Ðóñ Eng Cn Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Philosophy and Culture
Reference:

Culture and Morality in the XIX Century: at the origins of modern European tolerance

Voloshinov Aleksandr Viktorovich

ORCID: 0000-0003-2500-4190

Doctor of Philosophy

Professor, Department of History and Cultural Studies, Saratov State Technical University named after Yuri Gagarin.

410008, Russia, g. Saratov, ul. Politekhnicheskaya, 77

alvoloshinov@gmail.com
Other publications by this author
 

 
Semukhina Elena Aleksandrovna

ORCID: 0000-0001-8560-0707

PhD in Philology

Associate Professor, Department of Translation Studies and Intercultural Communication, Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov

410008, Russia, Saratov region, Saratov, Polytechnic str., 77

semuh@rambler.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 
Shindel Svetlana Vladimirovna

PhD in Cultural Studies

Docent, the department of Translation Studies and Intercultural Communication, Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov

410008, Russia, Saratovskaya oblast', g. Saratov, ul. Politekhnicheskaya, 77

schindelswetlana@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0757.2022.5.37666

Received:

11-03-2022


Published:

24-05-2022


Abstract: The purpose of this publication is to analyze the economic, social and cultural phenomena that first appeared in the "era of revolutions" that occurred in the XIX - early XX centuries. It seems that the modern European trend towards tolerance, which is the basis of current social and cultural changes, including in our country, has certain intellectual grounds. The subject of the study was the ideosphere of the XIX – early XX century, including philosophical, economic, psychological concepts that gave rise to modern trends in these areas. The result of this study was the determination of the reasons that caused the change of the ideological paradigm in Europe. The novelty of the research lies in the fact that for the first time the intellectual foundations of the formation of tolerance as an actual socio-cultural phenomenon are analyzed. The article consistently proves that among the first such grounds it is possible to determine the emergence of machine production and, as a result, the appearance of a mass person with a culture corresponding to him, performing a compensatory and entertaining function. The most important cultural foundation is mainly the intellectual "background" created by the teachings of F. Nietzsche, K. Marx, Z. Freud. A significant role in the formation of a new morality was played by the ideas of Anglo-American pragmatism, which included the denial of religion and its values, giving it a utilitarian character. During the subsequent historical period and at the present time, these views have become the basis for the creation of the so-called "individual faith", in which religion ceases to be the guide of human life, but only serves the needs of the individual. The desacralization of religion leads to the study of different aspects of sexuality, which opens up the possibility for modern "games" with gender. The concept of "natural law" should also be attributed to the intellectual factors of the formation of modern European tolerance.


Keywords:

culture, the proletariat, religion, values, intellectual foundations, European tolerance, desacralization of religion, individual faith, natural law, ideosphere

This article is automatically translated. You can find original text of the article here.

The "era of revolutions" covering more than two-thirds of the XIX century is so named not by chance, because in addition to the actual political revolutions, an economic revolution (industrialization), a social revolution (urbanization), as well as a revolution of the means of communication took place during this period. At the same time, the most significant result of industrialization is the formation of the phenomenon of the mass and the mass man; urbanization also resulted in the formation of the mass man and the corresponding type of culture; the development of means of communication, including means of transportation, contributed both to the spatial movement of a large number of people and to the strengthening of their information connectivity.

The rapid development of the main spheres of human activity in the second half of the XIX century, the gradual escalation of political tension, the fight against pandemics (including through vaccination) makes this period to a certain extent similar to the present. In this regard, it seems relevant to identify the origins of modern European tolerance in the XIX century, first of all by analyzing the intellectual and cultural "background" prevailing at that time.

Analyzing the process of formation of the modern subject and knowledge about it, M. Foucault believed that the teachings of such theorists as F. Nietzsche, K. Marx and Z. Freud had the greatest influence here [12]. For our research, the relevant provisions of Nietzscheanism and Marxism will be the most significant, since the appearance of the main works of Z. Freud in time refers rather to the first half of the XX century [4]. However, it should be recognized here that psychoanalytic research itself was started back in the XIX century, as a result of which the text "Interpretation of Dreams" was published in 1900 [16].

