The main thing that a scientist - a humanist - creates is a scientific text in the form of a book, article, note or review.

Ethnology and politics. Scientific journalism. M., Nauka, 2001. 240 p.

Ethnicity is a widely used category in science that denotes the existence of culturally distinctive (ethnic) groups and forms of identity. In domestic social science the term is more widely used ethnos in all cases when we are talking about ethnic communities (peoples) of various historical and evolutionary types. Concept ethnos assumes the existence of homogeneous, functional and static characteristics that distinguish the group from others that have a different set of similar characteristics. generally accepted definition ethnicity does not exist, but such definitions as “ethnosocial organism” (Yu.V. Bromley) or “biosocial organism” (L.N. Gumilyov) dominate.

The modern concept of ethnicity questions this view of cultural distinctiveness and draws attention primarily to its procedural (socially constructed) nature, the fluid and multicultural nature of modern societies, and the practical absence of cultural isolates. Among scientists there is also no unity in the approach to defining the phenomenon of ethnicity, but there are some characteristics characteristic of communities that allow them to be considered ethnic or to talk about the presence of ethnicity as such. These characteristics include:

– ideas shared by group members about a common territorial and historical origin, a common language, common features of material and spiritual culture;

– politically formed ideas about the homeland and special institutions, such as statehood, which can be considered part of what constitutes the concept of “people”;

-a sense of distinctiveness, i.e. awareness by group members of their belonging to it, and forms of solidarity and joint actions based on this.

Max Weber's definition of an ethnic community as a group whose members “have a subjective belief in their common origin because of similarity in physical appearance or customs, or both, or because of a common memory of colonization and migration,” remains somewhat valid.” An important role in understanding ethnicity is played by the correlation of social and cultural boundaries, internal (emic) and external (ethnic) ideas about what this or that group is. The characteristic features of ethnic groups cannot be reduced to the sum of the cultural material contained within their boundaries, but must be determined primarily by what the group members themselves consider to be significant (or this significance is imposed from the outside) and what underlies their self-awareness. Thus, ethnicity is a form of social organization of cultural differences.

Based on this, the concept of “people” in the sense of an ethnic community is understood as a group of people whose members have one or more common names and common cultural elementstours, have a myth (version) of a common origin and thus have a kind of common historical memory, can associate themselves with a special geographical territory, and also demonstrate a sense of group solidarity.

The idea that ethnicity is formed and an ethnic community is built on the basis of another ethnic opposition “us - them” is insufficient. Ethnicity as a component of individual self-awareness and as a generally shared collective faith manifests itself through fundamental connections with other cultural, social and political communities, including state ones. This means that ethnic self-awareness is not necessarily built on negative opposition and not necessarily in relation to other ethnic communities, which is the deep error of structuralism, starting with C. Levi-Strauss. To be precise, An ethnic community (people) is a community based on cultural self-identification in relation to other communities with which it has fundamental connections.

Ethnicity is formed and exists in the context of the social experiences with which people are associated or with which they are identified by others as members of a particular ethnic group. From an in-group perspective, ethnicity is based on a set of cultural traits that members of that group use to distinguish themselves from other groups, even if they are culturally very similar. The distinctions they can make in relation to others are usually quite specific and multi-level, while external representations of the group tend to be generalized and stereotypical criteria when characterizing groups.

Thus, in the internal and external definitions of an ethnic group (people) there are both objective and subjective criteria. It often happens that blood relationship or other objective criteria do not play a decisive role. Ethnicity presupposes the presence of social markers as recognized means of differentiating groups coexisting in a broader field of social interaction. These distinctive markers are formed on a variety of bases, including physical appearance, geographic origin, economic specialization, religion, language, and even characteristics such as clothing or food.

Intellectual history of the term ethnicity dates back to the 1960s, when the concept became a response to changes in post-colonial geopolitics and to minority movements in many industrialized countries. The emergence of interpretations of ethnicity concerned such diverse phenomena as social and political changes, identity formation, social conflict, race relations, nation-building, assimilation, and others. There are three main approaches to understanding ethnicity: essentialist (primordialist), instrumentalist and constructivist.

The primordialist approach assumes that ethnic identification is based on deep ties with a particular group or culture, and therefore on the existence of realities of this identification, which can be considered either primarily biological or culturally historical. This approach was strongly influenced by evolutionism with its interest in biological, genetic and geographical factors. Awareness of group membership is, as it were, embedded in the genetic code and is a product of early human evolution. In its extreme form, this approach views ethnicity in terms of social biology as an extended form of kin selection and connection, as a primordial instinctual impulse. Similar constructions are common in Russian literature within the framework of the so-called theory of ethnicity, where social biologism, together with geographical determinism, serves as the basis for extremely vulnerable constructions of “life and death of ethnic groups”, their “passionarity”, “psychomental complex” and others (L.N. Gumilyov , S.M. Shirokogorov). More socially oriented, but no less essentialist, are the typological constructions of ethnic groups, subethnic groups, meta-ethnic groups that dominate in Russian social science, and the themes of exogamy of ethnic groups as a sign and condition of their existence or “component” theories of ethnicity are present at the level of educational literature (Yu.V. Bromley , V.I. Kozlov, V.V. Pimenov, Yu.I.

