It is inherent in the Russian mentality, along with other features. Just like everyone else

Russia has always been a country located between East and West. Russian people have repeatedly wondered whether he is a man of the West or, after all, the more spontaneous East. Philosophers have resolved this issue in their own way. Many of them even began to talk about the unique position of the country, which has its own unique path. The mentality of Russians is difficult to compare with the mentalities of neighboring countries, both Western and Eastern. Of course, you can find something in common from each of the powers, however, there is something in the Russian soul that defies simple classification.

The mentality has been formed over centuries. He was influenced by both countries and a new religion (Orthodox Christianity). Moreover, a Russian person is predominantly Orthodox, because he reflects the dogmas of his faith. The peculiarities of the Russian mentality can be found not only in the way of thinking, but also in the way of life itself. The Western world is extremely simple, there is a threefold division of the universe: the divine world, the demonic world and the human world. Therefore, people living in the West strive to do something in this world. For Russian people, the universe is binary: either divine or demonic. This world is considered a dark kingdom, given over to the prince of darkness. Every day people see injustice and imperfection.

The Russian mentality has always strived for maximalism. And this desire results either in the creation of an ideal world here and now (revolution), or in complete self-elimination and asceticism. Russian people are predominantly apolitical. he acutely feels dissatisfaction with the authorities. Justice in Russian means equality and brotherhood. And since ideals are unrealizable, then the world is in the power of evil forces. Instead of doing something (as is customary in all capitalist countries), a Russian would rather fall into asceticism.

The Russian mentality, formed by the Orthodox religion, is not prepared to follow the path of a market economy. Only a few were able to accept the fact that self-elimination will not lead to anything good. Russia is an abundant country. And, at the same time, Russians continue to live worse than Europeans, a paradox that experts puzzle over year after year. The proximity of the Turkic people had a great influence on the mentality of the Russians; they themselves were a peace-loving people, hospitable and meek. The mixing of the Slavs with the Turks gave rise to a tendency towards melancholy, depression, cruelty and spree. This is exactly how the contradictory temperament of Russians was born, in which extremes coexist. The most eastern feature in the mentality of the Russian people is manifested in their collectivism and attitude towards power.

Power for a Russian is sacred, it is given from above. Authorities must be obeyed. However, as soon as rebellion is born in the soul, the Russian person is ready to destroy everything. Since ancient times, history has brought down to the present day cases of riots and uprisings. As soon as a Russian person sees the prince of darkness in the image of the Tsar, a sacred revolution begins. However, strong rulers could always pacify their subjects. Russian collectivism manifests itself not so much in peacetime as in times of war and disaster. Here you can find not only amazing mutual support among people, but also resilience. There are known cases when residents of Russian cities held the defense to the last without any control from military officials. This is an amazing fact that shows not only the high principles of collectivism, but also patriotism and citizenship. By the way, nationalism is not inherent in Russians in the form in which it manifested itself in a number of Western countries. The citizenship of this people has a completely different basis.

“Russia is a country with the friendliest people!” This is what they often say about you and me. But let's go outside and look around. Something doesn't look like it, right?

Russians are truly an unusual nation. It seems that only here can absolute indifference coexist with noble responsiveness, and generosity and hospitality with stone faces a la “what are you staring at?”

Psychologists all over the world have been wondering for decades why we Russians are so strange. They immediately remember serfdom, autocratic tsarist power, famine and other sufferings, which, in their opinion, never existed in Europe. Well, you know, after all, everything there, by definition, has been good and beautiful from time immemorial. This is what we think, this is how Europeans themselves try to maintain their image.

American psychologist Nicholas Bright wrote: “The Russians have experienced a lot in the course of their history. But, thanks to the idea of ​​collective empathy, they were able not only to preserve the unity of the national spirit, but also to multiply it, to create an absolute egregor of sincerity, which often borders on the absurd.” Sounds good, although a little alarming, right? Let's remember the main features of the Russian mentality.

We can easily be called rude. Yes, that’s what it is. It costs us nothing to argue and argue with our superiors, without even thinking about the consequences. We will gladly send away the person who accidentally stepped on our foot. In our linguistic arsenal there will always be sarcastic rhymes for any word, and the floweriness and variety of non-literary Russian is simply amazing. It is normal for us to hear rudeness in response to the most innocent request. It’s not very common for us to look into each other’s eyes, just smile or say “hello/thank you” in the store.

At the same time, Russians, as scientists say, live by the “principle of conciliarity.” Simply put, we are always together and stick with each other. It would seem that we don’t care at all about other people’s opinions. But at the same time, we celebrate all holidays, gathering 20 people, and for any reason, be it Plumber’s Day or Easter, we call all our relatives. We are always aware of the personal life of the neighbor from the fifth floor, the saleswoman from the store around the corner, the janitor and anyone else in general. Foreigners simply cannot understand our habit of having hours-long kitchen conversations or telling our story to a random fellow traveler on the bus.

What are we really like in this national dualism? Sincere. We simply do not hide any feelings and emotions. If we are having fun, then to the fullest, if we are angry, then so that the earth trembles and the whole neighborhood hears. We do not hesitate to be lazy and blame the state, God and magnetic storms for all problems. As children, we are not ready to take responsibility and decide something. Instead, we firmly believe that the kid next door has better toys. We are so sincere that we do not want to support advertising patriotism and believe social advertising. We have been talking for years about how bad it is to live in Russia, but we will stand up for our Motherland if even some foreigner speaks badly about it. By the way, about foreigners.

Thinking about the paradoxes of Russian goodwill, I wanted to directly ask residents of other countries how they see us - to look at Russia through the eyes of foreigners? Oddly enough, not as gloomy and harsh as it might seem. For example, a friend of mine, a forty-year-old English rocker, said that we are funny and know how to joke and have fun. But several Americans argued that Russians are very smart, much smarter than many other nations. Travelers, eager to learn about the peculiarities of the Russian mentality and to get to know the mysterious Russian soul, all say that you won’t be left alone in Russia: they will not only show you the way, but also guide you, chat, invite you to visit, gather a whole company and throw a feast in your honor.

Once I had the opportunity to meet a Frenchman who was hitchhiking all the way to Vladivostok, stopping briefly in large cities because he really wanted to look at our country from the inside. To a banal question: “And how is it?”, he replied: “It turned out that everything that they write about you on the Internet is not true! It’s a pity, I really wanted to see bears and these hats. Seriously, when I arrived in another city, I didn’t have any plan or ready-made route, what to do and where to go. The people who were ready to shelter me and show me the place where they live were there on their own. Having visited a dozen cities, I realized that I didn’t understand anything. Now I know only one thing: Russia is a cool country!”

So, it turns out that we are not such beeches, right? Yes, we really don't smile too often. By the way, some foreigners also note this. Everything is correct, this happens again because we are too sincere: why, in fact, smile if you don’t want to? If I want to, I’ll definitely smile. At the same time, a European puts on his best smile in the morning and seems to be able to keep a happy face even if a comet falls from the sky. Since childhood, he has memorized phrases like “thank you/okay/sorry.” We do not wear the masks of decency, benevolent politeness and courtesy accepted in “civilized countries.” But does this mean that we are not responsive and friendly?

It is precisely thanks to the same principles of conciliarity and former socialism (which, in essence, has been characteristic of the Russian people from time immemorial) that we have exceptional attention to our neighbors. It does not manifest itself outwardly, because Russian people also have one more trait: we look for a catch in everything. We are such honest people that we immediately begin to suspect something is wrong if the person next to us behaves “not in the truth.” Too much help clearly expects something in return; constantly smiles, sucks up or wants to set him up; The hypocrite agrees on everything! It’s also the case with goodness that we show it only when we really want to, and we help either out of great desire or out of extreme inevitability. Otherwise, in our subconscious, the act of automatic goodness is associated with inanimate stereotypes. But if someone on the street suddenly becomes ill, he will not be left alone; there will certainly be those who will help.

When I was in elementary school, I constantly lost change for travel. My conscience (read “cowardice”) did not allow me to ride like a hare on buses, and I openly asked the drivers to give me a ride either for free or for the penny that I had left. And, you know, I never had to walk: in half the cases they agreed to my request, or some passenger was found willing to pay for me.

But when I was 17 years old, I got stuck late one evening in the city center. Public transport is no longer running, there are 30 rubles in your pocket, and according to the law of the genre, your phone is dead. It’s far and scary to walk on foot, there are no friends nearby, there’s nothing to ride or anything to ride on, you’re afraid to catch rides, what to do? Not agreeing with the prospect of spending the night on the street, I began to approach people with an innocent question: “Could you lend me a phone to call?” In three out of three cases I was refused. And then I realized: well, of course, they think that I want to rob them! You can’t approach our people with such a question; we even steal sincerely, looking honestly in the eyes. Then I chose a middle-aged woman and honestly explained the situation to her, adding pleading drama. It worked the first time, she helped me call a taxi. She also waited for the car with me to make sure everything was okay.

Why am I saying this? Moreover, we will never leave a person in trouble. But we strive to live in truth, and therefore we must be sure that help is really needed. This is the mentality of the Russian people. We won’t just give out change to everyone who asks left and right, but if we are convinced that the charitable ruble will go to its intended purpose, then please at least two. We can be very polite, courteous and cultured. If the mood is good. And it’s not for us to simply waste time on the rules of decency; the Russian person is too lively and real for that.

