Domestic culture of the Soviet and post-Soviet era. Culture in post-Soviet times Need help studying a topic
General notes
Post-Soviet culture should be characterized by covering the period 1985-1991, which went down in history as the period of “perestroika and glasnost.” Speaking about post-Soviet culture, one cannot fail to take into account such historical events as the collapse of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp, the liberalization of the economy, the emerging signs of freedom of speech, and most importantly, the Communist Party has ceased to be a political monopolist.
In addition, the usual planned economy collapsed, and the people began to rapidly become poor. B. Yeltsin's coming to power had a significant impact on the cultural situation in the country: such celebrities as M.L. returned from forced emigration. Rostropovich, G. Vishnevskaya (musicians), A. Solzhenitsyn and T. Voinovich (writers), E. Neizvestny (artist). At the same time, thousands of professionals left Russia, mainly in the technical field, which was associated with a huge reduction in funding for science.
Note 1
The fact that our scientists were hosted by the most famous foreign scientific centers indicates that Soviet science in previous years was at the forefront.
The high adaptability of Russian culture was manifested in the fact that, for example, despite the reduction in funding for culture, in the heady 90s, about 10 thousand private publishing houses appeared, which literally in the shortest possible time published almost all the books that were banned in the USSR and that could " get it" only in "samizdat". Many so-called thick magazines appeared that published interesting analytical works.
Religious culture has also returned. This was manifested not only in the number of believers, by the way, this can be attributed to fashion, but also, most importantly, in the restoration and restoration of churches, cathedrals and monasteries. Orthodox universities also began to appear. But painting, architecture and literature of the 90s were not marked by bright talents.
It is impossible to characterize the culture of Russia in the 90s in any way, positively or negatively - too little time has passed. Now we can only outline the cultural realities of that time.
So, after the collapse of the USSR, a single culture broke up into 15 national cultures, which “disowned” both the common Soviet culture and each other’s cultural traditions. All this led to sociocultural tension, often expressed in military conflicts.
Note 2
And yet, the threads connecting culture cannot be torn so easily, but only they have been refracted in a unique way.
First of all, culture was affected by the disappearance of a unified cultural policy, i.e. culture lost a guaranteed customer and came out from under the dictates of the state. It was necessary to choose a new development path, and this choice caused heated discussions.
On the one hand, opportunities arose for the development of spiritual culture after the fall of ideological barriers, and on the other, the economic crisis led to the commercialization of culture, which led to the loss of its national characteristics and the Americanization of many branches of culture.
We can say that the current stage of development of Russian culture is transitional. Russia has experienced a cultural revolution twice in just one century, i.e. Some cultural values that have not had time to form are rejected and new ones begin to emerge.
At the present stage, mutually exclusive trends are emerging in Russian culture:
- subordination of Russian culture to Western standards;
- progressive, based on the ideas of patriotism, collectivism, social justice, which have always been professed by the peoples of Russia.
The struggle between them determines the development of Russian culture in the third millennium.
Note 3
Today's Russian culture is a very complex, ambiguous phenomenon. On the one hand, it determines the directions of the world socio-cultural process, on the other hand, it is influenced by Western culture in the broad sense of the word.
After the Russian Federation became an independent power, its culture began to develop under new conditions. It is characterized by broad pluralism, but lacks spiritual tension, creative productivity, and humanistic fervor. Today, such different layers coexist in it, such as multi-level samples of Western culture, newly acquired values of the Russian diaspora, a newly rethought classical heritage, many values of the former Soviet culture, original innovations and undemanding epigone local kitsch, glamour, relativizing public morality to the limit and destroying traditional aesthetics .
In the projective system of culture, a certain “exemplary” picture of socio-cultural life “for growth” is modeled in the format of postmodernism, which is widespread in the world at present. This is a special type of worldview, aimed at rejecting the dominance of any monological truths and concepts, focused on recognizing any cultural manifestations as equivalent. Postmodernism in its Western version, peculiarly adopted by Russian humanities scholars of the new generation, does not aim to reconcile, much less bring to unity, different values, segments of a heterogeneous culture, but only combines contrasts, combines its various parts and elements based on the principles of pluralism, aesthetic relativism and polystyle “mosaic”.
The prerequisites for the emergence of a postmodern sociocultural situation arose in the West several decades ago. The widespread introduction of the achievements of science and technology into the sphere of production and everyday life has significantly changed the forms of functioning of culture. The spread of multimedia and household radio equipment has entailed fundamental changes in the mechanisms of production, distribution and consumption of artistic values. “Cassette” culture has become uncensored, because selection, replication and consumption are carried out through the apparently free expression of its users. Accordingly, a special type of so-called “home” culture arose, the constituent elements of which, in addition to books, were a video recorder, radio, television, personal computer, and the Internet. Along with the positive features of this phenomenon, there is also a tendency towards increasing spiritual isolation of the individual.
The state of a person of post-Soviet culture, who for the first time in a long time was left to his own devices, can be characterized as a sociocultural and psychological crisis. Many Russians were not prepared for the destruction of their usual picture of the world and the loss of a stable social status. Within civil society, this crisis was expressed in the value disorientation of social strata and the displacement of moral norms. It turned out that the “communal” psychology of people, formed by the Soviet system, is incompatible with Western values and hasty market reforms.
The “omnivorous” kitsch culture has become more active. A deep crisis of former ideals and moral stereotypes, lost spiritual comfort forced the average person to seek solace in common values that seemed simple and understandable. The entertaining and informational functions of banal culture turned out to be more in demand and familiar than the aesthetic delights and problems of the intellectual elite, than the value guidelines and aesthetic desires of high culture. In the 90s Not only was there a gap between the catastrophically impoverished social strata and the “highbrow” culture and its “authorized representatives”, but also there was a certain devaluation of the unifying values and attitudes of the traditional “average” culture, the influence of which on the social strata began to weaken. “Westernized pop music” and liberal ideology, having concluded an unspoken alliance, cleared the way for predatory adventurous oligarchic capitalism.
