Participation And Models Of Intersubjective Management In The Sphere Of Culture

Abstract

The modern, post-capitalist model of the development of the state, like the socialist model, is directed at the activation of the community, the acceptance by the community of active participation in the solution of problems more or less directly related to it. On this path, transformation and changes in the relations of models of governance are taking place: the models of participatory control, of the post-nonclassical type, are gaining more and more importance. These processes are particularly evident in the sphere of culture, including education. The central issue of modern reforms in the management of culture, including education, is the issue of goals and means (forms) of governance. There are several main lines of management reform, relations of the state, business and community in the sphere of cultural, educational and related relations. Thanks to the restoration of historical traditions, as well as to the penetration and development of new, including foreign ideas, a new round of development of concepts, practices and technologies of intersubjective management is beginning in many countries of the world. The declared motivation for service (inherent in intersubjective or participatory management models) is different. In many cases, it is directly related to the goals of cooperation and mutual assistance, volunteerism and charity. Therefore, a person, a group, a region and a nation can be assistants and donors of goods to other actors not only situationally.

Keywords: Cultureeducationgovernancesocietyparticipationtransformation

Introduction

The modern, post-capitalist model of the development of the state, like the socialist model, is directed at the activation of the community, the acceptance by the community of active participation in solving problems more or less directly related to it. On this path, transformation and changes in the relations of models of governance are taking place: the models of participatory control, of the post-nonclassical type, are gaining more and more importance. These processes are especially evident in the sphere of culture, including in education (Arpentieva & Moiseyeva, 2017; Vittich, 2014). The central issue of modern reforms in the management of culture, including education, is the issue of goals and means (forms) of governance. There are several main lines of management reform, relations of the state, business and community in the sphere of cultural, educational and related relations. Thanks to the restoration of historical traditions, as well as to the penetration and development of new, including foreign ideas, a new round of development of concepts, practices and technologies of intersubjective management is beginning in many countries of the world. The declared motivation for service (inherent in intersubjective or participatory management models) is different. In many cases, it is directly related to the goals of cooperation and mutual assistance, volunteerism and charity. Therefore, a person, a group, a region and a nation can be assistants and donors of goods to other actors not only situationally. This is not an important resource for the development of participation and civil society in general: from charity to intersubjective models of management in culture and other spheres. Existing motivation of participatory management is activated or developed in the process of joint life activity. It is solving common problems in various spheres of social, including cultural, life. Then the person, community and organization become ready and capable of the relations of service and sacrifice, cooperation and mutual support on a more or less permanent basis (becoming the path of actual self-realization). On the contrary, self-realization in the process of “adopting” another's model, including achieving and justifying the “investments” of other organizations and nations, without efforts of understanding and preserving oneself, without service and cooperation, are destructive. Many countries of the former USSR became victims of “subsidies” to the EU and The United States, however, others, while maintaining the desire for cooperation, restore or preserve and autonomy in relation to these “subsidies”.

Problem Statement

Practices of participation as practices of service differentiate, clarify, and clarify the relations of people, organizations, ethnic groups and countries to themselves and other people, to the world as a whole. Each social subject chooses his own form and measure of participation or non-participation, corresponding to his talents, personal interests, as well as to the interests and problems of society (internal and external reality). Partisipation, including charity and volunteerism, mutual support and partnership, is an important path of self-development, in which recessions and upsides are possible. Modern participatory approaches to management include several basic ideas:

• intersubjective, for example, intersubjective management (Evergetics) V.A. Vittich and his school (Arpentieva & Moiseyeva, 2017; Vittich , 2014);

• subjective, for example, “second democracy” (Second Democracy) Adler (1997);

• contextual, “deep democracy” (Deep Democracy) by Mindell (2010) and Schupbach (2007).

Orientations of actors include in all cases:

1) adoption of alternative points of view, taking into account the opinions of all actors involved in the dialogue on the solution of the problem, moving towards consensus as a common solution for all through dissidence - discovering and exploring differences as “hidden knowledge”;

2) to achieve common goals - to solve the problem (“effective communities”, “situational communities”, persistence as persistence and (self) effectiveness, etc.);

3) to achieve / preserve the harmony of actors with each other and with oneself, a multilevel and multifaceted understanding of their own needs, opportunities and constraints, as well as opportunities and constraints, the needs of the world as a people's world