Remember the words of the American psychologist? Our sincerity does at times border on absurdity. But even though we are always dissatisfied with everything and everyone, we know how to live: swear, break dishes, start fights in queues and buses, celebrate birthdays a month earlier and celebrate a wedding with the whole yard. We know how to laugh and rejoice, help and do good. Russian people are short-sighted: they don’t like to plan anything, save money, look after their health, “invest in the future”; we live in the moment here and now. And while we are so different from the rest of the world with its culture of behavior, while we behave abroad “like barbarians” and persistently defend the rights of a carpet on the wall and a wardrobe that covers the entire wall, our national spirit, that same unique Russian soul, is preserved and multiplies. Is it worth measuring it by smiles and courtesy?

Features of the Russian soul and Russian mentality was last modified: June 11th, 2017 by Jasna

Introduction

An important factor influencing the culture of a particular country is the mentality of the carriers of this culture, formed over the centuries. Mentality from Latin mens(mentis) - mind, thinking, way of thinking, mental makeup, reason, mental development. This term denotes a set of habits and beliefs, a way of thinking characteristic of a particular community. Mentality is easier to describe using some key concepts than to give a clear definition.

It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of “mentality” and “mentality”. Only partially these words are synonyms. The term “mentality” expresses a specific, historical quality, variability of mentality (a system of some relatively stable characteristics), the so-called. mental core, manifested in language, in national character, in folklore, in politics, in art.

In mentality, something is revealed that the historical era being studied does not directly communicate; the era, as if against its own will, “speaks out” about itself, about its secrets. At this level, it is possible to hear things that cannot be learned at the level of conscious statements.

We learn about the mentality of a particular culture, first of all, from the actions and writings of its representatives. The protection of national cultures becomes the most important task of society. Another, no less urgent task is not to impede cultural modernization, synthesis, and dialogue of cultures. Modern Russia and the emerging Russian mentality are rich and contradictory material for cultural research, which is very relevant right now.

70 years of Soviet power left a deep and contradictory imprint on the culture of our country - one of the deepest since the adoption of Christianity, which formed the spiritual basis of Russian culture for centuries. The analysis of this complex, in many ways tragic period in the history of Russia is important precisely now, when the USSR as a state has already entered history, and remnants of the former Soviet mentality remain.

The main problem of the Soviet mentality is alienation from religious values. The ideology that dominated the country for seven decades was based on the materialist concept of Marxism-Leninism. Spiritual improvement has deeper roots.

The main problem of the Soviet mentality is that it is based on human teachings, not divine ones. By raising a person as a conductor of the pleasures of earthly life, we, without knowing it, are building the old, Soviet mentality. A Soviet person is a person far from freedom of thought and creative self-realization.

In my course work I am trying to show the characteristic features of the Russian mentality, as well as their transformation under the influence of Soviet ideology. The culture of modern Russia is a synthetic culture (synthesis of both pre-revolutionary and Soviet experience with the liberal-rationalistic values ​​of the West); it has tendencies for further creative development, for overcoming those remnants of the Soviet mentality that prevent the Russian people in general and millions of individuals in particular from realizing their intellectual, creative and economic potential, from building a viable economic and political system based on democratic principles, incorporating themselves both traditional and the latest phenomena of domestic and world culture.

Chapter 1. Origins of the Soviet mentality

1.1 Characteristic features of the Russian mentality

Also V.O. Klyuchevsky revealed the connection between natural and climatic conditions with the national character traits of a particular people. Russian thought is initially associated with the desire to understand nature. The formation of Rus' began in an area covered with forests and steppes. The forest served as a reliable refuge from enemies, but was dangerous for people, the steppe formed the motif of space, but also carried the threat of wars and raids. Hence the “unrootedness” of the Russian person.

The culture of Russia was formed under the influence of both the West (the adoption of Christianity) and the East (in the 13th-15th centuries - the Tatar-Mongol yoke, then the seizure and development of eastern territories). A.O. Boronoev and P.I. Smirnov believe that the basis of the national Russian character is service, altruistic activity (alternative activity, For-Another-activity), and the role of “Other” can be played by man, God, nature, and the country (service to “Holy Rus'” as God's plan). This was facilitated by a number of reasons - Russia’s border position, the need to defend itself from both the West and the East, and the need for mutual assistance. This slowed down the development of market relations, but developed religiosity and asceticism in the minds of the Russian people. This is where a demarcation occurred (precisely a demarcation, and not a complete break) with the rationalistic, more egocentric worldview of the West.

1.1.1 Religiosity as a fundamental feature of the Russian mentality

The most striking feature of the Russian mentality, noted by philosophers, is religiosity. The religion and philosophy of all peoples, long before Christianity, established that humanity as a whole and each person individually strives for God. Christianity of the Byzantine model, if not immediately, but firmly lay on the pagan basis of Slavic religiosity.

Christian religiosity is manifested in the search for absolute, perfect good, feasible only in the Kingdom of God. At the heart of this spiritual search are two biblical commandments: love God more than yourself and your neighbor as yourself. According to Christian teaching, relative goods, not based on a clear division of good and evil, do not lead to the Kingdom of God.

In the famous work of S. M. Solovyov “History of Russia from Ancient Times” one can find the texts of chronicles, official documents, reports of diplomats and generals. All these documents are full of references to God, God's will. Before their death, princes usually took monastic vows. In the 18th century, when the ideas of the Enlightenment began to penetrate into Russia, the activities of Freemasons, who sought to deepen the understanding of the truths of Christianity through cultural and religious synthesis (Christianity, Judaism, medieval alchemy, the heritage of antiquity), developed widely. In the 19th – early 20th centuries, religiosity was expressed in works of poetry, prose, drama, and religious philosophy.

A religious person seeks absolute goodness in freedom. Both Western (Byzantine) and Eastern (Arab) sources testified to the love of freedom of the Slavs. This was also reflected in Russian folklore (the melodiousness and melody of Russian fairy tales, songs, and dances).

1.1.2 The desire for service and self-sacrifice as a national Russian trait

A tendency towards isolation, the development of complex plans, the ability to collectivism, self-sacrifice - these are the features of Russian psychology. The affairs of the social whole are placed above one's own business. Service turned out to be the most appropriate form of activity for the Russian mentality, and indeed life in general. For a Russian person, the value of individual life is insignificant compared to the general value (family, community, Fatherland). Hence the spirit of Russian sovereignty, the merging of state and society. Orthodox humility gave rise to sacrifice, asceticism, and disregard for the values ​​of everyday comfort and well-being in the Russian people. However, humility does not mean inactivity; it presupposes a volitional act (feat, virtue).

The consequence of Christian humility is the spiritual warmth of Russians, a hospitable attitude towards foreigners, a sense of community, and the need for selfless communication. The Russian mentality is characterized not by egocentric incentives for self-affirmation, but by the desire for spiritual freedom. This desire in relation to management is also manifested in relation to material wealth.

1.1.3 Attitudes towards money and wealth

Perhaps no other people has a negative attitude towards material well-being as deeply rooted as the Russians. In Rus', in Russia, a wealthy person had to look for “excusing reasons” for his wealth. Hence the craving for charity, for philanthropic activities (remember the Morozovs, Mamontovs and other famous merchant dynasties of Russia)

The focus on economic well-being turned out to be more characteristic of the Western mentality. It turned out to be both more stable and more competitive. With the beginning of the New Age in Europe, and then in America, the so-called “middle class” is a social layer of people with a stable financial situation, which, nevertheless, does not allow them to live without working (they started talking about the “middle class” in Russia seriously only at the end of the last century). In the Russian character, the desire to value material wealth, a careful attitude towards material values, respect for work, and responsibility towards one’s own destiny are not sufficiently developed.

1.1.4 Attitude to work

There are two directly opposite opinions about the attitude of Russians to work. Some observers consider Russians lazy due to centuries of everyday disorder, others insist on hard work. Oddly enough, there is no contradiction here. The Russian mentality is not characterized by love for work as such. For Russians, the goal of labor is important - not for oneself, but for a high goal (for the sake of saving the soul, for obedience, for the Motherland). At the same time, Russians tend to strive for self-expression in creativity. A difficult task, interesting work or problem is a good incentive for a Russian to work intensively, often financially unprofitable.

A component of the Russian mentality is a penchant for collective, artel work. Earnings are usually divided not according to contribution to the result, but “fairly”.

Russian entrepreneurship is also largely based on the Orthodox tradition. Neither the peasant nor the merchant sought wealth as the main goal of existence. The Orthodox tradition prohibits the collection of interest (surplus) from one's neighbor and asserts that only labor can be a source of wealth. The basis of pre-revolutionary Russian entrepreneurship was the motive of service: to the Tsar, to the Fatherland (the early Stroganovs, Demidovs), to God (builders of monasteries and churches), to the people (patrons of the arts and benefactors - see 1.1.3).

Among Russian entrepreneurs, paternalistic, “family” relationships with hired personnel have traditionally dominated, at least with the permanent part of it close to the owner (the same was true in the relationships between landowners and serfs). Dating back to Domostroy (16th century), they were widespread at the end of the 19th century.

Traditionally, Russian family farming was subsistence; they bought only what could not be produced independently. Residents of cities - townspeople, workers, merchants, whose main activity was not related to agriculture, still wanted to have their own farm. Only in Russia did a special type of settlement appear - the city estate.

