Who are Russians in the 21st century? What unites them and makes them move together in the same direction? Do they have a common future - and if so, what is it? Identity is a concept as complex and fuzzy as “society”, “culture”, “order” and others. Discussions around the definition of identity have been going on for a long time and will continue for a long time. One thing is clear: without identity analysis, we will not be able to answer any of the questions posed above.

These questions will be considered by leading thinkers and intellectuals at the upcoming anniversary summit of the Valdai International Discussion Club, which will be held in Russia in September this year. In the meantime, it’s time to “pave the way” for these discussions, for which I would like to propose several, in my opinion, important points.

Firstly, identity is not created once and for all, it constantly changes as part of the process of social transformations and interactions.

Secondly, today we carry a whole “portfolio of identities” that may or may not be compatible with each other. The same person, being, say, in a remote region of Tatarstan, is associated with a resident of Kazan; coming to Moscow, he is a “Tatar”; in Berlin he is Russian, and in Africa he is white.

Thirdly, identity usually weakens during periods of peace and strengthens (or, conversely, disintegrates) during periods of crises, conflicts and wars. The Revolutionary War created American identity, the Great Patriotic War strengthened Soviet identity, and the wars in Chechnya and Ossetia provided powerful impetus for debates about modern Russian identity.

Modern Russian identity includes the following dimensions: national identity, territorial identity, religious identity and, finally, ideological or political identity.

National identity

During the Soviet period, the former imperial identity was replaced by an international Soviet identity. Although the Russian Republic existed within the USSR, it did not possess the most important features and attributes of statehood.

The collapse of the USSR had one of its reasons for the awakening of the national self-awareness of Russians. But, barely born, the new state - the Russian Federation - was faced with the problem: is it the legal successor and legal heir of the USSR or Russian Empire? Or is this a completely new state? The dispute over this issue is still ongoing.

The neo-Soviet approach views today's Russia as a "Soviet Union without ideology" and demands the restoration of the USSR in one form or another. On the political stage, this worldview is mainly represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF).

Another approach views Russia as a multinational state within its current borders and as the successor to the Russian Empire and the USSR. Today there is no need for territorial expansion, but one’s own territory, including non-Russian regions, is considered sacred and indivisible. In accordance with this approach, Russia also has primary interests and even a mission in the territory of the former USSR. Therefore, it must, on the one hand, try to integrate this space in different ways, and on the other, protect the rights of its compatriots living in new independent states. This approach is shared by the majority of Russians and proclaimed by President Putin and the United Russia party.

The third approach argues that Russia is a state of Russians, that the imperial and Soviet past are equally tragic pages of history that need to be closed. Instead, it is desirable to reunify lands inhabited by Russians, such as Crimea, Northern Kazakhstan, etc. At the same time, it is better, on the contrary, to give up part of the territories, primarily the North Caucasus and especially Chechnya.

The main challenge to the national identity of Russians today should be the question of the right of people from the labor-abundant republics of the North Caucasus, without losing their language and faith, to freely move to large metropolitan areas and primordially Russian regions. Although there are no legal obstacles to this, the process of internal migration causes great tension and leads to the strengthening of Russian nationalist sentiments, including the most extremist ones.

Territorial aspect of Russian identity

Over the past five centuries, this aspect has been one of the most important. The territory of the Russian Empire, and then the USSR, continuously expanded, which led to the formation of the largest state on Earth, and this feature of Russia has long been a source of pride for us. Any territorial loss is perceived very painfully, so the collapse of the USSR caused severe trauma to Russian self-awareness from this point of view as well.

The war in Chechnya demonstrated Russia's readiness to defend this value, regardless of any sacrifices. And although at certain moments of defeat the idea of ​​​​accepting the secession of Chechnya gained popularity, it was the restoration of Russian control over this republic that became the foundation of unprecedented popular support for Putin in the early 2000s.

The vast majority of Russians consider the preservation of the territorial integrity and unity of Russia to be the most important element of Russian identity, the most important principle that should guide the country.

The third aspect of Russian identity is religious

Today, more than 80% of Russians call themselves Orthodox, and the Russian Orthodox Church has received semi-state status and has big influence on the policies of the authorities in areas that are significant to her. There is a Russian version of the “symphony,” the Orthodox ideal of cooperation between secular and sacred authorities, high priest and emperor.

And yet, the prestige of the church in society has been shaken over the past two years. First of all, the unofficial taboo on criticism of the Russian Orthodox Church, which existed for more than two decades, has disappeared. The liberal part of society moved into open opposition to the church.

Against this background, even atheism, forgotten after the collapse of communism, is gradually returning to the scene. But much more dangerous for the Russian Orthodox Church is the missionary activity of non-Orthodox Christian denominations, primarily Protestant ones, as well as the spread of Islam beyond its traditional habitat. What is most important, the strength of faith of newly converted Protestants and Muslims is an order of magnitude greater than that possessed by parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church

Thus, the return of post-communist Russia to Orthodoxy is of a purely superficial, ritual nature; there has been no real churching of the nation.

But an even more dangerous challenge to the Orthodox component of Russian identity is its inability to help the moral revival of Russian society, which today is dominated by disrespect for the law, everyday aggression, aversion to productive work, disregard for morality, and a complete lack of mutual cooperation and solidarity.

Ideological aspect

Since the Middle Ages, Russian national identity was formed on the idea of ​​opposition to others, especially the West, and asserted its differences from it as positive features.

The collapse of the USSR made us feel like an inferior, wrong country, which had been going the “wrong way” for a long time and was only now returning to the global family of “correct” nations.

But such an inferiority complex is a heavy burden, and the Russians gladly abandoned it once the horrors of oligarchic capitalism and NATO intervention in Yugoslavia destroyed our illusions about the “brave new world” of democracy, the market and friendship with the West. The image of the West as a role model was completely discredited by the end of the 1990s. With Putin's accession to the presidency, an accelerated search for an alternative model and other values ​​began.

At first it was the idea that after Yeltsin left, “Russia was getting up from its knees.” Then the slogan about Russia as an “energy superpower” appeared. And finally, the concept of “sovereign democracy” by Vladislav Surkov, which claims that Russia is a democratic state, but with its own national specifics, and no one from abroad has the right to tell us what kind of democracy and how we need to build.

Russia has no natural allies, the firm majority believes, and our belonging to European civilization does not mean our common destiny with Western Europe and America. The younger and more educated part of Russians still gravitate towards the European Union and would even like Russia to join it, but they are in the minority. The majority wants to build a Russian democratic state in their own way - and does not expect any help or advice from abroad.

The social ideal of modern Russians can be described as follows. This is an independent and influential state, reputable in the world. It is an economically highly developed power with a decent standard of living, competitive science and industry. A multinational country where the Russian people play a special, central role, but the rights of people of all nationalities are respected and protected. It is a country with a strong central government, led by a president with broad powers. This is a country where the law prevails and everyone is equal before it. A country of restored justice in the relations of people with each other and with the state.

I would like to note that our social ideal lacks such values ​​as the importance of alternating power on an alternative basis; the idea of ​​the opposition as the most important institution of the political system; the value of separation of powers and, especially, their rivalry; the idea of ​​parliament, parties and representative democracy in general; the value of minority rights and, to a large extent, human rights in general; the value of openness to a world that is perceived as a source of threats rather than opportunities.

All of the above are the most important challenges to Russian identity, to which the country will have to find an answer if it wants to achieve national goals - a decent life, social justice and respect for Russia in the world.

The destruction of great power traditions, ideas and myths, and then the Soviet value system, where the key point was the idea of ​​the state as the highest social value, plunged Russian society into a deep social crisis, as a result - the loss of national identity, feelings, national and socio-cultural self-identification of citizens.

Key words: self-identification, national identification, identity crisis.

After the collapse of the USSR, the need arose to create a new national identity in all newly formed states. This issue was most difficult to resolve in Russia, since it was here that “Soviet” value guidelines were introduced more deeply than in other republics, where the key point was the idea of ​​the state as the highest social category, and citizens identified themselves with Soviet society. The demolition of old life foundations, the displacement of previous value and semantic guidelines led to a split in the spiritual world of Russian society, as a result - the loss of national identity, a sense of patriotism, national and socio-cultural identification of citizens.

The destruction of the Soviet value system plunged Russian society into a deep value and identification crisis, in the context of which another problem arose - national consolidation. It was no longer possible to solve it within the framework of the old one; it could not be solved from the standpoint of the new domestic “liberalism,” which was devoid of a program for the development of society that was positive for the mass consciousness. Inert state policy during the 90s. in the field of social reform and the lack of new value guidelines led to increased interest among citizens in the historical past of the country; people tried to find in it answers to the pressing issues of today.

Interest in historical literature arose, primarily in alternative history, and TV programs in the context of “memories of the past” began to enjoy great popularity. Unfortunately, in most cases in such programs, historical facts were interpreted in a rather loose context, the arguments were not supported by argumentation, and many so-called “facts” were in the nature of falsifications. Today, it has become obvious to most educated people what damage such programs have caused to society, primarily the youth who are hostage to screen culture have suffered.

On the front of screen culture, today there is “confusion and vacillation”, false, anti-scientific information is presented as the “truth of history”, the interest of viewers, Internet users and listeners of numerous radio broadcasts is bought through the beautiful presentation of various kinds of historical falsifications, which, due to their anti-state orientation, are destructive effect on the historical consciousness and consciousness of the national identity of citizens.

At the same time, the state has not developed a unified policy in the field of examination of such information flows that deform historical consciousness and the perception of national identity. As a result, the myth of “ideal” times of the past has become firmly entrenched in the minds of Russian citizens. Despite these problems, positive trends have emerged in Russian society in recent years. Thus, according to sociological surveys in modern Russian society, the mass interest of people in patriotic ideas, slogans, and symbols has significantly increased, and there is an increase in the patriotic self-identification of Russians.

The problem of national identity is widely discussed in society today. This is due to the fact that in the age of global changes - integration, globalization, transnational migration and global disasters - man-made, environmental, people began to rethink their acquired ideological baggage, while wondering about their involvement in the history of the country, the national community and the process of its development. Russians have a need to revise existing concepts of social and national identity, and the need to construct new identities, which is primarily caused by instability in the world and the country - increased terrorism, transformation of political regimes, financial crises. Obviously, if the ideology and cultural and moral values ​​in society are not clearly defined, or do not correspond to the expectations of the main part of society, there is a gradual change in the structure of the individual’s personality, a change in value guidelines, which ultimately leads to an identification crisis.

