Dialogue As Vector Of Development Of Modern Culture

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.