APPLIED CULTURAL SCIENCE IN STRUCTURE
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE
Let's start with the fact that the current name of a certain part of cultural science - “applied cultural studies”, quite clearly speaks about the specifics of this component of cultural studies, about its special focus, which distinguishes this block of knowledge from other components of the science under consideration - in particular, from theoretical cultural studies and historical cultural studies .
Having opened any explanatory dictionary, from, say, a classical dictionary to Wikipedia, which goes to infinity in its “openness,” we will see (however, it is understandable): applied- means having practical significance; something that can be used in some field life. The obviousness and simplicity of such a definition inevitably continues (most often, purely intuitively) with the conviction that the procedure for this very “application” of knowledge is just as simple and straightforward. If only there was knowledge, it would not be a problem to find practical application for it. And therefore (another seemingly inevitable conclusion) this applied area of culturological knowledge, identical to its simple functional use, does not require any special scientific effort; The main thing for the development of cultural studies is effective work on creating concepts and developing theories, and their application is a “matter of technology.”
At first glance, the logic underlying this kind of reasoning does not raise objections. However, the logically correct course of thought when moving to the prose of life, including the life of the science of cultural studies, turns out to be not so unconditional: the development of cultural knowledge did not proceed in the expected, logically “pure” sequence (theoretical, then applied); and the answers to seemingly simple questions are not so clear - where and For what"attach" How do it, and finally What from the available vast and diverse cultural knowledge can/should be selected for use for practical purposes in a particular situation.
This kind of set of questions, or rather, the search for answers to them, sets the outline for describing the features of applied cultural studies as a subsystem of the science of cultural studies. But first, let us turn to a brief description of the plot associated with the process of institutionalization, with the acquisition and loss of legitimate status by applied cultural studies, as well as its role in the formation of Russian cultural studies as a whole. Of course, many aspects of the problem under consideration were and remain significant not only for the Russian science of culture, however, due to the circumstances outlined below, we considered it important to focus specifically on the development of this segment in the system of domestic social and humanitarian knowledge.
Domestic applied cultural studies de facto and de jure:
difficulties of legitimization
The institutionalization of cultural studies as a scientific field was stimulated, like the process of “maturation” of other sciences, by at least the influence of two groups of factors. On the one hand, actually logic of development knowledge about culture , which at a certain stage led to the realization of the need to create a kind of unified “coordinate system” in this area of cognition; a system that would make it possible to correlate, structure, and ensure the consistency of the results obtained on the basis of “multi-genre” and multi-vector studies of the multifaceted field of culture.
However, there is no doubt that the logic of knowledge alone is never enough to position a new science - it must be real interest, social need in the knowledge that matures in the scientific “greenhouse”. It is precisely this interest that, indeed, served as a powerful incentive for the development of domestic cultural sciences in general and for the acquisition of institutional status by cultural studies, in particular, in the perestroika 80-90s of the last century. In conditions of radical transformations that have taken place in almost all areas of life, in conditions of real and potential losses and gains on the broadest social scale, the need of social actors of different levels: the state, individual groups (political, economic, ethnocultural, religious, etc.) is quite understandable. , public organizations and corporate structures - in receiving practically applicable knowledge about the cultural factors of social processes, about the mechanisms of their objective influence, about the possibilities of targeted use, manipulative blocking, etc., in a word, knowledge about how you can work with the cultural component of the global socio-tectonic shift. Scientifically based (although sometimes only science-like) analytical and recommendatory models of practical activity, programs and projects of sociocultural development, displacing abstract theoretical constructs, have taken a prominent place among the products sold by specialists in the field of culture. Their demand was determined by the search for solutions in a variety of sociocultural areas - from large-scale issues of state cultural policy, the search for “short” paths to ethnocultural self-determination, the desire for regional opposition to overwhelming globalization, tasks to “promote” candidates in... during election campaigns to the development of local cultural - leisure technologies, for example, for successful “team building” within a separate corporation.
It was in connection with this multi-genre social demand that the block of applied cultural studies received a powerful impetus, an incentive for intensive development, and the feeding (in the broadest sense) of this scientific direction also played a role. The products created during this period of rapid development of applied cultural research, due to the diversity of its sources, consumers, etc., of course, not all of them appeared on the surface, not all of them were available for analysis and evaluation. However, albeit on a very limited scale, you can get an idea of this period in the development of applied cultural studies simply by turning to the relevant sections of the lists of publications and dissertations on cultural studies.
All these processes became significant circumstances that influenced not only the formation and development this direction in cultural studies, but also turned out to be important for the development and institutionalization of cultural studies as such. One can quite reasonably assert: the intensive quantitative growth of applied cultural studies and the expansion of their thematic spectrum have become a kind of catalyst for the process of establishing cultural studies as an independent scientific direction in the space of domestic social and humanitarian knowledge.
However, these “merits” of the applied direction did not subsequently become an indulgence for its legitimate existence and possession of the necessary institutional status, determined, first of all, by the inclusion of this block of knowledge in the nomenclature of scientific specialties of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation. As is known, the institutionalization of cultural studies in the early 90s of the 20th century found its legal expression in the form of its appearance under the code 24.00.00. direction "Culturology". The structuring of scientific specialties within it was, although simple, quite (albeit not entirely strictly) logical: 24.00.01. - Theory of culture; 02.- Historical cultural studies; 03. - Museum studies, conservation and restoration of historical and cultural objects; 04. - Applied cultural studies. Changes subsequently made in this section of the nomenclature led to its maximum impoverishment (which, in our opinion, requires an indispensable and more active return of specialists to discuss the issue of the validity of such transformations) and, in particular, to the disappearance of such a specialty as “Applied cultural studies".
Without being able to analyze the reasons for this decision (due to the lack of their public presentation), I can only express considerations regarding some consequences in this situation - considerations that, I hope, will add another link in the process of building a chain of arguments aimed at returning applied cultural studies, as a socially significant and popular field of knowledge practice, to the list of scientific specialties in the direction of 24.00.00 - Culturology.
The main argument is the saturation, confirmed daily and everywhere today's real sociocultural space as problematic, and often outright crisis points, a full-format analysis of which (primarily to find the necessary solutions) is impossible without considering the cultural component in their emergence, and, consequently, in the paradigm of their “resorption.” Complex social processes taking place in the modern world, in modern Russia objectively update and stimulate the expansion of the scope of application of cultural studies in its practically-oriented format, the use of knowledge relevant to the situation and tasks about cultural factors and mechanisms, about the patterns of sociocultural processes, about the features of their modification in the modern context.
It is easy to verify the relevance of this kind of research by turning, say, to the topics of dissertation research in the direction of “Cultural Studies” completed over the last decade. An argument in favor of demand is also (and perhaps above all) the huge number of projects completed within various management and other structures. actually practical research and development of a culturological orientation, ensuring (along with scientific research itself) an increase in the array of results significant for the development of applied analysis of social problems in their culturological dimension.
There is no doubt that the removal of the specialty “Applied Cultural Studies” from the Higher Attestation Commission nomenclature is a decision that resulted in the situation de facto has not changed at all in accordance with the prescribed de jure."Closing the topic" administratively, according to formal bureaucratic grounds, this decision did not and could not be canceled in fact cancel the development of this research area, since its identification was, as already noted, not the product of someone’s “mind game,” but a response to an objective request produced by social realities modern world. The unproductiveness of the situation is determined not only by the above discrepancy. There are inconsistencies of another kind: the expansion of applied cultural analysis, which occurs de facto in response to the demands of practice itself, does not have, primarily due to the reasons mentioned above, adequate development scientific and methodological base And methodological arsenal applied cultural studies as a special type of cognitive activity.
There is one more, scientific and ethical, negative consequence of the decision to remove applied cultural studies from the List - the need to “squeeze in” essentially any, including practically oriented scientific cultural studies in the “Procrustean bed” of the specialty “Theory and History of Culture”. In essence, researchers are forced to “mask” socially relevant issues aimed at solving acute problems. problems today scientific developments for general theoretical constructs, based on the only possible (if the topic is not about museums and monument conservation) name of the specialty. It seems that it is much more expedient, logical, and simply scientific, to return the specialty “Applied Cultural Studies” to the nomenclature, allowing dissertation candidates honestly indicate the nature and possibilities of using the results obtained by them. It would be logical to do this in connection with the constant calls heard from the highest tribunes to “achieve a connection between theory and practice”, “to be closer to the realities of life”, etc.
Of course, this is not the only way to restore the rights of scientific and applied research. Let’s say, there is a possible option based on expanding what is probably the most meager of all cultural nomenclature today: not to reduce the direction of “Culturology” to the “two in one” formula (all cultural studies = 24.00.01 + 24.00.03), but to expand it, like other scientific fields (sociology, political science, etc.), in the form of a complete list of specialties, adequate to the reality being studied. For example, inclusion in the register (along with the preservation of museology, the return of historical cultural studies) such positions as the history of cultural thought, cultural studies of politics (including issues of cultural policy), cultural studies of everyday life, etc. Of course, these are only particular examples, and not a built-up list (working on it is a separate task). But they also make it possible to understand that with this approach and conceptual and theoretical, And scientific and applied analysis of current problems related to relevant subject areas become equally legitimate. Moreover, it seems that this second path would be more productive in many respects.
Arguing the need for re-institutionalization of applied cultural studies and fighting for its full recognition, one cannot, however, confine oneself to only the positive aspects associated with the scientific and social significance of this block of research - the picture, it must be admitted, is not entirely objective and complete. The previous stage of development revealed and made quite obvious some problematic situations, a certain negative, without eliminating which it is not so easy to defend the rights of applied cultural studies. As paradoxical as it may seem, the main difficulties are associated not with external factors (say, with the machinations of the enemies of cultural studies, which also happens), but, as it seems to me, with the lack of sufficiently seriously worked out, justified and prescribed generic characteristics of applied cultural studies themselves. Without this necessary scientific paraphernalia, no calls for the triumph of scientific justice, no most emotional appeals to the social significance of this kind of research will most likely be perceived as sufficient arguments for making any serious decisions.