1.1.5 Relationship to the state

In public life, Russians' love of freedom is expressed in a tendency toward anarchy and a certain contempt for the state. This mentality trait influenced such thinkers as Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Old Believer talk and some modern religious associations.

Russians’ contempt for the state is contempt for the bourgeois focus on property, on earthly goods, the so-called. "philistinism". This was alien to the European mentality even in the crisis era between the two world wars (let us recall, for example, Hesse’s novel “Steppenwolf”, imbued with the spirit of escapism, where, nevertheless, the “philistine” spirit is described with sympathy).

Unlike Western Europe, where states arose through conquest, statehood in Rus', according to historical sources, was established through the voluntary calling of the Varangian rulers by the people. The ruling strata lived by “external” truth, creating external rules of life and resorting to coercive force in case of their violation. The “earth”, the people, lived with the “inner”, Christian truth. Even the conquest of new territories was largely not at the expense of the authorities, but at the expense of the population, who often fled from state persecution (Cossacks); The state caught up with the pioneers only during the development of new lands. The formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia occurred not only thanks to the efforts of the rulers, but also thanks to the support of the people. Years of war were more common than years of peace. Characteristic of the Russian mentality, service to a higher principle prompted huge sections of the population (clergy, merchants, military) to subordinate their freedom to the state, as a necessary condition for curbing evil. The clergy were called to the same goal. The church became a weapon in the fight against evil through moral means, and the state became a means of coercion.

Patriotism, natural love for the motherland, and national feeling, that is, love for the Russian people, were combined in the church into one inseparable whole. The Orthodox clergy became the stronghold of the Russian autocracy.

Politically, Russia remained an absolute monarchy, while bourgeois revolutions were in full swing in Europe and constitutional orders were being established. At the same time, in public life, everyday democracy was expressed more clearly than in the West (dislike for the conventions of the nihilists of the sixties, greater freedom from church regulations than among Catholics and Protestants).

Thus, the Russian mentality combines diverse and even contradictory properties and modes of behavior. N. Berdyaev expressively emphasized this feature of the Russian people: “Two opposite principles formed the basis for the formation of the Russian soul: the natural, pagan Dionysian element and ascetic monastic Orthodoxy. It is possible to discover opposite properties in the Russian people: despotism, hypertrophy of the state and anarchism, freedom; cruelty, a tendency to violence and kindness, humanity, gentleness; ritual belief and the search for truth; individualism, heightened consciousness of personality and impersonal collectivism; nationalism, self-praise and universalism, pan-humanity; eschatologically messianic religiosity and external piety; the search for God and militant atheism; humility and arrogance; slavery and rebellion."

Obtaining higher education at universities and technological institutes was not a privilege for rich people in Russia. Russian everyday democracy contributed to an abundance of scholarships and assistance to students from societies at universities. Therefore, the Russian intelligentsia was non-class and non-class, heterogeneous. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia had a chance to develop its own constitutional order, the foundations of a rule of law state (possibly with a monarchical form of government, perhaps with a republican one) and civil society, had it not been for the First World War and the Bolshevik coup. However, after October 1917, and especially after Stalin came to power, the development of the country, and with it the development of mentality, took a different path.

1.2 From Russian to Soviet mentality

In the first years of Soviet power, the education of the younger generation was focused on the development of personality, the education of a “new man.” Subsequently, the Bolshevik government took the opposite path, believing that in a totalitarian state it was more important to subordinate the individual to the collective.

The Soviet mentality was formed not only on Marxist-Leninist foundations, but in many ways on the basis of the Christian mentality of the Russian people. The attitude towards work, material wealth, and statehood remained the same over the years.

Just as the Russian peasant owner worked hard from dawn to dusk, so the Soviet worker and collective farmer quickly carried out plans and orders on time. The tradition of the Russian city estate (see 1.1.4) resulted in a special, nowhere else found movement of gardeners, which originated in Soviet times and had no economic roots. Patriarchal relations in production (albeit in a somewhat distorted form) were still encountered in Soviet times at enterprises headed by talented Russian directors.

The Soviet slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” which stems from the principle of dividing material wealth “fairly,” also has Christian roots. The primordially Russian property of not striving for wealth, for profit by any means, migrated into the Soviet consciousness.

The attitude towards the state continued to be ambivalent. The Soviet era was characterized by such phenomena as the cult of personality of the leader (Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev - this was less evident under Khrushchev), and an exaggeration of the role of the party in public life. At the same time, the “unofficial”, everyday attitude towards state power was less serious, more ironic, and often quite condescending (“political” jokes, caricatures of the Brezhnev era).

The fundamental link in the transition from Russian to Soviet mentality was a change in attitude towards religion. It was believed that the establishment of communist ideology leads to the overcoming of religious consciousness and the establishment of atheism. State policy towards the church changed at different stages of Soviet history, from attempts to cooperate in the first months after the October Revolution, to the displacement and restriction of church activities, and the destruction of churches in the 30s. The Bolsheviks initially did not seek conflict with the church, but the decrees of the Soviet government on the separation of church from state and school from church and the transition to the Gregorian calendar caused the condemnation of Patriarch Tikhon. This leads to conflict; The church is declared a stronghold of counter-revolution. The Soviet government is trying to attract part of the clergy to its side and at the same time strives to eliminate the Moscow Patriarchate. By the end of the 20s, the Bolsheviks managed to ensure a split in the church and intensify the persecution of those who were not ready to cooperate.

During the Great Patriotic War, Stalin not only lifted restrictions on the activities of the Orthodox clergy, but also returned some of the churches and monasteries and helped restore the Moscow Patriarchate. Under Khrushchev, on the contrary, the authority of science is strengthened and atheism is declared again. During the years of Brezhnev's rule, the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, although under strict control of the party and the KGB, were nevertheless encouraged and supported, and anti-religious campaigns were directed, first of all, against sectarians, which received the approval of the highest church officials. However, the country's religious traditions were lost; a significant part of the clergy was either repressed or emigrated. This happened not only with Orthodoxy. In the 30s and 40s, entire nations were destroyed along with their beliefs, their temples, rituals, and customs.

Despite the fact that in the USSR it became outdated and sometimes shameful to be a believer, remnants of religion were preserved in the form of numerous signs and superstitions, which became another integral feature of the Soviet mentality. The Soviet era did not eliminate all forms of mass religious consciousness, but it pushed them beyond traditional norms into the realm of everyday mysticism. The level of religious culture of the population has decreased significantly; state ideology took the place of religion.

The predominance of the value of an idea over the value of human life, the tendency to asceticism was also characteristic of the pre-revolutionary mentality. Soviet propaganda transformed this idea, removing Christian overtones from it. It became righteous to sacrifice oneself not in the name of God, but for the sake of the triumph of the ideology of communism, for the sake of future generations. This attitude remained in the mentality of several formations of Soviet people. The loss of religious heritage changed the attitude towards morality, morality, and led to the decline of legal culture. It has become natural for Soviet people to strive for their goals, not disdaining any means.

The cultural potential of pre-revolutionary Russia was lost not only because of the persecution of the clergy and the systematic destruction of “reactionary” remnants of Christianity in the mentality of the people. The secular culture of Russian society was also lost: the flower of the scientific and creative intelligentsia, the traditions of merchants, entrepreneurship, peasant farming (the tragic consequence of collectivization and “dekulakization”), jurisprudence, and public administration. The formation of the Soviet mentality took place in conditions of a cultural crisis, which was hushed up by the official ideology. The continuity of generations and traditions was disrupted, which affected over seven decades of building socialism and continues to affect modern, capitalist Russia.

Chapter 2. Characteristic features of the Soviet mentality

As already mentioned in the previous chapter, the Soviet mentality, although it contained many all-Russian features, nevertheless differed very significantly from the pre-revolutionary one. The period of socialism led to the formation of the contradictory mentality of the “Soviet man.” This chapter will discuss its characteristic features that developed during the years of the Soviet regime in our country.

2.1 Feeling like a citizen of a superpower

After the start of the Cold War, the world became bipolar. The main world confrontation was the confrontation between two systems - socialism and capitalism, two world powers - the USA and the USSR. The country's new role in the world community also affected people's consciousness.

The main thrust of Soviet propaganda was the belief about the decline of capitalism, the “decay” of Western society and the advanced position of the Soviet Union. This concerned not only politics, economics, the military industry, influence in the world, the development of new territories and space, but also moral values, artistic culture, and sporting achievements. The roots of anti-American sentiment, still widespread in Russian society, date back to the times of the Cold War.

Having opposed itself to the “capitalist” world of the West, the USSR found itself in cultural isolation. Sometimes the contradictory processes taking place in Western culture (intensification of political struggle, youth movements, growth of protest sentiments) did not receive sufficient response in the culture of our country. Interest in Western culture, literature, far from the principles of socialist realism, philosophy not of the Marxist-Leninist sense, Western music of the twentieth century (“Today he plays jazz, and tomorrow he will sell his homeland; today he plays rock, and tomorrow he will get a prison sentence”) if not suppressed, it was not encouraged by society. Even in the “fraternal” socialist countries of Eastern Europe, this phenomenon was not as widespread as in the Soviet Union. Censorship in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Poland was not prohibitive, but permissive. Synthetic phenomena in culture went underground; Many of them were talked about only when they themselves became part of Soviet history.

