Complementarity of multicultural pheniomena as theoretical problem of modern humanitarian knowledge

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Department of social sciences

Cherkasy Institute of Fire Safety named after Chornobyl

Heroes of National University of Civil Defense of Ukraine

Complementarity of multicultural pheniomena as theoretical problem of modern humanitarian knowledge

Lyudmyla Voronovska, candidate of

philosophical sciences, associate professor

У статті аналізується розуміння сучасного суспільства як взаємопов'язаного і взаємозалежного, величезну роль в якому грають не тільки проблеми взаємодії культури і суспільства, а й взаємодія різних культур, складна система їх стосунків, яка в контексті культурного різноманіття призводить до виникнення такого феномена, як мультикультуралізм. Доводиться, що культури, у результаті формують єдиний соціокультурний організм, знаходяться в процесі інтеграції, а справжній мультикультуралізм - неодмінна умова культурного розвитку сучасного суспільства, його прогресу і процвітання.

Ключові слова: суспільство, нація, асиміляція, комплементарність, міжкультурна інтеграція, мультикультуралізм, самобутність, культурний плюралізм, ідентичність, автохтонність.

В статье анализируются понимание современного общества как взаимосвязанного и взаимозависимого, огромную роль в котором играют не только проблемы взаимодействия культуры и общества, но и взаимодействие различных культур, сложная система их взаимоотношений, которая в контексте культурного многообразия приводит к возникновению такого феномена, как мультикультурализм. Доказывается, что культуры, в итоге формирующие единый социокультурный организм, находятся в процессе интеграции, а подлинный мультикультурализм - непременное условие культурного развития современного общества, его прогресса и процветания.

Ключевые слова: общество, нация, ассимиляция, комплементарность, межкультурная интеграция, мультикультурализм, самобытность, культурный плюрализм, идентичность, автохтонность.

The article analyzes the understanding of modern society as interconnected and interdependent, in which not only the problem of interaction between culture and society plays a great role, but also the interaction of different cultures, a complex system of relations, which in the context of cultural diversity gives rise to such a phenomenon as multiculturalism. It is proved that the cultures, eventually forming a single socio-cultural body, are in the process of integration and genuine multiculturalism - an indispensable condition for the cultural development of modern society, its progress and prosperity.

For all the complexity and heterogeneity of the concept of «multiculturalism», the essence of it is the recognition by society of cultural diversity, cultural legitimization of groups that are culturally different from the majority population groups and protection their rights. The concept of multiculturalism considers the dominant and minority cultures of this or that state as equal, contributes to their integration in opposition to the process of assimilation, when the minority culture is simply absorbed by the dominant. Accordingly assimilation creates such negative phenomena as xenophobia, extremism and even terrorism. Both processes characterize the era of globalization, creating a fertile environment for the phenomenon of multiculturalism, which is the subject of our consideration.

It is necessary to note that the prospect of assimilation generates less theoretical problems than the prospect of multiculturalism. In the first case, the nature and structure of the future group are built on the basis of experience, namely the experience of the dominant culture: the future socio-cultural body will be created in its image and likeness. It is only necessary to maintain and continue the existing experience. In the second case it is necessary to develop a mechanism acceptable to all parts of this complicated process of formation of a new culture. To reject the easiest way of development, to give the participants of this large-scale project the freedom of actions means to make a revolutionary breakthrough in the complex process of development of multiculturalism, which is observed in almost all developed countries based on respect for identity and cultural identity, forming an integral and harmonious socio-cultural space. This is the process of creating a new culture, which has overcome the antagonisms and enriched itself with the best qualities of the previous ones.

Key words: society, nation, assimilation, complementarity, intercultural integration, multiculturalism, identity, cultural pluralism, autochthonous.

In conditions of growing globalization and the formation of the information age national states are facing new challenges and threats of the beginning of the XXI century. First and foremost, this is due to the phenomenon of multilateralism, which complicated the interactions between states. Transition from unilateral actions inside the system of international relations to multilateral relations occurred, indicating that the structure of the world is changing. Under these conditions, the situation with cultural influence is becoming more intense. The processes of globalization lead not only to interpenetration and mutual enrichment of national cultures, but also threaten their identity.

