p.
5
“The Third Birth of Culturology”: Cultural Studies of E.S. Markaryan
The article considers the problems of the identity of cultural studies, the question of its specifi city and relationship to philosophy and culturanthropologie. The analysis of the concepts “culture”, “civilization”, “human action”.
Substantiates the role and importance of E.S. Markaryan in the formation of culturology as a science. Allocated for the analysis assigned to them major problems. Among them – about the specifics of human action and culture as a way of self-organization and human adaptation to the external environment. This raises a problem of historical typology of culture, but on the fi rst plan Markaryan makes the question of the relationship between culture and society. Culture has its
own normative character, however, according to Markaryan, is not reduced to its axiological grounds. He justifi es “not axiological” understanding the culture and overcoming the Eurocentric belief system. In this case, rejected the division
of various types of human existence on “cultured” and “uncultured”, “upper” and “lower” and matched to a particular scale of values. If as a model for mapping and classifi cation is accepted by a particular historical type of culture, axiological
interpretation inevitably leads to Eurocentrism. Culture is considered in interrelation and interdependence with civilizational development. Detail the major issues arising under the infl uence of technogenic civilization. Culture and cultural imperatives are considered in accordance with the views of Markaryan as an ideology of self-preservation and the survival of humanity. Gives a positive assessment to the new edition of the works of E.S. Markaryan, prepared by A.V. Bondarev.
Substantiates the role and importance of E.S. Markaryan in the formation of culturology as a science. Allocated for the analysis assigned to them major problems. Among them – about the specifics of human action and culture as a way of self-organization and human adaptation to the external environment. This raises a problem of historical typology of culture, but on the fi rst plan Markaryan makes the question of the relationship between culture and society. Culture has its
own normative character, however, according to Markaryan, is not reduced to its axiological grounds. He justifi es “not axiological” understanding the culture and overcoming the Eurocentric belief system. In this case, rejected the division
of various types of human existence on “cultured” and “uncultured”, “upper” and “lower” and matched to a particular scale of values. If as a model for mapping and classifi cation is accepted by a particular historical type of culture, axiological
interpretation inevitably leads to Eurocentrism. Culture is considered in interrelation and interdependence with civilizational development. Detail the major issues arising under the infl uence of technogenic civilization. Culture and cultural imperatives are considered in accordance with the views of Markaryan as an ideology of self-preservation and the survival of humanity. Gives a positive assessment to the new edition of the works of E.S. Markaryan, prepared by A.V. Bondarev.
Culture, Culturology, Axiology, Sociology, Science of culture, Action, Civilization, Adaptation, Selforganization, Self-preservation, Evolution, Imperatives cultural