Review of XX International Likhachov Scientific Conference

Nikonova Svetlana Doctor of Philosophy Professor of the Department of Philosophic and Cultural Studies at St. Petersburg University of the Humanities and Social Sciences 192238, Russia, Sankt-Peterburg, g. Saint Petersburg, ul. Fuchika, 15 laresia@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

According to the established tradition, we present to the readers of the journal "Philosophy and Culture" an overview of International Likhachev scientific readings. After a two-year break caused by restrictions related to the pandemic, this scientific forum was held at the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions in June 2022. The readings that took place this year were the anniversary, the twentieth in a row. This figure should have coincided with 2020, since the Readings are the same age as the century. And although there was no coincidence, it is a positive fact that the forum was held with a large gathering of guests who wanted to speak and take part in the discussion. Nevertheless, the events in the world against which the conference unfolded could not but affect it, giving it a shade of anxiety.

Until now, the forum was mainly devoted to issues of social and cultural development, it was a meeting of humanities scientists, artists, and even representatives of the political sphere came here to discuss general cultural issues of modern humanity. At the suggestion of the famous scientist D. S. Likhachev, this meeting was devoted to the problems designed to look for ways of consolidation and cooperation: "dialogue of cultures" and "partnership of civilizations" — these were the basic concepts of the Readings dedicated from now on to the memory of the scientist.

Nevertheless, in recent years, the theme of political tension, which has led the world into an unstable state, has crept into the subject of readings to an increasing extent. XX International Dashing scientific readings, following the severity of the situation, completely refocused on the discussion of political issues. Instead of "dialogue" and "partnership", the theme of "conflict" appeared in their title: "Global conflict and the contours of a new world order" — this became their common name.

A number of breakout sessions were held within the framework of the conference. Section 1 was a visiting session and mainly discussed issues of modern politics, its theme was: "The transition from unipolarity to real multipolarity: problems of the new geopolitics." Section 2 was called "The traditional values of humanity or the "new ethics" of the West? (ideologies, values, norms, morality in the fate of the modern world). What is the balance of power?" and was devoted to the philosophical, cultural, ethical understanding of the processes taking place in the modern world. Section 3 was called "Economics in the context of global change". Section 4 was devoted to the issues of history: "Russia in the global world: a new stage of history." Section 5 — Education issues: "Russian education at the new turn of the epochs (dialectics of the past and the future). What Russia needs." And finally, during section 6, legal issues were raised: "Law, values and morality in the context of modern global transformations".

In this review, we will pay attention to the diversity of opinions expressed during the general discussion at the plenary session of the conference, as well as the issues raised in the second of the listed sections concerning the ethical understanding of the problem. We will outline the topics, trends of the participants' messages and express some critical comments about the unfolding discussion.

International policy discussion: plenary sessionOf course, no conference reflects the full range of opinions on the stated topic, since participants inevitably focus their choice on a certain community, organization, and even the country in which the meeting takes place.

At the XX Likhachev International Scientific Readings, reports of a large number of foreign participants were presented. Although the very fact that they decided to participate in this conference, especially in the current situation, speaks of the certainty of their chosen position, it is worth paying attention to these reports and the judgments expressed in them.

The main idea of the reports of foreign participants were doubts about the principle of political unipolarity of the modern world and the assertion of the advantages of multipolarity and a return not only to the dialogue of cultures, but also to the political dialogue of countries.

Thus, the president of the International Organization of Progress (Vienna, Austria), Honorary professor of the University of Innsbruck, PhD, G. Kehler believes that the belief that it is possible to establish a single, even if seemingly "best" order for all, is illusory. He clearly expresses this idea: "The belief that it is possible to establish a static world order is a delusion, since it is impossible to develop such rules that will be unchangeable and binding for everyone and will ensure stability frozen in time. In the real world, history is a sequence of constantly changing, dynamic power dispositions among those who achieve the status of the "main player" at one time or another"^{[5, p. 102]}. The establishment of a unified order is essentially totalitarian and rests on violence, and in the end it always turns out, like any total system, to be a short-term unstable formation, held only by coercion. Between countries, as well as between people, it is not a forceful solution to the problem that is required, but a dialogue. This is echoed by the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the Russian Federation, Doctor of Art History, Professor, People's Artist of Azerbaijan P. Bulbul oglu, talking about the role of intercultural diplomacy and its importance in resolving political conflicts: "Diplomatic activity is possible only in the form of dialogue. The essence and purpose of diplomacy is to “build bridges". To do this, it is necessary to understand the other, otherwise there is a danger of misunderstanding and interpretation of certain realities and statements, which can lead to a violation of an adequate perception of the geopolitical situation. Mutual understanding can be achieved only taking into account and in the context of culture"^{[1, p. 48]}.