Considering the teachings of F. Nietzsche and K. Marx, it is impossible not to notice that, despite all the obvious differences, they also have many similar points concerning, first of all, attitudes to morality and religion. In this aspect, both doctrines are revolutionary in their essence, but if F. Nietzsche asks about the theoretical foundations of moral and religious values as such, then K. Marx and F. Engels seek to identify their socio-political foundations [15]. Thus, exploring the ideas of good and evil, F. Nietzsche for the first time asks questions about how these categories can be related to human life, whether they contributed to the prosperity of mankind or could be called a sign of poverty, deterioration of the living situation [19]. It should be noted that before F. Nietzsche, none of the thinkers dared to raise the question in such a radical way, considering the moral and religious values prevailing in society sanctified by the existence of God. But for the German thinker, "God died" and with him the ontological foundation of values was destroyed, in connection with which it became possible to ask a question about their validity, namely: are they useful for the life and survival of the human species?

For F. Nietzsche, the will to live (and power) is unconditional, and against its background, other values are either discarded or accepted to the extent that they help to affirm life: "Life itself is valued by me as an instinct for growth, stability, accumulation of strength, power: where there is a lack of will to power, there is decline. I affirm that all the highest values of humanity lack this will, that the values of decline, nihilistic values prevail under the most holy names" [10, p. 215].

Exploring the economic and social structure of society, K. Marx and F. Engels talked about man precisely as a social, class being. Classes are formed due to the development of productive forces, while culture is only a "superstructure" reflecting, first of all, the interests of the ruling class [18]. J. Huizinga wrote about this, emphasizing that labor activity has taken an important place in society, labor has become the measure of everything, including the "shameful" the opinion that economic factors determine historical development [13, p. 216]. It is noteworthy that giving a negative assessment of the doctrine we are considering, J. Huizinga assessed it in a completely Marxist way: "labor and production" generate the corresponding doctrine. The same opinion is characteristic of the classics of Marxism: "The production of ideas, ideas, consciousness is initially directly interwoven into material activity and into the material communication of people [...]. The same can be said about spiritual production, as it is expressed in the language, politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc. of a particular people" [9, p. 16].

The results of "spiritual production" reflect the interests of the respective classes, and the dominant system of values in society is subordinated to the interests of the owner class: "if each of the three classes of modern society, the feudal aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, has its own special morality, then we can only conclude from this that people consciously or unconsciously draw their own moral views in the last analysis from the practical conditions in which they carry out the production and exchange of economic goods" [14, p. 96]. This provision fully correlates with the idea expressed by F. Nietzsche, according to which none of the social values has an absolute character, but all of them either help human survival or weaken it.

Another significant intellectual foundation of modern European tolerance should be called the direction of Anglo-American pragmatism formed in the second half of the XIX century. Researchers rarely pay attention to this set of philosophical views, but for this study it is of particular interest. The founder of pragmatism, Charles Pierce believed that a person has two states of doubt and faith. At the same time, he assessed doubt negatively, because from the point of view of the philosopher, it made it difficult for the sequence of human actions. For Charles Pierce, it was important for a person to move from doubt to faith (subjective confidence) and it did not matter how true his worldview system was [20].

Consistently developing the views of the American philosopher, W. James published his work "Philosophical Concept and Practical Results" in 1898, and already at the beginning of the XX century (1901-1902) his "Diversity of Religious Experience" was published, in which not only the usefulness, but also the "pragmatic truth" of religious beliefs or, rather, individual faith: "I think that for religious experience and for the practical needs of religion, it is quite enough to believe that behind the personality of each person, as its direct continuation, there is some higher power that favors him and his ideals. The only thing that the evidence of facts obliges is that this force is different from our conscious self and wider than it" [7].

In this regard, it is impossible to agree with the opinion of J. Heising. According to which: "The overestimation of the economic factor in society and the human spirit was, in a certain sense, the natural result of rationalism and utilitarianism, which killed the sacrament and proclaimed man free from guilt and sin" [13, p. 216]. It is only true that religion now ceases to be the absolute guide of all human life, but occupies a pronounced official position in relation to it. If God is dead, as F. Dostoevsky wrote, then everything is allowed [8].

