The negative impact of mass culture on society. Mass culture and its impact on society

Master student

Averkina Tatyana Nikolaevna, Honorary Worker of General Education Russian Federation, teacher of history and social studies VUVK them. A.P. Kiseleva, Voronezh

Annotation:

Mass culture- a form of culture that prevails among the majority of the population, characterized by low quality characteristics, orientation towards the "average person". One part of society criticizes mass culture, considering it faceless and propagandistic. Another part recognizes its effectiveness in supporting the spiritual and moral unification of individuals. At the same time, no one denies the global influence that mass culture has on the collective consciousness and mind. This article is devoted to a more detailed study and analysis of the presented influence, as well as its connection with various spheres of society.

Mass culture is a form of culture among the majority of the population, characterized by low quality characteristics, orientation towards the "average person". One part of society criticizes mass culture, considering it faceless and propagandistic. The other part recognizes its effectiveness in supporting the spiritual and moral unification of individuals. At the same time, no one denies the global influence that mass culture has on collective consciousness and reason. This article is dedicated to a more detailed study and analysis of the presented influence, as well as its relationships with different spheres of society.

Keywords:

culture; Mass culture; moral values; society

culture; mass culture; moral values; society

UDC 316.7

Mass culture is one of the fundamental attributes of the spiritual sphere of modern society. A striking example of mass culture is the creation of the "Hollywood industry" and the emergence of such genres of cinema as horror, action films and serials. Such products are aimed at the mass consumer, who craves "bread and circuses" and does not set himself the goal of careful thoughtfulness and understanding of what is happening on the screen. The so-called "Hollywood" films have been one of the most widespread and "effective" tools for influencing people's minds over the past decades.

Mass culture has become one of the integral components modern era. Moreover, this phenomenon has left its mark on absolutely all spheres of the life of society, which can be easily traced on the basis of all the changes made to the way of existence of mankind.

For example, popular culture has a great influence on political sphere. First of all, it attaches the individual to the existing system. public relations, stopping attempts and impulses of rebellion against her. With the help of funds mass media there is an introduction of citizens to politics, the level of their political participation rises. However, it is also worth noting reverse side this medal. The extreme politicization of many printed publications is often the basis for the formation of the opinion of a reader who is unable to recreate own picture peace. Due to the spread of the influence of mass culture, politics is perceived through images (image and stereotypes). Lack of full understanding political processes, the idea of ​​politics is formed under the influence of PR, advertising and agitation. In such conditions, the probability of spreading false information, misleading citizens with the help of the media and other tools is high. One of the most clear examples The scandal caused by the appearance in the nineties of the XX century of photographs of the “Serbian death camp”, which turned out to be a fake, can serve as a similar situation, but played a lot important role in the accusation of Serbia in the destruction of the civilian population.

Among the economic consequences of the influence of mass culture, one cannot fail to note the stimulation technical progress, availability, cheapness of products (due to its standardization), and, consequently, the ability to meet the needs of the poorest segments of the population and, as a result, an increase in living standards in all corners of the globe. So, for example, over the past ten years, the economic growth of some sub-Saharan African countries has amounted to more than seven percent. In addition, mass culture preaches the need and importance of the development of production technologies, technical innovations. Since most researchers agree that mass culture originated in the United States (a country where pragmatism and manufacturability are elevated to the rank of core values), technological innovations also spread with the spread of mass culture. On the other hand, mass culture limits the stimulation of the production of unique and high-quality products. So any economic agent, be it a firm, positions the maximization of profit as the main economic goal, which can be achieved, among other things, through an increase in the scale of production. One of the accompanying factors and ways to achieve this goal is to reduce costs by offering the consumer a homogeneous and unified product, which, of course, cannot be characterized positively.

Popular culture has had a huge impact on social sphere. The same homogeneous production of mass culture acts as a certain integrating force that brings peoples together and contributes to globalization.

Due to its universality and focus on each individual, regardless of his social status, mass culture blurs the boundaries between classes. All this, ultimately, helps to reduce the level of social tension in society.

However, the spread of mass culture caused a sharp increase in the level of patriotism of nations. Separate cultural communities began to defend the right to national identity, fighting against general unification. Suffice it to recall the policy of the Ukrainian authorities to restore the significance Ukrainian language as one of the measures for the revival of national self-consciousness.

