КУЛЬТУРОЛОГИЯ КАК РЕАЛЬНОСТЬ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВА ОБЩЕСТВЕННОГО РАЗВИТИЯ
В статье ставится вопрос об эффективности культурологии, который включает роль государства в развитии культурологической науки. Утверждается, что критерии эффективности-неэффективности, применяемые к оценке деятельности вузов, оказываются слабо применимыми к оценке состояния культурологии. Утверждается, что значимость культурологии содержится не в экономической эффективности или количестве выпускников, а в уровне гуманитаризации общества. Культурология в своем распространении в СССР, а затем в России оказалась независимой от экономики и даже политики. Так, период ее широкого распространения приходится на 90-е годы прошлого века, экономику и политику которых трудно представить в положительном измерении. Сравнивается загруженность современного российского профессора с загруженностью профессора в СССР Утверждается, что пролонгация экстремальной загруженности современного российского профессора негативно отражается на выполнении им научной работы, что ставит под сомнение инициативу перевода научных исследований с академических институтов в вузы. ; The effectiveness of the Culturology in contemporary Russia depends not so much on intellectual pursuits of its scholars or scientific achievements of their pupils but on how the Russian State views the significance of Culturology for the Russian economy and politics in edition to how many University's graduates chose Culturology as their major. Thus the criteria of "effectiveness non-effectiveness," which is applied by the country's Ministry of Education to rate Russian universities where Culturology is being taught, does not earn this discipline much credit in the eyes of Russian educational officials. This in turn provides a narrow venue for those who ran the country to understand what Culturology is about. The article challenges the idea of linking the Culturology to economic indicators and political gains of the Russian State, suggesting that the contribution of Culturology to the county's development stems from its potential in humanization of society. Thus Culturology could and should make good use of Russia's cultural riches to make the Russian people better citizens. Theretofore Culturology should be accounted exactly for that and not for something else. Which means that Culturology should be seen as the means of social development. Another issue is what does the "humanization of society" mean and how should it be achieved and evaluated? Culture is the most suitable sphere to look for the answers to this question and Culturology is the most suitable entity to guide those looking for answers. Thus Culturology indeed could provide a benefit to the country's economic and political development though it requires an effort on the part of the statesmen to understand and see how it could. No wonder that the most noticeable development of Culturology in Russia happened in the 1990s, when Russia after long stagnation was looking for new ideas to refresh its economy and political system. The authors are describing the damage that a politico-economic approach has made to the Culturology by laying out a set of activities the state required from a professor teaching the Culturology. The enormous workload of the contemporary Russian professor exacerbated by the constant changes in the country's educational doctrine that is ostensibly supposed to "lift Russian Universities" to "European levels" is detrimental to the quality of Culturology. A professor in the USSR enjoyed less paper work and more academic freedom than his counterpart in contemporary Russia. The analysis leads the authors to the conclusion that the latest initiatives of the Educational Ministry to move all research activities from Russia's academic institutions to Universities would not succeed without a complete overhaul of Russian University education and Culturology in particular.