Market relations have made mass culture the main barometer by which changes in the state of society can be observed. The simplification of social relations and the collapse of the hierarchy of values in general have significantly worsened aesthetic tastes. At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. vulgarized kitsch associated with primitive advertising (template crafts, aesthetic ersatz), expanded its sphere of influence, became more active, took on new forms, adapting a considerable part of multimedia. The articulation of homegrown templates of “mass” screen culture inevitably led to a new wave of expansion of similar Western, primarily American, models. Having become a monopolist on the art market, the Western film and video entertainment industry began to dictate artistic tastes, especially among young people. Under the current conditions, counteracting the processes of cultural Western globalization and profane kitsch is becoming more flexible and effective. It is increasingly carried out primarily in the form of kemta.
Kamt, as one of the varieties of synthesized elite-mass culture, is popular in form, accessible to wide social strata, and in content, conceptual, semantic art, often resorting to caustic irony and caustic parody (of pseudo-creativity) - a kind of cushioned, neutralized " kitsch". Foreign Russian literature close to camp has been worthily represented in recent decades by the recently deceased emigrant writer Vasily Aksenov. It is also necessary to more actively master and disseminate innovative examples of artistic creativity through improved multimedia technologies, to give way to non-academic genres of art, including trash - a related artistic movement that is a parody of modern forms of pop art and glamor.
Today, the painful transition to the market is accompanied by a reduction in state funding for culture and a decline in the living standards of a significant part of the intelligentsia. The material base of Russian culture was undermined in the 90s; in the last decade there has been a slow recovery, slowed down by the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. One of the important and complex modern problems is the interaction of culture and market. In many cases, the creation of cultural works is approached as a profit-generating business, as an ordinary ordinary product, or more precisely, as its exaggerated monetary equivalent. Often the desire to obtain the maximum benefit “at any cost” wins, without caring about the quality of the artistic product being created. The uncontrolled commercialization of culture is focused not on the creative individual, but on the “hyper-economic super-marketeer,” playing along with his narrow utilitarian interests.
The consequence of this circumstance was the loss of a number of advanced positions by literature, which played a leading role in Russian (and Soviet) culture in the 19th–20th centuries; the art of literary expression degraded and acquired an unusual diversity and eclecticism of smaller genres and styles. The shelves of bookstores are dominated by empty “pink” and “yellow” fiction, which is characterized by a rejection of spirituality, humanity and stable moral positions.
Postmodernist literature has partly gone into the sphere of formal experimentation or has become a reflection of the momentarily happening, “scattered” consciousness of a person in the post-Soviet era, as evidenced, for example, by the works of some authors of the “new wave”.
And yet the development of artistic culture did not stop. Talented musicians, singers, creative groups are still making themselves known in Russia today, performing on the best stages in Europe and America; some of them use the opportunity to enter into long-term work contracts abroad. Significant representatives of Russian culture include singers D. Hvorostovsky and L. Kazarnovskaya, the Moscow Virtuosi ensemble under the direction of Vl. Spivakov, State Academic Folk Dance Ensemble named after. Igor Moiseev. Innovative searches in dramatic art are still carried out by a galaxy of talented directors: Yu. Lyubimov, M. Zakharov, P. Fomenko, V. Fokin, K. Raikin, R. Viktyuk, V. Gergiev. Leading Russian film directors continue to actively participate in international film festivals, sometimes achieving notable success, as evidenced, for example, by N. Mikhalkov receiving the highest Academy Award “Oscar” in the category “For Best Foreign Language Film” in 1995, for the same the film won the Grand Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival in 1994; awarding an honorary prize at the Venice festival to A. Zvyagintsev’s film “The Return”. “Women’s” prose is in demand among readers (T. Tolstaya, M. Arbatova, L. Ulitskaya).
Determining the paths for further cultural progress has become the subject of heated debate in Russian society. The Russian state has stopped dictating its demands to culture. Its management system is far from what it used to be. However, in the changed conditions, it must still set strategic goals for cultural construction and fulfill sacred responsibilities for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, providing the necessary financial support for creatively promising areas of development of a multifaceted culture. Government officials cannot help but realize that culture cannot be completely left to business, but it can cooperate fruitfully with it. Support for education, science, concern for the preservation and enhancement of humanistic cultural heritage contribute to the successful solution of pressing economic and social problems, the growth of well-being and national potential, and are of great importance for strengthening the moral and mental health of the peoples living in Russia. Russian culture will have to turn into an organic whole thanks to the formation of a national mentality. This will prevent the growth of separatist tendencies and will contribute to the development of creativity and the successful solution of economic, political and ideological problems.
At the beginning of the third millennium, Russia and its culture again faced a choice of path. The enormous potential and rich heritage it has accumulated in the past constitute an important prerequisite for its revival in the future. However, so far only isolated signs of spiritual and creative uplift are being discovered. Solving pressing problems requires time and new priorities, which will be determined by society itself. The Russian intelligentsia must have its weighty say in the humanistic revaluation of values.
Increasing creative exchange and density of communications between the historically interconnected cultures of Russia and Belarus will require new steps from humanists of the allied countries on the path of intellectual integration. It is also necessary to bring closer approaches to solving interstate problems and determining the prospects for the development of two neighboring civilizations. The solution to this problem will be facilitated by consistent steps by the leadership of the Russian Federation, headed by President D.A. Medvedev and Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers V.V. Putin, aimed at further social humanization of Russian society.
Realities of cultural life in the post-Soviet era. Early 90s took place under the sign of the accelerated disintegration of the single culture of the USSR into separate national cultures, which not only rejected the values of the common culture of the USSR, but also each other’s cultural traditions. Such a sharp opposition of different national cultures led to an increase in sociocultural tension, the emergence of military conflicts and subsequently caused the collapse of a single sociocultural space.
But the processes of cultural development are not interrupted by the collapse of state structures and the fall of political regimes. The culture of new Russia is organically connected with all previous periods of the country's history. At the same time, the new political and economic situation could not but affect culture.
Her relationship with the authorities has changed dramatically. The state stopped dictating its demands to culture, and culture lost its guaranteed customer.
