Учебное пособие 1780

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

• jocular threat

«Ждем. Если не приедете, то я поднесу Вам в газетах такую пилюлю, так осрамлю Вас, что в Америку сбежите. Уважительными причинами неявки могут быть: а) дизентерия, б) выход рек из берегов, в) внезапное банкротство, г) народные волнения, д) светопреставление и е) приезд в Бабкино шаха персидского. Других причин не признаю. Слышите ли? Клянусь я первым днем творения, что если Мария Владимировна не приедет, то я, во-первых, не отдам ее рассказа в «Родник» и, вовторых, всю мою жизнь буду ратоборствовать против детских журналов» (А.С.

Киселеву) [1*, V. 2; p. 146] / "We are waiting. If you do not come, I'll bring you such a pill in the newspapers, I'll so shame you that you'll escape to America. The good reasons for your non-appearance can be: a) dysentery, b) rivers bursting their banks, c) sudden bankruptcy, d) popular disturbances, e) the end of the world and f) arrival of Persian shah at Babkino. I don`t recognize other reasons. Do you hear me? I swear by the first day of creation that if Maria Vladimirovna does not come, then, firstly, I will not give her story to "Rodnik" and, secondly, I will be fighting against children's magazines for the whole of my life " (to A.S. Kiselev) [1 *, V. 2; p. 146];

«Я обязательно на аркане притащу Вас к себе» (И.Л. Леонтьеву-Щеглову) [1*, V. 2; p. 313] / "By all means I'll bring you by lasso to my place" (to I.L. LeontievShcheglov) [1 *, V. 2; p. 313].

• promises of "paradise" life

«Вы вот что сделайте: женитесь и валяйте с женой ко мне в мае на дачу недельки на две. Дам Вам и комфорт, и природу, и уезд, и стол для письма… что хотите! … Обещаю, что Вы освежитесь и великолепно поглупеете. Скучно всю жизнь быть умным…» (В.В. Билибину) [1*, V. 1; p. 184-185] / "Do the following: marry and go ahead with your wife to my dacha for two weeks in May. I'll give you comfort, and nature, and uyezd, and a table for writing ... whatever you want! ... I promise you that you will refresh yourself and perfectly stupefy. It's boring to be smart for all the life ..." (to V.V. Bilibin) [1*, V. 1; p. 184-185];

«Даю Вам честное слово, что мы не будем делать ничего, окунемся в безделье, которое для Вас так здорово. Мы будем есть, пить, рано вставать, рано ложиться, ловить рыбу, ездить по ярмаркам, музицировать и больше ничего»

(А.Н. Плещееву) [1*, V. 2; p. 225] / "I give you my word of honor that we will not do anything, we will plunge into idleness, which is so great for you. We will eat, drink, get up early, go to bed early, fish, go to fairs, play music and nothing more" (to A.N. Pleshcheyev) [1*, V. 2; p. 225].

• prescriptions of the home doctor

«Советую Вам ехать в мае. Мне хочется, чтобы Вы понюхали украинский сенокос. На даче я усажу Вас под надзор медицины и убавлю Вам Ваш живот, который делает одышку. Придумаем такой режим, который, не требуя с Вашей стороны никаких жертв, принес бы пользу Вам и моей медицинской репутации» (А.Н. Пле-

щееву) [1*, V. 2; p. 225] / "I advise you to go in May. I want you to take a smell at the Ukrainian haymaking. At my dacha, I will seat you under the supervision of medicine and I will lessen your belly, which is a reason for short breath. We will think up such a regime, that would be of benefit to you and to my medical reputation without requiring any sacrifice on your part" (to A.N. Pleshcheyev) [1*, V. 2; p. 225].

94

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

• presentation of the place ("poetic intrigue")

«Напоминаю Вам, кстати, о Вашем обещании побывать на Псле. Уж очень у меня хорошо, что и описать нельзя! Природа великолепна, всюду красиво, простора пропасть, люди хорошие, воздух теплый, тоны тоже теплые, мягкие. Вечерами не бывает сырости, ночи теплые… Одним словом, Вы не раскаетесь, если приедете»

(В.Г. Короленко) [1*, V. 2; p. 276] / "I remind you, by the way, of your promise to visit Psel. It`s so nice at my place, that it is impossible to describe it! The nature is magnificent, beauty is everywhere, a mass of expanse, people are good, the air is warm, tones are also warm and soft. In the evenings there is no damp, nights are warm ... In a word, you will not repent of your coming" (to V.G. Korolenko) [1*, V. 2; p. 276];