Among the negative social consequences of mass culture, one should mention the passive perception of reality by the individual, conservatism, orientation not to reality, but to advertising, television and radio images, conformism as the main type of personality behavior, unwillingness and inability to change the existing social order and eliminate shortcomings in him.

Although the middle of the 20th century is considered to be the time of the birth of mass culture, it is worth considering that some of its features can be seen even before that time. So you can quote the Russian philosopher A.I. Herzen, who says that the mass (people) is a retarding force that does not allow society to develop progressively: “He clings to his depressing life, to tight frames ... He even accepts the new in old clothes ... ". The mass resists innovation, fears the new. This hinders the development of society along the path of progress.

Perhaps the most noticeable imprint was left by mass culture on the spiritual sphere of society. Mass culture, when using simple tools (typical images, standardized plots), helps the individual to better navigate in modern world, to get, albeit primitive, but an idea of ​​​​the relationship between people. Through art culture, mass culture gives society the opportunity to join the culture of more high level. By copying and adopting the achievements and examples of elite culture, mass culture spreads them, popularizes them through the media, cinema, and in other ways. Moreover, it was thanks to the spread of mass culture that the poorest sections of the population acquired the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of high art. It is also impossible not to take into account the general increase in the level of literacy of the population, in which mass culture played an important role.

At the same time, most experts note that the negative consequences of this phenomenon are still greater than the positive ones. The well-known sociologist, researcher of mass culture J. Ortega y Gasset wrote: “The peculiarity of our time is that ordinary souls, not being deceived about their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it and impose it on everyone and everywhere.” Universal universalization, standardization kills high art which society simply does not need.

The products of human spiritual activity in a society of mass consumption are focused primarily on the satisfaction of primary needs. There is a reassessment of values: postmodernism - the dominant philosophical trend in the era of mass culture - proclaims the principle of enjoyment as the main goal of art. “Everything in the world is relative, there is neither “good” nor “bad” art,” postmodernists argue, guided by the principle of denying the hierarchy of values. Modern Art and mass culture are choosing the path of commercialization as the main trajectory of their movement. This path is not aimed at the moral improvement of the individual, but at the satisfaction of needs, basic instincts. The primary task of such a culture is to entertain, but not to provide "food for thought". It is impossible not to note the emerging trend of denying such values ​​as chastity, patriotism, and family. Chastity is declared a moral inferiority, a patriot is opposed to a cosmopolitan - a "citizen of the world", the institution of the family is going through a deep crisis.

Thus, it can be confidently asserted that mass culture at the present stage of its existence is an integral element of social relations, which has a huge and ever-increasing influence on various areas the life of society. At the same time, in the political, economic, social, and spiritual spheres, one can single out both positive and Negative consequences this influence. That is why the main task of civilization in the coming years is to prevent the negative impact of mass culture, limit the further decomposition of art, and also prevent its transformation into an instrument for satisfying basic needs. To achieve this result, a clear and meaningful change in the values ​​of mass culture in all its manifestations, the introduction of cultural ideals of a higher level is necessary. This process can be organized primarily by mixing mass culture with the elite, which obviously has a higher base of values.

Bibliographic list:

Reviews:

22.12.2017, 13:39 Adibekyan Hovhannes Alexandrovich
Review: Adibekyan Hovhannes Alexandrovich. Article by Kanishchev K.V. written skillfully, significant for the public, its scientists, politicians, journalists. It is recommended for printing. But it is proposed to take into account, if the author agrees. It is necessary to stipulate the richness of the content of the term "culture", where knowledge, morality, behavior, law-abiding, peace-loving, etc. You should not linger on the United States of America, you should also turn to other countries of the world. Based on the "mass of people" taken, one should take into account the representation of poor and rich people in it, and in terms of politics, one should stipulate the predominance of representatives of the rich there, who influence with their own benefit on public consciousness. Don't forget to use the term "classes".

