CREATIVITY IN EVERYDAY CULTURE

Levochkina Anastasia Viktorovna TSU named after. G.R. Derzhavina.

Annotation. Creativity is a historically evolutionary form of human activity, expressed in various types activities and leading to personal development. Realized through creativity historical development and connection between generations. It continuously expands human capabilities, creating conditions for conquering new heights.

Creativity, Berdyaev believed, reveals the genius nature of a person - every person is a genius; and the combination of genius and talent creates a genius. You can not be a genius, but you can be brilliant. The love of a mother for her child, the painful search for the meaning of life, can be brilliant.

Keywords: creativity, everyday life, search for truth, search for yourself.

People do a lot of things every day, and each task is a task, sometimes more or less difficult. When solving problems, an act of creativity occurs, a new path is found, or something new is created. This is where special qualities of intelligence, talent, observation, the ability to compare and analyze, find connections and dependencies are required - all that together constitutes creative abilities. Creativity is a historically evolutionary form of human activity, expressed in various types of activities and leading to personality development. Through creativity, historical development and the connection of generations are realized. It continuously expands human capabilities, creating conditions for conquering new heights.

Creativity, Berdyaev believed, reveals the genius nature of a person - every person is a genius; and the combination of genius and talent creates a genius. You can not be a genius, but you can be brilliant. The love of a mother for her child, the painful search for the meaning of life, can be brilliant. Genius is, first of all, internal creativity, self-creativity, turning oneself into a person capable of any specific type of creativity. Only such primal creativity is the source and basis of any creative activity. Creative activity is the main component of culture, its essence. Culture and creativity are closely interconnected, moreover

are interdependent. It is unthinkable to talk about culture without creativity, since it is the further development of culture (spiritual and material). Creativity is possible only on the basis of continuity in the development of culture. The subject of creativity can realize his task only by interacting with the spiritual experience of humanity, with the historical experience of civilization. Creativity as a necessary condition includes the adaptation of its subject to culture, the actualization of some results of past human activities. Creativity covers all areas of human life, so the creative process can be varied. After all, creativity has no boundaries. A person himself creates the environment, forming the color scheme that he likes. A creative person strives for independence and self-sufficiency. In relationships, creative people have a huge vocabulary and personal reserve: books they have read, places they have visited. Creative people have not only talent and genius, but also a sharp mind, they are active, observant and at the same time have good feeling humor.

Thus, creativity penetrates into all spheres of everyday culture such as: interpersonal; social; as well as the household sphere. They all include creative activity, communication, various needs, etc.

Creativity can also manifest itself in the everyday sphere, for example: in the modern cultural practice of the general population, there is a fairly extensive layer of everyday creativity, functioning according to the folklore type. This usually includes, in particular, musical (song, instrumental) and verbal creativity. These are songs (everyday, street, student, karaoke, tourist, partly so-called bard songs, etc.), choruses, various kinds of oral narratives of a non-fairytale nature: legends, modern tales, tales, oral histories, anecdotes, gossip and a significant area of ​​everyday speech.. Thus, a great many famous names of representatives of various professions, all these people showed a creative approach in some kind of activity and released their abilities in some field. They wrote about creativity: Nicola Poussin “morality, behavior, creativity”; F. Nietzsche “creativity and man”; L.A. Seneca “creativity and man”;

V.O. Klyuchevsky “creativity and art”; G. Flaubert “psychology and creativity”; N. Berdyaev “the meaning of creativity” and many others.

Creativity is not a new subject of research. It has always interested thinkers of all eras. People do a lot of things every day, and each task is a task, sometimes more or less difficult. When solving problems, an act of creativity occurs, a new path is found, or something new is created. This is where special qualities of the mind are required, such as observation, the ability to compare and analyze, to find connections and dependencies - all that together constitutes creative abilities.

Creativity is a manifestation of a person’s highest abilities, the highest form of his activity, the creation of something new that did not exist before. Attempts to reveal the essence of creativity and its laws were made by many philosophers of the past, starting from ancient times. According to some philosophers, a person is a conscious being who not only reflects the world, but also transforms it, which would be impossible without the presence of creative ability, without creative activity. It is in creativity that the essence of man is revealed with utmost clarity as a transformer of the world, a creator of new relationships and himself.

Attitudes towards creativity have changed dramatically in different eras. IN Ancient Rome in the book, only the material and the work of the bookbinder were valued, and the author had no rights - neither plagiarism nor forgery was prosecuted. Creativity in the era of antiquity was considered as self-realization of the individual, as an activity that brings inner peace for oneself and for oneself. Creativity was separated from work. Thus, free citizens could engage in creativity, unlike them, a simple worker did not have such an opportunity. In the Middle Ages and much later, the creator was equated with a craftsman, and if he dared to show creative independence, then it was not encouraged in any way. And only in the 19th century. artists, writers, scientists and other representatives of creative professions were given the opportunity to live from the sale of their creative product. As A. S. Pushkin wrote, “inspiration is not for sale, but you can sell a manuscript.” At the same time, the manuscript was valued only as a matrix for replication, for the production of a mass product.

In the 20th century. the real value of any creative product was also determined not by its contribution to the treasury of world culture, but by the extent to which it can serve as material for replication (in reproductions, television films, radio broadcasts, etc.). Therefore, there are differences in income that are unpleasant for intellectuals, on the one hand, representatives of the performing arts (ballet, musical performance, etc.), as well as businessmen popular culture and, on the other hand, creators.

Society, however, has at all times divided two spheres of human activity: otium and oficium (negotium), respectively, leisure activity and socially regulated activity. Moreover, the social significance of these areas has changed over time. In Ancient Athens, bios theoretikos - theoretical life - was considered more “prestigious” and acceptable for a free citizen than bios praktikos - practical life.

Interest in creativity, the personality of the creator in the 20th century. connected, perhaps, with the global crisis, the manifestation of man’s total alienation from the world, the feeling that through purposeful activity people are not solving the problem of man’s place in the world, but are pushing its solution even further away.

In our time, in the era of scientific and technological progress, life is becoming more diverse and complex, and it requires from a person not stereotyped, habitual actions, but mobility, flexibility of thinking, quick orientation and adaptation to new conditions, a creative approach to solving large and small problems. If we take into account the fact that the share of mental labor in almost all professions is constantly growing, and an increasing part of the performing activity is being transferred to machines, then it becomes obvious that a person’s creative abilities should be recognized as the most essential part of his intelligence and the task of their development is one of the most important tasks in education modern man. After all, all cultural values ​​accumulated by humanity are the result of people’s creative activity.

Thus, I would like to note that the problems of creativity throughout history have been studied by many sciences: philosophy, psychology, science, cybernetics, information theory, pedagogy, etc. last decades the question arose about creating a special science that would study human creative activity - heuristics (it is believed that the term

“heuristics” comes from “eureka” - “I found it!”, an exclamation attributed to Archimedes upon his unexpected discovery of the fundamental law of hydrostatics; “eureka” is a word that expresses joy when solving a problem, when a successful thought, idea, or “insight” appears). The range of its problems is wide: here is the question of specific features creative activity, and about the structure, stages creative process, types of creative activity, the relationship between scientific and artistic creativity, the role of guesswork and chance, talent and genius, stimulating and repressive factors of the creative process, the role of motivational and personal factors in creative activity, influence social conditions for manifestation creativity and on the creative process, about the creative productivity of age, the role of scientific methods in productive thinking, the style of thinking in science and creativity, dialogue and discussions as means and forms scientific creativity etc. Philosophy studies the ideological side of human creative activity, problems of epistemological and general methodological nature. Its competence includes such problems as creativity and the essence of man, reflection and creativity, alienation and creative abilities, epistemological specificity of the creative process, creativity and practice, the relationship between the intuitive and the discursive, the sociocultural determination of creative activity, the relationship between the individual epistemological and sociological levels of creativity, ethics scientists and creative activity, epistemological and ethical aspects, etc.

Creativity is heterogeneous: the variety of creative manifestations can be classified on different grounds. Let us only note that there are different types creativity: production and technical, inventive, scientific, political, organizational, philosophical, artistic, mythological, religious, everyday life, etc.; in other words, types of creativity correspond to types of practical and spiritual activity. Thus, it can be noted that the types of creativity are not only heterogeneous, but also complex in structure.

