A methodological aspect of the problem of preserving heritage

The article discusses the methodological problems of studying cultural heritage, argues the importance of cultural heritage in the crisis of modern culture. The theoretical foundations of the study are the concepts and ideas proposed by M.M. Bakhtin (the concept of dialogue of cultures), M. Foucault (archaeological research method), D.S. Likhachev, Yu.M. Lotman and other scholars. The relevance and complexity of the identified problems are determined by a number of reasons, among which the author indicates a rethinking of the content of the phenomenon of cultural heritage and its dual nature, which implies not only the embodiment of stable and peculiar features of a particular culture, but also the possibility of dialogue with the culture of other peoples. The archeology of the study of cultural heritage acts as a meta-level that combines the general theory of heritage ideas and the discursive practices of the twentieth century. In the process of the research, the author approaches the issue of intercultural dialogue, defining the latter in opposition to conflicts of cultural identities. It is emphasised that the appeal to the methodological principle of dialogue allows considering cultural heritage as a necessary condition for cultures' existence in the axiological dimension since it is dialogue that is a form of interaction of cultural values. It is determined that, from a methodological point of view, the updating of cultural heritage is aimed at explaining binary oppositions in culture (traditions / innovations, objectification / demarcation, coding / decoding, etc.) set by objective reasons for the existence of heritage in culture. The author shows that the updating of heritage through the dialogue of cultures is the mechanism of its transmission, which specifically restructures the values of the past, giving them a new meaning. It is noted that the endowment of a cultural value with a certain meaning occurs only when the value is included in a specific context. Moreover, the cultural value itself is singled out by the cultural heritage perceiver from many other values with its further interpretation in a different context. The updating of cultural heritage consists in the restructuring of one’s own meanings when communicating with cultural heritage rather than in “adding” other people's ideas, images and meanings. The author concludes that the methodology of the dialogical approach to the study of cultural heritage allows one to understand another culture without giving up one’s own and to define dialogue as a mechanism for transmitting cultural heritage, which leads to increases in semantic diversity and in information in culture.