Jose ortega and gasset mass culture concept. Mass culture

The theme of the game also inspired the Spanish philosopher J. Ortega y Gasset (1889-1955). Like Huizinga, Ortega is concerned about the fate of modern culture, the crisis of the existence of the individual in the conditions of "mass society". He sees the way to save culture in the preservation of the spiritual values ​​of the aristocratic elite. Ortega is rightfully called an elite theorist. He quite clearly expressed his sociological ideas in a small but widely known book, The Dehumanization of Art.

His concept of culture consists of the following ideas:

1. There are two varieties of the human race: the mass, which is the "bone matter of the historical process"; the elite is a particularly gifted minority, the creators of genuine culture. The purpose of the "best" is to be in the minority and fight the majority.

For a century and a half, the gray mob claimed to represent "the whole of society." With this Ortega connects all the ills of Europe. In his opinion, the time is approaching when society, from politics to art, again begins to take shape, as it should, into two orders or ranks: the order of outstanding people and the order of ordinary people.

2. The life of outstanding people is concentrated in the field of gaming activities. The game is opposed to everyday life, utilitarianism and vulgarity of human existence.

3. The mode of being of the real person lies in tragedy. The tragic hero is the chosen one, belonging to the spiritual elite, whose defining quality is the ability to contemplative play. Unlike the layman, the hero does not take necessity into account, resists the usual and generally accepted, is guided by his own free will.

4. “The system of values ​​that organized human activity some thirty years ago has lost its obviousness, attractiveness, and imperativeness. western man fell ill with pronounced disorientation, no longer knowing which stars to live by” 7 .

5. Landmarks in the chaos of a culture devoid of an internal structure, in creating a game utopia of a sports and festive attitude to life. The image of a new worldview is revealed in exemplary art. New art ("modernism") is always comic in character. Not really

7 Ortega y Gasset X. The theme of our time // Self-consciousness of European culture of the XX century. M., 1991. P. 264.

6. New style trends: 1) dehumanization trend; 2) a tendency to avoid living forms; 3) the desire to ensure that a work of art was only a work of art; 4) the desire to understand art as a game and only; 5) attraction to deep irony; 6) the tendency to avoid any falseness and, in this regard, careful performance skills; 7) art, according to the opinion of young artists, is certainly alien to any kind of transcendence, i.e. going beyond possible experience.

7. The generic and most characteristic feature of the new creativity and the new aesthetic feeling is the tendency towards dehumanization. Artists have imposed a "taboo" on any attempt to instill "humanity" in art. "Human" is a complex of elements that make up our familiar world. The artist decides to go against this world, defiantly deform it. “With what is depicted on traditional canvases, we could mentally get used to it. Many Englishmen fell in love with Gioconda, but it is impossible to get along with the things depicted on modern canvases: depriving them of a living
"reality", the artist destroyed the bridges and burned the ships that could take us to our ordinary world" 8 .

8. A person who finds himself in an incomprehensible world is forced to invent a new, unprecedented type of behavior, to create a new life, an invented life. This life is not devoid of feelings and passions, but these are specifically aesthetic feelings. Preoccupation with what is truly human is incompatible with aesthetic pleasure.

9. The crowd believes that breaking away from reality is easy for an artist, when in fact it is the most difficult thing in the world. To create something that would not copy "nature" and, however, would have a certain content - this implies a high gift. The new game art is elitist. It is available only to a gifted minority, the aristocrats of the spirit.

10. Reality is occupied by a mass of inhabitants. Philistinism grows to the size of all mankind. The human is equated with the unspiritual. Human experiences reproduced by art are considered as mindlessly mechanical, having nothing to do with artistry. In contrast to the set of negative realities of bourgeois culture, creative imagination needs to construct the world of aesthetic play as a true being of the spirit.