Together with other people, each person as a free and self-governing subject and as included in the community, the “real” member of the association makes a decision in this situation (Arpentieva & Moiseyeva, 2017; Vittich, 2014; Mindell, 2010; Porus, 2012; Schupbach, 2007). There is a transformation of the content and form of relations in organizations and communities. Movement towards a-cephalic communities that live according to moral laws and rely on the traditions and experience of the survival of previous generations, their cultural traditions of relationships and life activities, and spiritual and moral values. In the relations of people and social groups in many countries of the world, these models have not yet fully formed technologically and legally, however, traditional values preserve in the life of every person the idea that his life contributes significantly to the development of the country. For example, research and development in the field of innovation and intellectual capital play an important role in this process. Many countries face the issue of not simply generating new technologies and management models in the sphere of culture, education and other spheres, but their implementation. It is important to search for and select the most promising innovative developments, to promote links between science, production, society and the state, culture and other areas of human activity to facilitate the work of art professionals, scientists and practitioners - developers of new technologies and stakeholders. Even more important are technologies of holistic transformation of innovation management systems in culture and related fields.

The conditions for the productive and effective use of innovative management resources are divided into internal (used or created within the organization) and external. To internal conditions, researchers attribute "the personal qualities of the organization's personnel (tolerance to uncertainty, ability to justified risk, responsibility, the need for self-realization, motivation for achievement, reflexivity, creativity), the vitality of the staff (features of the value-semantic organization of the vital world, vitality, sovereignty, mobilization potential, level of self-regulation, orientation of a person to a certain quality of life)”. They also include “corporate culture (the existing communication system, the position of the individual in the organization, the adopted leadership system), the working conditions of innovators (the possibility of working in research groups), the experience of implementing innovation projects, etc.” to external include “the legislative base , regulating innovative activity, and the means of the state budget and third-party organizations directed to finance research and development work” (Lukyanova, 2014).

Research Questions

Of particular importance is, as noted by the researchers of the problems of strategic planning and forecasting, N.B. Antonova, A.V. Evenings, A.I. Ilyin, N.V. Maksimenko, G.A. Yasheva and others, plays a public-private partnership (Yasheva, Prokofieva, & Kvasnikova, 2003), designed to solve a number of problems:

1) ensuring an effective management system based on feedback from the regions;

2) building an optimal ratio of the republican and regional aspects of development, central and regional levels of economic management;

3) identification of the potential and competitive advantages of the regions with a view to better developing natural and human resources, supporting local government and entrepreneurship, local initiative, and rational placement social facilities and the implementation of priority projects;

4) improvement of the population's well-being in the region, gradual leveling of living standards, as well as addressing other regional socio-economic problems;

5) giving a certain autonomy to the regions and independence in making economic decisions with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of the region and increasing the possibility of participation in making managerial decisions at the local, regional and national, republican levels (Tuleiko, 2015).

Purpose of the Study

On this path, countries choose between two main management orientations: social engineering and humanitarian. The first seeks to modify and improve “scientific management”, that is, its classical and non-classical concepts, methods and technologies, and the second – to preserve and develop universal humanities forms of interaction between states, people, communities, etc., that is post-non-classical concepts, methods and technologies. For example, J. Cade, a representative of the social and engineering approach, believes that a harmonious combination of cultural and historical factors and management as such is necessary: the ignoring context of governance the effect can completely reduce to zero all the results of the political, socio-cultural and other spheres (Mukhina, 2017). Qualitative, context-appropriate management removes obstacles to life (formation, implementation and development) of management structures. However, management should not be a system of manipulation and repression: manipulation of the person by management structures excludes their understanding by the executors (workers). It does not take into account their values, views and experiences, patterns of behaviour and communication, which leads to the loss or fragmentation of the humanitarian component of the managerial process, truncation of the context, which takes into account the controlling “monolith”. The humanitarian approach in the management system uses the “method of understanding”. It is developed in the theories of V. Dilthey, F. Schleiermacher, F. Gadamer: cultural systems and social systems are parts of the integrity of a person, his life. Methods of humanitarian management are reflected in the theories of “human relations” E. Mayo and “organizational humanism” A. Maslow, etc. (Mukhina, 2017). In these models, a person realizes and interprets, reflexes and transforms, seeks productive and effective ways of solving problems of his own and social life. A person is a participant and a subject of social processes, including management. In the modern world, the management monolith shows a tendency for bureaucratization, deformation of power, inefficiency and inefficiency, inertia and anti-innovation of managerial structures, hinders the adoption and implementation of important decisions, slows down the processes of transformation and improvement of management and life activity of the state and society as a whole. The scientists note the importance of expanding the powers of non-governmental and private organizations, delegating to them the authority of the central administration: the formation and development of a "fourth power" that can complement the judicial, executive and legislative power (Mukhina, 2017). Integration of these orientations - "humanitarian management" - considers management activity from the position of mutual understanding, reflection and correction of meanings and meanings, processes and results of joint activity of diverse subjects: individual, group, society, state.