«Стыдно сидеть в душной Москве, когда есть возможность приехать в Бабкино… Житье в городе летом – это хуже педерастии и безнравственнее скотоложества. У нас великолепно: птицы поют, Левитан изображает чеченца, трава пахнет, Николай пьет… В природе столько воздуху и экспрессии, что нет сил опи-

сать» (Ф.О. Шехтелю) [1*, V. 1; p. 248] / "It's a shame to sit in stuffy Moscow when there is an opportunity to come to Babkino ... Living in the city in the summer is worse than pederasty and more immoral than bestiality. It is great here: the birds are singing, Levitan is portraying a Chechen, the grass is smelling, Nikolai is drinking ...There is so much air and expression in nature that there are no forces to describe it" (to F.O. Shekhtel) [1*, V. 1; p. 248].

• discrediting the place (as a way to "lure" the most shy addressee)

«Христос Воскрес, мой будущий жилец!.. Вчера я получил письмо от брата, посланного осмотреть нанятую дачу. …Удобств никаких, комфорта, которого Вы боитесь, нет и в зародыше. Крыльцо обвалилось, и вся усадьба представляет из себя непоэтическую руину. Мебель, по выражению письма, паскудная… Вот в какое гнездышко я хочу затянуть Вас! Как оно ни плохо, но думаю, оно здоровее и просторнее питерской тундры. Приезжайте непременно. Вы боитесь, чтобы мы не отдали Вам лучшую комнату… Лучшей комнаты на нашей даче нет: все худшие… А кроме кровати и стула, вы ничего не получите… Пожалуй, расщедримся и дадим Вам еще стол, но не ломберный, а какой-нибудь трехногий и хромой… Зато есть и гулять будем здорово, без меры и бессовестно» (А.Н. Плещееву) [1*, V. 2; p. 257] / "Christ has risen again, my future lodger! … Yesterday I received a letter from my brother sent to inspect the hired dacha. ... Conveniences, comfort, which you are afraid of, are absent even in germ. The porch has collapsed, and the whole of country estate is a non-poetic ruin. Furniture, according to the letter, is foul... Here is the den in which I want to inveigle you! Let it be bad, but I think, it is healthier and more spacious than the St. Petersburg tundra. Come by all means. You are afraid that we will give you the best room ...There is no best room at our dacha: all of them are the worst ones ... And you will not get anything except for the bed and the chair ... Perhaps, we will be generous and will give you another table, but not a card-table, but some three-legged and shaky...

But then we will eat and walk very, very much, without any measure and without any shame" (to A.N. Pleshcheyev) [1*, V. 2; p. 257].

D i r e c t m o t i v e o f t h e a d d r e s s e e t o c o m m u n i c a t i o n

«Мне хочется с Вами поговорить» (А.С. Суворину) [1*, V. 5; p. 47] / "I want to talk with you" (to A.S. Suvorin) [1*, V. 5; p. 47];

95

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

«Напишите мне две строчки» (Л.С. Мизиновой) [1*, V. 5; p. 57] / "Write me two lines" (to L.S. Mizinova) [1*, V. 5; p. 57];

«Черкните хоть две строчки» (А.С. Суворину) [1*, V. 5; p. 67] / "Write me at least two lines" (to A.S. Suvorin) [1*, V. 5; p. 67];

«Если бы Вы приехали в самом деле, то я был бы очень рад. Без гостей скучно. Если приедете, съездим вместе к монахам. Около меня монастырь – Давыдова пус-

тынь» (В.А. Тихонову) [1*, V. 5; p. 57] / "If you really came, I would be very happy. I am bored without guests. If you come, we will go together to the monks. Close to me there is the monastery – Davydov`s desert" (to V.A. Tikhonov) [1*, V. 5; p. 57];

«Стало быть, весь июнь я проживу у себя в Мелихово. Вот приезжайте-ка»

(Н.А. Лейкину) [1*, V. 6; p. 63] / "So all June I will live in Melikhovo. Well, come now"

(to N.A. Leikin) [1*, V. 6; p. 63].