In general, the position of dialogue, rational discussion "on equal terms", is one of the values developed by Western European thinking since the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, it is precisely in modern conditions and in this respect that a radical substitution of concepts is taking place. The values of rational discussion develop hand in hand with the mechanisms of propaganda. In the modern world, it often becomes impossible to distinguish between them, which prevents dialogue. This is stated in his report by the President of the United Chamber of Commerce and Industry "Switzerland - Russia and CIS countries", Executive Director of the Swiss Press Club (Geneva) G. Mettan: "We often talk about the power of words, but much less about the words of power. Words of power seek to use the power of words. These are completely innocent or innocent-looking words, so it is important to identify them and recognize their essence: they are means of conquest and domination, tools for restraining people and their thoughts, forming citizens' consent with undesirable morality and politics for them. So it becomes almost impossible to conduct any dialogue of cultures" ^{[6, p. 136]}.

The same idea is clarified by the honorary professor of the Institute of Legal Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Catholic University. Peter Pazman (Budapest), Doctor of Law Ch. Varga, drawing attention to the inevitable formalism and uncertainty of the legal sphere, which is easy to use as a means of political struggle to pursue certain interests: "According to theoretical studies, the rule of law is one of the contested concepts that do not have clear boundaries and dogmatics. It is not limited by anything, but it is always under the crossfire of various political ambitions that use its characteristic "malleability" — variability and extensibility"^{[2, p. 52]}.

This leads to disappointing conclusions about the state of the modern Western worldview, which is being criticized. Thus, the Royal British architect, a member of the Royal Society of Arts, a lawyer in the field of construction, an international arbitrator, professor of the Department of Legal Modeling of the Kutafin Moscow State Law University, C. Goddard says: "We do not want unnecessary confrontation, but we can no longer be deluded by the illusions of democracy and liberalism"^{[3, p. 60]}. It is important to note that this idea is by no means new, but has been widespread for a long time in the Western theory of modern society, including in the one that is positioned as "left", as well as in the one that is positioned as "postmodern". Nevertheless, these theories have, in the end, the same properties that characterized the extensibility of law in the above quote. Therefore, the beautiful-looking ideas of democracy and liberalism stop working and turn out to be an illusion, and even the very criticism of this illusion can become an instrument of confrontational propaganda.

As a result, an honorary fellow of the Australian National University (Canberra), E. Kevin, is already quite purposefully applying these considerations to the situation with the conflict in Ukraine. He is quite tough on the role of Western countries in this conflict: "Russia with its ally Belarus and the actual coalition of Ukraine, the United States and NATO pursue different goals in the war and are guided by different rules of engagement. We are witnessing a unique interaction in its murderousness between the real military conflict in Ukraine and the cynical information war waged by the West surrounding it"^{[4, p. 92]}.

Something like a summary can be called the following words of another speaker, director of the Research Center for the Study of Eurasia, Russia and Eastern Europe, associate Professor, Doctor of the Faculty of Political Science at Ankara University (Turkey) T. Turker, expressing hope for overcoming the crisis situation: "Instead of the unions of the XIX century based on nationalism and history, or unions of the XX century based on blocs and ideologies (but also including nationalism), the world of the XXI century can be based on civilizations and sociology (perhaps cultural studies or anthroposophy), including ideological heritage and national sovereignties. It remains to be hoped that such a configuration of world politics will lead to a more peaceful and stable system, and will not resemble Bauman's judgment about fascism as a natural and inevitable result of modernity itself"^{[7, p. 168]}.

These and other reports on similar topics were presented at the plenary session. The tone of the statements in all the speeches was about the same: criticism of the current level of political dialogue, identification of substitution of concepts in the political sphere. The main object of criticism was the Western world, since it was he who, having developed a dialogical principle of thinking, should have become its stronghold, nevertheless manipulatively uses it for his geopolitical purposes.

The panel discussion held within the framework of the plenary session revolved around the same subject, which was attended, among others, by prominent modern Russian politicians, representatives of the state administration apparatus. The positive aspect of the discussion was that its tone remained very restrained and balanced. There were active calls to adhere to the values of dialogue and rational discussion, equality and law, from which, according to the participants, the West has departed, but which, nevertheless, have not ceased to be a regulatory idea of building a normal civilized multipolar world community on the foundations of democracy. In fact, the participants of the conversation advocated following liberal guidelines, from which, according to them, the Western world has departed, so that other regions could now support them, if it is possible to avoid slipping to the level of direct confrontation. The discussion unfolded on the importance of creating a new state ideology. Many participants spoke in favor of the need for its development. Striking against this background was the speech of the Director of the Department of Information and Press of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, M. V. Zakharova, who believed that the creation of a special ideology is not a task that can be solved by state regulation, that is, planting "from above". She recalled the dangers lurking behind the word "ideology", the repressive nature of systems built on a rigid ideology. In her opinion, the only worthwhile ideology could be the idea of building a state in which citizens would like to live.