12/22/2017, 14:23 Ershtein Leonid Borisovich
Review A: That's what I'll say. I would like to see what specific problem the author solves. How other authors tried to solve it and what are the disadvantages of past solutions and the advantages of the current solution. There are obvious contradictions in the text, for example, in one place the author writes "Since most researchers agree that mass culture originated in the United States ...", in another he gives the following definition of mass culture "Mass culture is a form of culture that dominates among the majority of the population, characterized by low quality characteristics, orientation towards the “average person”. Attention to the question, such a culture that did not exist before the United States or what? Complete nonsense. By the way, the abstract, where I got this definition from, should generally contain what the article is about. The conclusions are amazing "Thus, it can be confidently asserted that mass culture at the present stage of its existence is an integral element of social relations, which has a huge and ever-increasing influence on various spheres of social life." Isn't it obvious? Further, "This process can be organized primarily by mixing mass culture with the elite, which obviously has a higher base of values." What is a "value base"? Probably only the author knows (although I suspect that he does not know either). Conclusion, you can publish only after serious revision. As long as it's not science.

At the end of the forties of the last century, the term "mass culture" appeared, that is, a culture designed for the vast masses of people. Popular culture is yellow newspapers, and pop music, and soap operas. Something that usually exists for the purpose of "relaxing", for example, after a long day at work. Mass culture is for many, but not for all. And that's why.

Imagine a welder Vasily, who received a secondary special education. How would he prefer to spend his leisure time? What will he choose, watching some talk show on TV or reading a volume of Dostoevsky? Obviously the first. Now imagine Nikolai Petrovich teaching philosophy at one of the universities. Is it possible to think that in the evenings he watches Malakhov's show? Thus, we can conclude that the need for mass culture exists, first of all, among poorly educated people. This is the working class and people employed in the service sector. Mass culture is most prevalent in industrialized countries such as Russia, where the working class is predominant. I am not saying that it is not available in post-industrial countries - it is, but of a higher quality.

It would seem that this mass culture exists, and okay. But, unfortunately, its spread leads to the most negative consequences for society. Since its task is to satisfy the needs huge amount people - it should be simple and understandable to everyone. Therefore, its main characteristic is primitiveness. This primitiveness is detrimental to society. Maybe the welder Vasily can no longer be convinced that the Beatles better group"Lesopoval", but he has a daughter who is brought up as a thug.

Mass culture shapes the younger generation. And the problem is that it basically does not make you think. This leads to degradation. As a result, we have a weak-willed, non-thinking society, suitable only for the service sector. If the frenzied dynamics of increasing popularity of mass culture that exists now continues, then in a few decades we may find ourselves in the world described by the famous science fiction writer Ray Bradbury. In a world without books, in a world where a huge TV set is enough to satisfy all spiritual needs.

Of course, the direction in which society develops largely depends on the state. But it, in particular ours, does not seem to deliberately try to restrain the spread of mass culture. There is only one answer to this - it is not profitable. After all, it is much easier to manage people whose thoughts are occupied with those who slept with whom in show business than those people who think about freedom and social justice.

A philosophical question arises: "What to do?". First, as trite as it may sound, you need to start with yourself. It is necessary to restrain your primitive needs in mass culture, not to be led by them, not to succumb to the temptation to watch an evening reality show, not to buy yellow newspapers with another sensation from the world of show business, not to fill your player with albums of one-day stars.

Instead, read as much as possible, engage in self-development, reflect on real issues, and not urgent ones. Secondly, try, if not directly point out, then at least hint to people around you that everything popular is bad, because the understanding of this should come to them by itself. It seems that this is the duty of every person who, using a metaphor, does not float on the surface, but looks deep into. We must ensure that all people show interest in traditional and elite culture, regardless of their level of education or social status. It depends on us what our society will be like in the future. It depends on us whether we will be able to move to a new, truly civil society, or we will continue to stagnate, inventing new idols for ourselves and living someone else's life, the life of the heroes of serials for housewives, a festive life, but deceptive and false.

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..…................. 3

Historical conditions and stages of the formation of mass culture…………4

Social functions of mass culture…………………………………..............5

The negative impact of mass culture on society……...………………….6

Positive functions of mass culture………...…………………………….7

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………8

References…………………...……………………………………………………………..9

Introduction

Culture is a set of industrial, social and spiritual achievements of people. Culture is a system of means of human activity, which is constantly being improved, and thanks to which human activity is stimulated and implemented. The concept of "culture" is very ambiguous, has a different content and different meaning not only in everyday language, but also in various sciences and philosophical disciplines. It must be disclosed in differential-dynamic aspects, which requires the use of the categories “ public practice” and “activity”, linking the categories “social being” and “public consciousness”, “objective” and “subjective” in the historical process.