M o t i v e f o r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e

• hyperbolization of the importance of the addressee's letter:

«Пиши почаще, но поподробней. Твои письма (если в них есть что-нибудь, кроме тульских стихов и описания Тулы) я причисляю к первостатейным произведениям и охраняю их. Описывай» (Ал.П. Чехову) [1*,V. 1; p. 41]; «Напишите, дорогой мой, письмо. Я люблю Ваш почерк; когда я вижу его на бумаге, мне становится весело. К тому же, не скрою от Вас, мне льстит, что я переписываюсь с Вами. Ваши и суворинские письма я берегу и завещаю их внукам: пусть сукины сыны читают и ведают дела давно минувшие…» (А.Н. Плещееву) [1*, V. 3; p. 213] / "Write me more often, but in more detail. Your letters (if they contain anything except Tula verses and Tula description), are considered by me to be the first-class works and I preserve them. Describe" (to Al. P. Chekhov) [1*, V. 1; p. 41]; "Write me, my dear, a letter. I love your handwriting; when I see it on paper, it makes me happy. In addition, I will not make secret of the fact, that I am flattered that I correspond with you. Yours and Suvorin's letters are kept by me and I bequeath them to the grandchildren: let the sons of bitches read them and know the deeds of the past … " (to A.N. Pleshcheyev) [1 *, V. 3; p. 213];

• hyperbolization of the importance of the addressee's personality as an interlocutor:

«Мне страстно хочется поговорить с Вами. Душа у меня кипит. Никого не хочу, кроме Вас, ибо с Вами только и можно говорить. Плещеева к чёрту. Актеров то-

же к чёрту» (А.С. Суворину) [1*, V. 4; p. 140] / "I am eager for speaking with you. My soul is seething. I do not want to see anyone, except for you, because I can speak only with you. Let Pleshcheev go to hell. Actors, too, to hell" (to A.S. Suvorin) [1*, V. 4; p. 140];

• jocular reproach:

«Милостивейшая государыня Анна Ивановна! Как ви наивны! Неужели ви думаете, что молчание ведет к совершенству в смысле спасения? Ну отчего бы Вам не написать хоть строчечку… (хоть копеечку! – как говорит Стружкин). Сердиты Вы, что ли? Если сердиты, то бросьте сердиться… наплюйте… Будьте грамотны и нас ради…Ведь Вас учили грамоте не для того только, чтобы прочитывать на Долгоруковской улице гробовые вывески и переводить А.М. Дмитриеву итальян-

ские комедии» (Ал.П. Чехову и А.И. Хрущовой-Сокольниковой) [1*, V. 1; p. 52] /

"The dearest Madam Anna Ivanovna! How naive are you! Do you really think that si-

96

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

lence leads to the perfection in the sense of salvation? Well, why would not you write me at least a line ... (at least a pretty penny! as Struzhkin says). Are you angry, aren`t? If you are angry, then stop to be angry ... spit it out ... Be literate and for the sake of us ... After all, you were taught to reading and writing not just to read grave signboards in Dolgorukovskaya street and translate Italian comedies for A.M. Dmitriev" (to Al.P. Chekhov and A.I. Khrushchova-Sokolnikova) [1*, V.1; p. 52];

• jocular threat:

«За то, что вы не пишите мне про дачу и мангуса, я не привезу вам в подарок ничего. Купил было тебе, Маша, часы, но бросил их к свиньям. Впрочем, бог вас про-

стит» (Чеховым) [1*, V. 4; p. 212] / "For the fact that you don`t write me about the dacha and the mongoose, I will not bring you any present. I used to buy watch to you, Masha, but threw them to the pigs. However, God will forgive you" (to the Chekhovs) [1*, V. 4; p. 212].

Similarly, other dominant features of the communicative personality of A.P. Chekhov are described by us. The description is carried out according to the parameters revealed by us in the course of the research: aspiration to communication (see above), communication preferences, coming into communication, sincerity and frankness in communication, dominance in communication, subjects of communication, getting out of communication, evading communication, self-presentation, morality and moral admonition, appreciation of communication, communication with men, communication with women, logical writing, reaction to criticism, reaction to praise and honors, attitude to public speeches, reaction to everyday problems, reaction to reproaches of women, handling of requests and instructions, the use of a humorous register of communication, the use of language games, non-verbal behavior.

Conclusion

The conducted description of the dominant features of A.P.Chekhov`s communicative personality allows us to form a generalized communicative image of the writer, in which he appears in the perception of his correspondents and oral interlocutors.