The interdisciplinary nature of the stated problem has led to the conceptual framework of this paper, which includes the works of Ukrainian and foreign scientists.

Globalization in its different social and cultural manifestations is one of the priority areas of research activities of a number of foreign scholars: W. Beck, M. Castells, Z. Bauman, P. Berger, P. Burdje, A. Giddens, J. Koulmen, I. Hoffmann, B. Gosle, F. Fukuiama, A. Ettsioni, M. McLuhan, A. Toffler, R. Emerson and others. I. Bychko, M. Mykhalchenko, M. Stepyko, V. Stepanenko, B. Hlotov, V. Kozlovets actively study problems of transformation of Ukrainian cultural identity in the era of formation of global civilization. The study of the phenomenon of identity combines three approaches: philosophical, sociological and psychological. The concept of «identityis considered in the philosophical writings of T. Adorno, Hegel, Husserl, Descartes, Kant, Machiavelli, F. Nietzsche, Plato, IG Fichte, Heidegger, F.V.Y. Schelling, A. Schopenhauer, Hume and others.

In psychology, identity problem has been investigated in the framework of the theory of psychoanalysis. The most completely identity phenomenon is reflected in the works of A. Adler, A. Freud, Z. Freyda, Erich Fromm, E. Erikson, Jung. The modern tradition of research of identity in the sociology was formed on the basis of works by P. Bergera, W. James, Emile Durkheim, Charles Cooley, T. Luqman, J. Mead and others.

Consideration of specific issues is performed under strong influence of philosophical ideas of Kyiv ideological-anthropological school: theoretical basis for resolving certain difficult issues was the works of V. Shynkaruk, V. Ivanov, A. Yatsenko, V. Malakhov, V. Tabachkovskyi. To analyze the processes of development of cultural identity it is necessary to refer to works that deal with: the phenomenon of identity in the modern world (E. Bystrytskyi, A. Yermolenko, L. Sytnychenko), identity in cultural structures (S. Proleiev), categorical status of meaning of culture (V. Kozlovskyi), heuristic-methodological potential of the concept of spirituality (I. Stepanenko), self-consciousness as an object of philosophical analysis (K. Pokotylo), the interaction of personal and social identity (A. Zubenko), peculiarities of socio-cultural identification of society (N. Tarasova), value universe of civilized communities (S. Krymskyi, Y. Pavlenko, Y. Pahomov, O. Shmorhun), globalization processes and identity (V. Liakh), identity of social subject in the discourse of postmodernism (T. Voropai), human instability in existence (E. Andros) and boundary conditions of existence (N. Khamitov) and self-identity.

The problem of this article is caused by the consideration of cross-cultural interactions through the lens of transformation of socio-cultural identity.

We are intended to demonstrate that there is a simultaneous transformation of socio-cultural identity in two opposite directions: towards the unification of cultures and their localization.

It is important to disclose the identity resources of a traditional national culture and contradictions of its integration into the current socio cultural space, and to identify the role and significance of stereotypes in intercultural dialogue and the ability to neutralize their negative impact on intercultural relations.

It is possible to emphasize the need for the development of horizontal communication in the field of humanitarian and cultural cooperation.

The aim of the study is to analyze the cultural and socio-cultural foundations of civilization of modern society, consideration of their similarities and differences, as well as the specific features of international cooperation in the humanitarian and cultural spheres.

Realization of this aim involves solving the following tasks:

- to determine the specificity of cultural identification in daily social and cultural transformations;

- to investigate the influence of mass culture as one of the «agents of globalization» on the formation of civilization identity;

- to identify potential and direction of further development of identification function of mass culture;

- to consider the place of the phenomenon of identity in the basic categories of culture system;

- to describe the main paradigms of cultural and civilization interaction: the clash and dialogue;

- to explore the relationship of cultural pictures of the world of contemporary society through the analysis of the basic constants of their cultural models;

- - to analyze the characteristics and prospects of the network format of cooperation in the humanitarian and cultural spheres.