The common core of cultural life - the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy - has disappeared. Determining the paths of further cultural development became a matter for society itself and a subject of acute disagreement. The range of searches is extremely wide - from following Western models to an apology for isolationism. The absence of a unifying sociocultural idea is perceived by part of society as a manifestation of the deep crisis in which Russian culture found itself by the end of the 20th century. Others consider cultural pluralism to be the natural norm of a civilized society.
The elimination of ideological barriers created favorable opportunities for the development of spiritual culture. However, the economic crisis experienced by the country and the difficult transition to market relations have increased the danger of the commercialization of culture, the loss of national traits in the course of its further development, the negative impact of the Americanization of certain spheres of culture (primarily musical life and cinema) as a kind of retribution for “introduction to universal human values.” ".
The spiritual sphere is experiencing in the mid-90s. acute crisis. In a difficult transition period, the role of spiritual culture as a treasury of moral guidelines for society increases, while the politicization of culture and cultural figures leads to the implementation of functions unusual for it and deepens the polarization of society. The desire to direct countries towards market development leads to the impossibility of the existence of certain spheres of culture that objectively require state support. The possibility of the so-called “free” development of culture on the basis of low cultural needs of a fairly wide segment of the population leads to an increase in lack of spirituality, the promotion of violence and, as a consequence, an increase in crime.
At the same time, the division between elite and mass forms of culture, between youth and the older generation continues to deepen. All these processes are unfolding against the backdrop of a rapid and sharp increase in uneven access to the consumption of not only material but cultural goods.
In the sociocultural situation that had developed in Russian society by the mid-90s, a person, as a living system, representing the unity of the physical and spiritual, natural and socio-cultural, hereditary and acquired during life, can no longer develop normally.
Indeed, as market relations strengthen, most people become increasingly alienated from the values of their national culture. And this is a completely natural trend for the type of society that is being created in Russia at the end of the 20th century. All this, which has become a reality over the past decade, is bringing society to the limit of accumulation of explosive social energy.
In a word, the modern period of development of national culture can be designated as transitional. For the second time in a century, a real cultural revolution took place in Russia. In modern Russian culture, numerous and very contradictory trends are manifested. But they can, relatively speaking, be combined into two groups.
The first trend: destructive, crisis, promoting the complete subordination of Russian culture to the standards of Western civilization.
The second trend: progressive, fueled by the ideas of patriotism, collectivism, social justice, traditionally understood and professed by the people of Russia.
The struggle between these inherently antagonistic tendencies will apparently determine the main direction of development of Russian culture in the third millennium.
Russian culture and the “postmodern” era. Modern cultural creation processes taking place in Russia are an inseparable part of the global development of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, the transition from industrial to post-industrial society, from “modern” to “postmodern”.
The spiritual state of Western culture and art of our time is called postmodernism. It was born from the tragic realization of the impossibility of restoring universal harmony through the exaltation of the individual. The main value of "postmodernism" is "radical plurality". According to the German researcher of problems of modern culture W. Welsh, this multiplicity is not a synthesis, but an eclectic combination of heterogeneous elements, blurring the lines between the creator of values and their consumer, between the center and the periphery, turning values into anti-symbols through the loss of their deep connections with the spiritual component of culture .
Thus, in the world of postmodernism, a dehierarchization of culture occurs, making it impossible to establish a new system of values. Because of this, modern man is doomed to remain in a state of spiritual amorphism. He is able to survey everything, but nothing can shape him from within. Therefore, external forms of restriction of people who in every possible way strive to strengthen the Western world through fashion, public opinion, standardization of life, increasing its comfort, etc., become so necessary.
For the same reasons, the media began to occupy the first place in culture. They were even given the name "fourth force", meaning the other three - legislative, executive and judicial.
In modern Russian culture, incompatible values and orientations are strangely combined: collectivism, conciliarity and individualism, egoism, deliberate politicization and demonstrative apoliticality, statehood and anarchy, etc. Indeed, today such not only unrelated, but mutually exclusive phenomena as the newly acquired cultural values of the Russian diaspora, the newly rethought classical heritage, and the values of official Soviet culture coexist as if on equal terms.
This is precisely how a general picture of the cultural life of Russia emerges, characteristic of postmodernism, widespread in the world towards the end of our century. This is a special type of worldview, aimed at the rejection of all norms and traditions, the establishment of any truths, focused on unbridled pluralism, recognition of any cultural manifestations as equivalent. But postmodernism is not able to reconcile the irreconcilable, since it does not put forward fruitful ideas for this; it only combines contrasts as the source material for further cultural and historical creativity.
In difficult historical and natural conditions, Russia survived, created its own unique original culture, fertilized by the influence of both the West and the East, and, in turn, enriched other cultures with its influence. Modern national culture faces a difficult task - to develop its strategic course for the future in a rapidly changing world. The solution to this global problem is extremely difficult, since it rests on the need to understand the deep contradictions inherent in our culture throughout its historical development.
Our culture may well provide an answer to the challenges of the modern world. But for this it is necessary to move to such forms of its self-awareness that would cease to reproduce the same mechanisms of irreconcilable struggle, harsh confrontation, and the absence of a “middle”. It is absolutely necessary to move away from thinking that is oriented towards maximalism, a radical revolution and the reorganization of everything and everyone in the shortest possible time.
Modern models of development of multinational culture in Russia. The troubled times that Russian culture is now experiencing is not a new phenomenon, but a constantly recurring one, and culture has always found one or another answer to the challenges of the time and continued to develop. The whole world found itself at a crossroads at the turn of the 21st century; we are talking about a change in the very type of culture that was formed within Western civilization over the past several centuries.
The revival of culture is the most important condition for the renewal of our society. Determining the paths for further cultural development became the subject of heated debate in society, because the state stopped dictating its demands to culture, the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy disappeared.
One of the existing points of view is that the state should not interfere in the affairs of culture, since this is fraught with the establishment of a new dictatorship over culture, and culture itself will find the means for its survival.
Another point of view seems more reasonable, the essence of which is that, ensuring freedom of culture, the right to cultural identity, the state takes upon itself the development of strategic tasks of cultural construction and responsibilities for the protection of cultural and historical national heritage, the necessary financial support of cultural values.