The most clear description of the identity crisis was given by the outstanding psychologist Erik Erikson, who described it as follows: “An unpleasant psychosocial syndrome associated with mass dissatisfaction of people, which is accompanied by feelings of anxiety, fear, isolation, emptiness, loss of the ability to emotionally communicate with other people, turns into a mass pathology of identity"46. In a crisis, an individual becomes more and more detached from social communities - he becomes individualized, and identity is maintained through interpersonal communication, in particular through social media, allowing you to support your “I” and build a dialogue with “We”.

A way out of the crisis is possible only if the political and cultural elites achieve balance within their social groups and begin to implement new identification projects, the purpose of which is to bring about changes in society and establish a balance of new values ​​based on well-formed beliefs, principles and norms. In other words, the political elite must restore the lost balance of I-We identity in society. However, this is only possible if the authorities have not lost the trust of society, otherwise, the imposition of a new system of values ​​by the political elite can lead to a social explosion47.

In different historical eras, the balance in this pair was constantly upset. The era of the Renaissance is recognized as the beginning of the dominance of “I” over “We”; it was at this time that “I” broke out and left the bonds of “We”. This was due to several factors - the erasure of class boundaries, increased attention to human individuality in literature and painting, and the expansion of the boundaries of worldview thanks to scientific and geographical discoveries. Centuries passed and in developed societies the “I” became more and more separated from the “We”; with the intensification of the processes of integration and globalization, the national identity (national-state we-identity) lost its clear outlines. At the present time in Russian society, largely thanks to the policies of V.V. Putin, there are qualitative changes in the content of cultural meanings, symbols and foundations of the new “capitalist” Russia, there is a return to the cultural and moral values ​​of the Soviet era.

Quite a lot has already been done in this direction - cultural heritage is being restored - reconstruction of historical monuments, creation of historical museums in various cities of Russia, series of programs dedicated to our history, literature, culture are being broadcast, the Olympics became a new victory in this direction, now Crimea is being restored before our eyes . Today in Russia there continues to be a revaluation cultural-historical baggage of the past, which expands the boundaries for the search for social identifications, new identification constructs appear based on the combination of the pre-Soviet and Soviet periods Russian history. Such cultural constructs have a serious impact on the formation of national identity. IN Lately In Russia, young people are increasingly demonstrating their national identity, while the older generation, on the contrary, is discovering the inertia of Soviet identity.

This fact is quite explainable by the fact that the older generation at one time experienced the shock of the “lost generation” - in the post-perestroika period, many found themselves thrown out of the “ship of modernity”, their knowledge, skills and abilities were not in demand by the new society. They look to the future with anxiety and are not inclined to trust the actions of the political elite aimed at creating a set of new cultural and moral guidelines. People whose active period of socialization passed during the period of totalitarian political culture, having lost sight of the ideological goals and moral values ​​strictly set by the political elite, in the new conditions of personal freedom, openness and initiative, lost their I-We identification. If such people are asked to behave “at their own discretion”, they usually experience frustration, it is difficult to make a choice, they are not taught to do so48.

In many ways, the conservatism of Russian society is associated with the peculiarities of historical and cultural memory formed during the period totalitarian culture. Despite a certain incompleteness and mythologization, historical and cultural memory is the constant on the basis of which an individual’s behavioral models are formed. First of all, this is due to the fact that historical and cultural memory preserves in the mass consciousness assessments of past events, which form a structure of values ​​that not only determine the actions and actions of people in the present and future, but contribute to the formation of national identity.

Awareness of one’s national identity is extremely important for each of us due to the fact that national identity is also special shape group identity, thanks to which, despite the lack of physical contacts, people consider themselves united together because they speak the same language, have common cultural traditions, live in the same territory, etc. The connecting links of national identity are historical memory, cultural traditions, patriotism. The very concept of “national identity” is an “invention” of modernity, its political significance is associated with maintaining the feeling of “being at home”, creating in citizens a sense of purpose, self-esteem, and involvement in the achievements of their country.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST:

1. Bourdieu Pierre. Practical meaning / Transl. from fr. / St. Petersburg, Aletheia, 2001.

2. Gudkov L. D. Russian neo-traditionalism and resistance to change // Otechestvennye zapiski. M., 2002 No.

3. URL: http://old.strana-oz.ru/? numid=4&article=206 3. Kiselev G.S. Man, culture, civilization on the threshold of the 3rd millennium. M.: Eastern literature. 1999.

4. Lapkin V.V., Pantin V.I. Russian order. - Polis. Political studies. 1997. No. 3.

5. Lapkin V.V., Pantin V.I. Rhythms of international development as a factor in the political modernization of Russia. - Polis. Political studies. 2005. No. 3.

6. Lapkin, V.V., Pantin, V.I. The evolution of value orientations of Russians in the 90s // ProetContra, T. 4. 1999, No. 2.

7. Pokida A. N. Specificity of patriotic feelings of Russians // Power. 2010. No. 12.

8. Kjell L., Ziegler D. Theories of personality. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Peter, 1997. Erickson E. Identity: youth and crisis / Transl. from English / M.: Progress Publishing Group, 1996 - 344 p.

9. Shiraev E., Glad B. Generational Adaptations to the Transition // B. Glad, E. Shiraev. The Russian Transformation: Political, Sociological and Psychological Aspects. N. Y.: St. Martin's Press, 1999.

Plotnikova O.A.

STATE AND LAW IN THE MODERN WORLD: PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND HISTORY

Russian identity: legal conditions for formation

VASILYEVA Liya Nikolaevna, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Leading Researcher of the Department of Constitutional Law of the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation

Russian Federation, 117218, Moscow, st. Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya, 34

The legal prerequisites for the formation of Russian identity along with ethnic identity are considered. Legislative measures to strengthen the unity of the Russian nation, preserve national identity, and revive Russian identity are explored. Guarantees are noted in the field of preservation and development of native languages, the national culture of the peoples of Russia, and the protection of the rights of national-cultural autonomies in the Russian Federation. An analysis of strategic documents and regulatory legal acts at the regional level is presented in connection with their focus on the formation of Russian civil identity, ways of legal regulation are proposed in order to form Russian civil identity, trends in the development of legislation to strengthen Russian identity are noted.

Key words: Russian civil identity, ethnic identity, interethnic relations, ethnic identity, national language, development of legislation, tolerance.

Russian Identity: Legal Conditions of Formation

L. N. Vasil"eva, PhD in law

The Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation

34, Bolshaya Cheremushkinskaya st., Moscow, 117218, Russia

Email: [email protected]

In the article the pre-conditions for the formation of the Russian identity on a legal basis along with an ethnic identity are examined. The legal measures, devoted to strengthening the process of uniting the Russian nation and restoration of the national peculiarity for the perspective revival of the Russian identity are also observed in this article. In the article the author pays special attention to the circumstances, which are in a great demand now, such as: to guarantee the essential development of the national languages, national culture of the Russian inhabitants, to protect and support the rights of the cultural autonomous territories. In the article there is also the analysis of either the strategic or of the normative documents, adopted in the regional legislative institutions, which are presented here since they are aimed at forming the Russian civil identity. Besides the above mentioned, the author determines and detects the main current trending in the legal regulation system, targeting at approaching the described goals as well. Particularly the author underlines the progressive features in the everydays development of the legal regulatory mechanisms, used for restoration and strengthening the Russian identity.

Keywords: Russian civil identity, interethnic identity, ethnic relations, ethnicity, national language, the development of legislation, tolerance.

DOI: 10.12737/7540

Challenges of the modern world, the changing geopolitical situation, the need to strengthen the unity of Russian society

became the prerequisites for the search for a national idea that unites citizens of multinational Russia. The success of this search in

In a number of cases, it depends on the unity within the most multinational people of the Russian Federation, the awareness of every citizen of Russia not only of ethnic, but also of Russian identity.

Identity as a conscious self-determination of a social subject, according to the definition of the French sociologist A. Touraine1, is determined by three main components: the need for belonging, the need for positive self-esteem and the need for security. M. N. Guboglo rightly emphasizes that identity and identification, including ethnic, require constant confirmation on the part of the bearer of ideas about the group with which he seeks to identify2.

In the research of G. U. Soldatova, the definition of ethnic identification as common ideas shared to one degree or another by members of a given ethnic group that are formed in the process of interaction with other peoples deserves attention. A significant part of these ideas is the result of awareness of common history, culture, tradition, place of origin (territory) and statehood. General knowledge binds members of the group and serves as the basis for its difference from other ethnic groups3.

At the same time, different points of view are also expressed in the literature regarding the concept of “ethnicity”. Ethnographers, as a rule, use it to describe population groups that differ in their

1 See: Touraine A. Production de la societe. P., 1973. R. 360.

2 See: Guboglo M. N. Identification of identity. Ethnosociological essays. M., 2003.

3 See International Project “National

national identity, nationalism and re-

conflict management in the Russian Federation

deration", 1994-1995.

characteristics such as a common language, religion, culture. For example, P. Waldman also includes in the definition of the concept of an ethnic group such elements as history, its own institutions, and certain places of settlement. This group must also be aware of its unity. Anthropologists, in particular W. Durham, believe that the definition of ethnicity is a matter of identification with a specific cultural system, as well as a tool for its active use in order to improve one’s position in a specific social system4.

It should be noted that the concept of ethnic identity also includes the subject’s awareness of his belonging to a particular ethnic group, while the subject’s nationality may not coincide with the self-name of such an ethnic group. In jurisprudence, this is evidenced, for example, by discrepancies in the understanding of the terms “national language” and “native language”5 in their justification of the ethnicity of the native speaker. The concept of ethnic identity is closely related to the concept of “originality” traditionally used in jurisprudence in relation to legal measures to protect language, culture, traditional way of life (in some cases), religion, and the historical heritage of certain ethnic and other communities.

The international doctrine, which laid the foundations for the protection of ethnic identity in general, linguistic and cultural identity, contributed to the development of the institution of protection of ethnic identity and

4 See: Krylova N. S., Vasilyeva T. A. and others. State, law and interethnic relations in Western democracies. M., 1993. P. 13.

5 For more details, see: Vasilyeva L.N. Legislative regulation of the use of languages ​​in the Russian Federation. M., 2005. pp. 22-25.

at the national level, as well as supplementing the mechanisms for protecting identity with national measures, defined both at the constitutional level and in individual independent laws. At the same time, in national legislation, measures to preserve ethnic identity - the cornerstone of relating an individual to an ethnic group, defining ethnic identity - in most cases are aimed at protecting the rights of national minorities.

