Ideologeme "traditional culture" in understanding the social process and environmental problems

. The article contents analysis of the ideologeme of "traditional culture" and evaluation of its possibility for the understanding of social process. The authors turn to the history of philosophy in understanding the socially significant context of the formation of traditions. Further, the authors show the socio-cultural foundations of the ideologeme of "traditional culture" and shows the causes of methodological "dead ends" of the authors who use it to explain modern social life. The article emphasizes the importance of traditions in the life of society. Authors notes that human development is impossible without the ability to reproduce and preserve the experience. At the same time, authors shows that certain forms of behavior-communication-activities which fixed by customs, rituals can appear and die. The authors of the article have came to the conclusion that the term of "traditional culture" is an ideologeme which testifying to the splitting of the social process. It fills with content depending on the goals of interests groups and serves as a tool for speculative worldview constructions.


Introduction
In classical philosophical thought, the key to understanding what is happening to a person is considered to be the analysis of the social process in which he is a participant. In a society based on a system of differentiation of labor, which is carried out according to functionalist scenarios, the importance of a person as a subject is leveled. Where the way of organizing social relations requires only performance from a person, and his life is increasingly reduced to the implementation of a set of functions ("socially significant" tasks), a person, his mind, and his way of existence are split. A person is immersed in a series of endless transitions from participating in functioning in one Environment (with specified conditions) to another (with different conditions). In different situations, a person is forced to obey the logic of existence in different environments: in the family, in a professional team, in an ethnic, confessional community, in a political community, etc.
The lack of a holistic view of the social process, functional participation in one or another sphere of social life leads a person to a lack of understanding of the essence of various social phenomena. The world seems to him to be something alien, devoid of logic and indifferent to the fate of individuals and entire communities.
A person, being unable to grasp the logic of what is happening, the basis of its formation, replaces the tasks of explaining and transforming the world with the legitimization of the existing state of things. He situational justifies his actions as adequate to certain circumstances, connecting ideologems for their interpretation -mental constructions that have an abstract character, filled with meanings depending on the individual/ corporate interests of a person. One of these ideologies is the now fashionable term "traditional culture", which is introduced in the course of human attempts to discover something that can act as a support, or at least an outlet in a split being.
The purpose of this article is to present the experience of understanding the ideologeme "traditional culture" from the point of view of the way of forming its content and status in the cognitive process.

Methodology
In the course of achieving this goal, the authors implemented a historical and philosophical approach, based on the principles of activity, concreteness, unity of the historical and logical. The analysis of the logic of the formation of the ideologeme "traditional culture" carried out in the above way allows us to determine the reflexive status, possibilities and limits of its functioning.

Results
You should distinguish between: 1) a discourse in which we are talking about the essential ability of a person to retain in a filmed form and transmit meaningful experience, fixed in the concept of tradition; 2) a discourse in which the ideologeme "traditional culture" functions.
From our point of view, the concept of tradition, strictly speaking, does not imply an indication of specific forms of social experience, but of the very essential ability of a person to retain in a filmed form and transmit meaningful experience. Human development is impossible without this essential ability, while specific forms, fixed by customs, rituals, can appear and die. Emphasizing the importance of traditions in the development of culture, we should not forget that traditions do not exist by themselves, as a separate end in itself. This means that their understanding should be carried out taking into account their involvement in the living social process, where they mature, exist and die.
Ancient thinkers have already spoken about the importance of traditions in public life. The understanding of the processality of social life and the existence of the foundations of proper human existence in ancient philosophy was not formed until the Enlightenment. The structure of life according to the traditions of the ancients was understood as the embodiment of the harmony of the cosmos. In China of the era of the "struggling kingdoms", there is a" dispute " between supporters of alternative approaches to understanding the social, which also assume different views on the meaning of traditions.
