Chapter 1   The Importance of Culture

The Importance of Culture

Many have already expressed the  idea that here at the end of the  20th century we are  standing at a crossroads  in the development of civilization, that  one epoch is most probably at an  end and that  the door is  open to a  new one based on a different attitude of man to  the world and to himself. One of the consequences of  this transformation is a reemphasized interest   in  culture,   arts  and   aesthetic  values.  The theoreticians of deconstruction point  to the collapse of the traditional pillars  of European culture: "God  is dead. Self has disappeared. History is at an end. The book is closed."1
F.  Nietzsche once  said that  God is  dead. God  as a firm basis of the values ladder  began to die in 19th-century man, and became  dead definitely in  the 20th century.  Even where God "has not died", He has lost His general cultural meaning, He  is no  longer the  basic values  standard that  preserved culture  as a  concise whole  and set  the boundaries for the permitted and the impossible.
The solid system of human values that had been functioning for centuries collapsed. What vanished was the depth of human involvement  in culture;  culture ceased  to provide  us with generally accepted truths  and started intentionally negating the depth  and abundance of experience.  These places are now occupied  by   empty  abstractions.  Art,   beauty,  freedom, tragedy, democracy, and individualism are losing their deeply human content;  only their denominations  remain to man  who, instead of experiencing freedom and beauty deeply, only talks about  them. A  scientific, logical  or analytic  approach is triumphant, yet  at the same moment  disintegrating, as it is powerless  solving even  one problem  of human  intimacy. The universally developed  market converts everything,  even what remains (big words like beauty,  human being), into money, so that these  words convey nothing,  they are merely  purchased and  sold.  Instead  of  scientific imperialism, market-based economic imperialism  entered the scene in  the 20th century. Scientific,  analytical thinking  is conditioned  by the even more   powerful   market,   economic   thinking.  Experience, impression,  imagination  are  becoming  completely separated from  human existence  -  the  human interior;  experience is something different than talking about human existence, about human  experience -  which  is  something different  than the safeguarding of  the human life.  Creative self-expression is of  no importance  and even  its comprehensible communication loses  all sense.  Only  its  intensity and  originality play a role in its being sold at a good price.
Due to  the extreme subjectivity of  values, even the image of history is made relative  and disintegrated, which, in our century, is constantly  happening. Finally, through universal logocentricism, the all-ruling  analysis  of historical facts is disintegrating;  since the time when  W. Dilthey presented his   ideas,  human   deeds  in   history  are  interiorized, experienced    but    not    analyzed    or    assessed    in a natural-sciences way.  It is no  longer important to  study historical facts  "objectively and impartially,"  but what is important is understanding them  and their interpretation. We begin  to  appreciate  their  subjective  validity before the knowledge and analysis of history.
Self, hitherto firmly rooted  in the continually advancing knowledge  and development  of its  possibilities, loses  the firm ground  beneath its feet.  Its psychic unity  secured by God and the Christian system of values was first disturbed by Romanticism,  which preferred  independence of  the Self from anything standing near; according to Freud's discoveries, the Self  loses  the  self-confidence  of  conscience  created by Enlightenment. As  a result of the  disintegration of science and logocentricism, the Self  loses the universally valid and acknowledged methods  and systems of viewing  the world. When L.  Wittgenstein and  M. Heidegger  began to  talk about  the impossibility of  relying on language,  since language merely plays with us, the Self  also lost the ability to communicate its feelings. Fascism, with the cult of the physique and then social diseases  and AIDS, idolatry of  top sports stars, and pornography deprive the Self of the unity of the physique and psyché.  Psyché,  to  which  we  have  hitherto conferred the highest  value,  recedes  and   becomes  overpowered  by  the spiritless physique.
The  disintegration of  the political  left, the  decay of socialist thought and new wars,  some of them not perpetrated as  serious  affairs  but  as  great  shows  (the Gulf War in Kuwait,  the  invasion  by  the  UN  forces  of Somalia), the inability   to  direct   society  effectively   or  at  least purposefully - these are what  deprive the Self of its social background; the integrity of  society falls into disrepair in front of  it, and for this  reason it has no  social ideal to follow.  Drugs cause  the collapse  of the  self in the Self, while concentration camps, ethnic  mass murders and political isolation in mental  hospitals push the Self to  the level of a beast. It  loses its inner consistency  and continuity; due to its  high professional specialization,  it also loses  its inner complexity. The last blow  has been dealt by computers, where  the  Self  and  its  conscience  have  become  totally useless.
Language also merely plays with us in that, according to J. Derrida,  it provides  us with  a limitless differentiationin the  cultural  meanings  of  words.  In  consequence  to this general  crisis  of  language  and  cultural  meanings, it is impossible  to   rely  on  finding  a   generally  valid  and communicable  truth,  as  its  solid  basis  -  the objective meaning of things - is crushed, as is absolute truth, and the absolute  meaning of  signs and  cultural symbols.  We cannot cherish a  hope that a  transcendental or at  least universal conscience able to be relied on will emerge from somewhere.
These  processes are  clearly mapped  in the  20th century art.  At  the  beginning,   non-figurative  art  refuted  any necessity  of  employing  real   shapes  for  expressing  the artist's  images.  Art  is  the  medium  of mass information, negating its own high cultural value and making it redundant. Later, in pop-art, it denies the creation of a work of art as a specially  formed  object;  in  conceptual  art  it  denies definitely any  work of art at  all - an idea,  a feeling, an image of  a work of  art is sufficient.  Then post-modern art arrives, which  quite deliberately does  not limit itself  by any aesthetic or moral  boundaries; it allows itself anything in  order  to  present  an  original  idea based, however, on elements eclectically  picked from anywhere.  According to W. Welsch,  radical plurality  as a  basic state  of society has become  an  acknowledged   reality.2  The  disintegration  of culture and  art that started in  the 19th century is  at its end now at  before the close of the  20th. Furthermore, there is  no  continuation  possible  in  this  direction.  Art and culture  as  a  whole   have  abolished  themselves;  further movement  is possible  only on   the basis  of a  reversal in culture.
