Modern Russian identity. Russian people and national identity

The concept of "civil identity" has recently entered the pedagogical lexicon. It was widely talked about in connection with the discussion and adoption of federal state educational standards, among the main priorities that set the task for the school formation of the foundations of civic identity of students .

In order to successfully work on the formation of civic identity and to build pedagogical activity accordingly, both at the individual level, it is necessary to clearly understand what is behind this concept.

The concept of "identity" came to pedagogy from the psychology of personality development.

Identity – this property of the human psyche in a concentrated form to express for him how he imagines his belonging to a particular group or community.

Each individual seeks himself simultaneously in different dimensions - gender, professional, national, religious, political, etc. Self-identification occurs both through self-knowledge and through comparison with one or another person, as the embodiment of the properties inherent in a particular group or community. "PIdentification is understood as the integration of a person and society, their ability to realize their self-identity in response to the question: who am I?

At the level of introspection and self-knowledge, identity is defined as an idea of ​​oneself as some relatively unchanging given, a person of one or another physical appearance, temperament, inclinations, who has a past that belongs to him and aspires to the future.

At the level of self-relationship with representatives of the surrounding social environment, a person is socialized. So, we can talk about the formation of a professional, ethnic, national, religious identity of a person.

The identity functions are, first, self-realization and self-actualization individuals in socially significant and socially valued activities; Secondly - protective function, associated with the realization of the need to belong to a group. The feeling of "We", which unites a person with a community, allows you to overcome fear and anxiety and provides confidence and stability of the individual in changing social conditions. .

The structure of any kind of social identity includes several components:

· cognitive (knowledge of belonging to a given social community);

· value-semantic (positive, negative or ambivalent (indifferent) attitude towards belonging);

· emotional (acceptance or non-acceptance of one's belonging);

· active (realization of one's ideas about belonging to a given community in socially significant actions).

The achievement of self-identity, as well as the development of personality, takes place throughout life. Throughout life, a person in search of himself goes through crises of transition from one stage of the psychosocial development of the personality to another, contacting different personalities and feeling belonging to different groups.

The founder of the theory of identity, the American psychologist E. Erickson, believed that if these crises are successfully overcome, then they end with the formation of certain personal qualities that together make up one or another type of personality. Unsuccessful resolution of the crisis leads to the fact that a person carries with him the contradiction of the previous stage of development to a new one, which entails the need to resolve the contradictions inherent not only in this stage, but also in the previous one. As a result, this leads to personality disharmony, when a person's conscious aspirations are in opposition to his desires and feelings.

In this way, identity problem can be understood as choice in the process of establishing one's belonging to a particular group or other human community. At the same time, a person identifies himself in this connection with another person as an adequate representative of “significant others”, which puts the researcher before the task of identifying such “significant others” and establishing their role in the process of a person’s formation of his identity.

Civic identity - one of the components of the social identity of the individual. Along with civic identity, in the process of becoming a person, other types of social identity are formed - gender, age, ethnic, religious, professional, political, etc.

Civic identity acts as awareness of belonging to a community of citizens of a particular state, which has a significant meaning for an individual, and is based on the sign of a civil community that characterizes it as a collective subject.

An analysis of the scientific literature, however, shows that scientists do not have a single point of view regarding the understanding of this phenomenon. Depending on how the problem of civic identity is inscribed in the circle of scientific interests of researchers, various aspects of its study are chosen as decisive:

a) civic identity is determined, as a realization of the basic needs of the individual in belonging to a group(T.V. Vodolazhskaya);

b) civic identity is assessed as a politically oriented category, the content of which highlights the political and legal competence of the individual, political activity, civic participation, a sense of civic community(I.V. Konoda);

c) civic identity is comprehended as an awareness of a person's belonging to a community of citizens of a particular state, meaningful to him(in this vein, civic identity is understood, in particular, by the developers of the GEF);

d) civic identity appears as the identity of a person to the status of a citizen, as an assessment of one's civil status, readiness and ability to fulfill obligations associated with citizenship, to enjoy the rights, take an active part in the life of the state (M.A. Yushin).

Summarizing these formulations, we can define civic identity as a consciousness of belonging to a community of citizens of a particular state, having a significant meaning for an individual, as a phenomenon of supra-individual consciousness, a sign (quality) of a civil community that characterizes it as a collective subject. These two definitions are not mutually exclusive, but focus on various aspects of civic identity: from the side of the individual and from the side of the community.

The problem of civic identity, especially taking into account its ethnic and confessional components, has been relatively recently raised in Russian science. Among Russian specialists, one of the first to develop it was a well-known ethnologist V. A. Tishkov . In the 1990s, Tishkov put forward and substantiated in his articles the idea of ​​an all-Russian civil nation. According to Tishkov, a person should have one civic consciousness, while ethnic self-identification can be different, including double, triple or none at all. Anddea civic nation, negatively perceived at first,gradually won broad rights both in the scientific community and in the public consciousness of Russia. In fact, it formed the basis of the modern policy of the Russian state in the national question, and, among other things, was reflected in the Concept of Spiritual and Moral Development and Education of the Personality of a Russian Citizen, one of the developers of which, along with A.Ya. Danilyuk and A.M. Kondakov, became V.A. Tishkov.

Modern ideologists of civic identity proceed from the fact that a person's belonging to a nation is determined on the basis of a voluntary personal choice and is identified with citizenship. People are united by their equal political status as citizens, equallegal status before the law , personal desire to participate in the political life of the nation, commitment to common political values ​​and a common civic culture. It is essential that a nation be made up of people who want to live next to each other on a common territory. At the same time, confessional, ethno-cultural, linguistic features remain, as it were, on the sidelines.

The idea of ​​a civil nation makes it possible to achieve consolidation while maintaining the national identity of ethnic groups. This practice allows the state, if not to prevent inter-ethnic and inter-confessional conflicts, then to remain above them, to play the role of an arbitrator.

Civil identity is the basis of group self-consciousness, integrates the population of the country and is the key to the stability of the state.