It was officially believed that all the processes taking place in America and Europe (economic crises, unemployment, rising crime, moral decay of society) lead only to the collapse of the capitalist value system, but this does not exist under socialism. In practice, it turned out that similar phenomena in Soviet society were simply hushed up, and people were not ready for the crisis of socialism during the years of Brezhnev’s “stagnation”, for the realization of the utopianism of the communist goal, the discrepancy between propaganda and the real situation in the country and the world.

An important attitude in the mentality of Soviet people was confidence in the future, in the future of both their family, future generations, and the entire country. Modern supporters of communist ideology note this quality, lost in the modern Russian mentality, as unambiguously positive. At the same time, it was precisely this false confidence that prevented millions of Soviet citizens from adapting to the social changes of recent decades.

2.2 Constructing an image of the enemy

The Soviet mentality became characterized by an unambiguous division of those around them into “us” and “strangers”. Anyone who did not fit into the value system imposed from above could become a “stranger.” The image of the enemy (the enemy of the country, society, and with him the ordinary Soviet citizen) was constructed by official propaganda.

As the years passed, the circle of forces “hostile” to Soviet society only expanded. At the dawn of the revolution, opponents were everyone who did not accept the new order, the new way of life. With the beginning of Stalin's rule, with the intensification of repression, the struggle for power, and internal party contradictions, this circle was replenished by representatives of the ruling circles, the official ideology, who tried to resist the dictatorship. During the years of Khrushchev’s “thaw,” when the party set a course to expose Stalin’s personality cult, public opinion condemned adherents of old ideological clichés. During the Brezhnev era, the totalitarian regime began to take on authoritarian features, and those who did not submit to authority, did not adapt to the majority, openly expressed their own opinions, expressed sympathy both for the West and for the remnants of the pre-revolutionary mentality became “enemies.” The attitude remained wary towards supporters of changes in art, science, social thought, towards adherents of one religion or another, towards people involved in artistic creativity (both professionals and amateurs). Even though the methods of combating dissent were not as openly cruel as under Stalin, the destinies of many people were broken in prisons and psychiatric hospitals.

Even among the creative intelligentsia, who always tried to resist stereotypes, hostile images were constructed. There was a division into “us” and “strangers”, people of the “party” and “everyday people”. Contempt for the “philistines”, for the “scoops” as the antipodes of representatives of “their own circle” did not reach the complete denial of the values ​​of Soviet society, as happened from time to time in the West; in practice, intellectual “free-thinking” was primarily of a declarative nature. The “protest” attitudes of the Soviet era were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of conformism, easily explained by the desire of people to survive in the depths of the system and build their own system on its basis. The same desire was observed in the youth movements of the perestroika years; it is still observed today. This is partly why the controversial, but undoubtedly rich countercultural heritage of the 50s-70s in Europe and America received a powerful echo in the USSR only in the late 70s - early 80s, and many phenomena became known in Russia only in the 90s.

Throughout the entire period of socialism's influence in the world, the establishment of communist ideology occurred very unevenly. A large number of “doubters”, ready to weaken the influence of the USSR on politics, culture, and the mentality of their country, remained in the Baltic republics, annexed to the Soviet Union only during the Second World War, in the countries of Eastern Europe, where the formation of socialism took place under the sign of the USSR’s victory over fascism . This doubt had to be paid with considerable blood, which explains the dislike of Russians by the residents of the current independent states - Russia's western neighbors. No matter how much the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Latvians, and Estonians try to disown the socialist past, the new image of the enemy in the person of modern Russia, the desire to shift responsibility for their past to the entire Russian people can also be regarded as a relic of the Soviet mentality.

In the everyday life of Soviet people, representatives of any minorities could fall under the image of the “enemy”: national (I’ll say more about “everyday” xenophobia), religious, sexual (the criminal prosecution of homosexuals that began in the Stalin years caused a wave of homophobia that does not fade in modern Russia), and simply those who stood out too much from the crowd, “white crows.” The feeling of enmity was instilled from childhood (remember the film “Scarecrow”) - to people gifted with this or that skill, talent, to those who studied, worked better or worse than the majority, were poorer or richer, differed in the way they dressed, behaved, think.

The Cold War and anti-American propaganda constructed a hostile image of America. Young people's interest in Western culture began during Khrushchev's “thaw” - just when Europe and the United States were gripped by protest sentiments. The Soviet intelligentsia discovered the works of writers of the “lost generation” - Ernest Hemingway, Richard Aldington, Francis Scott Fitzgerald, and periodicals published novels and stories by contemporary authors - Jerome David Salinger, John Updike, Jack Kerouac. However, all this was presented from a certain ideological angle; a point of view was imposed on the reader, often of an anti-American nature, which did not correspond to the worldview of the writers themselves. At the end of the 60s and throughout the 70s, interest in the West did not fall, but, on the contrary, increased. The images drawn from books, from Eastern European periodicals (censorship in the “countries of victorious socialism” was not as strict as in the Soviet Union), from the impressions of military personnel, sailors, and diplomats who had been abroad, differed significantly from those promoted. Passion for the culture of Europe and America was, first of all, characteristic of young intellectuals who less firmly absorbed ideological principles and were critical of them. There was a gap between the generation of “fathers,” for whom the dominant ideology was undeniable, and the generation of “children,” who tried, if not to completely deny generally accepted ideals, then at least to critically and creatively rethink them. And among the youth, “hipsters”, “informals”, subject to the “pernicious influence of the West”, found their opponents among party and Komsomol activists. Such cliches in the minds of people (including the very bearers of “protest” attitudes) did not disappear even at the turn of the millennium.

Scientific and technological progress, the development of the natural sciences, and the military-industrial complex led to another division of society - into “physicists” and “lyricists”. The Soviet consciousness adopted the priority of technical knowledge over the humanities. Representatives of creative professions and the humanities fell under the image of the “enemy” and “stranger”; an attitude was formed towards them as “idlers”, “people without education”. Even in the 90s, when with the development of information technology and connections between countries, humanitarian knowledge was increasingly in demand, many professionals were unable to overcome the stereotype left over from Soviet times.

The spirit of hostility permeated the entire Soviet society. An atmosphere of fear and suspicion lay at the heart of the socialist system; it was also the reason for his downfall. This relic of the Soviet mentality is dangerous in modern Russian society, which is even more heterogeneous than Soviet society. It is dangerous because anyone can fall under the image of the enemy - by skin color or political beliefs, by demeanor, by religious or aesthetic preferences. An external attitude toward tolerance does not always result in tolerance in everyday life; more often, it’s the other way around. It will take a lot of time to overcome hostility and hostile attitudes in the mind.

After the Great Patriotic War, the Soviet Union positioned itself as the main winner of fascism. Hence the declaration of friendship of peoples, internationalism as a counterbalance to “bourgeois” nationalism and neo-fascism.

The USSR was a multinational state. The vast territory of the former Russian Empire was not fully developed; the peoples who inhabited it were at different levels of development. Starting from Stalin's times, official propaganda testified to the increase in the cultural level of the peoples of the Far North, Far East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus, and the development of education, writing, and literature in the union republics. This phenomenon had great consequences, and not only positive ones. The national-cultural autonomies that existed in Tsarist Russia were destroyed; During the Stalin years, entire peoples were deported (Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans). The traditional way of life of the peoples of the North and Siberia was destroyed by outside interference, which led to the death of a huge number of people, an increase in drunkenness, which was not typical of these peoples before, and the loss of traditional culture, beliefs, folklore, and crafts. Just as Nazism used neo-paganism, based on ancient German and Scandinavian religion and magic, as one of its foundations, so Stalinism in the Far North, Siberia, and the Far East was largely established through paganism and shamanism.

The high-profile trials of the Stalin years (first, internal party repressions, and then the notorious “Doctors’ Plot”), and the dissatisfaction of the Soviet leadership with the policies of the young state of Israel during the reign of Brezhnev led to the spread of anti-Semitism in society. Despite the fact that among the first revolutionaries, among the members of the Bolshevik Party there were many representatives of the Jewish people (which is easily explained by the Jewish pogroms and the growth of Black Hundred sentiments at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries), for the “ordinary Soviet person” the word “Jew” became a dirty word. Belonging to a specific nationality was associated in the mentality with certain qualities, character traits, often negative, “hostile” to Soviet society (stinginess, penchant for profit, selfishness). This is despite the fact that it was the Jewish people who presented Russian and Soviet society with a whole galaxy of scientists and artists. Many people hid their origins, changing their surnames to Russian ones, hushing up their ancestry.

“Everyday” xenophobia, rooted in the Soviet mentality, also affected people from the Caucasus and Central Asia. We can safely say that the growth of such sentiments in modern Russia, constant armed conflicts in the southern territories of the former USSR are a consequence of remnants of Soviet consciousness. Immigrants from the south increasingly found themselves in territories with a predominant Russian population: some ended up in the RSFSR after the war and Stalin’s deportations, others came to study at universities or work as assigned workers. Insufficient knowledge of the Russian language, a different attitude towards the family, towards women, and towards elders, different from the Central Russian one, set the indigenous population against the southerners. Hence the numerous jokes and jokes “About the Georgian”, “About Uzbeks”, the contemptuous names “Khachik”, “Churka”, “Chuchmek”, “Black Sea” unrevigentlyed by nationality.