Everything we are referring to  marks only the symptoms of a crisis.  The  clarification  of  their  background  can  be discovered in the work of M.  Heidegger, for whom art is only the revelation of the truth of being. Art and culture are not reflections  of the  world, they   are not  tools for  man to convey  his opinion  of reality,   they are  not a  means for rendering  information. In  art it  is not  only man with his feelings that  expresses himself, but  also existence itself, the  human   being,  the  human   world  express  themselves. Language,  culture  and  art  are  the  seat  of human being. A question  thus appears:  what, then,  disintegrates through the  disintegration of  art and  culture? The  answer is  not difficult: what  disintegrates is the human  being, the human world.
Not  only  have  the  values  ladders  collapsed,  but the imperialism of science  has collapsed as well and  so too the Self.The  disintegration and  decay  of  culture and  art are symptoms of the crisis  and disintegration of human existence and human relation to the world.
Human existence and the relation  of man to the world have not disintegrated absolutely and  irreversibly. Only one form of  human  existence  has  -  the  one  which  found its full expression  in  the  Enlightenment.  Since the Enlightenment, Europeans have  preferred only those  relations to the  world which  are  based  on  absolute  trust  in  science,  in  the analytical  abilities of  man. According  to this  ideal, the laws of  the world are  completely outside the  reach of man, they function alongside and  independently of him essentially as  divine laws.  Man is  endowed with  the ability to create only  rational   abstractions,  and  even   more  complicated technology based on them, in order to employ natural laws for himself, objectively and without  any personal feelings. Here emerges the  absolute confidence in  ratio, growing into  the cult of reason, science, which has been functioning for ages.
According  to  these  ideals,  man  is  fully  entitled to intervene  in the  world and  its objective  laws in order to realize his dreams. Man is  either created in the likeness of God, or is the supreme creature put forth in Darwin's theory. In both interpretations, the role of  man in the world is one of a little God, an absolute  master of the Earth. That is an anthropocentric  ideal with  traces of  the self-centred  and expansive.  That is  an ideal  from which  all wars and other negative   consequences   of   civilization   ensue,  not  as appendices of civilization but as its inevitable consequence, because  expansion  is  innate   to  man,  that  little  God; moreover, it is  even justified. It is so  because, since the Enlightenment, the  European ideal has not  been the Frommian "being mood"  but "having mood", the  greed for manipulating. Man  even  attempts  to  manipulate  society  (in  this sense communism  represented culmination  of the  Enlightenment and its  anthropocentric   thinking  -  "man  is   called  on  to materialize an ideal").
There  is no  place for  imagination, fantasy,  art, myth, transcendence. Since  the Enlightenment nothing  has hindered man  from  succumbing  more  and  more  to  the  dominance of reason,3  his  analytic  abilities,  logical  thinking,  from suppressing his  imagination, feelings of  transcendence, his subconscious  instincts and  desires. Gradually  he ceased to understand the  usefulness of these  extraordinary motions of his  soul.  While  developing  technology,  manipulating  the world,  materializing  the  ideal  project  of  society,  the European considers experience, fantasy, and desire to be mere complications to his situation;  he therefore suppressed them more  and more  often in  his perception  of the  world -  as redundant. The  less he looked into  his innermost world, the more he  wanted to penetrate  the nature of  the world to  be able to manipulate it more easily. What is the result of this European  thinking,   then?  Not  only   is  the  environment destroyed, as the environmental  groups warn, but man himself is destroyed.  His spiritual world  disintegrates, as he  has recognized  the vanity  of his  efforts hitherto  of becoming master  of  the  world.  The  sharp  disillusion  of European thinking discharges in the negation  of man himself; even the questions  "What are  we?" "What  are we  heading for?"  lose their sense.  In the situation  of maximum value  relativity, when  each   answer  if  true   because  each  statement   is a statement  of personal  experience, the  answers lose their sense, and,  for this reason, the  questions come to nothing. As we are not able to  divert our rationally educated mind to the  irrational  secrets  of  the  human  spirit,  we deprive ourselves of the best and  the most beautiful existing in us, or we do  not know the way to our  inner world. We search for it and  also find the  way out -  therefore continual filling ourselves with the outer world,  new experiences, new bits of information,  new images.  Despite this,  only emptiness  and nothingness  remain in  us. The  Spirit is  only taken  aback - but  empty. Where  do we   search for  the solution  to the situation, then?
One solution is at hand and  we have started to employ it, though unconsciously.  As several times  in this century,  we have  stood amid  a boom   of art  and culture.  The European begins to realize again that artistic pictures can facilitate the way to his innermost self  and to that of other people or bring him  to tolerance and empathy,  help disclose the human meaning  of the  world, which  was alienated  from him.  Art, similar to its  function in the past, though  today with much greater  emphasis,   discloses  the  absurdity   of  a  cool, rationalistic  approach  to  the   world  while  offering  us wonderful  worlds of  imagination, human  sensitivity, but it also mirrors our aloofness, rudeness and emptiness.
Art,  other  aesthetic  values  and  the  whole  complex of cultural  values or  cultural tradition  can triumph  because they  offer  precisely  what  the  European  of  today needs. However,  it is  not only  because they  introduce the  human dimension into  human existence or  because they shatter  the inhumanity  of human  existence.  Not  only do  aesthetic and other cultural phenomena break  down the dehumanized world of technology and manipulated nature, but they also show man the way out. From  the beauty of Evil, which  Marques de Sade and Comte de  Lautrémont championed to  the complete smashing  of the  artistic  artifact  as  was  gradually  achieved  by the artistic  avant-gardes  of  the  20th  century,  the artistic phenomena thus  provided man with  an exact diagnosis  of his reality. These processes showed clearly the diseases of human existence. Art  was not even  distantly a mere  reflection of these diseases; if it is the revelation of the truth of human existence, then it itself must  have suffered from them - and only  then  could  they  appear  before  man  in  their  full nakedness. Malevič's black square pictured what no one in his time anticipated:  when trying to insert  the fifth dimension - economy -  into art, K. Malevič  unintentionally proved the absurdity  of  dehumanized  purposeful  thinking, which still ruled architecture as functionalism. Even today it flourishes at different places as rough economics.