The cultural version of primordialism considers ethnicity as, first of all, a community shared by group members with objective characteristics of belonging: territory, language, economy, racial type, religion, worldview and even mental makeup. Most Russian authors believe that the ethnic community is of primary importance as a social archetype and that ignoring it in sociology and politics is a deep mistake. On the basis of “ethnic roots” an entire genealogy of modern nations is created. For group ethnic categorizations, historical-linguistic classifications, historical-archaeological and physical-anthropological reconstructions are widely used, which are tied to the modern nomenclature of ethnic groups and to their historical and spatial mapping.

More modern approaches within this tradition recognize the subjective nature of ethnicity, like any other form of group social identity, only looking back into the past and formalized in modern life through cultural and linguistic characteristics. Scholars and ethnic activists trace these characteristics through the geography and history of a given group. In turn, cultural baggage and its continuity make it possible to find the personal and social meaning of human existence and provide an answer to why an individual behaves in accordance with a certain tradition.

The cultural-linguistic or psychocultural interpretation of ethnicity within the framework of primordialism also considers ethnic identity as an integral psychological part of the “I”, and its change as unnatural and imposed on a person. Such views on ethnicity are widespread in societies where ethnocultural differences are given special significance up to its official registration by the state and even the construction of statehood on an ethnic basis.

At the same time, the social meaning of ethnicity includes, in addition to emotional aspects, also rational-instrumentalist orientations. Ethnicity, as if in a latent (“sleeping”) state, is brought to life and used for the purposes of social mobility, overcoming competition, dominance and social control, mutual services and solidarity behavior, for political mobilization and achieving hedonistic aspirations. The instrumentalist approach, with its intellectual roots in sociological functionalism, views ethnicity as the result of political myths created and exploited by cultural elites in their quest for advantage and power. Ethnicity arises in the dynamics of elite competition within boundaries that are determined by political and economic realities. Sometimes functionalism takes on a psychological overtone, and then manifestations of ethnicity are explained as a means of restoring lost collective pride or as therapy for trauma.

Within the framework of these approaches, many works have been carried out in domestic ethnography, including those based on the sociological method of analysis (Yu.V. Harutyunyan, M.N. Guboglo, L.M. Drobizheva). There are their authoritative supporters in foreign science (W. Connor, D. Miller, R. Stavenhagen, E. Smith).

All approaches to understanding ethnicity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The integration of the most significant aspects into a coherent theory of ethnicity is most promising on the basis of a constructivist synthesis, in which there is sensitivity to context. Ethnicity can be considered in a system of social dispositions and situational dependence at different levels and contextual horizons: the transnational level of world cultural systems and diaspora connections, within nation-states from the point of view of the doctrine of minorities, “internal colonialism” or “structural violence”, the intergroup level in in the context of cultural boundary theory and intragroup within psychological theories of reactive, symbolic and demonstrative ethnicity and stigmatized identities.

It seems productive to develop an approach to ethnicity outside of “traditional cultural types”, as cultural hybridity and as multiple loyalties or ethnic drift. This approach I propose allows us to consider not a person in ethnicity (in Russian scientific jargon “ethnophora”), but ethnicity in a person, which brings us closer to a more sensitive and adequate perception of “reality” and to a more constructive impact on ethnicity in the sense of public management.

1. Basic approaches to defining ethnicity and culture. 1

2. The main stages in the formation of ethnopsychological ideas (includes 4: Theory of culture and personality, its methods and tasks). 5

3. “Emic” and “Etic” approaches in ethnopsychology 13

4. The theory of “culture and personality”, its methods and tasks 15

5. Comparative cultural studies: objectives, areas of research, main results 17

6. Three trends in research: relativism, universalism, absolutism 20

8. Research on the socialization of children (ethnography of childhood and adolescence). 22

9. The main directions of the study of personality in ethnopsychology (psychological anthropology and cross-cultural studies) 25

