Communication in the history of culture (Methodological and typological aspects) Dokuchaev Ilya Igorevich. Dokuchaev Ilya Igorevich Dokuchaev Ilya Igorevich
Introduction
CHAPTER 1. THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 24
1. PRINCIPLES OF STUDYING THE HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION 24
1.1. Background statement of the problem of communication 30
1.2. The most important areas of science and individual concepts, in the context of which the problem of communication in the XVII - XX centuries was posed 34
2. THE ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE 37
2.1. Philosophy and psychology about communication problems (ontology, epistemology, logic, anthropology) 38
2.1.1. Negative statement of the problem of communication 39
2.1.2. Positive statement of the problem of communication 49
2.2. Problems of communication in the sciences of society and culture (philosophy of history, social philosophy, philosophy of language) 54
2.3. The problem of communication and aesthetics 62 3. THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION IN SCIENCE OF THE XX CENTURY72
3.1. The problem of communication in the context of neo-Kantian philosophy (personalism and philosophy of life) 72
3.2. The theory of intersubjectivity in the concepts of the representatives of the phenomenological movement (existentialism, deconstruction, hermeneutics) 78
3.2.1. Theory of intersubjectivity in the phenomenology of E. Husserl 78
3.2.2. Theory of intersubjectivity in phenomenology after E. Husserl 81
3.2.3. Theory of intersubjectivity in the concepts of the representatives of the phenomenological movement 86
3.3. Communication as the main problem of dialogic philosophy (neo-Thomism and religious philosophy) 93
3.4. Semiotic approaches to the problem of communication and communication (logic, theory of information and communication, linguistics, rhetoric) 102
3.5. Psychology and psychoanalysis about the problem of communication 109
3.6. The problem of communication in the philosophy of culture, cultural studies and philosophical anthropology
3.6.1. Philosophical anthropology and cultural studies on the problem of communication 115
3.6.2. Aesthetics of the “Other” in the Dialogical Philosophy of Culture of M. M. Bakhtin 123
3.6.3. The History of Communication in Other Versions of the Dialogical Philosophy of Culture, 129 CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGICAL SCHEMES FOR STUDYING HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION135 1. ONTOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL STATUS OF COMMUNICATION135
1.1. The problem of the ontological status of communication 136
1.2. The boundaries of communication in the space of man and culture 146
1.2.1. Communication in the structure of human activity 146
1.2.2. Communication in the process of human activity 150
1.2.3. Transitional forms of human activity, including communication 153
1.2.4. Towards a definition of communication 164
2. STRUCTURE OF THE COMMUNICATIVE ACT AND HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION 167
2.1. Communication participants 169
2.1.1. Types of volume of participants in communication 169
2.1.2. The specific qualities of the positions of participants in communication 176
2.1.3. General anthropological properties of the participants in communication 179
2.2. Channel and context of communication 183 2.2.1. Context of communication 183
2.2.2. Communication Channel 18 7
2.3. Communication Code 193
3. HISTORICAL AND SOURCE BASES OF HISTORY OF COMMUNICATION 197
3.1. Criteria of a historical typology of communication 198
3.2. Sources of communication history 206
3.2.1. Human Communication Models 210
3.2.2. Communication Results 211
3.2.3. The forms of activity that are most closely serviced by communication 212
3.3. Communication History Project 216
CHAPTER 3. HISTORICAL TYPES OF FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION 218
1. ORIGIN OF COMMUNICATION 221
1.1. The compilation of animals and the genesis of human communication 224
1.1.1. The concept of preposition 225
1.1.2 Preposition structure 232
1.1.3. The problem of human communication 240
1.2. Communication in primitive culture 245
1.2.1. General characteristics of the content and structure of archaic functional communication 245
1.2.2 .. Stages of the formation of archaic functional communication 253
2. DIFFERENTIATION OF CONTEXTS OF FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION IN CULTURES OF ANCIENT CATTLE FARMERS AND AGRICULTURAL 260
2.1. Communication in the cultures of nomadic herders 263
2.1.1. Cattle breeding and culture as factors in the history of communication 263
2.1.2. Participants and communication contexts of nomadic herders 268
2.1.3. Channels and communication codes of nomadic herders 274
2.2. Communication in agricultural crops 275
2.2.1. Agricultural management and culture as factors in the history of communication 275
2.2.2. Participants and communication contexts of farmers 282
2.2.3. Farmers' channels and codes of communication 293
3. THE CRISIS OF FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION IN CULTURES OF URBAN CRAFTSMAN AND TRADERS OF ANTIQUE GREECE AND ROME 295 3.1. Trade and craft economy and culture as factors in the history of communication 295
3.2. Participants and communication contexts of antique traders and artisans
Greece and Rome 304
3.2.1. Unmodified forms of functional communication 306
3.2.2. Modified forms of functional communication 313
3.2.3. Birth of Interpersonal and Role Communication 319
3.3. Communication channels and codes of merchants and artisans of ancient Greece and
4. COMMUNICATION IN THE MEDIEVAL CULTURE 325
4.1. The layering of medieval culture and management as factors in the history of communication 325
4.2. Participants and contexts of medieval communication 330
4.2.1. Unmodified forms of functional communication in folk culture 332
4.2.2. Modified forms of functional communication in religious and aristocratic culture 341
4.2.3. The birth of interpersonal and role-based communication in urban culture 351
4.3. Channels and Codes of Medieval Communication 356
FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 359
CHAPTER 4. HISTORICAL TYPES OF ROLE AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION 361
1. THE ORIGIN OF INTERPERSONAL AND ROLE ABOUT
PUPPIES IN THE ERA OF REVIVAL AND REFORM 371
1.1. The transition from traditional to creative culture and the emergence of new forms of communication371
1.2. Contexts of occurrence of interpersonal and role communication and characteristics of their participants 379
1.2.1. Functional communication in the context of the emerging Creagawa culture 384
1.2.2. Renaissance culture and the emergence of interpersonal communication 388
1.2.3. Socio-political contexts of the emergence of role communication 392
1.2.4. Religious Communion and Reformation 397
1.3. Codes and channels of interpersonal and role-based communication in the period of their occurrence 401
2. THE FORMATION OF THE BASIC FORMS OF INTERPERSONAL AND ROLE COMMUNICATION IN THE EPOCH OF A NEW TIME 403
2.1. The rationalization of culture, absolutist feudalism and bourgeois democracy in the history of interpersonal and role communication 406
2.2. Contexts and participants of interpersonal and role-based communication in the era of the New Age 416
2.2.1. The formation of the main forms of role communication in the XVII and XVIII centuries 417
2.2.2. The formation of the main forms of interpersonal communication in the 19th century 428
2.3. Codes and channels of interpersonal and role-based communication in the era of the New Age 437
3. COMMUNICATION IN THE EPOCH OF MASS COMMUNICATIONS 440
3.1. The unity of universal culture and mass communication 441
3.2. Contexts and communication participants in the era of mass communication 447
3.2.1. Krshis role and interpersonal communication in an open society 448
3.2.2. Communication in a totalitarian society 455
3.2.3. Communication in an elite and popular culture 467
3.2.4. Forms of artistic communication in the XX century 469
3.3. Channels and communication codes in the era of mass communication 472
3.4. Prospects of the history of communication in the XXI century 474 SCHEME OF DEVELOPMENT OF ROLE AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION 479 CONCLUSION. ESSENCE OF HUMAN AND COMMUNICATION 484 REFERENCES 491
Introduction to work
The present work is devoted to the history of communication. Communication is understood as one of the forms of human activity, implemented in all varieties of human culture, that is, intersubjective interaction or process specificactivity communionone unique subject to another unique subject in all its varieties, the processholistic empathy with him, both spiritual and practical.The rationale for this definition will be proposed in the second chapter of this paper. In the introduction to it, we will try to show the specifics of the proposed history and its role in the structure of the process of cognition of communication. We note immediately that communication, in our opinion, does not have an independent history, which could be understood only on the basis of it itself. Let us repeat what was just said in this connection: communication is a structural element of human activity, its forms are part of human culture and, therefore, have a common history with it. Using the traditional methodological dichotomy of the subject and the object of study, we can determine the subject of this study as the history of communication, and the object as the history of culture. The volume of the item may seem very large, but this is justified by many reasons. Firstly, we do not set as our goal the description of all historical forms of communication. Our goal is a historical typology of communication. Secondly, as we show below, it is the historical typology of communication that is today the most important and urgent problem of studying communication. We turn, therefore, to the substantiation of the relevance of our work.
Interest in communication today manifests itself in all spheres of culture, its spectrum extends from the ordinary and political to the scientific.
This interest was caused in the XX and XXI century by so many reasons. The most important reason is connected with the exceptional historical situation in which humanity found itself at the beginning of this era. Progress in the field of technology, primarily communications and transport, has allowed people to truly unite for the first time in their thousand-year history -
xia. But unification cannot occur between people who are deprived of the opportunity to understand each other. The world has become too small for those who are not capable of communication. Ways and tools of communication turned out to be the most important problem, urgently declared itself in the conditions of world integration. Communication always involves a certain level of community of its participants. But is this level achieved in today's world? What do representatives of African tribes and Islamic fundamentalists have in common with the inhabitants of Russia and the USA? The commonality of anthropological or even anthropomorphic characteristics does not yet guarantee any mutual understanding of its owners. However, the lack of mutual understanding leads to problems, on the solution of which even the very possibility of human survival depends. The lack of commonality among creatures belonging to the same species and forced to interact in the most intimate way led animals to severe intraspecific competition. People placed in these conditions are able to reach the extermination of each other. Two world wars, many revolutions, inter-religious clashes, terrorist acts, the struggle for national self-identification and political independence - these are the few consequences of the inability to find a common language with the inevitable need to communicate with each other in the modern human world. In former times, all this did not matter for the global problem, now there is nothing local at all, the life of all mankind depends on the behavior of one person. Conflict, justifying the gloomy philosophy of J.-P. Sartre, really becomes the only form of communication. We must learn to communicate not only in the language of aggression and terror, but also in the language of mutual respect and recognition of the rights of another person or nation.
The second reason for the interest in communication is no less fundamental than the first. It should be said about it in connection with the features and environment of this process, in connection with its role in human life. Communication is the result of the diverse needs of people in each other. Without communication, not a single human activity is possible; under its conditions, it arose and developed. It made a major contribution to the emergence of human being and
enters into its very essence. Communication is the contact of unique and unique personalities or social groups. Communication is interaction, it is not like other - unidirectional - forms of human activity. In communication, people not only join each other, not only become closer, but also self-determined, demand recognition from the other of their personal value and wealth. But our time does not always have the ability to implement these diverse communication functions. It is in our time that we observe two directly opposite, but equally destructive for communication trends. On the one hand, the unprecedented development of individualism and isolation of a person leads to his inability to communicate, causing countless mental, social and cultural crises and disasters. On the other hand, processes are developing that are very reminiscent in form, but fundamentally different in content from communication, of the depersonalizing and averaged interaction of people, uniting them into the so-called masses. Romano Guardini thus defined the concept of "mass": "it is not a multitude of undeveloped, but capable of developing separate creatures; it is from the very beginning subject to another structure: a normative law, the model for which is the functioning of the machine" (Guardini, 1999, p. 145). Both that and another tendency destroys communication from within, transforming it either into indifferent social relations, or into dialogue of deafs. The 20th century in the context of the history of communication turns out to be a kind of history of separation, although it was at this time that the most favorable conditions, both technical and spiritual, were formed so that for the first time nothing would interfere with communication. The significance of the role of communication in our culture is late. They forget about communication amid the development of other forms of culture: technology, political and social institutions, even art (for example, in the form of an entertainment industry). G.S.Batishchev wrote so remarkably about this: “our lack of communicativeness or extreme inferiority, bordering on the almost complete absence of in-depth communication, emerges and manifests itself through the mutual inconsistency of the degrees of development of other spheres of culture, through their inconsistency among themselves” (Batishchev, 1987, p. , fifteen).
