter-civilization interaction.
As a methodological basis of the present study, the fundamental teachings were used, which were set forth in the works of domestic and foreign scientists in the field of dialogue philosophy, intercultural and social communication. When considering dialogue as the basis of intercultural interaction, the author of the article relied on the theory of dialogue developed by M.M. Bakhtin (Bakhtin, 1986), V.S. Bibler (Bibler, 1991), M. Buber (Buber, 1995). Of great importance for the realization of this goal is the dialogic concept of Russian philosopher Bakhtin, the main methodological provisions which are as follows: the requirement to rely on a holistic understanding of culture, taking into account its characteristics and specificity; the use of an integrated approach in the consideration of the essence of culture and its internal content; consideration of the value component in any cultural process.
The study of the dialogue of cultures in the conditions of modernity involves the use of extensive methodological tools. Leading approach to the study of the dialogue of cultures in today's transformation is a philosophical and cultural approach, which not only allows you to discover the nature, essence and methods of implementation of the dialogue of cultures, but also contributes to finding ways to optimize the cross-cultural dialogue in the contemporary reality. When analyzing the essence of the phenomenon “dialogue”, phenomenological and hermeneutic approaches are applied. The comparative method of research is used in the study of different views on the problem of the evolution of the dialogue.
The study of dialogue as the basis of sociocultural interaction in modern conditions involves the use of a synergistic approach that allows us to consider the dialogue of cultures as a dialogue of open systems, taking into account overcoming destruction, entropy, minimizing the possibilities of social and cultural conflicts.
With the help of the sociocultural method, the main factors of optimization of the ethno cultural dialogue are highlighted; the nature of ethno cultural contradictions is studied. Investigation of the features of multicultural education as a factor in inter-ethnic harmony in modern Russia, and in particular in the North Caucasus, was based on the historical method. The study of the topic has raised a wide variety of sources on the culture of peoples of Russia, which have enhanced author’s scope about the spiritual and moral roots of ethnic cultures.
Based on the study of the dialogue of cultures in the modern world and the problems associated with the implementation of dialogue interaction, we came to the following results.
1. The problem of dialogue is a philosophical problem that worried scientists from ancient times to the present day. The modern understanding of the dialogue of cultures is based on the theories of the German philosopher M. Buber and the Russian philosopher M. M. Bakhtin, who expand the doctrine of dialogue to an understanding of the essence of culture. The dialogue of cultures is considered as a process that involves not only the interchange of cultural values, but also the desire of the participants in the dialogue to understand the characteristics and originality of different cultures. Only the openness of cultures in relation to each other allows us to realize our own potential, to assess the uniqueness of our own culture, to carry out a search for human values that can be used for the benefit of humanity.
2. The modern cultural situation is characterized by global changes that give rise to cultural conflicts caused by the confrontation of global and local cultures. Globalization is an internally contradictory process in which both are observed as trends towards unification, that is, a decrease in cultural diversity and a trend towards diversification that is, upholding one's cultural identity. In the context of cultural diversity, new types of cultural interaction are needed. The most promising is the dialogue between existing cultures with its immanent orientation towards equality and partnership, ensuring world order and cultural stability. A vivid example is Russia, which by virtue of its multiculturalism and geographic location, is intended to ensure the successful interaction of cultures not only within its own country but also a dialogue of East and West.
3. The main content of modern civilization development is determined by the dialogue of civilizations of the East and West. Dialog herein acts as an interaction of Eastern and Western cultures, aimed at establishment of a new integral type development of civilization. Russia is not only a “unified” culture, but is also a unique civilization that unites a large number of ethnic groups that have their own culture and form the basis of Russian civilization.
4. In the space of the Russian civilization, there is an active search for new forms of cultural dialogue between people of different nationalities. In the interaction of national cultures two objective trends emerge. The first is based on the fact that the national culture is always open to other cultures: dialogue with other cultures is a way of its existence and development. Despite the fact that the national culture of one nation is unique, original, original, it always has a connection with the cultures of other nations. The second trend is that no matter how cultures interact with each other, the transparency of their relations is always relative.