Under the motto of internationalism, the Soviet Union welcomed national liberation movements in former European possessions in Asia and Africa, Latin America, and established diplomatic relations with new states in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. At the same time, the Soviet government supported dictatorial regimes, often established after the victory of liberation movements in these states, which cost the lives of thousands of people.

People from third world countries came to study at Soviet universities. Along with their receipt of higher education, there was also an “export of revolution”, the imposition of Soviet values ​​on young national formations with a not yet established mentality. “Export of revolution” became the cause (though not the only one, but an important one) of the civilizational conflict at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. The attitude towards foreigners within the Soviet Union continued to be wary, even hostile.

The declared internationalism, the notorious “friendship of peoples” led, on the one hand, to the establishment of ties between the population of the entire country, and the whole world, on the other hand, they left an indelible mark on the mentality and culture of the peoples of the USSR. And this trace did not always benefit the cultural level of the population. People broke away from their roots, forgot the traditions of their people - and at the same time remained “strangers” to those around them. National contradictions both in the post-Soviet space and throughout the world have become one of the main problems of the new millennium.

2.4 Collectivism

Communist ideology placed the interests of the collective above the interests of the individual. The status of a Soviet citizen throughout his life largely depended on his membership in certain groups and social formations - either compulsory (Octobers, pioneers) or desirable (Komsomol, party, trade unions).

Soviet schoolchildren - Octoberists, pioneers, Komsomol members - were taught that relationships within the team should be placed above family and friendships, that you can dislike a comrade because of some personal qualities, but you cannot refuse to help him. With the same attitude, a person went into adulthood. The legacy of the traditional Russian communal order is noticeable here, echoes of the Christian mentality (“love your neighbor”), although devoid of a religious component.

Despite the fact that the team really strengthened the sense of comradely responsibility, it also deprived the individual of the opportunity to develop within an individual framework. Membership in the Communist Party, public work in the Komsomol and trade union organizations, and service in the armed forces were encouraged both morally and financially, and increased the social status of the Soviet citizen. If a person isolated himself from the group or denied its interests, he inevitably became an outcast. Individualism, the desire for personal improvement, refusal to follow generally accepted patterns, escapism and egocentrism were condemned by society. The team did not accept those who were noticeably different from the majority - in their way of thinking, in their intellectual level, in their range of interests and communication. Bright personalities sometimes could not fully realize themselves or reveal themselves in the depths of one or another cell of society.

When, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the usual social patterns began to break down, people sometimes did not have enough strength or experience to adapt to new conditions. The development of the Russian market, and with it the market system of values, contradicted the beliefs enshrined in the minds of several generations, which led to a value crisis in modern Russia.

2.5 Anti-intellectualism

Contempt for intelligence has always played an important role in the Soviet mentality. The word "intellectual" was offensive throughout Stalin's reign. Soviet leaders considered themselves entitled to impose their opinions on scientists, artists, and writers under pain of reprisals. During the years of Soviet power, many representatives of the intellectual stratum had to emigrate; many of those who remained in the USSR became victims of the totalitarian regime or “internal emigrants.” Until now, key positions in Russian science and art are occupied by those who made their careers through political means.

Anti-intellectualism was a consequence of the imprint of official ideology in the mentality of people. In the minds of the Soviet average person, an intellectually developed person was “ideologically unreliable.” The Soviet “intellectual” gravitated towards values ​​that were alien to society, contrary to generally accepted ideas, was critical of the phenomena taking place in the country and the world, did not bow to government officials, was interested in the culture of the capitalist West, and, therefore, could be dangerous.

The lack of complete freedom of speech in the country, censorship of the media led to the fact that the heritage of pre-revolutionary Russian culture, the culture of the Silver Age and the first years of Soviet power, the creativity of the victims of Stalinism, as well as a huge layer of Western art and philosophy (even of the Marxist persuasion) turned out to be unknown to the Soviet Union. reader, listener, viewer. Many phenomena were talked about during the years of perestroika, but a significant part passed unnoticed by Russian culture.

The glorification of criminality, immorality, the attribution of drunkenness, hooliganism, and thoughtlessly used physical force to a person’s personal achievements, although not officially declared, became a distinctive feature of the Soviet mentality. Even the artistic intelligentsia began to mock both their own value priorities and “philistine” stereotypes, and often this went beyond the bounds of a harmless joke. It became a shame to be smarter and more educated than those around you. The attraction to “thieves” romance, “everyday” alcoholism, disrespect for both morality and law and order have become habits of the entire society, regardless of cultural and educational level. The decline in the cultural level of the Soviet people, which had been hushed up for decades, made itself felt at the turn of the 80s and 90s, when they started talking about everything openly.

2.6 The desire to shift responsibility for one’s destiny to the authorities

The totalitarian regime that emerged in the Soviet Union reached its apogee in the 30-50s, subsequently taking on authoritarian features. The political struggle within the one-party system was weakened, and citizens were given the illusion of “stability” and unshakable power.

The low level of political culture and unfamiliarity with the mechanism of democratic elections led to the fact that an individual, an individual, could rarely make informed political decisions. Just as during the autocracy the people had hope for a “good tsar,” so in Soviet times people relied, first of all, on the authorities, and not on themselves. The main difference was that in pre-revolutionary Russia there was a tradition of tsarist, then imperial power; the Soviet regime did not develop such a tradition.

The Soviet mentality did not contain the desire to argue with the authorities, to rebel. In the 80s, this led to the fact that all reforms, as in the 19th-20th centuries, took place “from above.” The country turned out to be unprepared for either the mechanism of free democratic elections or market changes in the economy. The masses were easily led by the slogans of populist politicians who promised to solve all their problems and fulfill all their aspirations. When promises were not fulfilled in practice, new demagogues came with new programs, most often incompatible with the real situation in the country.

Here is a short list of the features of the mentality that developed during the Soviet period and became an obstacle on the inconsistent path from socialism to capitalism, from dictatorship to democracy. The confusion of the 1990s led to apparent stability at the beginning of the new century. The authority of “firm” state power and a clearly developed ideology emerged again, and a new turn towards authoritarianism, and, possibly, a new totalitarian regime, was outlined. To avoid this, it is important to understand which features of modern Russian mentality can contribute and which can hinder this process.

Chapter 3. Peculiarities of Russian and Russian mentality in overcoming Soviet stereotypes

3.1 At the turn of the century: from Soviet mentality to Russian

The main mistake of perestroika was the attempt to mechanically instill elements of Western culture onto Russian soil. The older generation of Soviet citizens lost the confidence (even if often illusory) in the future that the system of “developed socialism” offered, the younger generation sometimes thoughtlessly adopted new values, paying attention, first of all, to their external, image aspects, rather than to their internal content . However, at the end of the last century there was a transition from the Soviet mentality to the modern Russian one.

The life of people in post-communist Russia is individualized and less regulated “from above” than before (before the start of perestroika and market reforms). Freedom of choice is assumed, and, consequently, risk and responsibility. The right of every person to build his life independently is not only a right, but in many ways also a duty. Without a conscious choice of the present, subsequent success becomes impossible (which is fundamentally the opposite of the Soviet illusion of “faith in a bright future”).

From such an attitude it follows that modern Russians are developing a different attitude towards money and wealth than the Soviet one. Working and earning money has become not shameful, but, on the contrary, prestigious. Material values ​​began to be perceived as a sign of strength (both physical and intellectual), success, and luck. At the same time, discussing income and salaries is increasingly becoming bad manners – as in America and Europe.

The influence of Western, rationalistic mentality is great here, but the precursor of this phenomenon can also be found in the pre-revolutionary culture of Russia. Both the Russian peasant and the Russian merchant were, first of all, owners, for whom material wealth meant fame, power and confidence (let us remember how painfully, at the cost of enormous human sacrifices, collectivization and “dekulakization” took place during the Stalin years).

It would be wrong to unequivocally state that the only sign of a change in the post-Soviet mentality is a rethinking of the attitude towards the material side of life to the detriment of the spiritual. As attitudes towards income change, so does the attitude towards education. Without special knowledge and skills, it is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve financial well-being, and Russian citizens of all ages and social strata are increasingly drawn to new knowledge. Graduates of higher and secondary specialized educational institutions of the Soviet era are re-education both in Russia and abroad, mastering professions in demand in a market economy.

The opinion that exists in the minds of many citizens of our country about the “lack of spirituality” of young people is not always justified. Stereotypes imposed by the media only partially reflect processes occurring in real life. There are many more thoughtful people among young Russians than is commonly believed. What is characteristic of people born in the 70s–80s and even the early 90s is that no ideology has become obligatory for them. Thousands of young Russians today are in a political, religious, ethical and aesthetic search. And the preferences of peers, representatives of the same generation and even the same social stratum often differ to the extreme. Some, in search of a moral guideline, turn to the Soviet past, feeling unrooted in modern society, others - to the origins of Russian pre-revolutionary culture, to Orthodoxy, some - to Russian nationalism and monarchism, others - to the values ​​of the West, and others - to the religion and philosophy of the East. Freedom of choice is freedom of religion, political preferences, and everyday values ​​of a person and society.

Another important change in the mentality of Russians, which primarily affected young people (to a lesser extent - older generations) - in relation to the intimate sphere, to nudity, to the discussion of details related to sexuality. This corresponds to the modern Western European standard of decency.