An example of the change in the significance of religion and its transformation into a kind of tool can be the activity of H.P. Blavatsky (1831-1891), who sought in her system of theosophy to create a synthesis of various religious teachings and thereby opened the possibility for the creation of a number of "author's" synthetic religions throughout the twentieth century (starting with the teachings of the "Living Ethics" of E.P. Blavatsky). Roerich and N. Roerich) [2].

By the way, the religious views of the mass man, as well as his worldview as a whole, have always suffered from inconsistency and fragmentation. In the mass consciousness, everything, including religion, invariably turns into kitsch and is perceived exclusively in this form. In one of his works, this fact was noted by J. Baudrillard: "As for the impossibility of spreading the meaning here, the best example of this is the example of God. The masses took into account only his image, but not his Idea. [...] By flat ritualism and defiling imitation, to destroy the categorical imperative of morality and faith, the majestic imperative of the meaning they have always rejected, is in their manner" [3, p. 11-12].

The recognition of the relative nature of values, in our opinion, has opened up the possibility for modern manipulations with them. If anyone in the Middle Ages had dared to question at least one of their religious precepts, he would have been burned at the stake without regret. In the 19th century, philosophers recognized moral and religious values as the results of human activity and thereby made possible modern tolerance, which should more precisely be designated by the concept of "moral indifference".

Considering the economic and social changes that took place during this period, it is necessary, first of all, to designate the XIX century. as the century of the formation (and victory) of the bourgeoisie. The ancestral aristocracy is losing its importance, although its role will finally be leveled after the First World War. But the developing machine production also required the corresponding labor force, which resulted in the formation of the proletariat.

Emerging from yesterday's peasants, the new class turned out to be equally divorced from both traditional culture and the culture of urban philistinism. As a response to his requests, over time, a mass culture has formed, performing, first of all, a compensatory and entertaining function. One of the earliest phenomena of this type of culture was kitsch as a set of visual images embellishing reality, ignoring its "dark" sides. We repeat, kitsch was not an alternative to the prevailing realism at that time, but as such it answered the simple aesthetic needs of the proletariat, allowing its representatives to relax after a hard working week and partly brighten up the hard everyday life (see also [11]).

The factor of a person's involvement in the system of social production caused revolutionary changes in his very appearance. As J. Huizinga wrote about it: "Long trousers, until then (until the XIX century – auth.) in various countries were used as the clothes of peasants, fishermen, sailors and for the same reason favored by the characters of commedia dell'arte, suddenly become part of the gentlemen's toilet, along with exuberant hairstyles expressing the frenzy of the revolution" [13, p. 217]. According to J. Heising, the main dominants of women's costume are beauty and sexual attractiveness, which, however, again give way to simplicity and naturalness at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. This rationalization of the costume later led to the disappearance of any rules regarding appearance, to the understanding of clothing as one of the means of individual self-expression.

By the way, when talking about sexuality, we should also mention the teachings of Z. Freud, on the one hand, which also desacialized religion and, on the other hand, opened up the possibility for modern "games" with gender. Accepting sexuality as the basic basis of the human psyche, the Austrian psychologist not only radically changed the idea of man: his main merit, in our opinion, is the very introduction of the concept of sexuality into public (and scientific) discourse. This position is obvious and does not need proof: if representatives of science in the relevant publications initiate discussions about an object, this object is legitimized and gradually enters the space of public life.

Already at the beginning of the XX century (in 1903), another Austrian, Otto Weininger, published his famous book "Gender and Character", in which he claims that in reality there is practically no "pure" male or female type. The theorist wrote: "The differentiation of the sexes, their separation is never completely complete. All the features of the male sex can be found, even in the weakest development, and in the female sex. All the sexual characteristics of a woman are also present in a man, at least only in a rudimentary, rudimentary form" [5, p. 7]. Isn't it true that O. Weininger's opinion sounds extremely modern, especially if we are facing European realities? At the beginning of the XX century. the ideas expressed in the book so shocked the author himself that in the same year he committed suicide.