Art   and  aesthetic   phenomena  do   not  only   produce a diagnosis, but for ages they have  shown us the ways out of our "inhuman - human" situation, for in art it is significant to  draw  on  multiple  values,  on  tolerance  towards other experiences based on the inspiration of the human imagination and  sensitivity,  on  making  man  think,  replaying various situations  in   his  mind  and   returning  to  multifarious experiences.
Art quickly  anticipated the way out  for the 20th century man,  when he  was only   beginning to  sense he  was heading towards  deadlock. Spengler's  Decline of  the West, explicit reflections on  this precarious situation  in the development of  civilization so  far, appear  at the  close of  World War I and after,  but art registered  the crisis of  civilization before  the  war.  Towards  its  end  the  first avant-gardes manifested    their   ripeness    (dada,   cubism,   fauvism, dodecaphony, etc.) and in the  post-war years they showed man by all their weight that there was no escape from the current development. Surrealism,  however, with its  maximal emphasis on imagination  and the innermost  world of man,  got near to the possible ways out of the situation. Though art relatively precisely diagnosed  the disease of  modern man by  World War II,  theoretical  thinking  reflects  it  fully  only  in the post-war years; contemporaries realized  and absorbed it into their world-views  only sometime in  the 1980s. This  is when postmodern art  begins to demonstrate clearly  the way out by emphasizing explicit emotions, fantasy,  the unity of man and world,  the unity  of  human  individuals and  humankind, the unity of human tradition, etc.
Throughout the 20th century,  these processes of realizing one's own human  situation and means of expressing  it in art or  other cultural  products proceed  in contradictions,  and they only mirror the  contradictory nature of human existence itself. On one side, there are continually growing efforts to apply  aesthetics to  human life,  to introduce  human values into everyday life  and living space. On the  other side, the trends  against applying  aesthetics, against  any effort  to humanize  life  and  the  world,  are  becoming stronger. The effort to make life aesthetic  is an unrestrained drive aimed at saving  the humanity in human  existence, which means that man  makes aesthetic  and acculturates  his living  space and attempts  to  give  it  human  dimension.  The effort to make aesthetic  is also  a  deliberate   striving  to  increase consumption of  things as the producers  equip their products with  higher  and  more  sophisticated  aesthetic values. The "antiaesthetizing" trend  is then the  result of the  inhuman plundering  of nature  (plundered nature  acquires antihuman, i.e.   non-aesthetic  and   non-cultural,  dimensions);  this antiaesthetizing  trend is  also  the  result of  the inhuman behaviour of  man towards man,  which excludes any  aesthetic qualities  in interhuman  relations. This  trend is  also the consequence of a steep increase  in the consumption of things where from the very beginning there  is no place left for man to  pay attention  to aesthetic   values or  art, so  that he gradually  loses  his  sense  for  them  until they disappear completely from the horizon of his needs.
The efforts  to make human life  aesthetic and the growing trend  in  human  life  directed  against  this  meet  in the "antiaesthetism" of contemporary artistic creation, which has become the embodiment of the inner crisis of human existence, the  embodiment  of   its  contradictions.  Contemporary  art deliberately  produces works  that do  not identify  with the classical ideal  of beauty, or are  directly contradictory to it,  works that  are deliberately  disharmonic, asymmetrical, without  rhythm,  without  a  regular  or sensible structure, works incomplete and chaotic. These works are not intended to picture  the ugly,  as classical   art once  did in  order to condemn  it, they  themselves desire  to be  ugly. Ugly  here becomes   an  aesthetically   positive  value,   and  man  is confronted with  an inwardly contradictory  unit - the  ugly, the  antiaesthetic and  the antiartistic  are presented,  and also function,  as art. Aesthetics  and beauty "shake  hands" with the ugly and antiaesthetic.
The classical model of beauty, presented as something that has its own tasteful and  harmonious image, as something that should  be,  at  least  partially,  a harmoniously structured object, collapsed.  Beauty   and  aesthetics,  which  were presented as a  paradigm, have decomposed - with  the best of their  kind, with  the absolute  in their  inner dimension or balanced  inner  measure.  Culture   that  we  understood  as something  noble  or  in  close  touch  with human ideals has fallen  off  the  pedestal  of  something  extraordinary into everyday  vulgar  and  monotonous   reality.  Not  only  does traditional beauty  cease to renew  itself but it  also loses its sense, because it does not  express the feeling of man in this era.

Priorities of Contemporary Slovak Culture

Today  it is  a well-  known fact  that the Slovak society stands at  the junction of  transition from a  closed society with a  relatively firmly fixed  inner structure to  an open, flexible  one;  through  democratic  mechanisms  it  is still modifying and searching for an effective inner structure. The search for its  own cultural face, the search  for a possible future shape  of Slovak culture,4  constitutes part of  these processes as well. "Society is a self-creation"5 - this means that  the culture  of a   society is  an entity  this society creates for itself.
These statements suggest much  about the serious situation in  which the  Slovak culture  is still  seeking for  its own image, when  there is no one  to help it with  this task. The peculiarity of  the Slovak cultural situation  and the search for its Self  rests upon the fact that,  despite a relatively long span of  time that has elapsed since  November 1989, the Slovak culture  has not yet found  its face,6  that  we still live  in  a  transitory  period  from  one cultural epoch7 to another. Slovak culture is  moving from a monolithic culture, in  which  all  value  hierarchies  were  firmly  preset  and unchangeable, to  a multivalued one, in  which various values hierarchies compete  and none of  them occupies a  previously marked  position. The  reason for  the gradual  rise of  such a structured culture is the  explicit influence of the market and   democratic   mechanisms.   The   market  relations  are manifested in contemporary Slovak  culture in two ways. First is  the influence  of the  market economy  in which  cultural institutions and creators of culture  have to fight for their economic  survival. This  means that  their products  have to sell better  than those of  others. Their creation  has to be constantly  adapted  to  the  demands  of  the  market, which consequently  makes  them  modify  their  creative  ideas and intentions to  the taste of the  recipients. Second, with the uncompromising  pressure  of   the  market  economy,  another manifestation of  market relations in  the Slovak culture  is seen, the  "value market"; this  means that nobody,  no state authority prescribes and decrees  beforehand what is valuable and  what is  not, what  standards of  taste should  be valid universally. Today no one sets the limits for creation.