11. All activities related to the fulfillment of certain goals are life only of the second order. In contrast, in play activity, the original vital activity manifests itself naturally, aimlessly, freely. It does not arise from the need to achieve some results and is not a forced action. This is a voluntary manifestation of forces, an impulse not foreseen in advance. A person can rise above the dreary world of everyday life only by moving into the area of ​​non-utilitarian relations. The best example of aimless tension is sports. Sports activity is the original, creative, most important in human life, and labor is just
its derived activity, or residue. "Sportiness" is not just a state of consciousness of an individual, it is his worldview principle.

The general meaning of the concepts of Huizinga's "game" and Ortega's "sportiness" is the same. At the same time, it should be noted that for Huizinga, aesthetic play is primarily a social and public activity. Ortega, in the first place, sets the task of saving culture from the "revolt of the masses", and declares the elite to be the savior.

The most important, if not defining, feature of "mass society" is "mass culture". Responding to the general spirit of the times, it, unlike the social practice of all previous eras, has become one of the most profitable sectors of the economy since about the middle of our century and even receives the appropriate names: “entertainment industry”, “commercial culture”, “pop culture”, “ leisure industry”, etc. By the way, the last of the above designations reveals another reason for the emergence of "mass culture" - the appearance in a significant layer of working citizens of an excess of free time, "leisure", due to a high level of mechanization. production process. More and more people have a need to "kill time". To satisfy it, of course, for money, “mass culture” is designed, which manifests itself mainly in the sensual sphere, i.e. in all forms of literature and art. Cinema, television and, of course, sports (in its purely spectator part) have become especially important channels for the general democratization of culture in recent decades, gathering huge and not very picky audiences, driven only by the desire for psychological relaxation.

Society, according to the author, is divided into a minority and a mass - this is the next key point of the reviewed work. Society is aristocratic in its very essence, society, Ortega emphasizes, but not the state. Minority Ortega refers to the totality of persons endowed with special qualities that the mass does not possess, the mass is average person. According to Gasset: “... the division of society into masses and selected minorities ... does not coincide either with the division into social classes or with their hierarchy ... within any class there are their own masses and minorities. We have yet to be convinced that plebeianism and oppression of the masses, even in traditionally elite circles, are a characteristic feature of our time. ... The peculiarity of our time is that ordinary souls, not being deceived by their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it, impose it on everyone and everywhere. As the Americans say, it's indecent to be different. Mass crushes everything unlike, outstanding, personal and best. Who is not like everyone else, who thinks not like everyone else, runs the risk of becoming an outcast. And it is clear that "everything" is not everything. The world has usually been a heterogeneous unity of the masses and independent minorities. Today the whole world is becoming a mass.” It must be remembered that the author means the 30s of the last century.

Having become a commodity for the market, “mass culture”, which is hostile to any kind of elitism, has a number of distinguishing features. First of all, this is its "simplicity", if not primitiveness, often turning into a cult of mediocrity, because it is designed for a "man from the street." To fulfill its function - to relieve strong industrial stresses - "mass culture" must be at least entertaining; addressed to people often with an insufficiently developed intellectual beginning, it largely exploits such areas of the human psyche as the subconscious and instincts.

All this corresponds to the prevailing theme of “mass culture”, which receives large incomes from the exploitation of such “interesting” and understandable topics for all people as love, family, sex, career, crime and violence, adventure, horror, etc.

It is curious and psychotherapeutically positive that, on the whole, “mass culture” is cheerful, eschews really unpleasant or depressing plots for the audience, and the corresponding works usually end with a happy ending. It is not surprising that, along with the “average” person, one of the consumers of such products is the pragmatically minded part of the youth, not weighed down by life experience, not losing optimism and still little thinking about the cardinal problems of human existence.

In connection with such generally recognized features of "mass culture" as its emphasized commercial nature, as well as the simplicity of this "culture" and its predominant orientation to entertainment, the absence of large human ideas in it, one important theoretical question arises: did "mass culture" exist? in the now collapsed Soviet Union? Based on the above, apparently not. But, undoubtedly, there was its own special “Soviet” or “Soviet” culture of totalitarianism, which was not elitist and not “mass”, but reflected the general leveling and ideologized nature of Soviet society. However, this question requires a separate cultural study.

