SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY FOR CULTURAL STUDIES
SCIENTIFIC ASSOCIATION OF CULTURE RESEARCHERS

Culture of culture

Scientific peer-reviewed electronic periodical
Since 2014

РУС ENG

New Year's greetings (In Russian)

Hypothesis:

The 70th ANNIVERSARY of A. Y. FLIER

O. N. Volkostrelov, A. Ya. Flier. Culture is a program of group adaptive behavior of people. Interview

I. M. Bykhovskaya, O. I. Goryainova. Socialization and inculturation of the individual: a comparative analysis of socially significant practices

G. V. Drach. On cultural variability and social dynamics (referring to the works of A. Ya. Flier)

A.V. Kostina. A. Ya. Flier's concept of culture and its role in the development of Russian cultural studies

 

Discussions:

IN SEARCH OF THE MEANING OF HISTORY AND CULTURE (A. Ya. Flier’s Section)

V. M. Rozin. From the culture of modernity to the "post-culture"

N. A. Khrenov. Between america and china: the concept of the "other" in the formation and transformation of russia's civilizational identity (beginning)

 

Analytics:

HIGH ART IN a CULTURE of MODERNITY (E. N. Shapinskaya’s Sectoin)

E. N. Shapinskaya. "Ah, it's not hard to deceive me..." Love games in cyberspace

CULTURAL REFLECTIONS

N. A. Khrenov. Culture and historical memory (beginning)

A. Ya. Flier. Power and culture: self-organization of society according to the model of vertical hierarchy


Announcement of the next issue

 

 
 
Pelipenko Andrey Anatolievich,
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor,
Chief Researcher Worker, Research Center of
Moscow University of Psychology and Social Sciences.
e-mail: demoped@yandex.ru
 
Episteme of Complexity and its Manifestation in Culture

Abstract: The article deals with various aspects of complexity in culture: syncretic and comprehensive complexity; system complexity and specialization complexity; the complexity of elements of a structure/system and the complexity of connections/relationships, which define the relationships of numerous social functions and the order of historical evolution of culture.

Keywords: Culture, complexity, syncreticity, complexity, systematicy, specialization, structure, connections.

[1] Castelliani B., Yafferty F. Sociology and Complexity. A new field inquiry. Berlin: Springer. 2009. P.6.
[2] At first sight this term may seem tautological, especially considering the English word “complexity”. However, I cannot find a more appropriate term.
[3] Khachaturyan V.M. "Second Life" of Antiquity: Archaizing Trends in Civilization Process. Moscow: Academia, 2009.
[4] Russian film audience in this connection will recall chatlan-patsak language spoken by characters in the film “Kin-dza-dza”.
[5] In this connection, I would recall the symmetry of images which precedes the symmetry of signs, according to Paul Ricoeur.
[6] Such chaotic associativity can be observed in the consciousness of modern humans as well, if they are "led astray" from culturally-imposed routine ways of association and meaning formation.
[7] Researchers of myths usually associated it with the images of the ground, groundwaters and the underworld.
[8] Of course, in the Lower Paleolithic cultural forms were even more syncretic, but cultural genesis in that era was still at the stage of bioevolution, and we cannot speak about immanent dialectics of its unfolding. So the protoculture of the Lower Paleolithic is not touched upon herein.  
[9] Nucleation in social systems does not necessarily take the form of political centralization. The system Center of a LCS is a more complex and multifaceted phenomenon than the center of political (state) power, although the latter often acts as a mytho-ideological representation of the first.
[10] It is not by chance that bioevolutionary concept, implying autonomous action of natural selection on separate functional elements, turned out to be unworkable.
[11] For example, the loss of such complicating specializations as a bow and arrows by the aborigines of Australia, or a hypothetical return motion in the social organization from lower to higher egalitarianism could be carried out within the framework of a constant level of system complexity.
[12] Korotaev A.V. Social Evolution. Factors. Regularities. Trends. Moscow: Nauka, Eastern Literature, 2003. P. 53-54.
[13] Korotaev A.V. Ibidem. P. 53.
[14] As for politogenesis, monocentric type of system does not necessarily imply a rigid mono-policy. On the contrary, most of ancient monocentric societies were rather multi-political.
[15] For example, T.D. Skrynnikova suggests that the center of the Mongol Empire was not a state, but a super-complex chiefdom, while state-like structures concentrated on the periphery of this multi-political formation. Skrynnikova T.D. Mongolian Nomadic Society at Empire Period // Alternative Ways to Civilization / Ed. N.N. Kradin, A.V. Korotaev, D.M. Bondarenko, V.A. Lynsha. Moscow: Logos. 2000, P. 344-355.
[16] Such accumulation is possible due to an adaptive-specializing dominant in the development of peripheral areas.
[17] The schism in Russian society, however without any correlation with Huntington, was researched by A.S. Akhiezer.
[18] It reminds of Marx’s saying about a human as “the ensemble of social relations”.
[19] For more details see: Pelipenko A.A. Dualistic Revolution and Semiogenesis in History. Moscow: URSS. 2010.
[20] These processes are usually accompanied by sacralization of a desire to get psychologically attached to metaphysically understood ontologism.
[21] Nazaretyan A.P. Vectors of Historical Evolution // Social Studies and Nowadays. N 2. 1999. P. 112-126, and others.

 

 

ISSN 2311-3723

Founder:
OOO «Soglasie» publisher

Publisher:
Scientific Association of Culture Researchers

Official registration № ЭЛ № ФС 77 – 56414 от 11.12.2013

The magazine is indexed:

Issued quarterly in electronic form only

 

Issue produced by:

Editorial Director
A. Flier

Editor in Chief
T. Glazkova

Head of IT Center
A. Lukyanov

 

Our banner:

Our e-mail:
cultschool@gmail.com

 

 

 

Our Facebook account:

 
 

OUR PARTNERS:

РУС ENG