The formation of civic identity is determined not only by the fact of civic affiliation, but by the attitude and experience with which this affiliation is associated. Civic identity is closely related to the need to establish ties with other people and includes not only an individual's awareness of his belonging to a civic community, but also perception of the significance of this community, an idea of ​​the principles and foundations of this association, the adoption of a behavioral model of a citizen, awareness of the goals and motives of activity, an idea of ​​the nature of the relationship of citizens among themselves.

Among the factors of formation and maintenance of the collective subjectivity of the civil community, the most significant are:

1) a common historical past (common fate), rooting and legitimizing the existence of a given community, reproduced in myths, legends and symbols;

2) self-name of the civil community;

3) a common language, which is a means of communication and a condition for the development of shared meanings and values;

4) common culture (political, legal, economic), built on a certain experience of living together, fixing the basic principles of relationships within the community and its institutional structure;

5) the experience by this community of joint emotional states, especially those associated with real political actions.

Civil identity as a result of self-awareness of a civil community determines the interconnectedness and interdependence of its members, as well as its ability to show various forms of joint activity.

The process of self-awareness of the civil community is regulated by two tendencies. The first is the differentiation and isolation of the civil community, as a homogeneous community, from the “others” that are not included in it, the drawing of certain boundaries. The second is integration based on intra-group commonality on significant grounds, such as similarities in lifestyle, traditions, values, and worldview, supported by a shared historical past, present, and anticipated future.

The means of ensuring integration and experiencing a sense of belonging is symbol system. The presence of "own" symbols provides universal means of communication within a given community, becoming an identifying factor. The symbol is a materialized verbal event or subject carrier of the idea of ​​unity, integrity, reflects values ​​and images that are significant for the community, and provides motivation for cooperation.

The symbolic space of civil community includes:

· official state symbols,

· figures of historical (national) heroes,

· significant historical and contemporary events, fixing the stages of development of the community,

· everyday or natural symbols reflecting the features of the life of the community.

The image of the Motherland, which concentrates and generalizes everything connected with the life of a civil community, is a key integrating symbol of civil identity. It includes both the objective characteristics of the life of the community, such as the territory, economic, political and social structure, the people living in this territory with their own culture and language, and the subjective attitude towards them. The image of the Motherland does not always include all the selected components: rather, it reflects the most significant of them, allowing you to capture the meanings that integrate the commonality, the degree of their significance in the overall symbolic and semantic space.

The concept of civic identity is associated with such concepts as citizenship, citizenship, patriotism.

Citizenship as a legal and political concept means the political and legal belonging of a person to a particular state. A citizen is a person legally belonging to a particular state. A citizen has a certain legal capacity, endowed with rights, freedoms and burdened with duties. According to their legal status, citizens of a particular state differ from foreign citizens and stateless persons located on the territory of this state. In particular, only a citizen has political rights and freedoms. Therefore, a citizen is one who is ready to share responsibility for the country .

Ideas about citizenship at the level of everyday consciousness include:

· image of a state occupying a certain territory,

· the leading type of social relations in a given state,

· value system,

· the people (or peoples) inhabiting this territory, with their own culture, language and traditions.

citizenship is spiritual and moral concept. The criterion of citizenship is a holistic attitude of a person to the social and natural world, the ability to establish a balance of individual and public interests.

We can distinguish the main qualities that make up citizenship:

Patriotism,

law abiding,

Trust in government

Responsibility for actions

conscientiousness,

Discipline,

self-esteem,

inner freedom,

Respect for fellow citizens

Social responsibility,

active citizenship,

Harmonious combination of patriotic, national, international feelings and etc.

These qualities should be considered as a significant result of the educational process.

Patriotism (from the Greek patriótes - compatriot, patrís - homeland, fatherland), according to the definition of V. Dahl - "love for the motherland." "Patriot" - "lover of the fatherland, zealot for its good, fatherland lover, patriot or fatherlander."

Patriotism - a sense of commitment to the civic community, recognition of its significant value. Patriotic consciousness is a reflection by the subject of the significance of his Fatherland and readiness to take the necessary actions to protect his national interests.

Speaking about the process of formation of civic identity, it should be noted its close connection with the formation civic competence .

Civic competence means a set of abilities that enable an individual to actively, responsibly and effectively implement a set of civil rights and obligations in a democratic society.

The following spheres of manifestation of civic competence are determined:

Competence in cognitive activity (independent search and receipt of social information from various sources, the ability to analyze and critically comprehend it);

Competence in the field of socio-political and legal activities (implementation of the rights and obligations of a citizen, performance of the functions of a citizen in interaction with other people and authorities);

Moral competence - personal perfection of a person as a set of moral and ethical knowledge and skills to determine and evaluate their behavior based on moral norms and ethical concepts that correspond to humanistic and democratic values;

Competence in the socio-economic sphere (compatibility, suitability of personal qualities for a future profession, orientation to the labor market, knowledge of labor and collective ethics).

Integral components of civic identity are legal consciousness and social notions of justice.

Fedotova N.N. Tolerance as an ideological and instrumental value // Philosophical Sciences. 2004. - No. 4. - p.14

Baklushinsky S.A. Development of ideas about the concept of social identity// Ethnos. Identity. Education: works on the sociology of education / Ed.V.S. Sobkin. M. - 1998

Flake-Hobson K., Robinson B.E., Skin P. Development of the child and his relationships with others. M., 1993.25, p.43.

Erickson E. Identity: youth and crisis. M. - 1996 - S. 51 - 52

Tishkov V.A. Essays on the theory and politics of ethnicity in Russia. Moscow: Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS, 1997

V. Dahl. Dictionary.

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

What is ethnos, people? What is a nation? What is their value? Who are the Russians, and who should be considered Russian? On the basis of what can a person be considered as belonging to this or that ethnic group, this or that nation?