For example, one of the features of consolidating national (ethnic) identity was the consolidation of the right of persons belonging to national minorities to preserve, develop and manifest their ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious and national essence. It is precisely this right - the right to national essence - that is established by the Romanian Constitution of 1991, emphasizing that measures taken by the state to preserve, develop and exercise these rights belonging to national minorities must comply with the principles of equality and non-discrimination in relation to other Romanian citizens.

Currently, a number of interesting trends are emerging in relation to the identity of ethnic groups. Thus, new terms appear related to modern integration processes of states, for example the term “European identity”. In particular, the President of the European Parliament considers the flag of a united and constantly developing Europe “a symbol of European identity”6. The use of such a term in the political-statist understanding already creates precedents. Thus, in November 2009, the European Court of Human Rights

6 See about this: Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights. Russian edition. 2005. No. 12.

decided that it was illegal to place crucifixes in public schools in Italy, which caused widespread public outcry.

At the same time, within the European Union, at the official level, the principle of diversity was proclaimed as an integral element of the identity of modern Europe. The conversation was primarily about languages ​​and culture in general7.

The uniqueness of the situation in the Russian Federation is that the Russian Constitution uses the term “multinational people of the Russian Federation.” According to R. M. Gibadullin, the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 contains a statist idea of ​​Russian identity in the form of the concept of “multinational people,” expressing the idea of ​​a nation as a supra-ethnic state-forming community8. At the same time, guarantees have been established at the legislative level in the field of preservation and development of native languages, the national culture of the peoples of Russia, and the protection of the rights of national and cultural autonomies.

The need to form a relatively stable community, united within a common territory by a common historical past, a certain common set of basic cultural achievements and a common awareness of belonging to a single multinational community in all manifestations of the ethnic identity of its constituent peoples of Russia, is obvious today. It seems that the emergence of such a community will become an important obstacle to the development of interethnic conflicts and the derogation of the sovereign rights of the state.

7 See: Haggman J. Multilingualism and the European Union // Europaisches Journal fur Minderheitenfragen (EJM). 4 (2010) 2. R. 191-195.

8 See: Gibadullin R. M. Post-Soviet diss. ... nations as a problem of interethnic unity in Russia // Power. 2010. No. 1. P. 74-78.

The Russian Federation has always been a unique state in its multinational nature. In our country, as V. Tishkov notes9, the concept of “Russian people” (“Russians”) was born during the times of Peter I and M.V. Lomonosov and was affirmed by outstanding figures, in particular N.M. Karamzin. In Tsarist Russia there was an idea of ​​a Russian, or “all-Russian” nation, and the words “Russian” and “Russian” were largely synonymous. For N. M. Karamzin, being a Russian meant, first of all, feeling a deep connection with the Fatherland and being a “perfect citizen.” This understanding of Russianness based on Russian culture and Orthodoxy occupied a dominant position compared to ethnic nationalism. P. B. Struve believed that “Russia is a national state” and that “by geographically expanding its core, the Russian state has turned into a state that, being multinational, at the same time has national unity”10.

During the existence of the USSR, the Soviet people were considered as a meta-ethnic community. It was fundamentally different from the existing “capitalist nations” and was the opposite of them. At the same time, “the Soviet people could not be called a nation, since within the USSR the existence of socialist nations and nationalities was affirmed as smaller entities, from which a new historical community was created”11.

10 Quoted. by: Tishkov V. A. Russian people and national identity.

11 See: Constitutional law and politics: collection. mater. Intl. scientific conf. (Faculty of Law, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomono-

It should be emphasized that the concepts of “people” and “nation” are not considered identical. Let us agree that “a nation is the political hypostasis of a people. A nation does not exist outside the state; in the modern world, the dualism of state and nation can be considered inseparable. A nation is formed by people loyal to a given state. Loyalty to the state is demonstrated through the people's exercise of their political rights and the bearing of political responsibilities. The main duty is the duty to defend one’s country, one’s state. It is the desire to defend one’s country that is the essence of national identity.”12

In our country, at the constitutional level, it is established that it is the multinational people who are the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation. At the same time, attention is repeatedly drawn both in scientific discussions and in the media to the fact that today the task is to form a single Russian nation, Russian identity. The very concepts of “Russian” and “Russian woman”, which form the basis of the term “Russian nation”, imply not only the possession of Russian citizenship, but also a supranational cultural identity, compatible with other types of self-identification - ethnic, national, religious. In the Russian Federation, neither at the constitutional nor at the legislative levels are there any obstacles established for a person from any ethnic, national or religious community to consider himself a bearer of Russian culture, i.e., a Russian, and at the same time maintain other

12 See: Constitutional law and politics: collection. mater. Intl. scientific conf. (Faculty of Law, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, March 28-30, 2012) / rep. ed. S. A. Ava-kyan.

forms of cultural and national identity13.

Currently, a number of fundamental documents on issues of state national policy use the term “Russian civic identity.” Thus, in the Strategy of the State Ethnic Policy of the Russian Federation for the period until 202514 it is noted that the insufficiency of educational and cultural-educational measures for the formation of Russian civic identity and the cultivation of a culture of interethnic communication negatively affects the development of national, interethnic (interethnic) relations.

The federal target program “Strengthening the unity of the Russian nation and the ethnocultural development of the peoples of Russia (2014-2020)”15 also emphasizes that the development of international (interethnic) relations is influenced by the following negative factors: erosion of the traditional moral values ​​of the peoples of Russia; attempts to politicize ethnic and religious factors, including during election campaigns; insufficient measures to form Russian civil identity and civil unity, foster a culture of interethnic communication, and study the history and traditions of Russian peoples; the prevalence of negative stereotypes regarding other peoples.

In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that solving the problem of the emergence of a unified Russian nation is impossible without a fair legal assessment of the repression

13 See: Shaporeva D.S. Constitutional foundations of national cultural identification in Russia // Russian justice. 2013. No. 6.

this Soviet era in relation to a number of peoples. The said Federal Target Program notes that at present, certain consequences of Soviet national policy (for example, repressions and deportations against individual peoples, repeated changes in administrative-territorial boundaries) continue to have a negative impact on interethnic relations. Today, this problem has acquired particular relevance in connection with the admission of a number of territories to the Russian Federation. Indeed, recognition of the unfair and often far-fetched attitude towards the entire people, based on a number of individual cases, requires the adoption by the state of a set of legal and social measures to prevent manifestations of ethno-national extremism.

Even before the adoption of the current Constitution of the Russian Federation, the RSFSR Law of April 26, 1991 No. 1107-X “On the rehabilitation of repressed peoples” was adopted. However, it does not contain a comprehensive legal toolkit that would allow the rehabilitation mechanism to be applied to each illegally repressed people as effectively as possible, in accordance with its ideas about the legal nature of a social and rule-of-law state. Today, this is relevant in connection with the admission to the Russian Federation of the Republic of Crimea, where Crimean Tatars repressed during the Soviet years live.

In addition, at the state level, the formation of the unity of the Russian nation is closely related to the ethnocultural development of the peoples of Russia. The above-mentioned Federal Target Program offers two options for solving problems in the field of state national policy and ethnocultural development: the first option involves an accelerated pace of strengthening the unity of the Russian nation and

ethnocultural development, significant improvement in interethnic and ethnoconfessional relations; the second is counteracting existing negative trends, strengthening Russian civil identity, and developing ethnocultural diversity.

Thus, in the legal field of the Russian Federation there are two interrelated terms: “unity of the Russian nation”, implying the preservation of the ethnic identity of all the peoples of Russia that make up this nation, and “general civil Russian identity” as awareness of one’s belonging to the Russian nation, awareness of oneself as a Russian - a citizen of the Russian Federation. Federation. The common civil Russian identity will lead to the strengthening of the entire unity of the Russian nation (still in the formation stage), and the development of ethnocultural diversity will only strengthen the common civil identity with a new quality of a solidarizing community.

Legal regulation aimed at developing ethnocultural diversity includes a fairly wide range of issues aimed at creating harmonious interethnic relations: issues of preserving and developing national identity, forming a unified all-Russian culture, ensuring decent conditions for the socio-economic development of regions and representatives of all social strata and ethnic groups in it, countering extremism. However, such regulation is not limited solely to methods of legal regulation. A significant role here is played by the level of intercultural competence, tolerance and acceptance of a different way of understanding the world, and the standard of living of representatives of different ethnic groups. In this regard, the influence of regional legislation on the qualitative development of these areas is significant.

At the regional level, a set of measures has been developed to protect and develop Russian identity, as well as to form the identity of the community living in a particular subject of the Russian Federation. Acts of regional lawmaking often emphasize the idea that the formation and implementation of national identity, the development of the cultural potential of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation will ensure increased competitiveness, the development of creativity, innovation and social well-being, the formation of an orientation of individuals and social groups towards values ​​that ensure the successful modernization of the regional community16. At the same time, it is emphasized that regional identity should be part of the Russian national identity and be built into the system of state cultural policy17. Thus, in the Yaroslavl region, the Council for the Formation of Yaroslavl Regional Identity has been created and is functioning, which resolves issues regarding the development of common approaches to the formation of regional identity, the development of the concept of regional identity and a strategy for its promotion.

At the same time, in a significant array of regulatory legal provisions, the volume of those provisions that directly relate to the preservation of ethnic identity by Russians is somewhat minimized.

An essential point to understand in this regard is the established set of measures aimed at protecting the Russian language as the national language of the Russian people. In federal level programs, the protection of the Russian language is carried out in three areas: the state language of Russian-

16 See, for example, decree of the governor of the Vladimir region dated November 25, 2013 No. 1074.

skoy Federation; language of international communication; language of compatriots abroad18.

At the same time, regional legislation is only partly aimed at developing a system for strengthening Russian identity. A number of regional programs were aimed directly at strengthening it in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, most of which have already exhausted their resource in terms of their duration. Many of them solved this problem only indirectly.

Thus, some programs in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation with a predominant settlement of Russian people contained a set of measures only for the development of the Russian language as a means of interethnic communication. As an example, we can name the Regional Target Program “Russian Language” (2007-2010) (Belgorod Region)19, as well as the Regional Target Program “Russian Language” for 2007-2010

2009" (Ivanovo region)20.

Creation of full-fledged conditions

for the development of the Russian language as the national language of the Russian people is noted in the departmental target program “Russian Language” (2007-2009) (Nizhny Novgorod Region)21 and in the Regional Target Program “Russian Language” for 2008-

2010" (Vladimir region)22. Among the tasks of the latter were the creation of full-fledged conditions for the development of the Russian language as the national language of the Russian people;

18 See, for example, Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 20, 2011 No. 492 “On the federal target program “Russian language” for 2011-2015.”