If we admit that one of the main signs of a true culture is the heterogeneity and richness of its manifestations, based on national-ethnic and estate-class differentiation, then in the 20th century, not only Bolshevism turned out to be the enemy of cultural “polyphony”. In the conditions of "industrial society" and scientific and technological revolution, humanity as a whole has found a distinct tendency towards pattern and uniformity to the detriment of any kind of originality and originality, whether it is a question of an individual or of certain social strata and groups.

culture modern society the totality of the most diverse layers of culture, that is, it consists of the dominant culture, subcultures and even countercultures. In any society, one can single out a high culture (elitist) and folk culture(folklore). The development of the mass media has led to the formation of the so-called mass culture, simplified in terms of meaning and artistically technologically accessible to everyone. Mass culture, especially with its strong commercialization, is capable of crowding out both high and folk culture. But in general, the attitude towards mass culture is not so unambiguous.

The phenomenon of "mass culture" from the point of view of its role in the development of modern civilization is not unambiguously assessed by scientists. A critical approach to "mass culture" comes down to its accusations of neglecting the classical heritage, that it is supposedly an instrument of conscious manipulation of people; enslaves and unifies the main creator of any culture, the sovereign personality; contributes to its alienation from real life; distracts people from their main task - the "spiritual and practical development of the world" (K. Marx). The apologetic approach, on the contrary, is expressed in the fact that "mass culture" is proclaimed a natural consequence of irreversible scientific and technological progress, that it contributes to the rallying of people, especially young people, regardless of any ideologies and national and ethnic differences, into a stable social system and does not not only does not reject the cultural heritage of the past, but also makes its best examples available to the widest strata of the people by replicating them through the press, radio, television and industrial reproduction.

The debate about the harm or benefit of "mass culture" has a purely political aspect: both democrats and supporters of authoritarian power, not without reason, seek to use this objective and very important phenomenon of our time in their own interests. During the Second World War and in the post-war period, the problems of "mass culture," especially its most important element, the mass media, were studied with equal attention in both democratic and totalitarian states.

Historical conditions and stages of the formation of mass culture

The peculiarities of the production and consumption of cultural values ​​allowed culturologists to single out two social forms of the existence of culture: mass culture and elite culture. Mass culture is a type of cultural production that is produced daily in large volumes. It is assumed that mass culture is consumed by all people, regardless of place and country of residence. It is the culture of everyday life, presented to the widest audience through various channels, including the media and communications.

When and how did mass culture appear? Regarding the origins of mass culture in cultural studies, there are a number of points of view.

Let us give as an example, the most common in the scientific literature:

1. The prerequisites for mass culture are formed from the moment of the birth of mankind, and, in any case, at the dawn of Christian civilization.

2. The origins of mass culture are connected with the appearance in European literature of the 18th-8th centuries of an adventure, detective, adventure novel, which significantly expanded the audience of readers due to huge circulations. Here, as a rule, they cite as an example the work of two writers: the Englishman Daniel Defoe, the author of the well-known novel “Robinson Crusoe” and 481 other biographies of people in the so-called risky professions: investigators, military men, thieves, etc., and our compatriot Matvey Komarov .

3. The law on compulsory universal literacy adopted in 1870 in Great Britain had a great influence on the development of mass culture, which allowed many to master the main form of artistic creativity of the 19th century - the novel.

And yet, all of the above is the prehistory of mass culture. And in the proper sense, mass culture manifested itself for the first time in the United States. The well-known American political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski liked to repeat the phrase, which became commonplace over time: “If Rome gave the world the right, England - parliamentary activity, France - culture and republican nationalism, then the modern USA gave the world a scientific and technological revolution and mass culture.”

The phenomenon of the emergence of mass culture is presented as follows. At the turn of the 19th century, a comprehensive massification of life became characteristic. It affected all its spheres: economics and politics, management and communication of people. The active role of the human masses in various social spheres was analyzed in a number of philosophical works of the 20th century.

