The modern period manifests also a characteristic increase in the importance of the subject and its social development. This pertains only to countries which have found their independence and with great effort paved the way for a world society. In these conditions the human as a creative subject of history and transformer of the environment becomes a question not only for science and culture, but for the political realm especially in the present development of the spiritual life of Uzbekistan. That is why the development of persons as the subjects of the historical-cultural process is one of the main conditions for social change and the achievement of independence.

The issue of culture, consequently, is a central condition for creative human intellectual and moral potential. But for this it is necessary to link culture and man in order to realize the possibilities of culture in the process of the formation of personality and the improvement of human relations. In socio-philosophical literature, the principles for the definition of culture were formulated many years ago. However, the development of social life brought many new principles, questions and problems. These require such diverse approaches as the axiological, systematic-structural and semiotic.

There are different classifications, but the most popular axiological or value approach to culture was an understanding of culture as the historical creative process which creates, develops and absorbs spiritual and material values. Another approach is based on the analysis of culture as a social sign or semiotic system as well as a structural-functional system.

The semiotic approach to culture is founded on historical principle, while at the same time understanding culture as a special system of the means which secure human existence together with that of the environment, and help to resolve socio-cultural problems. This approach is a complex of the philosophical, aesthetic, political and other concepts and categories; it sees culture as a comprehensive sign system. The different local political and economic languages express different spheres of human activity as symbols and signs of a "world model".

The structural-functional approach to culture was developed by Markarian and others. He considered the concept of "culture" to be a function of knowledge, seeing culture as a "specific function of the social life of people". The structural-functional approach has opened some new aspects of knowledge in the science-culture system, but does not suffice for a comprehensive analysis of that system. My own point of view is closest to that of M.S. Kogan, who defined culture as a human activity. Everyone understands the connections between culture and humanity. The starting point of any philosophical conception is a nature. This has been so since ancient philosophy and still is very popular because nature is the characteristic essence of a culture. Humans are also representatives of a culture which is situated all around them, in their masterpieces and even inside the person. Hence, the scope of one’s culture is that of one’s social, spiritual and creative being. Culture is a product of one’s creative and transfigured activity. This realizes ideal values, surpassing mere expediency and especially the anarchy of blind necessity. This is an infinite process because it entails the whole transformation of matter by humans as their world. Culture is the goal of human activity and its internal means, because humans are able to create themselves by transforming the conditions, circumstances and goals of their existence.

Consequently, culture is also history in which persons can create the method and form of their contacts with other individuals. Hence, culture is historical, for the human person is the subject of his historical being. Culture is the world of humans with their values, transformation of nature, material and spiritual activity, social institutions and spiritual achievements. This is a humanistic-axiological approach to the understanding of culture.

This interpretation of culture is founded not only on technological characteristics, but on the creative work of man as its subject. This approach is oriented upon the subject which produces a philosophical culture as an object. The human is a complicated system of practice, knowledge, morals, aesthetics and creative art works. Above all, he is ontological subject of these human characteristics rather than merely of theoretical positions, because the human is part of a world. That is why to consider the human as a biological system is not philosophical. Labor is an objective personification of the social connections between individuals understood as social animals. The objective reality of culture can be understood as possible personal existence. One is able at the same time to create the world of things and oneself, to improve one’s forces and contributions and to achieve the best intercommunication. The development of the objective world by humans is a matter of self-production or self-development. The objective richness created by people is an outward form of culture, which in turn influences human development (here we understand the human as a social animal), that is to say, it is the development of the whole complex of one’s relationships, forces and abilities.

The essence of culture is expressed by the thesis: man produces himself as he has become aware of his integration. According to this point of view, culture is the special mode of production whose main result is the human person and his social existence. It is linked to activity that produces not only things and ideas, but humanness as a quality of the social subject.

This socio-material and spiritual production constitutes the essence of the entire social history. By identifying the stages of the development of culture we are able to see the development and improvement of persons. This development has two stages. The first is to prepare people for creative social activity; the second is their direct participation in this activity. Culture is the process of the development of the creative forces and abilities of humans and at the same time of the contribution of these abilities to the broad results of social activity. This understanding of culture has provided a new conception of the person who is able to resolve difficult social issues of social values operative in the practical activity of people as they transform the environment and themselves. That is to say, it expresses not passive, contemplative and consumer relationships of humans to the world, but their active, creative conduct as active subjects of history. At the same time, one is a subject of the cultural-historical process and is connected by one’s activity with the future, which is founded on past experience.

As a result, one’s cultural heritage and the modern culture is appreciated on a scientific basis. Therefore, man is both subject of the cultural-historical process and creator of culture in its different forms and manifestations. The creative activity of man throughout the entire sphere of being and consciousness is the real essence of culture. Without that activity and its personification in the universal process of the assimilation and reconstruction of reality, there can be no human material and spiritual culture. This means that the human is the real heart of culture, both its basis and its source of development, as well as its main goal. In the end, we have ascertained that the person is an open dynamic microsystem, and as such the active subject of culture.

1. I.A. Karimov, Uzbekistan Is a State with a Great Future (Tashkent, "Uzbekistan", 1992), p. 123.