Concept of communication methods
There are two main options for organizing communication: verbal and nonverbal communication.
Also, modern society has developed another option for communication - interaction in the Internet space. Definition 1
Verbal communication is the process of establishing contacts between people based on the use of speech skills, words and symbols of language. Nonverbal communication is the process of organizing communicative interaction, excluding the use of speech, i.e. communication in this case occurs through facial gestures and a system of signs.
History of virtual networks
Initially, the Internet was created for “professional communication,” that is, the rapid transfer of important data, and not images of cute cats and puppies. In 1969, the US Department of Defense designed ARFANET, an internal military network. Of course, it was far from the virtual ideal; It wasn't until 1983 that the technology learned how to route data packets, becoming the first network in the world to use the IP protocol.
Secret developments became less and less secret. The Internet gradually penetrated into the homes of ordinary citizens. Still, the network was used more for commercial purposes, and most users did not understand why they needed “this Internet.” But in 1995, Randy Conrads created the website classmates.com, which helped find classmates, classmates, co-workers or former work colleagues. People got the opportunity to communicate with those they had not seen for many years!
Success was inevitable. That period can generally be considered “golden” for many modern IT giants. In 2004, Facebook appeared, initially aimed at Harvard students. But everyone liked the idea so much that two years later the social network became available to all users in the world over 16 years of age. Today Facebook is one of the most visited sites in the world.
Rules for organizing communication
Communicative interaction between people plays an important role in organizing the successful life of any person. For it to be successful and bring the desired effect, it requires its competent construction. Communication should bring positive emotions and be comfortable for all participants.
Are you an expert in this subject area? We invite you to become the author of the Directory Working Conditions
The effectiveness of communication is achieved by observing the following rules of its organization:
- When communicating, the attitude of its subjects should be such that they can feel their intellectual significance, attractiveness, charm and interest in building communicative ties with them;
- The conversation should take place focusing on the partner. It is unacceptable to be distracted by something extraneous. This can develop a feeling of uselessness and unimportance in the communication partner. A significant means of communication is facial expressions and changes in intonation;
- Before answering the interlocutor’s question, you must pause for a few seconds;
- Express real, sincere feelings during communication. the smile must be real, otherwise such communication will instantly lead to the loss of the partner’s favor;
- Communication should be based on the self-confidence of its participants. What kind of person would want to communicate with a closed and insecure person?;
- Provide the interlocutor with a feeling of ease when communicating. This is possible without focusing on slips of the tongue, incorrect words, speech structures, phrases;
- Speech must adhere to a certain rhythm and tempo, and there must be an optimal number of monologues.
Finished works on a similar topic
Coursework Methods of communication 480 ₽ Essay Methods of communication 230 ₽ Examination Methods of communication 190 ₽
Receive completed work or specialist advice on your educational project Find out the cost
Afterword
To summarize, I would like to say that I am for a combination of real and virtual communication. Technological progress must be used, but done wisely. For example, you can discuss something with a friend in the evening and agree that when you meet in person, everything will finally become clear.
As is often the case, the problem of Internet communication has two sides. You can’t evaluate it based on “good/bad” criteria. It is not the fact of virtual communication itself that is important, but the essence of this communication and the parties involved. You can communicate with interesting people and realize yourself, or you can simply “kill time”, run away from yourself, creating the illusion of life and communication.
Therefore, it is impossible to judge risks without knowing the specific context. In the article, I conditionally divided the facts about Internet communication into pros and cons, but, as you probably noticed, each of them has two extremes: the advantage and disadvantage of communication within the World Wide Web.
Will virtual communication replace real communication? Maybe. Is it good? No. Man is a social being, communication is an independent activity and an integral element of many types of activities. Without real, emotionally charged communication, we cannot develop and become a person, a person, an individual.
Virtual communication is, to a certain extent, deprivation. On the Internet, we communicate not with people, but with their images (compiled by them or us), a repeatedly processed surrogate of personality. Real communication is more complex, there are higher risks of offense and conflict, there is not always a chance for error and the opportunity to be imperfect, yourself, but it is much more interesting and useful.