10. Research on ethnic mentality 27

11. The problem of norm and pathology. Culturally specific psychotherapies. 29

12. General characteristics of the main “dimensions of culture” 32

13. Individualism and collectivism 34

14. Conformity as a regulator of individual behavior in a group 35

15. Guilt and shame as mechanisms of social control 37

16. Cross-cultural differences in the course of attributional processes 39

17. Ethnopsychic studies of nonverbal communication 41

18. Main characteristics of interethnic perception. Features and forms of ethnocentrism. 42

19. Ethnic identity: definition, structure, development and transformation 44

20. Ethnic stereotypes, their content and functions 48

21. Ethnic conflict, its objective and subjective determinants 50

22. Culture shock. Stages of intercultural adaptation and factors influencing its process. 54

1. Basic approaches to defining ethnicity and culture.

Soviet science was dominated by theoretical views according to which ethnic groups (ethnic communities)- these are really existing groups that arise, function, interact with each other and, finally, die. In accordance with this concept, the first ethnic groups (tribes and tribes) are the original characteristics of humanity and arose with the advent of modern man in the era of the primitive communal system. This expression of a primordialist approach to understanding ethnic groups. It is adhered to by many researchers, although their views regarding the nature of such communities differ radically.

In addition to the primordialist approach to defining an ethnic group, there is also a so-called constructionist approach.

PRIMORDIALISM:

As a premordialist concept, we can consider the theory of L.N. Gumilyov (1912 – 1992). Work Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the earth.

Gumilev considers ethnicity as a geographical, natural, and not social phenomenon.

According to his definition "ethnos- this is one or another group of people (dynamic system), opposing itself to all other similar groups (“us and not “us”), having its own special internal structure and original stereotype of behavior.

In the definition, it is important that the ethnic group is dynamic system, i.e. may change. The key feature is that the ethnic group has an original behavioral stereotype. It should be noted that for Gumilyov himself, this stereotype of behavior is a way of a person’s active adaptation to environmental conditions (to the landscape, for example). The environmental conditions are not social, but geographical. When various geographical and climatic factors change, stereotypical behaviors also change. It turns out that this is some kind of innate characteristic. Ethnic groups hence are a kind of natural form of existence as a species. He cited his mother Akhmatova as an example. She was born and lived in Russia, although she received her education in France. Remained a Russian poetess

Thus, Gumilyov considers psychological characteristics to be the main characteristics of an ethnic group:

- self-awareness or identity

- behavioral stereotype
Stereotype of behavior - "norms relations between the group and the individual and between individuals.” This is a way of actively adapting to environmental conditions, in particular, for example, to the landscape. When climatic factors change, the type of behavior also changes. Stereotypes of behavior are formed in a child in the first years of life, i.e. belonging to an ethnic group is not innate, but is acquired in the process of socialization (formation in a certain cultural environment). Ethnos– the natural form of existence of man as a species.
Socio-historical version of primordialism. He had many more supporters in the USSR. This is a theory of ethnos developed by a group of scientists led by Yulian Viktorovich Bromley. (1921 -1990).

Ethnos- “a historically established stable collection of people in a certain territory who have common relatively stable characteristics of language, culture, psyche, as well as an awareness of their unity and difference from other similar entities (self-awareness), fixed in self-name.”

Bromley, following Gumilyov, believed that ethnos is closely connected with geographic territory, that people in this group are united by certain characteristics that we can record (language, culture, psyche). But what is important is that Bromley emphasized the importance of we-feelings. Those. people realize their unity in the group. They have an identification with their group and differentiate themselves from others. This self-awareness is recorded in self-name. This was important because... was one of the ethnic characteristics. The name itself is a reflection of self-awareness.

CONSTRUCTIONIST APPROACH.

This approach has become much more widespread. This is a model for analyzing ethnic communities, according to which the cultural unity of an ethnic group should not be considered not as its primary characteristic, but as the result and even the meaning of its existence.

FREDERICK BARTH(born 1928) Norwegian ethnologist who was the first representative of this approach. See the difference between ethnology (a generalizing, comparative analytical approach to research; we did not have such a science in our country; ethnography included two approaches) and ethnography (a descriptive approach).

Barth viewed an ethnic group as“a special form of social organization, the structure of which is created by people in the process of social categorization - assigning themselves and others to certain categories.

It is important for constructionists to emphasize the existence of boundaries that distinguish one group from others. These boundaries do not exist, but are constructed in certain ways. When we talk about ethnic groups, we talk about these boundaries. The content within these boundaries changes quite quickly. Another important idea: they talk about boundaries, they talk about differences: how we differ from others. When we construct difference from others, it creates the illusion of similarity within the group. When we imagine similarity, constructionists say that there may be no basis for similarity at all except one: people themselves begin to imagine themselves similar. It turns out that, despite the fact that the similarity is illusory, it greatly influences the real behavior of people. At the same time, constructionists remove the contradiction between individual differences and similarity: individual differences are removed by limiting these individual differences to the people themselves to maintain the illusion of similarity. The contradiction is removed by the fact that there is something similar within the people, then what should we do with personal differences?

About borders: the question arises: who builds them? There are specific people who build these boundaries.

From Barth's position, ethnic categories are communities that change as a result of historical, economic and political circumstances and situational influences, and the boundaries between them are of a “negotiable” nature.

