Alexander Lvovich Dobrokhotov – head. Department of History and Theory of World Culture, Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State University, graduate of this faculty, author of several books, in particular about Dante. IN different times I read special courses at the University: “Philosophy of Russian Symbolism”, “Teleology of Culture”, “Metaphysics of Russian Power” and others. The unusual nature of Dobrokhotov’s lectures lies in the fact that they are free reflections, which are sometimes born right at the department.

– Alexander Lvovich, I have been your admirer since the first year, when you introduced us to the history of philosophy, and since then not one of your lecture cycles has left me indifferent. In your lectures I remember the thesis about the alternation of similar cultural eras. Now - at the end of the second millennium - how can we localize modern culture?

– I had in mind the metaphor used by Vyacheslav Ivanov and Father Pavel Florensky, about the change of “day” and “night” eras. I liked it for its extreme simplicity and clarity. “Day” eras are individualism, anthropocentrism, dynamics, expansion, struggle with nature, primacy of rationalism, innovation. “Nocturnal” – community, stability, peaceful integration into nature, primacy of myth, tradition, etc. A typical “day” era is Antiquity, a typical “night” era is the Middle Ages. “Daytime” epochs in this supposed historical chain gravitate towards related “daytime” epochs of the past, “nighttime” ones, respectively, towards “nighttime” ones: there is, as it were, a struggle between the union of “children” and “grandfathers” against the “fathers”.

-Who is right in this fight? Or is this just some kind of swing of the historical pendulum?

- Probably no one. “Day” and “night” are neither good nor bad, they are an alternation of alternative models, during which there is an accumulation of viable forms of culture (and at least for this reason we are more likely to deal with a progressive rather than a pendulum type of movement). Our cultural era (New Time or Modern) is, of course, “daytime” or, if we consistently exploit the found metaphor, “evening”: we still live by the values ​​of Modernity, but we are already aware of its exhaustion and are waiting for another century.

– To what extent can the culture of this era be called Christian?

– This question is more complicated than it might seem. If we consider culture to be the objectification of the efforts of the spirit mastering nature, then it must be said that Christianity from the very beginning emerged as an anti-cultural force. Culture is the improvement of the world, the creation beautiful images(in Greek: “idols”), setting goals for progress. Christianity is busy with salvation, caring for the invisible and waiting for the end of worldly reality...

- Excuse me, I don’t agree with you here. Understanding nature (and oneself as a part of nature) is a completely Christian task, and when creativity reveals the inner beauty of the world, it, in my opinion, is Christian. Adam's naming of animals - what is this if not creativity and knowledge? “Creating beautiful images” and, by the way, images can be a transformation of the world...

– Yes, of course, there is “Christian culture.” But it's like decorating a prison cell that we turn into a home to live in. However, the tension between culture (in the broad sense of the word) and Christianity does not disappear. And to this day, they - like oil and water - separate at the first opportunity. Nevertheless, all cultural cycles inevitably had to seek their own formula for the relationship between Christianity and culture. In this regard, Modern culture can hardly be called Christian (unlike medieval culture); it is rather a culture of humanism, that is, anthropocentrism and anthropodimensionality; the culture of secular revolution against the protectorate of the Church. Although this can also be considered as the fate of Christian culture in a transformed form.

– And this revolution continues?

– The humanistic experiment essentially ended in the 20th century and it is hardly worth considering it a complete failure (such pathos is now fashionable) – however, its time has passed, and the question of the possibility of a Christian culture proper and – perhaps even – the need for a cultural counter-revolution arises again. However, the experience of modern times shows that an attempt to return to religious paternalism in culture can only lead to the secularization of faith and cult: these mistakes cost European civilization too dearly, and they should not be repeated.

– It seems that you do not share the opinion that culture originated from cult.

– I rather share, if you don’t take it too literally, historically. But should culture return to cult? Their separation was not only a split and tragedy, but also an acquisition of something. The return is doomed to be a mutual usurpation: culture will take on the role of a cult, and the cult will turn into a worldly “censor.” But there is another way. One can view the historical relationship between culture and cult as drama and schism, but at the same time, the simple-minded desire to glue what has been split has an implicit premise of viewing history as nonsense. Is it still possible to look at this split as a gift from Providence? Perhaps this ability of historical experience to transform punishments into gifts is one of the meanings of history. Between expulsion from paradise and return to paradise lies the path that, in fact, completes the Creation of man.

– I’m afraid that not all “punishments” can be turned into “gifts”.

