Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
will save the world? Culture will save
The following text was translated from the Russian original by the computer program
and has not yet been edited.
So it can be used only for general introduction.
"Beauty will save the world". These words of Dostoevsky known to all. Someone agrees with someone there... and in any case, these words primarily philosophical. We're going to talk about practical things, so instead of the word "beauty" will use the word "culture", and instead of abstract "world" talk about absolutely a particular country in a specific era. About modern Russia.
Usually, speaking about any age, historians people think of war. Remember we are.
It may seem that the world is experiencing only local military conflicts, but it is not. We live in the era of the fourth world war. The first (1914-1918) was conducted for the colony, the second (1939-1945) - for domination in Europe and the Pacific, the third (1946-1991), often called the "cold", - for domination in the world and the fourth began to Russia immediately after the collapse of the USSR, - for the world's resources. And if the third world war resources are only one tool in the fourth they were the main goal.
As written by Alexander Galich more about the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, "blood is not more expensive oil, and oil is needed desperately". But we still need gas, timber, gold, copper, Nickel, much more... And, of course, the money, which at all times were the engine wars. In a word, there is something to be at war, and this war goes around the world, participate in politics, the military, diplomats, spies, terrorists...
And in this war Russia with its enormous natural resources, Willy-nilly became involved, as they say, "in full."
In theory, because the number of natural resources of the Russian Federation in our time, the world's first, and historical perspectives of its development in comparison with other countries the most favorable. But on one condition: if it will be possible to save the territory where are these resources. And the main goal of Russia in the fourth world war is not to capture some of the neighbouring or distant countries, and to defend its territorial integrity. Win - win. Lose - lose.
Territorial integrity is possible to lose or when a military attack from the outside (in respect of Russia with its nuclear weapons is still equally unrealistic, as it was unrealistic in respect of the USSR), or under the influence of separatist tendencies. Russian Federation in case you lose it the fourth world war is likely to break up, as in the third world war brought down the Soviet Union, much stronger than the paramilitary, but taking on itself the most part of the civilized world.
Remember: the territory of Russian Empire was 21.8 million square kilometers, USSR - 22,4, and the Russian Federation - 17. Of course, it's still far more than the second-ranked Canada (10 million), but the relative reduction of the USSR obvious.
But in Russia too many national territorial entities, including countries with well-established statehood. Do not lead if they themselves as well as former Soviet republics? After all, the right of Nations to self-determination everywhere has many supporters and is actively used in international practice.
But we remember the pain, with some tragedies took place the collapse of the USSR. Remember the blood in Tbilisi, Vilnius, Karabakh, Sukhumi, Alma-ATA, Osh, Baku, and in Moscow itself. We remember the millions of refugees, remember the poor elderly and homeless children, remember the distribution of "humanitarian aid"...
Therefore, the main strategic goal of the Russian Federation - fighting with separatist tendencies. There is no doubt that these trends purposefully "fed" and from the outside and inside of Russia: as they say, in war as in war. But world war IV is different from all previous ones in that it is not clearly global strategic opponents: if a country is strong with her in one degree or another co-operate almost everything - and outside, and inside this country. If a country is weak, the enemies are activated everywhere.
What force can expect Russia in world war IV?
Power in its primitive understanding of - war - the war of secondary importance: if against the country purposefully take a stand all the world community, it would not survive, even with the most modern weapons. Her disappearance from the map (at least, the loss of political and economic independence) - a question of time.
Much more consistent with the current situation of understanding of the power as the combination of high prestige in the international arena and high level of life and safety of citizens.
It is hard to say how all this, Russia is far behind the most developed countries of the West, far from the former USSR. Opinions could be here a lot, so will just give you an abbreviation that has become in recent years, popular in the world and quite adequately characterize the current situation in Russia. This is the "BRICS". And does that "BRICS" the fact that Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa are on the same level of socio-economic development. Was it possible to imagine the "company" for the Soviet Union, and especially for the Russian Empire?..
This abbreviation is directly related to our country the third world, without any further comment says that today, nor quality of life and safety of citizens, nor Russia's international position are not its strong points. When the competent domestic and foreign policy, this is easily remedied, but in any case this will take time. His fourth world war can not give.
What the Russian Federation has remained from the fact that it could be used effectively for his defense in the ongoing world war?
Since no new global geopolitical instruments over the last twenty years has not appeared, and could not appear (too little time has passed), it is necessary to revisit the times of the USSR and to remember the words of a famous song of Yuri Vizbor that "in the field of ballet we are ahead of the entire planet". In the same lyrics were these words: "the Soviet art in the age stronger all the missiles.
Of course, this song was a joke, but seriously, the Soviet culture (as the preceding Russian culture, without which the Soviet never considered) was, if not the best in the world, it is because the concept of "best" in this area not applicable. Who is "better" - Pushkin, Goethe or Shakespeare? Fellini, Bergman, Tarkovsky or Coppola? Rublev, Leonardo, Poussin, Velazquez, Turner, Repin or Picasso? You can ask hundreds of questions and to receive on each of them hundreds of responses.
What artists can help Russian politicians, economists, military, diplomats, police, the businessmen and all other citizens?
The short answer:
Explain our position.
