Different theories of cross-cultural communication developed by researchers in the field of humanities including cultural anthropology, social psychology, cognitive science, etc., offer a variety of ways to classify national cultures. At the same time, many agree that there is a need for finding clear and measurable fundamental parameters underlying any national culture. The article substantiates the use of the parameter of individualism vs. collectivism, already tested in the framework of anthropology and philosophy of culture with regard to both Western and (...) non-Western cultures, as an effective way for cultural comparison. The article aims to give an overview of various theories of cross-cultural interaction and their elements; to examine where they overlap or diverge; to look into the correlation between individualist/collectivist value orientations and behavior; and to study this parameter realization on a number of cases. The study is based on philosophical, anthropological, and cultural psychological theories, including the theory of guilt and shame cultures by R. Benedict, theory of self–presentations by R. Baumeister and D. Hutton, theory of personality’s self-construction by H. Marcus and S. Kitayama, as well as theory of cultural logics by A. Leung and D. Cohen. As an empirical confirmation of the above theoretical approaches, the article provides real-life examples, collected by the author. Literature was subject to categorical analysis. Empirical data was collected and analyzed using methods such as participant observation and discourse analysis. The comparative approach and hermeneutics techniques served as a general methodological prism. The study shows that, at least since the 1960s, specialists in the field of cultural studies have been increasingly discovering limitations and inconsistencies in theories that previously claimed to be universal: many of the models which originated in the West do not adequately represent non-Western cultures. The study proves the workability of the parameter of individualism vs. collectivism for interpretation of behavioral inconsistencies between people of different cultures. This parameter is compatible with a wide range of frameworks and shows a clear correlation between behavioral characteristics in different cultures and allows to interpret phenomena that were previously uninterpretable. (shrink)

The subject of the study is the dispute between the Russian philosopher, K. Leontiev, and the French emperor, Napoleon III, regarding the meaning and orientation of historical events. The topicality of the study is determined by the importance of the problem of progress in the modern world and the need to take into account the entire range of previous approaches to it. The novelty is defined by the absence of works in which a comparison of the two analyzed approaches would (...) be presented. The article uses the following methods: hermeneutic, phenomenological, and comparative historical. The policy of Napoleon III is characterized in the artistic works of Leontiev as well as in the works in philosophical and publicistic genres. In the novel Odysseus Polychroniades, the Second French Empire appears as a mechanical structure devoid of a spiritual core. In the autobiographical work Egyptian pigeon, the emperor appears as a usurper. In his philosophical and political writings, Leontiev focuses on the theory of cultural types. Napoleon III's France in this context serves as an illustration of the period of secondary mixing and simplification in the lives of civilizations. But its history is also important to Leontiev as a kind of reference point in the historical coordinate system, which allows us to compare the Western path with the fate of Russia. The Russian thinker strongly emphasized the connection between the history of his country and Byzantine principles. He saw its future in their preservation and support. Leontiev considered France, which rushed along the path of liberal egalitarianism, a decaying state characterized by decomposition and loss of originality and religiosity, as well as by the transition from complexity to a more primitive organization. Napoleon III, on the contrary, considered France the vanguard of civilization, and the principle of nationalities proclaimed by him was seen as the only reliable basis for international politics. Although Leontiev and Napoleon III do not have the same interpretations of progress, in their understanding of the general meaning of history and the laws of civilizational development both considered it necessary to introduce conservative elements into public life. The forecasts of the Russian philosopher regarding the future give more reason to name him (rather than the emperor) a prophet. (shrink)