Orthodoxy and self-awareness of the Russian character. Self-awareness of Russian culture
Russian character as a subject of Russian social thought. Auto- and heterostereotypes of Russians
2.1. The concept of Russian national character
The concept of “national character” is actively used today by politicians, scientists, writers, and journalists. It appears on the pages of scientific monographs, in newspapers and magazines, and is heard in public speeches. Often the concept of national character has very different meanings. And this is not surprising, because national character is the most elusive phenomenon of ethnicity. For a long time, scientists generally argued about whether it really exists. But today it is generally accepted that there are national characteristics that represent a combination of national and national features peculiar to only one people. They manifest themselves as certain norms and forms of reactions to the world around them, as well as norms of behavior and activity. Thus, we can say that national character is a set of specific physical and spiritual qualities, norms of behavior and activity typical for representatives of a particular nation.
The history of every nation is complex and contradictory. For this reason, the character of each individual nation is complex and contradictory, which has been formed over the centuries under the influence of geographical, climatic, socio-political and other factors and circumstances. Researchers of national character believe that the entire set of determining factors and circumstances of national character can be divided into two groups: natural-biological and socio-cultural. The first group of factors is related to the fact that people belonging to different racial groups will demonstrate different norms of reaction and temperament. And the type of society formed by a particular people will have an even greater impact on its character. Therefore, it is possible to understand the character of a people only if one understands the society in which this people lives and which it created in certain geographical and natural conditions.
It is also very important that the type of society is determined primarily by the value system that is accepted in it. Therefore, national character is based on social values. Then we can clarify and specify the concept national character . It will represent a set of the most important ways of regulating activities and communication, developed on the basis of the value system of the society created by the nation. These values are stored in the national character of the people. Stability of values gives stability to society and nation. Therefore, in order to understand the national character, it is necessary to isolate a set of values, the bearer of which is the Russian people.
2.2. The role of ethnostereotypes in the study of national character
A measurable form of manifestation of national character are ethnic stereotypes, which perform an important function by determining a person’s behavior in various situations and influencing his likes (dislikes) in situations of intercultural contacts. They contribute to the formation of images of “good” and “bad” peoples, orienting the nation to the search for allies and partners, as well as rivals and enemies. Ethnic stereotypes are learned through the processes of inculturation and socialization.
Ethnic stereotype is a socially conditioned schematic image of one’s ethnic community (autostereotype) or an idea of other ethnic communities (heterostereotype). As already noted, stereotypes arise due to a person’s desire for “economy” of thinking - concretization, reduction of abstract concepts to concrete images, and simplification, description of a large group of people as one, united by common characteristics. They are formed both in the process of direct interethnic communication and through unorganized forms of information transmission (rumors, anecdotes, sayings), as well as prejudices rooted in historical traditions (for example, anti-Semitism).
However, observations and research have established that living people, representatives of any nation, can differ significantly from the existing stereotypes of this people. Obviously, we need to approach stereotypes as indicators of national character with the same caution. It is imperative to take into account that, depending on the feeling of sympathy or antipathy that the bearer of a stereotype experiences for a particular people, contradictory stereotypes relating to this people will be updated. We must also not forget that an ethnostereotype is a kind of projective test extended to the entire people, in which the people who created the stereotype express their own psychological characteristics. The opposite influence of stereotypes is often discovered: for example, in a comparison situation, a positive heterostereotype can cause a negative self-stereotype. Finally, self-stereotypes yield more favorable evaluations than heterostereotypes. This is also due to the fact that stereotypes are formed on the basis of selectivity, constant comparison of the relevant features of one’s own and foreign people. In other words, a stereotype is formed by comparing “us” with “not us,” although this is usually not realized by the person.
The “us - them” categorization has been happening since ancient times and is due to the fact that a person, being a member of various social groups and communities (classes, gender, age, professional, religious, political and, of course, ethnic groups), constantly contrasts himself and the members of his group other people representing out-groups. At the same time, there is a single process of differentiation and identification, which leads to the formation of social identity - awareness of oneself as a member of a group and an evaluative attitude towards this membership.
Ethnic identity occupies a special place in Russian culture. It takes the form “ours - not ours”, “friends - strangers”. The main criterion in this case is religious affiliation, as well as belonging to the Western or Eastern world. On this basis, the specifically Russian concept of “foreigner” is formed, which denotes people belonging to the Western world. To name all other people, terms indicating ethnicity are usually used (Japanese, Chinese, etc.).
It can be assumed that such a specific use of names is rooted in the process of formation of Great Russian identity, which took place during the rise of Moscow. On the one hand, then, due to the fall of Byzantium, Rus' realized itself as a state - the only custodian of Orthodoxy (Philotheus' message), which was in hostile relations with other Christian, but not Orthodox countries. She constantly experienced pressure from them - the Teutonic Knights, Poland, Lithuania, the Livonian Wars. On the other hand, it was then that Rus' turned its face to the East, many of whose features it perceived through the Tatar-Mongols, and then became the heir of the Horde and moved on, exploring Siberia and the Far East, absorbing the peoples living there. That is, the East was closer, more understandable and was perceived in Rus' as an internal territory. In contrast, the West (Europe) was something hostile, seeking to absorb or destroy Russia itself. Also important was the fact that pagans and Muslim Tatars living in the East could become Orthodox, “ours” (many Russian noble families are descendants of Tatars who converted to Orthodoxy), while Catholics and Lutherans living in the West became “ours.” "could never become. In addition, they could not speak Russian, they were “mute”, “Germans” (this word in the 19th century meant all foreigners from Europe).
All this became the reason for a wary attitude towards foreigners, a constant emphasis on their alienness, isolation and separation from “their” Russians and from closer guests from the East. The contrast of foreigners primarily manifested itself and is manifested at the level of behavior, when even in small things the existing difference is emphasized. Thus, during the time of Muscovite Rus', the tsar, receiving foreign ambassadors, washed his hands after their visit, believing that he had become defiled. And the small number of foreigners who were in Moscow lived only in the German Settlement, fenced off by a fence and guarded by archers from the Russian population.
Since the reforms of Peter I, there have been no such extremes, and the number of foreigners in the country has increased noticeably. It is interesting that at this time a paradoxical situation arose. On the one hand, foreigners were teachers with the help of whom Russia was to become a European country in a short time. A certain part of the Russian nobility, reaching the point of absurdity in their admiration for the West, generally tried to deny everything Russian, accepting only what was approved by foreigners. That is why it was with such difficulty that Russian science, philosophy, and art made their way. But on the other hand, the feeling of alienation and otherness did not disappear. Indicative in this regard is the example of the first commander of the Russian army during the War of 1812, Mikhail Bogdanovich Barclay de Tolly. Despite the fact that he was born in Russia, was an excellent professional and had repeatedly proven his devotion to the interests of his homeland, the Russian army did not accept him only because of his French surname and did not want to obey him, considering him a stranger.
In Soviet times, the situation of foreigners in our country again began to resemble the attitude towards them during the times of Muscovite Rus'. Special hotels for their accommodation, separate routes for excursions, accompanying people who control all their contacts, even at a higher level of service than for their citizens, gave rise in the West to the idea of the Soviet Union as an evil empire.
These days, the situation has certainly changed, but not dramatically. Foreigners are still made to understand that they are not like other people (residents of our country). It is very typical that in Russian hotels and museums the price lists officially indicate different prices for the same services for their own (Russians) and foreigners. If we consider that the entire modern “Western world” professes the idea of equality and for its representatives it is impossible (prohibited by their upbringing) to distinguish people by race, ethnicity, gender or any other characteristic, then it becomes clear why they do not feel very comfortable in our country.
If we use Bennett’s model, discussed earlier, which speaks of cultivating intercultural sensitivity, then for a Russian person this path begins not with the denial of intercultural differences, but with the stage of defense, with overcoming a highly developed sense of ethnocentrism. In other words, we do not need to be convinced that differences between people, nations and their cultures exist.
Foreigners for Russia are a kind of mirror, with the help of which we, on the one hand, want to receive approval for our actions and endeavors, and on the other hand, we are constantly aware of our identity and want to preserve it. At the same time, in a completely unique way, in relation to foreigners, sycophancy and sycophancy towards them are simultaneously combined with slight contempt and a sense of superiority, as if we, Russians, know something inaccessible to anyone else. And in intercultural contacts, of course, it is necessary to take this duality into account.
Russian national identity includes a set of views, assessments, opinions and attitudes that express the content, level and characteristics of Russians’ ideas about their history, the current state and prospects for their development, as well as the place of the Russian nation among similar communities and the nature of relationships with them; includes rational (own awareness of one’s belonging to the Russian nation) and emotional (sometimes unconscious empathy of one’s unity with other representatives of the Russian people) components.
The genesis of Russian national identity is a long historical process, multi-level and very uneven in its development. The development of self-awareness of Russians as a nationality can be traced by how the use of the concepts “Rus”, “Russian land”, “Russian”, reflecting the idea of an ethnic and territorial community, has changed. In the era of the Old Russian state, they had both a broad meaning - they applied to all lands included in this state, and a narrow meaning - they were applied only to the Kyiv and Chernigov lands. Names such as “Great Rus'” in relation to lands inhabited by Russians, “Little Rus'” - Ukrainian and “White Rus'” - Belarusian, appeared back in the 14th century, but acquired a more stable meaning by the end of the 15th century.
We can say that by the end of the 17th century. The formation of the Russian ethnos was basically completed, although in certain regions of the country various ethnographic groups (Pomors, Cossacks, etc.) with a specific way of life persisted (and still persist) for a long time. In the XVIII - XIX centuries. The Russian nation is gradually being formed. Reforms of the 60s XIX century gave a strong impetus to the development of capitalism in Russia. In the second half of the 19th century. Russians became a bourgeois nation.
Powerful factors in the growth of national self-awareness were the overthrow of the Mongol yoke, the liberation war against the Polish-Swedish invaders at the beginning of the 17th century, the reforms and government activities of Peter I, the war of 1812 against the Napoleonic invasion and other historical events.
Over the course of a long historical period, the basic characteristics of Russian consciousness took shape. When analyzing its main elements, three leading principles of the Russian worldview can be identified:
1) the religious nature of ideology;
2) authoritarian-charismatic and centralist-power dominant;
3) ethnic dominance.
Apparently, before 1917 they were the defining elements of Russian ethnic identity. Subsequently, these principles were largely weakened, although they probably have not disappeared to this day.
However, today the situation is more complex than at the beginning of the 17th, 19th or 20th centuries. Although there is no direct, open occupation of Russian territory, as in the Time of Troubles or during the Napoleonic invasion, there is a threat of Russia becoming a colony and a raw material appendage of the Western powers. This cannot but affect the state of national self-awareness of the Russian people.
Among the factors influencing the development of Russian national identity, the following can be noted. First of all, this is a threat to the territorial integrity of Russia, attempts to dismember it. There are clear signs of deformation of the Russian language and cultural life. This is due to the contamination of the language with foreign words and the penetration of Western, often American, customs and traditions into everyday life. The mentality of the Russian people is characterized by collectivism and communalism in work and leisure.. However, in recent years, the idea of the priority of individual, personal values over public ones has been increasingly introduced into the public consciousness. In Russian society, unjust ways of obtaining wealth have always been condemned, and the idea of the need to share one’s wealth with the poor was very popular.
It should be noted that during the years of Soviet power, the national self-awareness of Russians was constantly suppressed, and everything was done to ensure that the national self-awareness of non-Russian peoples grew and strengthened. Due to the supposed overcoming and prevention of manifestations of Russian chauvinism and the imperial ambitions of the Russians, the outstanding role of the Russian people in the creation and strengthening of the USSR, in the achievements of the economy, science, education, culture, in the victory over fascism in the Great Patriotic War, in selfless assistance to all peoples of a multinational country was hushed up . Large and obvious benefits and advantages were provided to non-Russian nations and nationalities at the expense and to the detriment of the interests of the Russian ethnic group. As a result of this, the pace of development and successes of regions and territories of Russia with a Russian population in the economy, social, cultural, educational, everyday spheres, etc. began to slow down. All this could not but affect the state of Russian national self-awareness. Notes of oppression, infringement, and inferiority began to appear in him; in the minds of Russians, a feeling of “second-classness,” depression, and hopelessness involuntarily arose, especially among residents of the national republics.
Since the 70s of the XX century. the outflow of Russians from the Union republics began. The Russians, one way or another, began to be pushed out, forced out, they felt insecure, abandoned, useless. And this concerned the most numerous state-forming, system-forming ethnic group of the USSR! We can say that since the 70s, Russian national identity began to weaken significantly. Since the 90s, certain features of consciousness have been subject to deformation or destruction to varying degrees. However, in recent years, another trend has been gaining strength - the rise and strengthening of Russian national consciousness, the intensification of patriotic sentiments, and the desire to defend national interests.
Test questions and assignments
1. Analyze the ethnogenesis of Russians, the development of the Russian people.
2. How did the division of the Old Russian people into three related ethnic groups occur?
3. What was the path to the formation of the Russian nation?
4. How did the relationship between the Russian ethnic group and other peoples of the Russian state develop?
5. What was the fate of the Russian people in the 20th century?
6. How did Russian culture develop and what was the role of Orthodoxy in this?
7. Remember any phenomena from Russian folklore. What do you consider the most characteristic in Russian folklore?
8. What do you know about Russian writing? What advantages and what difficulties do you find in Russian writing and the Russian language?