People, representatives of the most diverse social strata and the most diverse ethnocultural traditions, from ordinary workers and office workers to privileged politicians, scholars, and religious figures, are placed by the very nature of their being and the conditions of the modern world before the need to find a common language with each other, but they are not always capable of on this. Conflicts generated by misunderstanding at the household level, of course, are not so noticeable as political, military and economic conflicts, but most often they provoke them and these latter conflicts are formed that can turn into a catastrophe. The problem of communication, therefore, acquires acute psychological and political significance. Communication more and more disappears from the structure of everyday life of a person or is replaced by communicative contacts that almost do not affect the essence of his personality. “The more armed and equipped with means of communicativeness the contacts between people become, the less and less often the actual comprehensive comprehensive community-process takes place - the meeting of their destinies, the fullness of their being” (Batishchev, 1987, p. 4).
All this stimulates the growth of scientific interest in the problem of communication. Open at the beginning of the 20th century as an independent field of science, communication has attracted the attention of many scientists working in various fields of scientific knowledge. Psychology, philosophy, linguistics, logic, aesthetics, ethics, anthropology, rhetoric, semiotics, information theory, cybernetics, communication theory, hermeneutics, art history, cultural studies proposed by the beginning of the 21st century such a number of communication theories that created a special problem - the problem of theoretical synthesis of the received scientific results. But how to carry out such a synthesis that would coordinate such opposite results? Should we proceed from any one concept, coordinating all the others with it, or build a new one, and within its framework fit the initial theoretical diversity of ideas? The opposite of the initial diversity is very great, it affects all levels of correlation of concepts. We can even say that the purely theoretical (logical) differences of constructions,
mutually exclusive are just the simplest case of the opposite, which is easiest to handle. Much more complicated is the case with the differences in methodological and terminological (linguistic). The method and language of many key communication concepts in general does not adequately perceive and correlate their content. At the same time, which is why we call them key, they are extremely fruitful and capable of development. They cannot be ignored, because their influence is felt in an extremely impressive amount of concepts, both theoretically sane and leaving the future creator of a theoretical synthesis of ideas about communication and communication only wish for it.
However, at the end of the 20th century, the development of science led to an unprecedented fluctuation in its discipline and borders. Now it has become even somewhat inappropriate to talk about the novelty of the proposed idea. On the one hand, as S. S. Averintsev rightly believes, any affirmation of novelty (at least in the field of humanitarian and sociocultural knowledge) inevitably turns out to be the fruit of scientific dishonesty (in any of its variants - ignorance or conscious lies) and, thus is already almost forbidden by the very logic of the development of knowledge. What is allowed? The possibility of the existence of science still remains in direct proportion to the novelty of the results obtained. Perhaps it is necessary to change the requirements for the specifics of novelty, for example, to focus on the search for a theoretical synthesis of the existing complete register of points of view and facts that they explain? On the other hand, the aforementioned polyphony of inconsistent among themselves, but, nevertheless, numbered scientific concepts eliminates the possibility of the question of their continuity and polemics. None of these concepts can claim the role of a new one, they are just different. The synthesis of various abstracts that do not have common components, apparently, should try to find this commonality outside the abstracts themselves, in their foundations. But, as already noted, it is not always possible to identify the reasons.
In this study, we tried to discover the foundations of all these concepts in the ultimate realm for any logical thesis - in the realm of history. It is history that is often ignored by the theory of communication. Theory is ahead of history. For a certain - initial - stage of research, this state of affairs is normal. Theory makes it possible to better define the subject boundaries of historical interest. The primitive idea of \u200b\u200bthe secondary nature of the theory in the process of cognition does not correspond to the real state of affairs. Facts cannot always be directly noticed. Sometimes special methodological and, therefore, theoretical procedures are required for their isolation. Thus, the theory, as a rule, participates in the process of cognition twice. First, as a preliminary hypothesis, allowing to identify the subject of interest to the researcher (that is, indicate signs that guide the search for the subject) and begin its initial sequential historical description. It is clear that there should be many such hypotheses, in strict accordance with the epistemological concept of "falsification" of the results of cognition, owned by K. Popper. Then the theory again intervenes in this process. It creates a generalized explanation of the existence of an object (the concept of its essence and the theory of its development), that is, a theoretical synthesis of ideas about it. In the sciences of the spirit, such an explanation should have broad historical outcomes. In fact, the purpose of humanitarian and socio-cultural research is not to obtain strict definitions of their subjects, but in extensive and theoretically substantiated historical pictures of their existence.
Thus, our study is relevant for so many reasons. He has a kind of “extra-scientific” (political and psychological) and “intranaural” reasons, which include the need for a theoretical synthesis of the notion of communication and communication, as well as the search for historical grounds for such a synthesis. If we place this study on the path of cognition that has just been outlined in general terms, then its place can be defined as follows. We offer a "primary consistent historical description" of communication. On the one hand, it differs from the preliminary collection of facts preceding any
theory and its provoking appearance. Such facts, as a rule, are collected inconsistently or accidentally, that is, they are not always included (will be included) in the future subject of research and regular (necessary and valid) relations have not been established between them. On the other hand, it differs from the final "extensive and theoretically substantiated historical picture of being" communication. This study is inevitably sketchy. It formulates the basic principles of the future history and theory of communication, thus being an introduction to them. This is a sketch of the theory of the development of communication, consisting in the characterization of its historical types. The "primary consistent historical description" of an object is nothing more than a historical typology. In our opinion, the logic of the development of cognition and the current state of affairs in the field of the study of communication inevitably leads today every scientist who deals with communication problems to build his historical typology. To build another new theory of communication now and to determine its essence, to identify and investigate certain facts of the history of communication is to deprive the study of communication of genuine novelty.
Of course, one must be aware that any typology will not be the only one. Its theoretical nature should provoke and, we hope, provoke its falsification in relation to this typology. Each theory, by virtue of its certainty, is always open to criticism and should be refined or replaced by another. If it is destined to ever be born to the theoretical synthesis of ideas about communication and communication, then he will face the same fate. He will not be the only one. There will be others who clarify and overcome it. From overcoming (but not from clarification), only the final historical picture of the object’s being is protected to some extent. However, its achievement is never guaranteed, it is a kind of ideal of knowledge with all its inherent unreality. An ideal cannot be understood as an empty illusion; it is a necessary landmark of knowledge, without which it cannot advance anywhere and will only exhaust its forces in barren trampling in one place. We know at least three concepts of the history of communication that meet the specified
above specifications. They belong to F. Rosenzweig, O. Rosenstok-Hüssi and V.S. Bibler. Unfortunately, none of them can be adequately assessed due to the problematic nature of the methods and language they use, which has also been mentioned. An effective development of a theoretical synthesis of ideas about communication and communication requires a methodologically and terminologically transparent and well-verifiable historical concept. In addition, the authors of the noted concepts do not consider communication as the only subject of study; rather, they are engaged in elucidating the dialogical nature of one or another stage in the history of human culture as a whole. Our concept in this regard is the opposite of them.
Now it becomes clear and the path of our research, that is, its method. From the point of view of the general theoretical classification of methods, we have induction and generalization, which pursue the creation of a typology of communication as the main goal. From the point of view of particular theoretical classification, a comparative historical analysis based on data from various disciplines. In fact, any work uses one method to achieve its objectives. It lies in that particular path along which research has moved. Another thing is steps along this path. They are more or less universal or original operations, in the implementation of which the same - universal or original - concepts are used. In this case, these are operations and concepts from those areas of knowledge that we have already listed above, primarily philosophy, psychology, communication theory, cultural studies, semiotics. Each operation specifies the purpose of the study: solves one of its tasks. A detailed description of such operations is contained in the second chapter of this paper. In the introduction, we restrict ourselves only to indicating the most important goals and objectives, as well as their sequence that defines the structure of the study.
The most important goal of the study is to build a historical typology of communication. At the first stage of such a construction, it is impossible without achieving two other main goals. First, it is necessary to
determine the theoretical criteria for the selection of material, that is, historical forms of communication that existed in the context of cultural history. Secondly, it is necessary to fully represent the relationship between the history of culture and the history of communication. Since the history of culture has been studied much better today than the history of communication, and since the history of communication does not have the driving forces of evolution that belong only to it, and changes depending on changes in other forms of culture (primarily material and scientific), it is the history of culture that should basis for understanding the history of communication.
Culturology studies communication as one of its most important subjects. Apparently, it is in this area that it acts as a pioneer and does not intersect with other scientific disciplines. If science, art, religion, material culture are studied by anthropology, history with its specific sections, archeology, art history and philology, then communication did not become the subject of any of the sciences so that participation in its study of cultural studies cast doubt on its originality. A sociologist is more interested in abstract social relations than concrete activity communication, and a psychologist is interested in mental processes, whose connections with the culture, acting in relation to them as a special - second - reality, are very complex and least resemble identity. The culture of communication and the psychology of communication are different in the same way as invariant and variations, as tradition and innovations, as stable and changeable, social and individual. Culturology studies the manifestation of the social in the individual and therefore it differs from both sociology and psychology.
A holistic history of communication still does not exist, although the history of all other areas of human culture (art, science, politics, religion, material culture) has been consistently studied. This is due to one of the most important ontological features of communication - its processuality. A.G. Shchelkin wrote: “the actual activity of communication as a process, movement, act cannot be transmitted” (Shchelkin, 1973, p. 10). All types of human activity are procedural, but the essence
their being is not limited only to the process; they are aimed at creating a specific product and are completed at the time of its occurrence. In science, discoveries are born that are symbolically recorded in relevant texts and physical objects; technology contributes to the generation of machines and utensils of material culture; art - the beginning of a work of art; a religious cult itself is at the same time a product of itself and its producing activity. Productive processes, precisely because of their productivity, concreteness, facilitate their historical study.
Communication is not aimed at creating any product, although it can serve it. It is a process whose main purpose is in itself. Society ends in the communication itself, more precisely, it only temporarily ceases. Communicating always feel this incompleteness, painful interruption of the communication situation. Communication - is a concrete and holistic (spiritual and practical) interaction of two unique subjects, the interpenetration of two meaningfully endless forms of being. It is in this infinity that the fundamental incompleteness of communication is rooted. However, it is still not so amorphous as to have no history at all; "having taken the objective form, the conditions of activity have the advantage over the procedural side of activity that they can be transmitted, broadcast in time" (Schelkin, 1973, p. 11). The infinity of the content of communication does not deny the existence of conditions for its implementation, that is, a certain structure reflected in historical sources generated by one or another human activity (for example, in different codes of communication rules, in some communication results, such as the division of a traditional dwelling or settlement into a female and the male side).