Many activists of the Russian national movement know from personal experience of their propaganda and agitation work that a significant number of their listeners and potential supporters, perceiving the generally reasonable ideological attitudes of the nationalists, ask similar questions. This happens especially often among students, intellectuals, among residents of large Russian cities. 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 of its multinationality, because of which the national (in the ethnic sense) ambitions of Russians must inevitably lead to the disintegration of the country and to civil war, following the example of Yugoslavia and some republics of the former USSR. At the same time, gentlemen internationalists brush aside, and sometimes they simply do not want to notice the fact that historically Russia has 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,” our opponents answer, from specific separatists to liberals, from communists to some “statist patriots”. Such a Jesuit blow to Russian self-consciousness during the presidential election campaign was also attempted by “our” bankers with President Nazarbayev, who declared that 40% of Russian citizens are children from mixed marriages.

Unfortunately, many, many Russians, especially those who do not have an “impeccable” pedigree or have relatives, friends with “not quite Russian genealogy”, tend to succumb to this blatantly illiterate demagogy stemming from the lack of elementary knowledge about the essence nation and people. Cosmopolitans often say that “all nations have mixed up”, that nationalism is an animal ideology (remember Okudzhava), which divides people according to the structure of 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, besides fear and disgust, can the average Russian (and even more so non-Russian!) citizen feel towards nationalism, having accepted these arguments? But here a very simple substitution of the concept of “nation” for the concept of “biological population”, the concept of “nationalism” for 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 restriction of its settlement to the territory of Central Russia, as well as the need to automatically recognize the aggressiveness of any attempts to create Russia as a national Russian state.

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

Initially, man was created as a creature living “not by bread alone”, but, and above all, by the spirit. The Creator prepared from above for each his 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 leveling 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 a motley and diverse nature, God created mankind in the same way, in which he created many peoples - each with its own culture, psyche, spirit. Created for the development of man, 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 destiny, whose members have similar character traits necessary for organizing life in certain natural conditions.

The natural community - ethnos - is united by spiritual kinship (cultural and psychic) ​​and soldered by ethnic solidarity into a single organism. This is how peoples are formed - conciliar personalities, vessels of the spirit from the Spirit. Just as each person is unique, so is the nation, which has its own destiny, its own soul, its own path.

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

“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 ingenious is 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 to the sacred fires of life; for these wells and fires are always national: they contain and live whole centuries of national labor, suffering, struggle, contemplation, prayer and thought. For the Romans, exile was denoted by the words: "prohibition of water and fire." 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, an impersonal internationalist.”

This is what the people are 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-consciousness, which are inherent in the features of the Russian character and mentality, and who are united by the common historical fate of the past, present and future generations of Russian people. So, gentlemen, ethno-nihilists, for us, who consider nationality 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 their own, native, those who cannot imagine their nature without all this, are Russians.

With regard to the alleged diversity of the Russian people, I would like to recall that almost all peoples were formed by a mixture of different bloodlines and tribes, and in the future, depending on historical conditions, some to a greater, others to a lesser extent were subjected to racial miscegenation. Konstantin Leontiev argued that "all the great nations are of very mixed blood."

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

Why not patriotism, namely 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. This was the case in Kievan Rus, in the Muscovite State. But now the situation is somewhat different.

Yes, we are patriots, we love Russia. However, Russia is a country where Russians, although they make up 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 his own self, his own true and imaginary interests, most of them defend these interests, moreover, consistently and openly. Therefore, bare patriotism as the idea of ​​fellow citizenship without linking to 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 period have convincingly proved this. The facts are well known. This means that without nationalism, without consolidation on an ethnic basis, there will either be no place for Russians in Russia at all, or they will remain, but by no means the kind that befits the people who created the Russian State with their sweat and blood. And without the Russians, there will be no strong, united, independent Russia. Therefore, we are precisely nationalists, Russian nationalists and Russian patriots. We are for the solidarity of Russians.

It is clear that the people are a natural cultural and historical unit. But what is it based on? How is nationality formed, by what criteria is it determined? What predetermined participation in the spirit of the people and its fate? 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?

In the issue of ethnic identity, it is conditionally possible to distinguish approaches: anthropological, sociological, cultural and psychological.

Anthropological (racial) approach or anthropological materialism is that a person's nationality is genetically predetermined. At the same time, by the way, the majority of “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: “Nationhood, or, to put it better, race, is determined not by a common language, but by a common blood. The degree of blood purity alone determines the true strength or weakness of people ... Insufficient homogeneity of blood inevitably leads to insufficient unity of the whole 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 sphere of racial life.”

Recently, the anthropological approach has become dominant among the Russian “extreme right”. Their position was expressed by V. Demin in the Zemshchina newspaper No. 101: “They say that purity of blood is not the most important thing, but the main thing is faith that will save everyone. Undoubtedly, our faith, 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 the ancestors, the memory of glory and the greatness of our family. What is blood memory? How to explain it? Can it be destroyed? While maintaining the purity of the blood, it is impossible to destroy what is in it. It contains our culture, and our faith, and our heroic freedom-loving character, and our love, and our anger. That's what blood is! That is why, until it becomes cloudy, until it dissolves in other blood, does not mix with foreign blood, memory is preserved, which means there is hope to remember everything, and again become a great and mighty people of the earth.

In addition to the “extreme right”, whose opinion is very rarely scientifically substantiated, such well-known theorists and figures as Nikolai Lysenko and Anatoly Ivanov are adherents of the anthropological approach. In his article “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 warehouse. Every language is a different way of thinking. These components make up the 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 still not Hitler, but the famous French social psychologist and biologist G. Lebon. He wrote: “Psychological features are reproduced by heredity with correctness and constancy. This aggregate constitutes what is justifiably called national character. Their totality forms the middle type, which makes it possible to define the people. A thousand Frenchmen, a thousand Englishmen, a thousand Chinese taken at random, of course, must be different 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) - a product of the human nervous system - is inherited genetically. Therefore, nationality directly depends on race.

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

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

The pride and son of the Russian people, A.S. Pushkin, as you know, did not have a primordially 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 because of this?