The phenomenon of "mass culture" described above, from the point of view of its role in the development of modern civilization, is assessed by scientists far from unambiguously. Depending on the inclination towards an elitist or populist way of thinking, culturologists tend to consider it either something like a social pathology, a symptom of the degeneration of society, or, conversely, an important factor in its health and internal stability. O. Spengler, X. Ortega y Gasset, E. Fromm, N.A. Berdyaev and many others. The latter are represented by L. White and T. Parsons, already mentioned by us. A critical approach to "mass culture" comes down to its accusations of neglecting the classical heritage, that it is supposedly an instrument of conscious manipulation of people; enslaves and unifies the main creator of any culture - the sovereign personality; contributes to its alienation from real life; distracts people from their main task - "the spiritual and practical development of the world" (K. Marx).

The apologetic approach, on the contrary, is expressed in the fact that “mass culture” is proclaimed a natural consequence of irreversible scientific and technological progress, that it helps to unite people, especially young people, regardless of any ideologies and national and ethnic differences, into a stable social system and not just don't reject cultural heritage past, but also makes its best examples available to the widest strata of the people by replicating them through the press, radio, television and industrial reproduction. The debate about the harm or benefit of "mass culture" has a purely political aspect: both democrats and supporters of authoritarian power, not without reason, seek to use this objective and very important phenomenon of our time in their own interests. During the Second World War and in the post-war period, the problems of "mass culture", especially its most important element - the mass media, were studied with equal attention both in democratic and totalitarian states.

As a reaction to "mass culture" and its use in the ideological confrontation between "capitalism" and "socialism" by the 70s. of our century, in certain sections of society, especially in the youth and materially secure environment of industrialized countries, an informal set of behavioral attitudes, called "counterculture", is taking shape. This term was proposed by the American sociologist T. Rozzak in his work “The Formation of the Counterculture” (1969), although, in general, F. Nietzsche with his admiration for the “Dionysian” beginning in culture is considered the ideological forerunner of this phenomenon in the West. Perhaps the most obvious and striking expression of the counterculture was the movement of the so-called "hippies" that quickly spread across all continents, although it by no means exhausts this broad and rather vague concept.

Its adherents include, for example, "rockers" - motorsport fanatics; and "skinheads" - skinheads, usually with a fascist ideology; and "punks", associated with the "punk rock" musical movement and having incredible hairstyles of different colors; and "teds" - the ideological enemies of "punks" who protect physical health, order and stability (cf. we have a recent confrontation between "hippies" and "lubers"), and many other informal youth groups. Recently, in connection with a sharp property stratification in Russia, the so-called majors have also appeared - usually the most prosperous youngsters from the commercial semi-criminal world - "rich men", whose behavior and attitudes go back to Western "poppers", American "yoppies", striving outwardly show themselves as "the cream of society." Naturally, they are guided by Western cultural values ​​and act as antipodes of both pro-communist guardians of the past and youth national patriots.

The movements of "hippies", "beatniks" and other social phenomena similar to them were a revolt against the post-war nuclear and technotronic reality, which threatened new cataclysms in the name of ideological and everyday stereotypes alien to the "free" person. Preachers and adherents of the “counterculture” were distinguished by a manner of thinking, feeling and communicating that shocked the layman, a cult of spontaneous, uncontrollable behavior, a penchant for mass “parties”, even orgies, often with the use of drugs (“drug culture”), the organization of various kinds of youth “communes ”and “collective families” with open, “randomly ordered” intimate ties, interest in the occult and religious mysticism of the East, multiplied by the “sexual-revolutionary” “mysticism of the body”, etc.