22 Approved Law of the Vladimir region dated

propaganda of the Russian language, increasing and activating various kinds of motivation for studying the Russian national language and Russian national culture and regional studies in the Vladimir region; popularization of the Russian language as the main means of national and interethnic communication and development of interest in its history and current state on the territory of the Vladimir region. However, at the moment, these programs have exhausted their operational life.

Among the current programs, one can note the State Program of the Voronezh Region “Development of Culture and Tourism” with the subprogram “Ethnocultural Development of the Voronezh Region”23, the Comprehensive Action Plan for the implementation in 2013-2015 of the Strategy of the State National Policy of the Russian Federation for the period until 2025. , harmonization of interethnic relations, strengthening of all-Russian identity and ethnocultural development of the peoples of the Russian Federation in the Tula region24.

Also interesting is the provision on improving the current monolingual language situation and creating a language environment, on expanding the sphere of active use of the Russian language, contained in the State Program of the Republic of Tyva “Development of the Russian Language for 2014-2018”25. However, the positive resource of such programs to strengthen the status of the Russian language is clearly insufficient for a comprehensive approach to strengthening Russian identity in the regions of Russia.

One should agree with leading Russian ethnologists that the prestige of Russianness and pride in the Russian people should be affirmed not by denying Russianness, but through the affirmation of dual identity (Russian and Russian), through improving the living conditions of the regions where Russians predominantly live, through promoting their broad representation in institutions civil society and protection of their interests in public national organizations. The rooting of Russian identity as a special system of identity of the Russian people, expressed in the Russian language, Russian national (folk) culture, traditions, family values and the Orthodox faith, represents an additional impulse in strengthening the united Russian nation26.

The Soviet period of our history, in which the Russian people fulfilled the mission of “big brother”, the subsequent “parade of sovereignties” of the new Russia and the consolidation of the rights of “titular nations” in the republics within the Russian Federation did not in any way contribute to the formation of either Russian or Russian identity. Today, in a period of new global changes and challenges for the Russian Federation, it is necessary to form a clear ethnological, legal and civil position in these areas.

In connection with these trends in the development of legislation to strengthen Russian identity, the following can be determined:

strengthening legal protection in relation to the Russian language and national Russian culture in terms of preserving their original qualities;

economic support and social development territories of predominant settlement of Russian-

26 See: Tishkov V. About the Russian people and national identity in Russia. URL: http://valerytishkov.ru/cntnt/publicacii3/ publikacii/o_rossisko.htmL

of the people, as well as territories strategically important for the preservation of “Russianness” there: the Kaliningrad region, the Republic of Crimea, Far East;

increasing the role of institutions, including national public organizations;

adoption of a comprehensive targeted program of economic and socio-cultural orientation for the revival of villages in the regions of central Russia in new economic conditions (“new Russian village”);

development of patriotic education, cultivation of patriotism and knowledge of the history of one’s country, the role of the Russian people in the heroic pages of the history of the Russian state, national heroes;

the need for a legal and general civil assessment of those tragic events in our history that affected the Russian people, Russians as repressed persons, Russian identity in general;

the need for educational and cultural-educational measures to form Russian identity, familiarization with the Old Church Slavonic language as additional education, studying the life and customs of the Slavs, nurturing a culture of modern communication within one’s national group.

It is also possible to create certain tourist ethnocenters and allocate the appropriate territory for the construction of a center for the development of Russian identity, which would incorporate cultural institutions, ethno-villages and educational institutions for the introduction and study of Russian writing, Russian folk crafts and folklore with a primary focus on visiting it by students educational institutions, including preschool departments.

However, it should be remembered that national identity, including Russian, is not so much connected with the nationality of its bearer, but

determined by the individual's identification with the nation. Therefore, strengthening the position of the Russian language abroad, as well as promoting and protecting the Russian language as the greatest civilizational value within the state, can be considered a certain legal task.

In this regard, the tasks of attracting public attention to the problems of preserving and strengthening the status of the Russian language as the spiritual basis of Russian culture and Russian mentality seem relevant; increasing the level of education and culture of Russian speech in all spheres of functioning of the Russian language; formation of motivation for interest in the Russian language and speech culture among different segments of the population; increasing the number of educational events popularizing the Russian language, literature and culture of the Russian people. Similar directions took place in some regional target programs.

We must also agree that national identity, unlike ethnic identity, presupposes the presence of a certain mental attitude, the individual’s sense of belonging to a large socio-political entity. Therefore, one should warn against popularizing the idea of ​​​​creating a “Russian state.” At the same time, the introduction into the current federal legislation of provisions aimed at

the emergence at the federal level of corresponding national-cultural autonomy as a form of national-cultural self-determination of citizens of the Russian Federation who consider themselves to be part of a certain ethnic community, in order to independently resolve issues of preserving identity, developing language, education, and national culture, is completely justified.

Let us note that the formation of a single Russian nation is possible only if each citizen understands not only his ethnicity, but also his community with fellow citizens of a single multinational country, involvement in their culture and traditions. In this sense, the creation of effective legal mechanisms aimed at the emergence of Russian identity is necessary. Understanding oneself as a Russian, a member of a large community - a single Russian nation, a bearer of Russian national identity as belonging to the Russian state - is a task for several generations. In this regard, legal measures must be taken at the legislative level, along with the existing legal tools for the protection of national and state languages, the development of folk and Russian culture, and the support of the development of regions and geopolitical interests of Russia, which already exist.

Bibliography

Haggman J. Multilingualism and the European Union // Europaisches Journal fur Minderheitenfragen (EJM). 4 (2010) 2.

Touraine A. Production de la societe. P., 1973.

Bulletin of the European Court of Human Rights. Russian edition. 2005. No. 12.

Vasilyeva L.N. Legislative regulation of the use of languages ​​in the Russian Federation. M., 2005.

Gibadullin R. M. Post-Soviet discourse of the nation as a problem of interethnic unity in Russia // Power. 2010. No. 1.

Guboglo M. N. Identification of identity. Ethnosociological essays. M., 2003.

Constitutional law and politics: collection. mater. Intl. scientific conf. (Faculty of Law, Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, March 28-30, 2012) / rep. ed. S. A. Avakyan. M., 2012.

Krylova N. S., Vasilyeva T. A. et al. State, law and interethnic relations in Western democracies. M., 1993.

Tishkov V. About the Russian people and national identity in Russia. URL: http://valerytishkov.ru/cntnt/publicacii3/publikacii/o_rossisko.html.

Tishkov V. A. Russian people and national identity // Izvestia. 2014. 13 Nov. Shaporeva D.S. Constitutional foundations of national cultural identification in Russia // Russian justice. 2013. No. 6.

Mechanism of legal acculturation

SOKOLSKAYA Lyudmila Viktorovna, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Civil Law Disciplines of the Moscow State Regional Humanitarian Institute

Russian Federation, 142611, Orekhovo-Zuevo, st. Green, 22

Legal acculturation is studied - a long-term contact of legal cultures of different societies, using, depending on historical conditions, various methods and ways of influencing each other, the necessary result of which is a change in the original cultural structures of the contacted societies, the formation of a single legal space and a common legal culture. Forms, methods, means and methods of legal acculturation are identified, the mechanism of its functioning and impact on the legal system of modern Russian society is revealed.

Key words: legal culture, legal acculturation, mechanism of legal acculturation, modernization, unification.

Mechanism of Legal Acculturation

L. V. Sokol"skaya, PhD in law

Moscow State Regional Institute of Humanities

22, Zelenaya st., Orekhovo-Zuevo, 142611, Russia

Email: [email protected]

Acculturation - this intercultural contact of various societies. When contacting legal cultures is subject to investigation legal of acculturation. The article reveals the mechanism of legal acculturation as a set of interrelated, interdependent methods, tools, techniques and factors providing intercultural contact of various societies. Parties acculturation: the society-recipient, society-donor, society-partner. In the process of legal acculturation are the following steps: identification of needs, borrowing, adaptation, perception (assimilation), result. Depending on the position of society enters into intercultural contact and acculturation distinguish legal mechanism such historical forms as reception, expansion, assimilation, integration and convergence. The author applied the historical-cultural studies approach.

Keywords: legal culture, legal acculturation, the legal mechanism of acculturation, modernization, unification.

DOI: 10.12737/7571

The deepening of the processes of legal integration in the era of globalization gives rise to the need to create and study a mechanism of legal acculturation1, which would

1 Legal acculturation is a long-term contact of legal cultures of different societies, using, depending on historical conditions, a variety of methods and ways of influencing each other, the necessary result of which is a change in the original

differed from the already known and sufficiently researched mechanisms for introducing elements of a foreign legal culture into the national legal culture (for example, the mechanism for implementing international norms

cultural structures of contacted societies, the formation of a single legal space and a common legal culture. See: Sokolskaya L.V. Interaction of legal cultures in historical process. Orekhovo-Zuevo, 2013.

Doctor of Political Sciences, Head of the Department of State Theory
and Law and Political Science of Adyghe State University,
Maykop

Globalization as an objective process that largely determines the contours of the future world order, and the active integration processes accompanying it, have clearly exposed the problem of identity. By the beginning of the third millennium, man found himself “on the borders” of many social and cultural worlds, the contours of which were increasingly “blurred” due to the globalization of the cultural space, high communication, and pluralization of cultural languages ​​and codes. Realizing and experiencing his belonging to intersecting macrogroup sets, a person has become the bearer of a complex, multi-level identity.

Political changes in Russia have led to an identification crisis. Society is acutely faced with the main questions characteristic of periods of transformational change: “who are we in the modern world?”, “in what direction are we developing?” and “what are our core values?”

The lack of clear unambiguous answers to these questions led to multifactorial differentiation within Russian society, which accompanied the collapse of the previous model of the identification system. The process of this collapse updated the entire set of existing levels of identity that held together the framework of the previous identification system, which led to the emergence of increased interest in the problems of identifying various communities. “Countries, societies and people are suffering from the problem of identity today. The problem of self-identity reflects the interaction of different levels of identity, and that a person can absorb multiple identities." Difficulties in understanding this social phenomenon are associated with the diversity of its manifestations from the micro level to the macro level.

Sociocultural dynamics are accompanied by the evolution of levels of identity, the content of which is not reduced to a linear movement from a generic form of identity (natural at its core) to ethnic and national (with ever-increasing cultural mediation), but represents a process of integration of identification bases. As a result, modern multi-level identity represents a layering of the main levels of identity and is precedent in nature. Depending on the specific historical situation, any of the identification grounds may be updated or a combination of them may arise. The structure of identity is dynamic and changes depending on how the weight of certain elements that make it up increases or, conversely, decreases. According to S. Huntington, the significance of multiple identities changes over time and from situation to situation, while these identities complement each other or conflict with one another.

