Understanding the "other" in the dialogue of cultures

Mikhelson Svetlana Viktorovna Senior Lecturer, Department of Foreign Languages and Professional Communications, Krasnoyarsk State Agrarian University 660062, Russia, Krasnoyarskii krai, g. Krasnoyarsk, ul. Vysotnaya, 4 a, kv. 163 autel@inbox.ru Other publications by this author

The interaction of cultures as a "dialogue of cultures" is manifested in the modern world at all levels of socio-cultural interaction. Enriched in content and "technologically" by the new realities of the communicative revolution of the late XX-early XXI centuries, which, in turn, initiate new communicative technologies, the dialogue acquires new content and new features. Cultural and social aspects are mutually incorporated into each other, creating a complex phenomenon of "dialogue of cultures".

As for the theoretical and methodological level, here the philosophical interpretation of communication successfully "fits" into the cultural space. Moreover, according to A.V. Nazarchuk, it "is not limited only to the problem of the exchange of information messages between individuals and to speech communication. Communication can consist of the coursing of resources within the subsystems of society (T. Parsons), economic exchanges (J. Baudrillard), the transmission of myths (K. Levi-Strauss, R. Barth), exchange of views in the street scene (E. Giddens), dialogue between two (M. Buber), monuments and texts of culture (Yu. Lotman)" ^{[1, p. 157]}.

A cultural background is being created, which actualizes "intensive clarification of the meaning of those processes, functions and tasks that are associated with the formation of the information society and the development of communication technologies" ^{[1, p. 157]}. In this regard, it is quite natural to actualize interest in the phenomenon of negotiations as a marker of intercultural interaction, as well as the role of negotiations in society and various spheres of public life, and, as a consequence, their inclusion in the range of culturological problems. One of the central problems is the problem of the "other" language/the language of the "Other" as a means of communication, which was actualized as a result of the so-called "linguistic turn" in philosophy. In phenomenology, the Other, according to E. Husserl, is only a phenomenon of consciousness, while the Other is a "mystery" that raises many questions: How do I and the Other understand each other and what is the basis of this understanding? Do we see one world, or does each of us see "our own world"? Why, with our similarity, are we different and how can these differences be tuned to a wave of mutual understanding?

The concept of communicative action of Yu should be recognized as interesting and productive for understanding the problem of the Other in the dialogue of cultures . Habermas, which he positions as anthropologically fundamental, based on the fact that Human existence and further socio-cultural development and improvement of Humanity are possible only in a constantly developing communicative community.

In the philosophy of dialogue, Habermas comprehends a completely new "axiomatics of two", the axiomatics of communicative consciousness, the situation of communication, dialogue. Language is considered by Habermas from the side of pragmatics as a speech act, i.e. as an action that turns language sentences into a situation commensurate with the context of speech. Habermas concentrates the focus of attention in the theory of understanding "in the unifying power of mutual understanding-oriented speech, which guarantees the participants in the conversation an intersubjectively shared life world and thereby a horizon within which they can all establish relationships to the same objective world" ^[2].

Habermas sees the source of communicative rationality in the subject's communicative competence, which consists in understanding the language and the ability to use understood words and expressions in new situations. The capacity, defined by Habermas through the subject's attitude to language, includes reproductive and productive moments. On the one hand, they associate it with the ability to focus on existing rules; on the other, on the universal significant claims inherent in speech. At the same time, the statement that "someone is guided by the rules" can be considered equivalent to the statement that "someone understands the language" ^[2].

The concept of the "life world" is introduced as a correlate to the processes of mutual understanding. It denotes the joint horizon within which everyday life and communication take place, forming collective ideas about reality – linguistic pictures of the world. World pictures represent the life world of a certain society, consolidate the interpretative work done by previous generations to interpret the experience of dealing with reality, display the background knowledge of social collectives and coordinate the connection of diverse guidelines for actions ^[2].

These and other philosophical concepts, as well as the questions posed within them, can be successfully projected onto the phenomenon of dialogue and enter the circle of cultural problems related to the concept of "dialogue of cultures".