Classification of communication methods
Figure 1 shows the classification of means of communication. Let us briefly describe each of them.
Verbal communication . This method of communication is based on the use of speech and its structures. Communication is realized in practice through the use of sign systems. This system is made up of language, which characterizes a person’s ability to express his thoughts and feelings, emotions and desires. Language finds its practical embodiment in speech. It has two meanings:
- The specific activity of each individual, realized through the oral or written use of a system of signs and symbols;
- Speech is the results of activity in the context of the conditions and purpose of communication.
Speech and language are, although at first glance very similar, but they have different meanings. Here are the main differences between language and speech:
- Speech has exclusivity and originality. It can be realized in the space-time continuum;
- Speech is a more active and dynamic process;
- Speech is a loosely regulated process and is determined by the context of a specific situation.
Nonverbal communication . Such communication is realized through a sign system, which in this case is represented by facial gestures. Nonverbal communication comes in various types. These include the following:
- Kinesic: expressive body movements (gestures, facial expressions and pantomimes, posture, gait), visual contact (direction, length of pause, frequency of contact);
- Prosodic and extralinguistic. Voice and speech: intonation, volume, timbre, rate of speech, rhythm, diction, modulation, pitch, tonality, pauses, sigh, laughter, crying, coughing, yawning, etc.;
- Takesical. Dynamic touches: handshake, kiss, pat, etc.;
- Proxemic: spatial structure of communication (orientation and angle of communication between partners, distance); time (lateness, early arrival, relationship between time and status, time culture).
Figure 1. Communication tools. Author24 - online exchange of student work
Communication as a global problem of the modern world
The rapid development of mass media undoubtedly has an increasing impact on social processes throughout the world. However, the nature of this impact gives rise to contradictory and sometimes opposing assessments. On the one hand, the invention of electronic QMS is perceived as a decisive breakthrough towards building an integral, transparent and intelligent world. Thanks to the improvement of QMS, overcoming spatial, temporal and cultural barriers, people become closer to each other, it is easier for them to come to mutual understanding. On the other hand, there is a critical approach. The focus of his attention is on the negative consequences of mass media: derealization (virtualization) of reality, manipulation of consciousness, destructive effects on a person who turns into a partial, torn subject. By turning into an “interactive” subject, a person becomes a simple relay of messages, which means the loss of personality, the loss of his own “I”.
It is precisely the enormous and at the same time contradictory role played by mass communication in the modern world that has become the most important factor in the relevance of communication problems both in theoretical and practical terms. The emergence of the information society, closely connected with mass communication, contributed, in particular, to the emergence of a special branch of knowledge – communication science: “it is the transition to the creation of the information society that leads to the manifestation of communication science as a special branch of scientific knowledge”[1].
Another significant factor in realizing the importance and severity of the problem of communication should be considered radical pluralism
modern world.
The radicality of modern pluralism lies not only in the growth of diversity and plurality in themselves. The main thing is that heterogeneous things have become so close that they collide with each other everywhere. In other words, elements that are heterogeneous in nature are very often in close physical proximity to each other, within the same point in space and time. The formation of the radical pluralism of modern times was largely influenced by the processes of mass migration.
The significance of these processes is eloquently expressed by the words spoken by the famous Italian philosopher Umberto Eco back in 1998: “Now in Europe, for the first time in 15 centuries, we are facing a new wave of massive migration, the last migration was the migration of the Goths and Visigottes, which changed the genetic and linguistic composition of this continent. Now we are facing the same problem: a huge flow is coming from the south, which nothing can slow down... And it is quite possible that in fifty years the president of France, for example, will be an Arab or a Chinese, and the future Pope will be a black man.” Umberto Eco warns that “such changes cannot happen peacefully. They may well cause a bloody period of intolerance, and we must prepare to survive it: this may be the problem of the next century.”[2] In another work by U. Eco [3].
It is not difficult to see that the massive influx of migrants to Russia is of the same nature as migration to Europe, and entails, in general, the same consequences as the influx of immigrants from the south to Europe.