The indefinite activity status of the sources of the history of communication suggests that, in principle, any historical sources may be related to the history of communication. Only the history of culture is a comprehensive study of any products of human activity. Thus, the science of culture, in particular, the history of culture, renders
it is precisely that discipline within the framework of which it is possible to study the history of communication. At the initial stage of a culturological study of the history of communication, preliminary methodological principles for this study should be developed. In this work, one of the following principles is proposed: the draft of a historical typology of communication. This project is a hypothesis that is the result of a traditional study of the history of culture and is subject to further consistent verification, during which a more specific and more justified historical typology of communication will be developed. The preliminary nature of the proposed project does not in the least deprive it of heuristic value, since no theory is possible without a preliminary hypothesis.
The achievement of the main goals is specified in the course of solving specific problems. Here is a list of the main objectives of the study:
it is necessary to analyze the most important concepts of communication in order to build a working hypothesis about the nature of communication and its historical types;
it is necessary to determine the ontological status of communication, that is, its place in the structure of being;
it is necessary to determine the place of communication in the structure of human activity and culture;
you need to get a working definition of communication;
it is necessary to identify the structure of communication;
it is necessary to identify the main historical sources of information about communication and communication;
it is necessary to determine the main features of the most important historical types of culture;
it is necessary to correlate the main features of the most important historical types of culture with the features of the most important historical types of communication;
it is necessary to identify the most important historical types of communication;
it is necessary to characterize the emergence of communication and its first historical type - functional communication;
it is necessary to characterize the options for the second historical type of communication - role and transpersonal communication;
it is necessary to characterize the third historical type of communication, which is a synthesis of the first two.
In the first chapter of this work, we analyze in detail the history of the problem of communication in science. Therefore, here our description of the state of this problem today will be limited to the general theses already mentioned above, justifying the relevance of this work and its novelty. We will name only the most important names and concepts that determined the method of work, since this is necessary for the preliminary orientation of the reader in which theoretical positions are criticized for a particular concept. All these concepts, in our opinion, most consistently solve three basic theoretical problems associated with the theoretical study of communication and allowing us to move on to its history. The first problem is the ontology of communication, that is, the characteristic of its place and role in the structure of being. It is E. Husserl's phenomenology that is crucial for the development of this problem, since it is built on critical, reliable foundations that are only necessary in solving such problems. The second problem is the culturology of communication, that is, a characteristic of its most important cultural and historical forms. Here we give preference to the dialogical philosophy of culture of M.M.Bakhtin, since she first discovered the essential (eidetic) connection between the phenomena of communication and culture and demonstrated the possibility of studying communication in the history of culture. The third problem is the definition of the immanent essence of communication, revealed in its structure and typology. This is the main problem, the successful solution of which determines the successful solution of the two previous ones, because the very understanding of communication depends on it. The most complete answer to questions related to this problem is the concept of M.S. Kagan. This completeness is the result of the correspondence of his concept to the most important scientific principle of this kind of research - a systematic approach.
All three problems are very closely interconnected. The role of the first of them is already defined above. Without indicating the ontological status of communication, the reliability of its determination is extremely problematic. Communication is one of the phenomena whose concept has an extremely large volume, close to the volume of the concept of being, which does; their definitions are closely dependent on each other. Most of the now-known concepts of communication discuss its ontological status; consequently, without developing our own point of view on this issue, it is impossible to adequately assess the significance of these concepts. There is nothing to say about the role of the problem of cultural forms of communication in achieving our goal, because they simply coincide. The problem of cultural forms of communication and the problem of its definition and structure should be resolved from a special angle of view, allowing us to talk about the history of communication. Both of these problems, examined in the vein of interest to us, reveal yet another very important difficulty. Communication is a process, and therefore it is ephemeral and inaccessible for historical observation. In constructing the definition of communication and answering the question about its structure, it is necessary to find such properties and components of communication that would leave traces, be imprinted in historical sources.
The solution of these problems creates our working hypothesis and the main conclusions of the study, which include the definition of communication and its historical types. The definition of communication has already been given above. The general form of the proposed historical typology of communication is as follows.
Two types are distinguished: functional communication, characteristic of traditional culture; role and interpersonal communication, characteristic of creative culture.
Functional communication involves the ritualized contact of two representatives of the same or different social groups, in which these groups themselves turn out to be the true subjects, and the activities of their representatives are reduced to the performance of the corresponding social functions.
Interpersonal communication - the contact of two specific personalities, representing only themselves.
In role communication, participants perform certain functions of the society that they represent, but the content of their subjectivity is not limited to the characteristics of society, there is always some distance between these characteristics and their personalities.
The communication structure, in our opinion, consists of its participants, the means (channel) and the communication context, as well as the rules (code) by which it is organized. Thus, the specific characterization of historical types of communication is refined and centered around these components. Further refinement can be achieved by defining the circle of historical sources necessary for such a characterization. We believe that the main component of the communication structure is the code, since it is the structural dominant of communication, because it organizes its entire process. The code is clearly fixed - in writing or in oral tradition - and, therefore, is more likely than other components to leave information about itself in historical sources. Among the historical sources of communication can be attributed to any of the types known to us. In different historical eras, this or that type will dominate: material sources, ethnographic or written. Since, as has just been noted, the most important role in the study of the history of communication is assigned to the study of its code, it can be assumed that truly scientific results will be obtained only by studying written sources, because the code is a combination of mental or linguistic facts, and writing is the best means of fixing them .
It is clear that the solution of these three (or two, if we reduce two of them - the problems of essence and cultural forms of communication - to one: the problem of the ephemeral nature of communication) of the most important tasks of the theory and history of communication cannot be connected only with the three concepts that we specially noted. To formulate a working hypothesis, I had to turn to other studies. This appeal turned out to be very detailed (a whole chapter), which was caused by many reasons. First, for the present work,
riographic analysis is especially important because its occurrence is dictated by that place in the process of cognition of communication (that is, the complex state of the issue raised in it), which has already been discussed above. She claims to be a historical justification for the future theoretical synthesis of ideas about communication and communication. It should, therefore, be possible to fully represent the synthesized material. Secondly, despite the abundance of essays on the nature of communication, different in method and style, extremely few of them are devoted to its history. It was necessary to literally bit by bit to collect the necessary material from concepts devoted to, although close, but still a different topic. Finally, thirdly, the enormous scale of the task posed required an equally enormous verification of the originality of its proposed solution, and, as you know, not a single philosophical or anthropological doctrine, claiming to be exhausted, could not do without developing the problem of communication.
Any classic of philosophical thought of the New Age can find an interesting theory of communication, be it R. Descartes or B. Sgashoz, G. Leibniz or N. Malbranche. F. Bacon, T. Hobbes, J. Lock, D. Hume, J. Berkeley, K. A. Helvetius, P. Holbach, J.-J. Russo, D. Didro, I. Kant, I. G. Fichte , G.V.F. Hegel, J.V.F. Schelling, F. Schleiermacher, V. von Humboldt, L. Feuerbach, K. Marx and F. Engels, O. Comte, G. Spencer and J. St. Mill, S. Kierkegaard, O. Liebman, R. Fisher, A. Lange, V. Dilthey, G. T. Fechner, T. Lipps, G. Gomperts, V. S. Soloviev and V. V. Rozanov considered communication in as the most important link in his philosophical concept. The history of the problem of communication in some way concentrates the history of philosophy in general.
The twentieth century brought especially much interest to the development of the problem of communication. In the dialogical philosophy of M. Buber, F. Rosenzweig. F. Ebner, in the religious phenomenology of E. Levinas, communication turned out to be the most important category. The essence of communication was discussed in more detail by existentialists and personalists: E. Mounier, K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger, G. Marcel, N. A. Berdyaev, J.-P. Sartre; psychologists and psychoanalysts. J. Lacan, P. Ricoeur, A. A. Leontiev, B. D. Parygin.
The communication structure was developed in semiotics and communication theory. We will name only the most important names of the scientists who contributed to the solution of this problem: C. Morris, R.O. Jacobson, K. Levy-Strauss, K. Cherry, T. Shibutani. The structure and typology of communication was the subject of research in the philosophy of culture and philosophical anthropology of R. Guardini. G. Plessner, G. S. Batishchev and others. The ontological status of communication was considered by phenomenologists: M. Merlot-Ponti, L. Landgrebe, A. Schütz; Neo-Kantians: E. Cassirer, G. Rickert. The lists of names could be continued, but all of them together with an analysis of their concepts are contained in the first chapter of the work, to which we refer the reader.
It was much more difficult for us when the study directly approached the characterization of historical types of communication. There was almost no special literature on this issue, so the answers to it had to be sought from specialists in the history of culture of the corresponding period. Just as the history of the problem of communication was formed in the history of philosophy, the history of communication is closely connected with the history of culture, therefore, the largest researchers of various periods of the history of culture have always, one way or another, noted the features of communication inherent in these periods.
In studying the occurrence of communication and the functional type of communication, we used the concepts of the origin of man and human society, the concepts of archaic and traditional culture: A.Lerua-Gurana, A.N. Leontiev, N.A. Tih, B.F. Porshneva, I.S. Kona, B. Malinovsky and others; researchers of agricultural and pastoral crops of the ancient East: I. M. Dyakonova, M. I. Steblin-Kamensky, L. N. Gumilyov, "G. M. Bongard-Levin, V. M. Masson, S. P. Fitzgerald, G. .Childa, E.V. Saiko and others; researchers of the culture of ancient Greece and Rome: A.I. Zaitsev, F.F. Zelinsky, T. Mommsen, A. Bonar, A.F. Losev and others; medieval researchers: A .Ya. Gurevich, L. Fevra, J. Le Hoff, J. Heisingi, P.M. Bitsilli, V.V. Bychkova, A.M. Panchenko and others.
When studying transpersonal and role communication, the concepts of Renaissance culture researchers were used: M. M. Bakhtin, L. M. Batkina, V. Dilthey, M. A. Gukovsky, and others; researchers of European culture of the XVII - XVIII centuries: F. Braudel, J. Deleuze, Yu.M. Lotman, M. Weber and others; researchers of the culture of the XIX century: V. M. Zhirmunsky, L. E. Kertman, V. V. Poznansky, G. D. Gachev and others. When studying communication in the era of mass communications (XX century), the concepts of V. Benjamin, J. Baudrillard, A. Toffler, D. Bell, V. Schubart and others were used.
To summarize everything that was said in this introduction, setting out the rationale for the structure of our study. We begin by reviewing the history of the problem of communication in science. Since classical science drew attention to the problems of culture and communication only in modern times, it is this period of the history of science that is considered in the first chapter. Particular attention is paid to the 20th century, because at this time, for a number of political, psychological and scientific reasons, the problem of communication became one of the central issues in humanitarian knowledge and some areas of the natural. An analysis of communication concepts reveals three critical problems (ontological status, nature and cultural forms of communication), the solution of which provides the basis for creating a working theory of communication: its definition and description of the structure. In historical terms, the problem of essence and cultural forms of communication is reduced to the problem of its ephemerality and processuality.