The concept of "dialogue of cultures" was widely spread in the late XIX – early XX centuries. But it has its roots in ancient philosophy. The original meaning of the concept of "dialogue" (Greek dialogos – conversation) denoted the form of speech. For Socrates, "dialogue" is a way of knowing the truth, for Plato, "Dialogues" are philosophical reflections on the existence of an Idea. In the Renaissance, the "dialogue" of personalities (Virgil's conversation with Dante in the Divine Comedy) is a speech genre in a work of fiction. In the age of Enlightenment and Romanticism, dialogue was considered as a means of including non-Europeans in the space of European culture: Robinson Crusoe and Friday in the novel by D. Defoe.

Since the end of the XIX century, "dialogue" has become synonymous with the concept of "intercultural interaction", and by the beginning of the XX century, dialogue is interpreted as "understanding", "search for contacts, meanings, codes, constructs".

Kagan introduced the concept of "dialogue of cultures" into scientific circulation. According to him, the "dialogue of cultures" is "the interaction of sovereign equivalent and unique subjects, leading to the formation of a kind of community (practical and spiritual), which does not deprive each subject of self–sufficiency and identity, but unites them into an integral organic system" ^[3].

Along with the concept of "dialogue of cultures", one can find such phrases as "interaction of cultures", "continuity of cultures", "intercultural communication", as well as a number of terminological variants through which the following dialogical situations-oppositions are symbolically represented: "I am It", "my own – someone else's/other", "East – The West."

The understanding of the "dialogue of cultures" within the framework of the cultural-historical approach is mainly associated with an emphasis on the interaction of polar cultural-historical worlds (for example, East–West, paganism – Christianity, tradition – innovation), on identifying the types of dialogue connections and searching for the results of the dialogue of cultures. The dialogue between the West and the East in the broadest sense of the word (for example, the dialogue between Western and non–Western cultures) is an experience of overcoming misunderstanding for each of the parties. In any society, the dialogue of cultures is necessary for its members in order to form mutual understanding and cooperation between peoples ^{[4, pp. 326-328]}.

Researchers of various specialties showed interest in the problem of intercultural interaction. It has become the subject of study of psychologists and anthropologists. And this is not accidental, since very representative results have been presented in this area.

G. Tegefel, an English psychologist, considering representatives of different cultures from the point of view of social categorization, i.e. in the process of intergroup or intercultural interaction, showed that a person begins to most clearly feel and realize his identity, its difference from other groups, to distinguish "his own" and "others/ strangers". This awareness is based on the most ancient way of social categorization, based on the dichotomous division into "friends" and "strangers" ^[5].

F. Bock, an American anthropologist, argues that "culture in the broadest sense of the word is what makes you a 'stranger' when you leave your home. It includes all the beliefs and all the expectations that people express and demonstrate... when you are among the members of a group with whom you share a common culture, you do not have to think and design your words and actions, because you and they see the world "through the prism of "their" culture, and know what to expect from each other a friend. But being in a "different" society, in a "Different" culture reveals difficulties, feelings of helplessness ^[6]. Against this background, there is an explosion of interest in culture, cultural diversity and intercultural interaction, especially mass attempts are being made to study the values of national cultures. At the same time, the phenomenon of the "Other" actualizes the search for the foundations of intercultural dialogue in various fields, requires a rethinking of established traditions and new theoretical searches in related fields – linguistics, cultural studies and ethics.

Modern culture is actively entering a state of "instability", defined as the constancy of dynamic processes, fluctuations and bifurcations that give rise to the effect of "stability of uncertainty". Against this background, processes are activated in the intercultural space, accompanied by communicative variability and mobility. The interpenetration of cultures as a unique phenomenon initiates a turbulent state, accompanied by multidirectional processes in intercultural communications, is a poorly controlled chaos.

Language, as a representative of the processes taking place in culture, is going through a period that can be considered as the accumulation of new discursive meanings and fields, and at the same time, the transition to new formats of communication, accompanied by the inclusion in the linguistic picture of the world not only of new meanings, but also the transformation of the language itself. This process is caused by another, complexly organized process – globalization, which "blurs" the boundaries of cultures, making them permeable to various influences.