On the one hand, sexual relations in the minds of Russians have received the right to exist outside of family and generally outside of any spiritual sensations. On the other hand, among the educated part of the population the attitude towards this area of ​​life has become more rational.

E. Bashkirova, in her article “Transformation of the values ​​of a democratic state,” tries to identify the structure and dynamics of value preferences in Russian society, based on empirical research data (data from two sociological surveys are presented - 1995 and 1999). An analysis of Russians’ answers to questions about traditional, “universal” values ​​allows us to identify the following hierarchy of priorities (as their importance decreases):

family - 97% and 95% of all respondents in 1995 and 1999, respectively;

work - 84% (1995) and 83% (1999);

friends, acquaintances - 79% (1995) and 81% (1999);

free time - 71% (1995) and 68% (1999);

religion - 41% (1995) and 43% (1999);

politics - 28% (1995) and 38% (1999).

What is immediately striking is the population’s commitment to traditional values ​​for any society (family, communication), attitudes towards which change very little over the years. The priority of work as a source of income in an unstable market economy subject to frequent crises is also easy to explain. At the same time, work is often also a way to realize a person’s intellectual and creative potential.

Somewhat unexpectedly, religion and politics are located in the hierarchy of values: after all, during Soviet history, atheism and “political literacy” were actively cultivated in the country. The Constitution of the Russian Federation guaranteed every citizen the freedom to profess any faith independently or in community with others. The liberalization of legislation in this area led to the fact that in the late 80s and early 90s the number of religious associations in the country increased noticeably. The separation of church and state was also legally enshrined, and, therefore, the right to be outside religion.

Since for many centuries the fate of the Russian people was closely connected with Orthodoxy, other religions (even other models of Christianity) do not easily take root in society. There are many people who consider the Orthodox Church to be the only custodian of national spiritual treasures. According to the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research, 45 percent of Russians are Orthodox believers.

The Russian Orthodox Church plays a significant role in the life of the country (suffice it to recall the widely discussed project with attempts to introduce lessons in Orthodox culture in schools), which sometimes negatively affects the relationship between representatives of different faiths. The current state of the church resembles the situation at the beginning of the twentieth century: on the one hand, social self-isolation, on the other, close contact with the state apparatus.

To a large extent, the process of religious identification and religious education of ordinary Russians is complicated by the widespread spread of pseudo-mystical religions and cults. New doctrines, sometimes openly totalitarian in meaning and orientation, nevertheless receive their social order.

The Orthodox clergy usually sets up parishioners against various kinds of “sectarian heretics” and almost traitors to Russian traditions, which quite unfairly include Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and even Christians of other branches.

On the other hand, religious minorities are also trying to maintain their faith. The 90s were a time of restoration not only of Orthodox churches closed and destroyed during the Stalin years, but also of churches, mosques, and synagogues. Religious communities are being created, religious schools and higher educational institutions are opening.

Another phenomenon that began back in the 70-80s and continues to this day is the growth of interest in the religion and philosophy of the East. This interest does not always take the form of a cheap passion for mysticism. There are also those who, having been brought up from childhood in the Christian tradition or in the spirit of Soviet-style atheism, consciously accept Buddhism or Hinduism, Judaism or Islam. This phenomenon has not become widespread; it is mainly common among young intellectuals. However, an increase in the level of tolerance towards adherents of non-dominant faiths and a tendency towards independent choice of religious affiliation is undoubtedly a progressive shift in the development of mentality.

The danger of increased attention to religion in general lies in the fact that certain political forces can play on this (there are plenty of examples: the so-called “Islamic extremism”; “Orthodox nationalism”; neo-paganism and occultism as means of promoting right-wing radical ideas). Religious associations must, not in words, but in deeds, be equal before the law and minimally involved in the struggle of parties and movements.

The role of politics in the lives of citizens of our country is steadily increasing. With the collapse of the USSR, countless parties and movements entered the political arena, only a small part of which had a well-structured program of action and gained sufficient support in society. Over the years, their number began to decline; more significant forces formed the system of state power, smaller parties and movements either united or remained on the periphery of the political struggle.

Even though the political system in Russia has so far become only a semblance of democratic models, the level of political consciousness of citizens has nevertheless increased somewhat in connection with the right to elect and be elected. In the last few years, there has even been a certain “fashion” for politics, especially for youth politics (the influence of the “orange” revolutions in the union republics, dissatisfaction with the political course of representatives of different, sometimes opposing, beliefs). Ratings of young politicians – from 18 to 30 years old – are increasingly found in the media. Perhaps these are the forces that will influence the political development of Russia in the 21st century.

However, as follows from the survey results, personal interests still prevail over public ones. There are obvious consequences of the synthesis of Western, native Russian and Soviet systems of values, which nevertheless led to some democratization of the Russian mentality. Unfortunately, this does not happen everywhere. In the next section, I want to talk about the remnants of the Soviet mentality in the self-awareness of the citizens of our country.

3.2 Remnants of the Soviet mentality in post-communist Russia

In the twentieth century, the Western world went far ahead in its development. Modern Russia has to assimilate foreign culture, foreign values, sometimes regardless of centuries-old traditions. The weakness of Russian liberalism is the belief in the universality, absoluteness, and objectivity of the laws of social development. In fact, this attitude is a Marxist position. Social laws are not absolute, but depend on people, their national character, traditions, and culture.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of citizens quickly changed their behavioral attitudes, the same could not so easily happen to values. Values ​​in Russia often contradict each other. In this regard, modern literature often talks about their crisis in Russian society. The wave of pre-revolutionary Russian intelligentsia, which became decisive in the formation of the mentality of Russian people at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, either emigrated to the West or was destroyed by the Stalinist system. Freedom of creative realization 50 years later collided with the value disorientation of society. Promoted ideals were often either untrustworthy or seemed unattainable.

Over the past 20 years, Russians have enjoyed much greater freedom of choice than during seven decades of socialism. Unfortunately, recognition of this fact often leads to the denial of the entire experience of the previous generation. During the years of perestroika, the image of an “ordinary Soviet citizen” turned into one of the variants of the image of the enemy. This was especially pronounced in the second half of the 80s. On the one hand, it was during this period that people began to talk widely about the rich heritage of the country, the history and fate of which had been hushed up for half a century. On the other hand, the phenomena of Soviet culture often began to be thoughtlessly “thrown off the ship of history,” instead of being subjected to rethinking and constructive criticism. This has created a generation gap. Young people in the Soviet and post-Soviet space were not instilled from birth with a respectful attitude towards family and elders. With the change in the values ​​of society, the older generation in the eyes of young people began to be perceived as the bearer of old, “Soviet”, unmodern views.

The self-critical, sometimes bordering on self-deprecation, tone in which they spoke about the Soviet and Russian mentality persisted in Yeltsin’s Russia. The first Chechen campaign caused a wave of anti-patriotism and defeatism.

The changes at the turn of the 80s and 90s did not entail revolutionary changes in the mentality of the majority of Russians. The very imprint of the Soviet mentality in the consciousness of Russian people turned out to be one of the most profound after the adoption of Christianity in Rus'. The years of perestroika can rather be perceived as another period of “thaw” in the minds of the people. The desire to defend the newfound freedom of private life from uninvited intrusions, including from the state, continues to be combined with a craving for authoritarianism, characteristic of the Russian mentality.

The mosaic nature of ideas and their fragmentation are clearly manifested in the political sphere. The general trend for all CIS countries is the strengthening of the influence of the executive branch. Here such a feature of the Soviet mentality manifested itself as the desire to shift responsibility for one’s fate to the authorities. Russian citizens in a referendum in the spring of 1993, unable to make a choice between a strong presidential and legislative power, on the one hand, sanctioned the coexistence of a leader and an independent parliament as elements of different cultures, on the other, showed the inability to choose, characteristic of Soviet people. There is a synthesis of Western and Soviet cultures. Another illustrative example is the results of a sociological survey conducted in Crimea. It turned out that various groups of the population, while supporting democratic values ​​(freedom of speech, press, equality of forms of property), at the same time believe that in order for the country to emerge from the crisis, a leader like Lenin, Stalin, Andropov is needed, that is, they combine political ideals characteristic of the West with ideas about "strong hand" The current cultural situation consists of disparate elements: Soviet culture as a system of ideas has collapsed, but continues to exist in the form of separate fragments; ideas characteristic of modern Western culture are actively spreading; the influence of the Russian-Orthodox or other national-religious mentality is increasing.

Since the mid-90s. the terms “Soviet mentality” and “Russian mentality” began to be identified less and less often. Although they still had some negative connotations, in the contexts in which they were used, there was visible a desire, on the one hand, to build bridges between Russia before 1917 and Russia after 1993, and on the other, to rehabilitate the “common Soviet man.” The search for cultural identity, which took place in this vein, also led to a more balanced assessment of the Soviet period of national history. Voices began to be heard more and more often, claiming that “not everything was bad” with us. This, of course, has its own very sober grain. However, faith in authority (which in Soviet times lost its original, religious content) is still combined with distrust of liberal values, supposedly introduced from the outside, to democratic institutions.