The state must realize that culture cannot be left to business; its support, including education and science, is of great importance for maintaining the moral and mental health of the nation. The crisis of spirituality causes severe mental discomfort in many people, since the mechanism of identification with superpersonal values is seriously damaged. Without this mechanism, not a single culture exists, and in modern Russia all super-personal values have become questionable.
Despite all the contradictory characteristics of national culture, society cannot allow separation from its cultural heritage. A disintegrating culture is little adapted to transformation, because the impulse for creative change comes from values, which are cultural categories. Only an integrated and strong national culture can relatively easily adapt new goals to its values and master new patterns of behavior.
In this regard, in modern Russia, three models for the development of multinational culture seem possible:
the victory of cultural and political conservatism, an attempt to stabilize the situation based on ideas about the identity of Russia and its special path in history. In this case:
there is a return to the nationalization of culture,
automatic support is provided for cultural heritage, traditional forms of creativity,
foreign influence on culture is limited,
Russian artistic classics remain an object of cult, and aesthetic innovations are viewed with suspicion.
By its nature, this model is short-lived and inevitably leads to a new crisis, but in Russian conditions it can last quite a long time;
integration of Russia under external influence into the world system of economy and culture and its transformation into a “province” in relation to global centers. When approving this model:
there is a “McDonaldization” of domestic culture,
the cultural life of society is stabilized on the basis of commercial self-regulation.
The key problem is the preservation of the original national culture, its international influence and the integration of cultural heritage into the life of society;
integration of Russia into the system of universal human culture as an equal participant in world artistic processes. To implement this model, it is necessary to fully utilize cultural potential, radically reorient state cultural policy, ensure accelerated development of the domestic cultural industry within the country, and fully encourage the inclusion of creative workers in global networks of artistic production and communication. It is this model that deserves strong support, because it is focused on culture, which should actively influence politics, the economy, and spiritual life.
Thus, the culture of Russia in modern times is a very complex and ambiguous phenomenon. On the one hand, it has always determined the trends of the sociocultural process in the world, on the other hand, it has been influenced by Western culture in the broad sense of the word.
In modern times, domestic culture has gone through several most significant stages: pre-Soviet (before 1917); Soviet (before 1985) and modern stage of democratic transformations. At all these stages, the large role of the state in the development of culture, the relative passivity of the population, and the large gap between the culture of the masses and its most prominent representatives were revealed.
Having embarked on the path of capitalist development later than the leading Western countries, Russia in the post-reform years managed to achieve a lot in the field of economics. In spiritual terms, Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. gave world culture a number of outstanding achievements. The contradictory nature of cultural development during the Soviet period led to the accumulation of numerous contradictions, the resolution of which has not yet been completed.
The direction of cultural development in the future will be determined by many factors, primarily liberation from external dependence, taking into account the uniqueness of Russia and the experience of its historical development. At the turn of the millennium, Russia again found itself at a crossroads. But no matter what its fate may be, Russian culture remains the main wealth of the country and the guarantee of the unity of the nation.
At the turn of the millennium, humanity is challenged in the form of global problems, in the face of which it will have to act as a single entity making informed and coordinated decisions. In this creation of universal human unity, a decisive role belongs to the mutually enriching dialogue of different cultures, the world cultural process.
Russian culture has long played an important role in this process. Russia has a special civilizing and organizing function in the global sociocultural space. Russian culture has proven its vitality and confirmed that the development of democracy and moral purification are impossible without preserving and enhancing the accumulated cultural potential. Russia is a country of great literature and art, bold science and a recognized education system, ideal aspirations for universal human values, and cannot but be one of the most active creators of the culture of the world.
Soon after the October Revolution of 1917, the cultural atmosphere in the country changed dramatically. In Soviet Russia, which set the goal of building communism, the only officially recognized ideology becomes Marxism; everything that did not fit into Marxist interpretations or contradicted them was subject to condemnation and prohibition. This policy led to significant intellectual emigration from the country, among those who left were Ivan Alekseevich Bunin, Vladimir Vladimirovich Nabokov, Sergei Vasilyevich Rachmaninov, Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin.
The Soviet government also took a course towards ousting religion from the life of the people. Tens of thousands of priests were subjected to repression and executed, many churches were destroyed, and atheism was elevated to the rank of the state worldview.
The stylistic polyphony of the beginning of the century was replaced by socialist realism. These changes especially affected literature and painting. Almost all figures of Russian culture worked in the style of socialist realism until the early 90s of the 20th century. However, the most talented masters were able to create significant works even in these harsh conditions. This is in literature - Maxim Gorky, Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy, Mikhail Alexandrovich Sholokhov, Evgeny Alexandrovich Yevtushenko, Vladimir Semenovich Vysotsky, Vladimir Dmitrievich Dudintsev, Anatoly Ignatievich Pristavkin, Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn, Vladimir Alekseevich Soloukhin, Viktor Petrovich Astafiev, Boris Lvovich Vasiliev ; in painting and sculpture - Pyotr Nikolaevich Filonov, Alexander Alexandrovich Deineka, Arkady Alexandrovich Plastov, Tatyana Nilovna Yablonskaya, Vera Ignatievna Mukhina, Sergei Timofeevich Konenkov, in cinema and theater - Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein, Vsevolod Illarionovich Pudovkin, Mikhail Ilyich Romm, Grigory Vasilyevich Alexandrov ; in music - Dmitry Dmitrievich Shostakovich, Isaac Osipovich Dunaevsky, Sergei Sergei Prokofiev.
The most important fact of cultural life not only of the 20th century, but of the entire history of the country was cultural revolution, the implementation of which took place in the 30s. Its main content was literacy and achieving, in the shortest possible time, by historical standards, almost universal literacy of the population. This was truly an epoch-making event in the cultural life of Russia. Thanks to this, it became possible to improve the entire Russian system of education and science.
