Methodological search field in the contemporary culture
Keywords:
culture, cultural tradition, methodological approach, practice
Abstract
Modern culture study strategies are undergoing significant changes related to the implementation of the principles and approaches of research projects themselves. In the context of globalization, there is a situation in which the study of the phenomenon of cultural tradition, its status and role in the cultural and historical process of becoming one of the most promising areas of modern social and philosophical knowledge. Being of cultural tradition is a continuous communication in the unity of the historical and futurological measurements. It is a way of meaningful connections spatiotemporal characteristics of social reality. This is her focus and heuristic. One of the most important functions of a cultural tradition is that it stabilizes the mechanism by which you are directed reinterpretation of philosophical ideas and the fundamental symbols of culture in relation to the new challenges and needs, and experience of generations adapted to the socio-historical conditions of our time. At this time, there are three approaches to the study of a culture as a whole, and in particular cultural tradition, which thematically cover most of the research strategies: paradigmatic vision; thesaurus dynamics; evolving tradition. Most clearly the implementation of this approach can be seen in the methodological scheme, which is also responsible transformation processes in contemporary culture: the linguistic signs - theoretical sense - social meaning. Developed the concept of sociologists practices most adequately covers manifestations of contemporary culture, and makes it possible to capture the culture in three aspects - projective, active and effective.References
1. Burde, Per, 2007. Prakticheskiy smyisl [The practical meaning]. Per. s fr.: A.T. Bikbov, K.D. Voznesenskaya, S.N. Zenkin, N.A. Shmatko; Otv. red. per. i Poslesl. N.A. Shmatko. Aleteyya, SPb. ; «Institut eksperimentalnoy sotsiologii», Moscow (in Russian).
2. Garfinkel, G., 2007. Issledovaniya po etnometodologii [Research on ethnomethodology]. Piter, SPb. (in Russian).
3. Naysser, U., 1981. Poznanie i realnost [Cognition and Reality]. Progress, Moscow (in Russian).
4. Tabachkovs’kyy, V.H., Bulatov, M.O., Lyutyy T.V., Shalashenko, H.I., Andros Ye.I., Dondyuk A.M., Kovadlo H.P., Khamitov N.V., Yarosh O.A., Zahorodnyuk V.P., 2005. Lyudyna v tsyvilizatsiyi XXI stolittya: problema svobody [The man in the civilization of the XXI century: the problem of freedom]. Naukova dumka, Kiev (in Ukrainian).
5. Belokobyilskiy, A.V., 2008. Osnovaniya i strategii ratsionalnosti moderna: monografiya [Reasons and strategies of modernity rationality: a monograph]. PARAPAN, Kiev (in Russian).
6. Anohina, V.V., 2010. Kulturnaya traditsiya v kontekste sovremennoy sotsialnoy dinamiki [The cultural tradition in the context of contemporary social dynamics]. Humanitarnyy visnyk Zaporiz’koyi derzhavnoyi inzhenernoyi akademiyi 42, 89-101 (in Russian).
7. Gadamer, G.-G., 1991. Aktualnost prekrasnogo [The relevance of the fine]. Iskusstvo, Moscow (in Russian).
8. Assman, Ya., 2004. Kulturnaya pamyat: Pismo, pamyat o proshlom i politicheskaya identichnost v vyisokih kulturah drevnosti [Cultural memory: Letter, the memory of the past and political identity in the high cultures of antiquity]. Yazyiki slavyanskoy kulturyi, Moscow (in Russian).
9. Burde, P., 2003. Politicheskaya ontologiya Martina Haydeggera [Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger]. «Praksis», Moscow (in Russian).
2. Garfinkel, G., 2007. Issledovaniya po etnometodologii [Research on ethnomethodology]. Piter, SPb. (in Russian).
3. Naysser, U., 1981. Poznanie i realnost [Cognition and Reality]. Progress, Moscow (in Russian).
4. Tabachkovs’kyy, V.H., Bulatov, M.O., Lyutyy T.V., Shalashenko, H.I., Andros Ye.I., Dondyuk A.M., Kovadlo H.P., Khamitov N.V., Yarosh O.A., Zahorodnyuk V.P., 2005. Lyudyna v tsyvilizatsiyi XXI stolittya: problema svobody [The man in the civilization of the XXI century: the problem of freedom]. Naukova dumka, Kiev (in Ukrainian).
5. Belokobyilskiy, A.V., 2008. Osnovaniya i strategii ratsionalnosti moderna: monografiya [Reasons and strategies of modernity rationality: a monograph]. PARAPAN, Kiev (in Russian).
6. Anohina, V.V., 2010. Kulturnaya traditsiya v kontekste sovremennoy sotsialnoy dinamiki [The cultural tradition in the context of contemporary social dynamics]. Humanitarnyy visnyk Zaporiz’koyi derzhavnoyi inzhenernoyi akademiyi 42, 89-101 (in Russian).
7. Gadamer, G.-G., 1991. Aktualnost prekrasnogo [The relevance of the fine]. Iskusstvo, Moscow (in Russian).
8. Assman, Ya., 2004. Kulturnaya pamyat: Pismo, pamyat o proshlom i politicheskaya identichnost v vyisokih kulturah drevnosti [Cultural memory: Letter, the memory of the past and political identity in the high cultures of antiquity]. Yazyiki slavyanskoy kulturyi, Moscow (in Russian).
9. Burde, P., 2003. Politicheskaya ontologiya Martina Haydeggera [Political Ontology of Martin Heidegger]. «Praksis», Moscow (in Russian).
Published
2016-03-02
How to Cite
Forkosh, S. (2016). Methodological search field in the contemporary culture. Grani, 19(4), 18-22. https://doi.org/10.15421/1716072
Issue
Section
PHILOSOPHY
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