- But many. For example, Sergei Bulgakov said that Picasso’s paintings are “the corpse of beauty.” But on the other hand, the naturalism and humanistic psychologism of the art of the 19th century ultimately killed the spirit, leaving culture with an orphaned soul and meaningless flesh. The avant-garde - for all its sins - put an end to naturalism and anthropomorphism, returning to culture interest and flair for the metaphysical dimension.

– But not to the religious.

– Metaphysics opens a third – not natural and not human – dimension of existence. In this “third” the space for Revelation is discovered again, which disappeared in culture when, as a result of the efforts of the Enlightenment, nature became a universe.

– Isn’t your course of lectures on the “metaphysics of power in Russian culture” connected with this “third”?

- Indirectly, yes. Since I was interested in the modes of presence of the metaphysical in the world of “facts,” I wanted to consider those phenomena that seem to belong to nature, but are essentially metaphysical forces. For example, wealth, eros, power... By analogy with “transcendentals”, I designated them as “transnaturals”. What I found particularly interesting was the phenomenon of power, which in Russian culture is built into a whole historical plot.

– This is where Russian specificity is obvious!

– Yes, the Western culture of power is not only different, but even contrasts with the Russian one. Since the beginning of modern times, the West has sought to demythologize and rationalize ideas about power and power relations themselves. Of course, this simplified life, but it did not rid society of the problem of power: driven out the door, it climbed through the window. Totalitarian and radical leftist mythology was easily swept away centuries-old traditions rationalism. Russian culture has never perceived power as something “natural” and tried to find its supernatural, that is, metaphysical, justification. Maybe now the tragic Russian experience is more valuable than Western pragmatics. Therefore, it is interesting to study and unravel the “text” of the Russian metaphysics of power, which manifested itself both in ideas and in deeds.

– In other words, what Max Weber called “rationalization of power” is not suitable for Russia?

- Looks like it. “Rationalization” would be seen as a betrayal of something in the phenomenon of power that is more important than social order and effective administration. Power was intuitively understood in Russia as an area of ​​​​a curse that affects both when we accept power and when we refuse it. This is the main antinomy of power.

– What about the area of ​​damnation, when anointing for the kingdom is a sacrament and a blessing?

– But anointing is necessary because this is a curse zone. A person accepting power needs a special blessing; the “will of the people” alone is clearly not enough. The need for a special “sanction from above” has been understood since ancient times.

– Even in the Old Testament....

– Read Frazer’s “Golden Bough”, it also describes this. And in our country, right up to the philosophers of the “Silver Age” (in this context, to the thinkers of the Chicherin school), this antinomy had no theoretical understanding, and was expressed either indirectly, in culture, or directly, in volitional action.

– How do you explain this: the traditional “thought expressed is a lie”?

– For Russian soil, philosophy is an exotic and poorly rooted plant. For centuries, Rus' preferred myth and image, investing in them the treasures of its wisdom. Logical (and legal) constructions were perceived as formalism, at best auxiliary, but always suspicious. Therefore, it is quite natural that literature takes on the burden of metaphysics. Say, “Demons” or “ Captain's daughter” provide more for understanding the metaphysics of power than any domestic philosophical treatise.

- Well, with “Demons” it’s more or less clear, but “The Captain’s Daughter”....

– Essentially, here Pushkin gives a complete set of power relations, which are somewhat hidden by the plot. These are family power relations: fathers - children; administrative power: boss - subordinate; the power of passion: there is a person who chooses a traditional type of relationship, and there is Shvabrin, who, on the one hand, follows a lovingly romantic passion, on the other, he rebels against his superiors, becomes a rebel. There is also the power of nature over man - this is Pushkin’s “blizzard”, which constantly interferes with the course of events. The power of the people: the element of rebellion - Pushkin examines it in great detail (he was the first historian to conduct field research!). Royal power - “ deus ex mahina“: Pushkin shows that its exclusivity lies in the fact that the tsar can become above the law, but only he can become above the law. And finally, the power of God: all other types of power can be taken into brackets, because this is the core one here. Even lexically, this is noticeable in Pushkin, to the point of importunity - “glory to God”, “Lord, have mercy” - every three to four words. You won’t find this in anyone, not even Gogol.

– It’s typical that you even....