The proliferation of meanings is a cultural brand of the modern era. Language in this flow of proliferation is included in various contexts, sometimes enriching it, but more often transforming and uniting and even replacing its original meanings and meanings.

Language is a phenomenon born and "distributed" in dialogue. In the dialogue, "the activity of the perceiving Other plays an important role: without the participation of communicants in a single process of demonstrating meanings, there could be neither communication nor joint activity. It can be added that this interpretation of meanings takes place in the process of constant negotiations.

In this regard, it becomes relevant to study the processes of adaptation to the meanings of a foreign cultural environment, where the subject of research is not only new value standards, but also the mechanisms of interaction of already existing cultural norms and, most importantly, the study of universal concepts – cultural codes used in various forms of cultural dialogue.

Dialogue is the contact of cultures, both in a broad and narrow sense. The dialogue of cultures is a dialogue, including cultural codes and meanings. Dialogue is an active form of translation of cultural codes, and language in the process of this translation acts as both an intermediary and an "incentive" to enter another culture. Cultural codes are incorporated in the language and through the language they are manifested externally. Therefore, translation from one language to another implies, first of all, the translation of these meanings in as close as possible to each other meanings.

In the process of dialogue, speakers use not only the verbal, but also the non-verbal potential of the language at the same time. In other words, speakers use the entire arsenal, both its externally recognizable meanings and latent ones. The so-called implicit information includes, according to Quine, the idea of synonymy, the classification of linguistic units, an understanding of the logical structure of language and, among other things, cultural preferences, customs and beliefs in various quantities and proportions in relation to explicit information ^[7].

W. Quine poses the question, "what part of language can be understood in terms of its stimulus conditions and what place does this leave for empirically unconditioned changes in the human conceptual scheme". He considers "nonverbal stimuli" as such "empirically unconditioned changes" ^{[7, p.45]}.

Quine pays special attention to the significance of nonverbal stimuli within the dialogue, since "... the stronger the direct connections of the sentence with nonverbal stimulation, the less the sentence is able to differ from its correlate in any such mapping" ^[7]. The same, according to Quine, applies to translation.

He notes that, despite the fact that "two people can be exactly similar to each other in relation to all their dispositions to verbal behavior with all possible sensory stimulations, and, nevertheless, the meanings of the ideas contained in their identically stimulated and identically sounding statements can differ radically in a number of ways." cases" ^[7].. But the danger of meaninglessness contained here lies in the objection that "a distinction in meaning that is not reflected in the totality of dispositions to verbal behavior is a distinction that is devoid of distinction."

Verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication can be considered as relatively independent, moreover, "they will differ in that they offer as appropriate translations of sentences of one language sentences of another language that are not one to the other in relation to any satisfactory equivalence." Thus, the problem of correspondence – equivalence of the transfer of meanings is actualized.

Language in this context is considered as a complex of "given dispositions to verbal behavior, in which speakers of the same language willy-nilly turn out to be similar to each other; at the same time, we are not talking about the process of language acquisition, whose variations from individual to individual should be smoothed out in the interests of communication" ^[7]. Here we are talking about communication within the boundaries of one language. But in our case, we consider communication in which two or more cultures establish contact in the "one language" of the lingua franca.

Quine formulates a thesis stating that in a situation of "radical translation", i.e., translation from a completely unknown language, several competing variants or ways of translating the same expression of an unknown language may turn out to be empirically equal and, therefore, equally acceptable. In our understanding, such a translation may not necessarily concern an absolutely "aboriginal" language. Such a language may turn out to be an already known language, but for a neophyte it is identified with it.

Another problem with translation, according to Quine, is that no unique interpretation is possible, because a "radical translator" cannot determine which of the many possible meanings the speaker has in mind. Moreover, there is additional non–verbal information behind the spoken word as an indication, a hint and an incentive to understand the cultural code transmitted by the speaker.

Translation from one related language to another is facilitated by the similarity of verbal forms derived from the same root. Translation from languages that do not correlate with each other can be facilitated by traditional correspondences associated with a common culture. It is clear that languages, for example, Chinese, which are not included in this list of "kinship", require special attention to translation in a wide range of meanings.