The main material with full justification of scientific results. Modern society is multicultural by definition. For all the complexity and heterogeneity of the concept of «multiculturalism» the gist of it is the recognition by society of cultural diversity, cultural legitimization of groups that are culturally different from the majority population groups and protection their rights. The concept of multiculturalism considers the dominant and minority cultures of this or that state as equal, contributes to their integration in opposition to the process of assimilation, when the minority culture is simply absorbed by the dominant. Both processes characterize the era of globalization, creating a fertile environment for the phenomenon of multiculturalism.

Modern multiculturalism is determined by two main factors: on the one hand - the existence in the depths of society of different cultures, on the other - the geographical space that is home to the bulk of the population, and in which there is constant migration.

Integration through assimilation is quite obvious and very common phenomenon of contemporary socio-cultural life. Indeed, we can say that the result of the termination of conflicts between different groups is their fusion or assimilation: the subordinate group (or culture) becomes similar to the dominant (the Latin word similis means «similar»). For this similarity subordinate culture pays with the loss of cultural identity, which often leads to its disappearance as a specific socio-cultural group. Such social merger can be regarded as a condition of survival of all present cultures, both dominant and subordinate. However, this form of cultural integration has no future: it is far from a model of society based on multiculturalism.

Is integration-assimilation the only solution to the problem posed by a society in which there is cultural pluralism? On the basis of the status quo, the answer to this question can only be negative. We can name the two major drawbacks of integration-assimilation. Firstly, it is a cultural impoverishment of society; secondly, through assimilation cultural identity of each member of the society is erased or completely disappears.

Under the conditions of multiculturalism the relationships between sociocultural components inevitably arise in the society. Thus, multiculturalism is not only a source of cultural enrichment, but also the engine of social development. This postulate is confirmed by the entire history of world culture. So, multiculturalism in modern society creates the conditions for its cultural survival.

The integration-assimilation, or assimilationism, ignores the possibility of mutual enrichment of cultures, closing every culture in itself. Such closure of the dominant culture in itself and the negation of all that «is not it», leads to a complete cultural isolation and even the disappearance of the subordinate culture. Double cultural impoverishment becomes the consequence of integrationassimilation: on the one hand, the impoverishment of the subordinate culture that loses its cultural identity and is forced to adapt, on the other - the emasculation of the dominant culture, which is deprived of the flow of «fresh blood». It is therefore obvious that the integration-assimilation is the brake for the world's cultural progress. With the integration-assimilation the cultural development of society will be suspended at best. The worst result will be cultural degradation.

Multiculturalism policy a priori implies the protection of small cultures that joined the community in the process of integration, the strengthening of social and cultural relations within the groups and between the various groups that, according to some scientists, contradicts the traditional individualistic approach to integration issues. This approach is associated with the fear of losing one's own cultural identity.

Multiculturalism is one of the possible reactions of the subordinate, or minority culture in the attempt of integration-assimilation by the dominant culture. In the social space, where human relationships are the relationship of power, each subordinate culture is trying to avoid extinction by protecting its own cultural identity and resisting their assimilation by the dominant culture. With this aim, the subordinate culture often closes in itself, not allowing any cultural values besides its own. There is a process of formation of a kind of cultural «ghetto» as a subordinate culture steadfastly opposes the influence of not only the dominant but also of all other cultures in order to survive. Y. Hannun defines this phenomenon as social multiculturalism. This form of social structure seems to defenders of small cultures to be the possible way to preserve the cultural identity of the minority of the population.

However, social multiculturalism cannot be an acceptable and dignified solution to the problems facing society today for two reasons: there is not only the risk of cultural impoverishment, but also the threat of social explosion. Assimilation and so-called social multiculturalism are the sources of cultural impoverishment, as each culture closes in on itself being out of other cultural groups as possible sources of cultural enrichment. Such «ghettoization» of each small cultural group leads to the transformation of society as a mosaic constructed of fragments of socio-cultural or even political explosion. Cultural identity in the dominant group is an indisputable fact, a constant. Each member of the group admits accepted in it values, customs, mentality, language, cultural skills that he learned in the cradle. However, this constant has implications in terms of personal freedom limitations of each member. As a member of the dominant cultural group, the individual loses its cultural identity: he unconditionally accepts the conventional patterns; the freedom of choice in this case is illusory. Subordinate person has no choice but to make this alien culture his own.