9. Remember the statements of great people about the wealth and importance of the Russian language.
10. How would you characterize Russian national identity and Russian character?
11. What problems and troubles did the Russian ethnic group face in the 21st century?
Literature
1. Anninsky L. Russian plus... - M., 2001.
2. Kasyanova K. 0 Russian national character. - M., 1994.
Chapter X. Russian ethnic group
3. Krasnov Yu.K. The split of the Russian nation: scale and consequences. - M., 1993.
4. Lavrov S., Froyanov I. Russian people and state. - St. Petersburg, 1995.
5. Peoples of Russia. Encyclopedia. - M., 1994.
6. Russian nation and renewal of society. - M., 1990.
7. Russians: ethnosociological essays. - M., 1999.
8. Russian people. Historical fate in the 20th century. - M., 1993.
9. Tavadov G.T. Ethnology. Dictionary-reference book. - M., 1998.
10. Troitsky E. Russian nation. - M., 1989.
11. Uvarov A.T. Russian national identity. - M., 2000.
12. Shapovalov V.F. Russian studies. - M., 2001.
On this day:
- Birthdays
- 1842 Was born Johann Reinhold Aspelin- the first Finnish archaeologist, founder of the National Museum of Finland and the Museum of the University of Helsinki, organizer of archaeological research in Finland.
- 1951 Born - archaeologist, Doctor of Historical Sciences, specialist in archeology and history of Volga Bulgaria, Ulus Juchi, Kazan Khanate.
The RUSSIAN NATION and the national identity of the RUSSIAN people are spiritual aspects.
“The breakdown of ethnogenesis is a period when, after energetic or passionary overheating, the system moves towards simplification. There are not enough sincere patriots to maintain it, and selfish and selfish people are leaving the cause that their fathers and grandfathers served. They strive to live for themselves at the expense of the wealth accumulated by their ancestors and, at the end of the era, they lose it and their lives and their offspring, to whom they leave as an inheritance only the hopelessness of historical fate.”
L.N. Gumilev
What prompted me to write this work was the helpless, and for some categories of people in Russia, hopeless, state of national self-awareness among Russians, now scattered all over the planet. In it I will try to answer a number of questions that have tormented politicians, historians, sociologists, philosophers and those who simply talk about the lives of people for more than a century.
What is NATIONALITY?
What is a NATION?
What is PEOPLE?
Vladimir Dal gave the following definition: NATION - people, in a broad sense, language, tribe, tribe; homogeneous people speaking the same common language. PEOPLE - people born in a certain space; language, tribe; inhabitants of a country who speak the same language.
A later definition of a nation in Ozhegov’s dictionary is as follows: NATION - A historically established stable community of people, formed in the process of forming the commonality of their territory, economic ties, literary language, cultural characteristics and spiritual appearance; PEOPLE - the population of the state, the inhabitants of the country.
The philosophical dictionary of Marxist-Leninist philosophy defines these concepts as follows: NATION (from Latin people) is a historically established form of community of people. A NATION is characterized, first of all, by a commonality of material living conditions: territory and economic life; a common language, well-known features of national character, manifested in the national identity of its culture. NATION is a broader form of community than nationality, emerging with the emergence and formation of the capitalist formation. The economic basis for the emergence of the NATION was the elimination of feudal fragmentation, the strengthening of economic ties between individual regions within the country, the unification of local markets into a national one; PEOPLE - in the usual sense - the population of a state, country; in a strict scientific sense, it is a historically changing community of people, including that part, those layers, those classes of the population that, by their objective position, are capable of jointly participating in solving the problems of the progressive, revolutionary development of a given country in a given period. (I will not give here the definition of the “new community - the Soviet people,” the meaninglessness of which is obvious to everyone today). The interpretation of the philosophical dictionary fully repeats the conclusions made by I.V. Stalin in his article “Marxism and the National Question” back in 1913. Over all the subsequent years, the dogmatists of Marxism-Leninism have not budged in understanding and developing the problems of the NATION and its self-awareness.
And, finally, the most recent definition in the historical and ethnographic reference book “People of the World”: “...The term “PEOPLE” is understood as a historically established stable intergenerational community of people in a certain territory who have common, relatively stable characteristics of culture (including language) and psyche , as well as self-awareness, that is, the consciousness of one’s unity and difference from all other similar communities. In this sense, the term “ethnos” has recently been increasingly used in science.“...The next type of ethnic group, NATION, like a tribe, is characterized by relative cultural homogeneity, but it is based on a basis different from that of the tribe and is determined primarily turn intensification of socio-economic and cultural ties. This intensification leads to a gradual smoothing out of local linguistic and cultural differences.”
Such extensive quotes are given here not to confuse the respected public, but to show how inaccurate and vague the terms and concepts that everyone uses today are. That is why, before starting a dialogue, it is necessary to define key concepts. Political speculation using concepts NATION, NATIONALITY, PEOPLE And ETHNOS in the modern world have reached their apogee. Attempts by politicians to connect the incompatible and to separate the single organism of the nation and people entail an environmental disaster on a larger scale than the pollution of rivers and seas, deforestation and air poisoning. The violent destruction of ethnic systems leads to the destruction of established ties and cultures, the emergence of “ethnic chimeras,” according to the definition of L.N. Gumilyov will ultimately lead to the self-destruction of humanity. We can find the most recent example of the politically biased definition of a NATION in P. Khomyakov’s work “NATIONAL PROGRESSISM. Theory and ideology of national survival and development of Russia”:
“A set of PERSONALITIES who have linked the interests of their development and their self-realization (creative, economic, political, etc.) with a certain type (or subtype) of civilization, which in turn is associated with a certain language and which develops with the support of a specific state , do not form a nationality, ethnic group and etc., and the NATION.”
Does anyone understand what is being said in the above quote? Nevertheless, the author further tries to formulate a “theory of national survival,” although it is not very clear for which nation. An attempt to drag the Russian nation by the ears to this definition is completely inappropriate. The definition of a nation outside of historical and social processes in society hardly deserves further discussion, but serves as a striking example of how different political forces use the same term, sometimes giving it diametrically opposed meanings. This is what the Bolsheviks did at the beginning of this century. A noteworthy example is from the classics of Marxism-Leninism. In “Critical Notes on the National Question” V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin) wrote:
“The awakening of the masses (“democrats” of all times and peoples, in general, think in “mass” categories - A.Ya.Ch.) from feudal hibernation, their struggle against any national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people, for the sovereignty of the nation is progressive. Hence the unconditional duty for a Marxist to defend the most decisive and most consistent democracy in all parts of the national question.”
Upon careful reading of this paragraph, all its meaninglessness will become obvious to any reader. The presented phrase consists entirely of undefined concepts. What is “mass awakening” and why is it “progressive”? If we understand the war of one part of the population of a given territory against another, under the guise of demagoguery about national independence and national dignity, for progress, then it is necessary to recognize the wars in the Middle East, Serbia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Chechnya as progressive, and humanity must cultivate them and cherish. In the Middle East - until the last Jew is destroyed, since without the support of the United States and European countries they simply cannot survive there; in Chechnya - to the last Chechen, since they have no opportunity to defeat Russia in the war; in the Balkans - until the Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Serbs and Muslim Serbs fight until the complete destruction of one of the other two faiths and thus “progress” triumphs. Another vague concept is that of “national oppression”. However, V.I. Lenin, in a number of works, tries to give some interpretations to it, but each time these interpretations are so vague and vague in relation to different nations that I was never able to identify a clear definition. “Sovereignty of the people” is generally from the realm of fantasy. Well, the “sovereignty of the nation,” even that one, according to Stalin’s formulation, was always interpreted by the Bolsheviks in a way that was beneficial to them “according to specific historical and political conditions.” It was on this senselessness that the national policy of the Bolsheviks and the CPSU was built, which brought untold troubles to Russia. As Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin noted, a communist is brought up on deductive thinking, which is “the easiest, most empty, abstract, dead and passive.” “Deduction knows everything in advance: it builds a system of arbitrary concepts, proclaims the “laws” that govern these concepts, and tries to impose these concepts, “laws” and formulas on living man and God’s world.”
During perestroika, dogmatists from the CPSU, led by Gorbachev, again tried to implement Ilyich’s ideas in life; we see what came of it, we see with our own eyes. The single organism of the NATION is disunited and wars are taking place throughout the periphery.
If we proceed from the definitions existing in Russian science after the article by I.V. Stalin in 1913 “Marxism and the National Question”, then large groups of the population of the planet and Russia are neither peoples nor nations. The peoples of the Caucasus, the Far East and Siberia, Jews and Gypsies - this is not a complete list of residents of Russia who do not fall under the above definitions, but, nevertheless, are aware of their unity, their identity and difference from other ethnic groups living in the same territory. The clearest example is the Jews. Having neither a common territory, nor a common language, nor a common culture, and, finally, differing even by race, nevertheless, a Jew, as they say, “is also a Jew in Africa.”
Polemicizing with O. Bauer, I.V. Stalin wrote: “Bauer speaks of the Jews as a nation, although “they do not have a common language at all” (See O. Bauer, “The National Question and Social Democracy”); But what kind of “common destiny” and national connectedness can we talk about, for example, among Georgian, Dagestan, Russian and American Jews, completely separated from each other, living in different territories and speaking different languages? The Jews mentioned, no doubt, live a common economic and political life with the Georgians, Dagestanis, Russians and Americans, in a common cultural atmosphere; this cannot but leave its stamp on their national character; if there was anything left in common between them, it was religion, a common origin, and some remnants of national character. All this is certain. But how can one seriously say that ossified religious rituals and eroding psychological remains influence the “fate” of the mentioned Jews more than the living socio-economic and cultural environment surrounding them? But only with such an assumption can one speak of Jews in general as a single nation.”
How seriously “common sense” failed Joseph Vissarionovich. During his lifetime, after only 32 years, he had to become a participant in the creation of the Jewish national state of Israel, instead of the constitution of which the Torah was registered. O. Bauer turned out to be more far-sighted in this matter than J.V. Stalin. Another similar example is the gypsies. And in India, and in Africa, and in Russia, they are a distinct community that has common characteristics, recognizes themselves as gypsies and differs from the peoples among whom they live. Moreover, they have their own aristocracy, and at the beginning of January 1996, in Bucharest, they celebrated the 60th anniversary of their king, on whose head during the celebrations a crown of pure gold adorned.
Today in Russia the national question has entered the agenda in full and in all its painful manifestations. Society, if it wants to live in the future without shocks and wars, needs to realize one thing: in Russia today there is only one question - RUSSIAN QUESTION . Without his permission, it is impossible to solve the problems of any people on the territory of the former USSR. The erroneous national policy of communist rulers for seventy-five years, the creation of artificial nations such as “Karachai-Cherkessians”, “Kabardino-Balkarians”, “Yakuts”, “Buryat-Mongols”, “Yamalo-Nenets”, “Ukrainians”, “ Belarusians”, “Khanto-Mansi”, “Checheno-Ingush”, etc. led to amazing metamorphoses. Instead of the long-awaited united “Soviet nation” (“The Soviet people are a social community of people”) we received a dismembered country, instead of the friendship of peoples - the evil Russophobia of all peripheral governments and central television and radio, instead of centuries-old attraction to the Russian people - complete disengagement and repulsion. All this is the result of a long-term war against “Great Russian chauvinism”, the development of “national self-awareness of backward peoples” and “alignment in the economic development of the outskirts and the center.” Due to the well-being of central Russia, the Urals, Siberia and the industrialized regions of Ukraine and Belarus, the well-being of Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Transcaucasia, and the republics of Central Asia was built.
“...The national question in the Caucasus,” wrote I.V. Stalin, - can only be resolved in the spirit of involving belated (Where belated? In general, Marxists view the life of the people as some kind of race with obstacles without a clearly defined finish line. - A.Ya.Ch.) nations and nationalities into the general mainstream of higher culture . (It is clear that dividing culture into higher and lower in itself is meaningless, but we will leave this to the conscience of the author.) Only such a solution can be progressive and acceptable for social democracy. Regional autonomy of the Caucasus is acceptable because it draws belated nations into the general cultural development, it helps them emerge from the shell of small-national isolation, it pushes them forward and facilitates their access to the benefits of higher culture.”
Here it is necessary to pay attention to the following: since the peoples of the Caucasus, the Russian North and many nomadic peoples of Russia lived under feudal relations, according to Marxist ideology they were not nations. Nevertheless, J.V. Stalin wrote about “belated nations” and “petty-national isolation” of those who are not even a nation. There is confusion in concepts and terminology. Thanks to the short-sighted policies of the CPSU, the Russian people were turned into hostages of the communist system, forced to develop industry, agriculture, mining and educating outlying peoples to the detriment of the development of Central Russia, Siberia, the Far East - and the Russian North.