And another wonderful Russian poet - Zhukovsky, whose not typical Russian appearance is explained by maternal Turkish blood? Or a 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 highlanders of the North Caucasus, who for centuries have been living apart from the passions of continental Europe, through which a great many ethnic forms have passed over two millennia, can still somehow speak about it. About Russia, the conversation is generally special. Ethnographers and anthropologists have not yet come to a common conclusion about who the Russians are - Slavs, Celts, Finno-Ugric peoples, 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 the descendants of not only the ancient Germans, but also dozens of Slavic tribes assimilated by them - Abodrites, Lutiches, Lipons, Hevels, Prussians, Ukrovs, Pomeranians, Sorbs and many others. And the British 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, are today actively involved in English ethnogenesis. So, racial miscegenation (with racially and culturally compatible peoples) of a formed ethnic group within 5-15% of the total number of marriages within a given population does not harm it at all, provided that there is a strong national identity.

Anthropologists know that sometimes from a mixed marriage, for example, a Turk with a predominance of maternal Slavic traits can be born and grow up. Does that make him stop being a Turk? This is with regard to external anthropological features. But also inherited: temperament, individual character traits (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 that each nation is also characterized by the predominance of one type. We say "temperamental Italians" and we mean that most Italians have a choleric temperament. In relation to representatives of the small northern race, we use the expression "Nordic seasoned", implying the phlegmatic temperament characteristic of most Swedes, Norwegians, etc. Russian temperament, in my opinion, is a mixture of sanguine and melancholic. (I emphasize once again: all this does not mean at all that there are no phlegmatic Italians, choleric Swedes or Russians.)

As for the national character, probably no one has any doubts that it exists. Rational, hardworking and conceited Germans, proud and militant Chechens, patient and hardy Chinese, cunning and prudent Jews. You 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 one must somehow adapt, each ethnic group developed its own character and mentality. Honesty and deceit, frankness and hypocrisy, industriousness 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 nation, 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 dares to assert that all this is predetermined by the genes, that the human will is powerless under the influence of upbringing, environment and through self-development to overcome bad heredity, or create a scoundrel contrary to a quality breed?

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

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

If the spirit always depends on the 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, one can forbid mentioning all of them, as Hitler banned the works of H. Heine - one of the best German lyrical and patriotic poets - for his non-Aryan origin. But it seems that it would be easier 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, partly a national character is an essential element of ethnic identity, to a large extent also derived from the environment, these are talents and abilities that, 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 makeup. Language, historical memory, cultural identity, national mentality and self-consciousness do not depend on chromosomes. This means that, in total, the factor of race does not play a decisive role in determining nationality. That is why the racist approach to the definition of nationality should be regarded as untenable.

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

Eurasianism (the author is not a follower of this doctrine - V.S.), which rejects economic materialism, sees no reason to accept anthropological materialism, philosophically still much less justified than economic. In questions of culture, which is 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 vast majority of Russians are connected by a common national origin, one should not forget that during the years of Soviet internationalism the Russian race (especially the Russian intelligentsia and residents of large cities) underwent intensive 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 grandparents.

By the way, these figures are not mathematically accurate either - statistics are subjective. But in any case, the percentage of tribally mixed Russians is higher than the average among the Russian intelligentsia - this multimillion-strong layer of mental workers - the backbone of the coming 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 a full-fledged Russian nationalism.

The sociological approach is almost the complete opposite of the anthropological one; it arose in France as a result of the activities of the enlighteners and the realities of the bourgeois revolution. The idea of ​​the 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 a fellow-citizenship - a community of people united by a common political fate 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. Shared memory of what was passed together. General achievements. General suffering. General guilt.

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

Third. A firm will to have a common future, common goals, common dreams and visions.”

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

Thus, national identity is determined through citizenship and patriotism. The well-known modern Russian artist I. Glazunov, who claims that “a Russian is the one who loves Russia”, is of the same opinion.

It is difficult to object to this approach in essence. Indeed, it is the common destiny, self-consciousness, responsibility that make a nation out of a people. Without this, as B. Mussolini said, there is no nation, but there are "only human crowds, accessible to any decomposition that history can subject them to." But still, the nation, as a predominantly political community, is born from the people (ethnos). And it is the ethno-political nations that demonstrate the greatest cohesion and viability, while purely political nations, consisting of different peoples, are constantly shaken by internal discords: 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! And 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 worldview - such a person, being a statesman of an all-Russian scale, can consistently defend the Russian state interest, but at the same time, in the sphere of interethnic relations within Russia, for sure, secretly or openly, he will proceed from the interests of the Tatar ethnos. We, Russian nationalists, have our own position on this matter.

We have to state that the sociological interpretation of the nation is impeccable in mono-ethnic countries (as well as “non-nationalist” patriotism). In countries with a multi-ethnic composition of the population in isolation from other, ethnic factors, it does not work. Nor does it work in modern France, which is flooded with “the French by the grace of the official stamp” - Arab migrants who perfectly preserve their ethnicity with the help of Islam and cultural autonomy.

The culturological school defines people as a cultural community united by language, culture (both spiritual - religion, literature, songs, etc., and material - life). Under the spirit of the 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 cannot be Russian, which in fact identified Russianness with Orthodoxy. And indeed, for a long time in Russia it was precisely 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 culturologists understand cultural identity in a broad sense: as a culture of spiritual and material, intellectual and grassroots, folk.

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

For any thinking person it is clear as two times that the internal content of the 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 proclaimed this: “For us, the 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. Leontiev said, “to love a tribe for a tribe is a stretch and a lie.” The nationality is distinguished by the presence of a 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 - the essence of one whole called "national culture".

At the level of cultural identity, the archetype “friend or foe” is formed, according to belonging to the language, according to behavioral stereotypes. It is on this basis that we can say about a person that he is “truly Russian”, “a real Frenchman”, “a genuine Pole”.

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

Consider the following example.

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

And if Russian by language, culture, Orthodox by religion, but a Pole or a Latvian by blood (origin) confidently says that he is a Pole or a Latvian. I am almost sure that despite our 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. Of course, without knowledge of the native language, history, culture for real Jews or Armenians, he would be a Jew or a second-class Armenian, but still he would be his own.