The problem of multi-level identity today looks extremely complex, including new levels of identity along with traditional ones. As historical and cultural experience shows, multi-ethnic Russia cannot have a “simple” identity: its identity can only be multi-level. The author's version is to highlight the following levels of identity: ethnic, regional, national, geopolitical and civilizational. The designated levels are closely interconnected and represent a hierarchically structured and at the same time complexly organized system.

It seems justified the position that the basis of identity as such is the identification of oneself with one or another group, belonging to something larger and different from the person himself. In this sense, the first level of identity - ethnic identity can be considered as that set of meanings, ideas, values, symbols, etc., which allow ethnic identification to be carried out. In other words, ethnic identity can be considered as a person's belonging in connection with his identification with an ethnic group. Ethnic self-identification of a person can be considered as a process of appropriating ethnicity and turning it into ethnic identity, or as a process of entering into identity structures and ascribing a certain place to oneself in them, which is called ethnic identity.

Ethnic identity is a complex social phenomenon, the content of which is both the individual’s awareness of commonality with a local group based on ethnicity, and the group’s awareness of its unity on the same grounds, the experience of this community. Ethnic identification, in our opinion, is determined by the need of a person and community to streamline ideas about themselves and their place in the picture of the world, the desire to achieve unity with the surrounding world, which is achieved in substituted forms (linguistic, religious, political, etc. community) through integration into the ethnic space of society.

Based on the established understanding of identity, the second level - regional identity - can be considered as one of the key elements in constructing a region as a specific socio-political space; it can serve as the basis for a special perception of national political problems and is formed on the basis of a common territory, the characteristics of economic life, and a certain system of values. It can be assumed that regional identity arises as a result of a crisis of other identities and, to a large extent, is a reflection of historically emerged center-peripheral relations within states and macro-regions. Regional identity is a kind of key to constructing a region as a socio-political and institutional space; an element of social identity, in the structure of which two main components are usually distinguished: cognitive - knowledge, ideas about the characteristics of one’s own group and awareness of oneself as a member of it; and affective – assessment of the qualities of one’s own group, the significance of membership in it. In the structure of regional identification, in our opinion, there are the same two main components - knowledge, ideas about the characteristics of one’s own “territorial” group (sociocognitive element) and awareness of oneself as its member and assessment of the qualities of one’s own territory, its significance in the global and local coordinate system ( socio-reflexive element).

Recognizing regional identity as a reality, let us highlight a number of its features: firstly, it is hierarchical, since it includes several levels, each of which reflects belonging to different territories - from the small homeland, through the political-administrative and economic-geographical formation to the country as a whole ; secondly, the regional identity of individuals and groups differs in the degree of intensity and in the place it occupies among other identities; thirdly, regional identity seems to be a form of understanding and expression of regional interests, the existence of which is determined by the territorial characteristics of people’s life. And the deeper these features are, the more noticeably regional interests differ from national ones.

Regional identity is a factor of territorial-geographical, socio-economic, ethnocultural existence and an element of state-political structuring and management. At the same time, it is an important factor in the all-Russian political process. Among the levels of identity, it occupies a special place and is associated with certain territories that determine special forms of life practices, pictures of the world, and symbolic images.

Considering multi-level identity, it is necessary to turn to the third level - national identity, understood as common to all its citizens, which is the most polysemantic and multifaceted of all related to the definition of Russian specifics. This is explained, on the one hand, by the lack of unity in approaches to the definition of ethnicity and nation; close interweaving of ethnocultural and national identities; purely linguistic difficulties, since the nouns “nation” and “nationality” (ethnos) correspond to the same adjective – “national”. On the other hand, the objective criteria of national identity are language, culture, way of life, behavioral characteristics, common traditions and customs, the presence of an ethnonym, and the state.

The difficulty of defining national identity is also explained by a number of its specific features: the ethnic diversity inherent in Russia, which predetermines the lack of ethnocultural unity, since 20% of the non-Russian population lives predominantly on almost half of its territory, identifying themselves with it, which makes it impossible to characterize Russia as a national state; the diversity of ages of ethnocultural formations included in the civilizational field of Russia, which determines its pronounced traditionalism; the presence of a basic state-forming ethnic group - the Russian people, which is the dominant development of Russian civilization; a unique combination of a multi-ethnic composition and a single state, which is one of the most stable and significant bases of identification; multi-confessional nature of Russian society.

This is where the differences in existing options for interpreting the essence of identity arise: Russia’s interests cannot be identified with the interests of any of the ethnocultural communities that form it, since they are supranational, therefore, we can only talk about geopolitical coordinates; the identity of the interests of Russia with the interests of the dominant state-forming ethnic group, that is, the Russians; The national identity of Russia is interpreted not according to ethnocultural, but according to state-legal principles.

Russian national identity is understood as self-identification with the Russian nation, the definition of “who are we?” in relation to Russia. It is important to note that the problem of forming national identity is especially relevant in modern conditions. This is due, firstly, to the need to preserve the integrity of the country. Secondly, in the words of V.N. Ivanov, “national-cultural identity sets certain parameters for the development of the country. In line with these parameters, the country is making various efforts to optimize its movement and development, including subordinating them to the idea of ​​modernization (reform).”

Let us now turn to the analysis of the fourth level - geopolitical identity, which can be considered as a specific level of identity and a key element in the construction of socio-political space; it can serve as the basis for a particular perception of national political problems. It should be noted that geopolitical identity does not replace or cancel national identity; in most cases, they are additional in nature.

We understand geopolitical identity as the originality of a particular country and its people, as well as the place and role of this country among others and related ideas. Identity is closely connected with statehood, its character, the position of the state in the international system and the self-perception of the nation. Its characteristics are: geopolitical space, that is, a complex of geographical characteristics of the state; geopolitical place and role of the state in the world; endogenous and exogenous ideas about political-geographical images.

It seems that geopolitical identity includes such basic elements as citizens’ ideas about the geopolitical images of the country, a set of emotions regarding their country, as well as the special geopolitical culture of the population. The specificity of geopolitical identity is that it is an identity based on the awareness of the commonality of an entire people or a group of close peoples.

In the modern world, the fifth level - civilizational identity - is becoming increasingly important in comparison with other levels of its analysis. This question arises when there is a need to understand the place of one’s society and country in the civilizational diversity of the world, that is, in global positioning. Thus, analyzing the issue of the civilizational and sociocultural identity of Russia, K. Kh. Delokarov identifies factors that complicate the understanding of their essence: a systematic war with its past, its history; the habit of looking for sources of problems not within oneself, but from outside; uncertainty of the strategic goals of Russian society. And on the basis of this, the author concludes that the criteria for Russia’s civilizational identity are blurred .

Civilizational identity can be defined as a category of socio-political theory, denoting the identification of an individual, a group of individuals, a people with their place, role, system of connections and relationships in a particular civilization. We can say that this is the maximum level of identification, above which identification can only be on a planetary scale. It is based on the formed large interethnic mega-community of people living for a long time in one region, based on the unity of the historical collective destiny different nations, interconnected by similar cultural values, norms and ideals. This sense of community is formed on the basis of distinction and even opposition between “us” and “alien.”

Thus, civilizational identity can be defined as the self-identification of individuals, groups, ethnic groups, and confessions on the basis of a certain sociocultural community. This social problem of the continuity of formative factors that determine the civilizational characteristics of society is of particular importance, since it concerns the determination of the civilizational identity not only of Russian society, but also of other societies. Russia's civilizational identity is due to the fact that it is located in Europe and Asia, and is multi-ethnic and multi-confessional. The specificity of civilizational identity is that it represents the highest level of social identity, since it is based on the awareness of the cultural and historical community of an entire people or a group of close peoples. The concept of “civilizational identity” describes a set of core, system-forming elements that structure the whole and define the self-identity of civilization.

Observing the process of transformation of civilizational identity in Russia today, it is important to realize that in many ways the future of democracy and the prospects of Russian statehood depend on the result of choosing the right identity. The needs of adaptation to the realities of post-Soviet existence and to the new geopolitical status contributed to the rapid erosion of the old identity and the emergence of a new one.

The current crisis of all-Russian identity is mainly a conflict with new realities, which entailed the process of abandoning previous social roles, national self-determinations, and ideological images. All this actualizes the problem of recreating the integrity of the all-Russian “we”, taking into account its civilizational characteristics. Ideas about civilizational affiliation and corresponding images of identity influence the formation of orientation associated with the perception of the place and role of Russia in the modern world.

It seems that the processes of globalization developing in the world, affecting the identification archetypes of all states, the unfolding transition to a post-industrial society poses in a new way the problem of the formation of a multi-level identity not only for Russia, but for the whole world.

Thus, the analysis suggests that rapid changes in the world associated with the contradictory processes of globalization and transformation have sharply aggravated the problem of identity. As one of the researchers figuratively put it, scientists simultaneously found themselves in the role of both creators and captives of the world web of identities, in the face of its challenges. This problem began to “torment” people and countries from the end of the 20th century: they are constantly accompanied by the desire to either preserve their chosen identity, or make a new choice, or something else related to the search for their “I” or “we”.

What is an ethnic group, a people? What is a nation? What is their value? Who are the Russians, and who is considered Russian? On what basis can a person be considered to belong to one or another ethnic group, one or another nation? Many activists of the Russian national movement, from personal experience in their propaganda and agitation work, know that a significant number of their listeners and potential supporters, perceiving the generally reasonable ideological guidelines of the nationalists, ask similar questions.

What is an ethnic group, a people? What is a nation? What is their value? Who are the Russians, and who is considered Russian? On what basis can a person be considered to belong to one or another ethnic group, one or another nation?

Many activists of the Russian national movement, from personal experience in their propaganda and agitation work, know that a significant number of their listeners and potential supporters, perceiving the generally reasonable ideological guidelines of the nationalists, ask similar questions. This happens especially often among students, the intelligentsia, and among residents of large cities in Russia. These questions are serious, as it seems to many national patriots, the future and prospects of the Russian Movement depend on the answer to them.

Our opponents of all stripes, as an argument about the harmfulness of Russian nationalism for Russia, cite the thesis about its multinationality, which is why the national (in the ethnic sense) ambitions of Russians should inevitably lead to the collapse of the country and to a civil war following the example of Yugoslavia and some republics of the former USSR. At the same time, gentlemen internationalists brush aside, and sometimes simply do not want to notice, the fact that historically Russia developed as a Russian state, and in the modern Russian Federation, 8/10 of its population are Russians. For some reason this doesn’t make sense. Why? “This is according to the passport. In fact, there are almost no purely Russians left. “Russians are not one nation, but a fusion of peoples,” answer our opponents, from specific separatists to liberals, from communists and to some “statist patriots.” “Our” bankers and President Nazarbayev tried to deliver such a Jesuitical blow to Russian self-awareness during the presidential election campaign, declaring that 40% of Russian citizens are children from mixed marriages.

