AN ATTEMPT TO COMPARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF “TRADITIONAL”/RURAL AND “MODERN”/URBAN (SUB)CULTURES UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF GEORGIA (A MATERIAL FOR REFLECTION)

Abstract

Today, Georgian society is going through a difficult, but inevitable and irreversible historical stage of urbanization and living in an urban environment. However, it is not enough to evaluate the trend of urbani zation only based on statistical data – it is much more important to reveal the qualitative characteristics of this process. The management of the urbanization process, full-fledged socio-economic success and sustainability are highly dependent on the deep understanding and practical comprehension of the nature of this pheno menon by all groups or individual members of the society. Moreover, such an approach, at the current stage of public development, should become the basis of the national ideology; all the institutions of the society’s activities and sectoral policies are to be built on it. It is no secret that, historically, Georgian culture is rural, traditionalist; urban forms in it were of a discrete nature and were mainly related to the economic activities of foreign elements – handicrafts and trade; often, it was even related to urban management. We still think of Georgian (national) culture with the categories of a single, seemingly inseparable, indivisible body, and we pay less attention to the dynamic processes of differentiation taking place in it, first of all, the irreversible formation of modern Georgian urban culture. In this regard, it is very important to understand the crystallization of urban (sub)culture in the core of universal Georgian culture. For a wide circle of our compatriots, this (sub)culture is an ephemeral thing; its intangible, invisible characteristics or manifestations are little understood. That is why it is important to reveal and present the characteristics of rural and urban (sub)cultures as concretely as possible, often in an exaggerated manner. The theoretical work of Louis Wirth, a prominent representative of the Chicago ecological school, which became a classic of urban sociology, “Urbanism as a way of life” led me to be interested in this 16 საქართველოს პირობებში „ტრადიციონალისტური“ და „მოდერნისტული“ კულტურების მახასიათებელთა... topic. He examines urban characteristics against the background of the second cultural pole – rural culture. As for the empirical study of this problem, it is worth noting the important and thorough work – “The Polish Peasant in Europe and America” – written by William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki. In his well-known monograph “The Culture of Cities”, Lewis Mumford formulated a large-scale, multi faceted definition of the city: “A city, in its full sense, is a geographical complex, an economic organization, an institutional process, a theater of social action and an aesthetic symbol of collective unity.” Earlier, Max Weber, a classic of urban sociology, in his “Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” provided a theoretical-methodological basis for the understanding of the city nature. But what are the immanent components/characteristics of the both – rural and urban – (sub)cultures? In this paper comparison of this components is suggested in the format of table. In order to better under stand the content of the publication, it is necessary to present some preliminary reservations: (1) “comparison” does not mean “confrontation”; (2) the definition “rural” do not bear the load of negative or pejorative connotation; (3) proposed characteristics are a theoretical construct, because, in a pure, “sterile” form, these characte ristics – due to sociocultural diffusion in the process of urbanization – actually no longer exist. This creates a very significant phenomenon – the marginalization of a certain part of the modern Georgian society. (4) our society does not exist in the described two polar states – “classic village” or “classic city” – but on a certain and dynamic scale of the sociocultural continuum, where each concrete/personal situation is defined by a specific, unique combination of factors; (5) not the current state of some characteristic that should be taken into account, but a sufficiently dis tinct, clear trend; (6) The proposed oppositions, in their rural part, are relevant for the Georgian, or, if you like, Caucasian cultural circle; and in the urban part, they reflect the historically formed urban characteristics of the developed countries of Western Europe; (7) The main thing for the reader is to see “geo-referentiality” in each pair of opposing features, and in the continuum between them, i.e. the influence of spatial behavior models (“patterns”) of people or institu tions on the space of society’s activity (territorial organization, anthropogenic structures, etc.). (8) The table reflects only the subjective position of the author and does not represent the claim of “ultimate instance truth”. The opposing pairs of features are grouped under the following broad thematic headings: – – – Settlement system, manmade environment; Economy, time, work; Policy, management, information; – Nature; – Socio-demographic and psychological patterns; – Culture and art. Such a formal way, in some cases, can be too conditional or rigid and, according to the reader’s opinion, may be regrouped. The free lines left at the bottom of the table are not accidental – it means that in the reality of Georgia, one can endlessly enumerate opposite pairs representing rural and urban (sub)cultures. The interested reader will fill in the gaps of the article seen with his/her own eyes and mind. This is the purpose of the pu blication – activation of professional and public opinion and awareness of the way of life in the contempo rary urbanized world.