From the point of view of the problem of communication, it is important that migration is an accomplished fact, and also that it can no longer be reversed in full, since a significant number of migrants have become an integral part of their new environment, that is, the country where they settled, leaving their historical homeland. It is also important that, having become part of the host country, migrants have not lost those qualities that are associated with the culture, mentality, and traditions of their historical homeland. Therefore, their communication with the indigenous population is not an easy and simple process - however, just like for the indigenous population, communication with carriers of an incomprehensible and distant culture. Nevertheless, they are forced to live together.
It is obvious that the failure of communication between carriers of significantly different cultures and mentalities living in close proximity and contact is fraught with conflicts and clashes.
1. Interpretation of communication in philosophy and in particular theories
of communication
It should be noted that a more or less careful consideration of the mass
communication as a special social phenomenon easily reveals that this phenomenon expresses only the superficial side of communication and therefore cannot be attributed to communication in its entirety. Communication is a much deeper and more complex phenomenon than what takes place in the mass media. Many authors pay attention to this, including those who are specifically involved in research into QMS problems. So, N.A. Malkovskaya [4]. Therefore, when talking about the development of mass communication as a factor in the relevance of the communication problem, we should not forget that the problem itself arose and was formed much earlier. In many of its aspects, the problem of communication was theoretically understood long before the realities of modern society brought it to the surface of public life and gave it special urgency and topicality.
The problem of communication was posed in the works of E. Husserl, as well as such philosophers as J.-P. Sartre, M. Heidegger, K. Jaspers, in the works of X. Ortega y Gasset, in the works of Russian philosophers B. F. Porshnev, Yu. K. Pletnikov and others. It was formulated in a broad philosophical and socio-philosophical sense - as an “eternal” problem, that is, as a universal problem of human existence. Communication acted as an interaction of individuals, as an interaction (mostly verbal) of “I” and “Other”, which makes individual existence possible, and is also a condition for the existence of society. Based on the philosophical understanding of communication as a universal characteristic of the existence of an individual and society, the interaction (mainly verbal) of “I” and “Other” in order to establish mutual understanding and carry out joint activities should be called communication in a broad sense.
A broad, that is, philosophical, interpretation of the concept of communication allows us to reformulate the fundamental philosophical question about the conditions and possibility of the existence of man and society in the form of a question about the conditions and possibility of communication and consensus. In this case, the problem of communication in its deepest essence is the problem of mutual understanding between subjects: individuals, cultures, societies - and, consequently, the problem of the possibility of solidarity, mutual trust, without which joint activity is impossible.
It seems that it is inappropriate to distinguish between the concepts of communication and communication. It is more rational to consider them synonyms. The question of distinguishing or not distinguishing these concepts is a matter of a conventional nature. Therefore, remembering the advice of Aristotle, expressed by him in connection with criticism of the doubling of the world in Plato’s theory of ideas, following the Stagirite, we will not “multiply entities beyond what is necessary” [5].
The interpretation of communication as the interaction of (mostly verbal) “I” and “Other” is based on the fact that, at its origins, socio-historical reality is always the interaction of people, each of whom is endowed with specific characteristics, their own life world. At the same time, “the life world...,” wrote the famous modern follower of phenomenology A. Schutz, “is not my private one. Others belong to it, not only as bodies and objects of my experience, but as Alter egos (Alter Ego [Latin] - Another Self - V. Sh.
), that is, subjectivities endowed with the same activity as I am”[6].
Communication as the interaction of “I” and “Other” is a complex process that presupposes, on the one hand, awareness of the otherness of the “Other”, and on the other, the search (gaining in the process of interaction) of the commonality of “I” and “Other”. If in the process of communication the acquisition of commonality occurs (with an understanding of otherness), such communication should be considered successful
or
complete.
If communication partners remain alien to each other, then communication is
unsuccessful
or
incomplete,
since the goal of communication - establishing mutual understanding - remains unachieved.