As  a  result  of  economics  and  the "value" market, the previous  monolithic values  hierarchy8 is  being transformed into a  meeting place of diversified  values hierarchies. The previous  monolithic  values  hierarchy   was  based  on  the following  patterns:  first  of  all  it  was  the  fight for a better world as the  basic standard influencing all others, out of which all social  roles of culture developed, together with  the   necessity  to  represent   in  the  culture   the socio-economic progress of humankind. Since cultural products could fulfill their social function only when disseminated en masse and when  accessed by the masses, the  demand for their understandability and  consumability was an  important facet. Their combination  gave rise to what  we today call socialist kitsch,  sharply  contrasting  with  the  classical  ideal of beauty based  on Renaissance and realism  and presented as an ideal for  contemporary creation. As we  speak about a closed system of  standards, one of  their signs was  intolerance to other cultures (Oriental, primitive,  etc.) which were valued verbally but  in fact excluded  from our culture.  Only Czech and Russian  cultures were tolerated, were,  on the contrary, presented as an  ideal or paradigm for the  Slovak culture to achieve.9
This  monolith  was  crushed  or  broken  especially  from inside.  This was  because it  was no  longer able  to accept vitalizing impulses from its  surroundings. A blow dealt from outside  was  also  of  help  -  the pressure of Americanized culture10 (spread by mass media and professionally elaborated culture).  This  pressure  was  so  strong  that the ossified monolith  of socialist  culture was  not able  to resist. The result is  the encounter of  a variety of  values hierarchies (i.e.  a  variety  of  systems  of  standard) in contemporary Slovak  culture.  They  are   derived  from  the  demand  for a plurality  of  expression  as  the  basic  standard,  which immediately  becomes a  springboard for  the efforts  towards absolute  originality and  also  a  source of  high tolerance towards other  systems. One of  its consequences seems  to be the  loss of  criteria, which  enables the  culture to devote itself  to  the  beauty  of  evil,  to present nonsense, even absurdity,  in  classical  patterns  of  beauty.  With  great cultural  tolerance,  both  exaggerated  cosmopolitanism  and exaggerated nationalism  may exist side-by-side,  and next to them  a  variety  of  subcultures  and  alternative cultures; culture may be maximally commercialized  and at the same time get more  and more enclosed  in its exclusive  sphere of high culture. Americanized culture and  the kitsch of mass culture (pornography  and  the  like)  cause  a  further decay in the criteria for evaluating cultural products.
The  transition  from  the  monolith  to  the plurality of values is not  a simple one and it is  not a state of crisis, either. It is  a normal and healthy process  of searching for a new face. However, it is  necessary to emphasize that it is not a search for the best  culture - a final state of culture does not exist.  The problem is to find  such a manifestation of cultural  process as may  be adequate to  the contemporary state of society. That is,  therefore, a process of searching which never ends,  as never do the changes  of human feelings in the competition of social and human forces.
Since we  are concerned with the  education of citizens in contemporary Slovak  society, we at  least have to  recognize priorities  for  contemporary  transformations  of culture so that it will  be clear how to orientate  our future citizens. What priorities  derive, then, from  the above mentioned  for the development of Slovak culture in the near future?
As criteria  for the search  for priorities, the  following are he only possible which may be set forth:
1. self-preservation of the Slovak culture
2.  adequacy of  Slovak  culture  for the  contemporary and future needs of national self-expression
 Based  on  these  criteria  we  may  single out these three priorities:
 1. In the time of  the cultural monolith the coexistence of various cultures did not cause  a problem. Today, when Slovak culture is open to other ones, communication and tolerance of various  values  hierarchies  and  also  various cultural and social groups  or stratas constitutes  a fundamental problem. Our  first  priority,  therefore,  is  the  need to teach the individual cultural groups to  live alongside and to tolerate one another.  This means the  development of a  multicultural view and feeling within the Slovak culture.
 By  multicultural  view  and  feeling,  we  understand  the ability  to  tolerate  other  cultures,  i.e.  the ability to respect  their existence.  This, however,  is very  little to ask.  Mere respect  for their  existence may  still result in actions for  the modification of  other cultures in  order to trim them to our ideal. It means neither deeper understanding of  other   cultures  nor  acceptance   of  different  values hierarchies. Cultural tolerance seems to be only the starting point, because  only from it may  a much deeper understanding of  other  cultures  arise,  which  means  the  acceptance of otherness11 of  another culture. Through  this acceptance one should realize that his own  culture and its standards cannot be  applied to  assess, judge  or condemn  other cultures. It means accepting that other  cultures have developed and exist in different historical,  social and geographic environments, and,  for  this  reason,  they  have  to  be  different quite logically from one's  own, they have to rely  on other values hierarchies    and    systems    of    standards   as   well. "Multiculturalism   is  based   on  the   idea  of   multiple perspectives  -  that  means  the  possibility  to  view  and understand an event or an era in more than one way."12
 A multicultural view and perception, as the first priority for the development of Slovak culture, covers:
 - the ability to  include various cultures and communities in universal  world history, to  foster that world  view that does not allow Eurocentricism and other self-concerned views.