The most influential schools in Ancient China are usually recognized by historians of philosophy as Confucianism and Taoism. Let us consider their views on the question we are interested in. Confucius considered traditions the basis of the social, emphasized the need to follow the traditions of the ancestors. The thinker proposed a "program for correcting names" whose meanings were distorted in the era of change. Lao Tzu sought to harmonize sociality with the laws of nature, calling on people to return to the primordial simplicity, to live according to naturalness. The introduction of traditions, ritualized forms of behavior, the philosopher considered a sign of the loss of true justice. The paradox of human existence that hinders harmony, Lao Tzu considers that: on the one hand, the individual acting according to formal requirements is based on a lack of trust and loyalty, on the other hand, he also counts on the fact that others share his views on the formal due. If there are violators of the formal due, then the person seeks to punish them. Thus, social conflicts are born. And therefore, ritual, tradition-is the cause of the turmoil [1].
The ambiguous attitude to the understanding of the role of traditions is also demonstrated by the thinkers of the era of the transition of ancient Greek society from a tribal structure to a class one. For them, the central question remains the relationship between tradition and the management of society through laws, which are the expression of rationality. Thus, in Platoa classical representative of the Athenian aristocracy, a champion of the ideals of antiquitytradition (and he uses the concepts of "custom", "ancient law") acts as a way of regulating state and political activity, the ontological basis of legislation (the seventh book of "Laws"). He writes that customs connect any state system; they occupy the middle between written laws and those that will be established [2]. According to Plato, only relying on customs (traditions) legislation is legitimate. In turn, tradition cannot be strong without expression in legislation, and therefore it is necessary to strengthen the new state in every possible way, without missing, as far as possible, either the great or the small of what are called laws, customs or habits. For all this binds the state together; neither of these two principles can be strong without the other. It is not surprising, Plato believes, if our laws become more extensive due to the influx of numerous legalizations and habits that seem at first glance petty [2].
Aristotle, as a defender of the nascent social order, insists in the treatises "Ethics" and "Politics" that the law -a faceless reason, and not custom and habit-should regulate public life. Meanwhile, law and custom quite often coincide, since the law "absorbs" custom. Aristotle notes that in Macedonia there was a law in the old days, by virtue of which a person who did not kill a single enemy had to gird himself with a halter. And among the Scythians, such a person had no right to drink from a circular cup during one holiday... And others have many similar things, partly established by laws, partly sanctified by customs [3].
Thus, demonstrating a different attitude to traditions, the philosophers of the ancient world interpret them as a moment of a social whole, the existence of which is conditioned by the harmony of the world as a whole.
In the Middle Ages, it is possible to record the formation of a theocentric way of thinking, according to which the source of authentic traditions (as guidelines for social behavior of people) were the lives of Christ and the saints. The traditions followed by the commoners were perceived as barbaric. The true tradition was conceived as a once-and-for-all deduced datum of divine origin, unchangeable in its essence and absolute in its significance. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologica, summarizing the discussion about the relationship between the" old "and the" new", emphasizes that the apostles understood the teachings of Christianity more fully and more deeply than subsequent generations of people [4]. This means that the philosophers of the Middle Ages distinguish between authentic traditions legitimized by divine origin and the traditions of the "silent majority". This reflects the split nature of the social process, in which two "logics" are present and revealed, two modes of existence with their inherent traditions.
The epoch of Modern times, as a time of the formation of capitalist relations, involving a complex differentiation of labor and the dominance of commodity-money relations, gave rise to a critical attitude to tradition as such. A person living in an emerging system of relations could no longer live according to a given logic once and for many years, like previous generations. The dynamism of society, the constant emergence of new activities, the formation of a new social structure, the severance of ties with the family and community lead to the fact that a person must learn to fit into new circumstances both when choosing a life path, and constantly throughout life. Following the traditions of our ancestors is a hindrance, an idol, thoughtless submission to the authority of someone else's opinion. Overcoming tradition lies in the ability to use your own mind.
For example, for Descartes, there is no doubt that the customs, views, and forms of education adopted in society have a powerful influence on people and usually convince them more effectively than scientific evidence. A reasonable individual, like a European, who has lived among Chinese or cannibals since childhood, becomes a completely different person. Although there is no reason to consider people barbarians or savages because they have different concepts and customs. The conflicting traditions of different peoples are equal, not because they are all good ("equivalent", as the proponents of cultural relativism would later say), but on the contrary: because they are all bad, they are all literally "prejudices", do not contain the objective and true, and therefore do not deserve to become the subject of philosophy and science. The influence of cultural prejudices is harmful, Descartes believed, as it clouds the mind and hinders the independent search for truth. Negativism in relation to the cultural and historical tradition among the philosophers -contemporaries of Descartes, was the dominant trend. A similar line was continued by the classics of the Enlightenment.