There is still an idea that limits scientific creativity to finding a solution to a problem. But in this case, the very beginning of the creative process, the beginning of its unfolding, is not taken into account. Awareness of the need, formulation and formulation of the problem are the initial stages of the process of finding a solution to the problem. By fixing a specific problem situation and the purpose of the research, the problem directs the entire creative process in its complex movement towards the result. The ideal, as the central link of the creative process, is born under the direct influence of problematic nature and to satisfy the corresponding needs of the subject.

Speaking about needs, it is impossible not to pay attention to the nature of creativity. The concept of the nature of creativity is related to the question of the needs of the individual. Human needs are divided into three basic groups: biological, social and ideal.

Biological (vital) needs are designed to ensure the individual and species existence of a person. It gives rise to many material quasi-needs: food, clothing, housing; in the technology necessary for production material goods; in means of protection against harmful influences. The biological need also includes the need to save energy, which encourages a person to look for the shortest, easiest and simplest path to achieving his goals.

Social needs include the need to belong to a social group and occupy a certain place in it, to enjoy the affection and attention of others, to be the object of their love and respect. This also includes the need for leadership or the opposite need to be led.

Ideal needs include the need to know the world around us as a whole, in its individual details and one’s place in it, to know the meaning and purpose of one’s existence on earth.

I.P. Pavlov, classifying the need for search as biological, emphasized that its fundamental difference from other vital needs is that it is practically unsatisfiable. The need for search acts as the psychophysiological basis of creativity, which in turn is the main engine of social progress. Therefore, its unsaturation is fundamentally important, because we're talking about about the biologically predetermined need for constant change and development.

The study of creativity as one of the most natural forms of human fulfillment of the biological need for search and novelty. Many psychophysiologists tend to consider creativity as a type of activity aimed at changing a problem situation or at changes in the subject interacting with it.

Such activity is a behavioral characteristic, and the behavior of people and animals is infinitely diverse in its manifestations, forms and mechanisms.

Naturally, in the life of any living organism and, first of all, a person, both an automated, stereotypical response and a flexible, exploratory response, aimed at discovering new ways of interacting with the environment, are very important. Both types of response occupy an important place in the everyday behavior of living beings, mutually complementing each other, but the relationships of these types are characterized not only by mutual complementarity. Stereotypical, automated response allows you to act effectively and survive in relatively stable conditions, maximally saving strength and, mainly, intellectual resources. Search and research activity, on the contrary, constantly stimulates the work of thinking, thus creating the basis for individual programmable behavior, which makes it driving force development and self-development of the individual. Moreover, search activity is not only a guarantee of acquiring individual experience, but also determines the progress of the population as a whole. Therefore, from a theoretical point of view natural selection, the most appropriate survival is for those individuals who are inclined to search and are able, on the basis of the knowledge acquired during the search, to adjust their own thinking and behavior.

And if in animals search activity materializes in exploratory behavior and turns out to be organically woven into the fabric of life, then in humans, in addition, it finds expression in creativity. Creativity for humans is the most common and natural variant of the manifestation of exploratory behavior. Research, creative search is attractive from at least two points of view: from the point of view of obtaining some new product and from the point of view of the significance of the search process itself. In social, psychological and educational terms, it is especially valuable that a person is able to experience and experiences true pleasure not only from the results of creativity, but also from the very process of creative and research search.

A significant part of people when choosing life path They are looking for a job that does not require the use of creative abilities. Many people experience emotional discomfort in problematic situations when choice is required, when independence in decision-making is required. Therefore, one of the main differences between a creator is not simply the absence of fear of a problematic situation, but the desire for it. Usually the desire to search, to resolve problem situations, combined with the ability to take advantage of instability and ambiguity.

Summarizing the above, we note that in relation to creative activity we can say that the main factor stimulating the generation of creative guesses and hypotheses is the strength of the need (motivation), and the factors that determine the content of the hypotheses are the quality of this need and the equipment of the creative subject, the reserves of his skills and knowledge. Intuition not controlled by consciousness always works for the need that dominates in the hierarchy of needs of a given individual. The dependence of intuition on the overriding need (biological, social, cognitive, etc.) must always be taken into account. Without a pronounced need for cognition (the need to think about the same thing for hours), it is difficult to count on productive creative activity. If the solution scientific problem for the individual is only a means to achieve, for example, socially prestigious goals, his intuition will create hypotheses and ideas related to the satisfaction of the corresponding need. The likelihood of receiving a fundamentally new scientific discovery in this case it is relatively small.

Nikolai Berdyaev’s book “The Meaning of Creativity” sums up

the result of previous searches and the prospect of developing his independent and original philosophy is open. It was created in a situation of conflict with the official Orthodox Church. At the same time, Berdyaev entered into a heated debate with representatives of Orthodox modernism - the group of D.S. Merezhkovsky, oriented towards the ideal of the “religious community”, and the “sophiologists” S.N. Bulgakov and P.A. Florensky. The originality of the book was immediately recognized in religious and philosophical circles in Russia. Especially

V.V. reacted actively to it. Rozanov. He stated that in relation to all previous works of Berdyaev, “the new book is a “general vault” over individual outbuildings, buildings and closets.”

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev was born on March 6/19, 1874 in Kyiv. His paternal ancestors belonged to the highest military aristocracy. Mother is from the family of the Kudashev princes (on the father's side) and the Counts of Choiseul-Guffier (on the mother's side). In 1884 he entered the Kyiv cadet corps. However, the military situation educational institution turned out to be completely alien to him, and Berdyaev entered the Faculty of Science at the University of St. Vladimir. In the winter of 1912-1913. Berdyaev together with his wife L.Yu. Trushev travels to Italy and brings from there the idea and the first pages of a new book, completed by February 1914. It was “The Meaning of Creativity” published in 1916, in which, Berdyaev noted, his “religious philosophy” was first fully realized and expressed. This was possible because the principle of constructing philosophy by identifying the depths of personal experience was clearly understood by him as the only path to universal, “cosmic” universalism.

To the traditions of Russian philosophy, he connects the medieval mysticism of Kabbalah, Meister Eckhart, Jacob Boehme, Christian anthropology of Fr. Baader, nihilism Fr. Nietzsche, modern occultism (in particular the anthroposophy of R. Steiner).

It would seem that such an expansion of the boundaries of philosophical synthesis should have created only additional difficulties for Berdyaev. But he quite consciously went for it, for he already possessed the key to harmonizing that significantly philosophical, religious and historical and cultural material that formed the basis of “The Meaning of Creativity.” This key is the principle of “anthropodicy” - the justification of man in creativity and through creativity. This was a decisive rejection of traditionalism, a rejection of “theodicy” as main task Christian consciousness, refusal to recognize the completeness of creation and revelation. Man is placed at the center of existence - this is how it is defined general outline his new metaphysics as the concept of "monopluralism". The central core of “The Meaning of Creativity” becomes the idea of ​​creativity as a revelation of man, as an ongoing creation together with God.

Thus, Berdyaev strives to clarify as much as possible and adequately express the core of his religious and philosophical concept, which is embodied in “The Meaning of Creativity.”

Speaking about creative freedom, N. Berdyaev repeats the thoughts of Kant and Hegel about the interaction of freedom and creativity.

Creativity is inseparable from freedom. Only the free one creates. Only evolution is born from necessity; creativity is born only from freedom. When we talk in our imperfect human language about creativity out of nothing, we are talking about creativity out of freedom. Human creativity from “nothing” does not mean the absence of resisting material, but only means absolute profit that is not determined by anything. Only evolution is determined; creativity does not follow from anything that precedes it. Creativity is inexplicable. Creativity is a mystery. The secret of creativity is the secret of freedom. The mystery of freedom is bottomless and inexplicable, it is an abyss. The mystery of creativity is also bottomless and inexplicable. Those who deny the possibility of creativity out of nothing must inevitably place creativity in a deterministic series and thereby reject the freedom of creativity. In creative freedom there is an inexplicable and mysterious power to create from nothing, non-deterministically, adding energy to the world's energy cycle. The act of creative freedom is transcendental in relation to the world given, to the vicious circle of world energy. An act of creative freedom breaks through the deterministic chain of world energy. And from the point of view of the immanent world given, it must always appear as creativity out of nothing. The fearful denial of creativity out of nothing is submission to determinism, obedience to necessity. Creativity is something that comes from within, from a bottomless and inexplicable depth, and not from the outside, not from world necessity. The very desire to make the creative act understandable, to find a basis for it, is already a misunderstanding of it. To understand the creative act means to recognize its inexplicability and groundlessness. The desire to rationalize creativity is connected with the desire to rationalize freedom. Those who recognize it and who do not want determinism are also trying to rationalize freedom. But the rationalization of freedom is already determinism, since it denies the bottomless mystery of freedom. Freedom is ultimate; it cannot be derived from anything or reduced to anything. Freedom is the baseless basis of being, and it is deeper than any being. You cannot reach the rationally tangible bottom of freedom. Freedom is a bottomless well, its bottom is the last secret.