During Soviet times, the main factor in forming public consciousness, was the so-called "ideological education". Was it something like this: "Dear comrades, wait a bit, work honestly, think not only about yourself but also about your Soviet country, and you for ever will be communism, where each will work according to his skills and receive according to his needs".
This naive? Irrelevant? Yes, of course. But it's not only an utopian Communist ideology. The matter first of all in the specifics of the modern world: if there is any, even the most highly moral and relevant, the idea of "planting the top", they quickly develop mistrust.
Therefore it is necessary that such ideas were, as they say "from the heart". And for this we need to raise the cultural and moral level of people. Other way is not here.
In any society, the economy, politics and culture are closely interrelated, and one cannot exist without the other. For example, if the culture is destroyed and people "from childhood" have no concept of honor, conscience and decency, the theft in a society invincible (to each potential thief can not put a policeman). In turn, where theft, there is widespread non-payment of taxes - in fact, why pay if you still officials have plundered? (Usually, however, the last name is not theft, and corruption, but the essence remains the same).
The same can be said in relation to, for example, terrorism. If a child is attached to the humanistic culture, the probability of its involvement in a terrorist group is significantly reduced. And this is the only really effective way of combating terrorism. All other measures as malaktualigis, as increasing the number militiaman checking the documents of the citizens. And it's not even that any terrorist has the perfect documents. The fact that the global strategic initiative in the war against terrorism today the enemy.
This is another "vicious circle" of social relations. And at the root of all these circles is, anyway, culture. Human life starts with education - similarly, the society begins with culture. And in parallel with improving the lives and security of the citizens of the state should be introducing into their consciousness cultural, spiritual and moral values.
To paraphrase the famous saying about politeness: nothing comes society and the state so cheap and appreciated so expensive as culture.
Culture dearly valued and within the country as a cultural people and do their work better, and commit fewer crimes, and a more responsible approach to political issues, and more effectively resist extremism, and the streets are less litter, and more tolerant towards people of other nationalities, and cost less money as ready to work for the future, not for the sake of expediency...
Culture dearly valued on the international arena. The authority of the state is impossible to win only military, economic or political means (nuclear weapons, a powerful army, a large volume of exports and investment, hard currency, membership in various international organizations and so on). Necessary and good attitude of world public opinion. The famous words of the Emperor Tiberius "let them hate, if only feared" in our time does not apply: if the country will hate all over the world, sooner or later it will "choke".
And the most
effective "key" to the hearts of people around the world culture. If the first Association arising
from foreigners in
May be set to a
reasonable question: why culture could not save the
The answer is very
simple: because that was the third world war, and the
Then can be specified
another reasonable question: what now prevents culture to save
In order to understand this, we draw a parallel, for example, with hockey. If you stop government support to this (like any other) sport, to liquidate the system of selection of promising young players to refuse to broadcast matches on television, stop build in courtyards "hockey box", etc., Russian hockey completely gone, but will be available only to a narrow circle of fans. Of course, about the Olympic medals will forget.
It's the same with culture: without state support it inevitably turns into the inheritance of the narrow circle of the "keepers" and unable to perform all those global problems, about which we spoke above.
"stagnation" of the nineties in
And still the culture for the vast majority of modern Russian politicians, and especially economists, is not the most important tool of formation of positive public consciousness, not global trends in the behavior of millions, not a basic system of values and not even the existing norms of morality, but only familiar arguments about the preservation of monuments, the repertoires of theaters, exhibitions, concerts and, of course, about the fate of loved folk artists. Hence the understanding of culture as the Agency responsible for recreation, entertainment and, in the best case, the memory of the past.
So it turns out that the Russian state is primarily supports self-sustaining activities (entertainment TV shows, series, pop concerts, construction lush and clumsy buildings, indulging nerazviti taste of customers, etc). And all the rest of "residual principle".
Of course, as said
Polonius from Shakespeare's "hamlet", in this madness has its own
system. But still, from the point of view of modern development priorities of
Really can be effective
state support of culture humanistic orientation, forming a positive civil
behavior and improving the relations with
When selecting the objects of culture and cultural activities literally every budget penny should answer two questions:
- on humanistic whether the objectives money allocated?
- whether it improves on that money allocated, the image of Russia in the civilized world?
This is in no case does not mean that all cultural phenomena that do not meet these goals, it is necessary "Soviet-style" disable if only it is not a direct propaganda of extremism, violence, violation of territorial integrity of the country and so on). The state's task is different: the creation of a humanistic culture of optimal conditions for penetration into the minds and hearts of the citizens. A commercially attractive "mass culture" and so will not disappear, it simply must, as they say, a little push back.
Similar goal - humanistic orientation and improvement of relations with Russia the world civilized community must pursue fundamental science and education (in the broad sense - too components of culture), and similar issues should be the state, allocating funds for their development. Here, too, there are still positive traditions of the Soviet times (suffice it to say that the one who according to the world standards "doctor", - in Russian, as in the USSR, only "candidate"), and should preserve and multiply, until it is too late.
And it will be too late when the leave the last generation that heard the Soviet Union in the slightest adulthood. After that the Russian government that will try not declarative, but really change anything for the better in culture, science and education (and thus possibly to save the country), will be forced to start from scratch, and it will take much more time. Hardly the third world war will give Russia this time.
© Sergey Zagraevsky