This image is formed as a generalization of the parametric description given above. The parametric description with the communicative features and examples is based on the analysis of some empirical material and is its systematic description in support of the empirical data. The parameters were formed on the basis of the actual material and reflect the aspects of the communicative personality of the writer relevant to the description, a sort of generalized rubrics of the system description of the communicative personality being fulfilled, in which communicative features (facts) are described.

The communicative image summarizes the identified parameters and formulates them as the brightest qualitative, informative characteristics of A.P. Chekhov`s communicative personality, revealed in the process of analyzing the actual material and describing the perception of the communicative personality of Chekhov by his interlocutors.

The general trends in the manifestation of the communicative personality – Chekhov`s communicative image - are given by decreasing their brightness in the structure of the communicative personality of the writer.

1.High sociability, increased desire for communication - written and oral.

2.The desire to use a humorous register of communication in most communicative situa-

tions.

3.Striving for non-standard forms for coming into communication and getting out of communication, for non-standard forms of expressing thought as a whole.

4.Etiquette courtesy with some elements of informal relations.

5.The combination of "the high" and "the low" in communication.

97

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

6.The prevailing interest in the literary-and-cultural, natural and geographical subjects of communication.

7.High communicative appreciation, aspiration to appreciate people, cities, people, nature, weather, the theatrical, city, resort public, critics and journalists, intelligentsia, literary works and theaters.

8.The categorical character of appreciation, the predominance of negative apprecia-

tions.

9.High exactingness of the literary critic, allowing categorical and abusive negative appreciations.

10.High dominance in communication with family and friends, high imperativity, morality and moral admonition.

11.High frankness in the discussion of domestic issues and the low one in the description of his state of mind.

12.A restrained reaction to everyday problems.

13.A low frequency of handling requests and commissions, the prevalence of jocular, informal means of asking.

14.Tendency to an ironic and disparaging self-presentation.

15.The desire to highly appreciate men in intelligence, talent, interest as an interlocutor and to indulgently appreciate women in appearance, intellectual and creative abilities.

16.A sharp negative-and-emotional reaction to criticism in absentia and to excessive praise and honors.

17.Dislike for public appearances.

18.Admissibility of a sharp, categorical evasion of communication with an undesirable interlocutor.

19.High language creativity, wide application of language games with words, with the language as a whole.

20.Restrained non-verbal behavior.

The model developed can be used to describe the communicative personalities of other writers and historical figures.

References

[1]Sternin I.A. O ponjatii kommunikativnogo povedenija // Kommunikativfunktionale Sprachbetrachtung. - Halle, 1989. - S. 279 – 282.

[2]Sternin I.A., Kambaralieva U.D. Kontrastivnoe izuchenie kommunikativnogo povedenija narodov – aspekt obuchenija jazyku kak nerodnomu. – Russkij jazyk za rubezhom.

–2017. -№ 5. - S.40-48.

[3]Sternin I.A. Ocherk russkogo kommunikativnogo povedenija.- Galle: Universitet im. M.Ljutera, 1991. - 59 s.

[4]Prohorov Ju.E., Sternin I.A. Russkie: kommunikativnoe povedenie / Ju.E. Prohorov, I.A Sternin. – M.: Flinta, Nauka, 2006. –328 s.

[5]Nauchnaja shkola professora Zinaidy Danilovny Popovoj. / Red I.A.Sternin i M.A.Sternina. - Voronezh: «Istoki» 2018.-248 s.

[6]Sternin I.A. Modeli opisanija kommunikativnogo povedenija. – Voronezh: «Istoki», 2000. - 27 s.

[7]Sternin I., Sternina M. Russian and American Communicative Behavior. Voronezh, Istoki, 2003. 96 s.

[8]Karasik V.I., Dmitrieva O.A. Lingvokul'turnyj tipazh: k opredeleniju ponjatija. //Aksiologicheskaja lingvistika. Lingvokul'turnye tipazhi. Sb.nauchn.tr. Volgograd: Paradigma, 2005. S.5-25.

98

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

[9]Aksiologicheskaja lingvistika: lingvokul'turnye tipazhi / Pod red. V.I. Karasika. — Volgograd: Paradigma, 2005. - 310 s.).

[10]Lingvokul'turnye tipazhi: priznaki, harakteristiki, cennosti» / Pod red. V.I. Karasika - Volgograd: «Paradigma», 2010. 235 s.