The second chapter of the study contains the methodology of the next - actually historical - part. This is our working hypothesis, with the help of which a detailed historical typology of communication is organized. We define the essence of communication in the context of being in general, as well as in the context of culture. No other contexts exist. In the context of being, communication is a materially intuitive and spiritual-symbolic act of familiarizing one subject with another. In the context of culture, communication is compared with other forms of human activity: cognition, transformation, and evaluation. This allows you to understand
the specifics of communication and those transitional forms (communication) that it forms together with other types of human activity. Further refinement of the specifics of communication takes place in the process of describing its structure and the main historical sources in which the activity of communication is reflected in the products. The third and fourth chapters are devoted respectively to the two main periods of the history of culture and its two main historical types: functional communication, transpersonal and role-based communication.
Background statement of the problem of communication
In 1974, A.A. Leontiev in his book "Psychology of Communication" wrote "the concept of communication has so far been almost not the subject of serious monographic consideration" (Leontyev A.A., 1999, p. 11). The famous psycho-linguist spoke about the unexplored of this problem in both domestic and foreign science. On the one hand, much has changed since then. In the Soviet Union, in post-Soviet Russia, such studies have appeared abroad. On the other hand, not everything in the statement quoted above can be accepted. First, scientific concepts are rarely discussed in special studies. Secondly, the problem of communication still has its own scientific history and background. Arguing that a particular concept does not have a specific scientific status, we are often right only insofar as we invest in this concept a very specific, sometimes only developed by us definition. If we pay attention to other approaches to the same problem, broader or narrower definitions of the same concept, it may turn out that the history of the problem is rich and heuristically extremely productive.
But if the general theory of communication in its basic principles is developed (as far as one can talk about the development of the theory in the sciences in general, and in the sciences of the spirit in particular, because the development does not mean the finality of the study), then some of its sections still require study. This primarily relates to the problem of the history of communication. Phylogenesis of communication did not become the subject of a consistent theoretical discussion.
However, it cannot be said that nothing on this topic exists in the scientific literature. First, specific individual episodes of this phylogenesis were very often considered. We find a great example of this in the book of M. M. Bakhtin, “The Creativity of Francois Rabelais and the Folk Culture of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” which describes the complex dialogue of folk and official religious cultures in medieval Western Europe (Bakhtin, 1990). VL Makhlin writes: “Rosenzweig, Ebner, Buber think“ dialogue ”; in this sense, they are“ thinkers. ”Bakhtin sees dialogue: he sees it there and then, where before him they have not seen it at all, or have seen everything, anything, but not this, not what he saw and let others see. " (Makhlin, 1995, p. 70). M.M.Bakhtin is the first historian of communication, but not only a historian, that is, a scientist, he is also one who teaches us to see dialogue in the history of culture and, therefore, helps to enter into this dialogue. “Bakhtin’s dialogueism is not only and not just a certain type of thinking, worldview, not a theory among other theories. Dialogism is a“ sighted ”thinking that opens the world of other worldviews,“ worlds ”and“ voices ”, their“ architectonics ”( involvement in each other). " (Makhlin, 1995, p. 71).
A variety of historical and cultural options for communication were considered by the ingenious Eugen Rosenstock-Hussi (see, for example, his "Letters from Cairo", which presents a dialogue of Eastern paganism and Christianity from the first centuries of our era to the 20th century - Rosenstock-Husi, 2000). Recently, there have been many works devoted to the problem of communication in the work of various scientists and artists (for example, such an interesting work on the problem of dialogue in the philosophy of M. Heidegger, written by E.V. Borisov - Borisov, 1997).
Secondly, in works of a general theoretical nature devoted to the general theory of communication, one can find some very important remarks and propositions, heuristically valuable and productive, allowing, having accepted them or, conversely, challenged, to build a consistent program of the history of communication. So already in the “German ideology” of K. Marx and F. Engels contain ideas regarding the genesis of communication, its occurrence (Marx, Engels, 1988). The book “Me and You” by M. Buber has already proposed a sketch of the most important changes in the function of communication in the chronostructure of culture (Buber, 1993). The monograph “The World of Communication” by M.S. Kagan, and the historical works of E.V. Saiko present brief projects for building a future history of communication (Kagan, 1988; Saiko, 1999).
Our historiography is limited in time. This is the science of modern and modern times. Such a limitation for the problem of communication seems reasonable to us. If we were talking about the problem of being or the problem of nature, we should probably start looking for key concepts, if not in the ancient East, then, in any case, in ancient Greece. Communication is a phenomenon as ancient as the culture itself is ancient, but the consistent scientific interest in it is younger than it. This state of affairs is explained by the history of culture itself. The new time is an era in which the contours of a new - creative - type of culture were clearly outlined for the first time. Creativity that opposes traditionality is rooted in the properties of a new type of person, it is the main historical and cultural feature of the emerged and actively affirming human personality. It is in this era that a consistent interest arises in the unique, and not in the generic or social characteristics of a person. Communication is the very environment where, above all, these characteristics are manifested. Interest in a person generates interest in communication, although the connection between these two types of interest was not immediately and not always manifested; the first species was somewhat preceded by the second. Only the 20th century was the century of the true discovery of the phenomenon of communication. Therefore, we omit everything that was said about communication in the era of traditional culture, that is, everything that turns out to be the prehistory of the scientific formulation of this problem, although in this era, of course, you can also find the concepts or theses that interest us.
What sciences are interested in communication, and, therefore, what literature should be the subject of our analysis? A.A. Leontiev believed that communication is a subject exclusively of psychology and philosophy (Leontiev A.A., 1999, S. 30 - 33). "Does the sociology of communication exist as an independent scientific field? It seems that its existence should be called into question." (Leontiev A.A., 1999, p. 32). Arguments in defense of this thesis arise due to the distinction between communication and interaction in the concept of A.A. Leontiev, the characteristics of which will be given below. In our opinion, interaction as a social form of communication is an integral part of communication, due to which it can be studied to a large extent. Thus, not only psychology, but also sociology, as well as cultural studies, are disciplines for which communication is the subject of study.
Communication is studied by various sciences due to its complex nature. Philosophy studies the place of communication in the structure of human activity and more broadly in the structure of being. Such sections of philosophy as anthropology, ontology, epistemology, ethics, social philosophy, philosophy of history, axiology, one way or another deal with forms of communication. Even aesthetics is heuristically extremely fruitful in the study of communication, since it is interested in the issues of perception of art and aesthetic attitude to nature and man, that is, communication with artistic images, with subjective nature, practical communication with a person, intuitive penetration into the image of another. Psychology studies communication as a result of a person’s psychophysical life, determined by his mental and physiological structure, his social status. Psychology deals primarily with the internal aspects of communication embodied in the individual, in his psyche, although arranged for functioning outside of him, in contact with other individuals. Psychology studies the very process of communicative objectification - objectification, referring to its substrate, carrier, that is, man. Sociology studies the external aspects of communication, the forms in which it manifested and embodied. Sociology and ethnography can study these forms in the process of their functioning. Sociology and cultural studies can study these forms as static facts, material objects used in the communication process, communication products, texts, fixing the conditions of its course (codes). For sociology, ethnography and cultural studies, the bio-socio-cultural characteristics of the participants in communication are very important. A special role in the process of communication is played by the language, that is, signs and channels through which communication is possible. That is why communication is in the field of view of linguists and semiotics, experts in the field of logic, information theory and communication theory.
There are no special works on the historiography of the problem of communication; we can only point to the chapter "The Problem of Communication in the History of Culture" from the already mentioned monograph by M.S. Kagan (Kagan, 1988, p. 8 - 62). Our work fills in some of the gaps contained in this study and tries to cover the history of the issue more widely, focusing not only on concepts that have a direct, positive relation to the problem of communication, but also on those that negatively solved this problem, justifying the non-existence of communication, or considered communication as a secondary phenomenon. We also note the classic book by I. Lapshin, “The Problem of the“ Alien Self ”in Modern Philosophy” (Lapshin, 1910), which presents a panorama of philosophical approaches to the essence of the psychic, psychogenesis of ideas about another I, and finally, to the problem of communication. From the latest publications, it is worth highlighting the article by K. G. Isupov “I and the Other: the experience of vocabulary definition” (Isupov, 1998, pp. 230 - 237) and the book by V.L. Makhlin “I and the Other: on the history of the dialogical principle in philosophy XX century "(Makhlin, 1997). In these works, as well as in the book of I. Lapshin, the problem of communication is touched upon only in connection with one of its aspects - the problem of the “other Self”, its status, its role in communication processes. Among the foreign works on the historiography of the problem of communication, we note the article by F. Dens, devoted to the analysis of the basic definitions of the concepts of communication and communication (Dene, 1970).
Anticipating the analysis of the history of the problem of communication, we also note that we did not always strive to comprehensively present this or that concept; rather, we were interested in a certain general tendency in the development of ideas about communication, implemented in a particular concept. On the other hand, we tried to carry out the presentation of a foreign point of view in the spirit of the stated topic, that is, communication. An alien point of view, if possible, although without due completeness, was revealed in all its inherent independence, regardless of our estimates. (Communication is a specific topic, and it was sometimes revealed in the history of science also by specific means. In order to adequately state the essence of the matter, in such conditions one even had to use a special language of the corresponding concept.) Our answer to it does not sound immediately, it appears only in the second chapter. Sometimes it breaks through here, sometimes it doesn’t exist at all. The latter case is possible when someone else's point of view cannot be directly introduced into our chosen style and research method. But it cannot be not heard, because its scientific (general cultural) significance is very high and from such as it forms the modern context of communication theory. The theory and history of communication are still only at the beginning of their development, at this stage even the unproductive elements of their historical and scientific context cannot be overlooked.
The problem of the ontological status of communication
The problem of the ontological status of communication is the most important and most difficult in the history of the study of communication. What is communication? What are its types? What is its structure? What is the immediate context of being in which to seek communication? Without answering these questions, it is impossible to turn to specific historical forms of communication, because it is not clear what to look for and how to consider what is found. We have seen that for a long time, in the 17th – 18th centuries, the very existence of communication was in doubt among the greatest philosophers, above all the rationalist trend, but not only it. And this doubt was justified. From the point of view of classical rationalism (V. Leibniz, G. Fichte), which has a long tradition (Thomas Aquinas, F. Suaresh) and influential perspectives (E. Husserl, L. Wittgenstein), many objects that seem to the naive consciousness to be well understood and always existed and circumstances, upon careful and critical discussion, appear to be very problematic even in one's being and, of course, in the elements of one's essence.
So, after a methodological doubt in the existence of the world, which was carried out by Rene Descartes, only consciousness (human or transcendental, if we accept the clarification of its appearance, belonging to I. Kant) turned out to exist truly. Here we will not return to the well-known pages of the history of philosophy and in detail reproduce the argument of R. Descartes, but recall its general form. The French philosopher says that doubt can be attributed to everything traditionally recognized as existent, except for doubt itself, which by the fact of its course is performative (in terms of logical pragmatics) contradicts the meaning of the denial directed at it. It is impossible at the same time to doubt and deny this doubt. Doubt is a form of thinking, therefore, "to believe that a thinking thing at the same time as it thinks does not exist will be a clear contradiction" (Descartes, 1989, p. 316).