It should be noted that in this era, among intellectuals, there was a rejection of tradition and life on its basis. This is not surprising, because the age of Enlightenment was accompanied by a time of radical changes in the principles of the organization of social life, a time of social revolutions, a time of breaking the old and striving for the new. The result of this era was an equally dramatic, dynamic and contradictory era of capitalist relations, in which tradition, which had previously been an organic moment of the translation of social experience, turned into an object of manipulation, a reference point for the split consciousness of split individuals, sporadically entering into various situational contextscircumstances.
Nevertheless, in the same era, there are defenders of traditions who believe that all social entities are not accidental -they are the product of history. These include the classic of English conservatism, E. Burke, who argued that the improvement of the social structure should be carried out taking into account age-old customs, mores and traditions. E. Burke writes about the importance of English traditions in overcoming the harmful influence of the Enlightenment ideals. Thus, in the work "Reflections on the Revolution in France", the thinker notes: «Thanks to our sullen resistance to innovation, thanks to the cold sluggishness of our national character, we still bear the stamp of our forefathers. We have not (as I conceive) lost the generosity and dignity of thinking of the fourteenth century; nor as yet have we subtilized ourselves into savages. We are not the converts of Rousseau; we are not the disciples of Voltaire; Helvetius has made no progress amongst us. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers… We have not been drawn and trussed, in order that we may be filled, like stuffed birds in a museum, with chaff and rags and paltry blurred shreds of paper about the rights of man» [5].
From the age of Enlightenment, you can start counting down the time from which tradition and "games" with it began to be the subject of reflection. At the same time, there was an attitude to tradition as an empty shell, with its inherent attributive characteristics, which can be filled with any content, depending on the interests/ needs of a split individual. This attitude to tradition is also present in modern culture. We are talking about cases when a person manipulates a set of traditions, adapting to the "challenges" of social environments.
The understanding of tradition as an alienated form, which has already been removed from the living social process and is "attracted" to participate in it at the will of the individual, can be found in the works of K. Marx. K. Marx, a contemporary of the described era, in one of his works that have a programmatic character for his work -"18 Brumaire Louis Bonaparte", writes about it as follows: The understanding of tradition as an alienated form, which has already been removed from the living social process and is "attracted" to participate in it at the will of the individual, can be found in the works of K. Marx. K. Marx, a contemporary of the described era, in one of his works that have a programmatic character for his work -"18 Brumaire Louis Bonaparte", writes about it as follows: «Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in timehonoured disguise and borrowed language. Thus Luther put on the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789-1814 draped itself alternately in the guise of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the revolutionary tradition of 1793-95» [6].
Citing further the example of the manipulation of the traditions of the figures of the Great French Revolution and the coup d'etat in France in 1799, Karl Marx notes that all of them, dressed in Roman costumes, solved the problems relevant to their own time, related to the abolition of feudalism and the establishment of bourgeois society. As soon as these tasks were solved, the Roman antiquity that rose from the dead sank into oblivion. In this regard, Karl Marx concludes: «Thus the awakening of the dead in those revolutions served the purpose of glorifying the new struggles, not of parodying the old; of magnifying the given task in the imagination, not recoiling from its solution in reality; of finding once more the spirit of revolution, not making its ghost walk again» [6] K. Marx sees the transition from the orientation back to the "ghosts of the past" to the orientation to the future as a constructive type of behavior for people: «The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot take its poetry from the past but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped away all superstition about the past. The former revolutions required recollections of past world history in order to smother their own content. The revolution of the nineteenth century must let the dead bury their dead in order to arrive at its own content. There the phrase went beyond the content -here the content goes beyond the phrase» [6] Another work that is useful for understanding the position of Karl Marx on the issue considered in the article is "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844" [7], in which the thinker studies the content of the concept of alienation. The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 do not speak directly about traditions or "traditional culture", but their approach to understanding the social phenomena of a contradictory bourgeois society is an important basis for a deep understanding of the phenomenon of "traditional culture".