But freedom is not a negative limiting concept that merely indicates a boundary that cannot be rationally crossed. Freedom is positive and meaningful. Freedom is not only the negation of necessity and determinism. Freedom is not a kingdom of arbitrariness and chance, in contrast to the kingdom of law and necessity. Those who see in it only a special form of spiritual determination, determination not external, but internal, do not understand the secret of freedom. They consider free everything that is generated by causes lying within the human spirit. This is the most rational and acceptable explanation of freedom, while freedom is both irrational and unacceptable. Since the human spirit enters into the natural order, everything in it is just as determined as in all natural phenomena. The spiritual is no less determined than the material. The Hindu doctrine of Karma is a form of spiritual determinism. Karmic reincarnation does not know freedom. The human spirit is free only to the extent that it is supernatural, goes beyond the order of nature, and is transcendental to it.

Thus, determinism is understood by Berdyaev as an inevitable form of natural existence, i.e. and the existence of man as a natural being, even if the causality in man was spiritual and not physical. In the deterministic order of nature, creativity is impossible, only evolution is possible.

Thus, speaking about freedom and creativity, Berdyaev argues that man is not only a natural being, but also a supernatural one. And this means that man is not only a physical being, but also not only a mental being in the natural sense of the word. Man is a free, supernatural spirit, a microcosm. And spiritualism, like materialism, can see in man only a natural, albeit spiritual being, and then subordinates him to spiritual determinism, just as materialism subordinates him to the material. Freedom is not only the generation of spiritual phenomena from previous ones in the same being. Freedom is a positive creative power, not grounded or conditioned by anything, flowing from a bottomless source. Freedom is the power to create out of nothing, the power of the spirit to create not from the natural world, but from oneself. Freedom in its positive expression and affirmation is creativity.

The creative act is always liberation and overcoming. There is an experience of power in it. Discovering one's creative act is not a cry of pain, passive suffering, nor is it a lyrical outpouring. Horror, pain, relaxation, death must be overcome by creativity. Creativity is essentially a way out, an outcome, a victory. The sacrifice of creativity is not death and horror. Sacrifice itself is active, not passive. Personal tragedy, crisis, fate are experienced as tragedy. This is the way. Exclusive concern for personal salvation and fear of personal death are outrageously selfish. Exclusive immersion in a crisis of personal creativity and fear of one’s own powerlessness are hideously selfish. Selfish and selfish self-absorption means a painful separation between man and the world. Man was created by the Creator as a genius (not necessarily a genius) and genius must be revealed in himself through creative activity, to overcome everything that is personally egoistic and personally proud, every fear of his own death, every glance at others. Human nature in its fundamental essence, through the Absolute Man - Christ, has already become the nature of the New Adam and has been reunited with the Divine nature - it no longer dares to feel separated and secluded. Isolated depression in itself is already a sin against the Divine calling of man, against the call of God, God's need for man.

It seems that, speaking about freedom, N. Berdyaev sees in it a way out of slavery, from the enmity of the “world” into cosmic love, victory over sin, over lower nature. According to Berdyaev, only the liberation of a person from himself brings a person to himself. Freedom from the “world” is a connection with the true world - the cosmos. Getting out of yourself is finding yourself, your core. And we can and should feel like real people, with a core of personality, with a significant, and not illusory, religious will.

Thus, a person is free in his creativity - this is the highest level of development, and creativity penetrates into all spheres of human existence. Creativity is not the transition of the power of the creator to another state and thereby the weakening of the previous state - creativity is the creation of new power from something that has not existed, which did not exist before. And every creative act is essentially creativity out of nothing, i.e. the creation of new power, rather than the change and redistribution of the old. In every creative act there is absolute profit, growth. The createdness of being, the growth that occurs in it, the profit achieved without any loss - speak of the creative and creativity. The createdness of being speaks about the creator and creativity in a double sense: there is a Creator who created created being,

and creativity is possible in created being itself. The world was created not only created, but also creative. A world that was not created, that did not know the creative act of profit and the increase in existential power, would not know anything about creativity and would not be capable of creativity. Penetration into the createdness of being leads to awareness of the opposition between creativity and emanation. If the world is created by God, then there is a creative act and creativity is justified. If the world only emanates from God, then there is no creative act and creativity is not justified.

In true creativity, nothing decreases, but everything only increases, just as in God’s creativity of the world, Divine power does not decrease from its transition into the world, but a new, not former power arrives. Thus, according to Berdyaev, creativity does not mean a transition of power to another state; paying attention to the positions he identifies, such as creatureliness and creativity, we can assume that these positions are considered by Berdyaev as phenoonyms. Therefore, we can conclude that Berdyaev’s creatures have creativity. It seems that if the world is also creativity, then it is everywhere, therefore creativity exists in everyday culture.

Book by N.A. Berdyaev allows us to delve into the meaning and process of creativity in sufficient detail, to analyze creativity in the process of everyday life. IN everyday life people have to invent, create their own world. People participate in “their” world both through their external plane (activity, behavior) and their internal (spiritual-psychic) ​​world. Inner life strives to be consistent with external life and vice versa, since people one way or another want to live in harmony with themselves, in a state of mental balance. This is possible thanks to the ability of people to create and impose their own semantic and value-normative order on the world of facts and processes and bring both of these worlds into correspondence with each other. It is also clear that social interaction is impossible without stable symbolic forms. Artifacts appear - structurally similar objects. The culture of everyday life is organized in such symbolic forms as positive experience, which tends to be passed on from person to person, from generation to generation. The sociocultural experience of people is encoded in facial expressions, gestures, body movements, intonations and words, formulas, images, technologies. These manifestations exist in the areas of joint human activity, interpersonal verbal and nonverbal communication, written texts, and the spheres of nonverbal aesthetic objects. To participate in this type of communication, a person must have a certain cultural competence.

Thus, people who are naturally endowed with a creative gift claim that their creativity belongs to the first type. This is a natural property of their normal thinking. They access it as easily as changing gear in a car. Creativity and constructiveness - characteristic feature the worldview of such people. It is the willingness to look for new ideas on your own and to notice interesting thoughts expressed by others. Some of the main features of such “natural” creativity can be compared with methods of purposeful lateral thinking. All the features of creativity are manifested in the following moments of everyday culture, such as: 1. creative pause; 2. call; 3. green hat; 4. simple focusing; 5. alternatives; 6. provocative ideas; 7. listening skills;8. creative search.