“Our job is to fight the dominant, Black Hundred and bourgeois national culture of the Great Russians, developing exclusively in an international spirit and in the closest alliance with the workers of other countries those rudiments that exist in our history of the democratic and labor movement,” - wrote V.I. Lenin. And they fought, sparing neither strength nor means. This struggle continues to this day. Today, when the need for Russians has disappeared, they have become outcasts on the land, which they poured abundantly with their sweat and blood, where they created modern industries and built cities. Millions of Russians, forced migrants from the outskirts, and those who have not yet been able to leave their places of temporary residence, carry within them an offended sense of national dignity. And tomorrow it is ready to explode with pogroms in the Russian regions of Russia, and then boomerang on the peoples of the outskirts.
To treat the social organism of our society, first of all, it is necessary to make a diagnosis. To do this, let’s define what unites people in NATIONALITY. It should be noted that NATION And NATIONALITY- these are two completely different concepts. The basis for uniting people NATIONALITY is ethnic kinship and spiritual essence, that is, his Faith. The Slavic tribes that inhabited Europe from the shores of the Mediterranean Sea to the shores of the Baltic Sea, even in the first centuries of our era, had gods common to all Slavs and spoke a language understandable to all Slavs. The crowds of nomads who poured into the territory of the Slavs dismembered the single organism of the sedentary Slavic civilization, complicated, and sometimes completely stopped inter-Slavic contacts. The role of the common Slavic gods began to diminish and tribal gods came to the fore, which was completely natural, since each tribe survived independently. In the fifth century, a union of tribes arose on the territory of Rus', the so-called state of the Antes, which arose with the aim of protecting against the attacks of nomads. One of the monuments of this association are the so-called “serpent shafts” on the territory of modern Ukraine. But this alliance turned out to be fragile. Tribal gods, deprived of a strict hierarchy, were constantly at odds with each other, which led to the collapse of the union. As a result, our ancestors become dependent on the Khazar Khaganate and pay tribute to it until the victories of Prince Svyatoslav. The misfortune that befell the Slavs is very figuratively expressed in the epic about Svyatogor and Ilya Muromets. The pagan hero Svyatogor tried to test his strength and lay down in the coffin. But the lid of the coffin grew in place and even two heroes could not lift it. So the pagan faith of the Slavs in the person of Svyatogor stopped fulfilling its protective and protective functions of its people, and the Orthodox hero Ilya Muromets went to serve the Orthodox prince Vladimir “Red Sun”. Prince Vladimir's attempt to create a unified Slavic state through a new hierarchy of tribal gods was unsuccessful. The Slavic gods did not find a “common language”. The faith of the Slavs ceased to perform protective functions, both in spiritual terms (preservation of language, traditions and knowledge) and in material terms (unity and independence of the people). Internal and external reasons (the presence of a powerful Orthodox state in the south of Rus' and the aggressive policy of Catholic Rome), the existence of a large Orthodox community in Kyiv forced Prince Vladimir to accept Christianity. From this time on, the Russian NATIONALITY or RUSSIAN PEOPLE of all the peoples and tribes that came under the influence of Kievan Rus, and then Muscovy.
“The essence of any nationality lies in its substance. Substance is that immutable and eternal thing in the spirit of the people, which, without changing itself, withstands all changes, passes through all phases of historical development holistically and unharmed. This is the seed in which lies every possibility of future development,” - wrote V.G. Belinsky.
Exactly Orthodox faith became the grain from which the ears of Russian NATIONALITY from Slavic and other tribes scattered across vast territories of Europe. For a thousand years, the Russian Orthodox Church formed the Russian people and was the spiritual and moral core of the Russian state.
“Our nation was entrusted with one great treasure,” wrote Konstantin Leontyev back in 1880, “strict and unwavering church Orthodoxy; but our best minds do not want to simply “humble” before him, before his “exclusiveness” and before that seeming dryness that always blows over romantically educated souls from everything that is established, correct and solid. They prefer to “humble” before the teachings of anti-national eudaimonism (1*), in which there is nothing even new in relation to Europe.”
Having destroyed the moral core, the communists created an unscrupulous society in which naked practicality and expediency ruled. Intergenerational connections within nationalities were destroyed. Fathers and distant ancestors have ceased to be an example and role model for future generations. The very concept of “spiritual activity” of the individual was destroyed. Power, not sanctified by God, instead of a burden and service, turned into an element of prestige and a means of obtaining material wealth. That is why today those who, due to their duty of service, were supposed to become a brake in the immoral pursuit of the “golden calf” rushed to get rich. And the current democrats are simply the Bolsheviks of our day, for whom there is no Fatherland, but there is only one’s own selfish and political interest, which, by and large, is the same thing. History provides a sufficient number of examples when only the religion of a particular people allowed it to preserve its identity and preserve its nationality. Suffice it to recall the Bulgarians who languished under the Turkish yoke for five hundred years. And examples of how people belonging to the same ethnic group destroy each other just because they pray to God in different ways? Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Serbs (Croats) and Muslim Serbs today share what belongs to them all together by right, i.e. that which cannot be divided is Sunni Arabs and Shiite Arabs (Iran and Iraq), Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and such examples can be given endlessly. To ignore the spiritual principle when determining the development strategy of a multi-religious country means dooming it to failure in advance. Only by supporting and developing the spiritual bonds of different nationalities is its further development and well-being possible. Today, based on the example of current events in Russia, it is clearly visible that a person who is Russian by blood, but who is outside the framework of the Russian Orthodox faith - not Russian . The population, devoid of faith, and without God in the soul there is no Conscience, supports projects and rulers who destroy themselves, as Hitler dreamed of. We are still reaping the fruits of the idiocy of the Great French Revolution, and its main postulate: “Every people (nation) has the right to their own statehood, and only nation-states are justified.” This “romanticism” of the French Freemasons of the mid-18th century, which in the 19th century turned into the religion of Social Democrats, is still shared by socialists and communists of all movements. More than 250 years of human history have taught them nothing. (“Well preserved, comrades!”). They are still trying to rebuild the world on the basis of the utopias of the last century, rolling the crushing steamroller of “progressive development” before them.
“Democratic and liberal progress believes more in the forced and gradual reformation of all humanity than in the moral strength of the individual. Thinkers and moralists like the author of “The Karamazovs” seem to hope more in the human heart than in the reconstruction of societies. Christianity does not unconditionally believe in either one or the other - that is, neither in the best autonomous morality of an individual, nor in the mind of collective humanity, which must sooner or later create paradise on earth... ...Correctly understood, not deceiving With unfounded hopes, realism must, sooner or later, abandon the dream of earthly prosperity and the search for the ideal of moral truth in the depths of humanity itself” (K. Leontyev).
Speaking in today's language of system analysis, K. Leontiev realized that it is impossible to create a sufficiently complete system of criteria for assessing the behavior of a complex system while being inside this system. To fully and reliably describe the behavior of a complex system, it is necessary to go beyond its boundaries. This is why the idea of God is so relevant to humanity.
“Whoever has a living experience of spiritual existence, without any abstract speculation, knows with immediate self-evidence that existence is not exhausted by its logically definable objective content, but has another dimension in depth, going beyond the limits of everything logically comprehensible and revealing to us its inner incomprehensibility” (C L. Frank, “The Incomprehensible”).
NATIONALITY
“We talk about “people” or “nation”. But, obviously, it is not geographical boundaries, not territory that is the sign that distinguishes a given “people” from other peoples. ...The naive and not at all historical identification of the people with territory and statehood, with importance attached to one or the other, led to equally absurd and disastrous consequences in the era of the Congress of Vienna and in the era of the Versailles Peace. “Self-determination of nationalities” - what an absurd, wild principle, when they are not aware of what “nationality” is. Really, this principle in such a vague form is no less absurd than the principle of the International. This is understandable - an era that does not understand what historical individuality represents will not understand this in everything and everywhere. If a people cannot be defined by the boundaries of the territory it occupies or by the part that embraces it, sometimes also by parts of other peoples, by statehood, it cannot be defined using biological and anthropological characteristics. By their blood, both Alexander III and Nicholas II are more German than Russian and their Russian “nature” cannot be saved by dubious hypotheses about adultery in the reigning Russian family and the sin of Mother Catherine. But both in appearance (!) and in character, both are typically Russian people. National-Russian features include excessive delicacy and slyness associated with it, and indifference and passive submission to fate in Nicholas II. One can say that he is a bad Russian type, roughly corresponding to the type of intellectual of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, but it is impossible not to see a Russian person in him. Half-brothers, sons of a Russian father and a German mother, one is a typical Russian person, living and thinking in Russian, a Russian patriot and a German-eater, the other is an equally bright representative of the German people. (In this phrase L.P. Karsavin speaks about Alexander III and his brother Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, president of the Academy of Arts.) Moreover, how many purebred Germans became genuine Russian statesmen, patriots and Russian people, and how many native Russian people were Germanized or Frenchized to the point of complete loss of all national features! Neither territory, nor nationality, nor blood and anthropological type, nor way of life, nor even language are in themselves signs that distinguish a representative of one nation from a representative of another. However, nationality in any of these and other characteristics not listed by us sometimes turns out to be in one, more often in many. And it is reflected not in the pure fact of citizenship, origin or life, but in the special quality of this fact. Obviously, we must look for the principle constituting nationality in its special, difficult to define qualitative difference, which can be individualized in different manifestations.”
This is what L.P. Karsavin wrote in his work “Philosophy of History” when defining “collective historical individuality” such as “nationality”. Indeed, let's look at a person of German, Tatar or other origin who is baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church, observes all its instructions and sacredly honors “ALL THE SAINTS IN RUSSIA WHO HAVE SHINED.” Who is he really if Boris and Gleb, Metropolitan Hilarion, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, Ioan of Krondstadt, Seraphim of Sarov and many other prayer books and intercessors before the Lord are saints for him. What is German about this man if he honors the victory of Alexander Nevsky, and not the dog knights, what is Tatar about him, if for him Dmitry Donskoy is a saint - except perhaps his appearance. But the outer shell is far from the person himself and cannot testify to his thoughts, actions and behavior in society.
Analyzing the ethnic history of Iran, more precisely, the vicissitudes of the Parthian-Persian ethnosocial system and its phases, L.N. Gumilev actually showed the change of ethnic groups as a change of religious systems, because Each ethnic group had its own dominant religion.
“The ancient Persians,” wrote L.N. Gumilyov in his work “A Millennium Around the Caspian Sea,” “having conquered Babylon, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt in the west, and Sogdiana and part of India in the east, they considered themselves as a world empire - Iran, opposed himself to Turan. Iran and Turan were inhabited by closely related Aryan tribes. What separated them was not race or language, but RELIGION (emphasis mine - A.Ya.Ch.). The initiative to divide the ancient Aryan cultural integrity is attributed to the prophet Zarathustra, who lived in the 6th century. BC. and preached monotheism, the veneration of Ahuramazda (“the wise ruler”) instead of the pantheon of Aryan gods - the devas, the very ones whom the Hellenes placed on Olympus, and the Germans - in Valhalla. Ahuramazda's assistants, the ahuras, are equivalent to the Hellenic giants and Indian asuras, the enemies of the devas. Mythology and cosmogony in the new confession turned out to be turned 180 degrees.
The first 200 years of the Parthian-Persian ethnosocial system (250-53 BC) are a phase of ethnic upsurge. (The veneration of the Aryan gods corresponds to this period - A.Ya.Ch.)
The second period, the Akmatic phase (50 BC–224 AD), was characterized by a variety of cultural influences, dynastic wars, and the abandonment of Hellenism for Zoroastrianism.
In 224, one of the seven princes, Artashir from Pars, a descendant of the Achaemenids, with the support of the mobeds of the Zoroastrian clergy and local dekhans, defeated the army of the Parthian king Artaban V and in 226 was crowned Shahan Shah of Iran. He founded the Sassanid dynasty and a new empire, which included Iran proper, Afghanistan, Baluchistan (conquered as if a little later), Merv, maybe Khorezm and Iraq. From this time on, the “union of throne and altar” began. “Pure religion” was declared state, and “idolatry” (that is, tribal cults) was persecuted. Sabeism, Gnosticism, Greek polytheism, Chaldean mysticism, Christianity, Buddhism and Mithraism had to bow to the religion of the Avesta. The preaching of the Gnostic Mani, allowed under Shapur I, in 241-242, ended with the execution of the thinker in 276. Only Judaism was not persecuted, because the Jews were sincere enemies of Rome, with whom Iran waged constant wars. The inertial phase associated with the Sassanids lasted until 491.
Natural disasters: drought, crop shortages, and locust attacks caused unrest in 491, and then the Shah’s favorite, Vizier Mazdak, proposed his own program, which consisted of two parts: philosophical and economic. Mazdak believed that the kingdom of light and good is the sphere of will and reason, and evil is the sphere of spontaneity and unreason. Therefore, we must build the world wisely: confiscate the property of the rich and distribute it to the needy. (Here it should be noted that Mazdak again tried to change the worldview, i.e., the religion of his contemporaries. Mazdak’s movement was of Manichaean origin. More than a hundred years after the death of the teacher, the seeds sown by Mani gave rise to poisonous shoots. “... He made available to women and common material goods and prescribed that everyone should have an equal share in it, as in water, fire and pastures," says the Persian historian Muhammad ibn Harun. The movement spread throughout the country. Another historian, Tabari, wrote: "and often a person did not know his son, nor the son his father, and no one had enough to live a prosperous life.” - A.Ya.Ch.)