X. Ortega y Gasset in his work “The Revolt of the Masses” derives the very concept of “mass” from the definition of “crowd”. The crowd in quantitative and visual terms is the multitude, and the multitude from the point of view of sociology is the mass, explains Ortega. And further he writes: “Society has always been a mobile unity of the minority and the masses. The minority is a collection of persons singled out especially, the mass - not singled out in any way. The mass is the average person. Thus, a purely quantitative definition turns into a qualitative one”

Very informative for the analysis of our problem is the book of the American sociologist, Professor of Columbia University D. Bell "The End of Ideology", in which the features of modern society are determined by the emergence of mass production and mass consumption. Here the author formulates five meanings of the concept "mass":

1. Mass - as an undifferentiated set (ie, the opposite of the concept of a class).

2. Mass - as a synonym for ignorance (as X. Ortega y Gasset wrote about this).

3. The masses - as a mechanized society (that is, a person is perceived as an appendage of technology).

4. The masses - as a bureaucratized society (ie, in a mass society, a person loses his individuality in favor of herding). 5. The masses are like a crowd. There is a psychological meaning here. The crowd does not reason, but obeys the passions. By itself, a person can be cultured, but in a crowd he is a barbarian.

And D. Bell concludes: the masses are the embodiment of herding, unification, stereotyped.

An even deeper analysis of "mass culture" was made by the Canadian sociologist M. McLuhan. He also, like D. Bell, comes to the conclusion that the mass media give rise to a new type of culture. McLuhan emphasizes that the starting point of the era of "industrial and typographical man" was the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. McLuhan, defining art as the leading element of spiritual culture, emphasized the escapist (that is, leading away from reality) function of artistic culture.

Of course, today the mass has changed significantly. The masses have become educated, informed. In addition, the subjects of mass culture today are not just a mass, but also individuals united by various ties. In turn, the concept of “mass culture” characterizes the features of the production of cultural values ​​in a modern industrial society, designed for the mass consumption of this culture.

Social functions of mass culture

In social terms, mass culture forms a new social stratum, called the "middle class". The processes of its formation and functioning in the field of culture are most concretized in the book of the French philosopher and sociologist E. Morin “The Zeitgeist”. The concept of "middle class" has become fundamental in Western culture and philosophy. This “middle class” also became the backbone of industrial society. He also made popular culture so popular.

Mass culture mythologizes human consciousness, mystifies the real processes occurring in nature and in human society. There is a rejection of the rational principle in consciousness. The goal of mass culture is not so much to fill leisure and relieve tension and stress in a person of an industrial and post-industrial society, but to stimulate the consumer consciousness of the recipient (i.e., the viewer, listener, reader), which in turn forms a special type - passive, non-critical human perception of this culture. All this creates a personality that is quite easy to manipulate. In other words, there is a manipulation of the human psyche and the exploitation of emotions and instincts of the subconscious sphere of human feelings, and above all feelings of loneliness, guilt, hostility, fear, self-preservation.

The mass consciousness formed by mass culture is diverse in its manifestation. However, it is distinguished by conservatism, inertia, and limitation. It cannot cover all the processes in development, in all the complexity of their interaction. In the practice of mass culture, mass consciousness has specific means of expression. Mass culture is more focused not on realistic images, but on artificially created images (image) and stereotypes. In popular culture, the formula is everything.

Mass culture in artistic creativity performs specific social functions. Among them, the main one is illusory-compensatory: introducing a person to the world of illusory experience and unrealizable dreams. And all this is combined with open or covert propaganda of the dominant way of life, which has as its ultimate goal the distraction of the masses from social activity, the adaptation of people to existing conditions, conformism.

Hence the use in popular culture of such genres of art as detective, melodrama, musical, comics.

The negative impact of mass culture on society

The culture of modern society is a combination of the most diverse layers of culture, that is, it consists of the dominant culture, subcultures and even countercultures.

34% of Russians believe that mass culture has a negative impact on society, undermines its moral and ethical health. The All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM) came to this result as a result of a survey conducted in 2003. survey.

ABOUT positive influence 29% of the Russians surveyed said that mass culture helps people to relax and have fun. 24% of respondents consider the role of show business and mass culture to be greatly exaggerated and are convinced that they do not have a serious impact on society.

80% of respondents are extremely negative about the use of profanity in public speaking stars of show business, considering the use of obscene expressions as an unacceptable manifestation of promiscuity, mediocrity.

13% of respondents allow the use of profanity in cases where it is used as a necessary artistic means, and 3% believe that if it is often used in communication between people, then attempts to ban it on the stage, in cinema, on television is simply hypocrisy .

The negative attitude towards the use of profanity is also reflected in Russians' assessments of the situation around the conflict between journalist Irina Aroyan and Philip Kirkorov. 47% of respondents sided with Irina Aroyan, while only 6% supported the pop star. 39% of respondents showed no interest in this process at all.