As a protest against the material well-being, conformism and lack of spirituality of the most "rich" part of humanity, the counterculture in the person of its followers made the main object of its criticism, or rather, its contempt, the existing social structures, scientific and technological progress, opposing ideologies and the post-industrial "consumer society" as a whole. with its everyday standards and stereotypes, the cult of petty-bourgeois "happiness", hoarding, "success in life" and moral complexes. Property, family, nation, work ethic, personal responsibility, and other traditional values ​​of modern civilization were hailed as unnecessary superstitions, and their advocates were viewed as retrogrades. It is easy to see that all this is reminiscent of the eternal conflict of "fathers" and "children", and indeed, some scientists, paying attention to the predominantly youthful nature of the "counterculture", consider it as social infantilism, a "childhood disease" of modern youth, whose physical maturation is much ahead of her civic development. Many former "rebels" later become completely law-abiding representatives of the "establishment".

Nevertheless, questions arise: how to relate to youth, "informal", often rebellious culture? Whether to be for it or against it? Is it a phenomenon of our age, or has it always existed? The answers are quite clear: the youth subculture should be treated with understanding. Reject the aggressive, destructive, extremist principle in it: both political radicalism and hedonistic drug escapism; support the pursuit of creativity and novelty, remembering that the greatest movements of our century - in defense of the natural environment, the anti-war movement, the movement for the moral renewal of mankind, as well as the newest art schools born from a bold experiment - were the result of a disinterested, if sometimes naive impulse youth to improve the world around. Youth informal culture, which is by no means reduced to the prefixes of counter- and sub-, existed at all times and among all peoples, just as there were eternally certain intellectual and psychological potentialities of a certain age. But just as an individual cannot be divided into a young man and an old man, so youth culture cannot be artificially separated from the “adult” and “old man’s”, because they all mutually balance and enrich each other.

CONCLUSION

Summing up all of the above, let us once again outline the key provisions of the refereed book by Ortega y Gasset "The Revolt of the Masses".

"Massa", as Ortega y Gasset believes, is "a set of persons not distinguished by anything." According to him, plebeianism and oppression of the masses even in traditionally elite circles - feature modernity: "ordinary souls, not deceived by their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it and impose it on everyone and everywhere." Newly appeared political regimes are the result of "the political dictate of the masses." At the same time, according to Ortega y Gasset, the more aristocratic a society is, the more society it is, and vice versa. The masses, having reached a comparatively high standard of living, have "gone out of obedience, do not submit to any minority, do not follow it, and not only do not consider it, but even oust it and interfere with it themselves." The author emphasizes the calling of people “to be eternally condemned to freedom, to eternally decide what you will become in this world. And decide tirelessly and without respite. To the representative of the masses, life appears to be "devoid of barriers": "the average person assimilates as the truth that all people are legally equal." The “man of the masses” derives satisfaction from the feeling of identity with his own kind. His mental warehouse is the type of a spoiled child.

In the 20th century, the processes of urbanization and the rupture of social ties of migration of the population acquired an unprecedented scope. The just past century provided enormous material for understanding the essence and role of the masses, whose volcanic ejection into the arena of history occurred at such a speed that they did not have the opportunity to join the values ​​of traditional culture. These processes are described and explained by various theories of mass society, among which the first holistic version was its "aristocratic" version, which received the most complete expression in the work of J. Ortega y Gasset "The Revolt of the Masses".

Analyzing the phenomenon of the “mass uprising”, the Spanish philosopher notes the front side of the domination of the masses, which marks a general rise in the historical level, and this, in turn, means that everyday life today has reached a higher level. He defines the contemporary era (the need to take into account the difference in eras when analyzing this work was indicated above) as a time of equalization: there is an equalization of wealth, the stronger and weaker sex, the continents are equalized, therefore, the European who was earlier at a lower life mark only benefited from this equalization . From this point of view, the invasion of the masses looks like an unprecedented surge of vitality and opportunities, and this phenomenon contradicts the well-known statement of O. Spengler about the decline of Europe. Gasset considers this expression itself dark and clumsy, and if it can still be useful, he believes, then only in relation to statehood and culture, but not in any way in relation to the vitality of an ordinary European. Decline, according to Ortega, is a comparative concept. Comparison can be made from any point of view, but the researcher considers the point of view “from within” to be the only justified and natural point of view. And for this it is necessary to plunge into life, and, having seen it "from the inside", make a judgment whether it feels decadent, in other words, weak, insipid and meager. The attitude of a modern person, his vitality are due to "the consciousness of unprecedented opportunities and the seeming infantilism of bygone eras." Thus, as long as there is no feeling of loss of vitality, and there can be no talk of a comprehensive decline, one can speak only of a partial decline, which concerns the secondary products of history - culture and nations.