Let us consider the manifestation of the features of creativity in everyday culture in more detail: The first feature of the manifestation of creativity is the “creative pause” - this is the ability to be surprised. Willingness to interrupt the smooth flow of actions or thinking to ask yourself the question: “Is there an alternative?”, “Does it need to be done this way and only this way?”, “Where can this be applied?” A creative break comes during a conversation or reading. It's just a pause, nothing more. It is not as specific as focusing. Secondly, a feature of creativity is the “creative challenge” - this is a key moment in everyday creativity. Should we do it the way we do? Is there best way? Let's try to look at this more closely. It is very important to remember that a challenge is not a criticism. As soon as a challenge becomes critical, it ceases to be part of creativity. Constant criticism is destructive and unacceptable. Creative challenge is the willingness to recognize that other ways of doing things are possible and that those ways may offer us certain benefits. Creative challenge does not look for flaws, but only suggests that the existing method is not always the best. The call includes a pause. It is a moment of wonder when we ask ourselves why we do what we do the way we do. It is also related to analysis

traditionality. Is the usual way of acting due to historical reasons? Is he bound by the demands of other people or circumstances? Challenge is mild dissatisfaction and the belief that there are opportunities for change for the better. The third feature of creativity is such an element as the “green hat”. The mindset that people get when they put on a green hat has a lot to do with everyday creativity. Green hat can be worn unnoticed by others. But you can also consciously ask your interlocutors or meeting participants to get their green hats. This means a call to make a creative effort, a call not to lock yourself into one idea and try to find alternative solutions. The fourth feature of creativity can be described as the element of “simple focusing”. Focusing has more purpose than a creative pause or challenge. This is the definition of a creative need: “I want to find new ideas, (area or goal).” You can determine the focus and put it aside “for future use.” You can even define focus as such, without the intention of working on it further. Ability to assign focus - important property everyday creativity. The very knowledge that something is defined as “creative focus” will cause you to unintentionally address this issue. It is also part of everyday creativity. The fifth feature of creativity is “Alternatives”. The search for alternatives is the most obvious example of everyday creativity. Sometimes this search is inevitable and dictated by external circumstances. In this case, “natural”, everyday creativity helps to expand the range of search, not limited to those solutions that immediately come to mind, and without going into unnecessary details. It encourages a person to look for unusual options, and this is, perhaps, its main advantage. It is more difficult to pause to look around for alternatives when there are no obvious problems, challenges or needs. This aspect of searching for alternatives is closely related to the creative pause, challenge and simple trick. He is characterized by a willingness to look for the possibility of improvement in any phenomenon.

The sixth feature of creativity is “provocative ideas” - this is an element in which the culture of creativity is firmly rooted in the organization, provocative ideas become an element of everyday creativity. People begin to use the word “PRO” naturally, naturally, and even come up with very strong provocative ideas (PRO, the conveyor belt moves upside down). Of course, this style of thinking is only possible if a person is familiar with the method of putting forward provocative ideas. Nevertheless, many people who are naturally endowed with creative abilities tend to consider “strange” ideas and even encourage colleagues and subordinates to do so. This can also include the readiness to interpret any idea, even the most serious or expressed as a joke, as provocative. A provocative mindset has two positive aspects: 1. The most imprecise or ridiculous idea can be benefited by applying the transition technique to it.2. Putting forward provocative ideas allows you to “break” thinking from its usual rut.

The seventh feature of creativity is no less important than all the other features: “the ability to listen to your interlocutor.” Even if you yourself are not going to come up with something new (or think that you are not going to), you can help the birth of valuable ideas by encouraging your interlocutor with a friendly attitude. It is important to remember that a keen eye is also a source of creativity. This also includes the development of general creative culture organizations and encouraging creative attitudes and creative behavior among employees. The eighth final feature is “Creative Search” by I.P. Pavlova. Considering the need for search to be biological, I.P. Pavlov emphasizes the need for search. Where creative search acts as the psychophysiological basis of creativity, which in turn is the main engine of social progress. Creativity for humans is the most common and natural variant of the manifestation of exploratory behavior. Research, creative search is attractive from at least two points of view: from the point of view of obtaining some new product and from the point of view of the significance of the search process itself.

Thus, based on the materials of the features we have considered, the manifestation of creativity in the culture of everyday life, and the analysis of the work of N.A. Berdyaev “The Meaning of Creativity” we once again confirmed the fact that creativity plays an important role, since it is a historically evolutionary form of human activity, expressed in various types of activities and leading to the development of an individual’s creative abilities. From the work of N.A. Berdyaev we found that creativity exists manifestation of freedom, and the creative act is liberation and overcoming. A person is free in his creativity - this is the highest level of development, it penetrates into all spheres of everyday culture. Through it, historical development and the connection of generations are realized. It continuously improves human capabilities, thereby creating conditions for conquering new heights.

We would also like to note that the culture of everyday life contributes to the development of relationships, both interpersonal and social. After all, relationships are creativity. In the interpersonal sphere, the following types of creative activity are distinguished: anticipation,

imagination, fantasy, empathy, etc. In turn, socio-cultural creativity includes: social and political amateur creativity; derivative technical amateur creativity; amateur artistic creativity; natural science amateur creativity, etc. We will consider all these types of creativity and their manifestation in the interpersonal and social spheres in more detail in the next chapter.

List of used literature.

Isaac G. Yu. Intelligence: new look// Questions of psychology. - No. 1.- 2006.

Andreeva G.M. Social psychology. - M.: Aspect Press, 1998. - pp. 137-303.

Arnaudov M. Psychology of literary creativity. - M.: Progress,

Baller E.A. Culture. Creation. Human. // Young Guard.- 1970.-P.148

Bogoyavlenskaya D. B. Intellectual activity as a problem of creativity. - Rostov-on-Don, 2007.

Vishnyak A.I. Tarasenko V.I. Youth leisure culture. - Kyiv: graduate School, 1988-53s. Goncharenko N.V. Genius in art and science. - M.: Art, 2006.

Grigorenko E. A., Kochubey B. I. Study of the process of putting forward and testing hypotheses by twins // New research in psychology. - 2002.

Gruzenberg SO. Psychology of creativity. - Minsk, 2005.

Gudkov L. Society-culture-person. // Free Thought.-1991.-No. 17-P.54.

Demchenko A. Possibilities of Russian leisure // Club. - M., 1996. No. 7.-P.10-13.

Dorfman L. Creativity in art - the arts of creativity. // Science.- 2000.-549 p.

Erasov B.S. Social cultural studies: Tutorial. - M: Aspect Press, 1997.-P.196-233. Eroshenkov I.N. Cultural and leisure activities in modern conditions. - M.: NGIK, 1994.32p.

Zharkov A.D. Organization of cultural education work: Textbook - M.: Education, 1989.-P.217-233.

Ikonnikova S.N. Dialogues about culture. - M.: Lenizdat, 1987-167s.

Ilyin I. O creative person. // VVSh.-1990.-No. 6-P.90-92.

Kamenets A.V. Activities of club institutions in modern conditions: Textbook. -M.: MGUK, 1997-41s.

Kisileva T.G., Krasilnikov Yu.D. Fundamentals of socio-cultural activities: Textbook. - M.: MGUK Publishing House, 1995.-136 p.

Club studies: Textbook / Edited by Kovsharov V.A.-M.: Education, 1972.-P.29-46. Klyusko E.M. Leisure centers: content and forms of activity // Leisure centers. - M.: Research Institute of Culture, 1987.-P.31-33.

Knyazeva E.N., Kurdyumov S.P. Resonant stimulation of creativity. // Questions of Philosophy.-1994.-No.2-P.112.

Lombroso Ch. Genius and insanity. - St. Petersburg, 2004

Luk A.N. Problems of scientific creativity / Ser. Science studies abroad. - M., IPION AS USSR, 2004.

Nemirovsky V.G. Modern sociology And cultural traditions. // Sociological research. -1994. -No. 3.-S.-25.

Nikolai Berdyaev “The Meaning of Creativity” (the experience of human justification).

OlahA. Creative potential and personal changes // Social sciences abroad. R. J. Ser. Scientific studies. - 2004

Parandovsky Ya. Alchemy of the word. - M.: Pravda, 2003.

Perna I. Ya. Rhythms of life and creativity. - L., 2007.

Ponomarev Ya. A. Psychology of creativity // Trends in the development of psychological science. - M.: Nauka, 2005.

Development and diagnostics of abilities // Ed. V. N. Druzhinin and V. V. Shadrikov. - M.: Nauka, 2005.

Rudkevich L. A., Rybalko E. F. Age dynamics of self-realization creative personality// Psychological problems of personal self-realization. - St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House, 2007.

Salakhutdinov R. G. Organizational and pedagogical foundations of social and cultural creativity of children and youth. - Kazan, publishing house “GranDan”, 1999. - 462 p.

Salakhutdinov R. G. Social and cultural creativity as effective remedy formation of the cultural environment. - Execution, RIC “School”, 2002. - 216 p.

