About Two Families of Cross-Cultural Communication Models
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2021-11-6-54-61
Abstract
In this article, the authors try to draw and substantiate the distinction between intercultural communications carried out in people’s civilizational and cultural modes of existence. We attempt to objectify the meanings of the concepts of civilization and culture — to express the senses in the meanings of terms, and to convert the meanings of these concepts (primary intentions) into the content of concepts (secondary intentions), which clearly outlines the scope (extensions) of concepts. As a result, the authors concluded that the term “civilization” indicates an interobjective mode of human existence, and the term “culture” indicates an intersubjective mode of existence. Any place of activity and habitation of people is the place of deployment of two ontologies of the social — one based on interobjectivity (civilization) and the other on intersubjectivity (culture). Accordingly, cross-cultural communication can be carried out in both interobjective and intersubjective modes of existence. Since the concepts of civilization and culture, even when objectified, do not lose the character of “narrative substances”, their extensionals are not classes or types. Using the term of L. Wittgenstein, they form “families of meanings”. Therefore, the authors point to families of cross-cultural communications and describe the differences between these families.
About the Authors
A. G. Tyurikov
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
D. Sc. (Sociology), Professor, Head of the Department of Sociology, Faculty of
Social Sciences and Mass Communications
Moscow
A. Ya. Bolshunov
Financial University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Psychology), Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Faculty
of Social Sciences and Mass Communications
Moscow
References
1. Ritzer J. McDonaldization of society 5. Moscow: Praxis Publishing and Consulting Group; 2011. 592 p. (In Russ.).
2. De Jaegher H., Di Paolo E. Making Sense in Participation: An Enactive Approach to Social Cognition. Enacting Intersubjectivity F. Morganti et al., еds. IOS Press, 2008.
3. Ritzer G., Ryan M. The Globalization of Nothing. SAIS Review of International Affairs. 2003 (SummerFall); XXIII(2):189–200. DOI: 10.1353/sais.2003.0053
4. Ritzer G. The Globalization of Nothing. Pine Thousand Oaks, CA: Forge Press; 2004. 359 р.
5. Latour B. On interobjectivity. Sotsiologicheskoye obozreniye = Sociological Review. 2007;6(2):79–96. (In Russ.).
6. Latour B. Reassembly of the social: an introduction to the actor-network theory. Moscow: Higher School of Economics; 2014. 384 p. (In Russ.).
7. Latour B. On the actor-network theory. Some clarifications with more complications. LOGOS: Nauchnofilosofskiy zhurnal = LOGOS: Scientific and philosophical journal. 2017;27(1):173–200. (In Russ.).
8. Leontiev A. N. Philosophy of Psychology: From the Scientific Heritage. Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow University; 1994. 228 p. (In Russ.).
9. Leontyev A. N. Activity, consciousness, personality. Moscow: Politizdat; 1975. 304 p. (In Russ.).
10. Mezhuev V. M. Idea of culture. Essays on the philosophy of culture. Moscow: Progress-Tradition; 2006. 408 p. (In Russ.).
11. Elias N. About the process of civilization. Sociogenetic and psychogenetic research. Volume 1. Changes in the behaviour of the upper layer of the laity in the West. Moscow; St. Petersburg: University Book; 2001. 332 p. (In Russ.).
12. Fuchs T., De Jaegher H. Enactive intersubjectivity: Participatory sense-making and mutual incorporation. URL: https://www.academia.edu/11325878/Enactive_intersubjectivity_Participatory_sensemaking_and_mutual_incorporation
13. Husserl E. Selected Works. (Series “University Library of Alexander Pogorelsky”). Moscow: Publishing House “Territory of the Future”; 2005. 464 p. (In Russ.).
14. Husserl E. Cartesian meditations. Moscow: Academic Project; 2010. 229 p. (In Russ.).
15. Lewis David. Introduction. Coordination and Convention. In: Lewis D. Convention. A Philosophical Study. Blackwell Publishers; 1998. URL: https://www.princeton.edu/~harman/Courses/PHI534–2012–13/Nov26/lewis-convention1.pdf
16. Ankersmit F. Narrative logic. Semantic analysis of the language of historians. Moscow: Idea-Press; 2003. 360 p. (In Russ.).
17. Deleuze J., Guattari F. What is philosophy? Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology; St. Petersburg: Aleteya; 1998. 288 p. (In Russ.).
18. Eliot T. S. Favorites. Vols. I–II. Religion, culture, literature. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN); 2004. 752 p. (In Russ.).
19. Eagleton T. The idea of culture. Moscow: Higher School of Economics; 2012. 192 p. (In Russ.).
20. Spengler O. Decline of Europe. Essays on the morphology of world history. Vol. 1. Gestalt and reality. Moscow: Thought; 1998. 663 p. (In Russ.).
21. Bickhard M. H. Social Ontology as Convention. URL: https://lehigh.academia.edu/MarkBickhard
22. Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of Inequality. Moscow: Institute of Russian Civilization; 2012. 624 p. (In Russ.).
23. Feyerabend P. Goodbye, reason. Moscow: ACT: Astrel; 2010. 477 p. (In Russ.).
24. Latour B. An Inquiry into Modes of Existence. An Anthropology of the Moderns. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2013. 489 р.
25. Ritzer G. The Globalization of Nothing. Pine Thousand Oaks, CA: Forge Press; 2004. 359 р.
26. Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2 edition. Vol. 3. Moscow: State Publishing House of Political Literature; 1955. 629 p. (In Russ.).
27. Shachin S. V. The idea of intersubjectivity in the context of the philosophical tradition in Germany in the twentieth century. Symposium series, Contemporary philosophy as a cultural phenomenon: research traditions and innovations: proceedings of a scientific conference. Issue 7. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Philosophical Society; 2001.224 s. (In Russ.).
28. Marx K., Engels F. Works. 2 edition 2, vol. 23. Moscow: State Publishing House of Political Literature; 1955. 907 p. (In Russ.).
29. Radugin A.A., ed. Culturology. Textbook. Moscow: Center; 2001. 304 p. (In Russ.).
30. Embodiment, Enaction, and Culture: Investigating the Constitution of the Shared World. Durt Christoph, Fuchs Thomas, Tewes Christian, editors. London: MIT Press; 2017. 441 p.
31. Harman G. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics. Melbourne: re.press; 2009. 247 p. URL: http://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_780980544060_Prince_of_Networks.pdf.
Review
For citations:
Tyurikov A.G., Bolshunov A.Ya. About Two Families of Cross-Cultural Communication Models. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2021;11(6):54-61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2021-11-6-54-61
Views:
323
Email this article 