Since the 1930s, the country has been developing a modern education system at a rapid pace - lower, secondary, secondary vocational and higher; tens of thousands of new schools, thousands of universities and technical schools have been created. The pace of scientific development accelerated many times over, with emphasis placed on the development of engineering and technical sciences. Scientists - Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, Abram Fedorovich Ioffe, Igor Vasilievich Kurchatov, Igor Evgenievich Tamm, Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, Lev Davidovich Landau, Sergei Vasilyevich Lebedev, Vitaly Lazarevich Ginzburg, Zhores Ivanovich Alferov - became world famous.
IN post-Soviet In Russia, the main trends in the development of culture as a whole coincide with global ones. There is a clearly visible division into elite culture (classical music, elite performing arts, cinematography, painting, sculpture, photography), the consumer of which is a narrow circle of professionals, and mass culture, addressed to broad layers of the population. There is freedom to choose styles and artistic directions, and freedom of creativity is ensured. Church restores positions lost during the period of socialism. The most important factor determining the cultural situation in the country is scientific and technological progress. Of all the variety of technical innovations, the most influential is Internet, under the influence of which society itself, all social connections and structures change, and a new culture is formed - virtual.
88. Cultural and spiritual life in post-Soviet Russia.
Introduction
On December 26, 1991, the USSR collapsed. He led to the independence of 15 republics of the USSR and their emergence on the world political stage as independent states. Of course, this event was reflected not only in Russian foreign policy, but also in domestic policy. In this work, I would like to show how the era of Perestroika and the collapse of the USSR influenced the cultural and spiritual life of Russia. What are its differences from the culture that was in the Soviet Union and what are positive and negative about it?
Briefly, we can say that the Era of Perestroika (1985-1991) refers to those periods of national history for which the significance of the processes taking place in culture is especially great. M.S. Gorbachev began his reforms precisely in the sphere of social and cultural life. According to the French historian Nicolas Werth, the foundation of Perestroika was “the liberation of historical memory, the printed word, and living thought.”
One of the first slogans of the new era was “Glasnost”, i.e. the aim of expanding the awareness of the masses about the activities of the party and government, openness, publicity of decisions made,
setting up a free discussion of the accumulated shortcomings and negative phenomena in the life of Soviet society. Glasnost was conceived as a revival and modernization of state ideology, and although from the very beginning it was emphasized that it had nothing to do with “bourgeois freedom of speech,” it was not possible to keep the process under state and party control. An open discussion of issues that previously, in the era of total control, were discussed only secretly “in kitchens” began everywhere. The facts of abuse by the party nomenklatura, revealed by Glasnost, sharply undermined the authority of the party, depriving it of a monopoly on truth.
Glasnost, which revealed to the Soviet people the full depth of the crisis,
which the country fell into, and which raised before society the question of ways
further development, aroused great interest in history. There was a rapid process of restoring those pages that were suppressed during Soviet times. In them people looked for answers to questions posed by life.
"Thick" literary magazines published previously unknown to the wider public.
to the Soviet reader literary works, memories of eyewitnesses and
a memoir presenting a new perspective on historical truth. Thanks to
Because of this, their circulation has increased sharply, and subscriptions to the most popular of them
(“Neva”, “New World”, “Youth”) fell into the category of acute shortage and
distributed “according to the limit,” i.e., in a limited number.
Over the course of several years, novels were published in magazines and separate publications
A. I. Solzhenitsyn (“In the First Circle”, “Cancer Ward”, “GULAG Archipelago”),
Y. Dombrovsky (“Keeper of Antiquities”), E. I. Zamyatin (“We”),
M. A. Aldanova (“St. Helena, Little Island”), B. L. Pasternak
(“Doctor Zhivago”), M. A. Bulgakova (“The Master and Margarita”), V. V. Nabokova
(“Lolita”), B. Pilnyak (“The Naked Year”, “The Tale of the Unextinguished Moon”),
A. Platonov (“Chevengur”, “Pit”), poetic works
G. V. Ivanova, A. A. Akhmatova, N. S. Gumilyov, O. E. Mandelstam. On
on the theatrical stage, journalistic
drama. The most prominent representative of this trend was M. F. Shatrov
(Marshak) (“Dictatorship of Conscience”). There was a particular public outcry
works that touched upon the theme of Stalinism and Stalin's
repression. Not all of them were literary masterpieces, but they
enjoyed the constant interest of readers of the perestroika era, because
“opened their eyes”, talked about what they had talked about before
A similar situation was observed in other forms of art. Shel
intensive process of “returning” the creative heritage of artists,
previously under ideological ban. Spectators were able to again
see the works of artists P. Filonov, K. Malevich, V. Kandinsky. IN
musical culture was returned to the work of A. Schnittke, M. Rostropovich,
Representatives of the musical “underground” appeared on the wide stage: bands
"Nautilus", "Aquarium", "Cinema", etc.
Artistic analysis of the phenomenon of Stalinism became decisive
direction and in the work of writers, musicians and artists who worked directly during the years of Perestroika. As one of the most significant
works of Soviet literature were appreciated by contemporaries
Ch. Aitmatov “The Scaffold” (1986), for whom, as for most
Aitmatov's works are characterized by a combination of deep psychologism with
traditions of folklore, mythological imagery and metaphor.
A noticeable phenomenon in the literature of the Perestroika era, a peculiar
A bestseller was the novel by A. N. Rybakov “Children of Arbat” (1987), in which
the era of the cult of personality is recreated through the prism of the fate of the generation of the 30s. ABOUT
the fate of genetic scientists, about science under a totalitarian regime
narrated in the novels by V. D. Dudintsev “White Clothes” (1987) and
D. A. Granin “Bison” (1987). Post-war “orphanage” children who became
random victims of events related to forced eviction from their native
the lands of the Chechens in 1944, is dedicated to the novel by A. I. Pristavkin “A Cloud Spent the Night
golden" (1987). All these works caused great public
resonance and played a significant role in the development of Russian culture, although
often the journalistic component in them prevailed over
artistic.
Little of what was created in that critical era has stood the test of time.
In the fine arts, the “spirit of the times” was reflected in very mediocre
and schematic paintings by I. S. Glazunov (“Eternal Russia” 1988). Again
popular genre, as has always happened at critical moments in history,
becomes a poster.