X. Ortega y Gasset explains the concept of the Other as follows: “What do we want to say when we say that we have before us an Other, that is, another, just like me, a Man? After all, this presupposes that this new being - not a stone, not a plant or even an animal - is me, “ego”, but at the same time it is something else, “alter ego”, in other words - “alter ego” , another me... Here in front of me there is another being, who is also me, also “ego”... And here in my world
a certain being appears, which, albeit in the form of co-presence, also declares its right to be “human life”, and therefore, life is no longer mine, but its own and, accordingly, with its own world, initially different from
mine.
We are faced with a truly phenomenal paradox: on the horizon of my life, the whole essence of which boiled down solely to the fact that it was mine, and therefore represented the original loneliness, another loneliness appears, another life, strictly speaking, has nothing in common with mine, but having its own world, alien to me, is
another
world.”[7].
Thus, the Other is one who is endowed with his own mental-spiritual world, his own stream of consciousness. Moreover, the Other is given to me “in the mode there,” while my own existence is “in the mode here”: I can change the location of my location, but wherever it is, it will be my “here.” The existence of the Other will forever remain for me within the framework of the “there” mode. Consequently, under no circumstances can I experience in consciousness the richness of the personality of the Other. The other cannot be completely open to me even in the most intimate relationships.
The otherness of the Other is clearly experienced in direct contacts, face-to-face contacts. The look plays a special role here. " Eyes, -
according to X. Ortega y Gasset, “windows of the soul” - can tell us more than anything else, since the look, like nothing else, comes from
within.
We see
what
he is looking at and
like
. It not only looks at us from the inside, but makes us feel what depth is hidden behind it.”[8].
In the process of life, the one who was initially Other can turn into You for me. The transformation of the Other into You means that he has become familiar, everyday to me, be it a relative, friend or colleague. I am present during his life, it opens up to me. At the same time, in communication with You, I become more and more convinced of how unable I am to fully penetrate into the inner world of another, I feel and understand the impossibility of identifying myself with him, since he lives in his own way, his own life, different from mine.
It should be emphasized that communication is fundamentally problematic.
As can be seen from the above characteristics of the interaction between “I” and “Other”, it is fundamentally impossible to establish the identity of “I” and “Other”.
Therefore, mutual understanding, which can be discussed within the framework of the interpretation of communication we are considering, does not imply the achievement of mutual understanding of the participants in communication to such a degree of completeness when the otherness of the Other completely loses its meaning. Mutual understanding is the acquisition of commonality while maintaining differences.
Consequently, we are talking about the degree of community that is sufficient to coordinate interests and organize joint activities. Full communication presupposes the achievement of just such a degree (level) of community.
The above definition of communication as the interaction of “I” and “Other” should be considered very general and therefore abstract. We must keep in mind that in reality we are dealing with the interaction of people, which is socially and culturally conditioned. Moreover, individuals - participants in communication - act in reality most often as representatives of one or another social community, bearers of one or another culture. Therefore, we should talk about socio-cultural communication.
It is socio-cultural communication that occupies the largest place in the total volume of communication processes, and it is it that holds the leading place in solving a huge variety of public problems: social, political, economic and others - both at the level of individual countries and on an international scale.
Of course, the concept of socio-cultural communication is subject to all the provisions that characterized communication in general above: it can be complete (successful) or inferior (unsuccessful), it can also turn out to be pseudo-communication, that is, the appearance of communication. At the same time, the presence of communication space is of particular importance for socio-cultural communication .
By
communication space
we will understand that part of the socio-cultural space in which communication connections actually exist. Thus, over a long period of human history, the space of communication could be limited to the boundaries of individual small settlements, for example, within the framework of one village. The invention of printing significantly expanded the space of communication; in the words of M. McLuhan, the “Gutenberg Galaxy” arose. Modern electronic QMS have made the communication space global. Local communication spaces can no longer, in most cases, remain completely isolated and closed: they have become permeable to global communication systems.
