Freud tries to connect own concept of a kulturogenez to ideas of cannon and evolutionary nature of anthropogenesis. "Looking rather far in the past, it is possible to tell, - he writes, - that the first acts of culture were – use of tools, fire taming, construction of dwellings. From these achievements it is distinguished as something extraordinary and unprecedented, - fire taming, as for others, with them the person took a way on which it continuously also follows since then: it is easy to guess the motives which led to their opening".
However these reasonings form a vicious circle. The consciousness only as result of work, but to be engaged , it is necessary to have something similar to intelligence. The speech is found in a community. But what force induces to live together and to look for ? All these components of a kulturogenez are linked, connected, but as they generate each other.
The concept culture is among fundamental in social science. It is difficult to call other word which would have such set of semantic shades. For us such phrases as "culture of mind", "culture of feelings", "culture of behaviour", "physical culture" quite habitually sound. The culture serves in ordinary consciousness as estimated concept and belongs to such lines of the personality which would be more exact to call not culture, and .
Many anthropologists, referring to the remained stone, connect development of the highest human intelligence with a and use of instruments of labor. Actually, as show the latest researches, motor and touch coordination, involved in similar elementary production, do not demand and do not cause kayokoy-or considerable sharpness of thought.
Perhaps, Freud's aspiration to overcome the evolutionary and cannon concept of a kulturogenez deserves attention. He tries to approach this problem through interpretation of mental activity of the person as the being who is not possessing a conscience phenomenon. Evolution, thus, looks as such process during which something comes to light considerably other, though put in progress of a live matter.
Let's reproduce basic provisions of this critical concept of V. M. Vilchek. First of all, the researcher tries to specify: what is the work? Usually we give the answer: "work is an expedient ". But expedient activity, strictly speaking, all animals. Unless the beaver who blocks water, a dam, does not see in it expediency for himself? Some animals will transform habitat, coordinate joint actions. But it yet not work.
Mentality of the person at an animal stage of an ambivalentn. Freud emphasizes that we know nothing about an origin of this ambivalence. Prick so, not clearly, what real reason of those actions of a prachelovek which led to emergence of a phenomenon of conscience. If it is not possible to explain genesis of moral, and the theory of a kulturogenez is abstract. After all it entirely is under construction on the conscience acquisition fact.
Freud considers a taboo as result of ambivalence of feelings. The person as he explains, possesses property which is not present in fauna. But this quality not natively to the person, not soprirodno to it. It arises unexpectedly, incidentally, though it is not senseless because in the human nature possibility of such acquisition is put. It is about conscience as the gift which allocated the person from a kingdom of animals and created a culture phenomenon.
"To consider the person as mainly the animal making tools is means to pass the main chapters of human background which actually were decisive stages of development. As opposed to a stereotype in which the instrument of labor dominated, this point of view claims that the person is mainly the animal using mind, making symbols, self-improving; and the main accent of its activity – its own organism. So far the person did not make something of himself, he a little that could make in world around."
The Sshchtsialny mechanism of reproduction of a human considerably expands culture space. In it an of people from the very beginning acts as "a public animal", i.e. such animal which stereotypes of behavior are put not in it is mute (i.e. genetically), and out of it, in a social form of communication. The of the person – not in his genotype, and in total all relations. Therefore are born an animal, only by the person". (S. V. Chernyshe.