 -  the ability  to view  the intercourse  of cultures  and their mutual dynamics
 - the ability  to lead a dialogue with  other cultures and the desire to enter into that dialogue
 -  the  ability  to  view  the  incorporation of one's own culture into others  and its relations to them  when one also realizes the limits of one's own culture
 2.  The  second  priority  resulted  from the overwhelming invasion  of Americanized  culture and  from the  fact of the existence of  an independent Slovak  Republic still searching for its place in the  world. Polakovič thinks that the nature of the nation  is reflected in culture and,  for this reason, it   is  necessary   to  identify   and  simultaneously   and purposefully retain  the cultural identity  of the nation  in order  to  preserve  the  Slovak  Republic.  This  also means resisting  the  Americanization  of  the  Slovak culture. For these  reasons,  the  second  priority  is  the  necessity of cultural self-identification  of the nation  (i.e. the search for national  cultural identity) and  the need to  search for the   mechanisms   or   standards   which   will   stop   the Americanization of our culture.
 The  actualization  and  explicit  definition  of national cultural identity is considered the ability to comprehend the peculiarities of a national  culture and its distinction from the peculiarities  of other cultures. This  ability guides us to  a  comprehension  of  what  type  of  cultural  synthesis a nation has created. For  Slovaks it means understanding and realizing  that their  culture  is  a synthesis  of Byzantine spiritualism  and Latin  realism, that  it absorbed  impulses from the German, Wallachian  and Croatian colonizations, from the Hungarian, Czech and  Jewish cultures; it means realizing the  firm  union  of  the  Slovak  culture  with Christianity communicated  by  the  mission  of  St.  Constantine  and St. Methodius, the union with folk  and shepherd culture and with others as well.
 The   defence   against   Americanization   requires   the preservation of cultural level of Slovak citizens, the search for mechanisms and cultural products that may stop the kitsch and violence.  At the same time,  a set of needs  for quality cultural products may be created  in the aesthetic flavour of the Slovak  society. Such a  search is necessary  if the easy understandability   and  simplicity   of  mass   communicated meanings  are not  to swallow  up the  cultural needs  of our citizens.
 3.  The last  priority results  from the  hermeticism15 of contemporary   Slovak  culture.   This  introverted   culture constantly collides with the  problems of securing its future existence. It is a consequence of the development of European culture since  the Renaissance -  the so called  supreme arts and  applied  arts  or  crafts  have  become  more  and  more separated from each other.  Aesthetic experiences have become more  and more  introverted and  have not  become polluted by utility and everyday use.
 Alongside this culture a  new art that constantly violates this  exclusiveness of  culture has  been growing  for thirty years. It is " value-based art  that is able to transcend the modernist   opposition  between the aesthetic and  the social."16  Thus  ecological  art  and  ecologically oriented culture come into being.17 Pure functionalism and exclusiveness of the sphere  of cultural values come together again. Art and the culture as  a whole search for their place in everyday life (a typical  example is music that, since the hippie  movement,  has  played   an  important  role  in  the expression of the perception of  life by young people and has become an important means of communication as well).
The  preference for  this  procedure  will obviously  be of great importance  in future Slovak  culture, because economic and social  realities will conflict  with rigid functionalism and technocratism; they themselves, then, will discharge each cultural value  to its own  exclusive sphere, for  a cultural value  complicates  technocratic   thinking.  Under  economic poverty and social insecurity, Slovak citizens have to orient themselves towards  what is strictly  utilitarian and enables their  survival.  They  have   neither  time  nor  space  nor conditions for weighing the  cultural dimensions of the fight for survival.
The third  and last priority in  the development of Slovak culture  is to  overcome hermeticism  of contemporary culture and turn it towards an ecological orientation.
These  are the  matters we  consider to  be priorities  in contemporary Slovak culture. We  have lingered on them longer because they influence principally the  aims we set forth for ourselves for  the cultural education of  citizens. What aims accrue  for civic  education  from  these priorities  for the Slovak culture, then?

Aims of  the Cultural Education of Citizens

According  to  J.  Swift,   the  purpose  of  any  quality education is  "to empower the  citizen to make  conscious and articulated choices in the construction  of his or her values by questioning and  evaluating orthodoxies."18 This component of the abilities of citizens  (the ability of making choices) lies also  the inability to judge,  to evaluate and construct his  or her  own cultural  values ladder  and the  ability to create relations to existing  cultural orthodoxies or values. The shaping of this ability  in future citizens we shall call cultural  education,  conceived  as  education  by  means  of cultural values and products.19
What  are the  aims of  cultural education  in the  Slovak Republic? They, of  course, follow  the priorities  of Slovak culture,  and at  the same  time, of  civic dispositions  and commitments  that  according  to   the  authors  of  CIVITAS: A Framework for Civic  Education,20 constitute civic virtues. Out of  civic virtues and commitments  stem the attitudes and behaviour of  citizens, which also  means values orientation. The  dispositions of  citizens mean,  according to  the above quoted CIVITAS,  those abilities and habits  of citizens that enable the effective functioning  of a democratic system. The commitments of a citizen lead to respect for the basic values and principles of a democratic state. A citizen may be called a citizen only  through a combination  of both of  them. Some principal  civic  virtues  and  commitments  are: respect for other citizens, individual  responsibility, tolerance and the ability  of compromise,  open-mindedness, and  loyalty to the state.21  When  thinking  of  the  cultural  education of the Slovak  citizens, we  have to  think of  how to transform the priorities  of  the  development  of  Slovak  culture so that future citizens will foster its effective functioning through their  dispositions   and  commitments,  respect   for  other cultures, their  openness towards other cultures  and, at the same time,  loyalty to the Slovak  Republic and understanding (especially enabling) its further development.
The confrontation  of civic virtues  and the priorities  of culture highlight these main aims of cultural education:
- education towards the realization of cultural identity
- education towards a multicultural view and perception
- education towards an ecologically oriented culture.

1. Education towards the realization of cultural identity
The  aim of  this facet  of education  is to  guide future citizens  to  the  recognition  of  the  national elements of culture, towards the abilities and attitudes which enable one not  only to  recognize but  also to  demonstrate them in the form of  national self-esteem. Besides  this, citizens should be able  to manifest their self-esteem  and to demonstrate it to the world.