One of the particular theories of socio-cultural communication is the theory of intercultural communication, which has been widely developed in recent decades. Intercultural communication is “the communication of people representing different cultures”[9]. In the theory of intercultural communication, culture is understood as customs, traditions, beliefs, and way of life of a certain community of people. The differences between cultures are determined by the fact that they are based on different national languages.
The theory of intercultural communication is, first of all, the theoretical basis of translation activity - the activity of translating information from one national language to another. She emphasizes the fact that for adequate translation, knowledge of a foreign language is not sufficient: it is necessary to clearly imagine the characteristics of another culture in comparison with the characteristics of one’s own culture. Nevertheless, the significance of the provisions and conclusions of the theory of intercultural communication goes far beyond the scope of translation activities: they undoubtedly have a general cultural and ideological aspect.
From the point of view of the problem of communication we are considering, the establishment of mutual understanding in the sense in which it is understood in the theory of intercultural communication is an important condition for mutual understanding in a broad sense - readiness for joint activities, coordination of interests, cooperation. In order for such readiness to be formed, it is necessary first to adequately understand the information transmitted by the communication partner, and also be able to convey to him your own so that it is formulated in a form understandable to the partner. To do this, the difficulties of intercultural communication must be overcome.
S.G. Ter-Minasova identifies several types of difficulties. The first type arises from the lexical and phraseological restrictions inherent in a particular national language. Each language allows only certain combinations of words. In another language, these words turn out to be incompatible. Thus, the Russian phrases “tall grass”, “strong tea”, “heavy rain” in English will correspond to “long grass”, “strong tea”, “heavy rain”. Another type of difficulty is “ conflict between cultural beliefs”
different peoples about those objects and phenomena of reality that are designated by “equivalent” words of these languages.”
Difficulties of this type are more hidden than difficulties of the first type. A simple example is the following: “the Russian phrase black cat
means, like the English
black cat ,
the same domestic animal - a cat of the same color - black. However, in Russian culture, according to tradition, acceptance, belief, a black cat brings misfortune, failure, and therefore the phrase has negative connotations... In English culture, black cats are a sign of good luck, unexpected happiness, and on postcards with the inscription “Good Luck” they sit, to the surprise of the Russians, it was black cats.”[10].
The semantics of one culture often does not coincide with the semantics of another, which can also cause communication failure. Thus, when talking to Europeans, it is customary to look into the eyes of the interlocutor. If a person averts his eyes, he is being insincere. Among the Japanese, if a younger person looks into the eyes of an older person, he demonstrates insolence and challenge. Characteristic in this regard is the case of a German businessman who opened a company in Japan, the majority of whose employees were natives of this country. After some time, he accused his employees of insincerity, of constantly trying to deceive him. From his explanations, it was possible to establish that his main irritation was caused by the Japanese’s manner of avoiding looking him in the eye. This caused the formation of a certain stereotype in relation to the Japanese and led to regular communication failures[11].
The last example clearly demonstrates that failures in intercultural communication are by no means oddities or harmless incidents. They can entail social consequences, including very serious ones. This will become even more obvious if we consider that in modern processes of socio-cultural communication, an important role is played by all sorts of stable stereotypes of the perception of one or another socio-cultural community of itself and others.
2. Communication is captured by mythology
We have already noted that both communication in a broad sense and socio-cultural communication are inherently problematic. However, socio-cultural communication also has its own specific difficulties. One of them is connected, in particular, with the mythological nature of human consciousness: mutual understanding is not established due to the partners having mythological ideas about themselves and about the other.
The 20th century discovered that the myth did not remain in distant antiquity, as might have been expected. The consciousness of modern man is sometimes no less mythological than the consciousness of the ancient. E. Cassirer o[12]. The rationality of modern myth is that it is perceived as something rational, as something scientifically substantiated. It also lies in the fact that, unlike the ancient one, a modern myth can be initially consciously constructed, and only then does it turn into a set of unconscious ideas, the bearers of which become large masses of people. Therefore, modern myth is primarily a collective and socio-cultural myth.
