THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION IN THE GLOBAL WORLD

Kalimbetova Dinara,

Master student,

Osh State University

Abstract.

The new situation is that for the first time in the international community its attitude towards itself becomes the most important and decisive, since it is at this starting point that the foundations and prospects for world development are being laid today. Today, this self-determination of humanity is significantly distorted by its systemic and technological “filling”, the predominance of which gives rise to social alienation and standardization of the mass consciousness of people, the dominance of such regulatory instruments as mass culture, the market environment, etc., and the growth of global information and communication networks.

Keywords: globalization, informational and cultural climate, information and communication paintings, sociocultural communications, international community.

Introduction

In today's interconnected world, the ability to communicate across cultural boundaries is more important than ever. It facilitates communication across linguistic and cultural boundaries, leading to more tolerance, acceptance, and, ultimately, stronger relationships amongst people of diverse backgrounds.

The new situation is that for the first time in the international community its attitude towards itself becomes the most important and decisive, since it is at this starting point that the foundations and prospects for world development are being laid today. Today, this self-determination of humanity is significantly distorted by its systemic and technological “filling”, the predominance of which gives rise to social alienation and standardization of the mass consciousness of people, the dominance of such regulatory instruments as mass culture, the market environment, etc., and the growth of global information and communication networks. However, the own movement of local worlds is becoming more and more noticeable, giving rise to systems of intercultural interaction and partnerships.

Thus, the attitude of humanity towards itself today occurs at a systemic level, focused on sustainability and internal harmonization (that is, these trends are set by the properties of the social system itself), and at a more particular level - personal and group levels, including social communities - a state of constant competition, in addition to innovative changes, creates situations and a general context maintaining uncertainty and chaos. It is in terms of a positive resolution of this contradiction that important tasks become the identification and support of precisely those movements and local initiatives that “work for the system”, expanding the orderly and coordinated socio-cultural space of partnership and dialogue between countries and peoples. And among the various local processes, which for their specific purposes act as conductors of system-wide goals and requirements for achieving the unity of the world community, intercultural communications can be distinguished.

Materials and methods

During the investigation the methods of research and analysis as comparative analysis, systemic and structural-functional analysis were used in the article.

Today, intercultural communications are studied to a greater extent at the specific empirical level: the development of international cultural tourism and its forms, programs for the settlement of refugees and migrants, the study of the characteristics of psychology, symbolism and mentality of representatives of different cultures, intercultural entrepreneurial activity and business, state intercultural policy and etc. The common reason for this is the underdevelopment of the very concept of intercultural communications, which requires the development of a modern information and communication picture of the world as a special cultural and semantic “projection” of the globalization process.

However, research into the characteristics of social and sociocultural communications in the direction of their conceptualization are very active today. We are realizing that these communications express the systemically organized space of globalization at whatever particular level they occur. Therefore, the development of the concept of sociocultural communications should be aimed not only at clarifying their own characteristics, but also at setting guidelines that would ensure the resolution of modern internal contradictions of the information society in the direction of humanism and strengthening the role of culture. But for this, the sociocultural system itself must develop its role in regulating the direction of the dynamics of the entire society. One can support the position of O.D. Shipunova, who notes that “the communicative approach allows us to see in the concept of social order an ambiguous relationship between the sacred, social and existential. The strategic line of this relationship is the translation of meaning” [1, p. 7]. But since meaning is the most important content of sociocultural communications, their peculiarity is that the basis here is “subject-subject interaction, mediated by information that makes sense for both subjects” [2, p. 53].

The idea of ​​an inter-subjective basis for dialogue is being actively analyzed still in Soviet philosophy. Thus, A. M. Korshunov and V. V. Mantatov, emphasize that in dialogue “the object of research itself has a subjective dimension,” that is, “the subject knows the subject”.

And in order to know another subject, “one must enter into a dialogical relationship with him.” Only in the process of dialogue between personalities and consciousnesses is it possible to comprehend the subjective world: “one subjective world reveals its semantic depths by meeting and coming into contact with another world” [3, p. 166].

It is precisely the meaning of such communications, their focus on solidarity and cooperation, covering a wider space, acquired a positive assessment relatively long ago, in particular, in the ideas of progressive Russian and European thinkers. Thus, Russian thinkers interpreted solidarity as mutual support (P. L. Lavrov), mutual assistance (P. A. Kropotkin), cooperation (N. K. Mikhailovsky, L. I. Mechnikov). Western ideologists of social partnership also relied on ideas about love and brotherhood, proposing the establishment of a relationship of equality between all classes in society through the introduction of common law, organization of labor, distribution of wealth (L. Blanc), association in artless (P. Proudhon), and the establishment of productive associations (F. Lassalle).