These are  also abilities and attitudes  connected not only with national,  ethnic cultural awareness,  but with national identity. One of the tasks for cultural education is also the stimulation of cultural identity in  narrower sense - that is regional identity,  identification with a  social strata, the culture  of one's  contemporaries  and  the culture  of one's reference group.22 If a citizen is to participate in the life of  the  society  then   within  the  plurality  of  cultural hierarchies it is necessary for him to be able to realize and manifest  his  narrower  cultural   identity,  which  is  the contribution of  his reference group to  the world of values. This  also  means  a  variety  of so-called alternative-group cultures,  e.g. punk,  students and  others, who  have become more respected in contemporary Slovak cultural situation than at any time before.

2. Multicultural education
It  is  imperative  to  connect  the  development of group cultural identity with education towards a multicultural view and  perception; otherwise  the education  of citizens,  when deprived  of  them,  will  lead  to  a  variety  of  cultural sub-groups  who  do  not  respect  the  otherness  of  others - which,   after  all,   means  conflicts.   The  reality  of contemporary  Slovak  culture,  where  a  variety  of  values hierarchies meet, calls for this education.
"Multicultural  education is  a process  destined to extend the scope  of knowledge, to develop  mutual understanding and fruitful relations  among groups of  various cultures. In  an ideal  situation it  brings  people  to the  understanding of various  cultures  as  sources  for  their  own education and respect  for  variety  in  local,  national and international environments."23 Multicultural education  embraces, then, the education  including  information  about  other cultures; the cultivation  of abilities  to interiorize  other cultures and the cultivation of attitudes  respecting other cultures. Only this combination  will secure effectiveness  in multicultural education.
In this  process it is  necessary to distinguish  education towards   cultural  tolerance   from  complex,  multicultural education.  On  previous  pages   we  have  referred  to  the education towards tolerance as  education leading only to the acceptance of  the idea of  otherness. It is  a moral quality that  does not  necessarily  identify  with any  one profile. Though every human  being is a complex personality  and it is not possible to separate  his cultural profile from morality, nevertheless, it  is accepted that tolerance  can evolve from moral attitudes. It may also influence the cultural tolerance of man owing  to the inner connections and  complexity of the human psyche.
In  multicultural education  we  do  not only  consider the development  of  human  tolerance  but  also  the educational process   of   children   beginning   to   understand   basic characteristics of  various cultures and  their interactions; at the same time, they  are exposed to heterogeneous cultural products  in order  to  interiorize  them and  to incorporate various  experiences as  part of  their personality. Children are  also  taught  the  attitudes  of  tolerance  and  mutual respect.  Multicultural education  thus becomes  a much  more complex   process   than   mere   education  towards  general tolerance. When speaking about  children and tolerance, then, the aim  of multicultural education  in children may  be such development  of their  tolerance towards  other cultures that gradually   leads  to   a  complex   multicultural  view  and perception.
Both  above  mentioned  aims   of  cultural  education  of citizens  of  the  Slovak  Republic  -  education towards the realization  of  cultural   identity  and  the  multicultural education - are important for contemporary cultural education for three  reasons. First, only their  combination will guide citizens to loyalty to the state while respecting other views of  the  world.  Second,  only  the  combination of these two processes  will guide  citizens towards  participation in the creation of  the culture of  their state and  their community while viewing  and realizing its place  in the world context. Third,  it is  a way  to guiding  the citizens  of the Slovak Republic  towards cooperation  between various  groups within the state  and on the  international level as  well. It could lead  various  culture  groups  towards  the  ability to live alongside one another and  cooperate. Through the combination of  these  processes  it  is  possible  to provoke a critical approach to  the mass and  kitsch expression of  the American culture  (to Americanized  culture) which  is prerequisite to the inner  strength and ability of  Slovak citizens to resist the Americanization of Slovak culture.

3."Ecologically oriented" culture.
The hermeticism of the culture  hitherto leads to damage of nature  and   the  environment,  because  man,  through  his exclusiveness, idealizes  nature and places  himself aside as something   external.   Education   towards   an   ecological orientation  leads  to  an  understanding  of  the  world  as a single  system whose  components are  neither superior  nor inferior to each  other. It leads to an  understanding of the world  as one  natural and  cultural organism  that possesses a variety   of   appearances   and   relatively   independent components   but   functions   as  one  system.  It  means a transformation   in  the   orientation  of   man  from   an individualistic  and therefore  maximally egotistic  consumer orientation,   from a rational  and  therefore  maximally functionalist  and  technocratic orientation, from a homocentric and  therefore  maximally   self-centred orientation  to  the  an  orientation  causing  him to assume a meekness towards  nature, helping him to  understand man as a complex (both rational and  sensual) being functioning only as one element in the world system.
Ecologically oriented cultural  education consists of these parts:
- the  presentation of culture not  as an exclusive sphere of the highest-level creation, closed-off from others, but as an ordinary component of everyday life.
- the presentation of man as a complex being - that is, to overcome the ideas about man as, first of all, a thinking and rational being and that all irrational or sensual motives are of lesser  value; future citizens should  also understand the states  of  dream,  sadness  and  joy  among  others.  -  the presentation  of  the  transcendent,  mysterious,  mythic and magic as full-value components of his psyche.
It is obvious now why we use the term ecologically oriented culture and  cultural education. If  ecology as a  biological discipline came in existence in  order to study the relations among organisms  and their relations  to the environment,  if social ecology studies the  relations of human communities to their geographic,  spatial and cultural  environment, then by ecologically oriented culture we  mean that type of education which  leads the  citizen  to  an understanding  of relations within   one  culture   and  relations   among  cultures,  to understand  man   as  a  cultural   being  with  multifaceted psychical  equipment.  Having  in  mind  the  last  aspect of ecologically oriented cultural education,  we may say that it touches  deep ecology.  It is  a very  important aspect  - if education  is  to  guide  the  citizen  towards comprehending equality  of  all  psychic  processes  and  irrational  (more exactly, extra  rational) movements of culture  as well, then it has to  touch such spheres as, for  instance, the magical, transcendent, or inner-harmony and concentration.