Another merit of Z. Freud is that he saw both in the patient's speech and in the images generated by his dreams, some hidden existential meaning that presupposes interpretation. Subsequently, on this and some other grounds (existential phenomenology), the direction of antipsychiatry arose, in which the patient was considered not as a madman, but as a full-fledged Other [17, p. 24-25]. Thus, it is thanks to Z. Freud that the attitude towards the patient in the future has become more tolerant and humane.

To the intellectual factors of the formation of modern European tolerance, we should add the concept of "natural law", which was formed in ancient stoicism, but acquired its adequate form thanks to the rationalism of R. Descartes and T. Hobbes. It can be formulated quite simply: if all people are born with the same mental abilities, and reason is the essence of a person, then all reasonable people have equal rights from birth.

As T. Hobbes himself wrote about it in his famous Leviathan: "Nature created people equal in terms of physical and mental abilities, for although we sometimes observe that one person is physically stronger or smarter than another [...] the difference between them is not so great that one person, based on it, could to claim some benefit for oneself, which another could not claim with the same right" [6, p. 149]. In fact, the concept of natural rights first caused the transition of European countries from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy (if everyone is equal, the law is the same for everyone), and then to democracy.

Moreover, in our opinion, this concept has become another of the foundations of modern European tolerance, because if everyone is equal, then there are no deviations, there are only various manifestations of individuality. For representatives of classical rationalism, there were "figures of exclusion", i.e. those whose thinking was not considered fully rational (women, children, "savages") or who excluded its very existence ("madmen"). For this reason, these groups did not have equal rights and opportunities. However, the gradual development of the idea of equality has led to the formation of a stable opinion, according to which, to define any individual or group as an exception means subjecting them to an unacceptable repressive influence in a civilized society.

But democracy would not be possible without the inclusion of women in the legal field. It was in the XIX century, due to the intensive development of machine production, women's labor began to be widely used. In the XX century, the emancipation trend is intensified due to two World Wars, during which women were forced to master traditionally male professions [1, p. 135].

This mixing of male and female roles, the expansion of the possibilities of plastic surgery and medicine in general, as well as the emergence of affordable female contraception caused, which occurred around the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. the "family revolution", which actually destroyed the traditional family, legalized same-sex marriages and children's rights, i.e., to a large extent transformed the very foundations of social reality.

As a result of the cumulative interaction of the intellectual, economic and social phenomena and processes described above, a world of total tolerance and freedom was formed, which was defined by J. Baudrillard as a world "after an orgy": "An orgy is every explosive moment in the modern world, it is a moment of liberation in any sphere. The liberation of political and sexual, the liberation of productive and destructive forces, the liberation of women and children, the liberation of unconscious impulses, the liberation of art" [3, p. 8].

Summing up the results of the study, it is necessary to formulate the following conclusions: 1) The formation of modern European tolerance has a complex history that began in the XIX century, based on a number of grounds. 2) The most significant are the intellectual foundations, including the teachings of F. Nietzsche, K. Marx and Z. Freud, as well as the direction of Anglo-American pragmatism. 3) The destructive role of these thinkers was either to deny religion and its values, or to give it a service character, i.e., to consider it in the aspect of usefulness; the constructive role was to form new ideas about man and culture. 4) Another intellectual foundation was the concept of "natural rights", by the XIX century. it has already become an organic part of European culture. 5) Among the economic and social factors, it is necessary to highlight the development of mass production, the intensification of migration of rural population to cities generated by it, and the formation of the proletariat with its corresponding culture.

 