Spasibenko S. Creativity in the process of relationship between society and the individual. // Socio-political journal.-1996.-No.3-P.50-66. M.: Publishing house G.A.Leman and S.I.Sakharov, 1916 Horowitz F.D., Bayer O. Gifted and talented children: the state of the problem and directions of research // Social sciences abroad. R. Zh. Series of Scientific Studies, 2007 Elliott P. K. The prefrontal region of the cerebral cortex as an organizer of volitional actions and its role in releasing human creative potential // Social sciences abroad. R. J. Ser. Scientific studies. - 2004

Thinking through the idea of ​​culture, identifying the meanings contained in it inevitably leads to the idea of ​​creativity. The idea of ​​creativity is, in general, much older than the idea of ​​culture. For thousands of years, creativity was interpreted by man in such a way that it had nothing in common with what would later become the thought of culture. The point here is that the idea of ​​culture is inseparable from man. It truly arises only when a person begins to think about everything that exists through the prism of his own transformative efforts in relation to nature. The idea of ​​creativity, starting from the primitive era and up to the Renaissance, correlated exclusively with superhuman beings, with the gods (God). A person who made creative claims thereby assumed the functions of a deity. The magician could act as a creature dominating the natural elements, subjugating them for his own purposes. But that is precisely why he violated the measure of humanity, his activity was not legal, the magician sought to enter the sphere of superhuman reality, he was a rival of the gods, so to speak - an impostor god. When, in the modern European (Renaissance and post-Renaissance) era, the idea of ​​creativity is united with a person, when he begins to perceive himself as a creator, only then does the idea of ​​culture arise at its core. In the original sense, the idea of ​​culture is the idea of ​​man-theology, human self-deification. And it is not at all accidental that in the Renaissance it was inextricably accompanied by the idea of ​​​​the divine dignity of man. Before crowding out and making irrelevant all ideas about God, man thought of himself, if not directly as God, then in His role.

The statement that the idea of ​​creativity is very ancient must be understood in a limited sense. This is not entirely true. If we reduce everything to the most general and simple scheme, then for thousands of years two types of ideas about creativity have dominated in the consciousness and subconscious of man. Both of them are equally inadequate, at the same time they reveal something essential in the creative act and no less obscure it.

The first of them, one way or another, identifies creativity with the generative principle. First, to create means to give birth. Childbirth is the basis of everything that exists. Not only mothers give birth to their children, animals give birth to their young. The whole world is a huge cosmic body and everything that arises in it, one way or another, is born of the maternal principle. Secondly, creativity was thought of as conception. It seems that the difference here is not significant; it seems natural to us: in order to give birth, you must first conceive. But archaic primitive consciousness did not directly identify conception and childbirth. Not only birth, but also generation was entirely related to the maternal principle, shifting the emphasis to conception brought to the fore the masculine principle, associated with activity, and not with pure spontaneity.

It should be especially noted that in many mythologies the theme of creativity is associated with the image of death, decay, dismemberment of some initial integrity of being. Say, for the Germans, Indians, Egyptians, etc. The world-cosmos is created in the process of killing and dividing into parts the primal being that preceded the world.

All of the listed modifications of the idea of ​​creativity are united by the main thing: they are naturalistic in nature, creativity in them is a natural process.

The second type of idea of ​​creativity comes from the likening of creativity to the productive activity of man, although its subjects are deities. A very common analogy with craft production: the act of creativity presupposes intelligence, design, and skill. This is already a supernatural process. A person likens creativity not to what is below him, but to what is equal to him as a person. It may seem that the idea of ​​creativity as a productive activity is more adequate than others. After all, it expresses the moment of rationality, sequence of actions, goal setting. What is more significant, however, is that both types of ideas about creativity have one main thing in common. In both cases, the new (and creativity always carries novelty and uniqueness) is, as it were, present in advance. Either something embryonic reveals itself in its entirety - the first type of representations, or the product of creativity is reduced to the combinatorics of a pre-existing one (the idea in the head of the creator, his skill, the material of transformative activity) - the second type of representations.

As we see, the original mythological images of creativity do not capture the most essential thing in it. They do not answer the main questions: where does created things come from, what is the creation of something that was not previously, how does the process of transition from non-existence to existence take place? The answer to these questions has not been found outside of mythological ideas - neither by philosophy nor by scientific knowledge. Cultural studies is no exception here.

And the point is not in the imperfection of philosophical or scientific knowledge. One must be aware that the theme and image of creativity, being originally associated with the divine world, were thereby thought and presented as something supernatural. In any religion, God or gods are incomprehensible due to the fact that there is an abyss between divine and human reality. Accordingly, creativity as an attribute of deity is also incomprehensible. After all, creativity and creation are God’s appeal to the world, which results in the emergence, along with supernatural-divine reality, of natural reality. The result of the emergence is given to a person, the ends of the process are before his eyes and in his hands, but the beginnings, the origins are lost in unattainable height divine world. A person can achieve them only by becoming God. If a person has no claims to self-deification, he will always retain the idea of ​​​​the incomprehensibility of creativity. This is the case, in particular, in Christianity.

The Christian view of creativity is understanding it as creation. God creates the world out of nothing, out of pure absolute nothing. As soon as Christianity makes a concession and at least somehow admits that God creates from Himself (say, from the ideas that are eternally present in Him) or from some semblance of primary material, some reality that exists apart from God, the very foundations of Christian doctrine will be shaken. Along with the trinitarian question (the trinity of God) with the problem of the divine-human nature of Christ, the idea of ​​creation from nothing is the basis of the foundations of Christianity. In the Creed, birth and creation are separated. God begets only God. He is His Son. People are created by nature; they are born in God by grace.

But if you understand and think somewhat clearly about the idea of ​​creation from
nothing is possible, then you can get closer, feel it for some moments
presence. AND jjin^o.^ceu^qHaji^BrvicKaej^^JuQSb- the truth of the eternal.
You can say it like this: neck_t<^нешъ^&^ше\^шшшне\л^гпуб\лне identical*
idea_t^05eniya_iz^ hj^o,;^^ jjja4i^4Tq_o^^ its under-

the footfall did not at all fascinate and paralyze the mind and will of a Christian. The idea of ​​creation is so incredibly rich and inexhaustible in its consequences, it opens up such horizons for man, it so permeates the world with life and meaning that it is more than enough to start from it, and not to stare at it with a gaze distraught from impotent tension.

The basis of human creativity lies in the same acts of objectification (incarnation) and reification (disembodiment). Equally, although in their own way, both of them are creative, although at the ordinary level we usually call creativity primarily or even exclusively the act of objectification. When the human uniqueness of the inner world becomes an external being, a new, hitherto not former objective reality of a work of art or a philosophical text, creativity in this case is nothing more than a change in the way of individual personal existence. From the mobile-fluid world of images, ideas, ideas, it passes into a frozen form, separated from the first personality. Creativity begins not only with the external state, but also with clarification, ordering, harmonization of what was \ internal world^_tv£rtsak_For the idea of ​​culture it is obvious"|Gv1azhZh^^ ^to man" as Ttv^schuu~in potency. The idea of ​​culture does not know the immutable division of people according to the principle of “belonging or not belonging to culture. Qj-1 here is the universality of the creative nature of man. One of the insoluble problems of cultural studies is that the creative nature of man in the vast majority of cases is not actualized. Potential creators do not identify of its unique inner world, it does not become a work, remaining a state of mind, amorphous and unclear. Probably the most impressive evidence of the creative nature of a person is dreams. For many people, they represent a kingdom of harmony, sounds, colors, lines. in one. These dreams are not

become an objective reality, remaining a part of the inner, mental life of a person.

Creativity as objectification can be designated as productive. Along with it, although this is less obvious, there is also creativity as self-creation. It is based on deobjectification (developedn^gVsht&^as^- v in anticipation (for example, reading a book), a person makes his inner property the inner world of another person, pre-objectified in the text. As a result, he is literally a Taodite. Only, in contrast to the productive nature of a person, he creates something with himself. After all, the same book read, if it is actually read, changes something in the inner world of a person, a shift occurs in his worldview, previously unspoken emotional strings are touched, etc.

Along with the two mentioned types of creativity, productive and self-creation, the creative moment also brings communication. In the process of communication, people ^o1d^yuTtrpeperecreate the I-those with whom they communicate. Communication includes moments of objectification and deobjectification, with the only feature that they continuously transform into one another. Thus, in a conversation as a type of communication, the spoken word (objectification) directly becomes the state of the one to whom it is addressed, i.e. it is deobjectified, becoming the inner world of the interlocutor.