[11]Kochetkova T.V. Jazykovaja lichnost' v lekcionnom tekste / T.V. Kochetkova. – Saratov: Izd. Saratov. gos. un-ta, 1998. – 211 s.

[12]Tarasova I.A. Idiostil' Georgija Ivanova: kognititvnyj aspekt. Saratov: izd.Sar. unta, 2003. 280 s.

[13]Parsamova V.Ja. Jazykovaja lichnost' uchenogo v jepistoljarnyh tekstah (na materiale pisem Ju.M.Lotmana). Avtoref. diss. … kand. filolog.nauk. – Saratov, 2004. –23 s.

[14]Shevchenko O.N.. Jazykovaja lichnost' perevodchika: na materiale diskursa B.

V. Zahodera. Avtoref. diss… kand.filol. nauk. : Volgograd, 2005 . 13 s.

[15]Vahtel' N.M. «Jazyk govorit chelovekom». O jazykovoj lichnosti I.P. Raspopova

/ N.M. Vahtel', T.N. Golicyna, T.I. Raspopova // Filologicheskie zapiski: Vestnik literaturovedenija i jazykoznanija: Vyp. 10. – Voronezh: Voronezhskij gosudarstvennyj universitet, 1998. – S. 171-180.

[16]Hlupina M.A. Osobennosti jazykovoj lichnosti S.D. Dovlatova. Avtoref. diss… kand.filol. nauk. Moskva, 2015 . 16 s.

[17]Krasnyh V.V. Osnovy psiholingvistiki i teorii kommunikacii. - M.: «Gnozis», 2001. — 270 s.

[18]Karaulov Ju.N. Russkaja jazykovaja lichnost' i zadachi ejo izuchenija // Jazyk i lichnost'. -M. : Nauka, ,1989. - S.3-8.

[19]Krasnyh V.V. «Svoj» sredi «chuzhih»: mif ili real'nost'?. / V.V. Krasnyh. – M.,

2003. – 375 s.

[20]Kashkin V.B. Vvedenie v teoriju kommunikacii / V.B. Kashkin. – Voronezh: Izd-vo VTGU, 2000. – 175 s. (20)

[21]Karasik V.I. Jazykovoj krug: lichnost', koncepty, diskurs. Volgograd: Peremena,

2002. 477 s.

[22]Sternin I.A., Lazurenko E.Ju., Salomatina M.S. Professional'naja kommunikativnaja lichnost' / I.A. Sternin, E.Ju. Lazurenko, M.S. Salomatina. – Voronezh: Istoki, 2007. – 194 s.

[23]Krojchik L.E. Pojetika komicheskogo v proizvedenijah A. P. Chehova.- Voronezh: Izd-vo Voronezh.un-ta, 1986. -278 s.

[24]Kyshtymova T.V. Jazykovye sredstva vyrazhenija komicheskogo v pis'mah A.P. Chehova. - Diss. …kand. filol. nauk . -Cheljabinsk, 2011. -261 s.

[25]Kamenskaja Ju.V.. Ironija kak komponent idiostilja A. P. Chehova. Diss. … kand. filol. nauk. - Saratov, 2001. – 173 s.

[26]Guseva S.V. Tekstoobrazujushhie faktory i ih funkcionirovanie v jepistoljarnom diskurse A.P. Chehova. Avtoref. diss…kand. filolog.nauk. – Nizhnij Novgorod, 2006. –22 s.

[27]Belova A.V. Lingvopragmaticheskaja harakteristika obratimoj jepistoljarnoj kommunikacii: Na materiale perepiski Al. P. Chehova i A.P. Chehova. - Diss. …kand. filol. nauk. - Sankt-Peterburg, 2005. -152 s.

Analysed sources

[1*] Chehov A.P. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij i pisem: v 30-ti tomah. Pis'ma: v 12-ti tomah / pod red. N.F. Bel'chikova. T.1-6. – M.: Nauka, 1974-1978.

[2*] A.P. Chehov v vospominanijah sovremennikov / sost., podgot. teksta i komment. N. Gitovich. – M.: Hudozh. lit., 1986. – 735 s.;

[3*] Vokrug Chehova / sost., vstup. st. i primech. E.M. Saharovoj. – M.: Pravda, 1990. – 656 s.