As a possible, but not final solution to the problem of radical translation, Quine considers the stimulus value, which is based on a significant amount of implicit information, including the idea of synonymy, classification of linguistic units, understanding of the logical structure of the language and even cultural preferences, customs and beliefs. The point of ostension can be corrected with the help of questions asked in situations with appropriate stimulations ^{[8, pp. 101-116]}.

An important point in understanding the Other and translating from one language to another can be called the skeptical paradox of U. Kripke, based on Wittgenstein's observation, touching upon a fundamental premise implicitly accepted in any concept of language. This is a prerequisite for following the rule when using language expressions. "The problem of "following the rule" arises in Wittgenstein's reasoning, in a necessary way, when he considers meaning as use, but use is not arbitrary, since it is regulated by the rules accepted in the linguistic community. Language acquisition involves the need to learn to follow these rules. If the speaker does not follow the accepted language rules, he is not understood, communication is destroyed" ^[9].

W. Quine gives an essential argument, arguing that there can be no unambiguous correspondence of statements in different languages in principle. This circumstance becomes fundamental for negotiations in the intercultural and interlanguage space.

Another important aspect in the issue under consideration is the problem of a person – a subject, a "carrier" of culture. It is through the intention from person to person that the dialogue of cultures is carried out. A person with consciousness, including linguistic, is positioned in culture as a linguistic personality. At the same time, as a person, a person has a certain autonomy and the ability to realize his cultural and personal intentions through language in a vast field of communication. This field includes a palette of speech and behavioral communications fixed in the language. It has both general cultural and individual-subjective layers of meanings, meanings, texts.

E. Levinas in his work "Time and the Other" writes: "the subject simply comes face to face with something different and secret, which gives him a new and necessary impulse for existence - authentic and his own, coexisting with the authentic and his own existence of the Other" ^{[10, p.43]}. He introduces the concept of "otherness" in association with polyphony. "To see such friendliness, one must, apparently, hear polyphony. To do this, and in this one must agree with Heidegger, one must first understand one's own being, or one's own being, understand one's own possibilities, in order to then see that there are Others with their own possibilities or in oblivion, searching, choosing one's own possibilities. But the situation of the emergence of the understanding of the Other – the situation of my readiness – is not identical to the situation of the existence of this Other in all its diversity even before my understanding, as well as after it ^{[10, p. 44]}.

Accordingly, it is important to consider the aspect of understanding, as well as the problem of understanding the Other.

In hermeneutics (1) understanding always deals with meaning in such a way that something is grasped, understood or interpreted as something. Meaning means clarity. (2) Understanding is woven into the relationship of mutual understanding in essence. The attitude of understanding: someone understands something, mutual understanding forms a threefold relationship: someone agrees on something with others.

On the one hand, the opposite of mutual understanding is disagreement: something is understood differently than it was supposed to be, on the other hand – misunderstanding, when understanding stumbles upon obstacles and boundaries. Disagreements in this case turn out to be productive when they open up new semantic perspectives.: so, in a language, for example, it is necessary to distinguish between errors that simply violate the rules and those that change them.

Understanding (3) takes place in a more or less formal/informal framework, the recognition of which indicates the attitude and processes of power, since any framework that makes sense possible separates what can and cannot actually be said ^{[11, pp. 7-8]}.

Misunderstanding and incomprehensibility that arise in the way of understanding can mean a lot, and accordingly, attempts to overcome them are diverse.

Incomprehensibility initially means just the opposite of intelligibility, just the interpretation of intelligibility. Something that is not understood as something does not turn into any repeatable image, it does not obey any rules. It turns out to be just irrational, unthinkable <...> and inexpressible <...>. On the basis of its uncertainty, it is likened to Nothing: as nothing, it itself escapes language.

Understanding communication as a semantic interaction immersed in socio-cultural conditions that significantly change the traditional attitude to the specifics of texts created within the framework of various institutional discourses. Any discourse generates a text – a concrete material object that reflects the specifics of human interaction when creating an information environment in a particular field of activity. What initiates the process of communication is not the desire of a person to transmit information, certain information about the reality external to him, but the desire to make his intentional states not only understandable to another, but in the vast majority of cases shared, accepted by other people.