So, assimilation system has three significant drawbacks: it impoverishes cultural society, jeopardizing its unity and finally damaging the cultural identity of the individual. Y. Hannun sees the solution in the creation of cross-cultural social structure [1, c. 25], which, on the one hand, will have to confront assimilation approach, and on the other hand the undivided domination of multiculturalism. In this regard, intercultural structure is an attempt of social reorganization, ensuring the rule of law over force, or rather, submission of force to the current legislation. Formation of such a structure, says Y. Hannun, suggests a fundamental renewal of modern society in the sense of humanization, that is transformation into a social organism created by man and for man.

In terms of practical application multiculturalism is a phenomenon that facilitates the mutual penetration of different cultures within the same social system. This type of relationship between community groups, both antagonistic and complementary (prevalent in this complementary relationship), assumes that each member of the group can be in opposition to other cultures or be solidary with them, remaining himself among others. It is important that self-affirmation of its cultural identity is not synonymous with the overthrow of another culture. On the contrary, it requires the recognition of a different culture for the purpose of its own cultural enrichment.

The question arises, if the respect for the cultural identity of different cultures can lead to the split of common cultural space into its components, as the undesirable consequence of multiculturalism policy. The answer to this question will help to analyze the structure of the modern multicultural society. The need for unity is most important in the economic field. Inconsistent methods of market exchange might call into question the material survival of the whole structure. In the political field, the need for consensus is not so imperative. In this area, there is a diversity of opinions through democracy movements, organizations, and so on. Unification in this case is synonymous to despotism. As for the cultural life of society, there is a need to ensure economic and political stability of the group. In this case, the means of its cultural expressions will not meet any obstacles from the authorities.

Cultural integration and cultural pluralism, in terms of etymology («integration» from the Latin integratio - restoration, from the Latin integer - the whole), means to make the whole or build the whole. Integration is the creation of such a system, in which the complementarity prevails over the antagonisms; the system can be based on both understanding and power.

Numerous facts show that as a result of the meeting of different cultures assimilative structures appear, involving the disappearance of integrable culture in the integrating one, or dominant. Under the condition of multiculturalism disappearance of cultures does not occur, but there is the danger of «ghettoization» or isolation of each individual culture. The problems associated with the process of cultural integration, arise from the fact of coexistence of different cultures within the same social group. When two significantly different cultures meet, there are contradictions between them, leading to the assimilation of the minority or subordinate culture with the dominant culture. Thus, a specific cultural model is formed by the culture which is dominant at the moment. The result is that only the coexistence of different cultures within a single social organism models each of them, giving rise to new elements of social integration. New socio-cultural structure is formed of the new components generated by the initial encounter of cultures. So, in the process of cultural integration, the new culture is formed based on coexistence - complementary or, in contrast, antagonistic - of two (or more) active cultures, subordinate and dominant - in the form which they acquired as a result of the interaction.

With the current state of inter-cultural dialogue, integration reproduces dominant culture simultaneously increasing it and provoking disappearance of the subordinate culture. Cultural pluralism disappears. However, true integration does not repeat the existing cultural model; on the contrary, it is intended to build the model which is more advanced than the current one. The fact of cultural pluralism gives rise to conflicts, based on the political and economic features of a particular society. The meeting of two communities of people, different culturally, often leads to the domination of one culture over another, which in turn generates absorption of dependent, less distinctive culture by the dominant one. As a result, subordinate culture may disappear.