47% of Russians surveyed believe that bright characters on TV screens, being models and idols for a significant part of young people, must meet higher moral requirements than those that apply to ordinary people. 41% consider show business stars to be the same people as everyone else, and 6% of respondents consider some elements of defiant behavior on the part of pop characters as creative and extraordinary people to be acceptable.

The development of mass media has led to the formation of the so-called mass culture, simplified in terms of meaning and art, technologically accessible to everyone. Mass culture, especially with its strong commercialization, is capable of crowding out both high and folk culture.

Modern Russian culture is also characterized by such a phenomenon, which sociologists called the westernization of cultural needs and interests, first of all, of youth groups of the population.

Many Russians, and again, first of all, young people, are characterized by the absence of ethno-cultural or national self-identification, they cease to perceive themselves as Russians, lose their Russianness. The socialization of young people takes place either on the traditional Soviet or on the Western model of education, in any case, non-national. Russian folk culture (traditions, customs, rituals) is perceived by most young people as an anachronism. The lack of national self-identification among Russian youth just leads to an easier penetration of westernized values ​​into the youth environment.

In many ways, the youth subculture simply repeats and duplicates the television subculture. It should be noted here that since the early 1990s. mass culture in its screen, television forms is becoming increasingly negative. For example, out of 100 films most popular in Leningrad video salons, 52% had all the hallmarks of action films, 14 horror films, 18 karate films. At the same time, according to film experts, there was not a single film of artistic and aesthetic value, and only 5% had certain artistic merit. The repertoire of cinemas consists of 80-90% of foreign films.

No less negative consequences can be noted in the development of musical culture. Such a variety of mass culture as rock music was first officially banned in our country, and then just as immoderately extolled and idealized. Why oppose the rock music that is associated with folk traditions, traditions of political and art song? There are also such trends as punk rock, heavy metal, etc., which, of course, are countercultural, vandalistic in nature. Many musical trends are distinguished by pessimistic syndromes, motives for death, suicide, fear and alienation. The loss of humanistic content occurs in rock music due to the distortion of the natural human voice with all sorts of wheezing and squeals, deliberately broken by mocking intonations, the substitution of male voices for effeminate ones, and vice versa.

Positive functions of mass culture

The most important, if not defining, feature of "mass society" is "mass culture".

Responding to the general spirit of the times, it, unlike the social practice of all previous eras, has become one of the most profitable sectors of the economy since about the middle of our century and even receives the appropriate names: “entertainment industry”, “commercial culture”, “pop culture”, “ leisure industry”, etc. By the way, the last of the above designations reveals another reason for the emergence of "mass culture" - the appearance of an excess of free time, "leisure" among a significant layer of working citizens. More and more people have a need to "kill time". To satisfy it, of course, for money, “mass culture” is designed, which manifests itself mainly in the sensual sphere, i.e. in all forms of literature and art. Cinema, television and, of course, sports (in its purely spectator part) have become especially important channels for the general democratization of culture in recent decades, gathering huge and not very picky audiences, driven only by the desire for psychological relaxation.

To fulfill its function - to relieve strong industrial stresses - "mass culture" must be at least entertaining; addressed to people often with an insufficiently developed intellectual beginning, it largely exploits such areas of the human psyche as the subconscious and instincts. All this corresponds to the prevailing theme of “mass culture”, which receives large incomes from the exploitation of such “interesting” and understandable topics for all people as love, family, career, crime and violence, adventure, horror, etc. It is curious and psychotherapeutically positive that, on the whole, “mass culture” is cheerful, eschews really unpleasant or depressing plots for the audience, and the corresponding works usually end with a happy ending. It is not surprising that along with the “average” person, one of the consumers of such products is the pragmatically minded part of the youth, not weighed down by life experience, not losing optimism and still little thinking about the cardinal problems of human existence.

Mass culture is able today to play a positive role, introducing the masses to the most complex spiritual and moral problems in an adapted form. But whether an individual will leave the further search for cultural musical values, or will be content with the acquired surrogates of mass culture - this already directly depends on the individual himself. An exceptional role here belongs to education, artistic and aesthetic education.

Conclusion

The attitude towards mass culture is most often ambiguous: it is arrogantly despised, people express concern about its onslaught, in a mild version they are treated condescendingly, but no one has yet escaped contact with it.