Unfortunately, many, very many Russians, especially those who do not have an “impeccable” pedigree or have close friends with “not quite Russian genealogy,” are inclined to succumb to this blatantly illiterate demagoguery arising from the lack of basic knowledge about the essence nation and people. Cosmopolitans often say that “all nations are mixed up,” that nationalism is an animal ideology (remember Okudzhava), which divides people according to the structure of their skulls, eye color and hair structure. They cite the example of the Third Reich with its ideology of Nordic anatomical qualities as a mystical value. Indeed, what other than fear and disgust can the average Russian (and even more so non-Russian!) man in the street feel towards nationalism, having accepted these arguments? But here a very simple substitution of the concept of “nation” with the concept of “biological population”, the concept of “nationalism” with the concept of “xenophobia” is carried out. Thus, in the minds of many of our compatriots, a myth is created about the absence of Russians as an ethno-nation or about the limitation of its settlement to the territory of Central Russia, as well as the need to automatically recognize the aggressiveness of any attempts to build Russia as a national Russian state.

Well, the arguments of the Russophobes are understandable. How can nationalists respond to them?

Initially, man was created as a being who lived “not by bread alone,” but, above all, by spirit. The Creator prepared from above for everyone their own path, endowed everyone with talents in different ways, giving the human race the right and duty of self-knowledge and self-improvement. That is why the vulgar-utilitarian ideals of leveling individuality and consumer egalitarianism are obviously flawed. But also flawed and blasphemous are the ideas of erasing national boundaries, merging ethnic communities into a homogeneous, faceless, anational mass - “Europeans”, “Earthlings”, etc. For, having created nature as variegated and diverse, God created humanity in the same way, in which he created many peoples - each with its own culture, psyche, and spirit. Created for human development, because A person can develop only in a society where they speak a certain language, profess certain values, sing songs and compose tales and legends about their fate, and whose members have similar character traits necessary for organizing life in certain natural conditions.

A natural community - an ethnos - is united by spiritual kinship (cultural and mental) and welded together by ethnic solidarity into a single organism. This is how nations are formed - conciliar personalities, vessels of the spirit from the Spirit. Just as every person is unique, so is a nation that has its own destiny, its own soul, its own path.

The Russian thinker I.A. Ilyin said this superbly:

“There is a law of human nature and culture, by virtue of which everything great can be said by a person or a people only in its own way, and everything brilliant will be born in the bosom of national experience, spirit and way of life.

By denationalizing, a person loses access to the deepest wells of the spirit and the sacred fires of life; for these wells and fires are always national: in them lie and live entire centuries of national labor, suffering, struggle, contemplation, prayer and thought. For the Romans, exile was designated by the words: “prohibition of water and fire.” And indeed, a person who has lost access to the spiritual water and the spiritual fire of his people becomes a rootless outcast, a groundless and fruitless wanderer along other people’s spiritual roads, a depersonalized internationalist.”

This is what a people is from these positions - a community in which a person can spiritually take root and develop. Specifically for us, this is the Russian people, a people that we understand as a community of people united by the Russian language (it also expresses our soul), culture, self-awareness, which are characterized by traits of Russian character and mentality, and which are united by the common historical fate of the past, present and future generations of Russian people. So, gentlemen, ethnonihilists, for us, who consider nationality to be a great spiritual value, Russianness is not just an anatomical feature, but our history, our faith, our heroes and saints, our books and songs, our character, our spirit - that is, an integral part of our personality. And those for whom all this is theirs, family, those who cannot imagine their nature without all this, are Russians.

Regarding the supposedly established diversity of the Russian people, I would like to remind you that almost all nations were formed by a mixture of different bloods and tribes, and in the future, depending on historical conditions, some were subjected to racial miscegenation to a greater extent, others to a lesser extent. Konstantin Leontyev argued that “all great nations are of very mixed blood.”

So, the people after God are one of the highest spiritual values ​​on earth. Not only the Russian people, but also any other. We Russians love ours more and are responsible for its fate. Moreover, there is someone to take care of other peoples. This worldview is nationalism.

Why not patriotism, but rather nationalism? Because patriotism is love for the Motherland, the country in which you live. A wonderful feeling, it coincides with nationalism in mono-ethnic countries, where only one people lives in their own country, on their own land. In this case, love for the country and for this people are one and the same. IN Kievan Rus, in the Moscow State it was so. But now the situation is somewhat different.

Yes, we are patriots, we love Russia. However, Russia is a country where Russians, although they constitute the absolute majority, live together with 30 million representatives of more than 100 peoples and nationalities - large and small, indigenous and newcomers. Each of them has their own identity, their true and imaginary interests, most of them defend these interests, moreover, consistently and openly. Therefore, naked patriotism as the idea of ​​co-citizenship without connection with nationalism for Russians turns out to be obviously losing in the conditions of competition with dozens of ethnic groups within Russia. The last decades of Soviet power and the current inter-time have convincingly proven this. The facts are well known. This means that without nationalism, without consolidation on an ethnic basis, Russians in Russia will either have no place left at all or will remain, but not at all what befits the people who created the Russian State with their sweat and blood. And without Russians there will be no strong, united, independent Russia. Therefore, we are precisely nationalists, Russian nationalists and Russian patriots. We are for Russian unity.

It is clear that a people is a natural cultural and historical unit. But on what basis is it formed? How does nationality develop, by what criteria is it determined? What predetermines participation in the spirit of the people and their destiny? It is necessary to try, at least in general terms, to give unambiguous answers to these questions in order to decide once and for all: who and on what basis can be considered Russian from an ethnic point of view?

On the issue of ethnic identity, one can roughly distinguish the following approaches: anthropological, sociological, cultural and psychological.

The anthropological (racial) approach or anthropological materialism is that a person’s nationality is genetically predetermined. At the same time, by the way, most “racists” do not deny the spirit of the nation and spiritual kinship; they simply believe that the spirit is derived from “blood and flesh.” This opinion became widespread in Germany, becoming dominant under the rule of the National Socialists. Hitler himself devoted a significant part of his book Mein Kampf to this problem. He wrote: “A nationality, or, better said, a race is determined not by a common language, but by a common blood. The true strength or weakness of people is determined by the degree of purity of blood alone... Insufficient homogeneity of blood inevitably leads to insufficient unity of the entire life of a given people; all changes in the sphere of the spiritual and creative forces of the nation are only derivatives of changes in the field of racial life.”

Recently, the anthropological approach has become dominant among the Russian “extreme right”. Their position was expressed by V. Demin in the newspaper “Zemshchina” No. 101: “They say that purity of blood is not the most important thing, but the main thing is faith, which will save everyone. Undoubtedly, our faith and the spirit of the nation are higher. However, ask yourself in whom the faith is stronger, more consistent, in the one with pure blood, or in the one in which a bulldog is mixed with a rhinoceros... Only blood still unites us, preserving in the genes the call of our ancestors, the memory of glory and the greatness of our family. What is blood memory? How to explain it? Is it possible to destroy it? While maintaining the purity of the blood, it is impossible to destroy what is contained in it. It contains our culture, our faith, our heroic freedom-loving character, our love, and our anger. That's what blood is! That is why, until it becomes clouded, until it dissolves in other blood, until it mixes with foreign blood, memory is preserved, which means there is hope to remember everything, and again become a great and powerful people of the earth.”

In addition to the “extreme right,” whose opinions are very rarely scientifically substantiated, adherents of the anthropological approach are such famous theorists and figures as Nikolai Lysenko and Anatoly Ivanov. In his article “The Contours of a National Empire,” the leader of the NRPR defined the people as “a vast community of human individuals with a single type of national mentality, which is realized as an integral complex of behavioral reactions, which in turn are a natural visible manifestation of a single genetic fund (code).” A. Ivanov has a similar position: “Each anthropological type is a special mental makeup. Each language is a special way of thinking. These components make up national identity, the very spirit that develops on the basis of the flesh, and does not descend “from heaven in the form of a dove.”

However, the founder of the school was not Hitler, but the famous French social psychologist and biologist G. Lebon. He wrote: “Psychological characteristics are reproduced by heredity with accuracy and consistency. This aggregate constitutes what is rightly called the national character. Their totality forms an average type, which makes it possible to define a people. A thousand Frenchmen, a thousand Englishmen, a thousand Chinese, taken at random, must, of course, differ from each other; however, due to the heredity of their race, they have common properties on the basis of which it is possible to recreate the ideal type of a Frenchman, an Englishman, a Chinese.”

So, the motivation is clear: the spirit of a nation is derived from its genetic code, because Each formed ethnic group has its own race (population). The psyche (soul) is a product of the activity of the human nervous system and is inherited genetically. Therefore, nationality is directly dependent on race.

At first glance, everything is quite logical and convincing. But let's look at this problem in more detail. Indeed, at the end of the 20th century, when such sciences as genetics, eugenics, anatomy, and anthropology exist, only a deaf-blind person can ignore the influence of the genetic factor and heredity on the formation of the human personality. But it would also be absurd to go to the other extreme, elevating the set of chromosomes to an absolute.

What exactly is inherited genetically? I don’t mean abstract reasoning about the “voice of blood” (we’ll talk about it in detail later), but scientifically based axioms or hypotheses. The morphology of parents and immediate ancestors is inherited: physiological constitution, strength or weakness of the body, including many diseases, racial appearance of parents and ancestors. Racial (natural-biological) characteristics. Are they necessary when determining ethnicity?

The pride and son of the Russian people, A.S. Pushkin, as is known, did not possess a native Russian racial appearance. If we look at his portrait by the artist O. Kiprensky, we will see that from his Ethiopian great-grandfather he inherited not only curly hair, but also many facial features and darker skin than most Russians. Did the one whom Gogol called “the most national Russian poet” become less Russian?

And another wonderful Russian poet - Zhukovsky, whose not typical Russian appearance is explained by his maternal Turkish blood? Or is the deeply Russian philosopher Roerich a man of northern blood? And in general, how serious can talk about the racial purity of the people be today? The Scandinavian peoples or the mountaineers of the North Caucasus, who for centuries have lived separately from the passions of continental Europe, through which a great many ethnic forms have passed over two millennia, can also talk about it somehow. There is a special conversation about Russia altogether. Ethnographers and anthropologists have still not come to a common conclusion about who the Russians are - Slavs, Celts, Finno-Ugric people, or a combination of all of the above.