An ethnic group comes into being through the construction of boundaries. The content within the boundary may change, but the boundaries always remain. They may absorb other groups or shrink. Borders allow you to create internal similarity, this similarity is illusory (imaginary). These people may be completely different, but they themselves begin to feel the same. Although the similarity is illusory, it has a very real effect on the actual behavior of people.

In the constructionist approach there is INSTRUMENTALIST approach to the study of ethnic communities. TISHKOV VALERY ALEXANDROVICH. (born 1941)

"Ethnic communities“are social constructs that arise and exist as a result of deliberate efforts on the part of people and the institutions they create, especially on the part of the state.”

This approach is typical for political science studies of interethnic relations, in which ethnicity is perceived as an ideology created by the elite to mobilize the masses and achieve their own interests in the struggle for power.

Tishkov says that it is politicians and the creative intelligentsia who create these boundaries. In our country, for example, there is state support for the national idea. It shows that you can find certain people who set boundaries. From the point of view Malysheva this is a kind of narrowing. Because if there had been no request from the people themselves, the group itself, there would have been no support from the state and the intelligentsia, etc. essentially acting as agents.
What is important to a psychologist is not the differences in definitions, but what is common in all approaches to defining an ethnic group: the recognition of ethnic identity (self-awareness) as one of the characteristics of an ethnic group and even its only characteristic. The subject of psychology is the study of psychological communities and people who are aware of their membership in them.

Working definition of Ethnicity from the position of a psychologist.

An ethnos is a group of people who recognize themselves as its members on the basis of any signs perceived as natural and stable ethno-differentiating characteristics. Ethno-differentiating refers to those that classify an individual into a given ethnic group or exclude him. Different languages, values, norms, historical memory, religion, ideas about the native land, the myth of common ancestors, national character, folk and professional art. Etc.

Why are these signs stable, how do we internalize the characteristics of an ethnic group psychologically? Through knowledge of culture.

Basic approaches to understanding culture.

Culture as a psychological concept.

Among the huge variety of features that are perceived as ethnically differentiating and are used to mark group boundaries, the vast majority are elements of culture. In the second half of the 20th century, culture was most often called the main factor underlying interethnic differences in the psyche.

Everyday understanding (in everyday life):

A separate sphere of social life. (Cultural sphere, scientific sphere of society).

A set of values ​​and norms inherent in a large social group.

A high level of human achievement in any activity.

"CULTURE “IT IS A PART OF THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT, CREATED BY PEOPLE THEMSELVES.”

The definition emphasizes that it is something created by people as opposed to something created by nature. In this sense, everyone, even the simplest object created by man, any thought that arose in his mind, belongs to culture. This understanding of culture emphasizes its multidimensionality, the impossibility of listing its elements: these are buildings, tools, clothing, methods of cooking, social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication, parenting, religions and much more, for example: symbolic objects: flags, signs, traffic lights.

Along with subjective culture, the term is used Representative culture(especially in sociology and philosophy) . This is the analogue proposed Friedrich Tenbroeck, and we are developing L.G. Ionin (born 1945)

A representative culture represents in the minds of the members of a society all or any facts that mean something to the acting individuals. And society itself exists only in cultural representation. Culture produces ideas, meanings and values ​​that are effective by virtue of their actual recognition. It covers all beliefs, ideas, worldviews that influence social behavior.

The only difference between these definitions is that representative culture means externally observable facts.

The concept of “ethnicity” includes a historically established stable group of people who have a certain number of common subjective or objective characteristics. Ethnographic scientists include these characteristics as origin, language, cultural and economic characteristics, mentality and self-awareness, phenotypic and genotypic data, as well as the territory of long-term residence.

In contact with

The word "ethnicity" has Greek roots and is literally translated as “people”. The word “nationality” can be considered a synonym for this definition in Russian. The term “ethnos” was introduced into scientific terminology in 1923 by the Russian scientist S.M. Shirokogorov. He gave the first definition of this word.

How does the formation of an ethnic group occur?

The ancient Greeks adopted the word “ethnos” designate other peoples who were not Greeks. For a long time, the word “people” was used in the Russian language as an analogue. Definition of S.M. Shirokogorova made it possible to emphasize the commonality of culture, relationships, traditions, way of life and language.

Modern science allows us to interpret this concept from 2 points of view:

The origin and formation of any ethnic group implies great length of time. Most often, such formation occurs around a certain language or religious beliefs. Based on this, we often pronounce such phrases as “Christian culture”, “Islamic world”, “Romance group of languages”.

The main conditions for the emergence of an ethnic group are the presence common territory and language. These same factors subsequently become supporting factors and the main distinguishing features of a particular ethnic group.

Additional factors influencing the formation of an ethnic group include:

1. General religious beliefs.
2. Intimacy from a racial perspective.
3. The presence of transitional interracial groups (mestizo).