Thus, one can reasonably believe that during the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, both sides mythologized the image of the enemy and demonized him. Demonization is precisely one of the signs of the mythological nature of consciousness. For a long time in the Soviet Union, there was a myth about the West as a society in which evil, injustice, and exploitation reign supreme, where “man is a wolf to man.” M. Gorky’s epithet, which characterizes the center of this devilish world, New York, as the “city of the yellow devil,” speaks eloquently of the mythological nature of the perception of the West, a perception that has become natural for a large mass of Soviet people. President Reagan’s famous words about the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” characterize the Western perception of Soviet reality no less eloquently. It is as mythological as the Soviet perception of the West.
It is easy to see that modern myth is an extreme simplification of reality; it comes down to one or several mythologems, which are expressed not in concepts, but in images. The presence of myths has a significant impact on the nature of international relations.
Modern US international policy is based on the myth that America is destined for a special, extremely important, essentially messianic role in the world - “carrying out a revolution of freedom in the world.” The words in quotation marks belong to the US Secretary of State in the 70s. XX century to Cyrus Vance[13]. In them, the international role of the United States is formulated extremely clearly. This is the role of the messiah, that is, “the messenger of God on earth and the savior of humanity” - the savior from totalitarianism, tyranny, anti-democratic regimes, etc. Ultimately, such a role presupposes the establishment of Western-style democracy throughout the world as the only possible form of democracy. Today it is becoming increasingly clear that the struggle for democracy is nothing more than a fig leaf, only covering up the desire to satisfy selfish interests. Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that both the conductors of American politics themselves and a considerable part of American voters firmly believe in the chosenness of America, in the fact that it has been granted by fate or God some exceptional role of world-historical significance.
There is no need to specially prove that with such an idea of their own role in the world, all other countries, with the exception of the Western allies of the United States, cannot be considered otherwise than as underdeveloped and inferior. No communication with the aim of understanding and taking into account the interests of other countries is not only impossible, but also unnecessary. On a global scale, this means that there is a destruction of the international communication space, fraught with dangerous disintegration and collapse of the world community.
The myth of American exceptionalism is based on a view that characterizes the West as a whole. This idea was formed back in the 19th century. Since the first third of the 19th century. “The differences between Russia and the West were most often summarized by Hegel and Ranke, who declared that “the history of Romano-Germanic Europe was the history of freedom.” This point of view left Russia to vegetate in its Asian steppes,” notes the American researcher M. Malia[14]. If Russia was given no more than “vegetation in the Asian steppes,” then what can we say about the rest of the countries of the non-Western world? The West and only it is the only bastion of freedom, while the rest of the peoples are not only unfree, but also deprived of any desire for freedom, any ability for freedom. Hence, Westerners see their own mission as a noble mission of serving freedom, the spread of freedom in the world. There is and cannot be any aggression on the part of the West; there is only a noble desire to help other countries achieve freedom. This is the “point of view” of the West, which has acquired the force of a stable mythological stereotype.
In Western literature, confessions like the above confession of M. Malia are extremely rare. Among the few authors who are not limited to the Western view of the world, but who strive to understand the point of view of other countries and peoples, is A. Toynbee. Therefore, let us allow ourselves to give a fairly lengthy quotation from his work, which is almost a unique attempt in Western literature to look at the world through the eyes of non-Western humanity. Toynbee wrote that if a Westerner manages to “leave “his own hummock” even for a few minutes and look at the clash between the West and the rest of the world through the eyes of the vast non-Western majority of humanity,” then he will discover a picture that is unusual for him: “No matter how different peoples of the world by skin color, language, religion and degree of civilization, when asked by a Western researcher about their attitude to the West, everyone - Russians and Muslims, Hindus and Chinese, Japanese and everyone else - will answer the same way. The West, they will say, is the arch-aggressor of the modern era, and everyone has their own example of Western aggression. Russians will recall how their lands were occupied by Western armies in 1941, 1915, 1812, 1709 and 1610; the peoples of Africa and Asia will remember how, starting from the 15th century. Western missionaries, traders and soldiers besieged their lands from the sea. Asians may also recall that during the same period, the West captured the lion's share of free territories in Asia, the Americas, Australia, and Africa. And the Africans talk about how they were enslaved and transported across the Atlantic... The descendants of the indigenous population of North America will tell how their ancestors were swept away from their places...” What is particularly noteworthy in light of our topic, however, is that “for most Westerners, these accusations will cause surprise, and perhaps even indignation. The Dutch will say that they left Indonesia, and the British will say that they left India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon... The British have not had any new aggression on their conscience since the war in South Africa, and the Americans have not had any new aggression on their conscience since the Spanish-American War of 1898 year"[15].