Dzhokhar Dudayev almost did not know the Chechen language and culture at all, lived most of his life in Russia, was married to a Russian, but in Ichkeria is perceived as a 100% Chechen. When the Zionist movement began, many of its leaders and activists did not know the Hebrew language, were emancipated Jews, which did not prevent 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 separation, were able to preserve their ethnic group. And while maintaining a sense of ethnicity, there is always an opportunity for the revival of the nation. But how is the ethnos preserved in the event of the loss or degradation of culture?

Let's turn to psychology.

In his work “Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the earth”, L.N. Gumilyov wrote: “There is not a single real sign for determining an ethnos ... Language, origin, customs, material culture, ideology are sometimes defining moments, and sometimes they are not. We can take out only one thing - the recognition by each individual: "We are such and such, and all others are different."

That is, the self-consciousness of the people and its members are the defining moments of ethnic identity. But they are already derived from other factors of identification. It is understandable why in Russia, when determining nationality, priority was given to factors of faith, culture, language, and in Germany, the Arab world, among Jews and Armenians - blood kinship. Just for the 19th century. Russians were a single nation with a single national language and culture, 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 united Germany, but there were many sovereign German states; part of the Germans professed Catholicism, and part of Lutheranism; most Germans spoke languages ​​and dialects 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 ethnos? Language, faith, patriotism? But the faith is different, and the Germans still had to create a single country and a single language. It was also (for some worse, for some better) the situation was with the Arabs, Armenians and Jews. How can they survive in these conditions, on what basis do they consider themselves Germans, Jews, etc.? On the basis of the “myth of blood” - i.e. on the realization of a real (as with Jews and Armenians) or imaginary (as with Germans and Arabs) commonality of national origin and the kinship of members of this community to each other.

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

Most normal people highly value family feelings: mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren, grandparents, uncles and aunts are usually considered the closest people to a person. Is it because the purely biological commonality of the gene unites them? Often, external similarity as a result of heredity really strengthens kinship. However, I'm sure that's not the point. A mother can love her child, because “she carried and gave birth to him, did not sleep at night, lulling the child, raised him, nursed, cherished”, but at the same time not to 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 it change something? If all parties remain in the dark, absolutely nothing; if the forgery is discovered, probably yes. So, it means that the myth is still important. Often children do not even want to know anything about their natural parents, but do not have a soul in foster homes, perceiving them as the closest of relatives. So, again, a myth.

Myth doesn't mean bad. Not at all. People are endowed with a biological need for procreation and a psychic need arising from it - in kindred feelings. For a person, on the one hand, is afraid of loneliness, on the other, he 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 can also be relatives of persons who are genetically completely strangers to him (father-in-law, mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, etc.), psychologically related, on the basis of the “myth of kinship”. Engels argued that the idea of ​​consanguinity developed out of the relationship 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 an important role here.

In most cases, the voice of the people's blood is not biological, derived from chromosomes, but mental, derived from the need for rootedness and sometimes from love for immediate ancestors, substance. Leader of the Italian Fascists, saying that “race is a feeling, not a reality; 95% feeling”, meant, of course, exactly “voice of blood”. The same, apparently, was meant by O. Spengler, who argued that a person has a race, and does not belong to it.

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

With the revival of this ethnic group as a nation, consanguinity can either fade into the background, which we observe among modern Germans, or remain one of the main elements of ethnicity along with the language, like the Georgians. In the first case, with a reasonable migration and national policy, effective assimilation of foreigners is possible, in the second, the ethnos strictly guards its borders, fastening the spiritual community of its members with blood kinship. After all, among other things, national origin gives a person a good reason for joining the 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, sincerity in the words spoken, as a rule (for each rule there is an exception), will be more than in similar statements of an assimilation foreigner who is not connected with the people by ancestral roots. Therefore, the commonality 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”: “... the common origin and common destiny remain the historical basis for the formation of any nation ...”. The leader of the Jammakheriya clearly did not mean genes, but 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 a tribe related by blood and those who joined the tribe, disappear, and the tribe becomes a single social and ethnic entity.” But still it is worth emphasizing that joining does not mean any integration of an individual into a community, but only based on marriage with its representatives.

The fact of origin, as you know, 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 born of a Jewish mother. For most Eurasian peoples, including Russians, consanguinity is determined by the paternal line. True, since the time of ancient Rome there was an exception: with the uncertainty of paternity or the illegitimacy of a child, he follows the status of his mother.

I will 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, apart from self-consciousness, psyche and culture, cannot definitely be considered an element that determines nationality. “Blood” matters insofar as it manifests itself, leads to the awakening of the “voice of blood” - i.e. national identity. But the same self-consciousness can sometimes develop in addition to it, on the basis of cultural identity, spirituality, derived from the environment. True, the origin predetermines the environment - the family, the circle of relatives and friends, but not always. Pushkin spoke about the poet of German origin Fonvizin that he is “a Russian from the trans-Russians”, history (not only Russian) knows many cases of natural assimilation of foreigners, but also knows that the requirements for such assimilants were appropriate - to break spiritual ties with their natural ethnic environment and be “Russians from Pere-Russians” (Germans from Pere-Nemtsev, Jews from Pere-Jews, etc.) in spirit and self-consciousness.

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

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 inconceivable 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, the political structure of the self-organization of the people. As applied to the Russians... The Russian people originated in the 11th-12th centuries. and has since come a long way towards finding its own identity. During this journey, the literary Russian language and a full-fledged, great Russian national culture were formed. Also, through the tribal symbiosis of the Eastern Slavs and Finno-Ugric peoples, as well as contacts with the Baltic and Altaic-Ural ethnic groups, the Russian race and the Russian mental warehouse 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 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 opinion of the author, a 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 a citizen of Russia, blood ties with Russians, etc.