“Racists” sometimes point to the British and Germans, who are famous for their homogeneity. But let’s not forget that today’s Germans are descendants not only of the ancient Germans, but also of dozens of Slavic tribes assimilated by them - Abodrites, Lutichs, Lipons, Hevels, Prussians, Ukrs, Pomorians, Sorbs and many others. And the English are the end result of the ethnogenesis of the Celts, Germans, Romans and Normans. And is it final? Highland Scots, Welsh and Protestant Irish, largely assimilated into English culture, today actively participate in English ethnogenesis. So, racial miscegenation (with racially and culturally compatible peoples) of an established ethnic group within 5-15% of the total number of marriages within a given population does not harm it at all, provided there is a strong national identity.

Anthropologists know that sometimes a mixed marriage can produce and raise, for example, a Turk with a predominance of maternal Slavic traits. Will this make him stop being a Turk? This concerns external anthropological signs. But the following are also inherited: temperament, individual character traits (or rather their inclinations), talents and abilities.

Psychology knows four main types of temperament and their various combinations and combinations. In any population there are representatives of each of them. But the fact remains: each nation is also characterized by the predominance of one type. We say “temperamental Italians” and mean that most Italians are characterized by a choleric temperament. In relation to representatives of the small northern race, we use the expression “Nordic self-possessed,” meaning the phlegmatic temperament characteristic of the majority of Swedes, Norwegians, etc. The Russian temperament, in my opinion, is a mixture of sanguine and melancholic. (I’ll emphasize once again: all this does not mean at all that there are no phlegmatic Italians, choleric Swedes or Russians.)

Regarding national character, probably no one doubts that it exists. Rational, hardworking and vain Germans, proud and warlike Chechens, patient and enduring Chinese, cunning and calculating Jews. One can, of course, make all this dependent on the existing social structure and political system, but isn’t it the people themselves, with their character and mentality, who create it? Another thing is that every nation has its own destiny, its own history. And under the influence of historical conditions, to which it is necessary to somehow adapt, each ethnic group developed its own character and mentality. Honesty and deceit, frankness and hypocrisy, hard work and laziness, courage and cowardice, maximalism and pragmatism, kindness and cruelty - all this and much more is character. All these qualities are inherent in any people, but some to a greater extent, others to a lesser extent. This is the specificity, which is why we say that each nation has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Science, and simply the life experience of many of us, suggests that a certain hereditary predisposition to these qualities exists. But who would dare to assert that all this is predetermined by genes, that the will of a person is powerless under the influence of upbringing, environment and through self-development to overcome bad heredity, or to create a scoundrel in spite of a high-quality breed?

Although character, including national character, is largely inherited genetically, but, which is already a common place for modern psychology, it is also formed under the influence of the environment: family, relatives, fellow tribesmen, countrymen, compatriots. Mentality (way of thinking and its categories) is formed primarily and mainly under the influence of the environment. And Russians who grew up and permanently reside in the Baltic states have a significantly different mentality from the mentality of Russians in Great Russia, and Russian Germans differ in mentality from their German fellow tribesmen almost more than Turkish immigrants.

The argument that culture, language, faith, and historical memory are transmitted genetically through the “call of the ancestors” does not stand up to criticism at all. For some reason, they were not passed on to the Hollywood actor of Russian origin M. Douglas, but to V. Dahl, a German by blood, the Russian spirit was passed on in its purely national form. How will the “racist” gentlemen explain this? Or the fact that our history knows of some Russian mestizos (I. Ilyin) who are a hundred times more Russian in spirit and self-awareness than other Judases of purely Russian origin, “who tore off the heads of churches and glorified the Red Tsar,” ready to joyfully betray Russia as a sacrifice to ideals world revolution. I wonder if the Russophobe Bukharin would tear off the bandages from his wounds, wanting to bleed to death, as did the Russian patriot of Georgian origin Bagration, who learned about the surrender of Moscow to the French?

If the spirit always depends on blood, understood as genes, then, logically, the purer the blood, the more national the spirit. It turns out not always. Blok, Fonvizin, Suvorov, Dostoevsky, Lermontov, Ilyin and many others are proof of this. True, it is possible to prohibit mentioning them all, just as Hitler banned the works of Heinrich Heine - one of the best German lyrical and patriotic poets - for his non-Aryan origin. But it seems that it would be simpler and more correct to admit that the essence is not in the genes. Genes are a temperament by which one can only tentatively judge a person’s nationality; in part, national character is an essential element of ethnic identity, also largely derived from the environment; these are talents and abilities, which, even within the same ethnic group, can vary depending on social and regional conditions, but which are still partly an element of the mental makeup of the people.

So, genes are the appearance and approximately 50% of a person’s mental make-up. Language, historical memory, cultural identity, national mentality and self-awareness do not depend on chromosomes. This means that, in total, the race factor does not play a determining role in determining nationality. That is why the racist approach to defining nationality should be considered untenable.

N.S. Trubetskoy also thought so: “German racism is based on anthropological materialism, on the conviction that human will is not free, that all human actions are ultimately determined by his bodily characteristics, which are inherited, and that through systematic crossing one can choose the type of a person, especially favorable to a given anthropological unit called a people.

Eurasianism (the author is not a follower of this teaching - V.S.), which rejects economic materialism, does not see any reason to accept anthropological materialism, which is philosophically much less substantiated than economic one. In matters of culture, which constitutes the area of ​​free, purposeful creativity of the human will, the word should belong not to anthropology, but to the sciences of the spirit - psychology and sociology.”

I consider the approach criticized by N.S. Trubetskoy to be harmful, due to the fact that it can negatively affect the process of Russian national formation. After all, although the absolute majority of Russians are bound by a common national origin, we should not forget that during the years of Soviet internationalism the Russian race (especially the Russian intelligentsia and residents of large cities) underwent intense miscegenation. Of course, not 40%, but after all, 15% of Russians were born from mixed marriages and are half-breeds. This means that about 20-30% of Russians have non-Russian ancestors in the second generation - among their grandparents.

By the way, these numbers are not mathematically accurate - statistics suffer from subjectivity. But in any case, the percentage of tribally mixed Russians is above average among the Russian intelligentsia - this multimillion-strong layer of intellectual workers - the support of the future truly Great Russia and the main reserve of progressive Russian nationalists. Therefore, to fight for the idea of ​​a pure Russian race means to bury the possibility of developing full-fledged Russian nationalism.

The sociological approach is almost the exact opposite of the anthropological one; it arose in France as a result of the activities of the Enlightenment and the realities of the bourgeois revolution. The idea of ​​a nation in France arose as a synonym for democracy and patriotism, as the idea of ​​popular sovereignty and a single, indivisible republic. Therefore, the nation itself was understood as co-citizenship - a community of people united by a common political destiny and interests, responsibility for the fate of their country.

The French thinker Ernest Renan in 1882 formulated what, in his opinion, unites people into a nation:

"First. Common memory about what we went through together. General achievements. General suffering. General guilt.

Second. General forgetfulness. The disappearance from memory of that which could once again disunite or even divide the nation, for example, the memory of past injustice, past (local) conflict, past civil war.

Third. A strongly expressed will to have a common future, common goals, common dreams and views.”

At this point, Renan gives his famous definition: “The life of a nation is a daily plebiscite.”

Thus, nationality is determined through citizenship and patriotism. The famous contemporary Russian artist I. Glazunov has the same opinion, claiming that “a Russian is one who loves Russia.”

It is difficult to argue anything against this approach in essence. Indeed, it is a common destiny, self-awareness, responsibility that makes a nation out of a people. Without this, as B. Mussolini said, there is no nation, but there are “only human crowds, susceptible to any decay to which history may subject them.” But still, a nation, as a primarily political community, is born from a people (ethnic group). And it is ethno-political nations that demonstrate the greatest unity and efficiency, while purely political nations, consisting of different peoples, are constantly shaken by internal strife: linguistic and racial (Americans, Canadians, Belgians, Indians, etc.).

Both a Kalmyk and a Yakut can love Russia, while remaining a representative of their ethnic group.

Or here’s another example - the head of the cadet faction in the pre-revolutionary Duma, Mr. Vinaver. Such an active guardian of the good of Russia, a patriot and a democrat! So what do you think? In parallel, Mr. Vinaver heads the informal Jewish government of Palestine and lobbies the interests of Russian Jews in Russian politics.

Can a Tatar who loves his people be a sincere Russian patriot? Yes, at least I have seen such reasonable nationals. A Tatar by nationality and a Russian by civic outlook - such a person, being a statesman on an all-Russian scale, can consistently defend Russian state interests, but at the same time, in the sphere of interethnic relations within Russia, he will most likely, secretly or openly, proceed from the interests of the Tatar ethnic group. We, Russian nationalists, have our own position on this matter.

We have to admit that the sociological interpretation of the nation is impeccable in mono-ethnic countries (as is “non-nationalistic” patriotism). In countries with a multi-ethnic composition of the population, it does not work in isolation from other ethnic factors. It also does not work in modern France, flooded with “the French by the grace of the seal of arms” - Arab migrants who perfectly preserve their ethnicity with the help of Islam and cultural autonomy.

The cultural school defines a people as a cultural community united by language and culture (both spiritual - religion, literature, songs, etc., and material - everyday life). By the spirit of a nation, the school understands precisely its spirituality.

P. Struve wrote that “a nation is always based on a cultural community in the past, present and future, a common cultural heritage, common cultural work, common cultural aspirations.” F.M. Dostoevsky said that a non-Orthodox person cannot be Russian, which in fact identified Russianness with Orthodoxy. And indeed, for a long time in Rus' it was the approach that prevailed, based on which every person of the Orthodox faith living in Russia and speaking Russian was considered Russian.

In the twentieth century, when Russian Orthodoxy was destroyed, such a cultural-confessional approach became impossible. Today, most cultural scientists understand cultural identity in a broad sense: as spiritual and material, intellectual and grassroots, folk culture.

In big Russian politics in general, almost no attention is paid to Russian topics, and therefore the opinion on this matter of General Lebed, who devoted an entire article to the problem of national statehood, identity and empire, “The Decline of the Empire or the Revival of Russia,” is interesting. In it, he (or someone for him) wrote: “In Russia, identifying a pure race is a hopeless task! The reasonable, state, pragmatic approach is simple: whoever speaks and thinks in Russian, who considers himself part of our country, for whom our norms of behavior, thinking, and culture are natural - he is Russian.”