The uprising of the masses is thus like a collective delusion, which is accompanied by a frenzy of hatred towards the arguments of common sense and those who try to convey them to the consciousness of the people.

The main achievement in my opinion is that Ortega y Gaset introduced the concept of "man - mass", which means the average person who feels like everyone else. The "man-mass" is lazy to bother himself with critical thinking, and is not always capable of it, the "man-mass" does not seek to prove his case and does not want to recognize someone else's.

Similar information.

The relationship between national and world culture in the "National Images of the World" G.D. Gachev.

National culture - it is a form of culture that is created and in which they realize themselves nation – specific ethno-social communities of people who “have a self-name, a common historical territory, common myths and historical memory, a mass civic culture, a common economy, and the same legal rights and obligations for all members” (Anthony D. Smith)

World culture is a synthesis of the best achievements of all national cultures.

Being a social organism, a social community, the nation independently determines its cultural development, but at the same time focuses on the world culture that influences this development. Considering national culture as a natural step in the development of world culture and a necessary contribution to human civilization, it can be defined as a synthesis of national-original, foreign and universal (world), processed and mastered by national culture. Hence, there are two types of development of each national culture: firstly, as unique, unique in form, and, secondly, as part of world culture, conscious and manifesting itself in it. But in both cases it contains and expresses in one form or another the universal principle.

Gachev Georgy Dmitrievich - Russian literary critic, philosopher, culturologist. In works devoted to national cultures, he analyzes the mental, everyday structures of the existence of peoples, correlates them with literary, philosophical texts created by national thinkers and writers, draws on material from the sphere of art, science, religion, etc., on the basis of which the “national culture” can be reconstructed. image of the world" of a particular culture.

The question of whether a person belongs to a particular nation and people is one of the most ancient human questions.

In "National Images of the World" by G.D. Gacheva - Every nation sees the entire universe, material and spiritual values ​​and phenomena in it in a special aspect and turn, adhering to its national logic. The national image of the world is the dictate of national nature and culture.

It is impossible to grasp what a nation is in its entirety only by analyzing some individual forms of the national in culture. National culture should be understood as a whole, as a single system of elements, each of which reflects all the others.

Mass and elite culture. "Rise of the Masses" by José Ortega y Gasset

Mass culture- culture, widespread, i.e. popular and predominant among the general population in a given society. It includes such phenomena as sports, entertainment, everyday life, music, including pop-music, literature, mass media, visual arts, including biennale, etc.

Elite culture- a subculture of privileged groups of society, characterized by fundamental closeness, spiritual aristocracy and value-semantic self-sufficiency. Appealing to a select minority of his subjects, who, as a rule, are both its creators and addressees (in any case, the circle of both almost coincides), E.K. consciously and consistently opposes the culture of the majority, or mass culture in the broadest sense.

Mass (popular) and elite culture - these are elements or forms of culture that stand out in cultural studies and other humanities when describing a peculiar phenomenon social heterogeneity societies of the era of modern civilization.

Jose Ortega y Gasset- Spanish philosopher, essayist, art historian, critic, publicist and public figure. The work "The Revolt of the Masses" is the main sociological and one of the most important cultural works of his. It is in this work that the philosopher is engaged in the study of the conflict between mass and elite culture, subjecting to a comprehensive analysis of the new phenomenon for the culture of his time, the phenomenon of a person of a “mass” consumer society.

Ortega y Gasset states the fact of a deep crisis in the Western culture of his time. He describes the essence of this crisis with the formula of “mass uprising”, which indicates that if earlier the values ​​of culture were created, protected and served for the benefit only of those who could appreciate them, then from the 20s of the 20th century these values as well as the achievements of material culture and cultural, social and political centers, were at the mercy of the "crowd" - the mass of consumer-minded people, devoid of moral and aesthetic principles.