– This, on the one hand, is a story about humility, but on the other hand, about duty, about honor, which becomes a saving force in history. Here Pushkin was very out of his time: after all, it was an era of uprisings and revolutions. This probably sounds a bit boring to modern man, but God and honor turn out to be a saving, working force, standing above other types of power, temporary, situational. Of course, what I present in such a boring form, Pushkin does in a light figurative system.

– Are theoretical constructions necessary then?

– Philosophical reflection, realizing existence, changes something in it. This is always akin to “metanoia” (repentance): to think means to “come to your senses,” “to come to your senses.”

– Yes, in the case of the “metaphysics of power” this is especially important.

- That's it. But - returning to our original topic of the relationship between secular and Christian culture - it must be said that the first blow of the antinomy of power was taken not by metaphysics, but by the ancient Church. And it was precisely its paradoxical solution that Russian philosophy comprehended: the burden of power (and the burden of its sin) is accepted as service, which is tantamount to abandoning it as self-will, but not as responsibility. This is the deep meaning of the “symphony,” but it is by no means the unanimous cooperation of spiritual and secular power, as it is sometimes understood today.

– But what does this mean practically? Is it possible, based on this, to talk about a political person? modern Christianity?

– While we are at the University as a cultural space, for us the practical coincides with the theoretical. “Understand” here already means “act”. “Let's think well,” Pascal would say. In its own way, this is repeated in the space of the Church: not to give to Caesar what is God’s, without forgetting to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, this in itself is such a strong political position that “partisanship” becomes insignificant. It’s just important not to forget that being a Christian is modern world you cannot simply use those answers to the question “What does it mean to be a Christian today?” that were given with great difficulty to our ancestors. We also still have to work hard.

With Alexander Lvovich Dobrokhotov
interviewed by Vladislav Tomachinsky
“TD”, No. 24, 1998

Gorbachev-Yeltsin: 1500 days of political confrontation

Russian Independent Institute of Social and National Problems

Center for Political and Economic History of Russia

Gorbachev-Yeltsin:

1500 days of political confrontation

Under the general editorship of Doctor of Philosophy M. K. GORSHKOV

and Doctor of Historical Sciences V.V. ZHURAVLEVA

Compilation: Ph.D. Philosopher Sciences L. N. DOBROHOTOV

Preface and afterword: M. K. GORSHKOV, L. N. DOBROHOTOV

Scientific and technical work: A. I. KOZHOKINA

To the reader

The confrontation between the two leaders of perestroika, which became part of history, excited the public consciousness for many months. And not only in our country, but also abroad. The Gorbachev-Yeltsin problem attracted the attention of politicians and political scientists, historians and sociologists, publicists, and was widely discussed in the media. mass media, receiving not only an analysis of varying degrees of depth and objectivity, but also acquiring overtly subjective assessments, superficial and biased judgments, most often from the standpoint of group political approaches.

The dramatic finale of perestroika for the former Union, the resignation of the President of the USSR, the serious claims made against him in the course of understanding, evaluating his reform activities and, in this regard, the content and nature of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin confrontation gave new impetus to public interest in this problem.

The proposed documentary publication aims to show an objective and, if possible, complete, developmental picture of the political confrontation between the two leaders, cleared of fabrications, overexposures, and obvious falsifications. The reader receives statements on problems that revealed a discrepancy between the positions of Gorbachev and Yeltsin (sometimes, however, a coincidence), as they say, first-hand, that is, from the participants in the dialogue themselves. In a sequential chronological order Their speeches, performances, interviews, statements, etc. are given - sometimes in full, but mainly, due to the limited space of the book, - in fragments. The principle of selectivity used is also due to the need to isolate only the most important, fundamental problems on which the debate is being conducted, with a simultaneous desire to show the dialogue at all stages of its development.

Some analytical material is used, albeit in a minimal amount, to comment on the course of the political struggle - assessments of political scientists, including foreign ones, sociological data recording the popularity rating of political rivals at a particular stage of the struggle, etc. At the same time, the compilers strive to take into account the existing different, sometimes diametrically opposed, views and positions.

The collection is titled “Gorbachev - Yeltsin: 1500 days of political confrontation.” Of course, there is some arithmetic inaccuracy here. Such precision is impossible in determining a fact of a socio-political nature. However, with a discount on the specifics of the journalistic technique, “in rounded terms”, we can state that it was exactly one and a half thousand days that this confrontation, in many ways fateful for the Union, between the two leaders of perestroika lasted, in which the events of the October (1987) Plenum of the Central Committee were taken as the “starting point” CPSU, and the ending is connected with the collapse of the USSR and the logically resulting resignation of its President.

