So, already at Kant distinction between of a civilization and culture is planned. Spengler, representing a civilization set of technical and mechanical, opposes it to culture, as to a kingdom of the organiyocheski-vital. Therefore he claims that the is a final stage of development of any culture or any period of social development for which the high level of scientific and technical achievements and decline of an and literature are characteristic.
In domestic literature also there is a understanding of that is the cornerstone of a civilization. So, representatives of a geographical determinism that decisive impact on character of a is made by the geographical environment of existence of these or those people which influences first of all of cooperation of the people who are gradually changing the nature (L.L. Mechniko.
So, Yu.M Lotman, realizing semiotics approach, that "culture, first of all, - concept collective. The certain person can be the culture carrier, the culture, as well as language, - public, that is social can actively participate in its development, nevertheless by the nature.
Within the concept of culture as subsystems of society it is considered as its such sphere which carries out function of management of processes at the standard and verbal level. Society in this case as sotsiyetalny system, changes in one of which spheres lead to the corresponding in other subsystems. The culture is considered also as reality, usvoyaemy by the person in the course of his socialization or, on the contrary, a nominalistska i.e. as a of personal character.
The culture is a way of activity of people, about the public relations - the base, a basis, a field for this activity. Such understanding helps to realize, society (the public relations) and culture (a way of activity) are how exactly connected. Public the is the bases, and culture - reasonable. Society creates a field for an act of man, its cash shape causes their borders and in a certain measure sets character and ways of actions. Culture and the segment and totality do not correspond as part and whole. They interpenetrate. As a matter of fact, we speak about two plans of consideration of life of people here.
M. K. Petrov possesses also the interesting classification of interstandard distinctions of culture taking into account individual activity in social interaction and personal system of entry of the individual into the whole: "Based on key structures of a of activities for individuals and integration of into integrity, it is possible to distinguish three types:
The matter is that in a complete organism of society separate (subsystems, sotsialyyono-historical communities of different type are horizontal. Their existence and interaction characterize emergence and actually social structure.
Civilization, considered Gizo consists of two elements: social, external in relation to the person both, and intellectual, internal, defining his personal nature. Mutual influence of these two. social and intellectual, is developments of a civilization.
The beginning of nonconventional type of culture failure of tradition, the introduction in a name (i.e. receiving together with a name of all complex of social loadings) to be (as subsequently and finding of the inherited knowledge) the only form of a of the personality. Motivation of individual action and. system of social estimates do not coincide, they are mediated by an individual reflection, a choice.
It is possible to interpret differently the relations of an and culture For example (according to M. Kagan), culture - activity of society, and society - the subject of this activity. Or (according to E. Markaryan) initial to take idea of culture as functions of society. These in domestic culturological literature of decades are known as active defenders of judgment of essence of culture.