Cultural policy and the question of values. Discussion at the breakout session

Reports presented at the XX International Likhachev Scientific Readings within the framework of the issues raised at the section "Traditional values of humanity or "new ethics" The West? (ideologies, values, norms, morality in the fate of the modern world). What is the balance of power?", the description of which this part of the review will be devoted to, in general, all were performed in a similar tone. The general idea that united the speakers was a reflection, mainly critical, on the place and influence of Western culture in the modern world. A number of reports presented the results of cultural and ethnographic studies related to the multiplicity of cultures and customs both on a global scale and within the framework of Russian multinational. Other reports theoretically dealt with issues related to cultural diversity. The issue of cultural identity, the dialogue of cultures in the modern world, its opportunities and difficulties that it faces in the new political realities was also raised.

Here are some examples of the reasoning and topics of the reports. In the text "Russia in the face of global challenges: aspects of the problem", which was presented for consideration by the famous Russian culturologist G. V. Drach, the opposition of Western and Russian ways of development, existence, building values and organizing knowledge is carried out. It is shown that, although modern science appeared in the West, technological development in various countries is possible "without looking to the West". O. D. Shemyakina's report "On the principles of describing social systems in a changing world order" deals with the possibilities of Western and Eastern views of the world, the absence of a single value system and a system of behavior that should be guided in a rigid way, the "turn to the East" and the fact that "fluid modernity" is no longer it is subject to consideration through the prism of those rules that were formulated by the original Western rationality. The report of Y. G. Shemyakin "The principle of dialogue as the spiritual basis of the movement towards a polycentric world" analyzes the concept of dialogue, its importance for all cultures, including Western. We also consider some tricks for "monologizing" the dialogue, which are present, for example, even in Plato. This text shows the structural non-dialogic nature of Western culture, which has been present in it since ancient times, despite its declared dialogism. The Bakhtin concept is taken as a model of theoretical analysis of the dialogue. At the end of the article, such a political phenomenon as BRICS is considered as an example of a dialogical supranational structure.

L. M. Mosolova in the report "Russian education in the context of the transition to a new world order" raises the question of modern education from a cultural point of view. The author criticizes the modern Western theory of culture, based on post-structuralist ideas related to the deconstruction of classical meanings and narratives, correlates with it the crisis processes in the modern world, as well as the growing problems in the education of young people, including in Russia, since Russia was included in a new value system created by the West. The author is sharply critical of the trends in the development of Western culture. Although it can be assumed that the Western theory of culture has completely different goals and dimensions, it is impossible not to agree with the author that it can really be connected with this crisis. The author's conclusion is as follows: Russia needs to move away from these values, this discourse and these views altogether — and build education on other principles.

M. I. Kozyakova's report "Posthumanism as the dominant of the global media environment" is devoted to the specifics of the functioning of modern media and propaganda tools in the light of the existing media theory. It is suggested that the traditional values of Russian culture also need ways to function effectively in the modern media space. I. F. Kefeli also discusses a similar topic in the report "Cognitive security — at the junction of science and ideology". The author criticizes the postmodern discourse and the "memes" of the digital era, although he himself seems quite at ease in this discourse. In fact, we can say that here we are dealing with some kind of "internal" criticism of these phenomena.

A.V. Kostina's report "Values and Meanings of Culture as a factor of national security" talks about the differences between American and Russian cultures, the need to preserve Russian identity. However, when the main series of values of these cultures are listed, the basis of their opposition is not entirely clear: the American series of values is accused of being imposed all over the world — but it does not substantiate what its danger is, and the common denominator between the value series (so as to see their confrontation) not detected. Both value series look good and highly moral, which in itself is a bit of a problem to think about.

Texts about individual national and ethnic cultures are interesting. So, E. V. Kharitonova in her report "The traditional African value-ethical system in the modern world: project, mission, alternative, protest" gives a very interesting, informative, based on a large number of facts and sources, a study of the peculiarities of self-consciousness of modern African culture. The inconsistencies between African values developed in the process of understanding their place in the global world and Western attitudes that led to the need for such an understanding are shown. But N. I. Voronina in the text "Personality at the turn of times in the dialogue of ethnoses" writes about the history and identity of the Mordovian ethnos and about famous personalities who came out of it, touching on the problem of the place of the ethnos in the globalized world and the problem of the specifics of traditional, different from global, ways of being.