Factors that unite an ethnic group include:

1. Specific features of material and spiritual culture.
2. Community of life.
3. Group psychological characteristics.
4. General awareness of oneself and the idea of ​​a common origin.
5. The presence of an ethnonym - a self-name.

Ethnicity is essentially a complex dynamic system that is constantly undergoing processes of transformation and at the same time maintains its stability.

The culture of each ethnic group maintains a certain constancy and at the same time changes over time from one era to another. Features of national culture and self-knowledge, religious and spiritual-moral values ​​leave an imprint on the nature of the biological self-reproduction of an ethnic group.

Features of the existence of ethnic groups and their patterns

The historically formed ethnos acts as an integral social organism and has the following ethnic relations:

1. Self-reproduction occurs through repeated homogeneous marriages and the transmission from generation to generation of traditions, identity, cultural values, language and religious characteristics.
2. In the course of their existence, all ethnic groups undergo a number of processes within themselves - assimilation, consolidation, etc.
3. In order to strengthen their existence, most ethnic groups strive to create their own state, which allows them to regulate relations both within themselves and with other groups of peoples.

The laws of peoples can be considered behavioral models of relationships, which are typical for individual representatives. This also includes behavioral models that characterize individual social groups emerging within a nation.

Ethnicity can simultaneously be considered as a natural-territorial and sociocultural phenomenon. Some researchers propose to consider the hereditary factor and endogamy as a kind of connecting link that supports the existence of a particular ethnic group. However, it cannot be denied that the quality of a nation’s gene pool is significantly influenced by conquests, living standards, and historical and cultural traditions.

The hereditary factor is tracked primarily in anthropometric and phenotypic data. However, anthropometric indicators do not always completely coincide with ethnicity. According to another group of researchers, the constancy of an ethnic group is due to national identity. However, such self-awareness can simultaneously act as an indicator of collective activity.

The unique self-awareness and perception of the world of a particular ethnic group may directly depend on its activities in developing the environment. The same type of activity can be perceived and evaluated differently in the minds of different ethnic groups.

The most stable mechanism that allows preserving the uniqueness, integrity and stability of an ethnic group is its culture and common historical destiny.

Ethnicity and its types

Traditionally, ethnicity is considered primarily as a generic concept. Based on this idea, it is customary to distinguish three types of ethnic groups:

1. Clan-tribe (species characteristic of primitive society).
2. Nationality (a characteristic type in the slave and feudal centuries).
3. Capitalist society is characterized by the concept of nation.

There are basic factors that unite representatives of one people:

Clans and tribes historically were the very first types of ethnic groups. Their existence lasted several tens of thousands of years. As the way of life and the structure of mankind developed and became more complex, the concept of nationality appeared. Their appearance is associated with the formation of tribal unions in the common territory of residence.

Factors in the development of nations

Today in the world there are several thousand ethnic groups. They all differ in level of development, mentality, numbers, culture and language. There may be significant differences based on race and physical appearance.

For example, the number of ethnic groups such as Chinese, Russians, and Brazilians exceeds 100 million people. Along with such gigantic peoples, there are varieties in the world whose number does not always reach ten people. The level of development of different groups can also vary from the most highly developed to those living according to primitive communal principles. Every nation has own language However, there are also ethnic groups that simultaneously use several languages.

In the process of interethnic interactions, processes of assimilation and consolidation are launched, as a result of which a new ethnic group can gradually form. The socialization of an ethnic group occurs through the development of such social institutions as family, religion, school, etc.

The unfavorable factors for the development of a nation include the following:

1. High mortality rate among the population, especially in childhood.
2. High prevalence of respiratory infections.
3. Alcohol and drug addiction.
4. Destruction of the family institution - a high number of single-parent families, divorces, abortions, and parental abandonment of children.
5. Low quality of life.
6. High unemployment rate.
7. High crime rate.
8. Social passivity of the population.

Classification and examples of ethnicity

Classification is carried out according to a variety of parameters, the simplest of which is number. This indicator not only characterizes the state of the ethnic group at the current moment, but also reflects the nature of its historical development. Usually, formation of large and small ethnic groups proceeds along completely different paths. The level and nature of interethnic interactions depends on the size of a particular ethnic group.

Examples of the largest ethnic groups include the following (according to data from 1993):

The total number of these peoples is 40% of the total population of the globe. There is also a group of ethnic groups with a population of 1 to 5 million people. They make up about 8% of the total population.

Most small ethnic groups may number several hundred people. As an example, we can cite the Yukaghir, an ethnic group living in Yakutia, and the Izhorians, a Finnish ethnic group inhabiting territories in the Leningrad region.