But the collection “October 1987” is preceded by a small introductory section, which includes two fragments of speeches from 1986 and the title of which - “On the eve of the struggle: consent in the political arena” - quite clearly indicates its semantic load: the initial unity of views and positions of future opponents.

The first part of the collection - “The first round: the political swing is gaining momentum” - covers the period from October 1987 to December 1989. This is a time when the dialogue between Gorbachev and Yeltsin is still largely unequal due to differences in their political status. Fearlessly rushing into battle, Yeltsin soon finds himself in the role of a “justifying schoolboy.” At the initial stage, the dialogue clearly characterizes the atmosphere of authoritarianism in the highest echelons of the party leadership and indicates well-established, strict and well-defined “rules of the game.” At the same time, the content of the dialogue at this stage will remind the reader of what they fought for, what ideals the leaders defended at the dawn of perestroika, what they promised the people, what they swore to them. Their contradictions, according to mutual statements, are only of a tactical nature, associated with different requirements for the pace of transformation with a common understanding of the ultimate goal of social renewal.

The second part - “Round two: at the epicenter of the confrontation” - carries the main load in terms of content. In terms of time, this is the year 1990 and the first half, more precisely, January - May 1991. This segment, although interspersed with points of rise and fall in the confrontation, is generally characterized by the highest degree of confrontation. Previous contradictions are intensifying and deepening, and qualitatively new ones are coming to the forefront of the struggle: disagreements on issues of tactics and the degree of radicalization of transformations develop into programmatic, different understanding the ultimate goals of perestroika. The subject of disagreement becomes the cardinal question of the “socialist choice” itself, of changing the existing socio-economic and political structure. At the same time, it is important to note that now the dialogue is being conducted at a new level, determined by the new status of both leaders (President of the USSR and Chairman of the Supreme Council of Russia). There is a frank and tough struggle for power between the Union (Center) and the republics (Russia).

The third part - “The third round: the fatal outcome of a political duel” is the tragic ending of perestroika. Collapse, death of the Union. And at the same time, the departure of its first and last President into political oblivion. In terms of time, the third part covers June - December 1991. And in terms of the nature of the dialogue, it marks a complete change of scenery compared to the initial stage of the dialogue. Opponents seem to change places. The interrogation of the “Foros prisoner” at a session of the Supreme Council of Russia is a barely veiled act of retribution by the winner for the executions of October - November 1987. In general, the motive of the influence of personal relations between two political leaders on the nature of the dialogue is spread throughout the entire canvas of the contradictory, sometimes dramatic, sometimes curious picture of their confrontation.

The structure of the collection adopted by the compilers is, of course, conventional. The time frame that limits this or that stage of development of the political struggle should not be perceived as having a strictly scientific justification. They are designated, rather, in the interests of a more prominent, popular presentation of the general array of materials and their easier perception.

Dobrokhotov Alexander Lvovich (b. 09/08/1950).

Historian of philosophy, cultural scientist; Doctor of Philosophy, Professor.

Family in Lvov. Graduated from Philosophy. faculty of Moscow State University (1972) and graduate school of the same faculty (1975).

From 1975 to 1991 - assistant, then senior lecturer at the Department of History of Foreign Philosophy, Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State University, since 1991 - Associate Professor at the Department of History and Theory of World Culture, Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State University, since 1993, Professor, since 1995, head of this department.

From 1988 to 1996 - head of the department of cultural history at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. From 1992 to 1994 - head. sector of methodology and theory of the Institute for the Protection of Natural and Cultural Heritage of Russia.

Since 1995 - full member of the Academy of Humanitarian Studies. Since 1989 - member of the International Association of Researchers of Greek Philosophy (Athens).

Since 1995 - member of the International Genological Society (Oslo). In 1992 - Visiting Professor at the Catholic University of Tilburg (Netherlands).

Books (1)

Introduction to Philosophy

Sometimes they say that philosophy is not a school science. Only a person wise with life experience and long reflection can comprehend it. Of course, neither one nor the other will hurt. But maybe it was childhood and youth - best time for starters.

Philosophy loves to ask; for it, questions are often more important than answers. But childhood and youth are asked more often than other eras of life, and their questions are sharper, more fundamental than the questions of mature people.

The teenager has not yet joined the “system”; he is often critical of the adult world, wants to understand and appreciate it. But here, too, his ally is philosophy. He is naive, and philosophy is essentially naive; it is impractical, but philosophy is also distracted from immediate benefit. He is idealistic, and philosophy also seeks ideals. Philosophy fights prejudices, but young people don’t have them yet.