5. In modern Russia, the dialogue of cultures should be carried out in the form of cultural consolidation, which involves the integration and consolidation of cultures, given their ethnic and cultural features. The main factors to optimize intercultural dialogue are: language as its unity, ethnic assimilation of cultural attitudes and values, and the formation of ethnic identity. The North Caucasus bases of consolidation are: religion, ritual Caucasian culture, multicultural education.
The article deals with the actual problems of the dialogue of cultures in the context of contradictory socio-cultural processes. Based on a study of the current cultural situation, it was concluded that dialogue is the only possible way of interaction between cultures. Russia is given as an example, in which the desire for dialogue with other communities, cultures and civilizations has been historically inherent. The essence and content of the dialogue of cultures in modern conditions are determined; the necessity of recognizing the diversity of cultures, rejection of cultural confrontation is proved.
The study showed that the potential for dialogue of cultures is great. Let us note the main. The dialogue of cultures is an important factor in overcoming the crisis of humanism caused by various types of aggression. By recognizing the equivalence of a separate culture, the dialogue affirms humanistic principles focused on the formation of a new value system for the further development of civilization. Exploring the ways of dialogical interactions in modern society, including Russian, A.I. Prigogin says that "the problem as follows: we diagnose an unacceptable conflict of modern history as a dialogic deficit, strongly proclaiming the need for dialogue. But at the same time we are not able to implement this idea in personal and social relations” (Prigogin, 2004).
- Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Aesthetics of verbal creativity. Moscow.: Art.
- Bart, F. (2006). Ethnic groups and social boundaries. Moscow: New Publishing.
- Beck, U. (2001). What is globalization? The mistakes of globalism are the answers to globalization. Moscow: Progress-Tradition.
- Benhabib, S. (2005). Claim culture. Equality and diversity in the global era. Moscow: Logos.
- Bibler, V. S. (1991). From science to the logic of culture. Moscow: Politzdat.
- Buber, M. (1995). Dialogue. Two images of faith. Moscow: Republic.
- Delokarov, K. X (2002). Values of a globalizing world. Moscow.: Scientific Press Ltd.
- Gzegorczyk, A. (1992). Spiritual communication in the light of the ideal of non-violence. Questions of philosophy,. 3, 58, 54-63.
- Janmaat, J. G., Mons, N. (2011). Promoting ethnic tolerance and patriotism: the role of education system characteristics. Comparative Education Review. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55 (1), 56-81.
- Joshi, M. M. (2007). The dialogue of cultures and civilizations in the era of globalization of the world. In Dialogue of cultures and civilizations in the global world: VII International. Likhachevskie nauch. reading. Publishing house of St. Petersburg State Unitary Enterprise, 49, 49-51.
- Meer, N., Modood, T. (2011) How does intercultiralism contrast with multiculturalism? Journal of intercultural studies, 11-22.
- Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism, a civic idea. London: Polity Press.
- Moiseev, N. N. (2000). The fate of civilization. The path of reason. Moscow.: Publishing House "Languages of Russian Culture", pp. 149-150.
- Pashchenko, V.Ya. (2003). Social philosophy of Eurasianism. Moscow: AlfaM.
- Phillips, A. (2007). Multiculturalism without culture. NY: Princeton University Press.
- Platonov, O.A. (2008). Economy of Russian civilization. Moscow: Publishing house "IRC", 79, 794.
- Prigogin, A.I. (2004). Dialogue in science and society. Dialogue decisions. Social sciences and modernity, 3, 51-60.
- Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: SAGE Publications.
- Shalin, V. V. (2000). Tolerance: a cultural norm and political necessity. Rostov-on-Don.
- Skvortsov, N.G. (1996). The problem of ethnicity in social anthropology. of St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University, 52-61.
- Weber, M. (1990). Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism. Moscow: Progress.
- Yakovenko, I. G. (2013). The world through the prism of culture. Cultural studies and Russian history. Moscow: Publishing house "Knowledge".
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
29 March 2019
Print ISBN (optional)
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, science, technology, society
Cite this article as:
Evgenievna, C. V. (2019). Dialogue As Vector Of Development Of Modern Culture. In D. K. Bataev (Ed.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism, vol 58. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 286-295). Future Academy. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.03.02.34