Communication not only can be and is creativity, but also has an "tpfit/iftdes;^ yoytsYayyshhe general influence ffa ■■"friendUtsshdg jnnjv4(*bxfta_Qfipa Attention to historical and cultural material indicates that intellectual creativity too often forms only the tip of the iceberg, the underwater part of which is creativity as communication. A clear evidence of this is the stable feature of productive and creative activity. Creative breakthroughs over the course of centuries and even millennia have been carried out through the activities of cultural communities, unthinkable without continuous communication, circles, canojbLOB, unions, brotherhoods, etc. The Platonic and Florentine Academies, the Jena Circle of Romantics, the World of Art association - in all these small, more or less closed communities, approximately the same thing happened. What was previously spoken out, clarified, and highlighted was what then became the product of the activity of a lone creator. Of course, he did not just write down, memorize, but in any case, in the process of communication, something of a decisive degree of importance was stimulated and initiated. That which, outside the community, would remain spiritual darkness, something that did not take shape in the act of identification and expression. Therefore, very often the individual creator is not at all a self-sufficient and self-enclosed subject of creativity. Rather, he is a decorator, a completer, an interpreter of what arose together in the process of communication.

To understand the essence of creativity, it is very important to take into account that it not only coincides with culture, forms its core, but contradictions between creative culture are possible and actually exist. To understand them, let us once again turn to the idea of ​​culture.

Until now, speaking about culture in its separation from nature, about culture as a unity of objectification and disobjectification, we have left aside the point that the existence of culture presupposes the harmonious structure of man. Being a subject of culture, in his transformative efforts, a person creates a “second nature” (his own and the external one that surrounds him) as some higher, in comparison with purely natural, harmony. After all, the idea of ​​culture only arises when a person feels himself not just as a creator, but also as a being capable of creating, in the process of creativity, a world more sublime and beautiful than the one he finds.

It is precisely on the point of harmony that the most acute contradictions between creativity and culture are possible. Otherwise, during the last two centuries, the ideal of creativity and the creator was reduced to the creation of an absolutely perfect product.

in words, to the embodiment in the product of creativity of the highest truth, goodness and beauty of culture - this is the person himself as in his objective embodiment, jajLy in the activity dimension. From the point of view of culture, a person cannot be completely subordinate to what he creates, what he objectifies in the product. Whatever great works are created, they are created for man and outside of him they have no meaning. Moreover, they must contribute to its harmonious and comprehensive development - this is the requirement of culture in relation to creativity, this is the cultural ideal. Another question is to what extent it is achievable for a creatively productive person. Not in everything, not always and not for everyone. Let us turn to the testimonies of the creators themselves. Both of them are not only the greatest writers of the 20th century, but also people who thought about the problem of creativity.

The first characteristic of creativity belongs to V. Nabokov. “I have noticed more than once,” writes V. Nabokov in his autobiographical novel “Other Shores,” “that as soon as I give a fictional character a living trifle from my childhood, it begins to fade and fade in my memory. Safely transferred to the story, entire houses crumble there is absolutely no sound in the soul, like an explosion in a silent movie" 1 . Let's try to translate Nabokov's brilliant prose into the language of cultural studies. “Giving a fictional character a living trifle from your childhood” - after all, this is to objectify, objectify your inner world in its uniquely personal, intimate aspect. "Entire houses crumble in the soul." Doesn't this mean that the objectified ceases to be my inner world? He becomes depleted and impoverished. Gaps of non-existence arise in the soul. Where is the harmonious and comprehensive development of the creator in the process and result of creativity? He's gone. There is the existence of culture for another, for the reader. He will undoubtedly experience an act of deobjectification created by a great Russian writer.

The second evidence of creativity in its correlation with culture is contained in a letter from T. Mann to a researcher of his work: “Not without a gesture of bashful denial, I sometimes notice, for example, that on the basis of my books I am considered to be a downright universal mind, a person of encyclopedic knowledge. Tragic illusion. In fact, for a writer... a world-famous one, I was incredibly uneducated. At school I did not learn anything except reading and writing, a small multiplication table and a little Latin. I rejected everything else with stupid stubbornness and was considered an inveterate lazy person. prematurely; for later I showed excellent diligence when it was necessary to provide a scientific basis for any poetic works, that is, to gain positive knowledge in order to use them literary... So I was alternately an educated physician and a biologist, a well-versed orientalist, and an Egyptologist. , a mythologist and historian of religion, a specialist in medieval culture and poetry, etc. It’s bad, however, that as soon as the work for which I went to such scientific expense is finished and set aside, I incredibly quickly forget everything I’ve learned for this case and with an empty head I remain in the pitiful consciousness of my complete ignorance, so one can imagine the bitter laughter with which my conscience responds to these praises" 1 . Let us take into account that in T. Mann’s letter there is a certain amount of self-irony and exaggeration. Moreover, the fact that he exaggerates must be taken seriously.

First of all, it is noteworthy that the German writer has a motive similar to Nabokov: creativity-objectification devastates the artist when, after creating a work, he “with incredible speed forgets everything he has learned” and “remains in the pitiful consciousness of his complete ignorance.” Mann also has additional accents. Thus, he clearly sounds the motive of the incompatibility of creativity with universalism, i.e. comprehensive personality development. And another motive: a person is chained to his creativity, creativity owns him, and not he owns creativity. Man is subordinated to some abiding force outside of himself. And this is no longer compatible with the ideal of self-direction and the highest value of the individual, which is so important for the idea of ​​culture. Through the creative act this ideal is shaken and undermined. If you ask the simplest question, what is preferable - “to carry everything you have with you”, to feel in yourself the presence of the knowledge, ideas, images that are acquired by education, or to forget them every time, giving them to what is embodied in the work - from the point of view of culture, it is equally important both: the inner richness of the personality and its realization in a creative product. T. Mann expresses a different experience, the experience of oblivion, and therefore the dying of the soul, because the life of the individual consists equally in momentary, here and now lasting impressions and in the ability to remember and remember.

As already noted, the contradiction between productive creativity and culture is of relatively recent origin. It makes itself felt especially acutely in the 20th century. It can be considered one of the symptoms of a cultural crisis. But there were eras that did not know this crisis. In particular, because productive creativity-objectification was more balanced by creativity-self-creation and creativity-communication. The creator himself did not reduce his life to the ever-overwhelming goal of embodying his inner world, but sought to live holistically and comprehensively. Moreover, often creativity and self-creation or, as they said in the last century, “self-improvement” was valued no less, if not more highly, than productivity.

Culture contains both stable, conservative and dynamic, innovative sides. The sustainable side of culture is cultural tradition, due to which the accumulation and transmission from generation to generation of elements of cultural heritage occurs: ideas, values, moral standards, customs, rituals, skills. The system of traditions reflects the integrity and stability of the social organism. The history of culture would seem absurd if each generation completely rejected the cultural achievements of the previous one.

No culture can exist without traditions. Moreover, cultural tradition is an indispensable condition not only for the existence, but also for the development of culture, even in the conditions of the creation of a qualitatively new culture. To reveal the mechanism of cultural development, the dialectical law of the negation of negation is of particular importance, which, not limiting itself to just asserting the invincibility of the new, reveals the cyclical nature of development, characterizes the unity of progression and continuity inherent in any type of development, including the development of culture.

Continuity, as a general pattern in the development of culture, manifests itself in various specific forms, such as: 1) genetic connection of the old culture with the new; 2) the emergence of individual elements of a new culture in the still existing old one; 3) preservation of certain elements of the old one in the new culture; 4) return to the original stage of development. In the latter case, continuity implies not simply the preservation of certain features of the directly denied old culture within the new one, but the restoration of certain elements of the old culture that once existed, then were denied and ceased to exist, but were again revived by development. This is, for example, the revival of ancient culture during the Renaissance.