Results and discussion

Social and sociocultural communications have a humanistic orientation at the level of being (and not just any specific tasks), focusing on social solidarity and social partnership. This reveals their important function - in expanding the scale and level of the space of agreement, solidarity, which is carried out on the basis of dialogue - a form of communication during which interacting subjects come to a truth of a higher order, changing their initial positions, and precisely because new ideas ensure unity and interconnection of dialogue participants and become the basis for sustainable social partnership. It is the ontological basis of the dialogue that becomes the basis for expanding its communicative and semantic space, forming mutual understanding and partner positions of the parties. Realized as an expression of the interests and problems of the participants in the dialogue, in an objective context all this acts as a manifestation of the systemic regulation of inter-subjective communications aimed at coordination in the context of identified common goals. Since the tendency of any system is to organize its content and increase the level of stability of its own existence, then an important direction here is the special “synchronization of positions” of subjects of social and cultural (as well as other) communications.

All of the above is enough to analyze the internal meaning, direction and functions of intercultural communications, their role in the modern world community.

First of all, the subjects of such communications are conspecific cultures of certain peoples. Today, the concept of “culture” is one of the most capacious and inexhaustible; it has hundreds of approaches and definitions. We can proceed from the fact that culture is a special way of life of a particular people or community, a way of organizing its spiritual and semantic unity and a special value, linguistic space in which this unity is realized. Culture is, together with society, the most important direction of personal identity, which is achieved in the process of socialization of individuals. Cultures are huge spiritual and symbolic worlds that give birth to their own meanings, worldview systems, spiritual and symbolic guidelines for people’s lives. Therefore, intercultural communication is a complex process of crossing different integral worlds, in which the process of mutual recognition, understanding and recognition of their bearers (the inhabitants of these worlds as representatives of specific cultures) takes place. Today, the philosophical literature has established the position that the goal of intercultural communications understands, identifying meaning, and the form of implementation of this process is dialogue. Thus, V. S. Bibler notes: “The twentieth century revealed the need for communication (and not the Hegelian “sublation”) of unique cultures, irreducible to each other, but dialogically facing each other, each of which is universal and infinitely rich in potential meanings ( ancient, medieval, modern, modern culture, cultures of the West and East). Logic of thinking is needed as logic of communication between such historical cultures, and possible cultures that have not yet been realized” [4, p.37]. To understand another culture is not just to make it the subject and content of one’s knowledge, says Bibler, but “it means... to treat it as something completely different from “I,” than my thinking, my cultural being.”

The more I understand another culture (the tragedy of Aeschylus, Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, Rembrandt’s “Prodigal Son,” Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”), all the more so I identify what is incomprehensible to me, but necessary for my being, “my spiritual certainty.”

This paradox also exists in personal communication: understanding exists as long as there is misunderstanding, that is, “the understanding that this is another person, another spiritual universe, beyond my existence” [4, p. 38].

Here, some ontological features of the dialogue of cultures are revealed: understanding in the context of “misunderstanding” is precisely a special commensurate of consciousness and being. My understanding of other cultures is precisely possible against the background of the fact that their own existence is much more complex and multidimensional than the framework of my perception of the latter. However, the modern information society also imposes its own limitation on the peculiarities of perception and understanding of other cultures: here a certain “instrumental” approach begins to emerge, in which priority is given not to the spiritual principle, but to some systemic “cuts” and influences. Thus, L.A. Ornatskaya, considering ideas about the dialogue of cultures in domestic research, notes: “In domestic literature, the term “dialogue of cultures” is most often used as a metaphor to denote the influence of one culture on another. The idea of ​​“reciprocity” is very rarely confirmed. Meanwhile, the dialogue of cultures presupposes the presence of two subjects, two poles of interaction. At the same time, the emphasis is on borrowing: there is dialogue where there are borrowings. But since not all interactions between cultures can be declared a dialogue (many of them are “monologue” in nature and associated with various types of violence), in the practice of specific research, cultural dialogism is associated with those borrowings that are made voluntarily. But the voluntariness of borrowing cannot always be established. Let us remember the complaints of A.I. Herzen about how potatoes were planted in France and Russia. In Russia - by force, and in France - by cunning (“with the mind”), but is it voluntary? Borrowing mechanisms such as imitation, seduction, complexes about a stronger culture are difficult to unambiguously evaluate based on the criterion of voluntariness, not only because they can be used for manipulative purposes, but also because they presuppose a minimum of this very will.