Doing

The process of formation of the Russian identity, the national identity of the citizens of the Russian Federation is the key task of consolidating the multinational Russian people. This is the most important political task aimed at uniting a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional society, which has a long history of formation, development and interaction of its constituent parties. Russian national identity is a higher level of identity. On formal grounds, it is broader than ethnic identity and has a predominantly pronounced political and cultural significance, which should be used to consolidate the multinational Russian people.

But this process itself is far from unambiguous, requiring serious scientific developments and practical actions. A developed concept of understanding the all-Russian identity is needed, which should be based on local (local), ethnic, regional, ethno-confessional, not contradicting the formation of a higher level - the civic identity of Russians. Moreover, it is necessary to develop a specific mechanism for its formation, and here it is important to use the practical experience gained in the regions and the country as a whole.

1. Ethnic diversity of Russians

There are several approaches to the theoretical understanding of the national identity of Russians, and appropriate measures for practical implementation are also proposed. Some researchers believe that achieving a national identity in Russia is possible by overcoming the diversity of different identities that exist in the country, giving them a common meaning associated with the political, economic and cultural integration of the Russian peoples. Others express the idea that it is necessary to ignore the ethno-cultural diversity of the Russian peoples, their historical past and form a national identity according to the American model. This approach involves the formation of identity by imposing from above on the basis of articulated universal human values ​​in their liberal democratic interpretation and implementation.

But Russia is a real multiplicity: ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity, in which each ethnic group has its own history and present. When studying this diversity, a classification, systematization, and hierarchization of identities are assumed. But the core form of the diversity of identities in Russia is ethnic identity with its most important elements: language, religion, moral values, dialects, folklore, territorial attachments, tribal constants, a set of ethnic symbols, etc. All this together determine the self-consciousness of one or another ethnos, the specifics of ethnic identity.

And all this is characteristic of the peoples of Russia, united in a single state on the basis of general constitutional norms that contribute to the formation of a common national identity for all the peoples of the country. The formation of national identity involves the allocation of common aspects for all forms of ethnic identities that hold ethnic groups, cultures, religions, languages ​​together. And then the development of these aspects. Russia is a historically established state, it was not created artificially from among European immigrants, as, for example, the United States. It has a completely different cultural and historical type.

It is a state-civilization that has absorbed and united various ethnic groups and confessions within the framework of the Russian socio-cultural and political space.
Historically, different concepts of comprehending the path of Russia's development, as well as understanding its future, have been formed. The classical concepts that comprehend the existence of the peoples of Russia in the country's social thought are Westernism, Slavophilism and Eurasianism, they combine elements of conservatism, neoconservatism, communitarianism, and democracy.

They reflect various variants of the national idea of ​​Russians, Russian self-identification, national identity.
For modern Russia, which has united various peoples, cultures and confessions in a vast area, from our point of view, the concept of Eurasianism is an adequate model for its development. Its supporters are many intellectuals of Eastern countries, representatives of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Lamaism. The Eurasian essence of Russia is substantiated in sufficient detail by such domestic thinkers as F.N. Dostoevsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, P. Savitsky, L.N. Gumilyov, R.G. Abdulatipov, A.G. Dugini etc.

Today, the role of Russia in the Eurasian integration, the creation of the Eurasian Union is especially emphasized. N. Nazarbayev and A. Lukashenko noted this more than once.
And the President of the State of Kazakhstan, N. Nazarbev, is considered the author of the project for the economic integration of this state, Russia and other CIS states within the Eurasian space, the creation of a common currency and a strong political union.

V.V. Putin writes about the need to reach a higher level of integration of the CIS countries - to the Eurasian Union. We are talking about a model of a powerful supranational association as one of the poles of the modern world, playing the role of an effective "link" between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. In his opinion, “on the basis of the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space, it is necessary to switch to closer coordination of economic and monetary policy, to create a full-fledged economic union”1.

Of course, such an integration policy lays the foundations for
formation of a broader form of identity - Eurasian. And her
formation is a practical task, but as noted above, the theoretical
the basis for it was laid by the Eurasians of the past and present. And modern
integration processes will show how adequate it will be.

2. Hierarchy of identities

Even in antiquity, the civilized Greeks considered everyone who spoke the Greek language a Hellene, and those who did not speak it and adhered to other customs were considered a barbarian. Today, the civilized Western world does not adhere to such a rigid position. But knowledge of European languages, especially English, is still a sign of civilization, focus on modernity, inclusion in an open Western society. At the same time, in many European countries, due to the development of the situation of multiculturalism, excellent conditions have been created for immigrants (“barbarians”) in terms of learning the language of the host country while learning their native languages. In Norwegian cities such as Oslo, Stavanger, Sadnes, Kalsberg, where the author of these lines had to visit, the children of Chechen immigrants study their native language in Norwegian schools. To do this, schools hire teachers of Chechen nationality who find themselves in immigration.

Meanwhile, for Russia, which has become a large country of migrants and immigrants, this experience would be useful, it should be carefully studied and applied. The study of the Russian language and literature, history and culture, the foundations of the Russian state and law is vital for immigrants, because this process, when thoroughly implemented, contributes to the integration of a foreign ethnic, foreign cultural element into the socio-cultural space of the country. The country should pay more attention to this, because the immigration flow to Russia will not decrease. And this is shown by the current political processes taking place in Ukraine, the changing geopolitical contours around the country, the formation of a new Ukrainian mentality and identity.

The need to study the Russian language, national history and culture has increased on a large scale today, which also requires the implementation of appropriate practical measures. This requires a thorough work from improving the quality of teaching the Russian language, history and culture in all schools in the country to the development of original, new textbooks for schoolchildren, teaching aids for teachers with appropriate information support.

At the same time, it is surprising that the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia is reducing the teaching of native languages ​​in some subjects of the country - the republics. Such a language policy is erroneous, it will certainly entail negative consequences up to ethnic indignation and discontent.

So, in the Chechen Republic, for example, fewer hours are allocated for the study of the Chechen language. In the educational standards of schools, hours for studying the history of the region, the republic have been eliminated, the so-called regional component has been gradually eliminated. If this is an experiment, then it is frankly unsuccessful.

