Постпостмодернизм: как социальная и культурная теории объясняют наше время
Actes du Congrès "Pluralisme et Reconnaissance" 22-24 juin 2006, Unesco, Paris. The present volume presents fully original articles, prepared for publication basing upon the texts of keynote reports presented at plenary sessions of the 9th International Congress in Philosophy and Cultural Studies, which was conducted by the St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian Institute for Cultural Studies and the UNESCO Chair for Comparative Studies of Spiritual Traditions, their Specific Cultures and Inter-religious Dialogue, functioning on the basis of the aforementioned Instiute.
The author examines the delicate relationship between such phenomena as philosophy and popular culture. After formulating three attitudes of philosophers working with popular culture (left-critical, right-critical and left-objectivistic), the author proposes the term «crossroad» to show at what point of evolution of philosophy of culture and social theory during the XXth century converged popular culture and philosophy. This «crossroad» turned out to be post-modernism in such representation in which the American Marxist philosopher Fredric Jame-son began to talk about. Postmodernism before Jameson was understood as a trend in art, and only Jameson came up with the idea to extend it to the entire culture that dissolved in during the 1970s in the economy. It was Jameson who first stated the thesis that nowadays high and popular culture represent a single space. Briefly describing Jameson's approach, the author shows what this synthesis of postmodern philosophy and popular culture has led to. Recog-nizing popular culture as legitimate, and its then state as «postmodern», social philosophers began to develop the idea of expansion of culture into the social sphere, however, not in everything agreeing with Jameson. The author emphasizes the idea that the beginning of the XXI century was marked by a surge of philosophical interest in popular culture.
Modern capitalism favors values that undermine our face-to-face bonds with friends and family members. Focusing on the post-communist world, and comparing it to more 'developed' societies, this book reveals the mixed effects of capitalist culture on interpersonal relationships. While most observers blame the egoism and asocial behavior found in new free-market societies on their communist pasts, this work shows how relationships are also threatened by the profit orientations and personal ambition unleashed by economic development. Successful people in societies as diverse as China, Russia, and Eastern Germany adjust to the market economy at a social cost, relaxing their morals in order to obtain success and succumbing to increased material temptations to exploit relationships for their own financial and professional gain. The capitalist personality is internally troubled as a result of this "sellout," but these qualms subside as it devalues intimate qualitative bonds with others. This book also shows that post-communists are similarly individualized as people living in Western societies. Capitalism may indeed favor values of independence, creativity, and self-expressiveness, but it also rewards self-centeredness, consumerism, and the stripping down of morality. As is the case in the West, capitalist culture fosters an internally conflicted and self-centered personality in post-communist societies.
According to interdisciplinary theory of architecture and sociology by A. Amin and N. Thrift, presented in their book Cities. Reimagining the Urban, the light sociality is the main way of individuals interaction in city space. In this context, consumption appears to be one of the basic forms of individuals self-expression on one hand, and on the other hand - one of the basic forms of urban communication. We deal with consumption in its general meaning - as a complex of all individuals consumption-related practices that are transparent in space of light sociality. Consumption practices become agents of light sociality, producing ambivalent encounters that emotionally affect individuals realizing those practices, and those who observe them. In this way consumption takes part in governmentality of the city spaces.
Any promo message includes a pragmatic component (goods-related discourse) and a social-cultural component (social-cultural discourse). Within the scope of direct advertising social-cultural discourse often becomes a latent source of social conflict. For instance, in the whole of Russia only 9% of population earn incomes above the “middle-class threshold”, while federal TV channels constantly broadcast barely affordable goods and lifestyles onto this low-income audience. This creates an urgent social need in diversification of promo campaigns’ content, methods and promotion techniques, which would also allow for an integrating effect. Content of such communications may be built on post-post-modern basis that is currently displacing disintegration and eclectics of post-modernism. This basis includes virtualization, techno-images, glocalization, neo-conservative axiology. The greatest challenge in this list for Russia appears to be associated with development of a glocal style of promo messaging and communications as a whole.
A joint research project carried out by an interdisciplinary group of Russian and Swedish linguists, sociologists and educators-psychologists (the Swedish Institute grant), besides solving pragmatic tasks of finding out relative quantitative-qualitative specificity of national cognitive representations of values, first of all, had methodological goals. They were to check the efficiency of the linguistic methods developed in this study (and, thus, to prove the theoretical ideas that served the basis for it) of getting factual data that allow reconstructing and comparing of the corresponding areas of cognitive representations.
The results of cross-cultural research of implicit theories of innovativeness among students and teachers, representatives of three ethnocultural groups: Russians, the people of the North Caucasus (Chechens and Ingushs) and Tuvinians (N=804) are presented. Intergroup differences in implicit theories of innovativeness are revealed: the ‘individual’ theories of innovativeness prevail among Russians and among the students, the ‘social’ theories of innovativeness are more expressed among respondents from the North Caucasus, Tuva and among the teachers. Using the structural equations modeling the universal model of values impact on implicit theories of innovativeness and attitudes towards innovations is constructed. Values of the Openness to changes and individual theories of innovativeness promote the positive relation to innovations. Results of research have shown that implicit theories of innovativeness differ in different cultures, and values make different impact on the attitudes towards innovations and innovative experience in different cultures.