As the main  aims of cultural education of  citizens in the Slovak Republic  today we have  highlighted education focused on realizing  cultural identity, multicultural  education and ecologically oriented cultural education.  They are the goals towards  which, in  our  opinion,  the cultural  dimension of civic education at elementary and secondary schools should be directed,  because  these  aims  reflect  the  priorities  of development of contemporary Slovak  culture and civic virtues of their future citizens.

The Topical Character of Aesthetics

When  discussing the  universal  decay  of culture  and the human   world  we   were  talking   first  about  aesthetics, a discipline  addressing the  on-going processes  in arts and the  aesthetic  shaping  of  the  world  and  man  -  meaning exclusively  human  processes  that  humanize  him  -  a very important topic on the agenda.  It is a discipline that shows several possible ways of escape  from the crisis, as it turns its attention  to irrational motions  of the human  mind, the complexity  of the  human spirit,  to human  relations and to nature. It is a  discipline which embodies resistance against a rigidly  rational view  of the  world, against  the inhuman treatment of  nature. It is  also a discipline  which teaches man to  be sensitive to  the extra-rational movements  of his psyche,  teaches him  to appreciate  something more  than the mere plundering of  nature. On one side, it  teaches man that he  is not  alone in  the world,  and, on  the other side, it teaches him  to be responsible  for the beauty  of the world, because of his  power he alone is responsible  to the highest degree.
Because   aesthetics  can   and  wants   to  speak   about contemporary  changes  of  cultural  and  artistic values, it itself  is  being  changed  under  the  influence  of the new pattern of  culture. Today aesthetics does  not proceed as an analytical, objective discipline which penetrates deeper into absolute truth, as do natural sciences. As the subject matter of its interest is ambiguous, it cannot defend itself against contradictory or diversified  assertions. Aesthetics today is not  a science  progressing gradually  to the natural-science ideal of  objectivity or to the  mathematic ideal of formally correct explanations of reality.
Today  aesthetics  does  not  restrict  itself  to an exact deduction  of consequences  from a  premise. Today aesthetics wants  to  be  also  a  reflection  of  on-going processes in aesthetic  structures  of  reality  which  may  guide  man in searching  for his  place in  the world.  It wants  to be the aesthetics  that neither  standardizes beauty  nor judges it, but  which attempts  to  find  depth in  aesthetic phenomena, shedding light  on them from  various angles and  viewpoints. Aesthetics  of today  may justify  various values  systems of beauty in order to bring man to his own conception of beauty. If art reveals human  existence, aesthetics cannot lag behind the  level   of  cool,  analytic   investigation  into  these processes. Aesthetics today, as always before, may search for human values in artistic processes; today it does not want to analyze,  to  standardize,  but  can  and  wants to formulate a human approach to art (meanings the relevation of the human being), because it is not capable of only objective analysis, but also  of reflection and meditation  over values. For this reason, it has become the aesthetics that does not refuse the contradictions in its meditations - neither is it silent when it  cannot discover  any objective  meaning in  the immediate processes. On the contrary, it allows itself to drift by them and it does not hesitate to slip into a subjective perception of  the  world.  It  is  the  aesthetics that understands the extraordinary difficulties of  overcoming the perspectives of its  times and  of viewing  problems from  a distance or from a bird's-eye view. Though it  strives for the bird's-eye view through the historical perspective of  art or through its own history,  it  does  not  resist  restrictions  imposed by the period; on  the contrary, it  counts on them  and builds upon them.  The   aesthetics  of  today   wants  to  reflect   the contemporary aesthetic  phenomena and arts  from contemporary standpoints,  not  from  the   standpoints  of  the  absolute subject,  meaning from  some point  existing out  of time and space, as science  has been attempting to do  for ages on the basis  of  the  ideal   of  exactness  and  objectivity.  The statements of contemporary aesthetics do not, therefore, work only  with  exactly  defined  categories.Its  style  is often metaphoric and emotional. Aesthetics today is a reflection on art  and beauty  rather than  a rigidly  objective scientific analysis.  Rigidly objective  analyses, though,  are employed today and always will be only for themselves but in order for aesthetics  to have  something  to  base its  reflections on. Today's aesthetics is a scientific discipline which can serve as a model for complex  knowledge employing both rational and exact   arguments   and   irrational   imagination,   sensual perception  and many  other  abilities  of the  human spirit. Since  this character  of its  own reflects  so precisely the character  of contemporary  science, W.  Welsch is  persuaded that  only  those  thinkers  who  are  aesthetic thinkers are thinkers of today,24  of his study in bold  characters. We do not  intend  to  lay  special  stress  on  this,  perhaps too strong,is   our   assertion   that   statement  and  advocate aesthetics as an ideal of contemporary science; nevertheless, this  accounts  for  its  high  being  an  urgent part on the agenda. Today,  aesthetics is not  a mere Naturfilosophie  of arts, but it remains something  that provides us with general knowledge of art. Aesthetics today  is also a narrative about the revelation of  human existence in art. It  is much closer to  Homer's Illiad,  which is  a poetic  adaptation of  man's freeing  himself from  the power  of gods,  than to  Darwin's Origin of the Species, which delved more into natural laws in the evolution of man.
What the European of today needs  is not the Origin of the Species but the Illiad. Despite  this, his bookcase is packed with evolutions  of species, he  has forgotten to  reflect on his Self. The aesthetic narrative  on the revelation of human existence  in arts,  when aesthetics  is presented  as in the Illiad affords him a much  greater understanding if his Self. For these reasons, aesthetics is a very relevant topic today, demanding  attention to  be paid  it in  the context of civic education, cultural education and multicultural education.

1)  Joseph  Grange,  "Deconstruction  and  the  Philosophy of Culture," Process Studies (Fall 1988), 141
2)  Wolfgang  Welsch,  Naše  postmoderní moderna.(Praha ZVON, 1994), 13
3)  It  is  paradoxical  that  man  is  not  conducted by his reasoning (die Vernunft), but  only by his understanding (die Verstand).