99

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

[4*] Koni A.F. Vospominanija o pisateljah / A.F. Koni. – M.: Pravda, 1989. – 656 s.; [5*] Chukovskij K.I. Sovremenniki. Portrety i jetjudy / I.K. Chukovskij. – M.: Molodaja

gvardija, 1963. – 704 s.

UDC 82.0 : 008

METAMODERNISM IN THE CONCEPT OF А.Е. CHUCHIN-RUSOV

"THE SINGLE FIELD OF WORLD CULTURE»

G.I. Mamukina, A.S. Markova

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow

PhD in Sociology, Associate Professor of Foreign Languages Department №3

Faculty of International School of Business and the World Economy (ISB&WE) Galina I. Mamukina

e-mail: mamukina@mail.ru

Literary Institute named after A.M. Gorky, Moscow Independent researcher

Anna S. Markova e-mail: lirel@yandex.ru

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Statement of the problem. The article is devoted to a new trend (metamodernism) in the framework of the concept of "The Single field of world culture". It is noted that the theory by A.E. Chuchin-Rusov suggests the cyclical nature of cultural processes, borrowing, based on archetypes and holografico, and the alternation of the epochs, influenced by cultural W and M dominant. The task of the research is to consider the problem of the common field of the world culture in a new way. And as if identified in the theory by A.E. Chuchin-Rusov, the laws and the processes, indeed, are universal, then metamodernism will follow them and take its place in an single field of the world culture. This approach is possible if we analyze the phenomenon of metamaterial in such aspects of culture as statistical, dynamic, and gender, cultural pluralism, macrophenomenology, mythological and natural symbolism, the problem of identity of the universal cultural symbols meanings and modern cultural patterns. From these positions the viability of the theory of A.E. Chuchin-Rusov is considered.

Results. This article tries to identify the universality of the laws of the concept of A.E. Chuchin-Rusov "The Single field of world culture" and to correlate them with metamodernism.

Conclusion. It is concluded that the revealed laws in the theory of A.E. Chuchin-Rusov are universal. Metamodernism governed by the laws of the single field, has gender characteristics and is included in culturekinetics and culture-genetics paradigms. Metamodernism is a confirmation of the concept of A.E. Chuchin-Rusov "The Single field of world culture". Thus, the viability of the theory of A.E. Chuchin-Rusov, which was undeservedly forgotten for more than half a decade, is claimed.

Key words: metamodernism, universality of laws, A.E. Chuchin-Rusov, concept, "The Single field of world culture", postmodernism, universalism, W and M dominants, cyclicity, cultural processes.

For citation: Mamukina G.I., Markova A.S. Metamodernism in the concept of А.Е. Chuchin-Rusov "The single field of world culture» / G.I. Mamukina, A.S. Markova // Scientific Journal “Modern linguistic and methodical- and-didactic researches”. – 2018. - №3 (22). – P. 100 - 107.

Introduction

In 2002, Ph.D. in chemistry, a member of the Association of Art Critics, Alexander

_________________________________

© Mamukina G.I., Markova A.S., 2018

100

W o r l d C u l t u r e ” [1*] as a universal system that allows to unite disparate ideas about cultural and historical periods, trends, and fruits activities.

Historical and cultural concept A.E. Chuchin-Rusov "The Single Field of World Culture" is based on common approaches to the consideration of various spheres of culture, including art, science, technology, religion, and social-cultural constructs. The author pays special attention to such aspects of culture as statistical, dynamic and gender, as well as cultural pluralism, macrofenomenology, mythological and natural science symbols, the problem of identity of meanings universal cultural symbols and modern cultural patterns. The author introduces for understanding the new humanitarian term mental-style objects, justifying it by the fact that the archaic myths define the structure of the archaic human mentality:

Ideal examples of open concepts, - explains A.E. Chuchin-Rusov, - are cultural archetypes. The concepts of universal archetypes, which form the basis of the concept of C. Jung and the entire phenomenological school, grow from archaic myths, from a single simultaneous-syncretic space-time, from the "fourth dimension" of culture, which determined the structure of the archaic human mentality. In this dimension, historical time and physical space were absent, and consciousness itself was not split, as evidenced by ancient languages and myths. In markedly simplified forms, cultural archetypes continued their existence in folklore [2 *].