In the minds of many, nostalgia for the “superpower” coexists with the “image of the enemy” left over from Soviet times. The collapse of the Soviet empire, along with the exacerbation of interethnic conflicts, led to the growth of nationalist sentiments in society - from moderate to openly fascist. Unfortunately, in recent years this has been happening rapidly and is felt especially acutely - only the objects of hatred are changing. The anti-Semitism of the era of stagnation gave way to anti-Islamic sentiments of the times of “wild capitalism.” A huge percentage of people retain the negative attitude towards the United States and Americans that was established during the Cold War. The image of the enemy, supported by Soviet propaganda, only became more variegated in the 90s: these include representatives of other nationalities (Azerbaijanis, Chechens, Jews), and homosexuals, and the government, and the church. The series can be continued endlessly.

Despite the appearance of ideological pluralism, over 20 years the state has not developed a political scale. The level of political and legal culture, which has remained low since Soviet times, is compensated by trust in power based on force. There has not yet emerged a force ready to counter extremism, especially right-wing extremism. Xenophobia, homophobia, and religious fanaticism under the guise of “spiritual revival” resonate in the post-Soviet consciousness. “Anti-fascist” human rights movements are too heterogeneous in their social, ideological, component; their slogans are often declarative in nature (a relic of the Soviet mentality), and their methods of struggle, unfortunately, often differ little from the actions of their opponents.

A negative consequence of Gorbachev’s reforms, when everything that was economically efficient was considered moral, was the criminalization of society and the state. Getting used to freedom and private initiative is accompanied by a reluctance to take responsibility for the consequences of one’s own decisions.

A. Ovsyannikov, in the article “Sociology of disaster: what kind of Russia we carry within us,” provides data indicating the criminalization of people’s consciousness and behavior (as a percentage of respondents).

Now, at the beginning of the new millennium, disrespect for the law left over from Soviet times leads to a high level of crime and the inability of citizens to defend their rights. This comes both from ignorance of official legislation, the legal framework, and from the instability of moral standards in the mentality of Russians.

Perestroika and the subsequent years of “wild” capitalism exposed all the problems that existed during the Soviet period and about which it was customary to remain silent. The mental, value gap between different formations, between different social strata led to a cultural crisis in the country. The intelligentsia rediscovered the pre-revolutionary and early Soviet, pre-Stalinist cultural heritage of Russia, the culture of the Russian diaspora; The media started talking about the unofficial culture of the USSR, about the Soviet “underground”. The works of classics of Western literature, both from past centuries and from the 20th century, were being published in full swing. At the same time, that part of world literature that was covered in books and periodicals in the USSR (literature of socialist countries, third world countries, former Soviet republics) often ceased to be republished and remained forgotten.

The abolition of censorship led to the fact that it became possible to cover almost everything in the media, and not always this “everything” turned out to be of high quality. The decline in the level of literacy of journalists, columnists, publishers, the blind copying of American models by Soviet mass culture (already often quite wretched) (we are not talking about American pop culture as a whole, which is a heterogeneous, synthetic and, of course, interesting phenomenon, but about its most “commercial”, meaningless sides), the growing popularity of “tabloid” reports - all this has been revealed to Russians in recent decades.

This is only a cursory list of those real contradictions that do not allow us to unambiguously assess Russia’s place in the modern world. Overcoming the entire set of problems associated with culture and mentality will require a lot of time and effort. However, modern Russian culture has not lost all those forces that will help the formation of a new mentality that does not contradict either the original Russian or Soviet, but is still different from them.

3.3 Overcoming the Soviet mentality as an individual and social task

To form qualitatively new values, it is necessary to rethink the centuries-old cultural experience of Russia. Understanding the values ​​of your country means understanding not only its present, but also its past. To raise the cultural level of Russians, interest in the history of their country and their people is important.

The study of history should be as free as possible from any ideology. Not a single historical event, not a single era should be assessed unambiguously; Everywhere you need to look for both positive and negative sides. Any point of view must be supported by historical facts and expert opinions. Without this, an objective assessment of historical events is impossible.

An important, key period in the history of the country was the period between two revolutions (1905-1917). With the restriction and the subsequent fall of the absolute monarchy, a semblance of political pluralism emerged in the country. The parties of the Socialist Revolutionaries, Cadets, Octobrists, and the Menshevik faction for some time represented real political forces capable of resisting both the ruling Black Hundred circles and the Bolsheviks. The beginning of the twentieth century saw not only the flourishing of social thought and artistic culture, but also the rise of legal culture and the development of jurisprudence, which is what modern Russian society lacks.

To rehabilitate this heritage in the culture and mentality of Russians, it is important to renew interest in the culture of Russians abroad. Despite the fact that a significant part of public figures of non-Bolshevik orientation emigrated, not wanting to cooperate with the new regime, the majority supported the Soviet Union and the anti-Hitler coalition during the Second World War. The rehabilitation of pre-revolutionary values, which began during the years of perestroika, should not be interrupted, but it should not be of an unambiguously anti-Soviet nature. Frankly criminal acts must be condemned, regardless of the religious or ideological banner under which they were committed. Condemnation of the system as a whole (and even more so, “fighting” against it) is not only biased, but also meaningless.

The borderline geopolitical position forces Russia to take into account the values ​​of both the West and the East. It is necessary to both establish diplomatic relations with our closest neighbors and develop the culture of small nations within the country. A Russian should not be ashamed of his nationality or religion. The predominance among believers of supporters of a certain religion (Orthodoxy), the centuries-old priority of Christian values ​​in the Russian mentality should not turn this religion into an official, state one. Secondary and higher education, legislation, and business should be based on universal human values ​​and not be clearly identified with any religion. Religious extremism is also unacceptable - regardless of what religion one identifies with.

One cannot but take into account Western values, the influence of which on the Russian mentality has become noticeably more noticeable over the past 20 years. Western culture also needs to be talked about, and controversial phenomena must be studied objectively. An individual should be judged as a representative of his time and his culture; unequivocal rejection of, say, the American, Jewish or Islamic value system is criminal. The media have provided the opportunity for dialogue with people around the world, and whenever possible this dialogue should be conducted peacefully, be it personal correspondence, business cooperation or diplomatic negotiations.

Just as the elevation of the Russian national idea above all others is unacceptable, openly Russophobic sentiments should also be avoided. It is important to cultivate, if not love, then at least respect for certain representatives of your country, your culture - contemporaries or prominent personalities from the past.

Unfortunately, in recent years there has again been a tendency to suppress ideological pluralism. The current regime in Russia, proclaimed democratic according to the Constitution, is actually authoritarian in nature. There are fewer and fewer real political forces ready to participate in the struggle for power. Under the banner of fighting extremism, political opposition is increasingly being suppressed, while the criminal acts of extremists remain unpunished. This is fraught with either the establishment of a new dictatorship, or another sharp change in political course. This is worth remembering for everyone who is in one way or another connected with politics. We can only hope that the current government officials and “Soviet”-style politicians will be replaced by those for whom this will not be the fulfillment of some false obligations, but a full-fledged profession.

However, the spiritual factors underlying the synthetic Russian mentality should be placed higher than political and economic ones. The introduction of elements of the Western worldview, which turned out to be more viable in a democracy and market economy, is inevitable. Russia is connected to the West through a system of Christian values. The roots of the Russian mentality are in Byzantine-style Orthodoxy, and the Western one is in Protestant ethics. The formation of two value systems took place in parallel; The Soviet period suspended this process. Now that the “Iron Curtain” has collapsed, Russia needs a harmonious interaction between the original foundations of its own culture and the best practices of other countries.

Conclusion

At the turn of the century, Russia is again at a crossroads, trying to distinguish itself from the countries of Europe and the United States, whose experience had to be adopted since the mid-80s. Despite the contradictory consequences of such borrowing, this experience should not be unequivocally denied; rather, it is helpful to rethink all the gains and losses.

In the Marxist value system, culture was only a superstructure; the basis of any socio-economic formation was considered to be the type of management. Tragic events throughout the twentieth century - wars, revolutions, the death of a huge number of people - proved that it is cultural characteristics that determine the activities of the country and people.

The study of cultures, the synthesis of cultures, attempts to understand someone else's value system - these are steps towards a multipolar world in which Russia can and should take its place. Raising the cultural level of society is unthinkable without raising the cultural level of individuals. Values ​​focused on personal development should become dominant in society. No idea should cost more than human life; this is overcoming one of the negative, most destructive sides of the Soviet mentality.

I would like to hope that the development of Russia in the new century will still follow the path of democracy. The “steady hand” of government will undoubtedly play its role. It is important that the head of the state is a competent politician, and in his circle there are those who could challenge his point of view and offer their own alternatives to the political, economic, and cultural development of the country. It is important that government officials can be supported by the population through the mechanism of free elections. But establishing a new order will still require a considerable period of time, during which Russia must try to understand its place in the past, present and near future.

Bibliography

1. Bashkirova E. Transformation of the values ​​of a democratic state / E. Bashkirova // World of Russia. – 1999. - No. 4

2. Berdyaev N.A. Russian idea / N. Berdyaev. – M.: Midgard, 2005. – 834 p.

3. Boronoev A.O. Russia and Russians. The character of the people and the fate of the country / A. O. Boronoev, P.I. Smirnov. – St. Petersburg, 2001. – 252 p.

4. Dyakonov B.P. How common sense fights against the Soviet mentality / B.P. Dyakonov // Business quarter. – 2003 - No. 35

5. Zenkovsky V.V. Russian thinkers and Europe // Finding your way: Russia between Europe and Asia. - M., 1997

6. Ilyin I. A. About Russian nationalism / I. A. Ilyin. – M.: Russian Cultural Foundation, 2002. – 152 p.

7. Karsavin L.P. Fundamentals of medieval religiosity in the XII-XIII centuries. / L.P. Karsavin - St. Petersburg, 1997. – 341 p.