Marx's concept of alienation sets the logic for considering " traditional culture "as a set of results that are part of the" treasury " of historical and cultural experience-a reservoir of knowledge, symbols, customs, rituals, figures of speech and thought, patterns of behavior, and so on, and so on. This concept reveals the nature of the transformation of tradition as an expression of the living continuity of the sociocultural experience of a community into the imposition on this community, on the individuals of its components, of the totality of the embodied results of experience, selected according to the" social order " that is relevant at the moment. At the same time, a person becomes a "slave" of this tradition: it is not tradition that serves as a support for the development of a person and society, but a person who is included in the system of relations of the alienation society, is adjusted to the "framework" set by tradition, puts on the attributes offered to him, uses the refrains of former times. Thus, a person who is disoriented in a contradictory world is " cut " into a model of behavior, reaction, communication, and thinking. It acts as crutches, a temporary support in order to overcome this or that stage of the development of events.
The period of the late nineteenth-twentieth centuries is characterized by an increase in the tendencies of alienation and the unfolding of capitalism. The human being is increasingly becoming a subsidiary and functional unit, a part of human capital. In the sphere of understanding social life, sociology begins to play a dominant role as a sphere of empirical knowledge, the development of which is carried out to improve the mechanisms of managing society = large masses of people involved in the process of social production. The idea of understanding the social process as a context for the formation of social phenomena is devalued, and the rational description and classification of facts and events serves as a reference point for scientific research. The social process "breaks down" into social facts, social types, social institutions, social interactions, etc.
For example, M. Weber describes society in terms of the presence of people with different types of behavior that dominate at certain stages of history. In general, the typology is based on the enlightenment principle of the transition from a spontaneous way of life, regulated first by instincts, and then by traditions, to an increasingly rational one. Fixing various types of human behavior in the history of mankind, in the works "Basic sociological concepts" [8] and "Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism" [9], the German thinker M. Weber builds a synonymous set of concepts "traditions", "traditionalism", "economic traditionalism", "traditional needs", "traditional behavior", linking them with the meaning of a stereotype, habitual behavior formed in a certain social circle. The method of fixing these stereotypes is individual consciousness. Departure from the traditional = habitual = stereotypical, connected by M. Weber, with the transition to "purposeful" social action, which also normalizes human behavior, but not because of the acceptance of this type of behavior, but because of its necessity and demand in certain social conditions. Traditional types of behavior, according to Weber, are also possible with the action of the value-rational type; although there are also its own peculiarities: if the behavior of others is imitated because it is "fashionable", considered traditional exemplary, "prestigious", or for any other reasons of this kind, then such imitation in its meaning is correlated either with the behavior of the person being imitated, or with the behavior of third parties, or with the behavior of both [9]. Thus, in contrast to the ideal-typical tradition-habit, a pattern that is not automatically obeyed, following the "usual" irrationally, tradition-value is an intermediate link, an intermediary between people, through which an individual consciously orients himself to another or to others, since he acts according to the social context.
The study of traditions in the alienation society in the twentieth century continues in the works of the British thinker E. Hobsbawm. First of all, this topic is directly interpreted by E. Hobsbawm in the work "The Invention of Tradition". In this paper, the author introduces the concept of "invented tradition", which he defines as a set of social practices of a ritual or symbolic nature, usually regulated by explicitly or implicitly recognized rules; its purpose is to introduce certain values and norms of behavior, and the means to achieve the goal is repetition. The latter automatically assumes continuity in time [10]. The specifics of the invented traditions are that they are either specially constructed, or have been established for several years, their origin implies the possibility of dating; they have for the most part a fictitious connection with the past; they represent a response to a new situation by referring to the situation of the old; they create a past for themselves, thanks to the reference point to a constant "as if obligatory repetition".