Moreover, it can be assumed that the exclusion of applied cultural studies from the list of scientific specialties at one time was derived not only from someone’s subjective (and, I am convinced, short-sighted) opinion, but also became a kind of reaction to some real costs in the segment of scientific research under consideration . In particular, one of the “irritants” could not help but become what can be described as redundancy products, which over the several years of existence of the specialty “applied cultural studies” were presented under its code. Indeed, along with a considerable number of quite worthy studies on issues of cultural policy, on the applied aspects of many other types of sociocultural practice, works of a wide variety of genres began to be “dumped” into this specialty, including those that ended up here as a result of “selection from contrary." I mean a plot where a dissertation research, originally conceived on a sociological, pedagogical, philological profile, and, for one reason or another, was not accepted by the relevant dissertation council, was slightly reformatted by the applicant who learned about the existence of a new direction (cultural studies), and was redirected to this niche, which has not yet been very filled and is not very strictly prescribed in its criteria. Having inserted a marker word from the set “about culture” into the title and introduction, the dissertation author seemed to be reincarnated immediately in the status of a culturologist, contributing, on the one hand, to filling the thematic niche open “for entry”, but at the same time making his contribution to the transformation young industry into a scientific (and sometimes pseudoscientific) “vinaigrette”. Thus, quite suitable material was accumulated for opponents of the legalization of cultural studies, which cannot in any way be called a science if it is “about everything in the world.” Although today this situation is, of course, completely atypical, a certain projection of those times, if not a “shadow,” can be seen in today’s discussions.
This topic related, however, not only to applied cultural studies, but to the initial stage of legitimization of cultural studies in general. As for specialty 04, there was another, specific problem, when initially the body of dissertation works began to grow indomitably, which were rather not scientifically-applied, and methodical inherently character. A significant part consisted of works devoted to the organization, technologies, methods, methods of cultural and educational work and other traditional sociocultural practices, which were associated primarily with the word “applied”. Undoubtedly, the lack of certainty of criteria for determining the boundaries and specifics of applied cultural studies again played a role here. Perhaps the subjective factor also came into play when, if desired, the correspondence of a particular study to the “applied” category was interpreted by the author something like this: if the name of the study is related to some practice, one way or another connected with sphere of culture, then this is a sufficient argument to claim scientific degree in Applied Cultural Studies. How can one not recall the wise words of K. Marx that the label of a belief system often deceives not only the buyer, but also the seller.
But, nevertheless, the situation of “confusion” and blurriness in applied cultural studies, it seems, was determined not simply by the fact that a significant stream of works tied to those sociocultural practices that were traditionally considered, say , in the pedagogical block (socio-cultural activities, librarianship, etc.). Scientifically-cultural component applied research is ensured not by what social practice the analysis is devoted to, what type of activity the problem being solved is associated with, but logic of the research movement: from the initial identification of the actual cultural aspect, a “cut” of the phenomenon or process being studied, through the analysis of cultural factors of the emergence and development of the problem under study to the construction of a scientifically (= culturally) based model of activity containing an assessment and justification of the possibility of “working” with these factors - their strengthening , destruction, etc. - for permissions this problem. Thus, the goal orientation here is not so much obtaining a result in the form of a description of a set of operations, methods, techniques that ensure appropriate practice (this is a “technological projection” of scientific research), but rather reaching a model (specific, tied to the social “here and now” ), containing a cultural description/explanation of the problem areas of the phenomenon under study and possible “points of growth”, and more often - “points of transformation”, in accordance with social demand, order, prescription - in a word, with the set practical task.
Let us consider in more detail the features of applied cultural studies in relation to other blocks of this science, but first we will briefly dwell on the existing interpretations of the very concept of “applied cultural studies”.
Applied cultural studies: multiplicity of interpretations
The development of applied cultural studies, as a special vector of knowledge of culture and as a block of knowledge about it, resulting from this process, is represented by several, far unequal in volume, groups of domestic publications. The first group consists of very few special works devoted to the basic characteristics of this scientific field, its methodological foundations, structural, functional features and other scientific and disciplinary attributes. Here it is necessary to name such names as, etc. The second group is a significantly more extensive, as already mentioned, array of publications representing multi-subject and multi-genre applied cultural studies. Another group is various kinds of general cultural studies, which in one way or another touch on the question of the structure of cultural knowledge and, within this framework, express an understanding of what the applied component of this science is. Finally, there is a significant arsenal of educational literature on the discipline “Cultural Studies”, where, as a rule, the problems of applied cultural studies are either not presented at all or are mentioned in an extremely meager volume.
Without dwelling here on the features of these groups of publications, we will only note that in each of them there is (naturally, with varying degrees of reflexivity and explicitness) a certain interpretation of what is meant by applied cultural studies, a certain set of topics and problems that, in the opinion of the authors, correspond to this block of cultural knowledge. In order to at least to some extent imagine the diversity of approaches, we will highlight some of the most typical interpretations.
One of the most common is the identification of applied cultural studies with the development of problems of cultural policy and issues of sociocultural design. As noted, for example, in the work, the key problem of applied cultural studies is the solution of a set of questions about what parameters of sociocultural processes need forecasting, design and management regulation, what goals should be pursued, what methods and means to use, what types of cultural objects and cultural processes should be selected as managed, at what level and at what stage this management should be carried out.
Another emphasis present in a number of works related to applied cultural studies is the identification of such a feature as the focus of this field on creating a favorable environment for introducing a person to the achievements of world and domestic culture.
One of the most persistent interpretations of applied cultural studies is the understanding of this field as the totality of a whole variety of sociocultural practices. In this case, in essence, there is a reduction in a certain level scientific knowledge to the content of direct practical activity (most often, to its certain types - cultural-educational, cultural-educational, cultural-managerial, etc.). As before, this approach is present not only in publications and speeches at conferences, but also finds its “objectification” in situations of new designation of often traditional types of professional activities related to the sphere of culture: for example, you can often hear about a practicing culturologist (then there is a representative of that same applied cultural studies), who in fact turns out to be a cultural and educational worker (nowadays often an animator), an instructor-organizer in the field of leisure, an employee of the department (department) of culture in one or another government, corporate structure, etc. Found in publications and is: a person who applies scientific knowledge in practice is a bearer of applied cultural studies.
Another fairly common thesis: if the research is aimed at studying one or another type of sociocultural practices- then this is already sufficient reason to classify it as “applied”. I think that the incorrectness of such a statement is obvious to any specialist, at least due to his familiarity with, say, serious fundamental philosophical works devoted to issues of practice, and today’s cultural and philosophical thought is actively working in this area . Therefore, the common identification of any study practices(by object) with applied(by nature) section of knowledge, at least, completely unfounded. Of course, this cultural-philosophical level of understanding various types of sociocultural practice is extremely important as a methodological foundation for subsequent transformational steps that ensure that knowledge acquires an applied nature, however, the presence of the word “practice” in the initial description of the object of study is clearly not enough for such a transition.
Reviewing the variety of applied research presented in the cultural literature, one can note a gradual change in thematic trends. In the first half of the 1990s, as already noted, works devoted to issues of socio-cultural work and cultural policy predominated. Along with a huge number of other publications related to these topics, a kind of “collected essays” on this topic is the long-term periodical publication of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation “Guidelines for Cultural Policy.” Cultural policy today remains one of the priority areas in applied cultural studies - undoubtedly, due, first of all, to its high social demand. As for socio-cultural activities, obviously this phrase gradually lost its attractiveness for applied researchers, increasingly focusing on such subject fields as mass media, visual culture, creative industries, cultural management, intercultural interactions, etc. Although, we note that often behind research titles that sound modern and fashionable, there is a traditional (in approach and subject of study) vector of analysis hidden. This is probably explained, on the one hand, by the preservation of many established types of socio-cultural activities in society, and on the other, by the difficulties real(and not the “title”, nominal) research entry into new cultural practices, little studied in domestic science and insufficiently analytically represented in translated literature.
Specifics of applied cultural studies in the context of integrative cultural knowledge
As noted at the beginning, the obvious, self-evident, simplest and most widespread understanding of applied science as use of knowledge on practice. However, to what extent does such a definition fit with the interpretation of applied cultural studies as one of the sections Sciences cultural studies, along with theoretical and historical-cultural studies? We emphasize: cultural logy, that is, knowledge, concepts, teachings about culture. Purely functional definition of applied cultural studies, identifying it only with the process use knowledge, in fact, brings it out behind the framework of the scientific space itself, and in this case there is no reason to consider applied cultural studies as component science of cultural studies.
At the same time, it is obvious that without emphasizing this functional vector, without exit beyond the borders of the scientific process itself, which is inherently oriented not towards application, but towards the increment of knowledge, it is impossible to describe the specifics applied Sciences. In comparison with other components of the science of cultural studies, this specificity is evidently manifested in border character applied cultural studies, which, in turn, is associated with the peculiarities of the process of generating this knowledge itself, namely, with the transformation of theoretical conceptual cultural knowledge in theoretical -technological model. This model should include (in removed form) both the initial theoretical construct of the phenomenon (process, situation) being studied and the associated basic scenario, an action strategy adequate to the real/hypothetical problem situation that acts as a “challenge” for science. from the side of social practice. In this regard, to this level of knowledge about culture, one can, with all the conventions, apply the already established (in another context) term « glocal» , describing in this case the integration glo ball (cultural knowledge) and lo cal(specifically problematic request).
Located between the “theoretical hammer” and the “practice anvil,” the conceptual-technological model cannot be a simple description of technologies, techniques, and operations as such; This is, albeit a special, but still a block of scientific knowledge, correlated not only with the “external” space for the science of cultural studies (in its functional parameters), but also with its “internal” content (from the point of view of structural subordination). The actual sociocultural technologies and action procedures that are then formed on this basis are the next step, carried out using the results of scientific knowledge, but already beyond its boundaries. Understanding applied humanities scholars as those who translate ideas into technologies is directly related to this “exit” procedure, which conventionally includes both the vector of movement “science of cultural studies → applied cultural analysis” (the sphere of responsibility of applied researchers), and the vector “applied cultural analysis → sociocultural technologies”, where there is space for self-realization of applied technologists. Whether this can be successfully combined “in one person” is a separate question, and not only scientific.
Determining the specifics of applied cultural knowledge is complicated by the often quite widespread confusion of such characteristics of knowledge as “fundamental” and “theoretical”, “applied” and “empirical”.
