Gryaznova M.I.
South-Russian University
Economics and Services, Russia
Youth
culture:
sociohistorical
determinants of development
Among
domestic sociologists there are various points of view on youth. «Youth – the
socially-demographic group allocated on the basis of set of age
characteristics, features of a social status and the caused themes and another
of socially-psychological properties which are defined by a social order,
culture, laws of socialization, education of the given society; modern age brackets
from 14-16 till 25-30 years»[1].
The domestic expert in problems of youth o I. Rodnjanskaja, says :
«Youth is a new sociological category which was generated by an industrial
society; it is characterized by a psychological maturity in the absence of powerful
participation in institutes of adults. The youth psychologically belongs to the
adult, and sociologically belongs to the adolescence world» [2, ð. 93].
According
to V. Lissovsky's definition, «Youth is the generation of the people passing a
stage of socialization, acquiring, and at more mature age already acquired
educational, professional, cultural and other social functions; the age
criterions of youth can fluctuate from 16 till 30 years. It depends on concrete
historical conditions» [3, ð.32]
I. Kon
has offered the approach to youth definition as social group. According to I
Konu, the youth is «the socially-demographic group allocated on the basis of
set of age characteristics, features of a social status and the caused themes
and another of socially-psychological properties. Youth as a certain phase, a
life cycle stage is biologically universal, but its concrete age frameworks,
the social status connected with it and socially-psychological features have
the sociohistorical nature and depend on a social order, culture and laws of
socialization peculiar to a given society»[4, ð.31].
In the late twenties ÕÕ century the
problem of youth has drawn attention of the largest philosopher K.Jaspers. In
his work «the Spiritual situation of time», which was published in 1931,
Jaspers wrote: «There, where education, proceeding their spirit whole, youth is
undeveloped in itself. It obeys trusts and doesn't have the importance as
youth; because it is a preparation for the future. The youth finds value in
itself in conditions of disintegration. From it directly wait for that in the
world is already lost. It can feel itself like a source. Already it is
authorized to children to participate in discussion of school rules. As though
the demand is made to youth to create what their teachers already own. Just as
the future generations are burdened with a public debt, they are burdened also
with consequences of squandering of spiritual riches which to them give to win
anew. The youth finds false weight and it is compelled to appear insolvent for
formation of the person probably, only if it grows throughout decades and in
severity is formed by means of sequence of steps» [5, ð. 354]
During
the given age period the culture is formed. The word "culture"
belongs, probably, to number most often meeting in use. Culture (from the latin
"cultura" — cultivation, education, honoring) — is a universum of
artificial objects (ideal and material subjects), created by mankind in the
course of development of the nature and possessing structural, functional and
dynamic laws (the general and special). [6].
"Culture"
often acts in opposition to the nature, a subjective will, unconscious activity,
spontaneous self-organizing as the concept. Often the culture is synonymous
civilizations, but sometimes, it is opposed to it as «a live organism» - to a
"mechanism". Specificity of culture is in its role of adaptation the
world of brutal objectivity of the nature and the world of spontaneous human
subjectivity therefore there is a third world of the human impulses entered in
the nature and the humanized nature. If the natural border of culture is
obvious enough (the nature without the person) to fix the border dividing human
activity (whether it be internal spirituality or creative activity) from its
crystallized forms which separable from the subject and reproduced by it, much
more difficultly. But it is necessary to distinguish determination of culture and
self-determination of free subjectivity.
Considering
this point in question in a history context it is necessary to notice that
culture formation passed in different societies differently. The central figure
of culture is the person, for culture-world of the person. The culture is a
development of spiritually-practical abilities and potentialities of the person
and their embodiment in individual development of people. Through inclusion of
the person in the culture world which maintenance is the person in all riches
of its abilities, requirements and existence forms, it is realized both
self-determination of the person, and its development. What basic points of
this cultivation? This question is difficult as these strong points under the
concrete maintenance are original depending on historical conditions.
In
simple traditional societies socialization and culture formation occurs a
natural spontaneous way – children and teenagers seize skills necessary for
life within the limits of related collective. Socialization has strongly
pronounced a polo-role character as absolutely different duties are
traditionally fixed to women and men. The simple traditional society is the
society which is based on a myth. In this reality as "agents of
socialization» young generation act not only people, but also mythical beings,
spirits, ancestors, and transition from one vital stage to another appears as
regeneration, change of the ontological status.
The
ancient civilizations, and the state formations of an epoch of the Middle Ages
and later time can be carried to difficult traditional societies.
The
youth role in difficult traditional societies remains dependent and passive, as
well as in simple traditional societies. The problem of young people is as soon
as possible and more full to master experience of the senior generation. At
this time new generations are guided by seniors in the behavior, however
already there are elements of the culture meaning training at contemporaries.
The
form of socialization and preparation of young people for life changes in
difficult traditional societies. These changes are connected with structural
changes which worry human societies, passing to a civilization.
There is a
necessity, on the one hand training of literacy and a rudiment of scientific
knowledge in difficult traditional societies, on the other hand – in vocational
training. Vocational training could occur both within the limits of a family,
and out of it is under supervision of the expert. In many ancient civilizations
there were the specialized organizations which are engaged in training of
rising generation. But, naturally, not all young people could study.
It is necessary to notice that not only «not all could», but also not
all wanted to study. Doing not wish to study young men in difficult traditional
societies spend time "in own way". The Byzantian philosopher Michael
Psell which was heading philosophical school in Constantinople for several
years, complains that heads of many students are occupied by a hippodrome and gamblings
[7, ð.85].
The
statement is widespread enough that the youth as the issued
socially-demographic group, intermediate between the childhood and a maturity,
appears only in societies of modern type. Under "modern" it is
accepted to understand the society which has developed as a result of
industrial revolution. Modernization process (formation of a society of modern
type) means the whole complex social and cultural changes, including political
transformations, change of structure of an inequality, decline of influence of
religion and growth of influence of a science, individualism formation etc.
Easing
of time-honored relations and communities, naturally, cancelled their role in
socialization of young generation. The tradition as collective experience
passed on to new generations, actually, has completely lost the value.
Experience of seniors became in many respects irrelevant for youth, it couldn't
form a basis for social adaptation any more. Thus, young men have appeared
before a problem of independent search of vital reference points. Certainly,
the family continued to play large role in formation of orientation of youth.
However the family has undergone to considerable changes.
Modern
societies – societies democratic, guided by liberal values. One of base values
– a personal freedom. Anybody and can impose nothing persons of belief and
beliefs, nobody dares to encroach on freedom of others. More often young men
follow those who can formulate ideals attractive to it.
The
idea of freedom is logically connected with idea of the person as carrier of
the sum of inalienable laws. Distribution of the political rights to young men,
perception of young men as equal in legal relations the adult, says that in a
modern society young men are perceived as independent force.
Literature
1.
http://dic.academic.ru/ the Big encyclopedic dictionary
2. Davydov J.N.,
Rodnjansky I.B. Sociology of a counterculture (infantility as social illness),
M. 1980
3.
Surtaev V. J/ Youth and culture, Spb.1999
4.
Levikova S.I. Youth subculture,
M. 2004/
5. Jaspers K. A
spiritual situation of time, M. 1994
6. Philosophy: The
Encyclopedic dictionary, under the editorship of Ivina, M. Gardariki, 2004.
7.
Kajdan A.P. Byzantian culture.
Spb. 2000