The mass man is not necessarily a representative of the working class. The main difference between a mass man and a minority (elite) person unlike him is not in social origin, but in the fact that a mass man is an “average man”, he wants “like everyone else”, he is comfortable with the “crowd”, while the representative of the elite cherishes his individual attitude to the world and culture and in every possible way eschews the spirit of mediocrity cultivated by the crowd.

Mass culture or pop culture, mass culture, majority culture A culture that is popular and dominant among the general population in a given society. It includes such phenomena as sports, entertainment, everyday life, music, including pop music, literature, mass media, fine arts, etc.

The content of mass culture is determined by daily events, aspirations and needs that make up the life of the majority of the population (the so-called mainstream). The term "mass culture" originated in the 1940s. XX century in the texts of M. Horkheimer and D. MacDonald, dedicated to the criticism of television. The term became widespread thanks to the works of representatives of the Frankfurt sociological school.

Mass culture is the opposite of traditional culture.

The prerequisites for the formation of mass culture are laid down in the very existence of the structure of society. José Ortega y Gasset formulated a well-known approach to structuring on the basis of creativity. Then the idea arises of the "creative elite", which, naturally, constitutes a smaller part of society, and of the "mass" - quantitatively the main part of the population. Accordingly, it becomes possible to speak about the culture of the elite ("elitist culture") and the culture of the "mass" - "mass culture". During this period, there is a division of culture, determined by the formation of new significant social strata, gaining access to a full-fledged education, but not belonging to the elite. Getting the opportunity for a conscious aesthetic perception of cultural phenomena, newly emerging social groups, constantly communicating with the masses, make “elitist” phenomena significant on a social scale and at the same time show interest in “mass” culture, in some cases they are mixed (see, for example, Charles Dickens).

In the twentieth century, mass society and the mass culture associated with it became the subject of research by the most prominent scientists in various scientific fields: the philosophers José Ortega y Gasset (“The Revolt of the Masses”), Karl Jaspers (“The Spiritual Situation of the Time”), Oswald Spengler (“The Sunset of Europe"); sociologists Jean Baudrillard (“Phantoms of Modernity”), P. A. Sorokin (“Man. Civilization. Society.”) and others. Analyzing mass culture, each of them notes the trend towards its commercialization.

56. Islamic culture, Koran as a monument of culture.

Islam was born 6

century AD on the territory of the Arabian peninsula. He is

monotheistic tradition, i.e. tradition of professing monotheism. Islam

denies polytheism. The second monotheistic tradition is Judaism and

Christianity. Islam, along with Judaism and Christianity, belongs to

Abrahamic tradition. This tradition preaches belief in one God and

complete submission to the divine will, as the fundamental principles of life

way. The founder of Islam was the prophet Muhammad. However, he did not put his

the task of creating a new religion among other religions. Before Islam was

tasked with updating the original monotheistic tradition, which with

lost in the course of historical time. The concept of Islam is obedience to

divine will and it is customary to elevate it to the Arabic word Salim (peace).

Muhammad's sermon undermined the complex system of power, as well as material

interests of the priesthood, in 622 he was forced to leave Mecca and go to Medina.

This year is called Hijr. It marks the beginning of the Muslim era. In Medina

Muhammad organizes religious life and also leads the military

actions against those whom the Muslims called infidels, as a result, the troops

Muhammad enter Mecca, which becomes the main direction in prayer and

place of pilgrimage for Muslims. After the death of Muhammad in 632

the position of Caliph is restored. 4 first caliphs are called correct

caliphs. In 661, after the death of Caliph Ali, power was established

aristocratic dynasty of the Aleiads (until 750) At this time, the Muslim

civilization has expanded greatly. Near East, north were captured

Africa, Spain and the territory of modern Afghanistan. Since the 11th century

Turks become the strongest wars. The Seljuks stand out. In the 13th century domination

passes to the Mongols, who at the turn of the 13th-14th century. accept Islam. From 14-19

centuries, Muslim civilization is associated with the Ottoman Empire. Through

trade routes connect Muslim countries, convert Indonesia to Islam,

Malaysia, some regions of Africa located beyond the Sahara desert. Now

Muslim civilization has a significant area of ​​its distribution and

has a powerful intellect, creativity, political potential.

