On the Nature of Culture: An Analysis of the Conceptual Positions in the Works of I. F. Kefeli

Introduction. Modern cultural studies, the science studying the essence of the complex phenomenon of culture, is experiencing contradictory processes. From quite promising, to the exclusion of its curricula in higher education institutions. Since its inception, it has been between its denial and endowing a great future as a multidiscipline of the socio-humanitarian cycle. I.F. Kefeli, a philosopher who contributed to the development of cultural studies not only in St. Petersburg but also in Russia, was a participant in discussions and a scholar who was at the origins of the birth of cultural studies as a science and a discipline. This work is dedicated to analyzing the understanding of what culture and cultural studies are.
Materials and methods. The following sources were used: print and online publications by I.F. Kefeli; print and online publications by Russian cultural studies scholars; information from websites about his work; his work experience; and interviews and conversations with the scholar. Three key sections were identified for the analysis of his scholarly works: «Theory and History of Eurasianism» and «Soviet Culture.» The methodological basis of the study was a combination of theoretical approaches, methods, and principles of cultural studies, which allowed for the interpretation of the results within the context of the scholar's biography and existing scholarly knowledge in the fields of philosophy, theory, and history of culture.
Results. Based on a biography and comparative analysis of the scholar's works, along with those of his colleagues, philosophers, and cultural scholars, this article reveals the dynamics of the development of cultural studies as a new field of knowledge about the essence of culture and the transformations of the education system, where the subject was sometimes included in the curriculum at both technical and humanities universities, sometimes removed from the required humanities disciplines. It identifies I.F. Kefeli's significant influence not only on the development of the humanization of university education in Russia but also on the institutionalization of cultural studies in St. Petersburg and throughout Russia in the first quarter of the 21st century. Explanations are offered for the reasons behind the negative dynamics of attitudes toward cultural studies and its role in shaping student identities.
Conclusion. The prospects for the development of cultural studies will depend on flexibility in adapting to the changing conditions of modern cultural development and the challenges that inevitably arise in any complex, self-developing system. However, there are opportunities for growth and improvement in the quality of humanities cultural studies education, which lie within the potential of universities themselves. This will allow them to effectively utilize existing resources of cultural studies knowledge and introduce new pedagogical technologies into the educational process. The research results may be useful for a comprehensive study of the genesis and dynamics of cultural studies knowledge in Russia. The example of I.F. Kefeli's scientific work demonstrates the importance of combining fundamental knowledge of cybernetics with the study of the country's real cultural history.