8. Ovsyannikov A.A. Sociology of disaster: what kind of Russia we carry within ourselves / A.A. Ovsyannikov // World of Russia. – 2000. - No. 1.

9. Philosophical principles of integral knowledge // Soloviev V. C. Op. in 2 vols. - T. 2, M., 1988

10. Fedotov G.P. The fate and sins of Russia. Selected articles on the philosophy of Russian history and culture. - In 2 vols. - St. Petersburg, 1991

11. Schuchenko V.A. Spirituality of Russia: I.A. Ilyin in the context of modernity // Spirituality of Russia: traditions and current state

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

135 years ago, French psychologist and neuropsychiatrist Henri Vallon was born, who, based on the works of the famous Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, introduced the concept of mentality.

"Russia is America in reverse..."

In general, many Russian psychologists believe that every nation has a mentality, and it is expressed in patterns of perception and behavior that influence the political and economic life of the country. Moreover, national character is based on historical experience. For example, Russians and Americans can see the same event from different angles, precisely because of their mentality. Each nation will have its own truth, and it will be very difficult to convince each other. This is because values ​​are transpersonal in nature. For example, the English-speaking literary critic Van Wyck Brooks, studying Russian literature, said: “America is just Russia in reverse...”

Just like everyone else

They study the mentality of a nation in order to understand who they will have to deal with, or even wage war. For example, the Germans have always been keenly interested in the Russian people. The first detailed description of Russia was made by the German ethnographer Johann Gottlieb Georgi back in 1776. The work was called “Description of all the peoples of the Russian state, their way of life, religion, customs, dwellings, clothing and other differences.”

“...There is no such state on earth as the Russian State, which accommodated such a great variety of different peoples,” wrote Johann Georgi. - These are the Russians, with their tribes, like the Lapps, the Samoyeds, the Yukaghirs, the Chukchi, the Yakuts (then there is a list of nationalities on the whole page). ...And also settlers, such as Indians, Germans, Persians, Armenians, Georgians... and new Slavs - the Cossack class.”

In general, ethnographer Johann Georgi noted that it is not unusual for Russians to see strangers. All this, of course, affected the Russian mentality. Already today, psychiatrist Igor Vasilievich Reverchuk, exploring the significance of ethnic self-awareness in the clinical dynamics of various borderline mental disorders, discovered that 96.2% of Slavs living in Russia treat their nation as “equal among others,” while 93% - demonstrate a friendly attitude towards other ethnic groups.

Children of their land

Doctor of Philosophy Valery Kirillovich Trofimov, who specializes in the Russian mentality, noted that in the past “Russia is a country of risky agriculture, where every third to fifth year there were crop failures. The short agricultural cycle - 4-5 months - forced the farmer to constantly rush. Sowing and harvesting turned into a real suffering, a battle for the harvest.” That is why our people tend to work urgently when it is critically important, and the rest of the time they react to circumstances.
The Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky also highlighted this characteristic feature of Russians in his time. “Nowhere in Europe will we find such a lack of habit of even, moderate and measured, constant work as in Great Russia,” he noted. According to professor of philosophy Arseny Vladimirovich Gulyga, “rushing from one extreme to another is a typically Russian trait: from rebellion to humility, from passivity to heroism, from prudence to wastefulness.”

Daydreaming

Most of our ancestors rarely left their native village. All because Boris Godunov enslaved the peasants by law in 1592. The Russian historian V.N. Tatishchev was sure of this. All this injustice, multiplied by a poor life, led to collective fantasies and dreams of universal justice, goodness, beauty and goodness. “Russian people generally had the habit of living with dreams of the future,” Professor Vladimir Nikolaevich Dudenkov is convinced. - It seemed to them that the everyday, harsh and dull life of today is, in fact, a temporary delay in the onset of true life, but soon everything will change, a true, reasonable and happy life will open. The whole meaning of life is in this future, and today’s life does not count.”

The mentality of a Russian official

It is known that in 1727, petty officials were no longer paid government salaries in exchange for accidents. Later, this rule was abolished, but the habit of the sovereign's servants to live off “feeding” remained and was not actually persecuted. As a result, bribery became the norm in the first half of the 19th century. For example, “resolving a case” in the Senate cost 50 thousand rubles. For comparison, a far from poor district judge had a salary of 300 rubles. Théophile Gautier, a famous writer from France, who visited St. Petersburg in 1858, wrote: “It is believed that people of a certain level do not become and do not walk on foot. A Russian official without a carriage is like an Arab without a horse.”

It turns out that this part of our history may also be related to the mentality, albeit, of a certain group of Russian people. Thus, in the dictionary “Social Psychology” edited by M.Yu. Kondratiev defined the term “mentality” as “the specifics of the mental life of people (groups of people), determined by economic and political circumstances and having a supraconscious nature.”

Endurance and patience

American mentality experts are convinced that national character traits are influenced, among other things, by genetics, in which the behavior patterns of our ancestors are programmed. For example, if the family tree is represented by convinced monarchists, then a person will subconsciously feel sympathy for this form of government or its representatives. Perhaps this lies in the neutral and even loyal attitude of the Russian people towards the political leaders who have ruled the country for many years.

This also has to do with such a mental trait of our people as patience. In particular, historian N.I. Kostomarov noted that “the Russian people amazed foreigners with their patience, firmness, and indifference to all kinds of deprivations of the comforts of life, difficult for a European... From childhood, Russians were accustomed to endure hunger and cold. Children were weaned after two months and fed roughage; the children ran around in their shirts without hats, barefoot in the snow in the bitter cold.”

Many Russian and foreign mentality experts believe that patience is our response to external and internal challenges, the basis of the Russian person.

Famous foreigners about Russians

Foreign politicians and journalists like to speculate about the Russian mentality. Most often, our compatriots are called drunkards. Thus, the French journalist Benoit Raisky wrote that “rude Russians are known for their passion for vodka.” And on the englishrussia portal on October 14, 2011, the article “50 Facts About Russia In The Eyes Of Foreigners” was published; it received a huge number of views. It says, in particular, “A Russian who doesn’t drink is an extraordinary fact. Most likely, he has some kind of tragedy associated with alcohol.”

However, there are other opinions about Russians. For example, Otto von Bismarck considered the Russians to be a united nation. He argued: “even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the disintegration of the main strength of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians... These latter, even if they are dismembered by international treatises, are just as quickly reconnected with each other, like particles of a cut piece of mercury...” . However, history teaches nothing even to pragmatic Germans. Franz Halder, Chief of Staff of the Wehrmacht (1938-1942) was forced to state in 1941: “The uniqueness of the country and the unique character of the Russians gives the campaign a special specificity. The first serious opponent."

Expert opinion

Modern social psychology does not confirm the thesis about the immutability of mentality, notes Vladimir Rimsky, head of the sociology department of the INDEM Foundation. - The conditions in which people live, social relationships are changing - and the mentality is changing along with them. - It can hardly be assumed that people have not changed their mentality since the Middle Ages. This is definitely an illusion. Let's say, in the Middle Ages, the desire to become famous was completely absent in the mass consciousness. Is this really true in today's society? Therefore, I would be careful not to assert that the features of the modern Russian mentality developed in Peter’s or pre-Petrine times.

In Russia, treating mentality as something unchangeable often leads to one purely practical consequence: we are not trying to actually do anything to become different. And this is wrong.

You can, of course, say that the problem is in mentality. But the point, rather, is that Russian society simply has not created the conditions for the implementation of civil initiatives.

Or take the problem of corruption - it is really widespread in Russia. It is believed that this is also a feature of our mentality. But I think we need to give people the opportunity to change their social practices. And then, quite possibly, the mentality will also change.

I should note that on a historical scale, mentality can change quite quickly - in two or three decades. This is evidenced, in particular, by the examples of South Korea or Singapore - states that have changed dramatically over the course of one generation.

Or take a purely Russian example. The reforms of Alexander II affected, in particular, the judiciary. As a result, quite a lot of lawyers have appeared in Russia, working in jury trials. These jurors were ordinary citizens; I assure you, they perfectly understood what decisions the authorities needed - but often made the exact opposite verdicts. As a result, a completely different attitude towards the court appeared in the Russian Empire - as a fair institution in which one can actually defend one’s rights. Before Alexander II, such an attitude towards the judiciary was not even close.

I think people, of course, have national and ethnic characteristics. But still, one should not deny that a lot is determined by social relations and the social environment in which we live. If we were ready to change the environment, the mentality would change. Let me give you another example.

It is generally accepted among us that in Russia, from time immemorial, laws have not been observed, and nothing can be done about it. But I have talked more than once with Germans and Americans who came to Moscow to live and work. So, after a short stay in the Russian capital, almost all of them began to violate traffic rules when driving a car and give bribes to traffic cops. One lady, an American, when I asked why she did this, replied that in America it would never have occurred to her to bribe a policeman, but in Moscow “there is no other way.”

As you can see, the mentality in the head of a particular American changes quite simply - as soon as he adapts to the Russian environment. But this example tells a different story. In America and Germany, for example, everyone began to “live according to the law” relatively recently - about a hundred years ago. We can go the same way, and much faster...