Rationalist philosophy of the XVII - XVIII centuries, recognizing this position of R. Descartes, sought to provide with established authenticity all his scientific positions obtained by her, to justify them with the famous principle of principles. And although in the XX century various logical and ontological weaknesses of the Cartesian thesis became clear, even after many corrections its influence is still felt in a number of the most important philosophical traditions (phenomenology, hermeneutics, existentialism). I. Kant and I. G. Fichte, speaking against some conclusions made by R. Descartes himself from his discovery, primarily against the assertion of the substantiality of consciousness, nevertheless did not deny the essence of this discovery: the fundamental ontological status of consciousness.
I. Kant proclaims the thesis of R. Descartes as the formula of one of the key a priori transcendental properties of the mind: “There must be the possibility that“ I think ”accompanies all my ideas; otherwise, I would imagine something that could not be conceivable, in other words, something that, as a representation, is either impossible or at least not for me at all. " (Kant, 1993, p. 98 - 99). I. Kant speaks of the identity of consciousness (with itself or the identity of its acts as “mine”, meinige) as a necessary condition for the existence of objects of consciousness, that is, indisputable facts of experience or actual being.
The concept of the identity of consciousness in the teaching of I.G. Fichte looks even more expressive, because here it turns out to be the initial foundation of the whole dialectically developed system of being. According to I. Fichte, the identity of every object that allows it to exist and know it exists, in turn, only thanks to the identity of consciousness, which is equivalent to the being of consciousness and expresses this being: "not the position" A \u003d A "serves as the basis for the position" I \u003d Z "," I am, "but, on the contrary, this last statement justifies the first" (Fichte, 1993a, p. 81 - 82).
Now we come to the central point of our reasoning. After all, it is precisely the consistently developed doctrine of the identity of consciousness that leads to the denial of the existence of communication. And this negation is contained in the concept of G.V. Leibniz already discussed above. We considered this concept historically, but now we have to draw methodological conclusions from it. Let us repeat the most important components of the teachings of G.V. Leibniz on social relations. Since consciousness has an identity, and this identity is absolute, it immediately contains all its being and all its objectivity. Consciousness is a monad or an exceptional, unique unity, and "monads do not have windows at all through which anything could go in or out" and at the same time "the natural changes of monads come from an internal principle, since the external cause cannot have an effect inside the monad "(Leibniz, 1982, p. 413-414).
The famous Russian psychologist and philosopher L. M. Lopatin at the end of the 19th century claimed almost the same thing: “We never perceive phenomena as such; the content of our direct perception is always our own substantial unity as conscious,” which means “the present moment is absolutely it is elusive to our consciousness and therefore it is always turned to the past and is completely filled with it as its only content "(Lopatin, 1996, p. 213).
In such a situation, communication is impossible, but the fact that people who do not share this philosophical position, are accustomed to calling communication is only an impression. There are no real contacts between people that have just arisen and now exist, and the appearance of communication hides a variation of the process defined by G.V. Leibniz and E. Husserl with the term "predefined harmony". A person’s consciousness is always ready, whole, and communication or any other contact with the “outside” world is only a manifestation of the internal principle of consciousness, which at one point demonstrates to it one of the always existing contents in it, for example, communication with another. Communication, whenever it occurs, is predetermined by this principle initially, from the time the consciousness arose. The experiences of two "communicating" people are only harmoniously coordinated with each other, but are not in any way called to be by each other's activity, that is, they are not a successively unfolding chain of causes and effects.
It was possible to cope with this difficulty without abandoning Cartesian criticism and, thus, remaining within the strict disciplinary boundaries of transcendental philosophy, only in the 20th century. We have in mind the theory of “analogizing representation” of E. Husserl, which has already been discussed above. However, E. Husserl needed to abandon the attempt to build a concept of communication based on reliable knowledge and resort to such a weak logical tool of science, which is an analogy. Despite all the preliminary nature of this concept, it testifies that the following component is relevant for the methodological study of communication - the human body of the participants in communication; for the latter turned out to be possible due to the analogy of the bodies of people entering it with external senses, because it is the similarity of the bodies that is the necessary, although not sufficient, reason that provokes the participants of intersubjective contact to recognize each other as equal partners (Husserl, 1998, pp. 182 - 283) .
A criticism of the philosophy of E. Husserl by M. Heidegger, M. Merlot-Ponti, P. Ricker and other major philosophers of the XX century allows us to conclude the following about the nature of communication. The consciousness of a person is deprived of the opportunity to enter into communication with the consciousness of another person directly by virtue of the ideality and internal nature of its content; it is impenetrable to another, and the body is the necessary intermediary in this process. The body is a concrete spatio-temporal reality, it is therefore the way and condition of access to the place of communication of ideally existing consciousnesses. But in the immediacy of the body for consciousness only very limited outputs of communion with another are revealed. The body of the other is open only in its external hypostasis, its expressive possibilities are limited, the sphere of the past and the sphere of the ideal in the consciousness of the other are forever hidden from the analogous representation. Two people contemplating each other’s bodies, at best, will understand only what is happening to them - their bodies and souls - at a given time, but even this understanding, which turned out to be the only content of communication, will be deprived of adequacy and completeness.
M. Merlot-Ponti in his "Phenomenology of Perception" first drew attention to the role of the cultural conditions of the body in the process of communication (Merlot-Ponti, 1999, p. 442 - 469). In a number of articles and in the monograph “Phenomenology of the Sign,” we described a process that complements the Husserlian analogizing representation and helps to overcome the difficulties of this communication mechanism, which caused the main complaints from some of the philosophers mentioned above in the inadequacy of the theoretical description of the real state of affairs in the communicative act, and called this process "paradigmization" (Dokuchaev, 1999, p. 53 - 71).
Indeed, the Other appears to me in a situation of communication, primarily as a spatial body, as one of the types of transcendental thing, as a fact of my consciousness, etc. Another enters into communication precisely because of its concreteness and physicality. But the presence of this, he is not exhausted. The meanings that are determined in consciousness are not necessarily generated or expressed by primary impressions (in terms of habitual psychology - perceptions), that is, neither I nor the Other are at all obliged to think only about everything and everything is the same that they behold around themselves now . The possibilities of choosing objects of thought and its methods, even in a specific situation of perception, are endless; the world of consciousness, not connected with this situation, is even more diverse.
Thus, one can understand the Other, enter into dialogue with him only in a situation when his body is semiotically organized according to some social standard known to both of us. The standard will not allow us to err in the interpretation of each other's intentions. His active or even passive presentation, provided that they communicate together, will be a real revelation of the intentions and content of a specific message and the whole cosmos of the Other's experiences.
The historical totality of such standards is human culture. Culture is common in me and in another, a bridge from my inner world to another and vice versa, a language code that organizes the hermeneutic discipline of our speech contact. Culture is communication, each of its facts is a carrier of a certain functional value, equally, paradigmatically, standardly interpreted by the participants of the cultural community. The space of culture is much wider than the totality of artifacts, creations of human transformative activity, it also includes nature, endowing it with codified and changing meanings. It turns out that the pattern of constituting subjectivity, that is, the path to communication, has a cultural origin and cannot be reduced to the Self or the Other, they are not its direct sources. Without socio-cultural patterns, consciousness would never have a criterion in order to recognize the other I as equal to itself, similar, but not different and not identical, equal and equal-tous being, that is, the phenomenon of "friend "and communication.
Prediction of animals and the genesis of human communication
Almost all major ethologists and zoosociologists, zoopsychologists and specialists in the field of physiology of higher nervous activity of animals determine the role of communication in the behavior of animals, in the formation and functioning of their psyche, as one of the most important factors regulating these processes. Even at the dawn of development in zoopsychology, N.N. Ladygina-Kots, having carefully studied the behavior of chimpanzees, stated: “life of chimpanzees is unthinkable outside of society, because only society gives it the fullness of identifying its original aspirations” (Ladygina-Kote, 1935, p. 153) . Today, K.E. Fabry in his textbook on zoopsychology writes: "the behavior of higher animals as a whole is always carried out in conditions of communication" (Fabry, 2001, p. 86). Physiologist V.Ya. Kryazhev points to the same circumstance in connection with the characterization of the higher nervous activity of animals: "communication of animals as a biological factor in the natural environment is an indispensable condition for all their life, without which the body cannot exist, cannot develop normally"; and further: “the communication factor of organisms is the most significant component of the environment of their existence” (Kryazhev, 1955, p. 3). The ethology classic N. Tinbergen in the chapter “Communication of animals” of his work “Behavior of animals” considers communication as an important and integral element of their behavior, because “in order to coordinate their actions, animals need the ability to communicate” (Tinbergen, 1985, p. . 157). The number of citations could be increased, but the general conclusion is clear: already in animals communication becomes one of the main forms of behavior. However, the communication of animals in a number of properties differs from human communication and is an evolutionarily preceding stage of its development. It is precisely on the strength of, on the one hand, the evolutionarily determined interconnection, and on the other hand, of the substantial and structural difference between human and animal communication, we will call the second pre-generalization, using the term that has already been introduced into ethical usage. First of all, we note that The introduction has its own history, which is not possible in the framework of this study to speak in detail. The preface is of interest to us precisely in connection with the question of the appearance of human communication; revealing the basic properties of the content and structure of premonition also allows you to compare them with the corresponding features of human communication and better understand the nature of the latter. However, one must still say that history, or, more precisely, the evolution of premonition, formed several of its most important types, which significantly differ in their content and structure, which is due precisely to their "evolutionary age." A number of types of prepositions cannot give any heuristically valuable results of comparison with human communication, since their “evolutionary age” significantly exceeds the age of communication, and the analogies of content and structure, on the contrary, are insignificant. Morphological and behavioral kinship forces us to search for forms that are direct precursors of communication only in the behavior of higher animals or even only in the behavior of anthropoid primates, although, according to K.E. Fabry, representatives of species above ringworms and lower mollusks already communicate ( Fabry, 2001, p. 85).
E.D. Shukurov specifically investigated the issue of the origin of prepositions. He rightly writes: "the phenomenon of communication does not arise simultaneously with the emergence of life, but appears much later," however, "the prerequisites for communication must be sought in the fundamental features of life" (Shukurov, 1976, p. 27). To such assumptions, E.D. Shukurov relates: variability (dynamism) of species and individual life, its discreteness and variability (for example, sexual dimorphism). We also add from ourselves the other most important properties of life: the activity of the organism in its relations with the environment, complexity, and genetic reproducibility. All this leads living beings to the need to interact not only with inorganic nature, but also with their own kind. Interaction facilitates the solution of biological problems, it extends the experience of the body, which alone is not always able to solve these problems. Organisms begin to compete within the species and with other species, jointly take care of the birth and rearing of offspring.