Denial of continuity in the development of culture results in a nihilistic attitude towards the greatest cultural values ​​created in the past. Within the framework of such ideas, the development of culture is possible only with the complete and categorical destruction of the old culture, a typical example of which can be the vulgarizing theories of the Proletcultists. Proletkult (an association of proletarian cultural and educational organizations) arose in 1917 and advocated a nihilistic, anarchist attitude towards the past, towards its culture, towards the greatest spiritual values ​​accumulated in previous history. Having adopted the slogan: “The proletariat is not the heir of the past, but the creator of the future,” the Proletkultists seriously believed that a new proletarian culture could and should be built outside of any traditions. This approach echoed the calls emanating from futurism, which arose even earlier, whose representatives considered it necessary to destroy all previous culture:

We are in the grip of a rebellious, passionate intoxication;

Let them shout to us: “You are the executioners of beauty.”

In the name of our tomorrow, we will burn Raphael.

Let's destroy museums, trample flowers of art.

It was proposed to carry out a complete destruction of “bourgeois science”, to create new programs in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, in which everything would be the other way around. The nihilistic calls of the proletcultists and futurists echo the slogans of the cultural revolution in China, during which the Chinese press classified Dante's Divine Comedy, Rabelais' Gargantua and Pantagruel, Roland's Jean Christophe and other treasures of world literature and art as “poisonous herbs.” . During the Cultural Revolution, priceless works of Chinese classical art were destroyed, and Chinese culture suffered irreparable losses.

Of course, both in the preservation and transmission of culture from generation to generation there must be a certain stability, there must be a tradition. The development of culture is not only the replacement of some of its qualitative states by others, but also the inheritance of certain content, the inclusion of this content in a higher synthesis. It is the peculiar inheritance by subsequent generations of everything viable from the culture of previous generations that determines the progression and progressiveness of development. Otherwise, cultural progress would be impossible.

What has been said, however, should not be understood in the sense that the development of culture is a simple return to the old, its complete restoration, the literal preservation or repetition of the features of the old in a new culture. If this were really the case, then the development of culture would turn into marking time, into a meaningless repetition of the same thing, into a monotonous series of monotonous variations on the same theme.

Tradition is memory, and selective memory at that. Culture always remembers and updates only what is needed by modern times. Consequently, cultural tradition is a way of mobilizing the experience of the past, but not unchanged, but transformed, adapted to the present.

The repetition of certain features of the old in a new culture is neither literal nor absolute: firstly, not all features of the old are repeated in the new, and secondly, those that are repeated in the new culture are melted and take on a different form. As for truly obsolete forms of culture, they disappear once and for all, completely and irrevocably.

Culture is not the passive storage of material and spiritual values ​​created by previous generations, but the active creative use of them for social progress. And not just use, but also update. Society reproduces and improves itself only by inheriting and creatively processing the accumulated wealth of culture. And blind admiration for tradition, its hypertrophy gives rise to conservatism and stagnation in culture.

In the creativity of culture, the universal is organically fused with the unique. Each cultural value is unique, whether we are talking about a work of art, a scientific discovery, a technical invention or a human behavioral act.

Thus, tradition and creativity– these are two inextricably linked sides of culture, two sides of the same coin. The unity of tradition and innovation, their mutual correlation is a universal characteristic of any culture.

At the same time, the description of the real diversity of the history of human society and its culture shows that the relationship between tradition and creativity is not a constant given once and for all, it changes in space and time. Its different ratio serves as the basis for dividing societies into traditional and technogenic.

Western civilization, the basis of which was laid by the ancient Greeks, as well as modern Europeans, is called “technogenic” (V.S. Stepin). Its characteristic features are: intellectualism, knowledge in the forms of theoretical concepts, systematic application in the production of scientific knowledge, rapid change in technology and technology, concepts of equality of people, equal opportunities, developed ethics and democracy. As technogenic civilization develops, there is an accelerating renewal of the artificially created human-made environment (“second nature”). The German philosopher M. Weber considers the main values ​​of Western culture to be: 1) dynamism, orientation towards novelty; 2) affirmation of dignity and respect for the human person; 3) individualism, orientation towards personal autonomy; 4) rationality; 5) ideals of freedom; 6) tolerance, tolerance for other people's opinions, other people's faith; 7) respect for private property.

Unlike Western culture, Eastern culture is focused on emotional, intuitive perception of the world. The scientific rationality of Western culture is contrasted here with a moral-volitional attitude toward contemplation, serenity, and intuitive-mystical fusion with existence. Time in such civilizations is perceived as something finite, as a closed cycle, which includes both nature and the history of society. In the ideological aspect, in Eastern cultures there is no division of the world into natural and supernatural, into the natural world and the world of society. Therefore, here the highest good is not the conquest of nature, but merging with it.

This type of culture creates non-technical civilizations with their descriptive sciences and impressionistic art. It is focused, first of all, on the reproduction of existing social structures, the stabilization of an established way of life, and the reproduction of its stable stereotypes. Its highest value is the traditional way of life, accumulating the experience of ancestors.

It is clear that these characteristics of Western and Eastern cultures are just speculative models that cannot be fully equated with the real state of world culture. There is even less reason to literally transfer them to the modern world, to a world where once disparate nations and nationalities inhabiting all continents are united into an integral social entity - humanity.

Self-awareness of the “I” is always individually specific. It is unique and individual in the sense that it is no longer divisible (from Lat. individuum which literally means “indivisible”). But where does this unique individuality come from, how is it determined? Is she natural? Is she physical? Is she spiritual? Is she perfect? Who is her owner? Human? Or maybe a genus that gives him physicality? A culture that provides language, norms, patterns of behavior and thinking? What is "I"? What is a subject?

A person, in essence, is a “matryoshka”, which contains many other nesting dolls hidden in each other. Or a pearl. At the very center of the pearl is self-consciousness, on which mother-of-pearl is layered - subsequent layers of personality: consciousness, identity, physicality, system of roles, appearance, property, family, work, leisure, etc. A person, said the Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset, is a person and his circumstances. But in the center there is a nail on which the entire integrity of these characteristics hangs - the self-awareness of the “I”.

From the outside, in the perception of other people, the integrity of our individually unique “I” is secured by our proper name or specified with the help of demonstrative pronouns “that”, “that”, “these”. It is under our name that we act as social beings, characters in situations and events. From within our inner world, our own “I” is perceived as a certain unity of experiences in these situations and events, expectations, hopes, joys. In experiences, in spiritual experience, life appears as creativity and self-determination of the individual.

A personality is to a certain extent similar to an artist who sculpts and mints his personal life in the form of experiences from the material of the surrounding reality. The point is not in the number of experiences, but in their depth, the individual’s ability to comprehend experiences, to find meaning in them. Experiences are not “potatoes in a sack”, but awareness of not randomness and connection, the meaningfulness of the experience, awareness of one’s role in the experience, one’s guilt and responsibility.

Doubt and disobedience

The ability to perform independent actions thus presupposes independent thinking, and therefore, at some stage, doubt. Doubt, disobedience and deviation from norms and models are, in a certain sense, a necessary condition for the formation and development of personality, its self-determination and self-organization.

Therefore, decisions made not automatically, but as a result of conscious choice, are of particular importance. It is conscious choice that represents moral value and is assumed to be a necessary stage in the formation of personality, the incarnation of a person. It is not for nothing that “obedience through disobedience” attracts such attention in art and religion: when a person commits an action not by order, not by habit, but by making a conscious choice.

Unconventional thought and action, “dissent” and deviation from established stereotypes are a necessary condition for any creative activity. The origins of any creativity lie in human dissatisfaction with the existing order of things. Therefore, talented people often have so-called difficult characters. The human essence itself presupposes the possibility of disobedience, deviation from norms, therefore the obedience of a free person differs from absolute and unconditional obedience.

Culture and creativity

Creativity is the lot of not only outstanding scientists, politicians or artists, but also of every individual who carries out his unique mission by his very participation in social life. Life in both a professional and everyday environment very often puts a person in a situation where, in the absence of a social model of behavior, he is forced to find solutions within himself, to independently complete his own experience.

In everyday consciousness, culture and creativity are often identified. Suffice it to recall newspaper clichés such as “the sphere of culture and creativity”, “culture and art”, etc. However, the relationship between culture and creativity is not so simple. In fact, is creativity a conscious or unconscious activity? Is it planned and controlled or spontaneous, spontaneous and involuntary? In the first case, it is clearly connected with the implementation of cultural norms, in the second - mainly with their violation, sometimes even against the will of the creator. And in general, is creativity an obligatory aspect of culture or something optional?