Another classification criterion is population dynamics in ethnic groups. Minimal population growth is observed in Western European ethnic groups. The maximum growth is observed in the countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

The term " ethnos" comes from the ancient Greek "ethnos", originally used to designate both various communities of people and living creatures (for example, a swarm of bees), and later used as a qualifier for peoples of non-Greek origin, whom the Greeks called barbarians. In the scientific tradition, the term began to be used only in the 19th century. and the first who began to use it was the German scientist A. Bastian. This was not accidental, for the German ethnological school and the German understanding of the nature of the nation differed significantly from the French and Anglo-Saxon explanatory models.

In France, the term "ethnie" has long been used exclusively in a religious context to refer to groups of people who adhere to pagan beliefs. These same groups in secular language were called “nations” (nation) or peoples (peuple). Already in the 19th century. these terms were replaced by the terms “race” (race) and “tribes” (tribu), and in the 20th century. the terms "race" and "tribe" were replaced by the term "ethnie". At the same time, the semantic meaning of the terms changed: the concept of “nation” was now used to designate the population of “civilized” states of the West, and instead of the concept of “people”, which was perceived by the intellectual elite as too “noble”, in relation to the “wild” population of peripheral and colonial countries they became use the term “nationality” (peuplade). In turn, the term "race" acquired a narrower meaning and began to be used in physical anthropology or anthropometry to describe the phenotypic characteristics of a population.

It is important to emphasize that the concept of “ethnie” had a negative meaning and was based on ideas about the superiority of the European population over the non-European one. Moreover, the latter was often understood as devoid of internal social organization, and therefore not a participant in the global historical process.

In contrast to the terms “people” and “nation,” the content of the term “ethnie” was determined by a naturalistic, substantialist understanding of the nature of the ethnic. Within the framework of this approach, an ethnos was considered as a homogeneous social community with a language, culture, name (ethnonym), a kinship system organized according to clan, clan or tribal principles, as well as territory, customs and awareness of one’s own belonging to the same group, different from others. Then this static model was replaced by a more dynamic one, in which the category “ethnicity” characterizes cultural differences between groups. In this interpretation, intergroup interaction comes to the fore and the emphasis is not on self-identification or ethnogenesis, but on the process of ethnification, i.e. ethnicity is considered as an open social system that is subject to construction and deconstruction.

There are currently two views on the “ethnic question” in France. Supporters of the first view ethnicity as one of the most important components of political processes in former colonies, especially in Africa. Supporters of the second believe that ethnicity is, first of all, an ideologically and even politically constructed category that has no real content. The second position is based on the fact that the population of the former French colonies does not have in their dictionaries a term similar in meaning to the categories “ethnie” or “tribu”.

In the German scientific tradition, a primordialist understanding of the nature of the ethnic was widespread, and it is no coincidence that primordialism arose in the 19th century. precisely in Germany. The theoretical provisions of this methodological approach are based on the recognition of ethnicity as a “tangible reality”, which is characterized by such features as common race, language, territory, religion, and culture. The traditions of the evolutionary-historical direction in primordialism were laid by the German historian and philosopher I.G. Ger-derom. In his interpretation, the people are a community that arises on the basis of “blood” and “soil”. Herder's neo-romantic views, taken up by such modern researchers as Wilhelm Mühlmann (the latter was also a follower of the Russian scientist SM Shirokogorov), were accepted by some foreign and many Russian ethnographers. Nowadays they are a basic element of the ideological constructs of ethnonationalism in Russia and other countries.

In Anglo-American social and cultural anthropology, the term “ethnicity” is not used. The key concepts here are “ethnicity” and “ethnic group,” which often include religious and even ethno-racial communities, for example, African Americans and Asian Americans. At the same time, the concept “ethnic” usually means not the main population of the country, but ethnic minorities and migrant communities. In the constructivist approach to the nature of the ethnic, dominant among American and British socio-cultural anthropologists, the main attention is paid to the personal perception of this phenomenon, i.e. self-awareness. Ethnicity is considered as a special state of consciousness, a feeling of solidarity with a group that an individual recognizes as a culturally significant community for himself. In this sense, the term “ethnicity” is synonymous with cultural identity.

In the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “ethnicity” appeared only in 1972. The author of the term is the American sociologist D. Riesman, who first used it in 1953. The creators of the term “ethnicity” are often called American researchers N. Glaeser and D. Moynihan, who published in 1975 book “Ethnicity”. The scientific category “ethnicity” acquired significance later, when the instrumentalist and constructivist paradigms began to dominate in Western social science. The scientific definition of the term was given by numerous publications in which ethnicity was an important component of the conceptual apparatus. The Dictionary of Race and Ethnic Relations, published in 1996, emphasizes that the category “ethnicity” “describes a group with some degree of cohesion and solidarity, formed by people who are, at least latently, aware that they have a common background and interests.” It is noted that ethnicity is “deeply embedded in consciousness” and that ethnicity is only as real as people want it to be. In a generalized form, ethnicity is characterized by a combination of several basic provisions:

1. ethnicity is a term used to distinguish different groups;
2. an ethnic group is based on a community of subjective ideas, concepts of origin, interests or future (or a combination of these);
3. an ethnic group is not a “race,” although groups with an ethnic organization are often considered by some researchers as races;
4. in some cases ethnicity can be used as a political tool, in others as a defensive strategy;
5. Ethnicity can be an important dividing line in society, although it is not directly related to class factors.