As is known, the distinction theoretical And empirical- this is the identification of the characteristics of each of levels knowledge determined by such characteristics as the sources of its formation, genesis, methods of construction, the degree of generalization of knowledge, the level of its systematization, etc.
When is the task to correlate fundamental And applied knowledge, then the criterion fundamentally significant for distinguishing them is, first of all, the nature of the tasks, which are/should be decided within the framework of scientific and cognitive activity (from which, undoubtedly, differences in the means of achieving them follow). In the case of focusing on fundamentality, the problem of development, deepening, increment is solved knowledge itself as such; this, so to speak, is knowledge for the sake of knowledge (which, naturally, does not prohibit the subsequent use of this knowledge for purposes that lie beyond the boundaries of cognitive tasks proper). In relation to cultural knowledge, the fundamental theoretical level is the development of the theory of culture, deepening knowledge about its essence, morphological characteristics, patterns and mechanisms of the genesis and dynamics of culture, the construction of explanatory models in relation to individual components of the cultural space, etc. This is the process of obtaining new knowledge about culture as a whole and about its individual components; this increment is theoretical generalized knowledge about cultural phenomena and processes as such. The object of fundamental theoretical knowledge here is culture itself (in whatever interpretation it is accepted), and its goal is to expand, deepen, and change the very knowledge about this object. Usually, engine, stimulator of this type of cognition is the very logic of the scientific-cognitive process, leading to the next unknown, weakly/insufficiently known, which gives rise to the need to build missing explanatory schemes , conceptual generalizations, etc. Of course, in cultural studies one cannot discount such an engine of progress as the inescapable interest of the cognizing subject. To what extent and how the above-mentioned levels of knowledge (theoretical and empirical) will be used to achieve the main goal is a separate question located on a completely different plane.
The nature of goal orientation is, we repeat, the key basis for designating the demarcation line between fundamental and applied cultural studies. As for the correlation theoretical and applied, then the situation here is different: for solving problems of an applied nature, theoretical knowledge is no less important than the empirical database, and therefore the theoretical block fully and even necessarily enters into the structure of applied analysis (and does not oppose it). The main task of applied cultural knowledge is scientific and strategic support for practice solving real social problems , which is based on the effective use of existing theoretical knowledge about cultural factors, mechanisms, patterns. We emphasize once again: despite the pragmatic orientation of applied cultural studies, it is by no means identical to the practical activity itself or its methodological support; its purpose is to provide scientific basis for practical action.
The motor, the stimulator of this type of research activity is the needs of social practice, its request or direct social order. Of such kind " external» orientation creates a different understanding object applied cultural analysis (as opposed to fundamental) is not necessarily those areas, processes, phenomena that are designated as cultural phenomena. The object, depending on the task, can be any social phenomenon or process, practical work with which requires understanding and taking into account cultural factors, mechanisms of influence, assessment from the point of view of cultural conformity, etc. (later this issue will be discussed in more detail). Of course, in the process of applied research it can also eventually take place increment cultural knowledge (through analysis and comprehension of new facts, phenomena, a new “look” at known facts, etc.), however, this task is not immanent for applied research.
Applied cultural studies and applied cultural studies
The characteristics of applied cultural studies discussed above relate, as has been emphasized more than once during the analysis, to its definition as a special component in the structure of cultural knowledge as a whole. These characteristics allow us to talk about the features of this block of knowledge in relation to other blocks integrated under the general name “Culturology”. However, when moving from describing the status and specifics of applied cultural studies in this scientific and disciplinary context to the consideration of individual research vectors in this area, to the implementation of the declared general principles in the context of individual applied cultural studies(for brevity, we will further denote them as “PKI”), there is a need to clarify and clarify some other issues related specifically to this level of analysis. And although the subsequent sections of this publication are a cumulative, detailed answer to these questions, nevertheless, prior to getting acquainted with it in the context of methodological canons and individual subject fields that are significant for PKI, we will consider some positions that are essential for understanding the features of cultural studies work at this stage analysis.
Theoretical and conceptual foundations and specifics of the study
One of the questions that inevitably arises when forming a research program is what theoretical, conceptual framework to choose as a starting point? It is clear that today under the name “theory of culture” a rather motley and multi-genre conceptual mosaic is presented. On the one hand, the multiplicity of interpretations of culture is due to scientific and disciplinary differentiation (cultural-philosophical, cultural-anthropological, cultural-psychological and other approaches). On the other hand, within each discipline, more or less connected with the comprehension of culture, there is considerable diversity between schools, traditions, and methodological foundations that determine the nature and result of this comprehension.
I will note in passing that the diversity of concepts and approaches is not necessarily a sign of “fuzzy”, uncertainty of the content of the science itself (which can sometimes be heard in discussions about the rights of the science of cultural studies), and not necessarily a sign of its inferiority, which is also a no-no, yes mentioned. Without entering into a discussion of this scientific aspect here, we note what seems obvious to us: the diversity of approaches to culture in the theoretical and methodological sense (axiological, sign-symbolic, institutional, etc.) is inevitable due to the branching of the tree of social and humanitarian research paradigms , and due to the multi-diversity of what is meant by the phenomenon of culture in modern science. The first and second circumstances are undoubtedly in direct relationship, however, this is a subject for separate consideration.
What is important for us is that the presence of a rich theoretical and conceptual palette is a kind of barrier that a researcher must overcome every time, moving from thinking about the diversity of interpretations of culture to the formation of strategy and tactics specific applied research. From all this rich, generalizing cultural knowledge, it is important to choose the paradigm within which specific research problems can be most effectively solved. Naturally, there is no universal advice for such a selection - in each case, practical target orientations, the nature of the factual base and other factors will influence the “cutting off of the superfluous” and the emphasis on the spatially adequate “conceptual proposals” known to the research specialist. However, it is obvious that not all scientific and disciplinary approaches to understanding culture can “work” in the field of applied cultural studies. Let's say, a widespread understanding of culture as a world of artifacts, a space of existence artificially created by man. Significant at level philosophy culture, this concept is poorly suited for specific analysis of a specific phenomenon within a single study. And, say, the sign-symbolic concept of culture in many cases, almost directly, can become the methodological basis of a very specific analysis, if this approach allows us to solve the problems contained in it. In this sense, the choice of “supports” is not so much a search for true knowledge (which, of course, cannot be canceled), but a choice - from this true knowledge - that is “convenient” to use, heuristic for applied analysis. An empty debate - which of the concepts of culture is better, more correct in general. Both symbolic, and axiological, and other, sufficiently substantiated, concepts of culture are equally important and necessary; It is my right and even duty, as a researcher, to choose, in accordance with the task and goal being solved, the concept of culture that will actually work. For example, when we talk about studying the cultural foundations of a particular social practice (more on this below), then the productivity of, say, regulatory concept a culture that focuses on identifying the value-normative “underlying” that determines the significant characteristics of activities of any profile.
Unfortunately, often the author, when describing the methodological foundations of a particular study (presented in publications, dissertations, manuals), without special selective efforts, lists, separated by commas, all the approaches to understanding culture known to him as a basis for his own, quite private, limited to a specific subject field and tasks, analysis. Of course, one can agree with the classic: “there is no such thing as too much knowledge,” and everything a specialist has is his real capital, which will come in handy someday, somewhere. However, the inability to manage this capital, in this case - to form and justify a theoretical and methodological basis for a specific case, certain research goals, is essentially identical to its absence as a real navigator in the formation of strategy and tactics of analysis.
Skill operate knowledge, that is, to select from the available what is required “here and now”, as is known, is the most important indicator of real professionalism, which seriously distinguishes such a specialist from simply a “carrier” of information. In this regard, the transition to a specific applied level of cultural analysis from the level of knowledge of concepts and concepts is not a reduction “from complex to simple,” as it may sometimes seem, but the complex and creative work of a “border guard” specialist (which has already been discussed ), which in essence should be a two-faced Janus, but not only the “looker”, but also the whole“seeing” what is needed both in the theoretical and practical horizons of research.
Directions and thematization of applied cultural studies
Determining the possible thematic range of PKI, the main vectors and directions of their development is directly related (again!) to more general, fundamental premises - with a certain understanding of not only the specifics of cultural studies as a science, but also with the interpretation of the basic term “culture”, to a large extent to the extent that it specifies this specificity. Let us consider some models of this kind of coupling and its consequences.
One of the established and even, one might say, rooted options for interpreting culture is what can be described as its identification with a certain sphere social life. Adoption " spheral" approach involves isolating from the entire totality of social practices those that can/should be called “cultural practices,” and their totality precisely forms the field of culture. As a rule, such practices include everything related to the so-called. “spiritual life” - various types of artistic creativity (traditionally, only one of them is art, although in a considerable number of its varieties); museum and library activities; religious practice. Without entering into a discussion of the very vague content of the term “spiritual life”, and the many questions that inevitably arise with such a separation of the “cultural area” from the social space, we emphasize here only one position - what does this mean from the point of view of the formation topics cultural studies? It is obvious that the thematic boundaries of the space legitimized in this way are set by the list of those types of activities that are recognized as “cultural”, in contrast to all other types of social practices, which, if we follow this logic, should be considered as Not cultural or outside cultural. In this case, economics, politics, ecology, and so on and so forth remain outside the scope of cultural analysis... in short, the entire diverse set of other types of social practices that do not fit into the given parameters of “culturality.” Along with the difficulties in justifying the criteria for such selection, problems are also inevitable when working with such concepts as, for example, “economic culture”, “ecological culture”, etc., unless, of course, one uses the widespread and scientifically illegitimate identification of these terms corresponding to “economy”, “ecology”, etc.
Another model (which is precisely what this publication is aimed at) is based on an understanding of culture not as a special area, allocated from social space, but as a special “slice” of this space, including, first of all, value-normative (regulatory) and sign-symbolic (representational) systems of social practices. “Meeting” of the ideational, normative, that is, cultural-a formative, regulatory principle with real social practice (which, in accordance with this principle and through the corresponding sign-symbolic system, is organized, ordered, limited, formalized, that is, becomes cultural- consistent), and provides grounds for considering both this practice itself and its results as cultural phenomena.