Of course, mass culture has its positive aspects. Entertaining, delivering sensual pleasure, it gives a person the opportunity to forget about their problems, to relax. However, the works of mass culture are momentary and only imitate the techniques genuine art, calculated on the external effect.

The spread of mass culture does not mean the disappearance of elite culture. It would be an oversimplification, however, to represent mass culture only negatively, as a monster devouring everything human in a person. Analyzing mass culture, one should not consider it exclusively in an ideological vein, as it was quite recently.

In the works of modern researchers, one can find various indications of the time of the appearance of mass culture: some believe that it existed even in the most ancient civilizations. We believe, however, that mass culture is a product of modern civilization with its characteristic features of urbanization and universal education. Almost until the beginning of the 20th century, there were quite clearly separated elite culture and folk. The first was widespread in the cities, among those who had the opportunity to receive the appropriate education and upbringing. The second was often created by illiterate people, but who are the bearers of traditions.

The process of urbanization, which moved significant masses of peasants and the petty bourgeoisie to cities, led to the fact that people, cut off from nature, which nourished folk culture, were not able to join the urban culture, which required not only elementary reading and writing skills, but much more education, time and resources. The new urban mass needed forms of culture accessible to it.

Thus, mass culture is a multifunctional, objective phenomenon. modern stage culture, in which all segments of the population are inevitably involved, and the problem lies in managing the dynamics of mass culture, that is, developing effective mechanisms for selecting its necessary and promising areas and culling those that lead to irreversible degradation cultural property and samples.

Bibliography

1. Parkhomenko I.T., Radugin A.A. "Culturology in questions and answers", Moscow "Center" 2001

positive and Negative influence mass culture on society.

To begin with, I would like to reveal the very concept of mass culture.

"Mass culture" (English mass culture), in philosophy, sociology, a concept that generally expresses the state of bourgeois culture since the middle of the 20th century. This concept characterizes the features of the production of cultural values ​​in a modern industrial society and mass consumption, i.e., subordination to it as one's goal (mass production of culture is understood in this case by analogy with the conveyor industry).

In my opinion Mass culture has a number of features that influence people: the entertaining, amusing, sentimental nature of comics, popular book and magazine publications; orientation to the subconscious, instincts - a thirst for possession, a sense of ownership, national and racial prejudices, a cult of success, a cult strong personality; POSITIVE INFLUENCE

The most important, if not defining, feature of "mass society" is "mass culture".

Responding to the general spirit of the times, it, unlike the social practice of all previous eras, has become one of the most profitable sectors of the economy since about the middle of our century and even receives the appropriate names: “entertainment industry”, “commercial culture”, “pop culture”, “ leisure industry”, etc. By the way, the last of the above designations reveals another reason for the emergence of "mass culture" - the appearance of an excess of free time, "leisure" among a significant layer of working citizens. More and more people have a need to "kill time". To satisfy it, of course, for money, “mass culture” is designed, which manifests itself mainly in the sensual sphere, i.e. in all forms of literature and art. Cinema, television and, of course, sports (in its purely spectator part) have become especially important channels for the general democratization of culture in recent decades, gathering huge and not very picky audiences, driven only by the desire for psychological relaxation.

To fulfill its function - to relieve strong industrial stresses - "mass culture" must be at least entertaining; addressed to people often with an insufficiently developed intellectual beginning, it largely exploits such areas of the human psyche as the subconscious and instincts. All this corresponds to the prevailing theme of “mass culture”, which receives large incomes from the exploitation of such “interesting” and understandable topics for all people as love, family, career, crime and violence, adventure, horror, etc. It is curious and psychotherapeutically positive that, on the whole, “mass culture” is cheerful, eschews really unpleasant or depressing plots for the audience, and the corresponding works usually end with a happy ending. It is not surprising that along with the “average” person, one of the consumers of such products is the pragmatically minded part of the youth, not weighed down by life experience, not losing optimism and still little thinking about the cardinal problems of human existence.

Mass culture is able today to play a positive role, introducing the masses to the most complex spiritual and moral problems in an adapted form. But whether an individual will leave the further search for cultural musical values, or will be content with the acquired surrogates of mass culture - this already directly depends on the individual himself. An exceptional role here belongs to education, artistic and aesthetic education.

NEGATIVE INFLUENCE

Mass culture, especially with its strong commercialization, is capable of crowding out both high and folk culture.