To clarify the content of the concept of tradition (invented tradition), E. Hobsbawm correlates it with related concepts: 1) tradition and custom. E. Hobsbawm notes that tradition (including invented), in contrast to the" custom of traditional society", is fixed, unchangeable, imposes rules of behavior on the individual. The custom, according to E. Hobsbawm, is both a motor and a "flywheel". It is organic to development and does not hinder the new, if it does not undermine the foundations of the established status quo. Hobsbawm gives an example from judicial practice: custom is what judges do, whereas tradition (and in this case, it is an invented tradition) is wigs, robes and other formal accessories and ritualized actions that accompany the actual action [10]. The decline of custom also changes tradition.
2) tradition and order / rule. According to E. Hobsbawm, in contrast to the order or rules, traditions are consecrated, have a symbolic, ritual function.
The concept of "invented traditions", E. Hobsbawm notes, takes on a special role for researchers of the social process, specific forms of its unfolding that have taken place since the Modern era. It is based on it that the picture of society is clarified, the structural elements of which are nation-states, nationalisms, national histories, and literary languages.
E. Hobsbawm's research is important for explaining the reasons, logic, and forms of actualization of "traditional culture", the existence of which the author fixes without giving him an assessment. The question of the transformation of social reality, the harmonization of social relations, in which the tradition would fulfill its essential, proper cultural purpose -the accumulation, preservation and translation of the total human experience, remains behind the scenes.
A significant aspect of understanding in recent decades has been the study of the functioning of traditions in the context of the discourses of modernization and decolonization. Among the authors of this period who wrote significant and widely cited works are: Ambe B. Njoh [11], Avi Sagi [12], T. A. Howard [13], Kwame Gyekye [14], Ziying You [15].
Understanding the concept of traditions in the context of its formation in social philosophy from ancient times to the present day allows us to conclude that traditions are a moment of real active development of the world by a person and their existence is impossible outside of this process. But ... often today, following the tradition is declared an end in itself, and such appeals can refer us to already obsolete traditions that have remained in the past. In the case of a split social process, traditions degenerate into algorithms that function in various spheres of human life. At home, at work, in various situational contexts, different types of "traditional" behavior and reactions to what is happening are required from a person. And so ... a person relies on the traditions of the family, then on the traditions of the collective, then on the traditions of the ethnic group, then on the traditions of the social community, which often contradict each other. In such circumstances, a discourse is born in the mind of this person, in which the ideologeme "traditional culture"is formed.
Participation in the work of various dialogue platforms, where the term "traditional culture" appeared in the field of discussion, makes it possible to observe an emotional outburst and a tense dispute regarding the search for arguments " for " and "against" the existence of certain elements of it in society. The analysis of these discussions allows us to see that each participant often fills this term with its own content. For example, "traditional culture "is often referred to as a culture peculiar to a particular ethnic group -"ethnic culture". Proponents of this understanding of traditional culture see it as a social reference point that guides the ethnic community to the way of life familiar to it in the past or its individual types of activities, holidays, rituals, etc.At this point, the agreement between the proponents of this approach ends and attempts begin to determine what exactly is considered "traditional" and what is "good" or "bad" for a modern person. So, on the Kazakh dialogue platforms, the discussion of the meaning of "traditional culture" is often reduced to calls for the preservation of the "national code" and further discussion of the feasibility of holding toi with a large number of guests or observing a particular custom, rite.
In another audience, a discussion about "traditional culture" may develop into a discussion about the culture of a particular denomination, with its inherent traditions. Then the participants of the discussion find out questions about what is right or wrong, appealing to the experience of grandparents, the words of authoritative religious figures. Since the experience of different families, genera, and communities may differ (as well as the interpretations of authorities may differ), the question of what is "traditional" and right, and what is not, can turn into a dispute for a single day.
The image of "traditional culture" can acquire not only ethnic, confessional features, but also features peculiar to, for example, a political community at a certain stage of its formation, etc.
The social consequence of using the term "traditional culture "is a lack of understanding between different social groups and individuals who claim to be exclusive in their interpretation of what «real traditional culture" is. Given the above, we can conclude about the abstract nature of the term "traditional culture". This term cannot have a conceptual status, heuristic potential, but acts as an ideologeme, which everyone, by virtue of their experience, fills with the preferred content. Such filling can be carried out spontaneously or intentionally. In the latter case, we are talking about the use of the ideologeme "traditional culture" by political strategists.