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The author submitted his article "Culture and Morality in the XIX century: at the origins of modern European tolerance" to the journal "Man and Culture", which conducted a study of socio-political and socio-cultural phenomena and events that were prerequisites for the development of the modern European socio-cultural situation. The author proceeds in studying this issue from the fact that the last third of the XIX century seems to be a landmark era, a period of revolutions in all spheres of human activity: industrial, socio-economic, intellectual, cultural. In the socio-cultural direction, the result of the revolutions was the emergence of such a phenomenon as mass culture, which led to a radical paradigm shift of generally accepted values, basic cultural universals, the emergence of a new type of thinking and worldview. According to the author, the period of the late 19th century has many common characteristics with modernity, namely rapid scientific and technological progress, a tense socio-political situation, and the fight against diseases. The relevance of the research lies in the need to study the cultural and intellectual situation of the specified period as a source of prerequisites for the emergence of modern European thinking. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the author's comprehensive analysis of the socio-cultural sphere of the "epoch of revolutions". The theoretical basis of the research was the works of such recognized scientists as F. Nietzsche, K. Marx, F. Engels, Z. Freud, etc. The methodological basis of the study was an integrated approach containing systematic, cultural-historical, comparative methods. The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of the socio-cultural and economic phenomena that served as the basis for the emergence of modern European tolerance. To achieve the purpose of the study, the author conducted a detailed bibliographic analysis of the scientific works of such recognized thinkers as F. Nietzsche, F. Engels, C. Pierce and presented their polemics. In particular, it is interesting to compare the views of J. Heising and K. Marx and F. Engels on the problem of the correlation of the material and spiritual components in the life of society. Based on the theories of the philosophy of life and in particular F. Nietzsche, the author notes the radical reassessment of values that occurred during the period under study. If earlier the values and features of the worldview had a religious basis and were not questioned, then Nietzsche put forward a revolutionary theory for that period about the consideration of moral moral values from the standpoint of their usefulness and necessity for maintaining human life, none of the generally accepted values can be considered absolute. Marxist theorists also put forward the position of the priority of material production over spiritual production. These provisions were further developed in the theories of adherents of the Anglo-American pragmatism trend (Ch, Pierce, W. James). All these directions and provisions have formed the basis for modern utilitarian rational thinking, individualism and recognition of the value of human life. According to the author, the emergence of mass culture has also led to a change in attitudes towards religion. Religious views have become contradictory and fragmented. The image of God became a priority, not an idea. "In the 19th century, philosophers recognized moral and religious values as the results of human activity and thereby made possible modern tolerance, which should more precisely be designated by the concept of "moral indifference." Next, the author examines the economic transformations of the late 19th century from the perspective of their impact on the socio-cultural situation. The formation of the bourgeoisie, the formation of the proletariat entailed the need to create a new type of culture, and this type became mass culture, which lacked deep philosophical ideas and views, and which was distinguished by a light bright content and had a recreational and entertainment function. The industrial development of mass production also led to changes in appearance and fashion trends, clothing, on the one hand, became more rational and less emphasized individuality, and on the other hand, was designed to emphasize female sexual attractiveness. The Industrial Revolution and wars could not but affect gender relations and the changing role of women in society, the development of ideas of emancipation. The author states that thanks to the theories of psychoanalysis (Z. Freud), the attitude towards the concepts of norm and sexuality has radically changed. Sexuality has become an object of scientific discourse and has ceased to be a taboo topic. The concept of norm has become blurred, various kinds of deviations have been interpreted as variations of the norm. The author also notes the concept of "natural law" as an intellectual factor in the formation of modern European tolerance: if all people are born with the same mental abilities, then all reasonable people have equal rights from birth. In conclusion, the author concludes that all the factors considered by him together formed the basis for the emergence of European tolerance and ideas of equality. It seems that the author in his material touched upon relevant and interesting issues for modern socio-humanitarian knowledge, choosing a topic for analysis, consideration of which in scientific research discourse will entail certain changes in the established approaches and directions of analysis of the problem addressed in the presented article. The results obtained allow us to assert that the application of the historical method and the study of the socio-cultural situation in diachrony is of undoubted theoretical and practical cultural interest and can serve as a source of further research. The material presented in the work has a clear, logically structured structure that contributes to a more complete assimilation of the material. An adequate choice of methodological base also contributes to this. The bibliographic list of the study consists of 20 sources, including foreign ones, which seems sufficient for generalization and analysis of scientific discourse on the studied problem. However, the article needs additional verification, as it contains factual errors. For example, the philosopher W. James wrote his work "Philosophical concept and practical results" in 1898. The author fulfilled his goal, received certain scientific results that allowed him to summarize the material. It should be stated that the article may be of interest to readers and deserves to be published in a reputable scientific publication after all the shortcomings have been eliminated.