The formation of federal districts and the assignment to them of various regions, territories, republics of the country leads to the formation in the public consciousness of people of a regional form of identity. It is possible to build such a hierarchy of identities: local (local), regional and all-Russian.

One can also propose such a bundle: national, subnational and supranational forms of identities. At the same time, it should be taken into account that religion plays an important role in the formation of various types of identities, self-consciousness of a person, a group of people, an ethnic group. Ethnic identity is a combination of different levels of identities, and these levels should be absorbed by the all-Russian identity as an awareness of citizens' belonging to a common state, developed by patriotism.

3. Formation of Russian identity

The formation of Russian identity presupposes the existence and awareness of ethnic, group, and regional forms of identities. This process itself is multilevel and on the basis of these forms, their real consolidation, as we see it, it should be formed. The mechanism of formation of the all-Russian identity involves the movement from local, ethnic, regional forms of identities to the understanding and consolidation of all-Russian values ​​that form the national identity of the country.

The Russian identity is the bonds that hold the peoples, nations of the country in a common orbit, defining the state, geopolitical identification, the destruction of which will inevitably entail the disintegration of the state and the formation of a number of small states with different vectors of political development. Russian identity is associated with the upholding of state integrity, the formation of a national idea, as dominant among other forms of identities.

And for the United States, the problem of the formation of American national identity today is becoming very serious. The well-known American political scientist S. Huntington writes about this in detail in his book “Who are we?”. He claims that Americans are losing awareness of their own identity and that there is a threat to replace it with subnational, binational and transnational forms of identities in his book, he proves the thesis that the United States is gradually turning into a Spanish-speaking country3.

Accounting for the ethnic component in the formation of Russian identity is mandatory, without which it loses its support, roots, history.
The American version of the formation of an identity constructed on the basis of the "melting pot of assimilation" is unacceptable for Russia. For Russia is a completely different ethno-territorial, political, cultural, poly-confessional entity. Religion, in particular, Orthodoxy, Islam, Lamaism, and so on, should play an important role in shaping Russian identity.

On the example of the United States, S. Huntington singled out four main elements of American identity - ethnic, racial, cultural and political - and showed their changing significance4.

In his opinion, “it was the Anglo-Protestant culture of the settlers that had the greatest influence on the formation of American culture, the American way and American identity”5.

Do such forms of identities exist among Russians? I think so, but not as pronounced as it is in American society. Their penetration, awareness is the result of the influence of democratic culture and liberal ideology on Russians. But these values ​​did not take deep roots in Russia, although they covered about 10% of the population. First of all, they include the bearers of the ideas of Bolotnaya Square and all others who are in solidarity with them.

Success in the formation of Russian national identity largely depends on thorough theoretical and practical activities. To do this, it is necessary to identify such values, the development of which would contribute to the unity of the multinational Russian people. At one time, while in immigration, the Russian philosopher I. Ilyin drew attention to this. He claims that the Russian people "created the rule of law for one hundred and sixty different tribes - various and diverse minorities, for centuries showing complacent flexibility and peace-loving accommodatingness ..."6

For him, the idea of ​​the motherland and the feeling of patriotism are inevitable for historical development.
peoples, they have national significance and cultural productivity, in addition, they are sacral, that is, sacred7.

Another profound thought of I. Ilyin: “He who speaks of the motherland understands the spiritual unity of his people”8.

The idea of ​​the motherland, love for it, patriotism are among the core components of the national identity of Russians, as well as any people.
Each nation, being part of a common state, should have broad opportunities for the development of its culture. At one time, the linguist, the founder of the theory of Eurasianism, Nikolai Trubetskoy, drew attention to this. He writes: “In their national culture, each nation must clearly reveal its entire individuality, moreover, in such a way that all elements of this culture are in harmony with each other, being painted in one common national tone”9.

According to N. Trubetskoy, a universal human culture that is the same for everyone is impossible. Explaining his position, he argues: “With a motley variety of national characters and mental types, such a“ universal culture ”would either be reduced to satisfying purely material needs while completely ignoring spiritual needs, or it would impose on all peoples forms of life arising from the national character of some one ethnographic individual.

But such a "universal culture", in his opinion, true happiness
I wouldn't give it to anyone.

4. Artificial construction of ethnicity is the wrong way

The thoughts of N. Trubetskov, from our point of view, turned out to be prophetic to a certain extent, they anticipated the impossibility of creating a cosmopolitan culture, on the basis of which it is possible to build universal human relations, which the Bolsheviks once achieved, today representatives of the liberal-democratic theory, recognizing the possibility of construction of ethnic groups, nations, and in the future, a cosmopolitan community.

Despite the obvious theoretical and practical failures of the liberals, their ideas are preserved and even produced in Russian public thought.
One of the Russian authors, supporters of the construction of ethnic groups, nations on the American model is V.A. Tishkov. In his publications, he suggests “forgetting the nation”, declares some Russian ethnic groups, for example, Chechens as thieves and anti-Semites, reveals the mechanism for constructing Chechens “on the basis of ethnographic rubbish”11, suggests performing a “requiem for ethnic groups”12.

In his next book "The Russian People" V.A. Tishkov makes the no less dubious assertion that “Russia has existed as a nation-state since the time of the late Romanovs, was such during the existence of the USSR, and, without a doubt, is a nation-state in the commonwealth of the united nations, not fundamentally different from other states”13.

Commenting on this statement, one cannot but admit that under the Romanovs, Russia did not exist as a “national state”, nor did it exist under the USSR, representing the “union of socialist republics”, establishing completely different economic and political orders.

It is also doubtful that Russia is a "nation state in the commonwealth of the united nations." And how does this statement correlate with the constitutional statement: “We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation…”?
Isn't Russia as a state different from France, Britain, the USA?
Until now, all well-known domestic historians have unanimously declared the striking differences between the Russian state and Western and Eastern states, now a statement is being proposed about the absence of a fundamental difference between them.