Objects (Whitehead) [1]: sensory objects, the eternal object or mental-style objects act as archetypal elements that initially possess a property that chemistry is traditionally called

“affinity” (similar to the principle of similarity dissolves into something like that - or antithetism - opposites to each other), and causing holographic (recognizable in each fragment) nature of the cultural phenomena being structured by them (mental style subjects or events, according to Whitehead) [2]. P o s t m o d e r n i s m [3], which combines the forms and texts of classical art and modernism in the space of the game, is the latest trend (for 2002), and it is considered in the framework of the c o n c e p t of A.E. Chuchin-Rusov [1 *]. The concept was sharply criticized by A. Lyusy (2003) [2] and S. Kostyrko (2003) [4, p. 150] and was forgotten. But time and cultural process do not stand still. In 2010, an article by Timotheus Vermeulen and Robin van den Ackera entitled “Notes on metamodernism” was published [5, p. 6], in which a new trend is proclaimed, going to replace postmodernism, requiring the comprehension of the game, the awareness of human culture as a whole, the search for the meaning of culture and art.

In the second decade of the twenty-first century, the new term “m e t a m o d e r n i s m ” [5, p. 6] attracted much attention as a means of formulating changes occurring in modern culture, which, as is commonly believed (and our generation intuitively recognizes this), has stepped over the state of postmodernism in the last years of the 20th century. As a result of the multiple crises of the last two decades of the 21st century (climate change, financial recessions, and aggravations of global conflicts), we have witnessed the emergence of a clear and common desire for change, towards the fact that it was prematurely declared the “End of History” [3].

It is interesting to consider the new trend within the framework of “The Single Field of the World Culture” concept because A.E. Chuchin-Rusov assumes t h e c y c l i c a l n a t u r e o f c u l t u r a l p r o c e s s e s [1 *], borrowing based on archetypism and holographism, as well as the alternation of epochs influenced by cultural W and M dominants [1 *], where each component exists not in isolation, but only in opposition to another component of the system. W and M dominant, according to A.E. Chuchin-Rusov, are two types of all cultural phenomena: type W means female, romantic phenomena in culture, and type M represents male, classical phenomena. Each dominant is considered by Chuchin-Rusov as a hybrid / product of synthesis, which is formed as a result of non-additive interactions of features (a kind of “cultural

101

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

alleys”) of both types [1 *] (note by the authors: non-additiveness in this context means the absence of total parts of the whole, as a hybrid, a product of synthesis). This is due to the binary nature of the culture, as if repeating the binary nature of nature. Thus, in the symbolism of many peoples, the "feminine" (W) cultural principle corresponds to the "passive" principle of nature, as well as the "unconscious", "emotional", "intellectual", "impulsive", responsible, possibly, for the rejection of the historical and cultural movement from the straightness peculiar to the “male” cultural beginning ”[1 *].

Consequently, if the laws and processes identified in the theory are indeed universal, then the new trend will obey them and take its place in the single field of world culture.

But before turning to the programmatic articles on metamodernism, we will identify the main tenets of “The Single Field ...” concept, which are necessary for understanding the theory itself and for conducting this research.

“The Single Field of World Culture” relies primarily on two mutually complementary paradigms. The first is cultural-genetics, in which culture is viewed as a “second nature” (Goethe), which makes it possible to single out the “cultural and historical timeless, universal, statistical aspect” [1 *]. The second, cultural-kinetics, is associated with concrete phenomena, manifestations of a continuous cultural and historical process, and therefore is characterized by a dynamic aspect.

In other words, the interrelation of cultural-genetics and cultural-kinetics can be represented as the interaction of language and speech according to F. de Saussure. In this case, “language” in this case means the entire world cultural and historical heritage, and “speech”, for example, can be understood as the same metamodernism that arose in a specific historical period and has certain characteristics stated in its program, for example, in linguistics This period is called comparative historical. V. Humboldt defines the binary nature of language in linguistics as a tense living whole of its opposing and mutually presupposed principles, which are in mobile equilibrium [6, p. 3]. The concepts of modern knowledge (also) are built according to the binary-archetypal, ambivalent-gender principle, like the archaic yin-yang, mythologicalfabulous centaurs, the two-faced Janus, the frog princess, the monster-prince, etc. The high concentration of such syncretic structures in modern scientific use serves as evidence in favor of the active formation of a new archaic situation - the neo-archaric [6, p. 1]

No work of art, as we know, as well as a historical and cultural phenomenon, can exist by itself. It will be the fruit of its time and the result of the interpretation of the body of knowledge of the author (“mimesis”, according to Aristotle). Therefore, literary critics, as a rule, speak of the unity of form and content, which constitute the integrity of the work. It is fair to note that this integrity, of course, is also characterized by time (the date of writing) and the environment (space), which includes national, cultural, social, moral, psychological and other aspects. For example, in a work of art, the psychological aspect is revealed through the prism of sensations:

“The whole complex of sensations allows the writer to comprehend the psychology of his character” [7, p. 49-54].