Recognition of culture not as a private, local phenomenon, but, above all, as a general regulatory sphere in relation to any form of human activity; system of norms, values, samples that determine the direction of development, which are significant and are symbolically revealed in each of the social practices(and not only in the field of special, “spiritual” types of activity) - this approach is logically projected onto a fundamentally different understanding of the topics of cultural studies in general and applied ones in particular. Firstly, with such a conceptual message, CRPs should be included in the thematic space any social practices - economic, political, legal, artistic, religious, etc. - as real and potential objects of study. The culturological nature of their consideration - and this, secondly - is determined angle of view on these practices or their components (depending on the purpose and objectives), the prism through which the cultural scientist looks at these objects. To distinguish between cultural studies and other sciences, what really matters is not what I study, but how I study. In this sense, to the question that is sometimes asked during discussions about the boundaries of cultural studies: “So, a cultural scientist is not someone who studies phenomena culture?!", the answer suggests itself: "This is the one who studies culturalcomponent any social phenomena and processes, including those related to cultural phenomena.” If I study, for example, economic activity, but precisely from the point of view of its regulatory and axiological foundations, identifying the nature of the influence of cultural traditions and stereotypes on it, analyzing the features of the symbolic series used, the mechanisms of mythologization in the field of economic consciousness of the population and the role of this factor for economic development a certain cultural era, etc., then I work as a cultural scientist studying economics, and not at all as an economist.
On the other hand, it is well known that a researcher who studies culture, individual cultural phenomena and processes is not always and not necessarily a culturologist, if we talk about the specifics of scientific analysis, and not about the presence of a “cultural object.” For example, when studying a cultural field (for example, libraries, theaters, etc.), an economist highlights his aspects, “slices” (let’s remember about the economics of culture); psychologist, ethnologist, etc., without at all turning into cultural scientists simply because they turn their research interest to an object from the field of culture.
Thus, we emphasize once again that the “sphere of competence” of applied cultural studies is not any particular type or even a specific group of types of sociocultural practice (which is most often presented in a few works called “Applied cultural studies”), but any the type or area of activity in which a problem situation has arisen/is being formed, the way out of which involves an analysis of cultural factors and components that are significant for it, and on this basis, the development of an appropriate program of action using cultural mechanisms, culturally determined “growth points.”
In passing, I will note one more detail, perhaps not so significant, but which seems to be important in the situation of real applied work. A cultural analysis of a problem situation is almost always only one of a component of complex research, the inevitable interdisciplinarity of which is due to the objective complexity and versatility of any sociocultural process or situation. Therefore, as a rule, the justification of the cultural component in the process of building a model of possible scenarios (development, transformation, promotion, etc.) is only some mite, the effective use of which is ensured its conjugacy with “contributions” from allied scientists - economists, psychologists, ethnologists, etc., depending on the area of study. This remark is generated by a statement of the problem that is often found in texts and a description of the practical significance of the study along the lines of: “the cultural analysis carried out makes it possible to establish.., and thereby solve...”. As a rule, this kind of romantic passages are either purely speculative constructions born at a desk, or the researcher’s unpreparedness to reflect on what is happening in his own real practice of interaction with those same allies, which seriously lowers the bar of significance and the actual cultural analysis in the context real practical movements.
When applying the term “interdisciplinarity” to PCI, it is necessary to clarify that, in our opinion, it relates specifically to everyone specific cultural research, and not to cultural studies (including in its applied vector) in general. This needs to be emphasized, since it is extremely common to describe the science of cultural studies as interdisciplinary, which is supposedly its specificity, in contrast to the “disciplinary” clear history, philology, etc. At the same time, as a rule, the “interdisciplinarity” of cultural studies is equated is listed separated by commas as equivalent, with the generally accepted characteristic of cultural studies as an integrative science. In our opinion, such an identification is completely unlawful, but, unfortunately, obvious confusion has arisen in the use of these terms in relation to cultural knowledge. If we look at this in the most general sense, we can formulate the position as follows: sign integrativeness refers to cultural knowledge as such, and interdisciplinarity is a characteristic that defines a specific type of scientific research.
Due to the circumstances already discussed more than once, cultural studies grew from different roots and, naturally, absorbed much of what was accumulated in the relevant fields of science. Of such kind integrativeness by birth does not mean at all that, having gone through a certain path of development, having acquired its “structural-crystalline lattice”, institutional status and other scientific attributes, the science of cultural studies should continue to retain the “birthmark” of multidisciplinary origin, expressed in its location "between" various "normal" sciences. In fact, such “nomadic” knowledge, which is not rooted in its niche and does not have the characteristics of an independent scientific discipline, is not a scientific discipline at all. Note that if we approach the issue of integrativity/interdisciplinarity in this way, then we will find few sciences that were not a product of differentiation of scientific knowledge, were not, say, in the process of formation, in a situation of close interaction and mutual influence with related fields. And in this sense, integrativeness is a completely understandable and justified characteristic (although, note, its interpretations in cultural studies literature are also ambiguous, but in this case we leave this without special consideration).
When we are not talking about the science of cultural studies as a whole, but go down to the level of specific PCIs, then the concept of interdisciplinarity works perfectly here, suggesting the creation of a model of the phenomenon being studied that reflects its characteristics as fully as possible, and therefore includes the results of multidisciplinary sociocultural analysis (naturally, if this is required tasks).
In a huge number of cases, undoubtedly, the full-scale research is ensured precisely by the principle of interdisciplinarity - be it issues of the functioning of mass culture, intercultural interactions, modern mass media and many, many other problem areas of research. It is obvious that related knowledge provided by specialists in the field of social psychology (say, about the characteristics, mechanisms of perception of certain phenomena by representatives of certain groups - teenagers, people of the “third age”, etc.); sociology (say, social group structure in the region being studied, the basis and typology of social differentiation, etc.); ethnology, etc. Considering the multifactorial nature of almost any sociocultural phenomenon, its specific study , to one degree or another, must be interdisciplinary. I repeat that this is completely different from the statement about between the disciplinary nature of the science of cultural studies as such.
Let us note at the same time that it is hardly worth fetishizing the principle of interdisciplinarity (we will refer here to the position of T. Benet), who, considering the problem of interdisciplinarity in relation to one of the types of applied cultural studies (“cultural studies”), emphasizes that, despite all the significance of this principle, its overestimation leads to the construction of “termite mounds” that rise above disciplinary boundaries and pretend to absorb individual research areas within the social and human sciences.
Applied cultural studies: searching for a common “denominator”
The construction of applied cultural research, if the attributes proposed above are adopted, first of all, presupposes identifying cultural grounds the process, phenomenon, social situation to be analyzed; cultural factors, significant for the problem field under consideration; degree assessment cultural conformity of one or another practice being studied (political, environmental, educational, health-preserving, informational, recreational, etc.). In total, this, we repeat, allows us to identify (hereinafter - analyze, predict, design) those culturally significant circumstances that an applied cultural scientist needs to clarify in order to involve them in the intended practical activity.
Obviously, in each individual case, the development of a conceptual scheme of an object is carried out taking into account many specific circumstances: goals, objectives, the intended/requested empirical-referential base, the social “here and now” context of the study, etc. However, with all the particulars and clarifications, the initial the model of the analyzed phenomenon must be based on developments that provide cultural(in this case, with an emphasis on cultural factors and foundations) V And denition that type of social practice, that class of social phenomena to which the actual subject of analysis can be classified.
Since, as noted more than once above, we consider applied cultural studies as a problematic field All social space, and not some of its individual zones, then the development of the conceptual and methodological base of PKI, objectively multi-subject and multi-genre, assumes, in our opinion, as one of the tasks, the formation of a kind of compendium containing a description cultural models of all main types of social practice. Models that are maximally adequate for their subsequent transformation and use for applied purposes, as discussed above. The desire to realize this goal dictated, among other things, the preparation of this publication, as well as some previous works. However, for now this is undoubtedly only a partially traveled path.
The formation of this kind of directory involves, among other things, a certain structuring of diverse types of social practice based on their typology. It is obvious that in reality we can only talk about cultural models of this or that type of social practice, containing a description of potentially/actually significant points of cultural conditioning, cultural conformity, etc., with subsequent specific differentiation within each type (for example, a managerial type of activity, including political practice, management, etc.).
The construction of typologies, as is known, can be carried out on various grounds, focusing on various marker criteria. One of the options that we use in research and educational practice (in particular, within the framework of studying the discipline “Applied Cultural Studies”) is the allocation of blocks, based on target characteristics various types of activities.
Based on this basis, we can distinguish such groups of sociocultural practices as organizational and managerial(including political, including cultural policy; management, etc.); life-sustaining(economic and entrepreneurial, environmental, healthcare, hygienic, etc. .); communicative(the entire field of information practices, intercultural interactions, etc.); socialization-translational(education, upbringing, inculturation technologies, etc.); creative(including all types of creativity - artistic, scientific, innovation, etc.); leisure and recreational ( entertainment of various kinds, tourism, fitness and much more). Realizing the undoubted conventionality of this kind of division, as of any systematization, we note, as an example, the quite useful use of this simple structure in constructing a thesaurus for the bibliographic index “Applied Cultural Studies in the Context of Scientific Knowledge” (2003), prepared at the Russian Institute of Cultural Studies. Considering the need to combine and correlate thematically heterogeneous and diverse studies in such classification systems, fairly obvious and easy-to-use markers turn out to be in actual demand, and not just supposedly useful.
Of course, such systematization is essentially just a starting point for the subsequent formation of a kind of matrix, which will reflect the existence of each of the types/activities at the ordinary and specialized levels; and the “overlapping” circles in the typology will be presented more accurately (and subtly) - after all, depending on specific tasks, this or that type of activity can be classified into different typological groups. For example, socialization elements are woven into many other practices, the target orientation of which is not the socialization of the individual. However, depending on the goals (namely applied!) research, say, sport can rightfully be considered as a practice of socialization in the modern world. Significant discrepancies are also obvious in relation to certain types of practice, if we take into account, for example, the subject of this activity. Let's say, the same sport for a professional player is a life support practice, and for a sports fan it is a leisure and recreational activity. And the number of such “ambiguities” undoubtedly constantly increases with the transition from a simple division of practices based on the sign of their goal orientation, described above, to a multidimensional matrix close to social reality.
However, recognizing the obvious difficulties, as well as the existence of pitfalls, in the process of implementing this idea, it still seems useful for achieving a more clear, structured, and therefore useful field of applied cultural studies itself.