In Soviet and Russian ethnography/ethnology for a long time the key concept was “ethnos”. It took root in the terminological apparatus of science quite late - only in the 1960s. However, its appearance in Russian ethnographic literature dates back to the beginning of the 20th century, and its full justification was proposed by SM. Shirokogorov in his work “Ethnos: A Study of the Basic Principles of Change in Ethnic and Ethnographic Phenomena” (Shanghai, 1923). According to Shirokogorov, an ethnos should be considered a group of people who speak the same language, recognize their common origin, and have a common way of life and customs that distinguish them from other groups. Shirokogorov's work indicates that the life of an ethnos is based on factors of a biological nature, and the ethnos itself is considered as a biological species.

Soviet ethnography was forced to develop, strictly focusing on the ideological postulates of the ruling party. Therefore, the views of the emigrant Shirokogorov could not be accepted for a long time and for reasons of an ideological nature, because they did not adequately take into account the Marxist principle of stage-based social development. The theorists of the Soviet ethnographic school adopted the Stalinist definition of a nation, which they applied without significant changes to explain the nature of ethnic communities. According to Soviet models, ethnic communities develop as socio-economic formations change. Early historical forms of social organization correspond to early forms of ethnic organization (clan, tribe), and capitalist formation corresponds to such forms of ethnic communities as nationality and nation (socialism as the first phase of communist society corresponds to “socialist nations”, which are interpreted both as ethnic communities and as civil communities).

The idea of ​​stadiality remained an important component of theoretical constructions in ethnographic science, but as soon as scientists gained some creative freedom, they tried to go beyond ideological dogmas and create less ideological theoretical models that explain the nature of ethnic groups. The starting point for the new approach was Shirokogorov’s design, although the theorist of the Soviet ethnographic school Yu.V. Bromley, mentioning the work of the scientist, did not recognize his decisive contribution to the development of the foundations of the said theory. According to Bromley, an ethnos is “a historically established stable intergenerational set of people in a certain territory, possessing not only common features, but also relatively stable features of culture (including language) and psyche, as well as awareness of their unity and difference from all other similar entities (self-awareness) , fixed in the self-name (ethnonym).” At the same time, he noted that ethnic groups arise “not by the will of people, but as a result of the objective development of the historical process” and have “objective properties”2, first of all, a common territory, common features of culture, way of life, a common language and religion, which constitute a certain integrity. Members of an ethnos have a common self-awareness, which is externally manifested in a common self-name.

This theory was accepted by Soviet ethnographers, and all further research was built within the framework of a given model. No alternatives to the theory of ethnos were proposed. Since the late 1980s. under the influence of democratization processes, the humanities freed themselves from ideological oppression, and humanities scientists freed themselves from the need to serve state ideology, which interpreted the diversity of public life exclusively from the standpoint of one methodological approach. However, this freedom opened up new opportunities not only for scientific research, but also for adherents of the sociobiological trend in ethnology, which played a prominent role in the 19th-20th centuries. An example of this was the works of L.N. Gumilev on ethnogenesis. Moreover, unlike Bromley and his supporters - representatives of the evolutionary-historical trend in primordialism - Gumilyov considered an ethnos primarily as a biological population.

The criticism of Gumilyov's concept by domestic ethnologists was quite convincing. Russian philosopher B.C. Malakhov rightly notes the following: “Under the influence of L. Gumilyov, ethnography was retrained into cultural studies. A private, methodologically and subject-limited field of knowledge turned into a universal social science theory (in the case of Gumilyov - into cultural philosophy and philosophy of history). "Ethnic groups" acquired the status of genuine subjects of history. The interaction between them became the key to explaining social dynamics. For Gumilyov, the concept of “ethnos” replaced the proven concepts of social science, first of all, such as society and culture. The latter ultimately turn out to be unnecessary fictions. In fact, why such abstractions as “society”, if in fact there are naturally determined communities - “ethnic groups”? What kind of reality can the term “culture” describe if only ethnic cultures are real? There are no multi-component ones; they are initially monistic because they represent the objectification of the “people’s soul” and the people have one soul.”

Attempts to rethink the theory that interpreted ethnicity as an objective reality (social or biological) began in the 1990s, although the discussion on this issue did not lead to fundamental changes in domestic ethnology. A fundamental shift from primordialism to constructivism, which interprets ethnicity as a form of organization of cultural differences, occurred only after 2000.