And finally, the unity of the world cultural field and the continuous interrelation of two paradigms emphasize the separation of two gender dominants - W and M (male and female) and four main features: “archetypism, tetism (antitheism), holographism, cyclism” [1*].

Gender dominants, in this case, have a deep philosophical meaning and symbolic meaning. In his work The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music, F. Nietzsche singles out the Appolinic and Dionysian arts. But the reader understands that this is not so much about sculpture and music, as about two seemingly conflicting views on culture as an object of study.

The Appolinic view is marked by a harmonious, bright, clear vision of the world, while the Dionissian one, which knows nothing of measure, is a rebellious one, torn by passions, dark.

This theme finds a very expressive and artistically complete (despite its small volume) embodiment in the work of Abel and Cain by S. Baudelaire [8]. In it, the opposition has been

102

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (22), 2018 ISSN 2587-8093

elevated to the rank of confrontation. And just like F. Nietzsche, the French poet sympathizes with the “dark” top:

Abel's race, your sacrifice

Smells sweet to all the Seraphim!

Race of Cain, your punishment,

Will it be ever at an end? (Translated by James McGowan)

The final of the poem says that for serenity, tranquility, for the "fat" and peaceful life also has its price.

But F. Nietzsche comes to a different conclusion: two opposing forces cannot exist without each other: And now - Apollo could not live without Dionysus! “Titanic” and “barbarous” principles turned out to be in the end the same necessity as the Apollonic! And let us imagine now, as in this world built on illusion and self-restraint and artificially fenced with dams, the ecstatic sounds of a Dionysian celebration with its more and more enticing magic tunes suddenly burst in, as in these latter all the excessiveness of nature in joy, suffering and cognition, reaching a piercing cry (Translation from German by A. Mikhailov) [9, p. 65].

In Eastern philosophy, these equal-sized forces, emphasizing the duality and dialectic nature of the world, were called “Yang” (masculine) and “Yin” (feminine). And female (irrational, mystical, dark, cool - Yin) can not exist without the male (clear, measured, reasonable, hot - Yang). And the struggle of gender dominants, with a predominance of one or another in a certain historical context, can give cultural periods an intuitively felt, and sometimes quite visible, color.

The cyclical nature of the culturological process, which is quite obvious in the examples of numerous borrowings and imitations that occur, as a rule, “through a generation” (in this case, generation means the change of trends, trends, and sometimes entire epochs, for example, the revival of Renaissance figures to the canonical art of Antiquity), as well as archetypical and holographic art help a particular individual to determine whether this or that cultural phenomenon is close to it or not. (Author's note. - Archetype (Greek: Arche - beginning, typos - image). C.G. Jung substantiated the doctrine of the collective unconscious, in images of which - archetypes - saw the source of universal human symbolism. Under holographism is the ability to contain much in the small (multum in parvo) [1**].

This ability to “see eternity in one moment” (by U. Blake) [10], which is opened to a person without his participation, is often not even recognized by them, is a consequence of the coordinated work of cultural mechanisms, to which Tetism / antithesis can be safely attributed. And here we should consider not the religious aspect of the issue, which is connected with the conscious choice of a person, but a culturological one, which assumes that there are historical epochs when a rational proof of the reason for the existence of an existence is not enough for a person, and he recognizes (much more intuitively) something than he himself.

Of course, aspects of «The Single Field...» theory can manifest themselves more or less clearly when considering a specific example, but all of them will help to trace the inextricable connection of the object in question (be it a single work or a whole direction) with other structures of the world cultural space.

Using the example of modernity, modernism and postmodernism, the author of the concept of A.E. Chuchin-Rusov shows us how this connection manifests itself in the 20th century.

Although in the words modern and modern one is the root (modern - fr. Modern) by its nature it is the opposite direction. A.E. Chuchin-Rusov [1 *] notes:

And if modern as a style united artists, largely oriented on the experience of the masters of the Middle Ages, on some kind of “unity” of common efforts and, to a large extent, de-

103