The negative consequences of the «assimilative» integration can only be avoided through the creation of cross-cultural social structure, which could overcome the logic of double standards, according to which force prevails over right. Legal rules that will govern the relations between the groups put a difficult task in front of the society: to integrate the various components of the cultural space based on the norms of relations arising from intercultural dialogue. It is the process of creating a new culture, overcoming the antagonisms and enriching the best qualities of the previous cultures.

multicultural society

Conclusions and direction for further research

A close look at the development of modern society leads to the conclusion that most often meeting of two or more different cultures fits into the scheme of assimilation, when eventually one of them excludes the other. Naturally, a society based on the principles of multiculturalism, is evolving towards the survival of the ruling cultural values and the disappearance of small, «subordinate» cultures.

In society of cultural pluralism coexistence of different cultural groups should be seen as a stage in the establishment of an entirely new culture. Thus, the integration of small culture into the dominant one fits into the dynamics, the ultimate purpose of which is the emergence of two major cultural phenomena:

1. Assimilation in case of non-intervention of a person in the public process, when the relations of power prevail over the relations of co-existence which leads to a strengthening of the dominant culture and the partial or complete disappearance of subordinate cultures.

2. Multiculturalism, when both cultural groups, the dominant and minority, are formed under the influence of a person on the cultural process. They both develop in parallel until the emergence of a new group, which they begin to form from the time of their first contact, using both the mutual contradictions and similarities. In this sense, the formation of a new culture should be within the framework of cross-cultural relations, based on saving and growth of the cultural traditions of each culture. Within the new cultural formation complementarity in the relationships will eventually prevail over antagonism. Each culture will bring to this multicultural community only things that are able to enrich it.

Note that the prospect of assimilation generates less theoretical problems than the prospect of multiculturalism. In the first case, the nature and structure of the future group is built on the basis of experience, namely the experience of the dominant culture. In the second case it is necessary to develop a mechanism acceptable to all parties of this complicated process of formation of a new culture. The man in the process is not the statistician; he produces social forms, models of the future culture [1, p. 32]. To reject from the easiest way of development, to give the participants of this large-scale project freedom of action means to make a revolutionary breakthrough in the complex process of development of multiculturalism, which is observed in almost all developed countries.

An example of developed European countries with political and legal mechanisms for the regulation of migration processes, but not having enough political will to solve this problem, can be very instructive for a number of countries facing problems of multiculturalism, in particular for Ukraine. There is no doubt that the true multiculturalism is an indispensable condition for the cultural development of modern society, its progress and prosperity, of a society based on respect for identity and cultural identity, forming an integral and harmonious socio-cultural space.

Literature

1. Афанасьев А. Научные методы в гуманитаристике / Александр Иванович Афанасьев // Вісник Дніпропетровського університету. - Серія Філософія. Соціологія. Політологія. - 2012. - № 9/2. - Вип. 22 (2). - Т 20. - С. 253-258.

2. Бауман З. Глобализация. Последствия для человека и общества / Зигмунт Бауман; [пер. с англ. М. Коробочкина]. - М.: Весь Мир, 2004. - 188 с.

3. Бек У. Что такое глобализация? [Электронный ресурс] / Ульрих Бек. - Режим доступа: http://imp.rudn.ru/ffec/philos/chrest/g18/bek.html.

4. Гречко П. Идентичность - современные перспективы [Электронный ресурс] / Петр Кондратьевич Гречко. - Режим доступа: www.litera.instet.ru/ admin/pdf/20110221154540file.

5. Іщук В. Україна: проблема престижності та ідентичності (масова комунікація і культура як суб'єкти формування громадянської та національної свідомості) / Володимир Михайлович Іщук. - К.: Смолоскип, 2000. - 89 с.

6. Кастельс М. Информационная эпоха: экономика, общество и культура / Мануэль Кастельс; [пер. с англ. под научн. ред. О. Шкаратана]. - М.: ГУ-ВШЭ, 2001. - 608 с.

7. Межуев В. Ценности современности в контексте модернизации и глобализации [Электронный ресурс] / Вадим Михайлович Межуев. - Режим доступа: www.zpu-journal.ru/e-zpu/2009/1/Mezhuev/.

8. Плужникова Н. Проблема культурной идентичности в свете современной философии культуры [Электронный ресурс] / Наталья Николаевна Плужникова. - Режим доступа: filosofika.ru/2011/05/186.html.