By this almost random sampling from a huge number of submitted texts, we can also note the report of E. M. Gashkova "Preservation of historical memory and family heirlooms in the digital age". Here we are talking about the need to preserve historical memory both on a collective and individual level, preserve archives, family values, as well as appeal to the experience contained in works of art. Historical memory is compared with the extreme individualization of the modern virtual world. We will also name as an original supplement the report of the writer A.M. Melikhov "Declaration of the Rights of Talents" — this is an interesting, debatable, critical essay that poses an acute problem, shows a non-standard approach to reasoning about modern culture. It examines very critically some of the provisions of the "Declaration of the Rights of Culture" by D. S. Likhachev. The author shows that the statements made by Dmitry Sergeevich about culture are fraught with quite a lot of ambiguity and calls for, if possible, highly appreciating the manifestations of talent, offering, in general, a rather elitist cultural and ethical concept.

Thus, we see that the proposed reports touched upon interesting and diverse issues, although united by a common critical attitude. Nevertheless, the discussion at the session of the section went according to a different plan, inevitably touching on the current political topics set by the plenary session, and in addition, directly reacting to the name of the section, raising the topic of an ethical dispute with the "new ethics" of the West.

There were also interesting speeches, for example, the report of O. A. Janutsh about ethnosophy — a new way of studying ethnic identity in the modern world, a new approach to working with "traditional" values. Also noteworthy is the report of G. A. In which the scientist spoke quite critically about the modern Russian education system. In his opinion, the main problem of domestic education is not that we have borrowed the so-called "Bologna system". The problem is what we have made of it ourselves. Here again, the same idea that we pointed out above sounds: the system itself is not as bad as we draw it, and what it offers could contribute to improving the quality of education, it fully corresponds to the principles that are inscribed in our value ranks. But, perhaps due to the fact that we are engaged in mindless copying of it, or maybe due to the impracticability of its requirements in the existing conditions, we get a result, in fact, the opposite of what it is aimed at. In short, it is not Western standards that are to blame, but their thoughtless application in domestic realities.

But in general, the discussion revolved around issues, firstly, ideology, the idea of which was hovering at the plenary session, and secondly, the Western "culture of cancellation". The question about ideology was well answered by M. V. Zakharova at the plenary session, we have already given this answer. As for the "culture of cancellation" and the "new ethics", I would like to make a few comments on this topic. For many speakers, it, quite naturally, caused an extremely negative reaction. After all, in fact, it presupposes a new racism, stratification of society, introduces the principle of inequality and double standards. And all these excesses "in the opposite direction" clearly contradict the very principles of equality and rational discussion, which were advocated on the previous day. Indeed, there is quite a long history behind the "culture of cancellation", which originates in the breakthrough that the Western world has made in the direction of globalization. The latter was carried out as colonization, seizure, suppression, it was associated with violence, repression, prohibitions, with cruel attempts to invade and change, "abolish" enslaved, oppressed peoples. In the modern world, when this violence was recognized and the brutality of the project of globalization and the seizure of the world by the West was manifested, once enslaved peoples, oppressed races, discriminated minorities raised their heads and claimed the "abolition" of the culture of those who once enslaved and banned them. In general, this is an anti-Western project, despite the fact that it was generated and nurtured by the West itself, and, of course, it cannot be denied that its new structures are being used for ideological, propaganda, political and geopolitical purposes. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the idea itself, the only opposition to the "culture of abolition" would be to follow the principles of equality, freedom, Enlightenment, rationality, dialogicity — and not at all the desire to "cancel" what comes to us from the West in this new form. In a word, when the participants of the discussion opposed Western values and Western influence in every possible way, sought to "cancel" what the West offers us, they, in fact, were no different from those who adhere to the "cancellation culture" there in the West, joining in their protesting impulse exactly what the protest is against.

Such a course of discussion among scientists, humanitarians, throwing harsh accusations and wanting to "cancel" canceling as radically as they themselves are radical in their impulse, caused doubt about the possibility of dialogue and deprived hope of restoring the most valuable thing that Western civilization may have given us — reasoned rational discussion with the opportunity to listen to opinion their opponents, that is, the possibility of a diplomatic solution to conflicts. In general, the situation in the world at all levels at the moment is too tense to maintain such hope. But I would like that at least humanities scientists were able to remain the last conductors of the idea of dialogicity in this dark and cruel time.