Toynbee's words undoubtedly clearly demonstrate the significant difference in the perception of the events of world history between the West and the rest of the world.
The Western point of view is not evidence of the allegedly insidious plans inherent in Western countries. Although the latter is not completely excluded, the main thing is that the Western view is perceived by its representatives as natural and, moreover, justified by noble motives. The problem is that the mass consciousness of the West and most politicians do not strive to understand other points of view. Therefore, since the time of Toynbee (the above words were written in the early 50s), unfortunately, little has changed: Western and non-Western visions of the world are still radically different. This is all the more alarming because world realities themselves have undergone serious changes.
3. Globality of the communication problem
Technical power has increased immeasurably, contacts between representatives of different nations are steadily expanding, pluralism has become a characteristic sign of the times, electronic media are today an integral part of the life of a modern person, international tourism is developing - these, like many other factors, are put forward as the most important moral imperative
modernity, the establishment of full-fledged communication on a global scale - communication that would be based on respect for another point of view, on recognition of its right to existence and expression. The task of establishing mutual understanding between representatives of different cultures and societies, that is, the task of successful socio-cultural communication, is becoming increasingly urgent. However, the moral imperative of the task of mutual understanding tragically collides with the fact of an almost universal misunderstanding of the importance of communication for the very existence of man and humanity.
A lack of understanding of the meaning of full communication is found at all levels - from the level of interpersonal and social relations within individual countries to the level of interstate relations and relations between various civilizations of the modern world. It would not be an exaggeration to say that after the collapse of the USSR, chaos reigned in the world both in relations between people and in relations between states. Modern humanity is becoming more and more like a multitude of hostile units that seem to have broken free from the chain, waging a fierce struggle for selfish interests.
The system of international law established after the Second World War is practically destroyed. The desire of the West, not restrained by the counterweight that previously existed in the person of the Soviet Union, provokes a response in many countries of the world. As a result, each country builds relations with others exclusively according to its own laws, pursues its own interests, regardless of the interests of others. The global communication space is increasingly filled with pseudo-communications and is increasingly used to wage information wars. A whole series of information messages posted on the Internet, as well as television and radio texts, cannot be qualified other than direct verbal aggression. This situation indicates that the problem of communication has grown into a problem on a global scale and has become one of the global problems of the modern world.
Under global problems in social philosophy of the 60s–80s. XX century (the formulation of which was particularly influenced by the research of the Club of Rome) it was customary to understand problems as having the following basic characteristics. Firstly, these are problems of enormous importance, which are important not only for individual people, not only for individual socio-cultural communities, but are of extreme importance for all humanity. Secondly, global problems cannot be solved by the efforts of individual countries. They require focused efforts by the entire global community. Failure to resolve global problems can lead to serious negative, possibly irreversible consequences for humanity and its environment. The “classic” global problems include: the problem of exhaustibility of natural resources, environmental problems, weapons of mass destruction, education, and poverty.
The global nature of the communication problem means that it has become a question of the existence of all humanity. The trends of world social development of the last two decades are aimed at the destruction of socio-cultural communication on a global scale. Mutual understanding between representatives of different societies and carriers of different cultures is becoming increasingly difficult and threatens to approach that dangerous line, beyond which disintegration and collapse of society on a global scale will inevitably occur.