However, this is not the main thing. When the problem of dialogue of cultures is identified with the problem of mutual influences and cultural contacts, it loses its “existential” content. The main question is not whether one culture borrowed something from another and, in turn, shared something with it, but whether these contacts and borrowings contributed to the establishment of its originality, and, in principle, survival. In dialogue, culture defends its right to existence, independence and specialness. Selective, fragmentary facts of borrowings in themselves do not indicate anything other than a statement of these borrowings” [5, p. 53–54]. What the authors mean here is that particular manifestations of intercultural communications can be understood from a more general position of integrity.

The civil culture of an individual in the context of a culture of consent without its cultural-dialogical “cut” turns out to be incomplete impure, since without this the civil culture of the individual is deprived of its essential value-humanistic dimension. Close to this position is the interpretation of the culture of consent by M. P. Menyaeva, who in her dissertation notes that “relations of consent, based on the values ​​of non-violence, justice, mercy, tolerance, etc., are necessary at all levels of human existence (individual, supra-individual, global). Their significance lies in ensuring the stability and security of human existence, preserving the integrity of the world in all its diversity, thereby sustainable development” [7, p. 16]. Clarifying this concept, the author writes: “a culture of consent can be presented in two ways. It is a way of organizing human co-existence in order to ensure safety, survival, creation of life and sustainable development, as well as a method of personal identification, thanks to which, in the course of a person’s unity with others, a person’s awareness and understanding of himself occurs, without which it is impossible building an individual “human world” and enriching it. Therefore, the culture of consent is constructive” [7, p. 18].

Thus, the culture of consent essentially acts as a kind ofsecond globally oriented education, which integrates those planetary (systemic) directions and levels of sociocultural communications in which supraregional mechanisms for regulating modern international processes in their integrity and diversity arise and are strengthened.

This context turns out to be very important from the point of view of ensuring the mastery of the content of intercultural communications. “The dialogical approach presupposes the opportunity to see another culture not as a world of objects, “cultural facts,” ordered by the monologue thought of a scientist, but as a world of “mutually illuminated consciousnesses, a world of associated semantic attitudes,” that is, to make it speak in many voices, “revive” [5, p. 54]. This, in principle, means that “the dialogue of cultures, if we take its ethical component, is not so much a fact of today as a project trying to realize one of the possibilities of human existence: to live in peace with other cultures, without compromising one’s own, the implementation of which requires enormous strong-willed, intellectual, social and political efforts" [5, p. 60]. As a result of intercultural dialogue, a higher level of their interaction is formed, which is a product of special sociocultural reproduction. The latter represents the real activity and communication of cultural subjects of individuals, groups, organizations, ethnic groups, nations in the sphere of intercultural dialogue. Here a complex set of intercultural agreements and identifications is created - from the development of a common platform - a position in relation to each other and to modernity - to private agreements on cultural tourism, educational programs, the organization of exhibitions and presentations, and scientific research.

Thus, personal identification in the process of intercultural communication is “a complex ideological and psychological phenomenon in which the emotional and rational, psychological and ideological, many properties, qualities, characteristics of the individual and community are integrated”; carried out "not only correlation, identification of people with the corresponding community, but also ideas about the community itself: “the image of us” includes ideas about ourselves and others, as well as the characteristics of a given group - culture, language, territory, state, history.” An important aspect of identity is “feelings shared by a group - ethnic (in the case of an ethnic community) or towards one’s country, state, citizens of the state, as well as certain actions of people... The ideological component is integral to the structure of identity” [8, p. 203–204]. Mastering the potential of intercultural communication (dialogue) has many different areas: the formation and implementation of cultural and interethnic policies, the development and implementation of innovative models of modern education, the development of international cultural tourism, joint scientific research, etc. Here we can distinguish the international, interregional and local levels.

So, at the international level, intercultural dialogue makes it possible to form public opinion on a number of important issues of our time, to form various funds to support the cultures of third world countries, to organize international congresses and festivals, and to actively cooperate with UNESCO and other organizations. UNESCO Chairs contribute to the promotion of peace and are a key link in the development of intercultural and interreligious dialogue among academia, researchers, policymakers and civil society.

An important event in the active promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue is I and II World Nomad Games in the Kyrgyz Republic. In 2016, as part of the cultural program at the II World Nomad Games, a thousand Kyrgyz komuz players played the composition “Mash Botoi” by Atay Ogonbaev for the first time, and each nation demonstrated its traditions and customs [9].