Another prerequisite for the emergence of preposition is the occurrence of the psyche. ANNeontiev connects the emergence of the psyche with the appearance of irritability of the organism with respect to non-biological factors associated with biological and orienting the organism in its environment, facilitating the achievement of goals that allow one to maintain one’s own existence or the existence of the species: “at a certain stage of biological development, the previously unified complex the process of interaction that implements the life of organisms, as it were, is bifurcated. Some environmental influences act as defining (positive and whether negative) its very existence; others - only as inducing and directing its activities. " (Leontiev A.N., 1999, p. 65). Sensitivity in all its forms (both in the form of the elementary sensory sensitivity of the qualities of an object, and in the form of the perceptual susceptibility of an entire object, and in the form of intellectual susceptibility of relations between objects) allows the body to distinguish directly and indirectly essential for its life. At some other specific stage of biological development, other organisms (or their properties and relationships) begin to relate to such indirect facts.
Of course, not all forms of relations between animals are a precursor. A simple temporary accidental contact or non-random long-term accumulation of animals cannot be characterized as a premonition. KE Fabry calls animal communication "mental interaction (information exchange) between individuals, expressed in the coordination, integration of their actions" (Fabry, 2001, p. 464). It seems that pre-communication cannot be reduced to psychic contact. N. Tinbergen gives a broader definition of prediction: “joint actions based on mutual response” (Tinbergen, 1993, p. 10). The process of pre-compilation consists of two actions: aggregation and cooperation.
Communicating or communicating animals is different from communicating machines. A preposition is not always congenital; very often it requires learning and depends on individual experience. Of course, learning in animals is facilitated by an instinctive predisposition to it. This predisposition significantly exceeds, for example, a similar predisposition in humans, however, it alone cannot provide the animal with possession of all forms of behavior necessary for his life. The role of instinctive programs in the formation and existence of preliminaries cannot be reduced to the rigid implementation of the tasks inherent in the functioning of communicating machines. Any behavior of the animal, including pre-communication, cannot be explained by a strict program of stimuli and reactions. This behavior is a complex set of actions, each of which has several different types of origin at once; it can simultaneously be instinctive and obtained as a result of individual experience or learning. AN Leontiev emphasized: "even the activity of simple animals has plasticity and cannot be reduced to the mechanical sum of tropisms, if the latter are understood as forced, automatic movements"; the animal’s behavior “least of all resembles the“ behavior ”of a clockwork toy put into action” (Leontiev AN, 1999, S. 298, 299).
Professor, Head of the Department of Theory and History of Culture, Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen.
Education
1993 - graduated from Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen majoring in Russian language and literature. Qualified as a teacher of the Russian language and literature.
1997 - by the decision of the dissertation council of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen awarded the degree of Candidate of Cultural Studies.
2000 - by the decision of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation was awarded the academic title of Associate Professor in the Department of Cultural Studies.
2002 - by the decision of the State Certification Commission of the St. Petersburg Non-State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Higher Religious-Philosophical School (Institute)”, a Bachelor of Philosophy degree was awarded.
2003 - the decision of the Higher Attestation Commission awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
2007 - by the order of the Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science, the academic title of Professor in the Department of Philosophy was awarded.
2014 - passed professional retraining on the basis of the “Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation” under the program “State and Municipal Administration”.
2015 - graduated from the master's program in the field of law preparation. "Far Eastern State University of Railway Engineering." By the decision of the State Examination Commission, the qualification of the Master.
Teacher Disciplines
| Variable Modules |
| Variable modules. Disciplines and elective courses. Intercultural communications. 44.03.01 Pedagogical education - Cultural education |
| Variable modules. Disciplines and elective courses. Research Workshop. 44.03.01 Pedagogical Education - Cultural Education |
| Variable modules. Theory of Culture. 44.03.01 Pedagogical Education - Cultural Education |
| Variable modules. Philosophy of Culture. 44.03.01 Pedagogical Education - Cultural Education |
| Module "Continuing Education". Disciplines and elective courses. History of culturological thought .44.03.01 Pedagogical education - Cultural education |
| Module "History of New European Philosophy" .47.03.01 Philosophy - Aesthetics: Art Business |
| Module "History of New European Philosophy" .47.03.01 Philosophy - Philosophical Anthropology |
| Module "History of New European Philosophy". German classical philosophy. 47.03.01 Philosophy - Aesthetics: art business |
| Module "History of New European Philosophy". German Classical Philosophy. 47.03.01 Philosophy - Philosophical Anthropology |
| Module "Methodical". Introduction to the profession .44.03.01 Pedagogical education - Cultural education |
| Module "Value-worldview". Cultural Studies .47.03.01 Philosophy - Philosophical Anthropology |
| Scientific research activity (dispersed) .51.06.01 Culturology - Theory and History of Culture |
| Scientific research activity (dispersed) .51.06.01 Culturology - Theory and History of Culture |
| Theory and History of Culture. 51.06.01 Culturology - Theory and History of Culture |
Training
2014 - training in the program “Combating corruption” in the amount of 40 hours from November 17 to 21, 2014, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation”, Moscow .
2014 - training under the program "History and Philosophy of Science" in the amount of 72 hours, from December 08, 2014 to December 16, 2014, the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Far Eastern Federal University", Vladivostok.
2015 - training under the program "Expertise of the quality of vocational education" in the amount of 72 hours, from November 10, 2014 to April 11, 2015. Autonomous non-profit organization of additional professional education "Training and Consulting Center", Moscow.
2016 - training under the program "Legal and organizational aspects of the implementation of examinations as part of the control (supervision) in the field of education of state accreditation of educational activities. Strategies for ensuring the quality of education ”in the amount of 16 hours from September 19. 2016 to September 20. 2016, the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Far Eastern Federal University", Vladivostok.
2016 - training under the program "New educational formats" in the amount of 72 hours from 20 Oct. 2016 to Dec 30 2016, the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Far Eastern Federal University", Vladivostok.
2017 - training under the program "Actual problems of modern logic and the methods of its teaching in higher education" in the amount of 72 hours from January 09. 2017 to 03 Feb. 2017, Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Far Eastern Federal University", Vladivostok.
2018 - training under the program "Training of experts involved in the procedures for state accreditation of educational activities" in the amount of 24 hours from September 26. 2018 to Sep 29. 2018 Federal State Budgetary Educational Establishment of Higher Education “St. Petersburg State University of Economics”, St. Petersburg.
2018 - continuing education program "Design and organization of the educational process in the electronic information and educational environment of the university." November 01 - November 10, 2018 in the amount of 16 hours. Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen, St. Petersburg.
2019 - training under the continuing education program “Application of Information and Communication Technologies in the Educational Process: Development and Use of Online Courses” in the amount of 108 hours from February 27, 2019 to March 27, 2019 at the Far Eastern Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education Federal University ”, Vladivostok.
Research Interests
Philosophy of culture, axiology, phenomenology.
Born in Leningrad, August 28, 1971. He spent his childhood in the city of Odessa. He graduated from the Russian State Pedagogical University. A.I. Herzen (Russian language and literature, 1993), Higher religious-philosophical school (philosophy, 2002), Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (state and municipal government, 2014) , Far Eastern State University of Railway Engineering (jurisprudence, 2015). Candidate of Cultural Studies (1997), Doctor of Philosophy (2003), Professor in the Department of Philosophy (2007). He taught at universities in St. Petersburg, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Vladivostok.
In 1998 he was invited to work in Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University for the organization and development of cultural education. He worked as the head of the Department of Philosophy and Sociology, Vice-Rector for Public Relations and Academic Affairs at Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University (2007-2015).
In 2015, he was invited to work as a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the Far Eastern Federal University. Winner of numerous scientific competitions organized by the RFBR, RHF, the Vladimir Potanin Foundation, the grant fund of the President of the Russian Federation and others. Organizer of a series of conferences and scientific publications on the socio-cultural development of the Russian Far East.
Founder and deputy chief editor of the first scientific journal in the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur "Scientific notes of KnAGTU." Member of the editorial boards and councils of scientific journals “Personality. The culture. Society ”,“ Questions of Cultural Studies ”,“ Scientific Council ”,“ Context and Reflection ”,“ Culture and Civilization ”,“ Power and Management in the East of Russia ”.
Active participant in the Russian expert community: federal expert of the Russian Humanitarian Humanitarian Fund, member of the humanities expert group of the Guild of Experts in the field of vocational education, accredited expert of Rosobrandzor in the field of assessing the quality of training for students in higher education, member of the expert-analytical council on socio-political and social economic development of the Khabarovsk Territory under the Governor of the Territory. Member of the Scientific and Methodological Council for Cultural Studies at the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. Member of the Council of UMO of Russian universities on education in the field of social work and in the field of international relations (UMC on public relations and advertising).
Chairman of the Komsomolsk-on-Amur branch of the Russian Sociological Association, chairman of the Far Eastern Branch of the World Organization of Phenomenological Organizations. Member of the Presidium of the Scientific and Educational Cultural Society of Russia
Member of a number of dissertation councils DM 218.003.02 on philosophical sciences at the Far Eastern State University of Railway Engineering, on cultural studies and Russian history DM 212.092.05 Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University and on philosophical sciences DM 212.055.05 at the Far Eastern State Technical University.
I. I. Dokuchaev is a student and follower of the Soviet and Russian philosopher and culturologist M. S. Kagan. He created the concept of multi-level semiosis (the process of creating and interpreting signs and texts of various types), understood as an a priori form of any process of human activity (monograph “The Sign Phenomenology”), the concept of historical types of intersubjectivity: functional and role-based communication in traditional and creative culture (monograph “Introduction into the history of communication ”), the concept of the axiological foundations of culture, understood as an integral generative model of the cultural-historical type (monograph“ Value and kzistentsiya "). The author of more than 150 scientific and educational works in Russian and English on semiotics, cultural theory, axiology, history of philosophy, communication theory, the current state of the higher education system in Russia, the theory of law, literary criticism and art history, socio-economic and cultural development Far Eastern region of Russia. Art critic and publicist. Translator of philosophical works of Ludwig Landgrebe.
The main works:
Books
Value and Existence: The Foundations of the Historical Axiology of Culture. - SPb .: Nauka, 2009 .-- 598 p. (Series "The Word of Existence")
Phenomenology of the sign: selected works on semiotics and dialogics of culture. - SPb .: Nauka, 2010 .-- 410 p. (Series "The Word of Existence")
Articles
- Culturology as an integrative science // Scientific notes of KnAGTU. No. 1. - Komsomolsk-on-Amur: 2011.
- Transgression and reduction: ways of integrating the social sciences and humanities and cultural studies // Questions of cultural studies. No. 7. - M .: 2011.
- The foundations of the deduction of metaphysical systems and the problem of reliability // Social and Human Sciences in the Far East. No. 3 (31). - Khabarovsk: 2011.
- Global performance: The contours of the culture of the XXI century // Questions of culturology. No. 12. - M .: 2011.
- Discussions and falsifications. Reply to the article by A. V. Gotnogi “The problem of extra people”: Dialogue of worldviews // Scientific notes of KnAGTU. No. 1. - Komsomolsk-on-Amur: 2012.
- Network culture as a historical type // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 4. - Komsomolsk-on-Amur: 2012.
- The phenomenology of intersubjectivity of E. Husserl and the aesthetics of the “Other” M. M. Bakhtin // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 1. - 2013.
- Culture as a cognitive sphere: semiotic dimension // Social and human sciences in the Far East. No. 1 (37). - Khabarovsk: 2013.