In light of the trend towards the destruction of full-fledged socio-cultural communication, it is characteristic that the above-mentioned “classical” global problems, which were in the focus of public attention in the 60–80s, seem to have ceased to exist in recent decades: they have completely fallen out of sight . Today you don’t hear about them not only from the lips of politicians, they are generally absent in the global communication space. This space today is to a large extent filled with information wars, various forms of verbal aggression, and sometimes simply information noise.
Of course, workers in the mass media bear a significant part of the responsibility for the current situation. However, they are only one link in a long chain of social relationships that determine the content of modern communication. Therefore, more important is the general nature of the spiritual atmosphere of society, the spiritual climate of world relations. The global spiritual atmosphere of recent decades is characterized by a lack of understanding of the importance of full communication for the existence of humanity. This misunderstanding is based on the thesis about the fatal inevitability of confrontation on a global scale. The inevitability of confrontation is associated with differences and contradictions of interests
various societies. Consequently, the real possibility of full-fledged socio-cultural communication is in the distant future, when differences of interests are supposedly erased and the world turns into a kind of whole, into a single monolith, undifferentiated within itself. The last premise should be considered erroneous: the world is not developing towards a decrease in diversity, not towards a single monolith.
The prospects for global development should be linked to increased diversity.
Therefore, it is obvious that the world is unthinkable without differences of interests - of individuals, separate social groups, states, etc. Differences of interests are unlikely to ever disappear.
Yes, in fact, there is no reason to strive to eliminate differences of interests. The real solution to the question of the possibility of full communication and, consequently, the question of preventing disintegration and decay on a global scale lies not in the path of eliminating differences, but in the path of gaining community while maintaining differences: “not only is it not important, but it is also not necessary for individual parts social whole coincided in their aspirations and ideas.
It is important and necessary that each group does not forget about the others and, to a certain extent, shares their lives” [16].
[1] Basharatyan, M.K. Communication. – M., 2002. – P. 7.
[2] Interview with U. Eco to a correspondent of Nezavisimaya Gazeta // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. Ex libris. Book review. – 1998. – May 28.
[3] Eco, U. Five essays on ethics. – St. Petersburg, 1998. – P. 79.
[4] Malkovskaya, N. A. Profile of the information and communication society (Review of foreign theories) // Socis. – 2007. – No. 5. – P. 76.
[5] Aristotle. Works: in 4 volumes - M., 1978. - T. 1. - P. 56.
[6] Schütz, A. Phenomenology and the Social Sciences / Th. Luckman // Phenomenology and Sociology. – Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978. – P. 125.
[7] Ortega y Gasset, X. Man and people / X. Ortega y Gasset // Dehumanization of art and other works. – M., 1991. – P. 330–331.
[8] Ibid. – pp. 306–307.
[9] Ter-Minasova, S. G. Language and intercultural communication. – M., 2004. – P. 17.
[10] Ter-Minasova, S. G. Decree. Op. – pp. 62–63.
[11] Gudkov, D. B. Theory and practice of intercultural communication. – M., 2003. – P. 63.
[12] Cassirer, E. Symbol, myth and culture. – New Haven. – London, 1979. – P. 236.
[13] Quoted. by: Albright, M. The task of the United States is to manage the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet empire // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. – 1998. – No. 193 (October 16).
[14] Malia, M. Russia and the West: past and present. Thinking about Russia. XIX century. – M., 1996. – P. 421.
[15] Toynbee, A. Civilization before the court of history. – M., 1995. – P. 156–157.
[16] Ortega y Gasset, X. Sketches about Spain. – Kyiv, 1994. – P. 49.
What social networks exist
The Russian analogues of Classmates and Facebook - VKontakte and Odnoklassniki - have also established themselves in the top visited sites among the Russian-speaking audience (Russian is the eighth language in the world by the number of speakers).
Social networks also include progressive branches - photo networks, video hosting and instant messengers. Vivid examples of original combinations are Instagram and TikTok; they contain photographs or short videos that can be appreciated and discussed.
Today there are many websites and applications with communication functions. Even forums that were popular in the “bearded” years also relate to interpersonal virtual communication.