According to M.L. Makarov, communication occurs not as a translation of information and a manifestation of intentions, but as a demonstration of meanings ^{[12, p. 8]}.

In "Being and Time," speech acts as the existential essence of language, since "the being whose disclosure it articulately ... expresses has a way of being abandoned, sent to the "world", being in the world." This concretization of the phenomenon of speech connects it, first of all, with the existence of being. Together with disposition (Befindlichkeit) and understanding (Verstehen), speech is one of the three existentials – states of being in which it is "its own here" ^{[12, p. 8]}, i.e. itself.

Does not Heidegger's reflection on allowing Others to "be" in their most existential capacity, stemming from the presence at the moment when it decided to be its own self, the emergence for the first time of the possibility of understanding the Other in his true friendliness: that is, not when he is like everyone else, and not when he is the other Self, and when he is his own way of being, when he begins and learns to be? To see such friendliness, one must, apparently, hear polyphony. To do this, and in this one must agree with Heidegger, one must first understand one's own being, or one's own being, understand one's own possibilities, in order to then see that there are Others with their own possibilities or in oblivion, searching, choosing one's own possibilities. But the situation of the emergence of the understanding of the Other – the situation of my readiness – is not identical to the situation of the existence of this Other in all its diversity even before my understanding, as well as after it ^{[12, p. 44]}. The other does not need permission to be, rather I need the Other – for a more adequate vision of myself. ... there is a multiple world in which I cannot speak for Another, but in the same way I cannot give him the word; I can only listen or learn to listen to something different from me, alien to me, not coming from myself, the first form of which is - and Levinas is right – the mystery. The fact that the mystery in question will be another person, and not something mysterious in myself, must simply be accepted. But this "necessity is for the good", because such a different thing and meeting him as a mystery can become an impulse for his and my new opportunities, can teach him and me, change, help out, unlike such another thing as death, which simply destroys me ^{[12, p. 45]}.

Such a need can also be justified. One of them stems from Levinas' idea of an "unpredictable future", co-existing, competing with the projected future. Its meaning lies in the possibility and reality of changing my project, caused primarily by attempts to implement/not implement their projects by Others. The world in which I exist and choose my possibilities is a multiple world of Others, existing not only in the das Man mode, and produced and produced, known and known, used and loved by them, and if things were different, then my project and the future would simply coincide, as it is, however, it happens, although never in an absolute way.

So, an attempt to "refrain from judging" about Another, to take something like a disinterested attitude towards his position (the initial passivity that arises, according to Levinas, when confronted with a mystery), to see beyond one's own existence the space of freedom/freedoms of Others and an attempt to hear and see this space as another, speaking to you on another language, but still understandable to you, because this language, like an infinite number of other languages, can be mastered without completely mastering it, on the one hand, and without completely forgetting your own language, on the other, can be the first step on the way to Another ^{[12, p. 45]}.

The dialogue of cultures strengthens mutual understanding between different peoples, creates ample opportunities for a deeper understanding of the individuality of cultures, understanding of the Other. International cooperation promotes the development of a dialogue of cultures, which in turn solves the problem of openness to dialogue and mutual understanding in the world. But, desire and aspiration are not enough to enter into mutual understanding and dialogue, for which cultural literacy and understanding of the culture of the Other are important.

The dialogue of cultures makes it possible to deepen cultural self-development and mutual enrichment through cultural experience within the framework of the corresponding culture or world culture. The implementation of the dialogue of cultures in the modern world is difficult, but its necessity is indisputable. But this complex process must be carried out without prejudice to the identity of national cultures.

According to D. Tannen, "the fate of the Earth depends on intercultural communication" ^[13]. Perhaps with the same right one could say that the fate of the Earth depends on a better understanding between cultures, religions, nations, generations, etc. Dialogue can facilitate such understanding, and common human concepts can facilitate dialogue and communication of any kind.

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.