Thus, ethnic identity should be viewed as a form of social organization rather than as the expression of a particular cultural complex. The process of recruiting into a group, defining and maintaining its boundaries demonstrates that ethnic groups and their characteristics are the result of historical, economic and political circumstances, as well as situational influences. Moreover, a huge number of modern ethnic groups, especially those belonging to the so-called national minorities, arose not as a result of a historical-evolutionary process, or ethnogenesis, but due to other factors.

The formation of a group is associated not only with the subjective perception of the group as such, but also with individual recognition of oneself as a member of a separate group. The policy of so-called ethnic entrepreneurship is essential here. In other words, if group members mobilize for active collective action and position themselves as a special community, then this not only leads to the construction of the group, but also helps less active members to perceive themselves as part of a declared cultural community. In the process of constructing a group, general ideas about it are formed, shared by all members, and the cultural image of the ethnic community and stereotypes of its perception crystallize.

Ethnic identity is characterized by three fundamental provisions.

First, ethnic communities are social constructs that arise and exist as a result of the deliberate efforts of people and the institutions they create, but mainly the state. The integrity of these communities is maintained by subjective identification processes, i.e. recognition by individuals of their belonging to a given community. In other words, if we assume that all members of an ethnic group refuse to recognize their belonging to it, then such a group will cease to exist.

Secondly, the boundaries of ethnic communities are fluid not only over time, but also depending on specific situations. For example, in one situation a Mordvin will call himself a Mordvin (in Moscow), in another - Moksha (in his village), in a third - Russian (outside Russia). Just like personal identification, group identification can also change. This makes the existence of an ethnic community a reality of relationships, and not a reality of a set of objective characteristics. Indeed, manifestations of ethnic identity depend on the kind of relationship an individual enters into with his environment.

Thirdly, the ethnic community, based on individual choice and group solidarity, is cemented in many ways by the group’s ability to consolidatedly resist external threats and challenges, and the cultural similarity of members helps to control resources and political institutions, to ensure a comfortable existence of the individual within culturally homogeneous communities.

It is important to keep in mind that changing social realities can weaken internal solidarity and transform the perception of the group among its individual members. Therefore, in order to preserve an ethnic group, it is necessary to make constant efforts to ensure that its members’ ideas about the integrity and cultural values ​​of the group are not transformed. The state plays a significant role in this process. It is no coincidence that a significant part of modern “ethnic groups” in the form of “socialist nations” was created at the initial stage of “nation-state construction” in the USSR.

Considering an ethnos as a social organism (or as a biological population), primordialists recognize that all “objective” characteristics of an ethnos are rather conditional. The main thing is that these signs, neither individually nor in the totality of ideas about an ethnic phenomenon, nor the phenomenon itself, form, because there is no obligatory connection between them and the cultural characteristics of an ethnic group (neither one’s own language, nor territory, nor the peculiarities of life or mental makeup are not mandatory signs).

In this sense, the constructivist paradigm is more acceptable, because it treats ethnic communities as social constructions that exist thanks to the solidarity of their members. The ethnic group itself is interpreted not as a kind of physically perceived integrity, not as a territory marked by boundary pillars and inhabited by individuals with common external characteristics, unified cultural needs and cultural values, but also as a process of constant identification with a group, the cultural boundaries of which are a kind of convention, formed through the reproduction of ideas about their existence.

In modern industrial society, during the processes of globalization, many external attributes of ethnic cultures are erased, but the ethnic communities themselves, changing over time, are preserved. Ethnic identity plays the main role in maintaining the stability of such communities, i.e. subjective perception of a community by a certain social reality and identifying oneself as a member of these communities. Therefore, the category of “ethnic identity” is key to understanding the nature of the ethnic, and in this regard, the rejection of the term “ethnicity” and its replacement (or rather, a return to the previous language) with the calmer concept of “ethnic community” are understandable.

The imaginary nature of ethnic communities, which constructivists talk about, assumes that the group is changeable in time and space, that its perception is also changeable, and therefore its place in the social structure of society cannot be characterized by such a rigid generalizing category as ethnicity. Ethnic groups are integrated into other social structures and play a subordinate role in relation to society as a whole, the state, and territorial communities. They are most often perceived by people themselves as a secondary social structure.

And if this is so, then the concept of “ethnic community” (“group”) that is adequate in content for its designation will be the concept of “ethnic community” (“group”). The members of the group are all different, but on a subjective level they are perceived as similar to each other, and this similarity stems from the shared idea of ​​​​a common cultural image and the common cultural norms they recognize.

Hence, an ethnic community is a group of people who have a common history, language, customs and identity and follow some common norms of behavior. The term “ethnicity” characterizes the degree of conformity of team members in their acceptance of common norms in the process of social interaction.