9. Сакс Дж. Достоинство различия. Как избежать столкновения цивилизаций / Джонатан Генри Сакс; [пер. с англ. Б. Дынина]. - М.: Мосты культуры; Гешарим, 2008. - 329 с.

10. Фукуяма Ф. Наше постчеловеческое будущее: Последствия биотехнологической революции / Френсис Фукуяма; [пер. с англ. М. Левина]. - М.: ООО «Издательство АСТ»: ОАО «ЛЮКС», 2004. - 349 с. 28

12. Хабермас Ю. Гражданство и национальная идентичность / Юрген Хабермас // Демократия. Разум. Нравственность. Московские лекции и интервью; [пер. с нем.]. - М.: Академия, 1995. - 247 с.

13. Hannoun H. L'integration des cultures / Hannoun H. - Paris, 1'Harmattan, 2004.

References

1. Afanasev A. Nauchnye metody v humanitaristike / Aleksandr Ivanovich Afanasev // Visnyk Dnipropetrovskoho universytetu. - Seriia Filosofiia. Sotsiolohiia. Politolohiia. - 2012. - № 9/2. - Vyp. 22 (2). - T. 20. - S. 253-258.

2. Bauman Z. Hlobalizatsiia. Posledstviia dlia cheloveka i obshchestva / Zihmunt Bauman; [per. s anhl. M. Korobochkina]. - M.: Ves Mir, 2004. - 188 s.

3. Bek U. Chto takoe hlobalizatsiia? [Elektronnyi resurs] / Ulrikh Bek. - Rezhim dostupa: http://imp.rudn.ru/ffec/philos/chrest/g18/bek.html.

4. Hrechko P Identichnost - sovremennye perspektivy [Elektronnyi resurs] / Petr Kondratevich Hrechko. - Rezhim dostupa: www.litera.instet.ru/ admin/pdf/20110221154540file.

5. Ishchuk V. Ukraina: problema prestyzhnosti ta identychnosti (masova komunikatsiia i kultura yak sub'iekty formuvannia hromadianskoi ta natsionalnoi svidomosti) / Volodymyr Mykhailovych Ishchuk. - K.: Smoloskyp, 2000. - 89 s.

6. Kastels M. Informatsionnaia epokha: ekonomika, obshchestvo i kultura / Manuel Kastels; [per. s anhl. pod nauchn. red. O. Shkaratana]. - M.: HU-VShE, 2001. - 608 s.

7. Mezhuev V. Tsennosti sovremennosti v kontekste modernizatsii i hlobalizatsii [Elektronnyi resurs] / Vadim Mikhailovich Mezhuev. - Rezhim dostupa: www.zpu-journal.ru/e-zpu/2009/1/Mezhuev/.

8. Pluzhnikova N. Problema kulturnoi identichnosti v svete sovremennoi filosofii kultury [Elektronnyi resurs] / Natalia Nikolaevna Pluzhnikova. - Rezhim dostupa: filosofika.ru/2011/05/186.html.

9. Saks Dzh. Dostoinstvo razlichiia. Kak izbezhat stolknoveniia tsivilizatsii / Dzhonatan Henri Saks; [per. s anhl. B. Dynina]. - M.: Mosty kultury; Hesharim, 2008. - 329 s.

10. Fukuiama F. Nashe postchelovecheskoe budushchee: Posledstviia biotekhnolohicheskoi revoliutsii / Frensis Fukuiama; [per. s anhl. M. Levina]. - M.: OOO «Izdatelstvo AST»: OAO «LIuKS», 2004. - 349 s.

11. Khabermas Iu. Hrazhdanstvo i natsionalnaia identichnost / Iurhen Khabermas // Demokratiia. Razum. Nravstvennost. Moskovskie lektsii i interviu; [per. s nem.]. - M.: Akademiia, 1995. - 247 c.

12. Hannoun H. L'integration des cultures / Hannoun H. - Paris, l'Harmattan, 2004.

Размещено на Allbest.ru