To the page “Social philosophy”
Dr. Sergey Zagraevsky
Beauty
will save the world? Culture will save
Attention!
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.
In the
"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
the
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
To the page “Social philosophy”