See, for example, Benett T. Towards a Pragmatics for Cultural Studies // Cultural Methodologies / J. McGuigan (Ed.). L., 1997. P. 42-62; Relocating Cultural Studies: Developments in Theory and Research / V. Blundel, J. Shepherd, I. Taylor (Eds.) L., 1993; Modern strategies of cultural studies: Tr. Institute of Europe. crops Vol. 1. M., 2000.
See, for example, Culturology in the system of sciences and education. Annotation bibliogr. decree. / Ed. ; comp. . M., 2000; Applied cultural studies in the context of scientific knowledge. Bibliography index / Comp. . M., 2003, etc.
Having retained only specialty 03 in the same formulation, the authors decided to combine theory And history culture in single scientific (!) specialty 24.00.01. - a step, I dare say, absolutely scientifically unfounded, since the same code includes scientific research that, by definition, differs in goals, methods, etc., although they have the same object of study - culture. But according to this logic, all the sciences aimed at studying culture could be included in one line - and, as you know, there are more than a dozen of them. And the formulations “history of culture” and “historical culturology” are far from identical (for more details, see Minenko’s methodological definition of historical culturology // Culturology in theoretical and applied dimensions. M., Kemerovo, 2001. pp. 8-16; Akopyan of historical culturology as a scientific discipline // Culturology: from the past to the future. M., 2002. pp. 189-201; Flier for culturologists, M., 2002, as well as brilliant examples of historical and cultural studies). Perhaps this is not so significant for ordinary consciousness, but it is not very adequate to the status scientifically-organizational document.
Let us note that applied cultural studies is not always indicated “head-on” in the titles of the works of these authors (this is also a question of the gradual entry of the term into scientific circulation); the content and subjectivity of the research they conducted is more significant.
This situation is most regrettable, since the effectiveness of studying and mastering the material of the disciplines of the social and humanitarian block depends, among other things, on the ability to profile them in accordance with the characteristics of students’ professional training. Applied cultural studies, in this regard, provides wonderful opportunities for “playing out” many cultural topics in a subject field that is close to future technicians, doctors, ecologists, etc.
Erasov cultural studies. M., 2003.
Volkov V., Kharkhordin O. Theory of practice. St. Petersburg, 2008.
We will not specifically dwell here on the well-known position that fundamental knowledge is ultimately theoretical knowledge.
For more details on this, see, for example, Fundamentals of Cultural Studies / Ed. . M., 2005. section. 1; Bykhovskaya experiments. M., 1996. P. 7-45.
The term “cultural” here and in other cultural texts, as is known, does not have an evaluative-positive character (like a “cultured person”), but a neutral statement of belonging to a culture in the meaning described above. The often noted semantic ambivalence and overload of this concept in the Russian language have not given rise to any adequate solution. True, a number of authors use the term “cultural” to get out of the situation (see, for example, Cultural studies. Vol. 8. SPb., M., 2006), however, it has not acquired sustainable and generally accepted use in the scientific community.
For example: City of Entertainment: Observations, Analyzes, Stories / Ed. . St. Petersburg, 2007; Mass culture and mass art. "Pros and cons". M., 2003; Baudrillard J. Consumption Society. M., 2006, etc.
Culture "one's own" and "alien". Proceedings of the International Internet Conference / Ed. , . M., 2003, etc.
Bourdieu P. About television and journalism. M., 2002; Leisure, creativity, media culture. Omsk, 2005; Luhmann N. The reality of mass media. M., 2005; Electronic culture and screen creativity / Ed. . M., 2006, etc.
Benett T . Towards a Pragmatics for Cultural Studies // Cultural Methodologies / J. McGuigan (Ed.). L., 1997. P. 44.
Interesting examples of the use of the “evaluative approach” are provided not only by research, but also by real-social space: for example, in Iran there is an Expediency Council (an advisory body under the country’s top leader). It would probably be quite reasonable to have Tips on cultural conformity in each social community, which would be the most important field of application and area of responsibility of applied cultural studies.
For example, Fundamentals of Cultural Studies / Ed. . M., 2005.
Intercultural interactions mean, of course, the interactions not only of different ethnic cultures (the most established, widespread interpretation), but also of cultures (subcultures) that differ in other characteristics: gender, age, socio-territorial, etc. For more details, see, for example, Culture "one's own" and "alien". Proceedings of the International Internet Conference / Ed. , . M., 2003.
Lecture 2. Structure and composition of modern cultural knowledge
History covers the origin and formation of culture, different historical eras of its development. Unlike cultural history, which is based on the principle of retrospection, cultural studies deals not with specific facts, but with identifying the patterns of their occurrence and understanding the very principles of cultural development.
Cultural studies can be structured according to specific goals, subject areas and levels of knowledge and generalization. Here, first of all, there is a division of cultural studies into:
· fundamental, studying culture for the purpose of theoretical and historical knowledge of this phenomenon, developing a categorical apparatus and research methods, etc.;
· applied, focused on the use of fundamental knowledge about culture for the purpose of forecasting, designing and regulating current cultural processes, and developing special technologies for transmitting cultural experience.
Fundamental cultural studies, in turn, can be divided into the following sections:
1. ontology of culture (definition and social functions of culture);
2. epistemology of culture (internal structure and methodology);
3. morphology of culture (structure);
4. semantics (symbols, signs, images, languages, texts);
5. anthropology (man as a producer and consumer of culture);
6. sociology (social stratification of culture);
7. social dynamics (genesis, change in basic types).
Applied cultural studies performs several practical tasks related to forecasting and regulating current cultural processes, developing the main directions of cultural policy:
· functioning of cultural institutions ( example: reform of the Russian language);
· tasks of sociocultural interaction ( example: interethnic relations in Russia and the USA);
· protection and use of cultural heritage ( example: transfer of cathedrals and monasteries to the Orthodox Church).
· explores the organization and technologies of cultural life of society, the activities of cultural institutions.
2. The structure of modern cultural studies. Speaking about the structure of modern cultural studies, we can also highlight the following structural parts: theory of culture, history of culture, philosophy of culture, sociology of culture.
On the one hand, all of them, in a certain sense, exist as independent disciplines, interacting with a number of other scientific disciplines, relying on their factual material, research methods, as well as approaches developed in them and tested in practice and history. On the other hand, they naturally constitute an integral system of knowledge of cultural studies, which organically connects their ways and methods of cognition of cultural phenomena, their characteristic approaches to considering the origin and cultural specificity of them.
Cultural theory First of all, it introduces the range of problems of cultural studies and gives an idea of its conceptual apparatus. She studies the content and development of basic cultural categories, general issues of determining cultural norms, traditions, etc. criteria are being developed for understanding cultural phenomena, including those that arise for the first time and do not have a historical tradition of interpretation. The theory of culture explores the theoretical problems of the specific existence of culture in society in the diversity of its manifestations,
Thus, we see that cultural studies in its section of theory culture studies cultural phenomena and the phenomenon of culture itself, firstly, in the unity and integrity of the cultural space as such, its structure and content, in the laws of its own internal life; secondly, in the relationship of the cultural phenomenon with man and the world. For this purpose, special categories and concepts are developed and used, in which the complex content of cultural phenomena, their development and change is recorded, and this is done in ways, methods and means inherent in cultural studies.
The real process of continuity of cultural development of different eras, countries and peoples is the focus of cultural history. The history of culture forms knowledge about cultural heritage, searches and discoveries, monuments of material and spiritual culture, values and standards of life; explores the origins of cultural phenomena and the processes of their spread. Cultural history covers the origin and formation of culture, different historical eras of its development and their inherent ways of reading the content of culture and understanding cultural ideals and values (for example, beauty, truth, etc.).
The history of culture allows us to see the continuity of cultural forms and the new content that is introduced by the development of the cultural context, cultural realities and relationships. The history of culture helps to understand the origins of the formation of modern cultural phenomena and problems, trace their causes, and identify their forerunners and inspirers. It is the history of culture that allows us to see the entire culture as a continuous process in which a person gradually humanizes himself and the whole world, and at the same time see culture itself as the embodiment of the development of certain historical patterns and as a kind of integrity that has its own internal laws and logic of development . It is the cultural-historical approach that makes it possible to identify and analyze the dynamics of a cultural movement, the spiritual community of people, and to identify trends in the development of cultural phenomena and entire cultures.
This manual is intended for students of humanities. The structure, composition and methods of cultural knowledge, the relationship of cultural studies with other sciences, and various approaches to the study of cultural heritage are examined in detail. The manual can be used as additional material when preparing for exams in the disciplines “Theory of Culture”, “History of Culture”, “Culturology”, “Culture of Russia”. Designed for a wide range of readers.
* * *
The given introductory fragment of the book Culturology. Textbook for universities (N. I. Shelnova, 2009) provided by our book partner - the company liters.
Topic 4. Fundamental and applied cultural studies
1. Structure of cultural knowledge
In cultural studies, as in most other sciences, it is customary to distinguish two “wings”: fundamental and applied. The goal of fundamental cultural studies is the study of cultural processes and phenomena that arise and function primarily spontaneously, based on the general patterns of the flow of sociocultural life of people.
At its fundamental level, cultural studies studies:
1) culture at the historical and theoretical level;
3) the functioning of cultural phenomena in society.
Applied cultural studies studies, plans and develops methods for purposeful forecasting and management of sociocultural processes within the framework of state, social and cultural policies implemented by specialized cultural institutions and public organizations.
The applied level of cultural studies is focused on the use of fundamental knowledge about culture for the purposes of:
1) forecasting and regulating current cultural processes;
2) development of social technologies for broadcasting cultural experience and mechanisms for achieving a certain level of development of certain forms of sociocultural practice;
3) management and protection of culture, as well as cultural, educational, leisure and other work.
Areas of applied cultural studies can be sociocultural design, sociocultural policy, protection of cultural heritage, cultural aspects of social work and social participation, public relations, cultural aspects of management and work of organizations, image making, art business, advertising, cultural aspects of working with the electorate, organization of intercultural communications, etc. The famous domestic culturologist A. Flier proposes a slightly different division of cultural disciplines on a theoretical-empirical-practical basis. In his work “Culturology for Culturologists,” he distinguishes several sections.