(b. December 8, 1947) - Doctor of Philosophy, specializing in Philosophy of Politics, Candidate of Historical Sciences.

Academic degree and title: Doctor of Philosophy, Professor

Scientific and public biography : from 1966 to 1990 - at Komsomol and party work in Moscow, including work as a responsible employee of the international information department of the CPSU Central Committee. He was a people's deputy. He was a senior researcher at the Academy of Social Sciences under the CPSU Central Committee. From 1990 to 1992 - Advisor to the USSR Embassy (then - Russian Federation) in the USA.

From 1992 to 1998 – permanent representative of the International Humanitarian Foundation “Knowledge” named after. N.I. Vavilov in the USA. At the same time - professor Russian history and world politics from the University of Virginia, USA. From 1998 to 2013, at the Russian State Trade and Economic University - scientific secretary of the Academic Council, head of the department of Russian and world history. Since 2013 – Professor of the Department of Sociology international relations Faculty of Sociology, Moscow State University.

Graduated from the Moscow State Institute of History and Archives, postgraduate studies at the Institute of International Labor Movement of the USSR Academy of Sciences. There he defended his PhD thesis on the ideological problems of democratic movements in the USA (in the 60s and 70s). The doctoral dissertation was devoted to the study of the dynamics of changes in the political orientations of the US scientific intelligentsia.

In 2013, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation awarded the honorary title of “Honorary Worker” higher education Russian Federation".
In 2015, he was elected a full member of the International Slavic Academy of Sciences, Education, Arts and Culture (this is a public organization).

Main area of ​​scientific interests– US history and politics, history and current state of Soviet-American and Russian-American relations, problems of information wars.

Publications: monographs, books and scientific articles published in the USSR, Russia and the USA are mainly devoted to problems of history, internal and foreign policy USA, Soviet-American and Russian-American relations, American Sovietology and Russian studies, Soviet and Russian history, history of religion and church in the USSR and Russia, ideological problems of information and information wars. Co-author of a course of lectures on the history of Russia in the 20th – early 21st centuries, published in the form teaching aid for university students and was noted as a winner at the All-Russian History Textbook Competition.

The above issues were mainly devoted to special courses for students in the USA and Russia, reports at conferences and seminars in Russian and English.

Contacts
This address email protected from spam bots. You must have JavaScript enabled to view it.

Culturology. Dobrokhotov A.L., Kalinkin A.T.

M.: Publishing House "Forum": 2010 - 480 p.

The textbook combines a theoretical analysis of culture as an integral system with a historical overview of the main schools, teachings and trends in cultural studies and philosophy of culture. Mainly attention is paid to the description and patterns of change of various cultural and historical types. The history of world and domestic culture is presented in essays of individual eras. The "Electives" section provides examples of author's research on various cultural phenomena.

Intended for students of higher educational institutions, graduate students, teachers and anyone interested in the history and theory of culture.

Format: pdf

Size: 17 MB

Download: drive.google

TABLE OF CONTENTS
From the authors 3
1. DEFINITION OF CULTURE 4
2. HOW CULTURAL SCIENCE IS POSSIBLE 11
Artifact Comparability 11
The need for a special science of culture 14
3. BASIC MECHANISMS OF CULTURE 15
Objectification 15
Alienation 16
Interpretation 18
Broadcast 19
Integration 20
4. MAIN AREAS OF CULTURE 23
Vital culture 24
Spiritual culture 24
Social culture 26
5. CULTURE IN TIME 29
Culture of the Ancient East 29
Ancient culture 48
Arab-Muslim culture 67
Byzantine culture 76
Culture of the Western European Middle Ages 86
Modern Culture 102
Russia as a type of culture 126
Rhythms of cultural dynamics 186
6. HISTORY OF CULTUROLOGICAL THOUGHT 201
Background 201
XVIII century 211
XIX century 264
XX century 285
Sciences of culture in Russia in the 19th-20th centuries 336
7. OPTIONS 361
1. The Middle Ages, which we lost 361
2. Spatial arts in the culture of the Italian Renaissance 374
3. The Patriot's Speech, or On Hogarth's Engravings 407
4. The doctrine of culture in German classical idealism (Kant and Hegel) 414
5. Cultural anthropology as a cultural discipline 432
Literature 455
List of topics and questions for oral interview 473
Dictionary of cultural terms 475