In feature and documentary cinema of the perestroika years
a number of wonderful films appear, in tune with the era: “Repentance”
T. Abuladze, “Is it easy to be young” by J. Podnieks, “You can’t live like that”
S. Govorukhina, “Tomorrow there was a war” by Y. Kara, “Cold summer fifty
third"). At the same time, in addition to serious, deep films filled with
thinking about the fate of the country, about its history, many very weak
a deliberately gloomy depiction of social reality. Such films
were designed for scandalous popularity, their figurative system was built
in contrast to traditional Soviet cinema, in which it is customary
was to avoid excessive naturalism, sex scenes and other vulgar
techniques. Such films are colloquially called “chernukhas” (“Little
Vera" dir. V. Pichul).
Acquired a huge role in cultural and social life
journalism. Articles were published in the magazines “Znamya”, “New World”, “Ogonyok”,
in the Literary Gazette. Especially with great love from readers in those days
used the weekly “Arguments and Facts”. Circulation of "AiF" perestroika
pores blocked all conceivable limits and ended up in the Guinness Book of Records.
However, television journalistic programs had the widest audience
programs such as “Vzglyad”, “The Twelfth Floor”, “Before and After Midnight”,
"600 seconds." Despite the fact that these programs were broadcast at an inconvenient time for
most of the spectators time (late evening), they enjoyed very great
popularity, and the stories shown in them became the subject of general
discussions. Journalists addressed the most burning and exciting topics
modern times: youth problems, the war in Afghanistan, environmental
disasters, etc. The presenters of the programs were not like traditional Soviet ones
announcers: relaxed, modern, smart (V. Listyev, V. Lyubimov, V. Molchanov
The results of Perestroika in the field of education are ambiguous. With one
On the other hand, glasnost revealed serious shortcomings in secondary and higher schools:
the material and technical base was weak, school and
university programs and textbooks, clearly outdated and therefore ineffective
there were traditional principles of educational work (subbotniks, pioneer
rallies, Timurov’s detachments). Thus, the need for
immediate reforms.
On the other hand, attempts to correct the current situation are often
only led to a deterioration in the quality of the educational process. Refusing
using old educational literature, schools found themselves either completely without
textbooks, or were forced to use very dubious quality
new. Introduction of new subjects into school courses (such as
“Ethics and psychology of family life”, “Informatics”) it turned out
unprepared: there were no qualified teachers ready
teach new disciplines, no technical capabilities, no educational and methodological
literature. The pioneer and Komsomol organizations that had become obsolete were
were finally abolished, but nothing new was created in their place -
the younger generation dropped out of the educational process. In the majority
cases of “reform” came down to changing names: on a massive scale
ordinary secondary schools, vocational schools and technical schools began to call themselves
gymnasiums, lyceums, colleges and even academies. The essence with change
The signage has not changed. Attempts to create a flexible education system that meets
needs of the time, encountered the inertia of a significant part
teaching staff and lack of funds.
The field of higher education, in addition to problems common to the entire system
public education, faced the problem of a shortage of teachers,
many of whom left universities for commercial firms or left
abroad.
To an even greater extent, the problem of “brain drain” has become relevant for
science. If research in applied fields during the years of Perestroika is noticeable
are revived, then fundamental science, which for decades has been
a subject of national pride, inevitably tends to decline, due to
which became difficult with financing, a decline in prestige and loss
understanding the social significance of a scientist’s work in society.
In general, the cultural consequences of Perestroika are still awaiting assessment.
It is quite obvious that along with the undoubted positive effect that
brought democratization (the acquisition of the heritage of writers, artists and
musicians whose work had been suppressed, the general revival of cultural
life), one cannot fail to notice the negative consequences of not fully thought out
reforms (deepening crisis in the education system, decline in fundamental
Culture of the last decade of the twentieth century.
A distinctive feature of the culture of modern Russia – e-0 in its
diversity, variety of manifestations of creativity in all areas
public life. Being “inside” the present time, it is very difficult
it is almost impossible to determine which facts of modern cultural life
are important, determining the main direction of development
culture, and which will be swept away by the course of history in the near future.
The diversity of modern cultural life is most clearly manifested in
literature. Among the most significant currents in it it should be noted
postmodernism. The classics of European postmodernism are Jorge Luis
Borges, Umberto Eco, John Fowles. A characteristic feature of the concept
postmodernism is considered “quotational”. Material for creative
comprehension in a postmodern work becomes less real
life events, how many impressions from books previously read by the author,
movies seen, music heard. From these impressions, as from
multi-colored smalts, a mosaic of a new work is compiled. Perception
works often turn into solutions for the thoughtful reader
a kind of rebus - where did what come from? This is a kind of game. Developing
a well-known literary or cinematic image or cliche.
For example, the novel by the popular modern writer V. Pelevin “Chapaev and
Emptiness" is largely built on allusions to popular in Soviet times
anecdotes about Chapaev and the film of the Vasilyev brothers, although the book talks about
about something completely different. Pelevin's Chapaev has nothing in common with the real hero
there is no civil war, but hints and references to the image are discernible in it,
created on screen by actor Babochkin. Quotability is also characteristic of others
Pelevin’s popular works “Generation P”, “Amon Ra”, “Life
insects" etc.
The change in artistic tastes was also reflected in the fact that
“returned” (i.e. written back in Soviet times, but not published
then, for censorship reasons, into the light) of the literature of the modern reader
they are no longer interested in civic-journalistic novels about the era
Stalinism, as it was ten years ago, but postmodern in spirit
works with elements of a “quote” game: “Moscow - Cockerels” by Venedikt
Erofeev (1969), “Pushkin House” by Andrei Bitov (1971).
With the penetration of market relations into book publishing, the shelves
bookstores throughout the post-Soviet space were filled with
fiction and entertainment literature of various quality:
detective stories, science fiction, so-called women's novels. Among the masters
The most famous detective genre is V. Dotsenko (“Mad”), F. Neznansky
(“Turetsky March”), A. Marinin (series of novels about investigator Anastasia
Kamenskaya). To replace science fiction, popular in the 60s–80s. comes
science fiction in the "fantasy" style, the ancestor of which in world literature
there was an English writer and scientist J. Tolkien. Russian fantasy presented
works by M. Semenova (“Wolfhound”) and N. Perumov (“Diamond Sword,
wooden sword”, etc.) Fantasy is characterized by the use of mythological
images, appeal to traditional consciousness, through the prism of which they look
heroes of fantasy novels on the world. If in science fiction fiction has,
time machine, that interstellar flights are possible, etc.), then fantasy
comes from the assumption of the reality of essentially fairy-tale phenomena (the heroes use
magic, fight evil magicians, communicate with dragons, elves, gnomes
etc.). The closest analogy to fantasy is a literary fairy tale, but
"fairy tale for adults."
Postmodernism is a phenomenon that goes beyond literature. His
manifestations can be found in cinema, theater, painting and music.
Nikas Sofronov, painting his paintings on old icon boards, on which
in some places the remains of a pictorial layer have been preserved (also a kind of “quotations”),
In monumental sculpture the greatest, although somewhat scandalous
The works of the Moscow sculptor Zurab Tsereteli are popular,
townspeople and the definitely negative attitude of art critics.
In the new Russian cinema, the most noticeable thing is creativity
actor and film director Nikita Sergeevich Mikhalkov. Film "Burnt"
the sun" was awarded an "Oscar" - an American Film Academy award.
The film takes place in the 30s. The main character is division commander Kotov, in
whose image embodies the type of man-symbol of the Stalin era: he
famous military leader of the Civil War, named after him
pioneer detachments, his portrait is known to everyone. Love line unexpectedly
turns out to be related to the theme of repression - an apparently prosperous life
the all-powerful division commander, who has a direct telephone connection with Stalin himself,
crumbles to dust. Nostalgia for the greatness, nobility and beauty of the past
imperial Russia permeates the painting “The Barber of Siberia,” filmed in
1998 (starring Oleg Menshikov and Julia Ormond).
The films of Alexey Balabanov gained enormous popularity among young people:
"Brother" (1997) and "Brother-2" (2000). The central character of both films
Danila Bagrov, a young man who went through the Chechen war, is
a strange combination of naivety and life wisdom, limited,
True, his military experience; kindness, nobility and
terrible cruelty, which allows him, in his search for “truth,” to completely
thinking about using weapons. The films feature music from popular bands
and performers, taken “straight from life”: “Nautilus”, Zemfira, etc.
Plays by new authors appear in theater repertoires: N. Kolyada,
M. Ugarova, M. Arbatova, A. Shipenko.
Television has changed noticeably in the last decade. New ones have appeared
channels independent from the state (NTV, TV-6 1993) From the front podium
of social thought it has turned into a powerful weapon of political struggle,
on which huge amounts of money are spent, which predetermined the growth
professional level of programs, and at the same time led to a decrease
trust in television as a source of information. Acute social
political issues no longer arouse the interest they once had. Spectators give
preference for programs that cover issues of private, family,
personal life. Problems of big politics and the country's historical choice in
television journalism gave way to problems of human relationships.
Many new television programs of a similar focus have emerged:
“My family”, “While everyone is at home”, “I myself”, “About this”. Lots of airtime
occupy entertainment programs with no journalistic component at all:
“Field of Miracles”, “Guess the Melody”.
In the 90s the sphere of education and science continues to remain
mostly depressed. The crisis that began in the 80s continues
deepen. School teachers and university professors from respected and even
privileged group of the population, as they were in Soviet times,
They become the category of impoverished “state employees” who can barely make ends meet.
The process of “brain drain” that began during the years of Perestroika is becoming truly
catastrophic proportions. Most teachers and scientists located
at an active age, are forced to leave their previous place of work in
school, university or academic institute and look for income from
side. At best, they continue to engage in intellectual work
abroad at the invitation of foreign scientific institutions, at worst -
become small traders, taxi drivers, cleaners.
However, recently there have been some signs
correct the situation. A market for educational services has emerged. More flexible
the connection between education and life has become: new educational institutions are opening,
Specialties that are in demand among employers are rapidly developing
(law, management, political science, etc.) System of market relations
made it possible to improve the financial situation of those educational institutions that
turned out to be able to provide education in demand by society. This,
however, it does not solve the problem in principle. Still continue to languish
the miserable existence of fundamental science, but without it one is lost
prospects for further development. However, despite the difficulties Russian
scientists continue to occupy leading positions in the world. Confirmation of this
became the Nobel Prize received by the Russian physicist Zh. Alferov in 2000.
The role of
churches. We can say that religion is gradually filling the place of the sunk
non-existence of communist ideology. Largely level up
religiosity today is explained by socio-economic
problems that give rise to a feeling of uncertainty about the future, mental
depression, feeling of disconnection.
Today, the majority of believers belong to denominations
has long existed on the territory of the country: Orthodox, Muslim,
Jewish. Conversion to traditional religions may be considered
a positive phenomenon, because the church is the guardian of many
historical traditions and can provide spiritual guidelines, the lack of which
is one of the main problems of modern society. At the same time
An alarming fact is the rapid expansion of influence of various kinds
totalitarian sects and Western preachers, whose activities most often
has a pronounced destructive orientation. Disastrousness
the influence of sects on the souls of people was clearly manifested in the activities of the “White
Brotherhood" (1993), the organizers of which managed to involve in their networks
a huge number of young people.
Despite all the political cataclysms, Russian culture,
dating back more than 1000 years, continues to evolve. Modern her
the situation gives no reason for pessimism. How will further development proceed?
Time will tell. In the meantime, we can say that preserving and increasing
cultural heritage is one of the indispensable conditions for a decent future
Russia in the XXI century.