In 529, Prince Khosroes carried out a new coup, executed Mazdak, dethroned his father and hung the Mazdakites by the feet. The last 120 years have been tragic. In 651, the Iranian state disappeared. Caliph Omar, having conquered Persia, did not seek to convert the Persians to Islam, but to collect kharaj and azhiz - a tax on non-believers. To prevent excessive conversion, he prohibited Muslims from owning land in the conquered territory. Therefore, rich landowners preserved both land and religion by paying high taxes. But the poor and peasants, who did not value their plots of land, willingly converted to Islam and received highly paid positions, for example, tax collectors. Therefore, most of the Persians voluntarily became Muslims, and rich intellectuals emigrated to India. This is how Iran became Muslim, and sincerely at that. Therefore, in the future it will appear in the “Muslim superethnos” section.
First of all, I would like to note that each of the above phases of ethnogenesis corresponds to its own faith. This historical example confirms our earlier conclusion that nationality is determined not by the territory and genetics of a person, but by his spiritual essence, i.e. his Faith.
“Nationality presupposes something motionless, established once and for all, not moving forward; shows only what is evident among the people in their present situation. Nationality, on the contrary, contains not only what was and is, but what will be and can be.” (V.G. Belinsky. “Russia before Peter the Great”, 1841)
That is why everyone who today stands up for “universal human values” for a “united world culture”, the idea of which they so devotedly serve, are in fact direct guides and followers of Marx, Engels, Lenin, no matter how they renounce them. The roots of this ideology lie in the theory and practice of social democracy of the last century and gave vigorous shoots in the activities of the Russian Bolsheviks. “The slogan of workers’ democracy is not “national culture, but the international culture of democracy and the world labor movement” ”, put forward by V.I. Ulyanov (“Critical Notes on the National Question”) is most fully implemented in Russia precisely after the “democrats” (allegedly anti-communists) came to power, because “in the name of national culture - Great Russian, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, etc. - reactionary and dirty deeds are carried out by the Black Hundreds and clerics, and then by the bourgeoisie of all nations” (V.I. Ulyanov, ibid.). How odious those who defend the purity of the Russian language, the traditional culture of the Russian peoples, and the national classical heritage look today. They all “do reactionary and dirty things.”
It has long been known that it is easiest to serve an idea most fully when you verbally oppose it. Although “in every national culture there are, at least not developed, elements of a democratic and socialist culture, because in every nation there is a working and exploited mass, whose living conditions inevitably give rise to a democratic and socialist ideology” (ibid.), V.I. Ulyanov did not want or was unable to offer his followers recipes for separating “democratic and socialist” culture from the national one.
Let us give a number of other examples of Marxist-Leninist “thought”:
“..But in every nation there is also a bourgeois culture (and in the majority also Black Hundred and clerical) - and not only in the form of “elements”, but in the form of the dominant culture. Therefore, “national culture” in general is the culture of landowners, priests, bourgeoisie” / V.I. Lenin. “Critical notes on the national question”/.
“By setting up the slogan “an international culture of democracy and a world labor movement,” we take from each national culture only its democratic and socialist elements, we take them only and unconditionally in opposition to the bourgeois culture, the bourgeois nationalism of each nation.”
So today’s cultural figures are taking all the “democratic and socialist elements” from overseas, and at the same time they are creating universal abomination.
“Marxism puts forward in place of all nationalism - internationalism, the fusion of all nations in a higher unity, which is growing before our eyes with every mile of the railway, with every international trust, with everyone (international in their economic activity, and then in their ideas, in their aspirations) by a working union.”
This book of quotes can be continued indefinitely. It is in these ideas that the roots of the tragedy that RUSSIAN NATIONAL culture is experiencing today lie. All the mockery that the democrats have made of our culture today is rooted in Bolshevism.
Here is another example from the history of the formation of NATIONALITY according to the book by L.N. Gumileva:
“In the history of the church, the phase of ethnic upsurge can be seen very clearly. In Africa, Donatism became the banner of ethnic upsurge; in Spain, the Gnostic bishop Priscillian was burned in 384; in Egypt, Arius and Athanasius argued. The Arians defeated and baptized many Germans, for whom Arianism, after the triumph of Orthodoxy in 381, became a symbol of opposition to the Romans . But in all cases, in the east of the empire there was a rapid process of creation from confessional communities first of a sub-ethnic group, then of an ethnos, and then of a super-ethnic group - Byzantium” (emphasis added - A.Ya.Ch.).
It is worth replacing the words ethnos and ethnic with nationality and national in the above quote, we will get a complete picture of the initial emergence of new nationalities, on those indicated by L.N. Gumilev territories. Byzantine nationality ceased to exist in the same way as Persian nationality after the conquest of Byzantium by the Muslims. Islam swallowed up both the Persians and the Byzantines.
Originating in “ I", nationality finds its development in " Family”.
“Based on the ideals of Christian culture, wrote L.P. Karsavin, it is necessary to recognize the ideal family as a perfect unity of spouses and children. Family unity, as spiritual unity, does not require constant spatial proximity and, on the other hand, spatial proximity does not yet create a family. However, spatial proximity, as a fact and of a spiritual nature, sometimes turns out to be, if not necessary, then an important moment in discovering a family. So in moments of extreme danger and social disasters, people instinctively stick to their families.”
The next stage of blood and spiritual intimacy is GENUS.
“Life, the general generic life gives rise to the individual. But this only means that there is absolutely nothing in the individual that does not exist in the life of the species. The life of individuals is the life of the race. You cannot imagine the matter in such a way that the life of the entire family is one thing, and my own life is another. Here is one and the same, completely united and unique life. There is nothing in a person that is higher than his race. It is in him that his family is embodied. The will of the clan is the person himself, and the will of an individual person is not different from the will of the clan. Of course, an individual person can strive in every possible way to isolate himself from the general life; but this can only mean that in a given case comes the disintegration and decomposition of the life of the species itself, the life itself of a given type is decomposed either at a given time or in a given place. One way or another, the life of an individual is always nothing more than the life of the species itself; the genus is the only factor and agent, the only principle that asserts itself in various individuals.” / A.F. Losev. "Motherland"/. And already from the clans, uniting primarily by spiritual kinship - service to the same gods, through which unity is carried out, is formed NATIONALITY.
Based on all of the above, we can draw the final conclusion:
” NATIONALITY – HISTORICAL SPIRITUAL community of people connected by the unity of Faith, spiritual and material culture.”
Admiring the deeds of our ancestors, believing in the supreme destiny of the RUSSIAN people and foreseeing the inevitable greatness of the coming RUSSIA, I would like to repeat, following A. Pushkin:
“...I swear on my honor that for nothing in the world I would not want to change my FATHERLAND, or have another history other than the history of our ancestors, the way God gave it to us.”
NATSI
“There is great ignorance of Russia among Russia. Everything lives in foreign magazines and newspapers, and not in its own land. The city does not know the city, man is man, people living only behind one wall seem to live beyond the seas.”
N.V. Gogol.
“No one will deny the threatening significance of the separatisms tearing apart the body of Russia. Over the eleven years of the revolution, dozens of national consciousnesses were born, developed, and strengthened in its weakened body. Some of them have already acquired formidable strength. Each small people, half-wild yesterday, produces cadres of half-intelligentsia, which are already driving away their Russian teachers. Under the cover of international communism, in the ranks of the Communist Party itself, cadres of nationalists are emerging who are striving to tear the historical body of Russia to pieces. The Kazan Tatars, of course, have nowhere to go. They can only dream of Kazan as the capital of Eurasia. But Ukraine and Georgia (represented by their intelligentsia) are striving for independence. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan gravitate towards the Asian centers of Islam. The revolution strengthened the national self-awareness of all peoples, declared counter-revolutionary only the national feelings of the dominant nationality yesterday “(G.P. Fedotov. “Will Russia Exist?” ?”).
This was written back in 1928. The tendency, which the Russian philosopher sensitively grasped in its very embryo, manifested itself in its completeness and depressing dimensions. The Communist Party has promoted from its ranks not the internationalists whose formation its ideologists have been repeating all these years, but the most terry, illiterate and irresponsible chauvinists to their people. The explosive mechanism laid down by the Leninist-Stalinist national policy is set in motion by the current “democrats”, these ideological heirs of the Bolsheviks. Today, the successors of the work of Lenin-Stalin are the most consistent “democrats” led by Gaidar, G. Popov, G. Yavlinsky, and ultra-communists led by Anpilov and Nina Andreeva.
“The nation is an inevitable product and an inevitable form of the bourgeois era of social development. And the working class could not grow stronger, mature, or take shape without “settled within the nation,” without being “national” (although not at all in the sense as the bourgeoisie understands it). But the development of capitalism is increasingly breaking down national barriers, destroying national isolation, and replacing national antagonisms with class antagonisms. In developed capitalist countries, it is therefore a complete truth that “the workers have no fatherland” and that the “union of efforts” of the workers, at least in civilized countries, “is one of the first conditions for the liberation of the proletariat” (“Communist Manifesto”). The state, this organized violence, inevitably arose at a certain stage in the development of society, when society was split into irreconcilable classes, when it could not exist without “power”, supposedly standing above society and to a certain extent isolated from it. Emerging within class contradictions, the state becomes “the state of the strongest, economically dominant class, which with its help becomes the politically dominant class and in this way acquires new means for the subjugation and exploitation of the oppressed class.” /V.I.Lenin. "Karl Marx"./
How much paper was written, how much effort and energy wasted by the Bolsheviks, and all just to destroy Russia. What kind of hatred you had to burn for everything Russian in order to devote your entire life to the destruction of a unique state. All the conclusions drawn by social democracy regarding Russia are not historical and lack a real historical and legal basis. When discussing nations and national self-determination, the Russian people were ascribed sins that they had never possessed. “In Russia, the Great Russians did not so much unite as crush a number of other nations,” wrote V. Lenin (“Russian Südekums”). Back in 1913, criticizing the Bund, I. Stalin wrote: “ It (cultural-national autonomy) becomes even more harmful when it is imposed on a “nation” whose existence and future are in doubt. In such cases, supporters of national autonomy have to protect and preserve all the features of the “nation”, not only useful, but also harmful (as if such could occur - A.Ch.), just to “save the nation” from assimilation, just to “keep” her safe.”
The reader now understands why the small nations and nationalities of the North today eke out a miserable existence. Obviously, the ideologists of Marxism and its current successors, the “democrats,” ranked them among the peoples “whose future is in doubt.” As for the Russian people, both of them are doing everything to make them disappear from the history of mankind.
“The only correct solution,” J. Stalin further wrote, “is regional autonomy, the autonomy of such defined units as Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc.”
Having come to power, the Bolsheviks went further. They created pseudo-national states in these territories, and the RSFSR, with the aim of further dismemberment, was divided into artificial autonomous republics despite the warnings of Russian thinkers.
“Russia is a single living organism: geographical, strategic, religious, linguistic, cultural, legal and state, economic and anthropological. This organism will undoubtedly have to develop a new state organization. But its dismemberment will lead to long-term chaos, to general disintegration and ruin, and then to a new gathering of Russian territories and Russian peoples into a new unity. Then history will decide the question of which of the small nations will survive this new gathering of Rus'. We must pray to God that complete fraternal unity between the peoples of Russia will be established as soon as possible.” (I.A. Ilyin. “Russia is a living organism.”)
In a report to the X Congress of the RCP(b), justifying himself, I. Stalin said: “I have a note that we, communists, are supposedly implanting Belarusian nationality artificially. This is incorrect, because there is a Belarusian nationality, which has its own language, different from Russian, which is why it is possible to raise the culture of the Belarusian people only in their native language. The same speeches were heard about five years ago about Ukraine, about Ukrainian nationality. And recently it was said that the Ukrainian republic and Ukrainian nationality are an invention of the Germans. Meanwhile, it is clear (and not a word about why it is clear to him and from what this clarity follows - A.Ch.) that the Ukrainian nationality exists, and the development of its culture is the responsibility of the communists. You can't go against history. It is clear that if Russian elements still predominate in the cities of Ukraine, then over time these cities will inevitably be Ukrainized. About forty years ago Riga was a German city, but since cities grow at the expense of villages, and the village is the custodian of the nationality (emphasis added! - A.Ch.), now Riga is a purely Latvian city. About fifty years ago the cities of Hungary had a German character; now they are Magyarized. The same will happen with Belarus, whose cities are still dominated by non-Belarussians.”
If “the village is the guardian of nationality,” then how to evaluate all the troubles of the Russian village that befell it with the Bolsheviks coming to power in Russia. Decossackization, dispossession, collectivization, de-peasantization, liquidation of “unpromising” villages under the leadership of Academician Zaslavskaya and the USSR Academy of Sciences, and, finally, the current destruction of rural commodity producers by the “democratic” authorities themselves. All this primarily affected the Great Russian village. Here we can see a deliberately planned and consistently implemented genocide of the Russian people.
What is a NATION as a social system?