- Differential cultural studies and cultural sciences: the problem of methodological divergence // Problems of Cultural Studies. No. 6. - M .: 2013.
- The ball of being of Parmenides and the circle of interpretation of G.-G. Gadamera // Scientific notes KnAGTU. No. 2. - 2013.
- Historical and demonic in the fate of the artist (Paradoxes of composition of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of our time”) // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 1. - 2014.
- Case Anton Pavlovich Chekhov // Person. The culture. Society. No. 3-4. - M.: 2014.
- Axiological and epistemological components of law as a form of social culture // Scientific notes of KnAGTU. No. 4. - 2014.
- The subjective side of corruption offenses: corporate and personal aspects // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 2. - 2015.
- Monitoring the effectiveness of Russian universities as a radical method of reforming domestic education: political and legal aspects // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 3. - 2015.
- Totalitarianism and authoritarianism: trends and prospects // Questions of culturology. No. 9. - M .: 2015.
- The subject of sociology in the system of social and humanitarian knowledge and cultural sciences // Bulletin of Pacific national university. No. 3. - 2015.
- Socialism today. North Korea - a promising experience or a unique relic // Problems of Cultural Studies. No. 11. - M .: 2015.
- Traditional culture today: Iran - globalization and the search for self-identity // Issues of cultural studies. No. 12. - M.: 2015.
- The phenomena of the “dead body” and “living flesh” in the structure of the existential experience of the body // Problems of Philosophy. No. 4. - M .: 2016.
- Landgrebe L. Phenomenology of Edmund Husserl / Per. with him. and English. I.I. Dokuchaev and Z.V. Fialkovsky. Entry Art. I.I. Dokuchaev. - SPb. : Russian World, 2018 .-- 382 p.
Ilya Igorevich Dokuchaev (born August 28, 1971) - Russian philosopher, culturologist, legal scholar, art critic and publicist. Candidate of Cultural Studies, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor. The author of the concept of multi-level semiosis (the process of creating and interpreting signs and texts of various types), understood as an a priori form of any process of human activity, the concept of historical types of intersubjectivity: functional and role-based communication in traditional and creative culture, the concept of axiological foundations of culture, understood as an integral generative model cultural-historical type. Translator of the philosophical works of the German phenomenologist Ludwig Landgrebe.
Biography
In 1993, he graduated with honors from the Faculty of Russian Philology and Culture of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after AI Herzen with a degree in Russian Language and Literature. In 1996, he graduated with honors from the Faculty of Philosophical Hermeneutics of the Higher Religious and Philosophical School with a degree in Philosophy: Philosophical Hermeneutics. In 2014, he graduated from the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation with a degree in state and municipal administration. In 2015, he graduated from the Far Eastern State University of Railway Engineering with a degree in jurisprudence.
In 1997 he graduated from the graduate school of the Department of Art Culture of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A. I. Herzen with a degree in “Theory and History of Culture”.
In 1997, at the Herzen State Pedagogical University, under the scientific supervision of Doctor of Philosophy, Professor M. S. Kagan, he defended his thesis for the degree of candidate of cultural science on the topic “Semiotic Analysis of Artistic Culture” (specialty 24.00.01. - “Theory and history of culture ”).
In 2003, at the Herzen State Pedagogical University, he defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy on the topic “Communication in the History of Culture: Methodological and Typological Aspects” (specialty 24.00.01. - “Theory and History of Culture”). Scientific consultant - Doctor of Philosophy, Professor M. S. Kagan. Official opponents are Doctor of Philosophy, Professor K. G. Isupov, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor S. T. Makhlina, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor A. G. Shchelkin. The leading organization is the Republican Humanitarian Institute (IPPK-RGI) of St. Petersburg State University.
He taught at higher educational institutions of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Vladivostok - Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen, Moscow Institute of Economics, Statics and Informatics, Modern Humanitarian University. He gave lectures on “Aesthetics”, “Semiotics”, “Rhetoric”, “Introduction to Linguistics”, “Philosophy of Culture”, “History of Cultural Studies”, “Source Studies”. In 1998, to organize and develop cultural education, he was invited to work at Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University, where he was head of the Department of Philosophy and Sociology, as well as (2007-2015) Vice-Rector for Public Relations and Academic Affairs. In 2007, she was awarded the academic title of professor in the department of philosophy. Since 2015 - Professor at the Department of Philosophy of the Far Eastern Federal University.
He completed an internship in philosophy at the Free University of Amsterdam, the Open Society Institute and the European Humanities University.
He is the winner of numerous scientific competitions organized by the RFBR, RHF, Potanin Charity Fund, grant fund of the President of the Russian Federation and others. Organizer of a series of conferences and scientific publications on the socio-cultural development of the Russian Far East.
Founder and deputy chief editor of the first scientific journal in the city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur "Scientific notes of KnAGTU." Member of the editorial boards and councils of scientific journals “Personality. The culture. Society ”,“ Questions of Cultural Studies ”,“ Scientific Council ”,“ Context and Reflection ”,“ Culture and Civilization ”,“ Power and Management in the East of Russia ”.
|
DOKUCHAEV Ilya Igorevich - Vice-Rector for Public Relations, Head of the Department of Philosophy and Sociology of Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University (KnAGTU), Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D. in Cultural Studies, Professor in the Department of Philosophy, Associate Professor in the Department of Cultural Studies. Born in 1971 in Leningrad. In 1993 he graduated with honors from the Faculty of Russian Philology and Culture of the Russian State Pedagogical University. A.I. Herzen, in 1996 - with honors from the Faculty of Philosophical Hermeneutics of the Higher Religious-Philosophical School (Bachelor of Philosophy). For the period of work in KnAGTU, since 2007, he organized a scientific center for socio-economic and humanitarian projects. Scientific interests - phenomenology, axiology, semiotics, communication theory. |
“Recently, the media has not published almost a single report on the prospects of Russian education without mentioning the Bologna events. However, finding accurate information about facts and documents is extremely difficult, ”said Ilya Dokuchaev, Ph.D. (Philosophy), candidate of cultural studies (Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University). His article, containing a chronology of the most important events of the Bologna process and author's comments on the Bologna Declaration, to some extent fills this gap.
Withstand competition
So, the Bologna process is an essential component of European integration. Europe unites in all areas of cultural development: in the fields of politics, law, economics, communications, medicine and, of course, education. The purpose of such a union is to withstand competition with the United States, since losing in this field threatens the security of Europe. Today, more than 650 thousand students come to America from abroad annually to study, while all of Europe has only 250 thousand foreign students. If we consider separately the student exchange between Europe and the USA, then since the beginning of the 1990s the number of European students studying in the USA exceeds the number of American students studying in Europe. But “imported” students make a significant contribution to the economy of the country of study: not only do they pay for their studies, they also spend money on housing, food, clothing, electronic equipment, entertainment and more.
In Bologna, the city where the first university in the world arose (this event happened on September 18, 1088), on June 19, 1999, 29 European education ministers signed a declaration on the basic principles for creating a common European higher education area. To date, 47 countries in Europe have joined this process, and he has stepped over the borders of one continent - he is joined as associate members of the countries of Africa, Latin America and Asia. At the Berlin Congress on September 19, 2003, Russia entered the Bologna process. Every two years, ministers of signatories and ratifiers of the Bologna Declaration gather for congresses, which summarize the work on the implementation of the principles of the declaration, discuss difficulties that hinder this, and outline prospects for work for the near future. In addition to key meetings, seminars and conferences are constantly held at the government level to analyze the private aspects of the association, involving scientists in the fields of politics, sociology and pedagogy, as well as representatives of various public organizations involved in higher education.
On six principles
Now about the declaration itself. Its essence is characterized by six principles: three-level education (bachelor - master - doctor), comparable diplomas of higher education and their annexes, a system for determining the academic load based on so-called loans, educational mobility, ensuring the quality of education, and a joint education policy.
Let us dwell briefly on each of these principles, taking into account the specifics of the existing Russian educational context, which will need to be reformed in accordance with them. We live not just in parts of Europe, but geopolitically and culturally connected with it by thousands of threads. The movement towards integration with Europe is a justified, useful and inevitable process, which, of course, will require reform. It is clear that any reform always has a wide variety of consequences that are sometimes difficult to predict, so our comment will focus only on those consequences and aspects of Russian education reform that seem most likely now.
Unite, keeping specificity
In Russia, education has developed that also has three levels, but they are significantly different.
This is a specialist, candidate, doctor. The principles of harmonization of the domestic system of levels and degrees with the European essentially still are not clear to anyone. Several options are being considered.
The first principle is to completely abandon the domestic system and introduce the Bologna system. This will break the entire training system, in which millions of people are now gaining a profession and working. I undertake to claim in advance that such a turn will lead to a collapse in the field of education in general and serious problems in the life and professional activity of students and teachers. We have to restructure all curricula, cancel all issued licenses for the training of specialists, candidates and doctors of sciences. That is, you have to start all over again, as if nothing existed before the Bologna events in Russian education. I will not sing praises to Russian education - there is no place to write about its quality and shortcomings, since this is the topic of many articles and books, but I also do not agree that it is time for Russian education to sing a waste song. If this happens, it will be possible to confidently call the Bologna process one of the most important stages in the destruction of Russian culture and the state.
The second principle of coordination is the integration of European degrees into the domestic system. It seems that it is on this path that Russian education has been trying to take the past ten years, but so far nothing has been done clearly. In fact, both versions of the degrees coexist. This coexistence cannot continue if we take the Bologna process seriously, and it is precisely such serious intentions that the current Minister of Education and Science of Russia demonstrates.
All Bologna documents emphasize that unification should not lead to widespread unification of education, for this would contradict the very idea of \u200b\u200bunification. The specifics of vocational training must be preserved, because otherwise there will be no need for unification, since everywhere everything will become the same and the need for the exchange of experience, educational mobility will lose all grounds. With regard to the problem of Russian degrees, the following can be stated in connection with this. The preparation of bachelors and masters is significantly different from the training of specialists. In fact, a bachelor's degree is a theoretical training, and a master's degree is a specialization. Almost from the second year of study, domestic specialists were oriented toward one or another specialization. In a number of specialties - engineering, medical, and others - such an integration of theory and practice seems objectively necessary. The Declaration of the Association of European Universities (EUA), adopted on March 30, 2001 in Salamanca, states that "under certain circumstances, a university may introduce integrated curricula leading directly to a master's degree." Why don't we take this thesis? If we need specialists - that is, a kind of synthesis of a European bachelor and a master - we should demonstrate such integrated curricula to the European community and assign a master's degree on the occasion of their implementation. It is clear that there are specialties that can be diversified with minimal losses, that is, turned into two-stage training, and there are those that need to be preserved in the form of an integrated curriculum for the initial training of masters. The creation of such plans, of course, will reduce the level of mobility of students studying in them, but will not completely destroy it if the other aspects of the Bologna process are met with such preparation - first of all, the system of credits and the modularity of the studied disciplines, which will be discussed below.