1. Fundamental cultural studies, which is a field where philosophy and cultural theory are merged, exploring the most general patterns of the historical and social existence of a culture, and most importantly, forming its epistemology - a system of principles, methodologies and methods of cognition, systematization and analysis of the material being studied.
2. Anthropology, which studies the cultural existence of people at a level close to their everyday social practice, normative patterns of behavior and consciousness, direct psychological motivations, etc. In contrast to fundamental theory, anthropology (social, cultural, psychological and historical) in general tends to be more to the empirical, measurable level of knowledge. Its theoretical concepts are often used as the basis for the development of practical technologies for managing current sociocultural processes.
3. Applied cultural studies, which primarily deals with the direct development of technologies for the practical organization and regulation of cultural processes in society.
2. Applied cultural studies
In the last decade there has been an increase in interest in the practical side of cultural studies. Applied cultural studies is carried out in the form of socio-cultural activities. According to specialists from the Nevsky Institute of Culture, all over the world the specialty “culturologist” has turned from a research, theoretical one into a practical one, associated with direct participation in the activities of large and small organizations, firms, humanitarian foundations and movements. The enormous importance of cultural studies practitioners is most clearly seen in connection with the expansion of the field of international relations and the increase in foreign investment. Modern society requires a large number of top and middle managers who have the skills to implement cultural contacts and successfully implement Russian and international cultural projects in both government and commercial structures. A cultural practitioner implements his knowledge and skills in such areas as museums, tourism, and hotel management. A cultural scientist is also needed in international commercial, research and public organizations as a cultural consulting specialist in the development of applied cultural projects; in organizations involved in art business and show business as a developer and implementer of cultural projects; in commercial structures whose activities are related to intercultural contacts, in advertising and creative agencies, on television, etc. We must also not forget about the cultural-educational, cultural-organizational and cultural-educational areas of activity of a cultural specialist. A practicing culturologist not only has certain knowledge in such areas as the theory and history of culture and art; ethnopsychology and psychology of social groups; cultural map of the regions (Eastern Europe and CIS countries; Western Europe and America; Eastern region); fundamentals of marketing in the field of culture, management in the field of art and show business; management in excursion and tourism activities, cultural consulting: forms and methods, workshop on cultural consulting, communication technologies of the 20th century; international organizations and centers of intercultural communication, business cultures in international business; and etc.
Social and cultural activities require a specialist who also has practical management skills in the field of culture - in the field of art and show business, in excursion and tourism activities; practically applying knowledge of applied cultural consulting in the work of a consultant in companies with foreign investment and employees from different countries; fluent in a foreign language for oral and written communication; professionally uses a computer and has knowledge of Internet capabilities, conducting practical training on management in the field of culture; possessing the skills of developing cultural projects taking into account gender specifics, etc.
Special educational institutions, relevant departments and faculties of universities play a special role in providing society with practicing culturologists. Back in 1868, the Minister of Public Education A.V. Golovnin reported to Alexander II that Russian universities trained specialists only in one direction of art. He complained that there were no educational institutions whose graduates would involve various groups of the population in the world of culture, that is, would ensure the cultural policy of the state and individual regions.
For example, the research of M. A. Ariarsky and his school of applied cultural studies reveals the process of formation of the cultural environment, the patterns of human involvement in the world of culture and its practical development. Everything that Mark of Ariarsky does can be described as restoring the necessary link between culture and a specific person involved in socio-cultural activities.
Nowadays, applied cultural studies and socio-cultural activities are one of the most popular specialties. Today, many educational institutions, schools, educational and research centers, etc., are training specialists in this profile in our country.
Practical developments and activities in applied cultural studies and socio-cultural activities are conducted and implemented on the basis of more traditional departments of educational institutions of the country: philosophy, history, art history, etc.
The complex of cultural knowledge is used in the economic environment, to model market needs, in the marketing research system; in politics, for modeling the electorate, in the implementation of political programs.
Specialists of the Academy of Slavic Culture, in particular A.G. Klimov, believing that applied cultural studies exist everywhere, still classify cultural activity as a social branch, and therefore in applied cultural studies they distinguish two fundamental concepts - sociocultural practice and sociocultural design. Sociocultural practice is any form of activity manifested in a sociocultural system that affects the relationships and ability of people to live in that system.
Fundamental (or theoretical) culturology in the form of scientific knowledge serves for applied culturology as a certain structural basis, a modeling and regulating principle that creates new meanings and meanings. A person who applies scientific knowledge in practice is a bearer of applied cultural studies.
3. Interaction of theoretical and practical knowledge
Penetrating into people's consciousness in various ways, scientific (theoretical) cultural knowledge shapes the cultural environment in which a particular person lives and acts.
A. G. Klimov identifies several ways to disseminate scientific knowledge. The first way is ordinary consciousness, based on stereotypical attitudes towards science, depending on the level of awareness.
The second way is the technological environment. For example, when using electricity, we think about the mechanism of its occurrence and action and what effects it leads to, thus we penetrate to the level of scientific knowledge.
The third way is special popularization, which is most often expressed in the creation of popular science and educational magazines (“Science and Technology”, “Chemistry and Life”), reports, and information programs on television and radio.
However, the fourth way is considered to be the most powerful in terms of impact - sociocultural design. Depending on the declared goals and organizational means used by sociocultural projects, social design can be:
1) of a business nature: the means of a business organization are used. The goal is to make a profit, organize commercial social organizations;
2) political: development of legislation that will ensure transparency (lustration) of the activities of companies, access to cases conducted by intelligence services;
3) social: educational organizations, charity, healthcare, cat clinics. Business funds are used, but provide social functions;
4) cultural: institutions that develop cultural values. Dance, art, print media.
Sociocultural projects are focused on the development of cultural values and new value relations. New knowledge penetrates reality because it makes regulation the basis, determining the implementation of a sociocultural project.
One example of the creation and implementation of a sociocultural project is a project to support children's creativity - the St. Petersburg open competition of children's drawings and projects “The House I Want to Live In,” included in the program of events dedicated to the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg.
The project to support children's creativity "The House Where I Want to Live" is an open city-wide competition of children's drawings and projects on the theme of the city, its architecture and housing of the 21st century, which was held from November 2002 to May 2003. Participants could participate in it all children and adolescents from 7 to 17 years old.
The main idea of the competition organizers was to create a large-scale project on this topic, which would give all children of St. Petersburg the opportunity to express themselves creatively, openly express their idea of an ideal home and city, interesting not only to parents and teachers, but also to builders, to show their passion and imagination and the desire for creativity.
Tambov State University trains specialists in socio-cultural activities, the main directions and essence of which are determined by the following tasks:
1) resist the devaluation of culture, the “erosion” of criteria for assessing its values, and contribute to the preservation of the cultural continuity of generations;
2) ensure sociocultural protection of people’s right to access high examples of art, to satisfy their spiritual needs, and the right to personal cultural identity;
3) create conditions for meaningful and developing leisure time for the population, the realization of their right to art education and amateur creativity, and help improve the leisure culture of every person;
4) stimulate the development of public activity and initiative in the creation of various amateur groups in the field of leisure, provide amateur associations with competent and effective support and assistance;
5) implement a differentiated approach in working with different age and social groups of the population, including culturally advanced people, ensuring the realization of their intellectual, cultural and creative potential;
6) more effectively use in sociocultural work promising and popular forms and means of organizing leisure activities among the population, and in this capacity master the possibilities of screen arts and the main channels for their distribution.
Among the types of socio-cultural activity the following stand out:
1) functional (informational, educational and educational activities; organization of amateur creativity and amateur associations; organization of recreation and entertainment);
2) differentiated (organization of leisure for children and adolescents, youth, family leisure, leisure for middle-aged and elderly people).
Socio-cultural activities are always carried out in one form or another, i.e. in the form of a planned informational-educational, social-pedagogical, cultural-educational action aimed at any audience in order to convey certain information to a predetermined object and activate it creative potential.
“In its broadest form, a leisure program or form can be considered as a large, independent, complete socio-pedagogical, socio-cultural action, which is determined by social orders, reflects social reality and at the same time has a certain influence on it.”
Forms of socio-cultural activity are divided into:
1) mass (auctions, theatrical performances, festivals, Olympiads, holidays);
2) group (circles, amateur associations and interest clubs, debates, round tables, conferences);
3) individual (classes in clubs and sections, interactive computer games, consultations, conversations).
The choice of one or another form of socio-cultural activity, its development and implementation requires a certain responsibility, since each of them has some independence and can have both a positive and negative impact on the audience and others involved in the activity.
All socio-cultural work should be aimed at animating public mood, at developing positive thinking and constructive action, therefore many leisure technologies are included in an open information system, which provides free access to information through museums, libraries, houses of science and technology, etc. . P.
People need to be promptly informed about current events in the context of reforms and must have the opportunity to participate in discussion of problems and assessments, in the formation of informed public opinion, especially at the local level.
1. Structure of cultural knowledge
In cultural studies, as in most other sciences, it is customary to distinguish two “wings”: fundamental and applied. The goal of fundamental cultural studies is the study of cultural processes and phenomena that arise and function primarily spontaneously, based on the general patterns of the flow of sociocultural life of people.
At its fundamental level, cultural studies studies:
1) culture at the historical and theoretical level;
3) the functioning of cultural phenomena in society.
Applied cultural studies studies, plans and develops methods for purposeful forecasting and management of sociocultural processes within the framework of state, social and cultural policies implemented by specialized cultural institutions and public organizations.
The applied level of cultural studies is focused on the use of fundamental knowledge about culture for the purposes of:
1) forecasting and regulating current cultural processes;
2) development of social technologies for broadcasting cultural experience and mechanisms for achieving a certain level of development of certain forms of sociocultural practice;
3) management and protection of culture, as well as cultural, educational, leisure and other work.
Areas of applied cultural studies can be sociocultural design, sociocultural policy, protection of cultural heritage, cultural aspects of social work and social participation, public relations, cultural aspects of management and work of organizations, image making, art business, advertising, cultural aspects of working with the electorate, organization of intercultural communications, etc. The famous domestic culturologist A. Flier proposes a slightly different division of cultural disciplines on a theoretical-empirical-practical basis. In his work “Culturology for Culturologists,” he distinguishes several sections.