It is unlikely that these ethnological "innovations" bring closer to scientific truth, lead to cognitive positive, give new knowledge, work for ethno-political stability in the country.
In the country, in order to achieve the unity of peoples, the consolidation of nations, it is fundamentally important to overcome the ideological, psychological stereotypes that oppose them. The frank statements addressed to the Caucasians by some Russian men dressed in power cannot be called anything other than a provocation. This refers to the anti-Caucasian position of the governor of the Krasnodar Territory A. Tkachev and State Duma deputy V. Zhirinovsky.

So, in A. Tkachev, the North Caucasians are presented as some kind of aggressors, destroying interethnic unity in the region. And to counteract them, he created a police force of one thousand Cossacks. Their goal is to prevent North Caucasians from entering the Krasnodar Territory, and to squeeze out those who have made their way, although they are Russian citizens14.

Many politicians in the last few years have felt the growth of nationalist sentiment in Russia and are trying to raise their ratings by opposing and pushing peoples together. An inimitable example of such a position in Russia is Vladimir Zhirinovsky. In 1992, when he visited Chechnya and met with Dzhokhar Dudayev, being in a good drunk, he said that there are three men in the world: Saddam Hussein, Dzhokhar Dudayev and he is Zhirinovsky. But when he returned to Moscow, he began to call on the authorities to resolve the "Chechen issue" by force. During the hostilities in 1995, he proposed to resolve the same issue by delivering a nuclear strike on the territory of Chechnya.

In October 2013, in the TV show “Duel”, he suggested that the Russian state enclose the North Caucasus with barbed wire and pass a law limiting the birth rate in Caucasian families. Zhirinovsky stated that the main problem for Russia is Moscow, the North Caucasus, Caucasians, Chechens, plundering Russia. After such statements of his, marches and rallies are held in different cities of Russia with slogans: “Down with Caucasians”, “Migrants are occupiers”, “Stop feeding the Caucasus”, “Caucasians are enemies of Russia”, “Russia is not the Caucasus”, “Russia without chocks, Caucasians and Turks”, etc.

Zhirinovsky heads the opposition party in Russia, so he is free in his statements, but this freedom incites ethnic hatred. Often, the manifestation of such liberties is followed by the murders on the streets of large cities of the country of Caucasians, Asians, foreigners at the hands of fascist elements.

A completely different position on the problems of interethnic relations in V.V. Putin, which is systematically reflected in her article "Russia: the national question". He writes that “we are a multinational society, but a single people”, condemns nationalism, national enmity, hatred for people of a different culture and faith15.

Revealing the history of the formation of a complex and contradictory Russian statehood, the unity of peoples, he emphasizes the presence of common bonds, the values ​​that unite them, highlights the Russian cultural dominant, recognizes the need for a state national policy strategy based on civil patriotism. Based on this, V.V. Putin, declares that "any person living in our country should not forget about his faith and ethnicity"16.

Being a citizen of Russia and being proud of it, recognizing the laws of the state and subordinating national and religious features to them, taking into account these features by Russian laws is the basis of patriotism, Russian national identity.
Multinationality, diversity, as V.V. Putin, historically developed in Russia, this is its advantage and strength. And what is the commonality, the unity of this diversity? And this is deeply expressed in the thoughts of I. Ilyin, cited in the article by V.V. Putin: "Do not eradicate, do not suppress, do not enslave other people's blood, do not strangle a foreign and heterodox life, but give everyone a breath and a great Motherland ...

keep everyone, reconcile everyone, let everyone pray in their own way, work in their own way, and involve the best from everywhere in state and cultural construction.

These remarkable words contain the mechanism for the formation of an all-Russian identity, and their modern understanding allows us to form an appropriate concept. A lot of conditions have been created in the country for the formation of an all-Russian identity, which is associated with the activities of the state for the ethnocultural development of the peoples of the country, while each people works and develops in its own way, within the framework of the general state national strategy, interethnic hostility is overcome, the best representatives of the peoples are involved in the state, cultural , educational, scientific construction.

At the same time, there are flaws in the all-Russian policy of forming national identity: the best representatives of ethnic groups do not always get to the federal level, if they do, then through corruption schemes; there is a clan system, nepotism in the selection and placement of personnel, and so on. These negative social phenomena weaken the process of solid formation of an all-Russian civic identity.

Overcoming them, selecting worthy representatives of Russian ethnic groups for work in various structures of the regional and federal levels, developing civic consciousness will be aimed at consolidating the multinational Russian people and forming an all-Russian national identity.

Conclusion

The problems of the diversity of identities, their coexistence and interaction, the ways of the transition of ethnic identity to a civilian form of identity require a thorough theoretical study, the creation of practical conditions, close monitoring of interethnic relations, and generalization of its results. This work is aimed at coordinating the efforts of theorists and practitioners. For the successful implementation of this most important task of the state, it seems to us that a special institution should be created.

I believe that the time is long overdue for the re-establishment in Russia of the Ministry for National Policy, which would be focused on solving a range of old and new tasks associated with ethno-political, ethno-professional and migration problems that have clearly emerged in the country today. There is no doubt that the events in and around Ukraine may well have a negative impact on interethnic relations in Russia.

1. Putin V.V. A new integration project for Eurasia is a future that
is born today // Izvestia. - 2011. - October 3.
2. Huntington S. Who are we?: Challenges to American national identity. – M.:
2004. - S. 15.
3. Ibid. – S. 32.
4. Ibid. - S. 73.
5. Ibid. - S. 74.
6. Ilyin I.A. Why we believe in Russia: Works. – M.: Eksmo, 2006. – P. 9.
7. Ibid. - S. 284.
8. Ibid. - S. 285.
9. Trubetskoy N. The legacy of Genghis Khan. - M.: Eksmo, 2007. - S. 170.
10. Ibid.
11. Tishkov V.A. Society in Armed Conflict (Ethnography of the Chechen War).
- M.: Nauka, 2001. - S. 193, S. 412-413.
12. See: Tishkov V.A. