The terrifying realities of modern Russia. Essay on the present century and the past century in the comedy woe from wit Information about general trends

The comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboedov was written in the first half of the 19th century and is a satire on the views of the noble society of that time. In the play, two opposing camps collide: the conservative nobility and the younger generation of nobles who have new views on the structure of society. The main character of “Woe from Wit,” Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, aptly called the disputing parties “the present century” and “the past century.” The generational dispute is also presented in the comedy “Woe from Wit”. What each side represents, what their views and ideals are, will help you understand the analysis of “Woe from Wit.”

The “past century” in comedy is much more numerous than the camp of its opponents. The main representative of the conservative nobility is Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, in whose house all the phenomena of comedy take place. He is a manager in a government house. His daughter Sophia was raised by him from childhood, because... her mother died. Their relationship reflects the conflict between fathers and sons in Woe from Wit.

In the first act, Famusov finds Sophia in a room with Molchalin, his secretary, who lives in their house. He doesn’t like his daughter’s behavior, and Famusov begins to read morals to her. His views on education reflect the position of the entire noble class: “We were given these languages! We take tramps, both into the house and on tickets, so that we can teach our daughters everything.” There are minimum requirements for foreign teachers, the main thing is that there should be “more in number, at a cheaper price.”

However, Famusov believes that the best educational influence on a daughter should be the example of her own father. In this regard, in the play “Woe from Wit” the problem of fathers and children becomes even more acute. Famusov says about himself that he is “known for his monastic behavior.” But is he such a good example to follow if, a second before he began to lecture Sophia, the reader watched him openly flirt with the maid Lisa? For Famusov, the only thing that matters is what people say about him in the world. And if noble society does not gossip about his love affairs, it means his conscience is clear. Even Liza, imbued with the morals reigning in Famusov’s house, warns her young mistress not against nightly meetings with Molchalin, but against public gossip: “Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.” This position characterizes Famusov as a morally corrupt person. Does an immoral person have the right to talk about morality in front of his daughter, and even be considered an example for her?

In this regard, the conclusion suggests itself that for Famusov (and in his person for the entire Old Moscow noble society) it is more important to seem like a worthy person, and not to be one. Moreover, the desire of representatives of the “past century” to make a good impression extends only to rich and noble people, because communication with them contributes to the acquisition of personal gain. People who do not have high titles, awards and wealth receive only contempt from the noble society: “Whoever needs it: those who are in need, they lie in the dust, and for those who are higher, flattery is woven like lace.”
Famusov transfers this principle of dealing with people to his attitude towards family life. “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” he tells his daughter. The feeling of love has no power; it is despised by this society. Calculation and profit dominate the life of Famusov and his supporters: “Be inferior, but if there are two thousand family souls, that’s the groom.” This position creates a lack of freedom for these people. They are hostages and slaves of their own comfort: “And who in Moscow hasn’t had their mouths gagged at lunches, dinners and dances?”

What is humiliation for progressive people of the new generation is the norm of life for representatives of the conservative nobility. And this is no longer just a generational dispute in the work “Woe from Wit,” but a much deeper divergence in the views of the two opposing sides. With great admiration, Famusov recalls his uncle Maxim Petrovich, who “knew honor before everyone,” had “a hundred people at his service,” and was “all decorated.” What did he do to deserve his high position in society? Once, at a reception with the Empress, he stumbled and fell, painfully hitting the back of his head. Seeing the smile on the face of the autocrat, Maxim Petrovich decided to repeat his fall several more times in order to amuse the empress and the court. Such an ability to “help oneself,” according to Famusov, is worthy of respect, and the younger generation should take an example from him.

Famusov envisions Colonel Skalozub as his daughter’s groom, who “will never utter a smart word.” He is good only because “he has picked up a ton of marks of distinction,” but Famusov, “like all Moscow people,” “would like a son-in-law... with stars and ranks.”

The younger generation in a society of conservative nobility. Image of Molchalin.

The conflict between the “present century” and the “past century” is not defined or limited in the comedy “Woe from Wit” to the theme of fathers and children. For example, Molchalin, belonging to the younger generation by age, adheres to the views of the “past century.” In the first appearances, he appears before the reader as Sophia’s modest lover. But he, like Famusov, is very afraid that society might have a bad opinion about him: “Evil tongues are worse than a pistol.” As the action of the play develops, Molchalin's true face is revealed. It turns out that he is with Sophia “out of position,” that is, in order to please her father. In fact, he is more passionate about the maid Liza, with whom he behaves much more relaxed than with Famusov’s daughter. Beneath Molchalin's taciturnity lies his duplicity. He does not miss the opportunity at a party to show his helpfulness in front of influential guests, because “you have to depend on others.” This young man lives according to the rules of the “past century”, and therefore “Silent people are blissful in the world.”

“The Present Century” in the play “Woe from Wit.” The image of Chatsky.

The only defender of other views on the problems raised in the work, a representative of the “present century,” is Chatsky. He was brought up together with Sophia, there was youthful love between them, which the hero keeps in his heart even at the time of the events of the play. Chatsky has not been to Famusov’s house for three years, because... traveled around the world. Now he has returned with hopes of Sophia's mutual love. But here everything has changed. His beloved greets him coldly, and his views are fundamentally at odds with the views of Famus society.

In response to Famusov’s call “go and serve!” Chatsky replies that he is ready to serve, but only “to the cause, not to individuals,” but he is generally “sickened” to “serve.” In the “past century” Chatsky does not see freedom for the human person. He does not want to be a buffoon for a society where “he was famous whose neck was more often bent,” where a person is judged not by his personal qualities, but by the material wealth he possesses. Indeed, how can one judge a person only by his ranks, if “ranks are given by people, but people can be deceived”? Chatsky sees enemies of free life in Famus society and does not find role models in it. The main character, in his accusatory monologues addressed to Famusov and his supporters, speaks out against serfdom, against the slavish love of the Russian people for everything foreign, against servility and careerism. Chatsky is a supporter of enlightenment, a creative and seeking mind, capable of acting in accordance with conscience.

The “present century” is inferior in number to the “past century” in the play. This is the only reason why Chatsky is doomed to defeat in this battle. It’s just that the Chatskys’ time hasn’t come yet. A split among the nobility has only just begun, but in the future the progressive views of the protagonist of the comedy “Woe from Wit” will bear fruit. Now Chatsky has been declared crazy, because the accusatory speeches of a madman are not scary. The conservative nobility, by supporting the rumor of Chatsky's madness, only temporarily protected themselves from the changes that they are so afraid of, but which are inevitable.

conclusions

Thus, in the comedy “Woe from Wit” the problem of generations is not the main one and does not reveal the full depth of the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century”. The contradictions between the two camps lie in the difference in their perception of life and the structure of society, in different ways of interacting with this society. This conflict cannot be resolved by verbal battles. Only time and a series of historical events will naturally replace the old with the new.

The conducted comparative analysis of two generations will help 9th grade students describe the conflict of the “present century” with the “past century” in their essay on the topic ““The present century” and the “past century” in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov”

Work test

Features of the cultural process in modern Russia.

The beginning of the 90s of the last century is characterized by the accelerated disintegration of the unified culture of the USSR into separate national cultures, for which not only the values of the common culture of the USSR, but also each other’s cultural traditions turned out to be unacceptable. The sharp opposition of different national cultures led to an increase in cultural tension and caused the collapse of a single socio-cultural space.

The culture of modern Russia, organically connected with previous periods of the country's history, found itself in a completely new political and economic situation, which radically changed many things, first of all, the relationship between culture and power. The state stopped dictating its demands to culture, and culture lost its guaranteed customer.

Since the common core of cultural life as a centralized management system and a unified cultural policy has disappeared, determining the paths of further cultural development has become a matter for society itself and a subject of sharp disagreement. The range of searches is extremely wide - from following Western models to an apology for isolationism. The absence of a unifying cultural idea is perceived by part of society as a manifestation of the deep crisis in which Russian culture found itself at the end of the 20th century. Others consider cultural pluralism to be the natural norm of a civilized society.

If, on the one hand, the elimination of ideological barriers created favorable opportunities for the development of spiritual culture, then, on the other hand, the economic crisis experienced by the country and the difficult transition to market relations increased the danger of the commercialization of culture and the loss of national traits in the course of its further development. The spiritual sphere in general was experiencing an acute crisis in the mid-90s. The desire to direct the country towards market development has led to the impossibility of the existence of certain spheres of culture that objectively need state support. support.

At the same time, the division between elite and mass forms of culture, between youth and the older generation continued 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.

Due to the above reasons, the first place in culture began to be occupied by the media, called the “fourth estate”.

In modern Russian culture, incompatible values and orientations are strangely combined: collectivism, conciliarity and individualism, egoism, enormous and often deliberate politicization and demonstrative apoliticality, statehood and anarchy, etc.

If it is quite obvious that one of the most important conditions for the renewal of society as a whole is the revival of culture, then specific movements along this path continue to be the subject of heated debate. In particular, the subject of dispute is the role of the state in regulating culture: whether the state should intervene in cultural affairs, or whether culture itself will find the means for its survival. Here, apparently, the following point of view has been formed: 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. However, the specific implementation of these provisions remains in question. The state, apparently, is not fully aware 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. Despite all the contradictory characteristics of national culture, society cannot allow separation from its cultural heritage. A disintegrating culture is little adapted to transformation.

Various opinions are also expressed regarding the ways of cultural development in modern Russia. On the one hand, it is possible to strengthen cultural and political conservatism, as well as stabilize the situation based on ideas about the identity of Russia and its special path in history. However, this is fraught with a return to the nationalization of culture. If in this case there is automatic support for cultural heritage and traditional forms of creativity, then, on the other hand, foreign influence on culture will inevitably be limited, which will greatly complicate any aesthetic innovations.

On the other hand, in the conditions of Russia’s integration under external influence into the world system of economy and culture and its transformation into a “province” in relation to global centers can lead to the dominance of alien trends in domestic culture, although the cultural life of society in this case will also be more stable for account of commercial self-regulation of culture.

In any case, the key problem remains 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. Here, state intervention in the cultural life of the country is necessary, since only with institutional regulation is it possible to fully utilize the cultural potential, radically reorient state cultural policy, and ensure the accelerated development of the domestic cultural industry within the country.

In modern Russian culture, numerous and very contradictory trends are manifested, partially outlined above. In general, the current period of development of national culture is still transitional, although it can be stated that certain ways out of the cultural crisis have emerged.

The modern realities of Russia involuntarily evoke a cry from the heart of any person who cares about its future and present. The state of decay in which it found itself, Russia, like the entire Russian people, perishing in corruption, lawlessness and poverty.

For clarity, I would like to cite a few stunning figures and facts that clearly confirm that Russia, in many respects, is not in Europe or even in Asia: in terms of corruption, in life expectancy, in terms of investment in science, and the like, it is in Africa! It’s even worth saying more - it’s not the Russians who should be offended for such a comparison, but the Africans! Africans have an explanation for their backwardness: they were mercilessly exploited and destroyed for four centuries by “aliens” - racists and colonialists, and the Russians, who colonized the Russians for the last four centuries, who spread rot on the Russians, except the Russians themselves?..

Mortality in Russia

Over the past 20 years, more than 7 million Russians have died out in Russia. According to this indicator, Russia is 50% ahead of Brazil and Turkey, and several times ahead of Europe.

Every year Russia loses in population an entire region equal to Pskov, or a large city such as Krasnodar.

The number of suicides, poisonings, murders and accidents in Russia is comparable to the mortality rate in Angola and Burundi.

In terms of life expectancy for men, Russia ranks approximately 160th in the world, behind Bangladesh.

Russia ranks 1st in the world in terms of absolute population decline.

According to UN estimates, Russia's population will decline from the current 143 million people to 121–136 million by 2025.

The figures reflecting the family crisis in Russia are also terrifying: 8 out of 10 old people living in nursing homes have relatives who can support them. But, nevertheless, they are sent to shelters! Their relatives abandoned them.

Today there are from 2 to 5 million street children in Russia (after the Great Patriotic War there were 700 thousand of them).

In China there are 1 billion 400 000 thousand people, but there are only 200 thousand homeless people - i.e. 100 times less than in the Russian Federation! This is what children mean to a Chinese! But caring for the elderly and children is the key to a prosperous nation.

80% of the 370 thousand children in orphanages have living parents. But they are supported by the state!

The Russian Federation ranks first in the world in the number of children abandoned by their parents.

All these figures indicate erosion and disintegration of family values in the country...

The statistics on crimes against children are also horrifying. According to the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation for 2014, 100 thousand minors became victims of crime, of which 1,700 children were raped and killed (according to these figures, we were even ahead of South Africa). This means that every day 4-5 children are killed in Russia.

In 2015, 9,500 sexual crimes were committed against minors in Russia - of which 2,600 were rapes, 3,600 were non-violent sexual intercourse (over 2 years, sexual crime increased almost 5 times). Only South Africa is ahead of us in these crimes.

Drug addiction and alcoholism

30 thousand Russians die annually from drug overdose (population of a small town).

Vodka kills 70,000 people a year. In Afghanistan, 14,000 of our soldiers died during the war!

According to the World Health Organization, there are 15 liters of pure alcohol per citizen of the Russian Federation per year, despite the fact that if the consumption of pure alcohol per person is more than 8 liters, then there is a threat to the survival of the nation.

Corruption

The amount of bribes in Russia has increased tenfold, and the courts between Russian oligarchs in London have become a laughing stock for the global business community.

Impunity in the legal sphere has reached the point that a criminal case has been opened against the lawyer Magnitsky, who died in prison - that is, they decided to try a dead man who, naturally, cannot defend himself! In Europe, the last time such an incident happened was in the 17th century, when they dug Cromwell out of his grave and hung him on the gallows - so to speak, justice, after all!

In the annual study by Transparency International, Russia dropped to 154th place out of 178 countries in terms of corruption in 2014. Thus neighboring Guinea-Bissau and Kenya.

So, in the light of the above figures, we can safely talk about the decline of national morality - and, ultimately, responsibility for this lies with those in power.

And now some dry facts, for example, does the average Russian know that:

Over the past 10 years, 11,000 villages and 290 cities have disappeared in Siberia.

The average density of Siberia and the Far East is 2 people per 1 sq. km.

The average density of the Central part of Russia is 46 people/sq. km.

The average population density of China is 140 people/sq.km

The average population density of Japan is 338 people/sq. km

For whom were Siberia and the Kuril Islands conquered and developed? For the Chinese or Japanese, this is how it works!

For a country with such wealth of natural and water resources, it is shameful to have 50% of the population poor.

The above figures can easily confuse any sane person. We can say with confidence that he knows about all the above facts - I just wonder what he thinks about this?

As tragic as this may be, it is worth noting that, obviously, this is not the limit, not the worst, we have not yet touched the “bottom”, and the people have not yet matured to the ability to be horrified at themselves and, finally, find the courage to ask “where we are living?". The Russians sniffed the stench in the hallways and toilets! Russians are accustomed to murders happening around them every day. Russians are accustomed to the fact that people in Russian cities and towns are literally fighting for their lives.

The Kremlin only pretends to fight corruption, dismissing dozens of Interior Ministry generals, mid-level officials, and governors. He generously replaces their execution with a “well-deserved rest” in Dubai and the Cote d’Azur! Is the government seriously thinking about ending corruption in this way? But, on the other hand, throughout the country you elect a candidate to the local government who has “I am a thief” written on his forehead, and then you are surprised that the government is corrupt!

And the question arises, should half the nation really die out and the Russians should “shrink” to the Urals, so that the people wake up (namely the people, and not a tiny group of thinking people!) and demand from the authorities not pleasant, calming news and further promises, but the truth, and above all – recognition of how bad it is now! Remember: a catastrophe occurred in 1941—Stalin was forced to do this. In 1956, the Bolsheviks felt that they were facing retribution for decades of terror, and Khrushchev was forced to do this.

And today it is approaching a demographic and moral catastrophe that has never been experienced before!

It is worth noting that the majority’s answer in this case is painfully predictable. It was voiced many times and the fact is absolutely obvious that if at least a third of those who read this article agreed with its content, then Russia would be a different country!

And so today there is only a forced statement of the terrifying realities of our time.

Oleg Rudenko

The opinions expressed in the "Opinions" section reflect the views of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the position of the editors. The site's editors are not responsible for the accuracy of such materials, and the site serves solely as a carrier

Modern Russian culture of the 21st century requires multilateral and in-depth consideration. It is in close contact with the past centuries. Its current state of culture is directly related to accumulated experience. Perhaps outwardly she somewhat denies him, to some extent even plays with him. Next, we will take a closer look at the current state of culture in Russia.

General information

The culture of modern Russia is part of the global one. She transforms, recycles and absorbs new trends. Thus, in order to trace the development of culture in modern Russia, you need to pay attention to world phenomena as a whole.

Today's situation

Nowadays problems are of paramount importance. First of all, we are talking about a powerful factor in social development. Culture permeates every aspect of human life. This applies both to the basics of material production and needs, and to the greatest manifestations of the human spirit. The culture of modern Russia is exerting an increasing influence on the solution of program goals. In particular, this concerns the construction of a rule of law state, the disclosure of human creative abilities, strengthening and culture in modern Russia has an impact on many areas. This applies to personality, lifestyle, thinking, leisure, everyday life, work, and so on. There is a special institute - the Department of Culture. Depending on the status, they resolve and coordinate certain issues. As for its social influence, it is, first of all, a necessary aspect of the activity of a social person. That is, it is observed to be regulated by certain rules that are accumulated in traditions, symbolic and sign systems, and new trends.

Main difficulties

Today, the development of culture in modern Russia is associated with a number of issues. They were set by the life of society itself. Currently, all guidelines are aimed at something qualitatively new. Thus, there is a sharp change in the understanding of innovative and traditional trends in social development. On the one hand, they are required in order to deeply master the cultural heritage. On the other hand, it is necessary to be able to go beyond the usual ideas that have already become obsolete. The Culture Department must also undergo corresponding reorganization changes. It is also necessary to overcome a number of reactionary traditions. They have been planted and developed over centuries. These traditions manifested themselves in the consciousness, behavior and activities of people constantly. To adequately address these issues, it is necessary to understand how culture develops in modern Russia.

Impact of progress

The emergence of the modern world has contributed to significant changes in human consciousness. People's views are turned to the limits of life. Self-awareness becomes a trend. The focus on one's own historical and cultural forms has resumed. The future is seen primarily in the processes of expanding international relations. All countries must be involved in the global cultural and historical process. Significant social changes have occurred. Questions about the identity and peculiarities of Russian culture come to the fore.

Information about general trends

What features of the culture of modern Russia can be seen now? There is a range of certain problems. In the foreground are innovation and traditions in the cultural space. Thanks to the stable side of the latter, the transmission and accumulation of human experience from a historical point of view occurs. As for traditional societies, here the assimilation of culture is carried out through the worship of past models. Within traditions, of course, there may be minor variations. In this case, they represent the basis for the functioning of culture. From the point of view of innovation, creativity is greatly hampered.

Progressive and reactionary tendencies

Creating a culture out of nowhere is not possible. Previous traditions cannot be completely discarded. The question of attitude towards cultural heritage concerns not only its preservation, but also development in general. In this case we are talking about creativity. Here the universal organic merges with the unique. The culture of the peoples of Russia, or rather its values, are undeniable. There is a need to distribute them. Cultural creativity is a source of innovation. It is involved in the process of general development. Here one can see a reflection of a wide range of opposing trends of the historical era.

Features of the structure

What is culture in modern Russia now? Briefly examining its content, it can be noted that it is divided into several different areas:

Religion.
All forms in which the national spirit manifests itself.
Art.
Technique.
The science.
Legal proceedings.
Socio-political structure.
The character of the army.
Economy.
Setting up education.
Nature of work, settlements, clothing.
Writing and language.
Customs.
Manners.

In this case, the history of culture is of paramount importance for understanding the level of its development.

Modern realities

Nowadays culture finds its embodiment in a variety of created spiritual and material phenomena and values. This applies to new elements such as:

Upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the cultural sphere is not homogeneous. The fact is that each component has common boundaries - both chronological and geographical. The culture of the peoples of Russia, in particular its identity, is inseparable. She is in constant interaction. There is a dialogue between many distinctive cultures. Interaction takes place not only in the present tense. It also touches on the past-future axis.

Main differences

Distinction and culture took place already in the 20th century. The latter, as before, is filled with positive meaning. As for civilization, it has a neutral characteristic. In some cases, a direct negative “sound” can be traced. Civilization is synonymous with material structure. We are talking about a fairly high level of mastery of the forces of nature. This is a powerful technological advance. It certainly contributes to the achievement of material wealth. Civilization in most cases is associated with the development of technology. This can be used for a wide variety of purposes. At the same time, culture came as close as possible to spiritual progress.

Features of development

The formation of a new image of culture is one of the most interesting moments. As for the traditional vision of world heritage, it is primarily associated with organic and historical integrity. The new image of culture boasts many associations. This concerns ideas, on the one hand, of the universal ethical paradigm, and on the other, of a cosmic scale. In addition, a new type of interaction is being formed. It is expressed in the rejection of a simplified rational scheme for solving cultural problems. Nowadays, understanding other people's points of view is becoming more important. The same can be said for the following:

If we take into account this logic of cultural communications, it is easy to understand that the principles of action will be appropriate.

Turning points

We'll talk about the early 90s. last century. The national culture of Russia is still influenced by that period. Events developed under the influence of many factors. There was an accelerated disintegration of the unified culture of the USSR. Many national divisions were formed for which the values of the overall culture of the Soviet Union turned out to be unacceptable. This also applied to traditions. There was also a sharp contrast between different national cultures. In this regard, tension grew. As a result, the single sociocultural space disintegrated. The system, which was previously organically connected with the previous history of the country, found itself in a new economic and political situation. A lot has changed dramatically. This also concerns the relationship between authorities and culture. The state was no longer going to dictate its terms. Thus, the culture has lost its guaranteed customers.

Ways for further development

The common core of culture has disappeared. Its further development became the subject of heated debate. The range of searches was very wide. This is a huge number of options - from an apology for isolationism to following the models of the West. There was virtually no unified cultural idea. A certain part of society perceived this situation as a deep crisis. This is what Russian culture came to at the end of the 20th century. At the same time, some believe that pluralism is the natural norm of a civilized society.

Positive points

The spiritual culture of modern Russia is closely interconnected with the elimination of ideological barriers of that period. The fact is that this provided favorable opportunities for its development. However, during this process there was some loss of national characteristics. This was due to the economic crisis that the country was experiencing and the difficult transition to market relations. In the mid-90s it was in a stage of acute crisis. The country's desire for market development was a priority. Thus, certain spheres of culture simply could not exist without state support. The gap between mass and elite forms continued to deepen. The same applied to the older generation and youth. The unevenness of access to the consumption of goods, both cultural and material, sharply increased. The combination of the above reasons led to the emergence of a “fourth estate” in the country. We are talking about the media, which began to occupy first place in culture. As for modernity, the following elements are intertwined in the most bizarre way:

Anarchy and statehood.
Demonstrative apoliticality and enormous deliberate politicization.
Selfishness.
Individualism and conciliarity.
Collectivism.

Role of the State

The revival of culture is the most important condition for the renewal of society. This fact is quite obvious. As for specific movements along this path, they still remain the subject of heated debate. In particular, this concerns the role of the state in this process. Will it intervene in cultural affairs and regulate it? Or perhaps she can find the means to survive on her own? There are several points of view on this matter. Some people believe that culture needs to be free. This also applies to the right to identity. Thus, the state will take upon itself the elaboration of strategic tasks for the “construction” of culture, as well as responsibilities for the protection of the national heritage. In addition, financial support for values is necessary. However, all these issues have not yet been resolved. We are talking about the specific implementation of these provisions. Many believe that the state has not yet fully realized the fact that culture cannot be left to business. It needs to be supported, just like science and education. This comes to the fore in matters of maintaining the mental and moral health of the country. Domestic culture has many contradictory characteristics. Nevertheless, society cannot allow separation from its national heritage. Culture is disintegrating and it is not adapted to change.

Possible options

As for the paths of development, in this case there are many conflicting opinions. Some talk about a possible strengthening of political conservatism. That is, the situation can be stabilized on the basis of Russia’s identity. In addition, the country’s special path in history should be highlighted. However, it may once again lead to the nationalization of culture. In this case we are talking about the implementation of automatic support for heritage and traditional forms of creativity. In other ways, foreign influence on culture is inevitable. Thus, any aesthetic innovations will be significantly hampered. What role can the conditions for Russian integration play? It is worth taking into account external influences. Thanks to this, the country can be turned into a “province” when compared with global centers. In domestic culture, the dominance of alien trends is possible. Although at the same time the life of society will become more stable. In this case, commercial self-regulation of the structure plays an important role.

Key issues

Of course, we are talking about preserving the original national culture. It is also worth noting the importance of its international influence. Cultural heritage is being introduced into the life of society. Russia can join the system of universal human principles. In this case, it will become an equal participant in world artistic processes. The state must intervene in the cultural life of the country. The presence of institutional regulation is an urgent need. Only in this way will the cultural potential be fully utilized. State policy in relevant areas will be radically reoriented. Thus, there will be an accelerated development of many industries within the country. It should also be mentioned that physical culture in modern Russia has emerged from the crisis and is developing at a moderate pace.

Final points

Modern Russian culture is characterized by the presence of numerous and contradictory trends. They have been partially identified in this article. As for the current period of development of national culture, it is transitional. It is also safe to say that certain ways out of the crisis have emerged. What does the last century represent as a whole? This is a very controversial and complex phenomenon. It is also greatly aggravated by the fact that the world has long been conditionally split into two camps. In particular, this applies to ideological characteristics. Thus, cultural practice was enriched with new ideas and problems. Global issues have forced humanity to take on the challenge. This affected world culture as a whole. And not only on her. The same can be said about each national heritage separately. In this case, dialogue between different cultures is a decisive factor. As for Russia, it is necessary to develop and adopt the correct strategic course. It is worth noting that the world situation is constantly changing. Solving the "cultural" problem is a very difficult task. First of all, we are talking about the need to understand the existing deep contradictions that are inherent in Russian culture. Moreover, this applies to its entire historical development. Domestic culture still has potential. It is sufficient to provide answers to the challenges posed by the modern world. As for the current state of Russian culture, it is very far from ideal. There is a need for a change in thinking. Currently, it is more focused on maximalism. In this case, a radical revolution is needed. We are talking about a real reorganization of everything and everyone, and in the shortest possible time. The development of national culture will certainly be difficult and long.

“The present century” and the “past century” in A. S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” 5.00 /5 (100.00%) 2 votes

In the comedy “Woe from Wit” we can observe a clash of two different eras, two styles of Russian life, which is realistically shown by the author in his immortal work. The difference in the worldview of the old Moscow nobility and the advanced nobility in the 10-20s of the 19th century constitutes the main conflict of the play - the collision of the “present century” and the “past century”.
“The Past Century” represents in the comedy the Moscow noble society, which adheres to the established rules and norms of life. A typical representative of this society is Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov. He lives the old fashioned way, and considers his ideal to be Uncle Maxim Petrovich, who was a shining example of a nobleman from the time of Empress Catherine.

Here's what Famusov himself says about him:

It's not on silver
Ate on gold; one hundred people at your service;
All in orders; I was always traveling in a train;
A century at court, and at what court!
Then it’s not like now...

However, in order to achieve such a life, he “bent over,” served, played the role of a jester. Famusov idolizes that century, but feels... It means that it is becoming a thing of the past. No wonder he complains: “Then it’s not like it is now...”
A prominent representative of the “present century” is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who embodies the features of the advanced noble youth of that time. He is a bearer of new views, which he proves by his behavior, way of life, but especially by his passionate speeches denouncing the foundations of the “past century,” which he clearly disdains. This is evidenced by his words:

And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid,
You can say with a sigh;
How to compare and see
The present century and the past:
The legend is fresh, but hard to believe;
As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often.

Chatsky considers that century to be the century of “submission and fear.” He is convinced that those morals are a thing of the past and today, “laughter frightens and keeps shame in check.”
However, it's not that simple. The traditions of days gone by are too strong. Chatsky himself turns out to be their victim. With his directness, wit, and audacity, he becomes a disturber of social rules and norms. And society takes revenge on him. At the first meeting with him, Famusov calls him “carbonari.” However, in a conversation with Skalozub, he speaks well of him, says that he is “a smart guy,” “writes and translates well,” and regrets that Chatsky is not serving. But Chatsky has his own opinion on this matter: he wants to serve the cause, not individuals. For now, apparently, this is impossible in Russia.
At first glance, it may seem that the conflict between Famusov and Chatsky is a conflict of different generations, a conflict of “fathers” and “children,” but this is not so. After all, Sophia and Molchalin are young people, almost the same age as Chatsky, but they fully belong to the “past century.” Sophia is not stupid. Chatsky’s love for her can also serve as proof of this. But she absorbed the philosophy of her father and his society. Her chosen one is Molchalin. He is also young, but also a child of that old environment. He fully supports the morals and customs of old lordly Moscow. Both Sofia and Famusov speak well of Molchalin. The latter keeps him in his service “because he’s businesslike,” and Sophia sharply rejects Chatsky’s attacks on her lover. She says: Of course, he doesn’t have this mind, What a genius for others, but for others a plague...
But for her, intelligence is not the main thing. The main thing is that Molchalin is quiet, modest, helpful, disarms the priest with silence, and will not offend anyone. In general, an ideal husband. You can say the qualities are wonderful, but they are false. This is just a mask behind which his essence is hidden. After all, his motto is moderation and accuracy,” and he is ready to “please all people without exception,” as his father taught him. He persistently moves towards his goal - a warm and moneyed place. He plays the role of a lover only because it pleases Sophia herself, the daughter of his master. And Sophia sees in him the ideal husband and boldly moves towards her goal, without fear of “what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say.”
Chatsky, finding himself in this environment after a long absence, is at first very friendly. He strives here, because the “smoke of the Fatherland” is “sweet and pleasant” to him, but this smoke turns out to be carbon monoxide for him. He encounters a wall of misunderstanding and rejection. His tragedy lies in the fact that on stage he alone confronts Famus society.
But the comedy mentions Skalozub’s cousin, who is also “wondering” - he “suddenly left his service,” locked himself in the village and began reading books, but he “followed his rank.” There is also a nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, “chemist and botanist” Prince Fyodor. But there is also Repetilov, who is proud of his involvement with a certain secret society, all of whose activities boil down to “make noise, brother, make noise.” But Chatsky cannot become a member of such a secret union.
Chatsky, apparently, is not only a bearer of new views and ideas, but also advocates new standards of life. After all, he traveled through Europe, which was experiencing revolutionary ferment. The comedy does not directly say that Chatsky is a revolutionary, but this can be assumed. After all, his surname is “speaking”, it is consonant with the surname of Chaadaev.
In addition to the public tragedy, Chatsky is also experiencing a personal tragedy. He is rejected by his beloved Sophia, to whom he “flew and trembled.” Moreover, with her light hand he is declared crazy.
So, Chatsky, who does not accept the ideas and morals of the “past century,” becomes a troublemaker in Famus society. And it rejects him. At first glance, it serves it right, because Chatsky is a mocker, a wit, a troublemaker and even an insulter. So, Sophia says to him: Has it ever happened that you laughed? or sad? A mistake? Did they say good things about anyone?
But you can understand Chatsky. He experiences a personal tragedy, he does not find friendly sympathy, he is not accepted, he is rejected, he is expelled, but the hero himself could not exist in such conditions.
“The present century” and the “past century” collide in comedy. The past time is still too strong and gives rise to its own kind. But the time for change in the person of Chatsky is already coming, although it is still too weak. “The “present century” replaces the “past century,” for this is an immutable law of life. The appearance of the Chatsky Carbonari at the turn of historical eras is natural and natural.