Research Methods

We need an integrative historical analysis of traditions and innovations in the management of cultures and other spheres in different countries, a comparison of the success (productivity and effectiveness) of different management models. Such a comparison, conducted by us, shows that innovations in managing cultural and cultural institutions of countries and regions in general are based on the traditions of self-government and complicity existing in different countries. Centralized management shapes a-culture and mass culture, emasculating the meanings of traditions and values. Participative management restores these meanings, serves the development of culture, including the culture of people's relations in education and science, art and technology, etc.

Findings

Another perspective is related to the principle of subsidiarity (the Latin “subsidium” – assistance, support) as a fundamental principle reflecting the idea of decentralization. The essence of this principle is that if the problem can be solved at a local (remote from the centre) level, then it is only necessary to resort to interference of the central authority to solve those problems that cannot be effectively solved at a small level. The activity of the central, including state, power should be auxiliary (“subsidiarity”), and not subordinate (“subsidiary”). At the beginning of the 20th century, during the reign of the classical management model, this principle was deformed into a “bureaucratic principle of the expedient formation of the organizational structure of the welfare state” (Lewandowski, 2009, p. 67). Nowadays the principle of this principle is becoming more widespread both at the interstate and at the national level: “No one should take from the individual and transfer to society what he can do thanks to his enterprising and diligence” (The Lion XIII, 2017). This principle originates from the teachings of F. Aquinas and his idea of man as the carrier, creator and goal of the completely social order. They are based on dignity and autonomy, respect and self-respect of the individual and the group. Hence – declares “secondary social assistance”, as well as other, including repressive forms of state intrusion into the life of the community. Pope Lion XIII called this “the principle of useful assistance” (The Lion XIII, 2017; Pius XI, 2017): “The goal of state government should not be the advantage of the ruler, but the benefit of those whom he rules ... the law should not go beyond what is necessary to eliminate the evil or danger” (Mukhina, 2017, p. 125). In many countries, the principle of subsidiarity has not yet been legislated, but historically, subsidiarity is characteristic of the political and legal culture of many countries. The origins of democracy as a culture of participation and subsidiarity as self-government among the Slavs, for example, are associated with the veche (parliamentary) system of Novgorod, Polotsk, Pskov, and Smolensk. The vestibule gradually evolved into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (modern Belarus) into Magdeburg law – one of the forms of European self-government. Magdeburg law itself (the right of municipal government) (magdeburger recht, magdeburg law, magdeburg rights) came from Europe, which also sought to solve the problems of partisipation. Participative governance abolishes the activities of local law and the power of the state bureaucracy, and establishes the rule of law, which in many countries, for example, in modern Russia, does not exist now. Magdeburg law, in which different communities, such as handicrafts and workshops, trade missions (factories), city magistrates and city diets (congs), the church and the state formed internal “concentric circles” - one of the most interesting legal systems of the times of feudalism. Magdeburg law was a legal consolidation of the successes of citizens in the struggle against feudal lords for independence, against coercion and repression by the feudal lords.

In the 11th-13th centuries communal revolutions unfolded in the settlements of Western Europe: during the uprising, the townspeople were expelled by the feudal lord and sought full or partial self-government and power over the surrounding lands. However, in accordance with the city law, a peasant who lived in the city for one year and a day was no longer serf. In addition, there was one important feature in Belarus: the citizens of Belarus, taking Magdeburg law, continued to rely on the experience of organizing self-government in all those cases that were not regulated by this right, wherever necessary and useful, Magdeburg's norms and elections of self-government bodies supplemented and adjusted in accordance with local traditions (Kopyssky, 1975; Timoshina, 2000). Destruction of democratic autonomy on the territory of the Russian Empire occurred at the end of the 18th century after the third partition of the Commonwealth: the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were incorporated into the Russian Empire, and Magdeburg law was abolished by Catherine II, serfdom was restored and a number of other restrictions .

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the ideas of subsidiarity were identified by Abdiralovich (1993) (I. Konchevskiy), which leads co-operative organizations as a positive example of non-coercive communities capable of effectively and effectively solving social problems without the use of external coercion and violence. Researchers believe that “the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity is an important criterion of freedom in a particular society. Legislative consolidation of this principle ... in civil legislation ... could contribute to the formation of a free pluralistic society”, writes Glybovskaya (2017, p.129). It is not surprising, therefore, that in Russia, in one way or another, in defiance of serfdom and other forms of limiting the participation of citizens in management of the country, the idea of the importance of participation in the governance of the state and regions. The importance of accounting for and harmonizing the interests of the individual and the society, and not just the state, has historically been consolidated. Thoreau (1996, 2017) expressed this evolutionary antistatic point of view as follows: a government that manages to a minimum or, even better, does not rule at all. “There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly” (Thoreau, 1996, p. 46; Thoreau, 2017, p. 47). M. Gandhi, M. L. King, Jr., etc., who created in other countries (Gandhi, 1998a, 1998b).