Demacrats of all times and peoples unanimously argued and continue to maintain that the Swiss, French, Canadians and even residents of the United States are independent and united nations. Marxists - due to the fact that capitalism has allegedly already completely won there, and socialists and other theorists - due to the fact that “democracy” has allegedly won in these countries in one form or another. But Russia was denied this. We assure you, dear readers, that there was much more democracy in Russia under Nicholas II and even under I. Stalin than in any current “most democratic” country in the world. Today, from our own experience, we know what the vaunted “Western democracy” is. Russian President Yeltsin was elected by only 25% of voters, and even then, more than half of whom were simply deceived. And the mayor (this vile word was introduced into our vocabulary) of the city of Novosibirsk in March 1996 was “elected” by just over 15% of voters, the bulk of these 15% were simply bought, since their well-being is directly related to the rule of this gentleman. What does the free expression of the people have in common with these dirty commercial deals of those in power and the unscrupulous and immoral businessmen they bought?
“The fact is that Europe does not recognize us as one of its own. She sees in Russia and in the Slavs in general something alien to her, and at the same time something that cannot serve as simple material for her, from which she could extract her benefits, as she extracts from China, India, Africa, most of America and etc., - material that could be shaped and processed in its own model and likeness, as was previously hoped, as was especially hoped by the Germans, who, despite the glorified cosmopolitanism, expect the salvation of the world only from a single saving German civilization. Europe sees, therefore, in Rus' and in the Slavs not only an alien, but also a hostile principle.
...This is the only satisfactory explanation of the duality of measures and scales with which Europe measures and weighs when it comes to Russia (and not only about Russia, but also about the Slavs in general) - and when it comes to other countries and peoples.
...There is not even anything conscious here that Europe could give itself the most impartial account of. The reason for the phenomenon lies deeper. It lies in the uncharted depths of those tribal sympathies and antipathies that constitute, as it were, the historical instinct of peoples, leading them (in addition to, although not against, their will and consciousness) to a goal unknown to them; for in its general, main outlines, history is not formed according to human will, although it is left to him to draw patterns from them.
...Everything original Russian and Slavic seems to her worthy of contempt, and its eradication constitutes the most sacred duty and the true task of civilization. Gemeiner Russe, Bartrusse (Mean Russian, bearded Russian) are terms of the greatest contempt in the language of a European, and especially a German. In their eyes, a Russian can claim human dignity only when he has already lost his national identity.
...Europe recognizes Russia and the Slavs as something alien to itself, and not only alien, but also hostile. To the impartial observer this is an irrefutable fact.”
All this was published by N.Ya. Danilevsky back in 1871. We can judge how far-sighted he was in his conclusions almost 140 years later. The Russians did not heed these warnings, “ate” Western philosophical systems and plunged their country and the peoples inhabiting it into the abyss of troubles and suffering for almost a century.
Pitirim Sorokin, the creator of the science “Sociology”, expelled abroad by the Bolsheviks, answered the question posed above as follows:
“Without going into a detailed analysis, we can conclude that a nation is a multi-connected (multifunctional), solidary, organized, semi-closed socio-cultural group, at least partially aware of the fact of its existence and unity. This group consists of individuals who:
1) are citizens of one state (please note that P. Sorokin also correlates belonging to a particular nation with mandatory citizenship within the framework of a national state - A.Ch.);
2) have a common or similar language and a common set of cultural values deriving from the common past history of these individuals and their predecessors; 3) occupy the common territory on which they live and their ancestors lived.
...Citizens of a state are united into one state-system in accordance with interests, values, rights and responsibilities or in accordance with state ties determined by their common membership in one state.
...A nation is a multi-connected social organism, united and cemented by the state, ethnic and territorial ties.”
But Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov came closest to understanding what a NATION is. In his work “Sole Power as a Principle of State Structure” he noted:
“In general, a NATION is the entire mass of individuals and groups whose joint historical existence gives rise to the IDEA of supreme power, equally ruling over all of them, and also puts forward specific representatives of this idea.”
Giving this definition of a NATION, L.A. Tikhomirov did not take into account one important detail: the idea of supreme power originates within the framework of a particular NATIONALITY and this does not mean that this nationality can become a state-forming one. All states of the world are multinational. Sometimes the interests of individual nationalities conflict with the interests of the state or the NATION as a whole. In the modern world, such a contradiction is most often presented as a contradiction between an individual people (nationality) and a state-forming (titular) nationality. This is the whole root of the evil that modern politicians inflict on different nations, when the contradictions between the state bureaucratic machine personifying the UNION OF NATIONALITIES (NATION) are transferred to the plane of contradictions between the various NATIONALITIES that make up a given NATION.
Any modern state is a historical union of nationalities that are forced to make various compromises in order to peacefully and prosperously live together in the territories they occupy jointly and jointly protect the interests of these nationalities.
Based on all of the above, we can draw the following conclusion:
“A NATION is a historical union of NATIONALITIES, the coexistence of which gives rise to the IDEA of a single statehood to protect their interests, and also nominates specific representatives to implement this idea. A nation always settles within the framework of its own state.”
PEOPLE - the entire collection of inhabitants of a territory, defined by its geographical or political name.
1*. Eudaimonism - (from the Greek eudaimonia - bliss) a direction in ethics (ethical principle), which sees the highest goal of human life in achieving happiness (bliss).
Literature.
1. Lev Gumilev. "Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the earth."
2. Pyotr Khomyakov. “NATIONAL PROGRESSISM. Theory and ideology of national survival and development of Russia.” Ed. Pallas. 1994
3. V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin). “Critical Notes on the National Question.”
4. V.I.Lenin. "Karl Marx".
5. V.I. Lenin “Russian Südekums”.
6. O. Bauer. “The National Question and Social Democracy.” M., Book, 1918,
7. Stalin I.V. Marxism and the national question". Stalin I.V. Essays. – T. 2. – M.: OGIZ; State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1946. pp. 290–367. 8. I.A.Ilyin. “Russia is a living organism.” Russian idea. Moscow. Republic. 1992
9. N.Ya.Danilevsky. "Russia and Europe". M.:, 2008
10. L. A. Tikhomirov. "Sole power as a principle of state structure." - New York: National Printing & Publishing C., 1943.
11. G.P.Fedotov. “Will Russia exist?” "Fate and Sins of Russia", vol. 1, St. Petersburg, Sofia Publishing House, 1991, pp. 173-184.
12. A.F. Losev. "Motherland". Russian idea. Moscow. Republic. 1992
13. K. N. Leontiev. ABOUT UNIVERSAL LOVE. Speech by F.M. Dostoevsky at the Pushkin holiday. "Blooming Complexity": Fav. Art. M. Mol. Guard 1992.
14. S.L. Frank, “The Incomprehensible.” Moscow, Pravda Publishing House, 1990.
15. L.P. Karsavin. “Philosophy of History.” Publisher: AST, 2007.
16. V.G. Belinsky. “Russia before Peter the Great”, 1841.
Introduction
Chapter 1. Theoretical foundations of the self-awareness of the Russian people
1.1 Formation and development of self-awareness of the Russian people
2 National identity
3 Synthesis of science and faith
4 Personality and society
Chapter 2. Theoretical foundations of the main components of the national identity of the Russian people
2.1 Patriotism
2 Sobornost
Conclusion
List of used literature
Introduction
Relevance. The formation of an information society and the accumulation of state intellectual resources in the educational space are strategic national objectives of Russia. Setting the task of developing widely accessible education and culture as one of the goals of the development of Russian society as a whole is an urgent need for the real renewal of the country in the course of reforms.
Today, more than ever, there is an urgent need for a certain level of historical consciousness of the nation, without which there is no society, no statehood, no Fatherland. The former second superpower lost all zones of its influence and itself split into many sovereign states - its former provinces. Under these conditions, a crisis of Russian national self-awareness and state patriotism became inevitable. The terms “our Motherland”, “our Fatherland”, “our people” began to disappear from the political vocabulary of a number of figures, which began to be replaced by the terms “this country”, “this people”, etc.
Some venerable philosophers even formulated the idea of the “failed history” of Russia, the incredible inertia of Russian history, which is supposedly a “dead branch” of the evolution of mankind. This concept influenced a number of history textbooks, which are filled with derogatory maxims about the Russian people and especially the history of the Russian state of the 20th century.
The country needs a unified Russian ideology, accepted “collectively” by the entire nation. The need for patriotic ideology was clearly stated by the First President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, almost all the main politicians of the country speak about this (G.A. Zyuganov, G.Ya. Yavlinsky, V.V. Zhirinovsky, A.I. Podberezkin), many modern historians and political scientists write. But such a system of ideas cannot simply be invented - it must objectively develop and mature in society on the civilizational basis of historical consciousness and national culture. It is precisely the development of the entire wealth of historical experience of the great unique Russian Eurasian civilization that can help revive the new great Russian superpower, which no one will dare to make territorial, material and ideological claims, to surround with a cordon sanitaire. Russia as a country-continent, a country-civilization, a country - a historical union of peoples, will sooner or later again occupy its worthy place in the system of world civilization.
Based on the above facts, we formulated the topic of our research: “Patriotism and conciliarity as one of the main components of the national identity of the Russian people.”
The object of our research is national identity.
The subject of the study is patriotism and conciliarity.
The purpose of the study is to characterize the national identity of the Russian people.
Research objectives:
Analyze cultural, sociological, historical, philosophical and political science literature on the research topic.
Describe the basic concepts of work.
Chapter 1. Theoretical foundations of the self-awareness of the Russian people
.1 Formation and development of self-awareness of the Russian people
The central issue today has become the question of the formation in the public consciousness of a state-patriotic ideology, a modern national idea, which alone can become a strategy for the development of the Nation and the State, and for the present time - the basis for the concept of exiting the protracted crisis.
From a concrete historical point of view, there is no doubt that the Soviet system was the cumulative result of the activities of millions of people - citizens of Russia, who for the most part had a vague idea of Marxism and the theory of socialism. The slogans and ideas of “Russian Marxism-Leninism,” which determined historical development, largely did not coincide with the essence and practice of the real historical process. The emerging Soviet society, despite its specifics, was a product of the natural historical development of the Eurasian Russian civilization. Three revolutions over a decade and a half not only turned the course of Russian civilization, but formed a new social structure of society, modified the mentality of the population and determined the objective patterns of development of the new society. In practice, it bore little resemblance to its image in both Soviet and Western social science literature, subordinated to the solution of propaganda tasks.
The peoples of the geopolitical successor of the Russian Empire, the USSR, developed within the framework of a civilizational wave that deviated even more from Western development patterns than Russian traditional civilization. It should be noted that the development of the new Soviet community in the first half of the 20th century. the negative foreign policy environment had a huge impact, which put it in conditions of an armed struggle for existence and survival. The collapse of the monarchical system and the horrific devastation after the First World War immediately put the socialists on the path to creating a strictly centralized state. This element of Eurasian civilization received exaggerated meaning and began to sound with particular force. The civil war and military intervention of 14 states consolidated the trend of centralization. The industrialization of a country with a poor, illiterate population, among which there were dozens of nationalities with feudal and even tribal social relations, required an even greater mobilization of all the forces of society by the authoritarian-bureaucratic regime. The mobilization-revolutionary nature of the development of Soviet Russia, based on the exploitation of the temporary revolutionary enthusiasm of one part of the masses and the forced submission of another, became a characteristic quality of this society. Totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship of the 30-50s. fully reflected, contrary to the theories of Marxism, this feature of the process of building socialism in one particular country. Soviet society certainly bore the distinct mark of totalitarianism, but at the same time it is impossible to deny that it guaranteed workers a certain social minimum, including the realization of the right to work, free education and healthcare, recreation and housing. If Western civilization could not get rid of economic crises, unemployment, wars, drug addiction, then Soviet society could not get rid of the shortage of goods, restrictions on democracy, and the growing militarization of the economy. The Great Patriotic War and the outbreak of the Cold War again created extremely unfavorable conditions for the implementation of the socialist idea in its original form, and this again stimulated the mobilization nature of the development of society. With the beginning of Khrushchev's de-Stalinization, the political system was updated, but the revival of individual rights, property and freedoms did not occur.
In the USSR, collectivist and egalitarian psychology was established, which has deep historical roots. This mentality was stimulated by the all-encompassing Soviet state, which stood above and controlled civil society. The special archetype of culture that developed in Soviet society was based on the ideology of Marxist socialism, which in many respects reproduced the Old Testament biblical categories - (Code of the Builder of Communism), which gave it a religious character. The preservation of the functions of Orthodoxy in the state ideology (with its formal denial and other elements of the Russian patriotic idea - “Great Rus' united forever”) gave socialist ideology a very special “sacred” meaning. It was a unique religion, not subject to criticism, renewal, or improvement from the standpoint of new conditions and the requirements of scientific and technical progress. Marxist ideology has become dogmatized and deadened, having become detached from the masses. The generation of Soviet people who grew up in the second half of the 20th century, for the most part, became apolitical, predisposed to the adoption of individualism and the cult of consumerism.