In order not to destroy the domestic tradition of two degrees of postgraduate education, it is necessary to introduce instead of the Ph.D. degree traditional European degrees - doctors of philosophy, medicine, law and theology (if medieval culture is still revered in Europe so far), and keep the doctor's degree unchanged . The traditional nostrification (recognition in the USSR and Russia) of European academic degrees has always been based on this principle: our candidate \u003d their doctor. Germany has long been on this path, the educational system of which implies the degree of a promotion and rehabilitation doctor: it is clear that a promotion doctor and a doctor of philosophy are one and the same. What prevents us from complying with European standards in this regard and at the same time preserving our specificity is difficult to understand at all. In the event of the development of events according to the German scenario, it is necessary, of course, to increase the scope of powers of the current candidate of sciences, that is, to expand him almost to the level of the current doctor, namely, to allow him to prepare graduate students, to open areas of master's training, to head the SAC, etc. For a doctor of sciences, one can keep consulting doctoral students, give him the prerogative to occupy senior positions and more. The details of this process need careful consideration. It is clear that the requirements for candidates of sciences will need to be significantly strengthened, and compliance with them could be established both within the framework of traditional forms of certification of teachers (issuing certificates of professor and associate professor), and other forms of certification, for example, periodic licensing or contracting. All these grades and certifications would certainly benefit the educational process, as they would stimulate the teacher’s professional growth, which corresponds to the spirit of the Bologna process, namely the principle of “lifelong education”.
The second principle of the Bologna Declaration does not need any comment at all. To issue documents (attachments to diplomas) of a single sample, to create agreements on the convertibility of diplomas is, of course, a good and necessary thing. It is clear that the realization of this principle in life will directly depend on how we implement the first principle.
The main problem is the content of education
The third principle of the Bologna Declaration - the introduction of a credit system as the main way to determine the academic load and certification - requires a detailed comment.
A few words about what these loans are. The system was proposed in 1869 in the USA by rector George Eliot. In the twentieth century, first England, and then most European countries switched to it. Credits or credit points are given to the student for all types of work: classroom hours, hours for self-study, creative work, written and oral forms of control. Loans include grades for the course completed. The Bologna Agreements provide for a unified system for issuing loans (ECTS). In this system, you need to get 180-240 credits for obtaining a bachelor's degree and 90-120 - for obtaining a master's degree. One loan corresponds to 25-30 hours of classroom studies and self-study. Each year, the student, along with the tutor (teacher-curator of the course or group) chooses the path of education. All the disciplines that he needs to pass are divided into three groups: 60 percent of the disciplines are obligatory both in their sequence and composition; another 20 percent are mandatory only in composition, and when they are studied, the student chooses it; and finally, the remaining 20 percent are student-selected courses. However, the student’s independence is significantly limited: giving preference to one or another “optional” discipline, he makes a choice not between separate subjects, but between modules, that is, disciplines coordinated into blocks (modules).
The credit system has several significant advantages. Firstly, loans received in one university should be counted in another, that is, it is a system of re-transfers. Secondly, the statute of limitations of the loan does not exist. They must be counted throughout life. This allows you to increase the student's educational mobility both spatially (when transferring from one university to another) and in relation to a change in qualification (if you want to get a new specialty, you do not have to take the disciplines that you already passed again). The freedom to choose special courses and the learning path contributes to the growth of the student’s creative potential and also increases his mobility. Indeed, if there is no rigid curriculum for each course, it is possible with less losses - the academic difference - to move from one university to another, from one specialty to another.
The main problem of the credit system is not in itself - it is certainly good and works in all major universities in the world - but in the content of education, for the development of which a loan is issued. In other words, the difference in the structure of programs is nothing compared to the difference in the content of disciplines. It is the latter difference that inhibits the integration of education and hinders mobility, all the conditions for the intensification of which are created by the credit system. Bologna agreements contain a very characteristic refrain: education should be diverse in content, but this should not go to the detriment of its quality.
You have to pay yourself!
A lot has already been said about the fourth principle. There is no need to comment on it. Everyone understands that the exchange of students and teachers is beneficial to everyone. In the context of global integration, amazing opportunities have been created for educational exchange at all levels, from simple tourism to scientific guidance, and it’s a sin not to use it, making it difficult with traditional rigid curricula or exotic degrees.
And here it turns out, perhaps, the most sad circumstance for Russian education. In order for mobility - this unquestionable value and invaluable benefit of the Bologna process - to become a reality of Russian education, this process itself is completely insufficient. The second condition for its implementation is economic growth. We need money to go to Europe for a student, because Europe is not obliged to give alms to anyone, and we have to pay ourselves. On the other hand, our education is not at all attractive, so that foreigners, having learned that we can get a bachelor's degree, rushed to study in Russia for a lot of money. The Bologna process in itself does not create the attractiveness of education, it only increases the existing one. What about us? The outdated material base (both educational and social), low-paid - and therefore low-skilled - teaching work, the lack of the most basic student safety in conditions of increased criminogenicity of the behavior of the native "educated" society. So for now, unfortunately, we will only get difficulties from the Bologna process, including the departure of the most talented students abroad, and the pluses will be noticeable very soon.
Quality reforms alone cannot improve
Improving the quality of education is the fifth principle. What can I say? It is necessary, of course, to increase. It is proposed to increase the number of certifications. Useful business. In addition to state (narrow departmental) certification and internal (university) certification, public certification is also carried out in Europe. Representatives of transnational professional communities that are created abroad take part in it. It is proposed to create their branches with us: some already exist in the form of domestic associations that need to be integrated into international ones - a union of lawyers, for example (not to be confused with the trade union of employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs!). It is necessary to create and it is necessary to carry out. But for what money? To demand quality commensurate with European, you have to pay the same way as in Europe. And in Europe, universities are equipped with the latest technology, there is just as much literature as needed, European-style renovation is also furniture that is specially made to increase the effectiveness of the pedagogical process. And salaries ... A professor - and this is just a person with a doctorate and accepted for teaching at the university - for example, receives from 6 to 10 thousand euros per month, and at the same time his load does not exceed 6 class hours per week. He, of course, is not a slacker and devotes the time remaining from lecturing to improve their quality. But reforms and certifications alone will not improve quality. This simple truth, perhaps, is not understood only by our Ministry of Education and Science.
Do no harm!
The sixth principle is quite simple and does not need comments. Creating joint educational management bodies is useful and necessary. Joint conferences and other events are needed. One can only hope that the people involved in this activity will be guided by a simple and well-tested principle - do no harm!
Philosophy of Culture, Axiology, Phenomenology
Curriculum vitae
Born in Leningrad, August 28, 1971. He spent his childhood in the city of Odessa. He graduated from the Russian State Pedagogical University. A.I. Herzen (Russian language and literature, 1993), Higher religious-philosophical school (philosophy, 2002), Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (state and municipal government, 2014) , Far Eastern State University of Railway Engineering (jurisprudence, 2015). Candidate of Cultural Studies (1997), Doctor of Philosophy (2003), Professor in the Department of Philosophy (2007). He taught at universities in St. Petersburg, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Vladivostok. In 1998 he was invited to work in Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University for the organization and development of cultural education. He worked as the head of the Department of Philosophy and Sociology, Vice-Rector for Public Relations and Academic Affairs at Komsomolsk-on-Amur State Technical University (2007-2015). In 2015, he was invited to work as a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the Far Eastern Federal University. Winner of numerous scientific competitions organized by the RFBR, RHF, the Vladimir Potanin Foundation, the grant fund of the President of the Russian Federation and others. Organizer of a series of conferences and scientific publications on the socio-cultural development of the Russian Far East.
I. I. Dokuchaev is a student and follower of the Soviet and Russian philosopher and culturologist M. S. Kagan. He created the concept of multi-level semiosis (the process of creating and interpreting signs and texts of various types), understood as an a priori form of any process of human activity (monograph “The Sign Phenomenology”), the concept of historical types of intersubjectivity: functional and role-based communication in traditional and creative culture (monograph “Introduction into the history of communication ”), the concept of the axiological foundations of culture, understood as an integral generative model of the cultural-historical type (monograph“ Value and kzistentsiya "). The author of more than 150 scientific and educational works in Russian and English on semiotics, cultural theory, axiology, history of philosophy, communication theory, the current state of the higher education system in Russia, the theory of law, literary criticism and art history, socio-economic and cultural development Far Eastern region of Russia. Art critic and publicist. Translator of philosophical works of Ludwig Landgrebe.
Main works
BooksValue and Existence: The Foundations of the Historical Axiology of Culture. - SPb .: Nauka, 2009 .-- 598 p. (Series "The Word of Existence")
Phenomenology of the sign: selected works on semiotics and dialogics of culture. - SPb .: Nauka, 2010 .-- 410 p. (Series "The Word of Existence")
Articles
- Culturology as an integrative science // Scientific notes of KnAGTU. No. 1. - Komsomolsk-on-Amur: 2011.
- Transgression and reduction: ways of integrating the social sciences and humanities and cultural studies // Questions of cultural studies. No. 7. - M .: 2011.
- The foundations of the deduction of metaphysical systems and the problem of reliability // Social and Human Sciences in the Far East. No. 3 (31). - Khabarovsk: 2011.
- Global performance: The contours of the culture of the XXI century // Questions of culturology. No. 12. - M .: 2011.
- Discussions and falsifications. Answer to the article by A. V. Gotnogi “The problem of extra people”: Dialogue of worldviews // Scientific notes of KnAGTU. No. 1. - Komsomolsk-on-Amur: 2012.
- Network culture as a historical type // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 4. - Komsomolsk-on-Amur: 2012.
- The phenomenology of intersubjectivity of E. Husserl and the aesthetics of the “Other” M. M. Bakhtin // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 1. - 2013.
- Culture as a cognitive sphere: semiotic dimension // Social and human sciences in the Far East. No. 1 (37). - Khabarovsk: 2013.
- Differential cultural studies and cultural sciences: the problem of methodological divergence // Problems of Cultural Studies. No. 6. - M .: 2013.
- The ball of being of Parmenides and the circle of interpretation of G.-G. Gadamera // Scientific notes KnAGTU. No. 2. - 2013.
- Historical and demonic in the fate of the artist (Paradoxes of composition of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of our time”) // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 1. - 2014.
- Case Anton Pavlovich Chekhov // Person. The culture. Society. No. 3-4. - M.: 2014.
- Axiological and epistemological components of law as a form of social culture // Scientific notes of KnAGTU. No. 4. - 2014.
- The subjective side of corruption offenses: corporate and personal aspects // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 2. - 2015.
- Monitoring the effectiveness of Russian universities as a radical method of reforming domestic education: political and legal aspects // Uchenye zapiski KnAGTU. No. 3. - 2015.
- Totalitarianism and authoritarianism: trends and prospects // Questions of culturology. No. 9. - M .: 2015.
- The subject of sociology in the system of social and humanitarian knowledge and cultural sciences // Bulletin of Pacific national university. No. 3. - 2015.
- Socialism today. North Korea - a promising experience or a unique relic // Problems of Cultural Studies. No. 11. - M .: 2015.
- Traditional culture today: Iran - globalization and the search for self-identity // Issues of cultural studies. No. 12. - M.: 2015.
- The phenomena of the “dead body” and “living flesh” in the structure of the existential experience of the body // Problems of Philosophy. No. 4. - M .: 2016.