After all, what is culture? There are a great many definitions of this concept. In ordinary consciousness, this is something “right and good”: some are considered “cultured”, while others are “not”. In this case we are actually talking about " value"understanding culture as value systems(material and spiritual) people or humanity as a whole. Indeed, no society can exist and develop without the accumulation of effective experience of previous generations, without traditions and models of “how to live correctly.”

According to another - "technological"– there is a culture approach way of life. All people sleep, eat, work, love, but in every society they do it in their own way. It is “life and customs,” or the ways of carrying out life’s acts accepted in a given community, that are understood here as an expression of culture. In the “technological” understanding, culture also includes such phenomena that are dubious from the point of view of the value approach, such as, say, “the culture of the criminal world,” “the technology of the operation of means of mass destruction.”

There is also an interpretation of culture, when not all ways of carrying out life activities without exception are recognized as cultural, but only those that contribute to the development, improvement and elevation of a person.

Summarizing these approaches, we can define culture as a system of generation, accumulation, storage, transmission (from nation to nation and from generation to generation) of social experience.

Culture is sustained by creativity and is nourished by it: both in maintaining old norms and values, and in creating new ones. Culture as a pagan idol requires “human sacrifices,” fresh blood and young lives. The more “cultured” a culture is, the more harsh the environment of traditions a creative person has to face. Creativity is like magma, with great difficulty and expenditure of energy, breaking through already frozen layers, but only in order to pour out and harden into a new layer. And it will be even more difficult for the next creators.

It is quite difficult to distinguish creativity from its mirror counterpart - the negative social deviation mentioned earlier. It is no coincidence that contemporaries often do not draw a line between the behavior of a criminal and a creator, regarding the latter’s activities as a crime against morality, religion, or a violation of the law. Socrates, who asked his fellow citizens “unnecessary” questions, was sentenced to death. Severe punishment awaited D. Bruno and G. Galileo, who doubted that the Sun revolved around the Earth. At the first Impressionist exhibitions, indignant spectators demanded the arrest of the “hooligans.” About the same thing happened at the first exhibitions of Russian Itinerant artists. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were perceived by contemporaries as intellectual hooliganism. History is full of examples of reprisals by noble but ungrateful contemporaries and fellow tribesmen against creators who, after the passage of time, are solemnly introduced into the pantheon of saints.

Creativity is not desirable in every culture. And most of human history is occupied by so-called traditional cultures, whose life was entirely determined by fidelity to tradition, replicated by each new generation. Any deviation from traditional norms and rules in such societies was ruthlessly suppressed, and the “creators” were either expelled or subjected to severe repression. The sharp acceleration of development of civilization is due to the culture that has developed in line with the Judeo-Christian tradition with its special attention to the individual, his freedom, and therefore creativity. It is, and perhaps only in this culture, which still defines the face of modern civilization, oriented towards transforming the surrounding world, that creativity is considered as a value. Moreover, in modern civilization, institutions are emerging whose very existence is aimed specifically at creativity: creative unions, scientific institutes or political parties.

The tragedy of the relationship between creativity and culture is that their relationship is asymmetrical. Modern culture needs creativity, but creativity cannot rely on culture, but must overcome it, becoming a new culture. Normativity and typicality are necessary for creativity in the sense that they cannot be circumvented. In art, these are typical images that express specific ethnic, national, and age characteristics. In science, it is a mathematical apparatus that allows one to reduce a phenomenon to abstract, law-like explanations. But creativity can only draw its strength from human freedom and the human heart—it cannot count on culture. What is done with culture in mind is not creativity, but reproduction, and, paradoxically, is not needed by culture, it is destructive for it. As a vampire, she needs fresh blood and energy, the intense beating of a living heart, and not dead, wasteful general forms.

Culture programs the personality, strives to make typical not only the behavior of the individual, but also his consciousness, thinking, and feelings. In creativity, however, what is essential is not so much the predetermined as the unparalleled, abnormal. Therefore, creativity is based on structures that capture new forms of universal human experience in new historical circumstances. Creativity always presupposes some new image, a prophecy about the future. Creativity is not retrospective, not reproductive, but prospective and productive. Creativity is not only a combination of unchanged semantic units of culture, but also the creation of new ones based on the individual tragedy of existence. Creativity is destructive to the traditional, familiar world. Creative schemes, formulas and images, oriented forward, towards the ultimate meanings of the history of human life, are present in any culture, but their role and significance grow with the development of civilization.

History and cultural studies [Ed. second, revised and additional] Shishova Natalya Vasilievna

15.3. Development of culture

15.3. Development of culture

Culture played a large role in the spiritual preparation of the changes called perestroika. Cultural figures with their creativity prepared public consciousness for the need for change (T. Abuladze’s film “Repentance”, A. Rybakov’s novel “Children of the Arbat”, etc.). The whole country lived in anticipation of new issues of newspapers and magazines, television programs in which, like a fresh wind of change, a new assessment was given to historical figures, processes in society, and history itself.

Representatives of culture were actively involved in real political activities: they were elected as deputies, city leaders, and became leaders of national-bourgeois revolutions in their republics. Such an active public position led the intelligentsia to split along political lines.

After the collapse of the USSR, the political split among cultural and artistic figures continued. Some were guided by Western values, declaring them universal, others adhered to traditional national values. Almost all creative connections and groups split along these lines. Perestroika lifted bans on many types and genres of art, and returned films that had been shelved and works prohibited for publication to the screens. The return of the brilliant culture of the Silver Age also dates back to this period.

The culture of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries showed us a whole “poetic continent” of the finest lyricists (I. Annensky, N. Gumilyov, V. Khodasevich, etc.), deep thinkers (N. Berdyaev, V. Solovyov, S. Bulgakov, etc.) , serious prose writers (A. Bely, D. Merezhkovsky, F. Sologub, etc.), composers (N. Stravinsky, S. Rachmaninov, etc.), artists (K. Somov, A. Benois, P. Filonov, V. Kandinsky, etc.), talented performers (F. Chaliapin, M. Fokin, A. Pavlova, etc.). This flow of “forbidden” literature had, in addition to a positive, a negative aspect: young writers, poets, and screenwriters were deprived of the opportunity to publish in state publications. The crisis in architecture, associated with cutting construction costs, also continued.

The development of the material base of culture has slowed down sharply, which was reflected not only in the absence of new films and books on the freely formed market, but also in the fact that, along with the best foreign examples of culture, a wave of products of dubious quality and value poured into the country.

Without clear government support (this is also evidenced by the experience of developed Western countries), culture has little chance of surviving in market conditions. Market relations themselves cannot serve as a universal means of preserving and enhancing the spiritual and sociocultural potential of society.

The deep crisis in which our society and culture find ourselves is a consequence of long-term neglect of the objective laws of social development during the Soviet period. The construction of a new society, the creation of a new person in the Soviet state turned out to be impossible, since throughout all the years of Soviet power people were separated from true culture, from true freedom. Man was viewed as a function of the economy, as a means, and this dehumanizes man just as much as technogenic civilization. “The world is experiencing the danger of the dehumanization of human life, the dehumanization of man himself... Only the spiritual strengthening of man can resist such a danger.”

Researchers of various cultural concepts talk about a civilizational crisis, about a change in cultural paradigms. The images of postmodern culture, the culture of the end of the millennium (Fin Millennium) have many times surpassed the naive decadence of the modernist culture of the end of the century (Fin de Sitcle). In other words, the essence of the changes taking place (in relation to the change in the cultural paradigm) is that it is not culture that is in crisis, but man, the creator, and the crisis of culture is only a manifestation of his crisis. Thus, attention to a person, to the development of his spirituality and spirit is overcoming the crisis. The books of Living Ethics drew attention to the need for a conscious approach to future changes in the cultural and historical evolution of man and highlighted ethical problems as the most important condition for the development of man and society. These thoughts also resonate with the modern understanding of human life and society. Thus, P. Kostenbaum, a specialist in the education of American leadership, believes that “a society built not on ethics, not on mature hearts and minds, will not live long.” N. Roerich argued that Culture is the cult of Light, Fire, veneration of the spirit, the highest service to the improvement of man. The establishment of true Culture in human consciousness is a necessary condition for overcoming the crisis.