Period 60-80s. in history represented a qualitatively new - mature - changed type of society, with transformed signs of a general civilizational complex. The state still represented the dominant element of the political system, but was no longer viewed as an instrument of dictatorship of one class, but as a one-party system of governing society from the standpoint of declared national interests. In the social structure of the USSR, there was an erasure of class barriers and a real departure from the class model of society. Existing social groups differed from each other mainly in the nature of work. Relations of public property gradually turned into a supra-class institution, formally regulating social relations. In the party-state ideology of the 80s. universal human values were increasingly used (the so-called “new thinking” policy). Within the framework of the Soviet political system, its own closed political elite was formed on the basis of the highest party bureaucracy, divorced from the masses. On the one hand, this indicated a crisis of social justice in society, on the other hand, it corresponded to global trends in the development of elites. The socialist cultural archetype was intensively developing in the country. Culture was understood as the generation of socialist values containing universal human ideals in a transformed form. Despite censorship and pressure from the authorities, outstanding works of literature, cinema, theater, painting, etc. were created. The population of the USSR was considered as a socio-psychological phenomenon - the “Soviet people”, which was perceived positively by them. There were no interethnic wars or armed conflicts in the country; separatism was successfully suppressed without significant consequences. The peoples of the USSR represented, on the whole, a global community, relatively closed in conditions of self-isolation, which functioned on the basis of a special, socialist mode of production. The main form of social movement gradually became not revolutionary mobilization, but social evolution, which led to a slight increase in the level of material well-being of the population. The main source of the country's development was not mobilization and terror, but the intensified exploitation of subsoil and resources, which, however, also had no prospects. The complete rejection of private property relations, civilized market relations, the ossification of the political system and ideology, the preservation of the traditions of neo-Stalinism, the mobilization economy, the decay of the political elite - all this did not allow the creation of a mechanism for self-regulation of Soviet society and plunged it into a systemic crisis. An attempt to create a new civilization on fundamentally new principles ended in obvious failure. The failure of real socialism testifies to its “mutant” nature. Since social development turned out to be aimed mainly at confrontation with the capitalist system, the creative potential of the broad masses was not in demand. People who strived for their unification as masters of economic and political life found themselves alienated both from power and from their own enterprises. The dictatorship of state institutions, led by a degenerate political elite, preserved Soviet society in its transitional state. Socialist civilization did not take place and Russian society entered a protracted crisis.
The nation and society as a whole, and not just individual parties and even unions, need a new worldview, or ideology that unites in its main features the majority of the representatives of the Nation, some kind of national idea that can save the Nation.
The strategic task today, strange as it may seem, is the task of creating and introducing into the mass consciousness a new state-patriotic ideology and value system for the majority of the Nation, and not for supporters of individual parties.
And this task is urgent, for they rightly say: “Those who save on creating their own national-state ideology are doomed to feed and profess someone else’s.” Let us add - with all the ensuing consequences in the economy, social sphere, state building, not to mention foreign and military policy. How can one talk about a coherent concept, a program for the development of society and the state in some particular area, say economics, without having a clear idea of the ultimate goal of development?
From the point of view of state-patriotic ideology, one answer is this: the state needs a powerful economy, which is based on the pace of development of high-tech products that is ahead of advanced countries, those industries that today determine the level of scientific and technological progress. Science-intensive means less energy-intensive, less metal-intensive, resource-saving in general, and also least damaging to the country’s ecology.
This example allows us to understand the true scale of the task of forming a state-patriotic ideology, not just as another “ism”, but as an “intellectual breakthrough” so necessary for the Nation, a common denominator for the leading political forces.
And the second, no less important side of the problem: without an “intellectual breakthrough” there will be no political victory, because it must be preceded by an intellectual victory.
1.2 National identity
First of all, it must be said that our state has national (and not some abstract general democratic, liberal market, “human rights”, etc.) interests.
The category “national” should be considered as an association of a particular person with the territory where the Russian ethnic group lives, Russian culture, history, Russian language, and ultimately with Russia, its future, its national interests, and not with the ideology of one party. This concept has little in common with ethnic or political categories, and even more so with the “nationality” column in a passport. And of course, it is broader than “proletarian”, “socialist” and other social internationalism or cosmopolitanism. In my opinion, we can and should talk about a national worldview that has various political and ideological shades, a worldview that has a clear national (but not nationalistic) specificity, a general cultural and spiritual basis. This must be done in order to draw a clear line between the interests of the nation and other interests and not be ashamed to defend them, “not to be confused,” for example, with the national interests of the United States.
But this is not the only problem. Only by realizing national identification and one’s interests can one move rapidly into the 21st century. You just need to understand that powerful chaos is caused by a departure from the natural path of development of the Nation and State, a movement contrary to all the characteristics - historical, cultural, spiritual, geopolitical, economic - of the Russian nation. We went to the side of the road, then went deeper into the swamp, got stuck and do not see that there is no need to wander at random, inventing new ones or trying to revive old theories. We need to take the high road, and not chase after mirages, be it shop windows of Western liberalism, a pseudo-ideal socialist commune or patriarchal Russia. It is important to understand that the development of the state is determined by the spirit of the nation, its culture and history, formed over the centuries, the requirements of science and modern international realities.
Without realizing national identification, it will not be possible to determine national interests, and therefore the goals of the country’s domestic and foreign policy, or to find Russia’s right place in the world.
But today, perhaps, it is even more important to affirm in the mass consciousness, within the framework of state-patriotic ideology, the very right to the name “Russian”. Today, radical liberals of the Westernist persuasion and adherents of “proletarian internationalism”, who in essence are not just historical brothers, but also current twin extremes, are united against this today “in a single impulse.”
Obviously, there is no going back to the old ways. The old state has died and only people who are absolutely devoid of a sense of reality can dream of its revival, its restoration. Their loyalty to the previous ideology deserves respect, but it does not provide a chance for the development of the future country, the formation of a new worldview, a new person. Also - and this has finally become clear to everyone - the mechanical transfer of Western European (American) liberal ideology does not provide such a chance.
It is becoming more and more clear even for the most cosmopolitan supporters that in the single spiritual-cultural, historically established geopolitical space of Russia, our future is largely predetermined by these objectively established conditions themselves. They inevitably bring their own specificity to all the problems: political, economic, financial and others - facing the Russian people and state today. It is important to remember that this specificity cannot be ignored or absolutized: it must be taken into account fully, and the building of the future must be built on its basis
1.3 Synthesis of science and faith
State-patriotic ideology is a synthesis of scientific knowledge and Faith, i.e. reconciling and complementing science, culture and spirituality. Without this synthesis, it is impossible to return the moral and spiritual foundations for the development of not only ideology, but also specific concepts (economic, sociological, military, etc.) for the development of the Nation and State.
Today it is vitally important to understand that our society, and indeed the entire civilization, will have a future only if we abandon vulgar materialism - be it primitive orthodox Marxism or consumer liberalism. The fundamental difference between a person and an animal is that among all other needs - biological, sexual, material and consumer, etc. - for him, spiritual, moral and (in a broad, not class sense) social ones come first.
The other side of this problem is Faith, the conviction that this is how it should be, that this is how it will happen. In essence, Faith is the most powerful weapon of the human personality, not only not used, but also extremely little studied. Especially in politics. Sometimes only Faith (without the media, money, power) changed the political map of the continents, the course of world history.
Often only Faith, i.e. an irrational approach, is able to answer the most pressing questions of today's politics. Only Faith in one’s own rightness gives one the strength to move away from false pseudoscientific ideas. And today’s politicians want to do without this weapon - the most powerful and most effective!
Without this synthesis, we will never be able to fully use the nation’s enormous resource—the spiritual—to overcome the crisis; we will not be able to fully, in fact, realize the priority of another resource of the nation—the intellect. It is necessary to quickly admit that the dominance of vulgar materialism in scientific knowledge of the 20th century. not only has it ended, but also hinders the advancement of society, because this domination objectively belittles the importance of intellect and spirit as the most important resource for development.
It is appropriate to quote the statement of the greatest thinker of the 20th century. - IN AND. Vernadsky; “Science does not exist apart from man and is his creation, just as his creation is the word, without which there can be no science...
In scientifically expressed truth there is always a reflection, perhaps an extremely large one, of a person’s spiritual personality, his mind.
In the world there really are only individuals who create and express scientific thought, who manifest scientific creativity - spiritual energy. The weightless values they created - scientific thought and scientific discovery - subsequently change the course of processes in the biosphere and the nature that surrounds us.”
The spiritual and intellectual resources of the nation are as huge and precious as our raw materials. The spiritual and intellectual potential of Russia is unique. Science, studying this problem (in Russia, V.I. Vernadsky was the first to draw attention to it), came to the conclusion that it is promising to rely on spiritual potential. We openly neglected and continue to neglect our spiritual potential, although during critical periods (for example, in 1941) they seemed to remember it. Russia is an intellectually rich country, but in order to understand the significance of this, we need to return to the priority of spirituality. We developed and introduced the best education system in the world, and not only we were proud of it. This is a global treasure. We had the greatest scientific potential. And the greatest mistake, one might say a crime, was to squander intellectual potential, ruin the education system, introducing into the mass consciousness a completely erroneous idea about the possibility of regulating science, culture and education by market mechanisms. Intellectual achievements have been squandered, we are now living off the 70s and 80s, and our intellectual reserves are still being stolen from us. But this is the only effective way for Russia to develop.
This position is by no means only theoretical, but also purely practical. This is a guideline, a mandatory principle, which can be called the “principle of spirituality.” Its essential characteristic is: the predominance of higher spiritual, moral interests over material ones; the presence of high civic and ethical ideals. In this sense, the entire history of mankind is more or less clearly divided into periods when the predominant orientation is either towards spiritual values, or towards material ones, where the extreme is the orientation itself, leading to the degeneration of man as a spiritual being.
“Spiritual” is also moral, not mercantile. This means that not everything is for sale and not everything can be bought with money. This concept is absolutely opposite to liberalism and its ideology, where the measure of a person and his success is simply money.
“Spiritual” potential is a purely Russian concept, without which it is impossible to reach your own, Russian Path. This is the priority of other, intangible values, which has always been in Russian society. And this is a powerful potential for the development of the future Russia, capable of mobilizing in a crisis situation (as has happened more than once in history) all the resources of the nation to achieve a great goal, the implementation of a certain “super idea.”
“Spiritual” potential is directly related to the future citizen of Russia, the future of the entire country. Will he be a personality, a creator, ready to take the risk of self-sacrifice in order to realize his creative potential, or will he be a marginalized person, ready to succumb and take any action for the sake of mercantile gain. It is clear that with such “personalities” you cannot build a great country, and you cannot create a normal law-abiding society. The objective necessity for a person of the National Idea arises from the recognition of the fact that a scale of social values is vital for a person. It may be different, but it must be, because it distinguishes a person, puts moral and spiritual values above biological ones.
It is important that the idea triumphs over the instinct of self-preservation, the fear of death, and the thirst for profit. The priority of an idea in the scale of social values is by no means a good wish, but a condition that distinguishes a person from another mammal. Only a person is capable of sacrificing health and life for the sake of an idea - be it the idea of justice, or the idea of love for the Motherland. And vice versa. Without the priority of the ideal, a person turns into an animal capable of eating, sleeping, having sex and acquiring more and more new needs in sophisticated ways.
Speaking about state-patriotic ideology, we must keep in mind the education of a spiritually rich, liberated personality, capable of creative self-development, appreciating internal principles. Each person must have his own chosen Goal, his own Path, the will and strength to follow it. And this Path must meet the interests not only of those walking along it, but also of the entire society, the entire nation, the scientific, moral and spiritual laws of society and all humanity. Man is given the freedom to choose the Path, but one must remember that any choice is followed by a chain of consequences and, ultimately, responsibility.
1.4 Personality and society
The new worldview must fit the interests of the individual into the existing laws of development of society and humanity, which, in their essence, are not only scientifically determined and provable, but also spiritual and moral. The ability of a person to realize himself depends on whether he understands the objectivity of existence and the inevitability of the operation of these laws. And among them is the first: if you wish something for yourself, first wish the same for others. By and large, this is the main thing - only that person who understands the meaning of the objective laws of nature and society and acts, as V.I. said. Vernadsky, “in unison with the laws of the noosphere,” reflects objective trends and is able to do something worthwhile in life. This knowledge is not given easily, and does not always fit within the framework of ideology. For example: “If you want to be healthy, wish and do everything so that everyone is healthy.” A person who violates these laws (commandments) inevitably attracts trouble. I am sure that the troubles that have struck our country over the past 10 years are caused by the fact that the politicians at the helm did not understand the objective nature of the laws of development of nature and society, moreover, they acted contrary to them. It is important to believe that the richer a person is mentally, the purer his thoughts, the more selfless his actions, the more he acts in accordance with the laws of nature, society, divine, scientific. And vice versa. As follows from one commandment: “Then you will be most concerned about your own benefit when you seek it in what is useful for your neighbor.” Personal success is possible only when a socially significant goal is set as the main goal, and not personal gain. That is, one must live, in the words of V.I. Vernadsky, “in accordance with the Great Principles.”
And in this, invisibly, but inevitably, he will be accompanied by the greatest history and cultural heritage of our ancestors, which genetically laid the foundation for the prosperity of Russia, following the right Path, in accordance with the Great Principles.
Where is the criterion that is necessary for making sometimes difficult decisions? It seems to us that it should lie in the moral area, compliance with universal human norms. Whether political, economic, or just everyday decisions, they must be based on a strict spiritual, moral and national foundation. Indeed, often, other than the personal ambitions of politicians, there was no basis either for the collapse of the USSR or for the plunder of Russia’s national wealth.