Many Russians, and again, first of all, young ones, are characterized by the absence of ethno-cultural or national self-identification, they cease to perceive themselves as Russians, lose their Russianness. The socialization of young people takes place either on the traditional Soviet or on the Western model of education, in any case, non-national. Russian folk culture (traditions, customs, rituals) is perceived by most young people as an anachronism. The lack of national self-identification among Russian youth just leads to an easier penetration of westernized values ​​into the youth environment.

In many ways, the youth subculture simply repeats and duplicates the television subculture. It should be noted here that since the early 1990s. mass culture in its screen, television forms is becoming more and more negative character. For example, out of 100 films most popular in Leningrad video salons, 52% had all the signs of action films, 14 horror films, 18 karate films. At the same time, according to film experts, there was not a single film of artistic and aesthetic value, and only 5% had certain artistic merit. The repertoire of cinemas consists of 80-90% of foreign films.

No less negative consequences can be noted in the development of musical culture. Such a variety of mass culture as rock music was first officially banned in our country, and then just as immoderately extolled and idealized. Why oppose the rock music that is associated with folk traditions, the traditions of political and author's song? There are also such trends as punk rock, heavy metal, etc., which, of course, are countercultural, vandalistic in nature. Many musical trends are distinguished by pessimistic syndromes, motives for death, suicide, fear and alienation. The loss of humanistic content occurs in rock music due to the distortion of the natural human voice with all sorts of wheezing and squeals, deliberately broken by mocking intonations, the substitution of male voices for effeminate ones, and vice versa.

CONCLUSION

The attitude towards mass culture is most often ambiguous: it is arrogantly despised, people express concern about its onslaught, in a mild version they are treated condescendingly, but no one has yet escaped contact with it.

From the above, it can be concluded What is popular culture is the culture of the masses; culture intended for consumption by the people; it is the consciousness not of the people, but of the commercial cultural industry; it is hostile to genuine popular culture. She knows no traditions, has no nationality, her tastes and ideals change with dizzying speed in accordance with the needs of fashion. Mass culture appeals to a wide audience, claims to be folk art.

- adapted to the tastes of the broad masses of people, technically replicated in the form of many copies and distributed using modern communication technologies.

The emergence and development of mass culture is associated with the rapid development of mass media, capable of exerting a powerful influence on the audience. IN mass media usually there are three components:

• mass media(newspapers, magazines, radio, television, Internet blogs, etc.) - replicate information, have a regular impact on the audience and are focused on certain groups of people;
• means of mass influence(advertising, fashion, cinema, popular literature) - do not always regularly affect the audience, are focused on the average consumer;
• technical means of communication(Internet, telephone) - determine the possibility of direct communication of a person with a person and can serve to transfer personal information.

It should be noted that not only the mass media have an impact on society, but society also seriously affects the nature of the information transmitted in the mass media. Unfortunately, public demand often turns out to be culturally low, which reduces the level of television programs, newspaper articles, variety performances, etc.

In recent decades, in the context of the development of means of communication, they speak of a special computer culture. If earlier the main source of information was book page, now it's a computer screen. A modern computer allows you to instantly receive information over the network, complete the text graphic images, video films, sound, which provides a holistic and multi-level perception of information. In this case, the text on the Internet (for example, a web page) can be represented as hypertext. those. contain a system of references to other texts, fragments, non-textual information. The flexibility and versatility of the means of computer display of information greatly increase the degree of its impact on a person.

At the end of XX - early XXI V. mass culture began to play an important role in ideology and economics. However, this role is ambiguous. On the one hand, mass culture made it possible to cover the general population and introduce them to the achievements of culture, presenting the latter in simple, democratic and understandable images and concepts, but on the other hand, it created powerful manipulation mechanisms. public opinion and the formation of an average taste.

The main components of mass culture include:

• information industry- press, television news, talk shows, etc., explaining current events plain language. Mass culture was originally formed precisely in the field of the information industry - " yellow press» XIX — early XX centuries. Time has shown the high efficiency of mass media in the process of manipulating public opinion;
• leisure industry- films, entertainment literature, pop humor with the most simplified content, pop music, etc.;
• formation system mass consumption, which focuses on advertising and fashion. Consumption is presented here as a non-stop process and the most important goal of human existence;
• replicated mythology - from the myth of american dream”, where beggars turn into millionaires, to myths about “national exceptionalism” and the special virtues of this or that people compared to others.