At the interregional level we are talking about cultural policy within the country (or between specific countries), in which the main problems are the “cultural alignment” of ethnic groups and small nations, establishing cultural dialogue between urban and rural culture, the center and periphery of the country. For modern Kygyzstan, solving the problem of finding cultural and ideological symbols of the supranational and supra ethnic levels is of great importance. Indeed, for the spiritual and moral unity of the country, it is very important to find such a meaning and content of the all-Kyrgyz cultural space that, from the perspective of the whole, would express the uniqueness and sociocultural identity of Kyrgyzstan. On this basis, modern ideology and the country's international mission can be clarified.

The need to implement and master intercultural dialogue requires increasing the level of education of its subjects - teaching the culture of dialogic communication as the initial ability to live in a civil democratic society. At the level of interpersonal communication, dialogue is the source and basis for solving a number of educational problems.

Conclusion

Thus, the main objectives of intercultural dialogue as a method of educational interpersonal interaction and a method of learning will be the following:

Providing new information to communication partners in order to bridge the knowledge gap. But this requirement is relevant not only for teachers and students, but also for communication between business entities, generations, administration and the public. Information exchange is a way of influencing the “receiving” side, which builds new positions for the entire management system in the region.

Developing a common understanding establishing a single semantic field through the search for personal meanings and interpretation. According to V.I. Karasik, dialogue is not limited to the exchange of meanings, but involves “the establishment of a common semantic field, the most important components of which are relatively stable mental formations obtained as a result of individual interaction between a person and the environment” [10, p. 61].

Updating the dialogical thinking of students with the aim of development of their knowledge and ideas based on operations of analysis, comparison and generalization. On the basis of dialogue, personal meanings, value judgments and relationships are also developed, which will allow for a deeper revelation of the individuality of each of the subjects participating in the dialogue.

For cultural interaction, in contrast to political, economic, organizational and others, is characterized by the fact that “the transfer of information between communicants is carried out against a certain emotional background and is accompanied by the expression of one’s own position and assessment in relation to what is being expressed” [11, p. 46–47].

The considerations expressed here about the characteristics of intercultural communications and their impact on modern processes at different levels, of course, do not exhaust this complex topic and require continued research [12]. However, the fundamental points highlighted by the authors - the connection of intercultural communications with the process of modern globalization, the dialogue basis of these communications, their ability to express objective system-wide trends - have methodological significance and should be taken into account in subsequent areas of analysis of this topic.

Bibliography

Shipunova A. D.Communication strategy is the code of social order // Communication strategies of the information society. Proceedings of the III International Scientific and Theoretical Conference. – St. Petersburg. : Publishing House of the Polytechnic University, 2010.

Gavra D.P.Fundamentals of communication theory. – St. Petersburg. : Publishing house “Peter”, 2011. – P. 53.

Korshunov A. M., Mantatov V.V. The theory of reflection and the heuristic role of signs. – M.: Publishing house Moskov. University, 1974. – 214 p.

Bibler V. S. From “notes for future use” // Questions of Philosophy. – 1991. –

No. 6. – pp. 15–45.

Ornatskaya L. A.Intercultural dialogue: problems and prospects for research // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Culturology. Series 6. Vol. 1. – St. Petersburg, 2014. – pp. 48–61.

Pletnev D. I.Civil culture as a culture of harmony between society and the state: dis. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. – Tomsk, 2005. – 137 p.

Menyaeva M. P.Culture of consent: essence, formation, reproduction: abstract. dis. ... Doctor of Philosophy Sci. – Chelyabinsk, 2015.

Leskova I. V.Sociocultural identity: theoretical and applied aspects // Social politics and sociology. – M., 2007. – No. 3.

Brusilovsky D. A.Possibilities of Islam in the context of intra-religious, inter-religious and intercultural dialogue in the modern era // Society: philosophy, history, culture. Vol. 10. – Krasnodar, 2016.

Karasik V. I.Ethnic-specific concepts // Z. D. Popova et al. Introduction to cognitivelinguistics: textbook. allowance/answer. ed. M. V. Pimenova. – Kemerovo: Kuzbasvuzizdat, 2005. – P. 61–105.

Agapova S. G.Fundamentals of interpersonal and intercultural communication (English) / Series “Higher Education”. – Rostov n/a. : Phoenix, 2004. – 288 p.

The role of spirituality in the development of society / Raikan Ysmailova, et.al. // E3S Web Conf., 210 (2020) 17035 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202021017035