1. Fundamental cultural studies, which is a field where philosophy and cultural theory are merged, exploring the most general patterns of the historical and social existence of a culture, and most importantly, forming its epistemology - a system of principles, methodologies and methods of cognition, systematization and analysis of the material being studied.
2. Anthropology, which studies the cultural existence of people at a level close to their everyday social practice, normative patterns of behavior and consciousness, direct psychological motivations, etc. In contrast to fundamental theory, anthropology (social, cultural, psychological and historical) in general tends to be more to the empirical, measurable level of knowledge. Its theoretical concepts are often used as the basis for the development of practical technologies for managing current sociocultural processes.
3. Applied cultural studies, which primarily deals with the direct development of technologies for the practical organization and regulation of cultural processes in society.
2. Applied cultural studies
In the last decade there has been an increase in interest in the practical side of cultural studies.
Applied cultural studies is carried out in the form of socio-cultural activities. According to specialists from the Nevsky Institute of Culture, all over the world the specialty “culturologist” has turned from a research, theoretical one into a practical one, associated with direct participation in the activities of large and small organizations, firms, humanitarian foundations and movements. The enormous importance of cultural studies practitioners is most clearly seen in connection with the expansion of the field of international relations and the increase in foreign investment. Modern society requires a large number of top and middle managers who have the skills to implement cultural contacts and successfully implement Russian and international cultural projects in both government and commercial structures. A cultural practitioner implements his knowledge and skills in such areas as museums, tourism, and hotel management. A cultural scientist is also needed in international commercial, research and public organizations as a cultural consulting specialist in the development of applied cultural projects; in organizations involved in art business and show business as a developer and implementer of cultural projects; in commercial structures whose activities are related to intercultural contacts, in advertising and creative agencies, on television, etc. We must also not forget about the cultural-educational, cultural-organizational and cultural-educational areas of activity of a cultural specialist. A practicing culturologist not only has certain knowledge in such areas as the theory and history of culture and art; ethnopsychology and psychology of social groups; cultural map of the regions (Eastern Europe and CIS countries; Western Europe and America; Eastern region); fundamentals of marketing in the field of culture, management in the field of art and show business; management in excursion and tourism activities, cultural consulting: forms and methods, workshop on cultural consulting, communication technologies of the 20th century; international organizations and centers of intercultural communication, business cultures in international business; and etc.
Social and cultural activities require a specialist who also has practical management skills in the field of culture - in the field of art and show business, in excursion and tourism activities; practically applying knowledge of applied cultural consulting in the work of a consultant in companies with foreign investment and employees from different countries; fluent in a foreign language for oral and written communication; professionally uses a computer and has knowledge of Internet capabilities, conducting practical training on management in the field of culture; possessing the skills of developing cultural projects taking into account gender specifics, etc.
Special educational institutions, relevant departments and faculties of universities play a special role in providing society with practicing culturologists. Back in 1868, the Minister of Public Education A.V. Golovnin reported to Alexander II that Russian universities trained specialists only in one direction of art. He complained that there were no educational institutions whose graduates would involve various groups of the population in the world of culture, that is, would ensure the cultural policy of the state and individual regions.
For example, the research of M. A. Ariarsky and his school of applied cultural studies reveals the process of formation of the cultural environment, the patterns of human involvement in the world of culture and its practical development. Everything that Mark of Ariarsky does can be described as restoring the necessary link between culture and a specific person involved in socio-cultural activities.
Nowadays, applied cultural studies and socio-cultural activities are one of the most popular specialties. Today, many educational institutions, schools, educational and research centers, etc., are training specialists in this profile in our country.
Practical developments and activities in applied cultural studies and socio-cultural activities are conducted and implemented on the basis of more traditional departments of educational institutions of the country: philosophy, history, art history, etc.
The complex of cultural knowledge is used in the economic environment, to model market needs, in the marketing research system; in politics, for modeling the electorate, in the implementation of political programs.
Specialists of the Academy of Slavic Culture, in particular A.G. Klimov, believing that applied cultural studies exist everywhere, still classify cultural activity as a social branch, and therefore in applied cultural studies they distinguish two fundamental concepts - sociocultural practice and sociocultural design. Sociocultural practice is any form of activity manifested in a sociocultural system that affects the relationships and ability of people to live in that system.
Fundamental (or theoretical) culturology in the form of scientific knowledge serves for applied culturology as a certain structural basis, a modeling and regulating principle that creates new meanings and meanings. A person who applies scientific knowledge in practice is a bearer of applied cultural studies.
3. Interaction of theoretical and practical knowledge
Penetrating into people's consciousness in various ways, scientific (theoretical) cultural knowledge shapes the cultural environment in which a particular person lives and acts.
A. G. Klimov identifies several ways to disseminate scientific knowledge. The first way is ordinary consciousness, based on stereotypical attitudes towards science, depending on the level of awareness.
The second way is the technological environment. For example, when using electricity, we think about the mechanism of its occurrence and action and what effects it leads to, thus we penetrate to the level of scientific knowledge.
The third way is special popularization, which is most often expressed in the creation of popular science and educational magazines (“Science and Technology”, “Chemistry and Life”), reports, and information programs on television and radio.
However, the fourth way is considered to be the most powerful in terms of impact - sociocultural design. Depending on the declared goals and organizational means used by sociocultural projects, social design can be:
1) of a business nature: the means of a business organization are used. The goal is to make a profit, organize commercial social organizations;
2) political: development of legislation that will ensure transparency (lustration) of the activities of companies, access to cases conducted by intelligence services;
3) social: educational organizations, charity, healthcare, cat clinics. Business funds are used, but provide social functions;
4) cultural: institutions that develop cultural values. Dance, art, print media.
Sociocultural projects are focused on the development of cultural values and new value relations. New knowledge penetrates reality because it makes regulation the basis, determining the implementation of a sociocultural project.
One example of the creation and implementation of a sociocultural project is a project to support children's creativity - the St. Petersburg open competition of children's drawings and projects “The House I Want to Live In,” included in the program of events dedicated to the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg.
The project to support children's creativity "The House Where I Want to Live" is an open city-wide competition of children's drawings and projects on the theme of the city, its architecture and housing of the 21st century, which was held from November 2002 to May 2003. Participants could participate in it all children and adolescents from 7 to 17 years old.
The main idea of the competition organizers was to create a large-scale project on this topic, which would give all children of St. Petersburg the opportunity to express themselves creatively, openly express their idea of an ideal home and city, interesting not only to parents and teachers, but also to builders, to show their passion and imagination and the desire for creativity.
Tambov State University trains specialists in socio-cultural activities, the main directions and essence of which are determined by the following tasks:
1) resist the devaluation of culture, the “erosion” of criteria for assessing its values, and contribute to the preservation of the cultural continuity of generations;
2) ensure sociocultural protection of people’s right to access high examples of art, to satisfy their spiritual needs, and the right to personal cultural identity;
3) create conditions for meaningful and developing leisure time for the population, the realization of their right to art education and amateur creativity, and help improve the leisure culture of every person;
4) stimulate the development of public activity and initiative in the creation of various amateur groups in the field of leisure, provide amateur associations with competent and effective support and assistance;
5) implement a differentiated approach in working with different age and social groups of the population, including culturally advanced people, ensuring the realization of their intellectual, cultural and creative potential;
6) more effectively use in sociocultural work promising and popular forms and means of organizing leisure activities among the population, to master in this capacity the possibilities of screen arts and the main channels for their distribution 10
See: Modern technologies of socio-cultural activities. Tambov, 2002.
Among the types of socio-cultural activity the following stand out:
1) functional (informational, educational and educational activities; organization of amateur creativity and amateur associations; organization of recreation and entertainment);
2) differentiated (organization of leisure for children and adolescents, youth, family leisure, leisure for middle-aged and elderly people).
Socio-cultural activities are always carried out in one form or another, i.e. in the form of a planned informational-educational, social-pedagogical, cultural-educational action aimed at any audience in order to convey certain information to a predetermined object and activate it creative potential.
“In its broadest form, a leisure program or form can be considered as a large, independent, complete socio-pedagogical, socio-cultural action, which is determined by social orders, reflects social reality and at the same time has a certain influence on it.” 11
Kiseleva T. G. Krasilnikov Yu. D. Fundamentals of socio-cultural activities. M., 1995.
Forms of socio-cultural activity are divided into:
1) mass (auctions, theatrical performances, festivals, Olympiads, holidays);
2) group (circles, amateur associations and interest clubs, debates, round tables, conferences);
3) individual (classes in clubs and sections, interactive computer games, consultations, conversations).
The choice of one or another form of socio-cultural activity, its development and implementation requires a certain responsibility, since each of them has some independence and can have both a positive and negative impact on the audience and others involved in the activity.
All socio-cultural work should be aimed at animating public mood, at developing positive thinking and constructive action, therefore many leisure technologies are included in an open information system, which provides free access to information through museums, libraries, houses of science and technology, etc. . P.
People need to be promptly informed about current events in the context of reforms and must have the opportunity to participate in discussion of problems and assessments, in the formation of informed public opinion, especially at the local level.
Topic 5. Methods of cultural research
1. Method definition
Method is a method, method of research, cognitive procedure.
The term “method” comes from the Greek methods, which means “the road behind something,” “the way.” The concept of “scientific method” is a purposeful approach, a way by which a certain goal is achieved, something is learned or solved. A method in the broad sense of the word is a complex of various cognitive approaches and practical operations aimed at acquiring scientific knowledge. In a narrow sense, the concept of “method” means special techniques of a scientific discipline.
It is the method that is one of the main criteria for distinguishing a separate science from the entire diversity of knowledge.
In the 19th century The division of sciences occurred mainly by subject and only then by method. Thus, in philosophy the subject was spirit and psychological being, therefore the sciences of the spirit and, above all, psychology were separated; in mechanics – nature and material existence.
G. Rickert suggested that the division of all sciences according to this criterion is unfair, since living things are the unity of the material and spiritual. Natural scientific methods and cultural-historical methods - this is the division that Rickert proposed. The first method involves understanding nature as the existence of things (Kantian understanding, dualistic), the existence of phenomena. This being is determined by general laws accessible to formal logical thinking. Cultural-historical methods are based on the concept of history as a single being in all its specificity and individuality, as opposed to the above-mentioned general law.