For any thinking person it is clear as two times two that the inner content of a people is its culture and spirituality. It is culture that reveals to humanity the true face of peoples. It is through the development of their spiritual potential that nations imprint themselves in History. Mussolini directly declared this: “For us, a nation is first of all a spirit. A nation is great when it realizes the power of its spirit.”

Without spiritual culture, a tribe can exist, but not a people. And as K. Leontyev said, “to love tribe for tribe is a stretch and a lie.” The nationality is distinguished by the presence of folklore grassroots culture, but the absence of a highly intellectual system of language, writing, literature, historiosophy, philosophy, etc. All this is inherent only to the people, whose culture consists, as it were, of two floors: the lower - folklore, and the upper - the product of the creativity of the intellectual elite of the people. These floors are one whole called “national culture”.

At the level of cultural identity, the “friend or foe” archetype is formed, based on language affiliation and behavioral stereotypes. It is on this basis that we can say about a person that he is “truly Russian”, “real French”, “real Pole”.

Spirit is the main value of a people; belonging to it is determined by spirit. However, is it only culture and spirituality that constitute the spirit of a nation? What about the psyche (soul)? We can say that a mental type is realized in culture. So be it. What about a person’s national identity? Undoubtedly, it is an integral and necessary part of the spirit of the nation. But it happens that it (self-awareness) does not coincide with a person’s cultural identity.

Consider the following example.

How do we perceive a person of Russian origin, language, culture who renounces his national name? No, not under the pressure of threats or circumstances, but voluntarily, out of eccentricity or political convictions (cosmopolitanism). We will perceive him as an eccentric, a mankurt, a cosmopolitan, but still we will internally treat him as a fellow tribesman, a Russian, betraying his nationality. And I think he himself understands that he is Russian.

And if he is Russian by language, culture, Orthodox by religion, but Pole or Latvian by blood (origin), he will confidently say that he is Pole or Latvian. I'm almost sure that regardless of cultural identity, we will understand and accept this choice. Whether the Poles themselves will accept it is another matter. But Jews or Armenians, for example, would accept it. Of course, without knowledge native language, history, culture for real Jews or Armenians, he would be a Jew or a second-class Armenian, but still he would be one of his own.

Dzhokhar Dudayev barely knew the Chechen language and culture at all; he lived most of his life in Russia, was married to a Russian, but in Ichkeria he is perceived as one hundred percent Chechen. When the Zionist movement began, many of its leaders and activists did not know the Jewish language and were emancipated Jews, which did not interfere with the Zionist consolidation and was corrected over time.

Jews, Arabs, Armenians, Germans (before the first unification of Germany), despite the loss or erosion of cultural identity due to dispersion or division, were able to preserve their ethnicity. And while maintaining a sense of ethnicity, there is always the possibility of reviving the nation. But how is an ethnic group preserved when culture is lost or degraded?

Let's turn to the psychological school.

In his work “Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth,” L.N. Gumilyov wrote: “There is not a single real sign for determining an ethnic group... Language, origin, customs, material culture, ideology are sometimes defining moments, and sometimes not. We can take out of the brackets only one thing - the recognition by each individual: “We are such and such, and everyone else is different.”

That is, the self-awareness of the people and its members are the defining moments of ethnic identity. But they are already derived from other identification factors. It is clear why in Russia, when determining nationality, priority was given to the factors of faith, culture, language, and in Germany, the Arab world, and among Jews and Armenians, blood kinship was given. Just by the 19th century. Russians were a single nation with a single national language and culture, they were united by one church and power, but at the same time they were heterogeneous in the tribal sense. At that time there was no unified Germany, but there were many sovereign German states; some Germans professed Catholicism, and some Lutheranism; Most Germans spoke languages ​​and dialects that were very different from each other, just as the culture of these states was different. What should be taken as the basis for the consolidation of an ethnic group? Language, faith, patriotism? But the faith is different, and the Germans still had to create a single country and a single language. The situation was also the same (for some worse, for some better) among Arabs, Armenians and Jews. How can they survive in these conditions, on what basis do they consider themselves Germans, Jews, etc.? Based on the “blood myth” - i.e. on the awareness of a real (as among Jews and Armenians) or imaginary (as among Germans and Arabs) community of national origin and the relatedness of the members of this community to each other.

It was not for nothing that I wrote “the blood myth”, because... I am inclined to consider “kinship by blood”, “voice of blood” to be primarily psychological moments.

Most normal people extremely value family feelings: mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren, grandparents, uncles and aunts are usually considered the people closest to a person. Is it because a purely biological gene unites them? Often external similarity as a result of heredity actually cements kinship. However, I am sure that this is not the main thing. A mother can love her child because she “carried and gave birth to him, did not sleep at night, rocking her child to sleep, raised him, fed him, cherished him,” but at the same time not even suspect that... her natural son in the maternity hospital was mistakenly confused with that , whom she considers her son (as you know, this happens).

Does this change anything? If all parties remain in the dark, absolutely nothing; If the forgery is discovered, probably yes. So, this means that the myth is still important. Often children do not want to know anything about their natural parents, but they dote on their adopted parents, perceiving them as the dearest of their family. So it's a myth again.

Myth doesn't mean bad. Not at all. People are endowed biological need in procreation and the mental health that follows from it - in related feelings. For a person, on the one hand, is afraid of loneliness, on the other, needs solitude. The best option is to have a circle of close people: relatives, friends, among whom a person feels loved and protected. After all, it is known that a person’s relatives can also be persons who are genetically completely foreign to him (father-in-law, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc.), psychologically related, based on the “myth of kinship.” Engels argued that the idea of ​​consanguinity developed from relationships around private property and its inheritance. Whether this is true or not, it is obvious that in addition to the biological aspect, the psychological aspect plays a significant role here.

In most cases, the voice of the blood of the people is not a biological substance, derived from chromosomes, but a mental substance, derived from the need for rootedness and sometimes from love for immediate ancestors. Italian Fascist leader, saying that “race is a feeling, not a reality; 95% of feeling,” meant, of course, precisely the “voice of blood.” Apparently, O. Spengler had the same thing in mind when he argued that man has a race and does not belong to it.

Nevertheless, consanguinity serves as one of the essential elements of ethnic identification: when it is the most important and when it is secondary. “Blood” is extremely important for ethnic groups that are weakened culturally and politically. Then the ethnos grabs onto tribal identification, endogamy (tribal nationalism in the sphere of marital and sexual relations), which allows it to preserve a sense of ethnos, the remnants of national culture and tribal solidarity.

With the revival of this ethnos as a nation, consanguinity can either fade into the background, as we see among modern Germans, or remain one of the main elements of ethnicity, along with language, as among Georgians. In the first case, with a reasonable migration and national policy, effective assimilation of foreigners is possible, in the second, the ethnic group strictly protects its borders, cementing the spiritual community of its members through blood kinship. After all, among other things, national origin gives a person a compelling reason to connect with fate, the roots of the people, the opportunity to say: “my ancestors did this and that; our ancestors with sweat and blood...” Nevertheless, in this case, at the level of the psyche of the person himself, there will, as a rule, be more sincerity in the spoken words (for every rule there is an exception) than in similar statements of an assimilating foreigner who is not connected with the people by family roots. Therefore, the community of national origin cements the unity of the destiny of the people, the connection of its generations.

Probably because of this, the Libyan pan-Arabist M. Gaddafi wrote in his “Green Book”: “... historical basis The formation of any nation remains a community of origin and a community of destiny...” The leader of the Jammaheria clearly did not mean genes, but the fact that a common destiny follows from a common origin, for in other chapters of his work he pointed out that “over time, the differences between members of the tribe related by blood and those who joined the tribe, disappear, and the tribe becomes a single social and ethnic entity.” But it is still worth emphasizing that by joining we do not mean any integration of an individual into a community, but only one based on marriage with its representatives.

The fact of origin, as is known, is fixed by the surname and patronymic - each nation has its own way. For example, among Jews, consanguinity is determined by the maternal line (although in Russia they also use the paternal line) - i.e. A Jew by blood is considered to be someone born from a Jewish mother. For most Eurasian peoples, including Russians, consanguinity is determined through the paternal line. True, since ancient Rome There was an exception: if the paternity of the child is uncertain or the child is illegitimate, he follows the status of the mother.

Let me make a reservation once again: although, as a rule, in established communities, ethnic origin serves as the basis for belonging to a people, it in itself, in isolation from self-awareness, psyche and culture, cannot clearly be considered an element that determines nationality. “Blood” has meaning insofar as it manifests itself, leads to the awakening of the “voice of blood” - i.e. national identity. But this same self-awareness can sometimes develop apart from it, on the basis of cultural identity, spirituality, derived from the environment. True, origin predetermines the environment - family, circle of relatives and friends, but not always. Pushkin said about the poet of German origin Fonvizin that he was a “Russian of the Per-Russians,” history (not only Russian) knows many cases of natural assimilation of foreigners, but also knows that the requirements for such assimilation were appropriate - to break spiritual ties with their natural ethnic environment and to be “Russians from pere-Russians” (Germans from pere-Germans, Jews from pere-Jews, etc.) in spirit and self-awareness.

Let's summarize some results. Ethnicity (nationality, people) is a natural community of like-minded people with a common culture, language, and similar mental make-up, united into a single whole by the ethnic self-awareness of its members. This community in spirit follows from: community of origin (real or imaginary), unity of environment (territorial or diaspora) and, partly, the factor of race.

A people as an ethnic community becomes a nation - an ethno-political community, when its members become aware of the historical unity of their destiny, responsibility for it and the unity of national interests. A nation is unthinkable without nationalism - the politically active activity of the people to protect and defend their interests. Therefore, a nation is characterized by the presence of a state, national autonomy, a diaspora or a national political movement, in a word, a political structure of self-organization of the people. In relation to Russians... The Russian people originated in the 11th-12th centuries. and since then he has come a long way towards finding his own identity. During this journey, the literary Russian language and a full-fledged, great Russian national culture were formed. Also through breeding symbiosis Eastern Slavs and the Finno-Ugric peoples, as well as contacts with the Baltic and Altai-Ural ethnic groups, the Russian race and the Russian mental makeup were formed in general terms: temperament, character and mentality. All this happened and continues to happen on the territory of the Russian ethnic area called “Russia”, where, in addition to the Russians, many other ethnic groups live, one way or another interacting with the sovereign people.

Based on this and all of the above, in the author’s opinion, the following person can be considered ethnic Russian:

1) Speaking and thinking in Russian.

2) Russian in culture.

3) Russian by blood or subjected to assimilation due to birth and long-term residence (most of his life) on the territory of Russia as its citizen, consanguinity with Russians, etc.