And this process is by no means over. And today, to please political ambitions, national issues are being resolved - be it provoking a crisis in Belarus, giving up Crimea, capitulation in Chechnya, “regionalization” of regions, etc. We must finally understand that politicians do not have the right to resolve national issues single-handedly, that their actions must be based on a conscious national interest and a moral basis.
We must categorically state that by choosing an anti-national, immoral version of any policy, a citizen of Russia goes not only against the interests of the Nation and State, but also against himself, against the objective laws of development of society and humanity. His ambitions thus oppose not only his own people, but also himself.
The new state-patriotic worldview organically combines the specific national and cultural characteristics of Russia and the values of the entire civilization, a strong Russian state and the interests of other states, the spiritual characteristics of the Russian nation and the richness of the spiritual heritage of other peoples. In this sense, the essence of the Russian Way is the development of the potential of the Nation and in the interests of all humanity, i.e. - compliance with the “Big Principles” of the global interconnection of all processes.
Here it is necessary to dwell on two fundamental, in my opinion, points.
First, in the programs of political parties, scientific and pseudo-scientific articles, primarily of a liberal nature, and, of course, the media, an artificial, non-existent line is drawn between national priorities and the interests of human civilization. In fact, there is no such opposition if we recognize that the development of the unique potential of the Russian Nation (including science, education and culture, which the whole world worshiped) occurs not only in the interests of the development of the entire civilization, but is also one of its most important conditions, contributes that unique component, that specificity, without which today’s civilization would hardly be possible at all. This happens in the interpretation of home-grown liberals due to the fact that they do not actually care about the wealth of the entire human civilization, but only its Western-liberal, far from the most perfect part.
The elimination of this artificial opposition from the public consciousness means not only the elimination of fear of nationalism, but also, in relation to modern political practice, the elimination of the severe rejection by a significant part of the “democrats” (but not the “radical democrats”) of national concepts for the development of Russia, the emergence of the potential possibility of constructive cooperation patriotic and democratic wing of society. Such development is one of the most promising options for the development of socio-political life in Russia.
Second. Radical communists and supporters of a purely class approach also do not understand the essence of this process. “Class, proletarian interests” were neither invented nor abolished. But they are in a system and strict hierarchy with other - higher and less significant - interests, that is, they are a special case, and by no means the alpha and omega of the historical process. So, for example, Newton's physics correlates with Einstein's physics. The absolutization of class interests means a crude schematization and primitivization of humanity, as if a person were trying to judge a huge forest by observing it from one of the edges - neither the true scale nor individual trees are visible.
But it’s even worse when supporters of this approach try to make practical politics on this theoretical basis, especially in the era of scientific and technological revolution: denying the interests of a higher order - national, planetary, moral - and not wanting to see the interests of a lower order - social groups, individuals, etc. .d. - they invent theories of “permanent revolutions”, “worldwide victory of the proletariat”, “exacerbation of the class struggle”, etc. But specific people suffer from these ideological schemes.
Chapter 2. Theoretical foundations of the main components of the national identity of the Russian people
.1 Patriotism
The universal human need to be in the system of national coordinates: historical, spiritual values and geopolitical realities naturally follows from the objective category of “national interest”. For thousands of years, man has defended his right to life along with the right to the existence of his nation and state. In this sense, patriotism as a biological defense mechanism is the natural state of any individual. This is especially important to understand and take into account in work today, when the majority of the Nation is in apolitical suspended animation.
The concept of “patriotism” reflects a wide range of feelings and actions of citizens associated with their place of birth and permanent residence. This is love for the Fatherland, the desire to serve its interests, awareness of personal responsibility for its fate. However, all these definitions reflect the actions of the subject in relation to the object and do not express feedback. The concept of “State patriotism” allows, to a certain extent, to overcome this impoverished approach and lay the foundation for a system of values that can develop into the ideology of a new Russian statehood.
Even in ancient antiquity, they realized that patriotism on a sensory level is wonderful, but not sufficient to stimulate the highest manifestations of the human spirit - self-sacrifice, heroism on a mass scale. It was in Ancient Greece and Rome that the combination of the concepts of Motherland and State arose, which became the basis for instilling in the citizens of the Polis a conscious attitude in the interests of the entire civil collective, since the Polis-Motherland acted as the guarantor of its rights and property. But during the crisis of Polis, the principle “where it is good, there is the homeland” was established, which contributed to the death of ancient civilization and statehood.
In the history of ancient Russian civilization within the framework of the Kyiv early feudal monarchy, which preserved significant manifestations of veche military democracy, one can trace an attitude towards the Russian Land of a state-patriotic nature. Kievan and especially Muscovite Rus' developed in unfavorable foreign policy conditions, experiencing in the 13th-15th centuries. along the entire border parameter there are more than 300 interventionist campaigns and 85 major battles. Ultra-high external pressure formed the state version of patriotism in the absence of civil society in the Greco-Roman sense. Here, religious and national factors came to the forefront, developing on the basis of the Slavic community, Orthodoxy, conciliarity and communalism.
The communal patriotic traditions of the Russian people suggested a preference for the harsh duty of defending the Fatherland over the more primitive satisfaction of material needs. The special scale of ethnic needs of the Russian nation logically explains the absence of a mercenary army in Rus', the indefinite service of nobles, the tradition of guerrilla warfare, high political discipline, and the lack of rationality in resisting invaders. The military bias of patriotic feelings was dominant in the mentality of the nation. The autocratic monarchy became in the eyes of the Russian people the equivalent of statehood and the Fatherland, loyalty to which became, as Bakunin put it, “theology of the state.”
The Don Cossacks became a striking example of such patriotism. His military loyalty to duty and sovereign service, which became the dominant qualities, prevailed over ethnographic features. The very existence of the Cossacks was an immanent feature of Russian Eurasian civilization. The post-Petrine Europeanized elite, divorced from the traditional ways of Russian life, became the bearer of contradictory tendencies: the anti-national Norman theory of statehood and the Slavophile patriotic-protective ideology. In the same environment, during the reign of Catherine the Great, through the efforts of Radishchev, a revolutionary-democratic tendency to combine patriotism with the struggle for social justice and the liberation of the peasantry arose. Beginning of the 19th century was marked by the emergence of the revolutionary reform movement of Decembrism, which tried to put this idea into practice. A characteristic feature of Decembrist patriotism was the recognition of the need for self-sacrifice for the sake of the revolutionary patriotic cause.
In the 30-40s of the 19th century. V. Belinsky and the Petrashevites continued this line, supplementing it with elements of utopian socialism, polemicizing with apologists of Slavophilism. Democratic revolutionaries of the 60s. focused attention on revolutionary transformative activities in the name of the Motherland, but taking into account the achievements of European civilization. At the same time, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov and others categorically emphasized their rejection of chauvinism, pan-Slavism, nationalism and had a negative attitude towards Russian interventions in Poland and Hungary. This generation of democrats advocated the friendship of peoples within the framework of Federal Russia - the “Union of Tribes from the Dnieper to the Pacific Ocean.” Sixties of the 19th century. rejected the liberal concept because it excluded the task of fighting for the liberation of the people from oppression and exploitation.
The defeat of populism and the beginning of counter-reforms meant a sharp narrowing of the influence of the revolutionary-democratic concept of patriotism and the development of the official concept of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” Capitalizing on the statist spirit of the people, the degrading autocracy sought to solve purely conservative and protective tasks in order to prevent revolutionary explosions and social cataclysms.
Developed at the beginning of the 20th century. revolutionary parties and movements denied the statehood of patriotism, following the classic slogans of Marxism about the absence of a Fatherland among proletarians. However, during the First World War, some Marxists of the Menshevik social democratic trend moved away from class criteria and took national-patriotic, defencist positions, defined by Lenin as social chauvinism. During this period, the Bolsheviks raised the problem of patriotism in the context of solving the issue of revolutionary renewal of Russia and the whole world. IN AND. Lenin, in his article “On the National Pride of the Great Russians,” examined the connection between patriotism and internationalism in the light of the class approach. But unlike L.D. Trotsky, he never forgot about the existence of Great Russian national feelings and interests. During the Brest Peace period, V.I. Lenin emphasized that patriotism “is now turning to our side.” During the civil war, when 14 countries intervened in its course, the combination of revolutionary forces and state patriotism of the Russian peasantry and the old officers was clearly demonstrated.
All-Russian interest has always been higher for Russians than regional, local and even class ones. Spiritual plasticity, national tolerance, communalism and conciliarity did not allow either Great Russian chauvinism or absolutized supranational super-revolutionary internationalism to develop among the nation. Russia became the birthplace of socialist patriotism and internationalism, which included state patriotism as a core basis. The anthem of Russia’s geopolitical successor, the USSR, said: “The indestructible union of free republics has been united forever by Great Rus',” which quite accurately reflected the current situation. During the Great Patriotic War, it was the union of republics, state Soviet patriotism, and the conciliar power of the Russian people that became the sources of victory over the aggressor; the Red Banner, the historical flag of the Russian army and the banner of the Great October Revolution, became the symbol of Victory.
Of course, not everything was simple with the solution to the national question in the USSR. There are known facts of Russophobia, decossackization, pushing the world revolution, Stalin's deportations of peoples and anti-Semitic campaigns. However, despite this, the Union of Peoples was real, vital, ensuring the development of national borderlands and the special role of the USSR as a superpower in the development of world civilization. A special historical community has developed in the USSR - the Soviet people, its own culture, method of production, communist spiritual values, which indisputably proves the existence of a special Soviet Subcivilization. Due to an unfavorable combination of negative, objective and subjective factors, the Soviet subcivilization entered a state of stagnation and gradual destruction. The communist elite betrayed its party, the Soviet people and exchanged power for property. Since the late 80s, the Soviet statehood has been undermined under the slogan that socialism is a “black hole” or the road to a civilizational dead end. Anti-communism became part of an anti-state ideology with elements of Russophobia. Historical literature proved that Rus' developed under the influence of eastern despotism and never had democracy, that Russian civilization did not exist as a special phenomenon of world history, etc.
The main alternative to liberal cosmopolitanism and pseudocentrism is the ideology of State patriotism, which rejects alignment with the West with its cult of consumerism and spiritual omnivorousness. State patriotism, synthesizing the cultural and historical ideals of the nation - conciliarity, community, complicity, striving for social justice. The new consolidating program for the development of the nation must include precisely the desire for ideals, even if they are not realizable. The main thing is an orientation towards spirituality, a cult of morality, and not unspiritual consumerism, exaggerated personal freedoms leading to violence, cruelty, debauchery, encouragement of anomalies, etc. Spiritual incentives and motives can form a reasonable structure of consumption in the name of the highest meaning of Human life. Only spiritual values can ensure real equality and freedom of all people, despite all their inevitable differences in abilities and wages. Only this can save humanity from environmental disaster.
The ideology of State patriotism organically summarizes and accumulates all the main features of Russian civilization: a multi-ethnic basis, the coincidence of interests of the Russian super-ethnic group and other ethnic groups, the specifics of the geopolitical situation, special relations between the authorities and the population. It is an adequate response to the challenge of modernity - reducing the severity of the contradictions between labor and capital and the aggravation of national and cultural contradictions. Having abandoned the outdated dogmas of various “isms” in the conditions of the formation of a new information civilization, the ideology of State patriotism will create conditions for the optimal assimilation by Russian civilization of all the best achievements of socialism and capitalism, Western and Eastern civilizations while maintaining its own identity - a synthesis of social and ethnic values. The commonality of the historical destinies of the peoples of Great Russia - the USSR - Russian civilization determines the pattern of formation of a new unified Slavic-Turkic state. Within the framework of this Russian Union, democracy, a diverse economy, a variety of forms of ownership, a revival of the ideal of social justice, spirituality and the priority of state interests will be ensured.
self-awareness people patriotism Cossacks
2.2 Sobornost
At the present stage of development of society, the problem of the spiritual identity of Russia has become increasingly important. Radical changes in the social and social system and the liquidation of union statehood led to the weakening of spiritual values such as socialist internationalism of the Soviet people. In the context of the ongoing total crisis of the economy, culture, and the entire system of socio-political relations, the search for a new civilizational self-determination of the people and the state is extremely difficult, if not impossible. However, exiting the economic crisis is not enough for Russians to understand their ancestral spiritual essence; moreover, without gaining adequate self-determination, Russia will sink deeper and deeper into the abyss of social chaos and self-disintegration. The desire for primitive self-enrichment, encouraged by the authorities and the press, cannot become the fundamental spiritual orientation of the Russian nation, and even liberals and democrats understand this.