4)   We  identify   ourselves  with   Cornelius  Castoriadis' definition of culture: "What I mean by this word is something between the meaning which  most American anthropologists give to it, namely, practically the  totality of social world, and the habitual  French sense (not so  different from the German Kultur), meaning  the works of spirit,  what Hegel would call objektiver Geist;  the works of the  spirit, the knowledge of these works and an anonymous but living public aware of these works."   Cornelius    Castoriadis,   Philosophy,   Politics, Autonomy. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 220
5) "History is creation: the creation of total forms of human life. Social-historical forms are not 'determined' by natural of historical 'laws'." Castoriadis, 84
6) Let us  admit that this search will  never end, because in no culture  does an ultimate  goal, which should  be attaned, exist.  The same  is valid  for creation  where the  finished product  immediately  becomes  a  basis  for further creative processes.
7)  By  a  cultural  epoch   we  mean  a  relatively  closed, self-defined and time-limited system of values.
8) Marian Váross says that values hierarchy can exist only as a sequence  of  concrete  values   realizations  of  a  given standard. Cf. Marian Váross,  Úvod do axiológie. (Bratislava: Epocha  1970),  273  According  to  Vladimír  Brožík,  values hierarchy is  given by the  evaluation measures -  standards. Cf. Vladimír  Brožík, Hodnoty a  významy. (Bratislava: Pravda 1985), 273. That means that the hierarchy of monolithic value is an  expression of precisely  defined - and  sometimes even ossified - standards.
9)  The Czech  and Russian  cultural imperialism  were hidden under the mask of "approximation" of national cultures.
10) We  understand the Americanized culture  to mean the mass and  kitch   variant  of  American   culture  connected  with violence, pornography, and kitch spread by the mass media.
11) "It  is the transparency  of whiteness and  maleness that makes it  possible for white  male researches to  arrogate to themselves the exclusive right to 'nominate' all other groups while  monumentalizing their  own. Those  groups that  do not fall  into  the  category  of  white  or  male are positioned irrevocably  as  other."   Peter  McLaren,  "Collisions  with otherness:  'traveling' theory,  post-colonial criticism, and the  politics of  etnographic practice  - the  mission of the wounded ethnographer," Qualitative  Studies in Education. 5.2 (1992), 78
12)  Alan Singer,  "Multiculturalism and  Afrocentricity: How They  Influence  Teaching  U.S.History,"  Social Education 57 (Oct.1993): 284
13)  Štefan  Polakovič,  "Národ  a  kultúra,"  Filozofia 44.5 (1990), 567
14)  According to  Viktor Timura,  the cultural  synthesis is also  the acquisition  of cultural  influences (regardless of where  and when  they appeared)  that are  synthesized either into the already existing culture or into the one which is in the  process  of  establishing  itself.  The  result  of this synthesis is not a mere conglomerate of separate constituents but a  new unit with its  own inner laws. Cf.  Viktor Timura, Slovienske  kontinuá.  (Bratislava:  Tatran,  1991),  169 and passim
15) The term hermetism here expresses the self-containment of contemporary   culture,   its    introversion   and   imanent development of  its own contents without  taking into account its possible  employment of cultural products  in human life. This way  a self-contained world of  exceptional values comes into being  which do not purposefully  tend to interfere with human life. It may be  defined as the 'aesthetic sacrum' that motivated  a   high  circulation  of   artworks.  Cf.  Stefan Morawski, "O kritickom  stave estetiky," Literárny týždenník. 15 Sept. 1989: 3
16) Suzi  Gablik, The Reenchantment  of Art. (London:  Thames and Hudson Ltd.), 1993, 9
17) Besides its natural and economic aspect, ecology also has a cultural dimension. The environment  is not being destroyed by  the people  only. It  is irreversibly  being destroyed by culture, that  means by human  society, civilization and  the technosphere.
Cf. Josef Šmajs, "Kultura  - ekologická kategorie," Filozofia 45.6 (1994), 365. Until recently  we have been persuaded that the ecological  behaviour of people is  strogly influenced by their cultural refinement. Today, the ecological behaviour of people  seems to  be an  expression of  a certain  lifestyle. Consequently we begin to realize that culture has always been a component of the environment and not a superstructure above it.  The 'ecologically  oriented' culture  means the cultural creation that realizes its existence  as a part of this human environment. It wants  to play an active part  in shaping it, because it encompasses both  nature and human products, human relations, meanings of objects, etc.
18)  John Swift,  "Critical Studies:  a Trojan  Horse for  an Alternative  Cultural  Agenda?"  Journal   of  Art  &  Design Education 12.3 (1993), 291
19)  We take  into account  education towards  culture, which means education towards its  understanding and awareness. The education towards cultural refinement, the interiorization of the  highest  cultural  values,  is  based  on  this  type of education. It may also be its  result, which we are not going to analyze here.
20) Charles N. Quigley et al., CIVITAS: A Framework for Civic Education. (Calabas,  CA: Center for  Civic Education, 1991), 11
21) Charles N. Quigley et al., 11
22)  The  referential  group  is  a  group  "whose  standards a person uses  to help shape  his or her  own values, beliefs and  behaviour."   Christopher  Bates  Doob,   Sociology:  An Introduction. (New  York: Holt, Rinehart  and Winston, 1985), 156. "A  cultural group shares  behavioral patterns, symbols, values, beliefs, and  other human-constructed characteristics that distinguish it from  other groups." National Council for the Social  Studies, Curriculum Guidelines  for Multicultural Education.  (Washington:  National  Council  for  the  Social Studies, 1991), 3
23)  Board of  Education, United  States and  New York  State History.  A  Multicultural  Perspective.  (City  of New York: Board of Education, 1990), 1:VII
24) Wolfgang  Welsch, "Zur aktualität  ästhetischen Denkens", Kunstforum International 100. (April-May 1989): 135