In an effort to find the basis of existence, to determine their place in the modern world and to answer the essential question "Who am I?" modern people develop strategies/tactics of self-determination. The intellectual and political elites of various countries are concerned about optimizing the development models of national political, economic, and educational systems that will allow these countries to be competitive, protect their interests, and resist foreign forces that are dominant in the modern international arena. As a guarantee of the preservation of sovereignty, the possibility of self-determination, it is often suggested to refer to the presence of a certain historical past, the presence of a particular people historically developed principles and strategies for survival, community and success, accumulated in the "traditional culture". Table 1. The concept of "tradition" and the ideologeme "traditional culture" as reflexive phenomena.

Content
The essential ability of a person to retain in a filmed form and transmit a meaningful experience A term that indicates the presence of a certain historical past, historically developed principles and strategies for survival,community and success.

Functioning discourse
The concept of "tradition" functions in the context of a holistic understanding of the social process. This approach assumes that specific forms of social experience do not exist by themselves and cannot be considered as a separate end in itself.
The ideologeme "traditional culture" functions in the space of meanings associated with the issues of identification, justification of the characteristics of a community or group, the legitimization of certain lines of behavior-communicationactivity The meaning of the introduction Promoting understanding of the logic of the social process.
Description and legitimization of the existing or desired state of affairs from the point of view of private and corporate positions. Reflexive status the concept an ideologeme The essence is that in the course of joint active development of the world, a person can and should live: solve specific life problems, set goals related to the need to provide a person with conditions worthy of the title of a person. "Treat a person as an end and never as a means," said I. Kant. This principle is leveled in the context of the modern type of public relations. Everywhere one can hear the attitude towards a person as a more or less valuable resource, as a functionary who more or less effectively performs the social tasks assigned to him. It is not only about the relationship of a person to a person, but also about the relationship in relation to certain groups, communities of people and even entire peoples.
The appeal to the potential of "traditional culture" for self-rescue in this perspective looks only as a "glossing over" of problems, a situational removal of symptoms. The harmonization of social relations, built on the revision of the foundations of human existence, makes it possible for tradition to exist as an expression of the living ability to inherit the experience of its predecessors, to reproduce an adequate reality of the form of existence, behavior, and thinking.

Conclusions
The methodological impasse provoked by the introduction of the term "traditional culture" is due to the fact that it contains the researcher's claim to search for what can ensure unity. But in reality, it orients the researcher to search for the uniform, the same, common, characteristic of all. In this case, it is overlooked that unity is formed not on the basis of uniformity, sameness, but on the basis of the presence of a Common Cause, such an organization of life in which diverse elements are organically interwoven into the logic of the social process.
Otherwise, we are dealing with "traditional culture" as an element of a socially split existence that exists as a clue to resist undesirable, unpredictable, alien processes. The experience accumulated by the "traditional culture" is also applied situationally, manipulatively, by choosing from the existing experience what seems useful to apply at the moment. For, being at the mercy of processes alien to man and to man, the "split man" chooses from the box of traditions at the moment when he finds himself in situations dictated by the" split " social process. At home, at work, in various situational contexts, different types of behavior and reactions to what is happening are required from a person, and so he relies on the traditions of the family, then on the traditions of the collective, then on the traditions of the ethnic group, then on the traditions of the social community, which often contradict each other.
Thus, attempts to appeal to traditional culture turn into a choice from an array and manipulation of existing "puzzles" in the form of ideas, patterns of behavior, stereotypes, patterns of action, based on an arbitrary, subjective choice dictated by personal/ corporate interests.
Overcoming the contradictions set by the modern world, solving the problems of fitting peoples into the global world lies not in the sphere of nostalgia for past traditions and their resuscitation, but in the sphere of harmonizing social relations, creating conditions for a person in which he could carry out socially significant self-realization, feel in demand, adequately understood and evaluated, such conditions in which he could feel like a person.