Muslim art

imbued with the idea of ​​divine unity, it cannot be expressed through any image.

This circumstance explains the abstract nature of Muslim art.

The doctrine forbids the depiction of the human image, but the prohibition of images

is not absolute. In the architecture of palaces or jewelry art

images of animals are allowed. Sacred art provides

plant forms. The absence of an image affirms a transcendent god,

because the divine essence in general cannot be compared with anything else.

Muslim architecture leans towards clarity and balance, subordination

unity of lightness to the whole. Mus. Architecture went in the direction of the geometer.

subtlety that has a qualitative character and expresses the entire internal

the complexity of unity and its manifestation in plurality. The task of the Muslim

architecture is a comparison of atmospheres of peace, free from any

aspiration, which indicates the attainment of eternity. Calligraphy is

the noblest of the arts in the world of Islam. With their riches Arabic script

due to the fact that it has two dimensions: this is the vertical dimension

giving the letter and nobility. Horizontal - combines all letters in

continuous flow. According to Muslim esoteric views, the Arabic language

one of the most consistent with the original language of the golden age of human

stories. The so-called language of angels, which in tradition is referred to as the language

Koran- the holy book of Muslims (professing Islam). The word "Quran" comes from the Arabic "reading aloud", "edification" (Koran, 75:16-18). The Koran is a collection of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, made by him on behalf of Allah. The modern edition of the Qur'an is considered to be a compilation of the surviving sayings of Muhammad, compiled by his secretary, Zayd ibn Thabit, at the behest of Omar ibn Khattab and Abu Bakr.

For more than a billion Muslims, the Koran is a sacred book that requires special treatment. Muslims treat the Quran with reverence. Many Muslims memorize at least part of the Quran by heart. As a rule, these are verses necessary for the fulfillment of prayers. Those who have memorized the entire Qur'an bear the title of hafiz.

“In essence, to experience the mass as a psychological reality, it does not require human gatherings. By one single person, you can determine whether it is a mass or not.

The mass is anyone and everyone who, neither in good nor in evil, does not measure himself by a special measure, but feels the same, “like everyone else”, and is not only not depressed, but is pleased with his own indistinguishability.

Imagine that the most a common person, trying to measure himself with a special measure - wondering if he has some kind of talent, skill, dignity - he is convinced that No none. This person will feel mediocrity, mediocrity, dullness. But not in bulk. Usually, speaking of the “chosen minority”, they distort the meaning of this expression, pretending to forget that the elect are not those who arrogantly put themselves higher, but those who demand more from themselves, even if the demand on themselves is unbearable. And, of course, the most radical thing is to divide humanity into two classes: those who demand a lot from themselves and take on burdens and obligations, and those who do not demand anything and for whom to live is to go with the flow, remaining so, whatever it is, and not trying to outgrow yourself. This reminds me of two branches of orthodox Buddhism: the more difficult and demanding Mahayana - the "big vehicle" or "great path" - and the more casual and faded Hinayana - the "small vehicle" or "small path." The main and decisive thing is to what chariot we entrust our lives.

Thus, the division of society into the masses and selected minorities is typological and does not coincide with either the division into social classes or their hierarchy. Of course, it is easier for the upper class, when it becomes the upper class and while it really remains so, to put forward the man of the "great chariot" than the lower one. But in reality, within any class there are masses and minorities of their own. We have yet to be convinced that plebeianism and oppression of the masses, even in traditionally elite circles, are a characteristic feature of our time. Thus intellectual life, seemingly exacting to thought, becomes the triumphal road of pseudo-intellectuals, who do not think, are unthinkable, and are in no way acceptable. Nothing better than the remains of the "aristocracy", both male and female. And, on the contrary, in the working environment, which was previously considered the standard of the "mass", it is not uncommon today to meet souls of the highest temper.