The historical experience of Russia shows that Russia has always emerged from crises and turning points on the basis of global messianic ideologies. During the formation of early feudal Kyiv statehood, the idea of the chosenness of the Russian people, called to fulfill their historical mission by God's grace, was formulated. In the context of the loss of political independence as a result of the Tatar-Mongol invasion, the idea was formulated about the importance of focusing on internal problems and, having passed through the bloody font of foreign power, achieving spiritual and national greatness. Finally, in the XV-XVI centuries. the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome” helped to mobilize the forces of the nation in the fight against the invaders. Peter I used the European Enlightenment as an ideological guideline, which made it possible for Russia to eventually reach the forefront in the development of science, culture, and technology. An imperial concept was formulated, declaring the state a self-sufficient and priority institution without spiritual justification. At the same time, part of the people, in conditions of the absolutization of state power, created a special concept of spiritual survival based on the Old Believer Orthodox tradition. In the Old Believer Orthodox communities, on the basis of self-government without the organizing principle of a state hostile to them, exceptionally effective work, social and family ethics were developed, and the foundations of the national worldview and way of life were preserved. But the split, both religious and secular socio-cultural, of the Russian statehood led to the collapse of the Empire and autocracy.
After the Great Revolution in 1917, Bolshevism offered the country a new global concept for the development of Russia as the Soviet Union - a stronghold of the world communist and national liberation movement. The result of the implementation of this idea became obvious, despite the colossal sacrifices, or perhaps thanks to them - Soviet Russia became a superpower that defeated fascism, contributed to the collapse of colonialism throughout the world, ensured a breakthrough into space, and generally laid the foundations of a new Soviet socialist subcivilization, although and short-term, but capable of revival at a new turn of the historical spiral of human development.
In the 90s Russia, due to a number of unique unfavorable combinations of negative objective factors (stagnation in the economy and defeat in the Cold War) and subjective ones (the incompetent leadership of Gorbachev and the degeneration of the communist elite), became an experimental field for apologists of classical market liberalism such as Gaidar, who, however, were unable to cope with many times developed crisis and slipped into models of authoritarian presidential rule.
By giving freedom to nationalist self-expression and the pursuit of sovereignty, liberals brought Russia to the brink of ethnic self-disintegration. Military conflicts arose on the southern periphery of the country, fueled by anti-Russian ideas of pan-Turkism and pan-Islamism. Chechnya and other national regions have demonstrated that the entropy of former Soviet spiritual values in the absence of other real unifying ideas naturally causes a social and interethnic explosion. Now the depravity of the idea of absolute freedom is completely obvious, especially in Russia. Even in the West they believe that freedom has a positive effect only in the presence of certain limiting conditions and mechanisms.
The self-disintegration of the former Soviet interethnic community reached its extreme point and gave rise to a reverse wave of development, which is the opposite of internationalism, that is, nationalism. Naturally, Russian nationalism in these conditions is as normal a phenomenon as Ukrainian, Jewish, Chechen, Kazakh or Baltic. But the Russian people, unlike many others, initially carried within themselves an international conciliar principle. The nationalism of the Russian people is a special unifying factor - a kind of Russian conciliar internationalism or conciliarity.
The concept of “conciliarity” is on a par with such concepts as community, collectivism, spiritual unity of the nation, participation, activity, sympathy, ardent patriotism, unity around national ideals and recognized leaders of the state, nation, Orthodoxy, who most fully express them. The terms: solidarity, brotherhood, community, unity (according to V. Solovyov) correlate very clearly and naturally with this original Russian concept.
In general, there is no doubt that the sense of community and the idea of solidarity develops in humanity, starting from its origin, and spreads from primitive communal tribes, clans, to peoples, nations and more global communities within modern civilizations. The human “I” is unthinkable without the universal “WE,” wrote philosopher Sergei Trubetskoy. Humanity realized early on that the good of man does not lie in selfish isolation, but in solidarity with other people. Later, solidarity manifests itself not only through direct family or tribal, national ties, but through beliefs, class ideologies, a common cause, participation in the service of Justice and Truth, and the adoption of certain spiritual and religious values. These forms of solidarity cannot be considered narrowed or contrary to universal human values. Someday in the future, when global civilization takes precedence over regional ones and humanity becomes united, universal human solidarity will indeed and naturally include class, tribal, and regional forms of community in a transformed form, but for now the situation is different, sometimes in the opposite way. Western states seek to suppress non-Western values, passing them off as untrue and presenting private property ideals as the only possible and true ones. The claims to absolute truth of pro-Western liberals would look ridiculous if they were not supported by the financial and military power of the United States and NATO, dictating the terms of the game to the world and Russia according to their rules. Under these conditions, the question arises of resistance to Western expansion and the development, as its basis, of a special form of spiritual community of the Russian population, which is traditionally called SOBORNOST. We are not talking about primitive attempts to nationalize the concepts of goodness and truth in favor of Russians or manifestations of nationalism, not about manipulation of the Russian mentality for political purposes, but about awareness of our primordial natural Russian identity as a Slavic conciliar community.
Solidarity qualities manifest themselves, as all researchers emphasize, in almost all nations of the world, but in some nations, due to a number of objective and subjective reasons, they become dominant and determine the mentality of the nation. The Russian people belong precisely to such peoples, who, due to the unique geopolitical Eurasian character of the base territory, the prohibitively harsh climate, gigantic spaces, etc. developed in himself this unique set of traits and characteristics, which received in the West the traditional name of the Russian soul. Community life gave rise to such traditional foundations of Russian life as, firstly, conscientious joint work from the generosity of the soul, work not for pay or fear, but for conscience. Secondly, protecting the Fatherland from the encroachments of foreigners, thirdly, cordiality and hospitality, mercy, honoring parents and ancestors, nurturing the younger generation, agreement with the world in truth, unification with the righteous for protection from the wicked, repaying contempt to traitors and apostates, daring , reaching the point of recklessness, etc.
Conclusion
It is impossible to change this mentality of the Russian nation at once, no matter how hard our liberals and democrats try to do it.
It should be noted that they are right in their own way in that this Russian soul, or rather the conciliarity, spirituality and patriotism of the Russian person, organically opposes Western individualism, the cult of money and consumption, the priorities of private property, and the laws of the market.
Indeed, the real mentality of the Russian nation is poorly compatible with Yeltsin’s reforms and prevents Russia from entering Western civilization, which is alien to it.
But the mentality of an entire nation cannot be changed in ten years, because it requires centuries of systematic influence, and therefore all the reflections of Westernism theorists on this matter are meaningless, although it must be admitted that they are not stupid.
For unbiased, non-politicized and unsold political scientists, it should be obvious that we must proceed from these specific conditions, this human material and take from foreign experience only what is accepted by the Russian population and meets its deepest interests and aspirations.
List of used literature
1.Budarin V., Fokin Yu. Lessons of the past and lessons of the future. - M., 1999.
2.Dugin A. Fundamentals of geopolitics. Geopolitical future of Russia. - M., 1997.
.History of Russia in questions and answers / Comp. S.A. Kislitsyn. - Rostov n/d, 1997.
.Kozin N.G. Flight from Russia. On the logic of Russia's historical upheavals in the 20th century. - Samara, 1996.
.Kurashvili B. Where is Russia going? - M., 1994.
.Migrant A. Russia in search of identity (1985-1995). - M., 1997.
.National interests of the Russian people and the demographic situation in Russia. - M., 1997.
.Podberezkin A.N. Russian way: take a step. - M., 1998.
.Russia on the threshold of the 21st century. - M, 1994.
.Russia: experience of national-state ideology / Ed. V.V. Ilyina. - M., 1994.
.Russian nation: historical past and problems of revival. - M., 1995.
.Russian civilization and conciliarity. - M., 1994.
.Conciliarity in Russia: history and modernity. - Rostov n/d, 1997.
.Modern Russian idea and state. - M., 1995.
.Solzhenitsyn A. A minute a day. - M., 1995.
.Chubais I. From the Russian idea - to the idea of a new Russia. How can we overcome the ideological crisis? - M, 1997.
.Yanin I. Justification of culture or the art of living in Russia. - M., 1997.
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.
During the experiment, the following results were obtained: The Russian language is beautiful, complex, difficult, rich, native, powerful, great, necessary, interesting, immense, huge, understandable, easy, accessible, beloved, diverse, multifaceted, musical, songful, melodious , poetic, iridescent, flowing, smart, beautiful, shameless, vulgar, rude, abusive, obscene, scandalous...
- Introduction
- Main part
- 1. The concept of national identity, its structure
- 2. The role of the Russian language in the development of national Russian identity
- 3. Language as a way of national worldview
- 4. Russian language in the national consciousness
- Conclusion
- List of used literature
Russian language and national identity (essay, coursework, diploma, test)
And although thinking was ahead of language, its results, taking shape in language, are somewhat modified (thought cannot be entirely reflected in words). Therefore, language becomes a separate participant in communication and the further development of thinking; it cannot be a simple casting mold for thought, it can simultaneously hide part of the thought and supplement the thought with linguistic associations.
All of the above leads to the conclusion that there is a need to take care of the native language, since it is the custodian of the national cultural tradition and passes on the moral values of the people to new generations. In addition, only those who know the richness of their native language well and can distinguish between words and the content behind them can navigate the new information that constantly comes to a person. Sometimes seemingly brilliant, attractive words carry emptiness or even harmful advice for a person. On the other hand, seemingly simple, ordinary words can be filled with deep and intelligent meaning.
4. The Russian language in the national consciousness The question of the attitude of the citizens of the Russian Federation themselves to the national language is also interesting. To do this, the researchers conducted an experiment during which the subjects were asked to answer in writing the question: “Which language is Russian?” They were asked to give five associative reactions; the time for completing the task was not limited [Sternin, el.].
Thus, the researchers were able to identify the general ideas of adult Russian speakers about their language, as well as discover the age and gender characteristics of this concept.
During the experiment, the following results were obtained: The Russian language is beautiful, complex, difficult, rich, native, powerful, great, necessary, interesting, immense, huge, understandable, easy, accessible, beloved, diverse, multifaceted, musical, songful, melodious , poetic, iridescent, flowing, smart, beautiful, shameless, vulgar, rude, abusive, obscene, scandalous, bright, colorful, colorful, sensual, lyrical, spoiled, tortured, impoverished, clogged, many borrowings, emotional, worldwide, worldwide, universal, multinational, laconic, international, transnational, ambiguous, affectionate, pleasant, kind, sweet, good, pure, bright, popular, not fully studied, unpredictable, unexpected, winged, eternal, unique, skillful, sincere [Sternin, el. ].
As we can see, in the Russian national consciousness as a whole, the Russian language is most often associated with beautiful, rich, complex, necessary, native, powerful. Thus, a positive aesthetic assessment of language dominates.
Let us also note that in the communicative consciousness of young people the idea of the need and importance of learning the Russian language (necessary, obligatory, useful) prevails. And in the communicative consciousness of people of the older generation, the main part of the lexical units that represent the concept of “Russian language” is colloquial, colloquial.
Thus, for the Russian people, their language is perceived only from a positive point of view.
Conclusion Having analyzed the sources on the topic “Russian language and national identity”, we can draw the following conclusions:
1. A nation is a unity of individuals united by a common mentality, culture and spiritual values.
2. National identity is understood as a set of ideas, traditions and concepts of representatives of a nation or ethnic group, which make it possible to reproduce this community of people as a whole and classify each individual as a given social integrity.
National identity includes such components as national language, national culture, sense of territory, national self-identification. The main feature that unites a nation is language.
3. In relation to the nation, language plays a consolidating role, that is, it supports its unity, serves as a means of creating a national culture and transmitting it to next generations.
4. There is a need to take care of the native language, since it is the custodian of the national cultural tradition and transmits the moral values of the people to new generations. In addition, only those who know the richness of their native language well and can distinguish between words and the content behind them can navigate the new information that constantly comes to a person.
List of used literature Arutyunova N. D. National consciousness, language, meaning // Linguistics at the end of the 20th century: results and prospects. - M., 1995.
Bolshakova A. Yu. The phenomenon of Russian mentality: main directions and research methods // Russian history: problems of mentality. - M., 1995. - P. 7−10.
Volkov G. N. Ethnopedagogy: textbook. allowance. - M., 1999. - P. 10−15.
Humboldt V. Selected works on linguistics. - M.: 1984. - P. 324
Zadokhin A. Russian language and national identity. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.rau.su/observer/N12_2003/12 12 .htm (access date 06/03/2013)
Political science. Dictionary. / V. N. Konovalov - M: RSU, 2010. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/politology/122/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0% D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5 (accessed 06/03/2013)
Sternin I. Language and national consciousness. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/49/07.pdf (access date 06/03/2013)
Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication. - M.: 2000. - P. 40.
Bibliography
- Arutyunova N. D. National consciousness, language, meaning// Linguistics at the end of the 20th century: results and prospects. - M., 1995.
- Bolshakova A. Yu. The phenomenon of Russian mentality: main directions and methods of research // Russian history: problems of mentality. - M., 1995. - P. 7−10.
- Volkov G.N. Ethnopedagogy: textbook. allowance. - M., 1999. - P. 10−15.
- Humboldt V. Selected works on linguistics. - M.: 1984. - P. 324
- Zadokhin A. Russian language and national identity. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.rau.su/observer/N12_2003/1212.htm (access date 06/03/2013)
- Political science. Dictionary. / V. N. Konovalov - M: RSU, 2010. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/politology/122/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0% D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5 (accessed 06/03/2013)
- Sternin I. Language and national consciousness. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/49/07.pdf (access date 06/03/2013)
- Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication. - M.: 2000. - P. 40.