Conclusion

We need an integrative historical analysis of traditions and innovations in the management of cultures and other spheres in different countries, a comparison of the success (productivity and effectiveness) of different management models. Such a comparison, conducted by us, shows that innovations in managing cultural and cultural institutions of countries and regions in general are based on the traditions of self-government and complicity existing in different countries. Centralized management shapes a-culture and mass culture, emasculating the meanings of traditions and values. Participative management restores these meanings, serves the development of culture, including the culture of people's relations in education and science, art and technology, etc. As a result, at present, in many regions and countries of the world, the practice of citizens' participation in the management of territories, organizations and the country as a whole is intensively and extensively developing. These participatory practices are mainly as practices of social service to the cultural development of these regions and countries.

References

1. Abdzíralovích, Í. (1993). Advechnym shlyakham. Mínsk: Navuka í tekhníka Publishing.
2. Adler, A. (1997). Understand the nature of man. St. Petersburg: Academician Project Publishing
3. Arpentieva, M. R., & Moiseyeva, T. V. (2017). Negotiations as intersubjective technology. Ontology of design, 1, 102-114.
4. Gandhi, M. K. (1998a). Harijan. In The collected works of Mahatma M. Gandhi. Vol. XXXXXXIX. Deli, India: Publications Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India Publishing.
5. Gandhi, M. K. (1998b). Young India. In The collected works of Mahatma M. Gandhi. Vo. XVIII. Deli, India: Division Publishing.
6. Glybovskaya, N. A. (2017). The principle of subsidiarity as a means of decentralizing management. In: Management in social and economic systems. In N. V. Susha (Ed.), Proceedings of the XXVI International Scientific and Practical Conference, Minsk, May 18, 2017. (pp. 128-129). Minsk: Minsk State University Publishing.
7. Kopyssky, Z. Yu. (1975). Socio-political development of the cities of Belarus in the 16th – first half of the 17th century. Minsk: Science and Technology Publishing.
8. Lewandowski, E.N. (2009). The principle of subsidiarity in German civil law. Bulletin Odessa national university, Legal studies, 14(9), 65-74.
9. Lukyanova, E. I. (2014). On the structure of the innovation potential of an industrial enterprise. Economics and Management, 1(37), 106-110.
10. Mindell, A. (2010). Processmind: A user’s guide to connecting with the mind of god. San Francisco: Quest Books Publishing.
11. Mukhina, I. G. (2017). Humanitarian management as a mechanism for managing society .In: N.V. Susha and others (Ed.), Management in social and economic systems. Proceedings of the XXVI International Scientific and Practical Conference, Minsk, May 18, 2017. (pp. 124-125). Minsk State University Publishing.
12. Pius XI (2017). The encyclical “Quadragessimo Anno”.. Retrieved October 19, 2017, from http://www.vatican.va/content/pius_xi/enciclicals/documents/ hf_pxi_enc_19310515_quadragessimoanno_en.html.
13. Porus, V. N. (2012). Ontology of the culture of S. Frank. In Porus, V.N. (Ed.), S.L. Franc. (pp. 373-416). Moscow: Rosspen Publishing.
14. Schupbach, M. (2007). Worldwork. Organisations Entwicklung, 4, 56-64.
15. The Lion XIII. (2017). The Encyclical "Rerum Novarum". In: The official website of the Vatican. – Retrieved October 19, 2017, from http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/enciclicals/documents/hf_pxi_enc_18911505_rerum-novarum_en.html.
16. Thoreau, H. D. (1996). On civil disobedience. In: New prophets. Thoreau. Tolstoy. Gandhi. Emerson. St. Petersburg: Aleteya Publishing.
17. Thoreau, H. D. (2017). Æsthetic Papers Art. X.–Resistance to Civil Government. Hollister: YOGeBooks by R.L. Cole Publishing.
18. Timoshina, T. M. (2000). The economic history of foreign countries. Moscow: Yudistinform Publishing.
19. Tuleiko, E.V. (2015). Approaches to the formation of the strategy of public-private partnership in the social sphere. Economics and Management, 42, 15-19.
20. Vittich, V. A. (2014). Problems of the power industry. Problems of Management, 4, 69-71.
21. Yasheva, G. A., Prokofieva, N. L., & Kvasnikova, V. V. (2003). Competitiveness of light industry enterprises. Vitebsk: Vitebsk state Technical University.