The mass is mediocrity, and if she believed in her giftedness, there would not be a social shift, but only self-deception. The peculiarity of our time is that ordinary souls, not being deceived about their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it and impose it on everyone and everywhere. As the Americans say, it's indecent to be different. Mass crushes everything unlike, outstanding, personal and best. Who is not like everyone else, who thinks not like everyone else, runs the risk of becoming an outcast. […]

Like those mollusks that cannot be pulled out of a shell, a fool cannot be lured out of his stupidity, pushed out, forced to look around for a moment beyond his cataracts and compare his habitual blindness with the sharpness of vision of others. He is stupid for life and solid. not without reason Anatole France said that a fool is more pernicious than a villain. Because the villain sometimes takes a break.

It's not that the mass man is stupid. On the contrary, today his mental abilities and possibilities are wider than ever. But this does not suit him for the future: in fact, a vague sense of his capabilities only encourages him to clog up and not use them. Once and for all, he sanctifies that mishmash of common truths, incoherent thoughts and just verbal garbage that has accumulated in him by chance, and imposes it everywhere and everywhere, acting out of the simplicity of his soul, and therefore without fear and reproach. This is what I was talking about in the first chapter: the specificity of our time is not that mediocrity considers itself outstanding, but that it proclaims and asserts its right to vulgarity, or, in other words, affirms vulgarity as a right. […]

Formerly in European history The mob has never been delusional about their own "ideas" about anything. She inherited beliefs, customs, worldly experience, mental skills, proverbs and sayings, but did not appropriate speculative judgments, for example, about politics or art, and did not determine what they are and what they should become. She approved or condemned what the politician conceived and carried out, supported or deprived him of support, but her actions were reduced to a response, sympathetic or vice versa, to the creative will of another. It never crossed her mind either to oppose the “ideas” of a politician of her own, or even to judge them, relying on a certain set of “ideas” recognized as her own. It was the same with art and other areas of public life. The innate consciousness of its narrowness, unpreparedness for theorizing erected a blank wall. It followed naturally that the plebeian did not dare to participate even remotely in almost any social life, for the most part always conceptual. Today, on the contrary, the average person has the most rigorous ideas about everything that is happening and should be happening in the universe. So he learned to listen. Why, if he finds all the answers in himself? There is no point in listening, and, on the contrary, it is much more natural to judge, to decide, to pronounce judgment. There was no such social problem left, no matter where he interfered, everywhere remaining deaf and blind and everywhere imposing his "views". But isn't that an achievement? […]

... a new human type has matured - mediocrity incarnate. In social terms, the psychological structure of this beginner is determined by the following: firstly, an underlying and innate sense of the lightness and abundance of life, devoid of heavy restrictions, and, secondly, as a result of this, a sense of one’s own superiority and omnipotence, which naturally encourages one to accept oneself as such. , which is, and consider their mental and moral level more than sufficient. This self-sufficiency commands not to succumb to external influence, not to question one's views and not to reckon with anyone. The habit of feeling superior constantly arouses the desire to dominate. And the mass man behaves as if only he and others like him exist in the world, and hence his third feature is to interfere in everything, imposing his wretchedness unceremoniously, recklessly, without delay and unconditionally, that is, in the spirit of "direct action".

This combination brings to mind such flawed human individuals as a spoiled child and an enraged savage, that is, a barbarian. (A normal savage, on the contrary, like no one else, follows the highest institutions - faith, taboos, covenants and customs.) […] A being that in our days has penetrated everywhere and everywhere has shown its barbaric essence, and indeed the darling of human history. A darling is an heir who is kept solely as an heir. Our legacy is civilization with its conveniences, guarantees and other benefits.

José Ortega y Gasset, Revolt of the Masses, in Sat: Crowd Psychology: Social and Political Mechanisms of Influencing the Masses, M., Eksmo; SPb "Terra Fantastica", 2003, p. 420-421, 434-435, 447-448.