Culture as a subject of knowledge left the natural scientific arena at the beginning of the 19th century. Back in the 19th century. Regarding cultural studies, they often spoke of it as a science rather than as a culture. Both methods are to a certain extent cultural. Since we are talking about cultural studies as scientific knowledge, it follows that the methods of cultural research must meet the requirements of scientific knowledge. In the methodology of scientific research, it is customary to distinguish between general scientific and specific scientific methods. The most common are philosophical methods - metaphysical, dialectical, phenomenological, hermeneutic, etc. Among general scientific methods, three levels are usually considered: general logical, theoretical (formalization, axiomatic, hypothetico-deductive methods) and empirical.
Socio-cultural studies somewhat modify the composition of scientific methods of cognition, since they are often aimed at studying not the abstract, objective, holistic, material, but, on the contrary, are designed to reflect and identify the special, specific; the objects of study are ideas, values, stereotypes, i.e., those that are objectively located in the activity-semantic field of reality.
New methods are based on some principles that, according to V.V. Ilyin, are characteristic exclusively of social and humanitarian knowledge. These principles are:
1) the principle of tolerance;
2) the principle of conditionality: understanding the relativity of one’s own results, the fact that more adequate solutions are possible;
3) the principle of apoliticality: avoiding the use of ideologies, mythologization, utopias, focus on prejudices;
4) the principle of anti-activism is based on the position of a theoretical scientist to explain, and not change the world;
5) the principle of humanism, which is based on the statement “society is the means, man is the goal” 12
Ilyin V.V. Theory of knowledge. Epistemology. M., 1994. pp. 122–125.
Therefore, for cultural studies, not only the designated methods of scientific research are justified. Non-intellectual, intuitive, figurative and symbolic ways of comprehending life reality are also important. Feeling, getting used to it, poetry, music and other non-rational methods of mastering the world also occupy a worthy place in the methodological arsenal of cultural studies, especially in its activity component (some types of applied cultural studies, socio-cultural activities).
The methodology of modern socio-cultural knowledge is characterized by the following features.
1. Convergence of methods of natural science and social sciences and humanities.
Increasingly closer convergence and interaction of opposing conceptual and methodological approaches: rational and extra-rational, scientific and extra-scientific, exoteric and esoteric, explicit and implicit knowledge, etc. “A complex methodological problem arises of correlating “hard” and “flexible” methods, scientific and non-scientific approaches, the use of such means as social and humanitarian examinations and diagnostics, situational analyzes, role-playing and simulation games for the purpose of social cognition.”
2. Particular attention to the study and search for new specific methods of social sciences and humanities 13
Bakirov V. Social cognition on the threshold of the post-industrial world // Social sciences and modernity. 1993. No. 1. P. 76.
For example, in sociology in general and in the sociology of culture in particular, interest in the methods of sociological research is increasing.
Other methods are added to the methods of understanding, dialogue, dialectics, ideographic and nomothetic methods, situational logic, role-playing and simulation games, methods of social psychology (see below for specific methods of the social sciences and humanities).
3. Widespread introduction of the apparatus of hermeneutics, cultural studies of understanding techniques, which causes an increasing convergence of explanatory and interpretative approaches. Such schemes combine elements of the natural sciences with the interpretive methods and value-based approaches of the cultural and scientific sciences in a way that reconciles both extreme positions.
4. Active introduction of ideas and methods of synergetics into social cognition and, in connection with this, an increase in statistical and probabilistic methods and techniques. There is increasing attention to random, uncertain, nonlinear processes, and to unstable open systems.
5. An opinion is being formed according to which the laws of development of nature and society determine only certain limits within which the main process remains unpredictable in advance.
6. There is a turn towards a specific person. L. Feuerbach said that man is the center of all methodology.
7. New regulations of human activity are being formed and approved. The priority of tradition has been replaced by recognition of the unconditional value of innovation, novelty, originality, and originality. Extensive development gave way to intensive development.
The purpose of applied cultural studies– through a complex of specially selected and synthesized types of cultural activities to ensure:
Acquisition, expansion, deepening, updating and bringing into the system knowledge about nature, society, thinking, technology and methods of activity that contribute to the establishment of a worldview, ideological, moral and aesthetic position;
Formation of intellectual and practical skills and abilities in the field of social, scientific, technical and artistic creativity, stimulation of the development of the creative potential of the individual;
Creation, development, preservation, dissemination and reproduction of cultural values;
Mastering methods of cultural and leisure creativity and unregulated communication;
Satisfaction and consistent enrichment of the spiritual and aesthetic interests and needs of different groups of the population;
Regulation of social life, education in every person of everyday, practical culture, culture of work, knowledge, life, leisure, business and informal communication.
Tasks of applied cultural studies are manifested in ensuring:
1) identification of patterns, principles, means, methods and forms of creation, preservation, transmission and development of cultural values, norms, practices in the field of artistic, aesthetic, religious, moral, socio-psychological, political, legal, economic, environmental, physical culture and development on this basis of conditions and methods for optimizing these processes;
2) obtaining practically oriented knowledge about the patterns of formation and development of various cultural subjects (individuals, social groups, ethnocultural communities, regions, society as a whole) and searching for optimal mechanisms for regulating socio-cultural processes at the appropriate levels;
3) development of principles and technologies for the use of various cultural practices (types and methods of cultural activity and thinking, norms, traditions and forms of human society) that have developed in the history of world cultures, in certain areas of sociocultural activity, in cultural policy, management, education, education, in aesthetic, artistic, spiritual and moral, environmental, physical and mental development of the individual;
4) formation of theoretical foundations and mechanisms for the development and implementation of state cultural policy at the national, regional and sectoral levels;
5) determining the conditions for optimizing the activities of socio-cultural institutions and non-institutional communities, designing functionally meaningful models of institutions (education, culture, leisure, healthcare, sports, etc.) that perform the functions of hominization, socialization, inculturation and self-realization of the individual, promoting the self-development of cultural subjects;
6) development of theoretical, organizational and methodological foundations for training and consistent advanced training of professional personnel in the socio-cultural sphere.
FUNCTIONS OF APPLIED CULTURAL STUDY:
Scientific and methodological - methodological substantiation of the creative potential of socio-cultural activity and methodological support for the process of its implementation;
Political-projective - legal, economic, political, spiritual support for socio-cultural activities; sociocultural design;
Cultural preservation - justification of technology for preserving the natural and cultural environment, enduring values of world and domestic culture; ensuring harmony in the “man - nature” system;
Culture-creating - development and implementation of a mechanism for the consistent involvement of the individual in the world of culture (hominization, socialization, inculturation, individualization), the formation of a well-rounded, spiritually rich personality;
Cultural creativity - scientific and methodological support for the process of involving a person in the information society of the 21st century and various forms of socio-cultural creativity;
Mutually enriching - identifying principles for realizing the spiritual potential of communication; development of a methodology for involving the individual in the system of social communications, the perception of a person by a person; formation of a culture of business and interpersonal communication;
Culture-oriented - revealing the pervasive nature of culture, the mechanism for ensuring the culture of work, knowledge, life, leisure; the introduction of aesthetic principles into all types and forms of life.
4. Cultural and educational work in the USSR, a system of activities promoting communist education and political education of the working people, raising their general cultural level, developing creative abilities, and organizing leisure time. K.-p. R. is an integral part of the ideological activities of the Communist Party and the Soviet state, trade unions, and the Komsomol.
Under the term “K.-p. R." understand the targeted activities of club institutions, public libraries, parks and gardens of culture and recreation; K.-p. occupies a large place. R. in the work of museums, cinemas, theaters and other cultural institutions, as well as radio and television. In a broad sense, the concept of K.-p. R. covers any activity organized outside educational institutions that contributes to the cultural growth of a person.
Formation and development of K.-p. R. as an independent area of ideological activity began after the victory of the October Revolution of 1917 and are directly related to the implementation of the cultural revolution in the USSR. The main tasks and most important principles of K.-p. R. defined by V.I. Lenin, developed in the decisions of the congresses of the Communist Party, in the resolutions of the CPSU Central Committee on ideological issues. Lenin examined K.-p. R. as part of the party business and at the same time as the implementation of the cultural and educational function of the Soviet state. This most important idea was the basis for the Main Political and Educational Committee (Glavpolitprosvet) created within the system of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR in November 1920, which united the functions of party and state leadership in this area. Significant contribution to the development of the theory and practice of K.-p. R. contributed by N.K. Krupskaya, who from the first days of Soviet power headed the Extracurricular Department of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR, and from 1920 - Glavpolitprosvet.
Subsequently, as K.-p. grows and improves. r., creating a diverse network of cultural and educational institutions, the leadership mechanism of K.-p. R. changed accordingly. In the People's Commissariat of Education (later the ministries of education of the union republics), departments of huts, reading rooms and cultural centers, library departments, etc. were created. Since 1945, the leadership of the K.-L. R. transferred to specially created committees for cultural and educational institutions under the Councils of Ministers of the Union Republics, and since 1953 to the Ministry of Culture of the USSR and the Ministry of Culture of the Union Republics.
K.-p. R. in the USSR has the following main directions: the formation of a communist worldview, labor education, moral education, atheistic education, scientific and technical propaganda and the dissemination of economic knowledge, aesthetic education, physical education, organization of amateur performances, recreation and entertainment. Forms of K.-p. R. are constantly developing and improving. Along with such traditional forms as conversations, lectures, reports, performances, concerts, theme evenings, reading conferences, oral journals are increasingly being held in club institutions, people's universities, film lectures, amateur interest groups, etc. are being created. K.-p. R. takes up amateur artistic activities; since the 60s Its highest form began to develop - folk theaters. In 1971, in the USSR there were 133 thousand club institutions, 128.6 thousand public libraries (with a total fund of 1366.1 million books and magazines), 553 professional theaters (over 114 million visits), 1173 museums (over 110 million . visits), 157.1 thousand film installations (4656 million visits to film shows). In 1970, club institutions held 5,273 thousand lectures and reports (over 477 million people were present), 2,334 thousand performances and concerts were given by amateur artists (417.4 million people were present), 440 thousand circles worked (6,951 thousand). participants); in 1970 there were about 16 thousand people's universities with 3218 thousand students.