Period 1985-1991 entered the modern history of Russia as the period of “perestroika and glasnost.” During the reign of the last General Secretary of the CPSU and the first President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev, important events took place in the country and in the world: the Soviet Union and the socialist camp collapsed, the monopoly of the Communist Party was undermined, the economy was liberalized and censorship was softened, and signs of freedom of speech appeared. At the same time, the financial situation of the people worsened, and the planned economy collapsed. The formation of the Russian Federation, the Constitution of which was approved by a popular referendum in 1993, and the coming to power of B.N. Yeltsin seriously influenced the cultural situation in the country. Many celebrities returned to the country from emigration and exile, temporarily or permanently: musicians M.L. Rostropovich, G. Vishnevskaya, writers A. Solzhenitsyn and T. Voinovich, artist E. Neizvestny... At the same time, tens of thousands of scientists and specialists emigrated from Russia, mainly in the technical sciences.
Between 1991 and 1994, the volume of federal contributions to science in Russia decreased by 80%. The outflow of scientists aged 31-45 years abroad annually amounted to 70-90 thousand. On the contrary, the influx of young personnel has sharply decreased. In 1994, the United States sold 444 thousand patents and licenses, and only 4 thousand to Russia. The scientific potential of Russia decreased by 3 times: in 1980 there were over 3 million specialists engaged in science, in 1996 - less than 1 million.
Brain drain is possible only from those countries that have high scientific and cultural potential. If in Europe and America Russian scientists and specialists were accepted into the best scientific laboratories, this means that Soviet science in previous years had reached the most advanced levels.
(Conclusion) It turned out that Russia, even being in an economic crisis, is able to offer the world dozens, hundreds of unique discoveries from various fields of science and technology: treatment of tumors; discoveries in the field of genetic engineering; ultraviolet sterilizers for medical instruments; lithium batteries; steel casting process; magnetic welding; artificial kidney; fabric that reflects radiation; cold cathodes for producing ions, etc.
Despite the reduction in cultural funding, more than 10 thousand private publishing houses appeared in the country in the 90s, which in a short time published thousands of previously banned books, starting with Freud and Simmel and ending with Berdyaev. Hundreds of new, including literary, journals have appeared, publishing excellent analytical works. Formed into an independent sphere
religious culture. It consists not only of a several-fold increase in the number of believers, the restoration and construction of new churches and monasteries, the publication of monographs, yearbooks and religious magazines in many cities of Russia, but also the opening of universities, which they did not even dare to dream of under Soviet rule. For example, Orthodox University named after. John the Theologian, which has six faculties (legal, economic, historical, theological, journalistic, historical). At the same time, in the 90s, no outstanding talents appeared in painting, architecture and literature that could be attributed to the new, post-Soviet generation.
Today it is still difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the results of the development of national culture in the 90s. Her creative output has not yet become clear. Apparently, only our descendants can draw final conclusions.
The October Revolution of 1917 turned out to be a great turning point in the fate of Russian culture. A turning point in the literal sense of the word: domestic culture, which was developing along an ascending line, reaching its highest point and worldwide recognition during the “Silver Age”, was stopped and its movement went sharply downward.
As it was thought, proletarian culture was supposed to replace noble and bourgeois cultures.
Simultaneously with the liquidation of the old intelligentsia, the creation of a Soviet intelligentsia was underway, and at an accelerated rate - through “promotion” (yesterday’s workers were nominated by party bodies to become directors), workers’ faculties (preparatory faculties for accelerated education and preparation of worker-peasant youth for entering universities).
i The most effective means was considered to be general nationalization - not only of factories and factories, but also of theaters and art galleries.
i More actively than others, Proletkult (Proletarian Culture) fought against the old culture - a cultural, educational and literary and artistic organization (1917-1932) of proletarian amateur activity under the People's Commissariat of Promotion, denying cultural heritage.
i The country launched a massive campaign to eliminate illiteracy among adults and children.
[given 14.1)<ыр шина! Исш
Reeds of Ilipom "haddock 1|di|m
The forced preparation of schoolchildren and students at first led to a noticeable decrease in the quality of education.
In the 30s, a new and no less radical turn took place in the activities of the Bolsheviks than in 1917 - a transition from revolutionary asceticism to the well-being of private life and more civilized forms of behavior.
i It seems that the poetic symbol of the revolutionary era, with its creative upsurges, persecution of dissidents, and the tossing and despair of the Russian intelligentsia,
the activities of three great poets - V. Mayakovsky, A. Blok and S. Yesenin.
i The state of external agreement with the course pursued by the party and internal disagreement with it, for universal and universal humane reasons, is called “internal emigration.”
i An extremely important place in the development of abstract painting belongs to the brilliant Russian artist, poet and art theorist V.V. Kandinsky
i Another creator of modern art was K.S. Malevich (1878-1935). With him begins the era of Suprematism (from the Latin supremus - highest, last), or the art of geometric abstraction.
i One of the central figures of the Russian avant-garde was V.E. Tatlin (1885-1953), considered the founder of constructivism, a movement that until 1921 was officially recognized by the authorities as the leading direction of revolutionary art.
One of the key figures in the art of the 20th century was the brilliant Russian painter, graphic artist, book illustrator, art theorist P. N. Filonov (1883-1941), the creator of an independent direction of the Russian avant-garde - the so-called analytical art.
One of the largest representatives of surrealism was the brilliant painter, graphic artist, theater artist, illustrator, master of monumental and applied arts M.Z. Chagall (1887-1985). The visionary (dreamlike) essence of his works, coupled with a figurative beginning, with a deep “human dimension,” made Chagall the forerunner of such movements as expressionism and surrealism.
After the Great October Revolution, Russian literature was divided into three camps. The first was made up of writers who refused to accept the revolution and continued to work abroad. The second consisted of those who accepted socialism and glorified the revolution, thus acting as “singers” of the new government. The third included those who were wavering: they either emigrated or returned to their homeland, convinced that a true artist could not create in isolation from his people.
The theoretical result of the stay of Russian thinkers in the West was an original doctrine - Eurasianism.
After the expulsion of leading non-Marxist philosophers from Soviet Russia in 1922, the “Silver Age” of Russian culture actually ended and the beginning of the party’s administrative intervention in the sphere of spiritual culture began. Writers who remained in Russia and accepted the new government were forced to accept a new ideological doctrine, which became the cornerstone of the artistic concept for many decades. It was called socialist realism. Its founder was M. Gorky (1868-1936).
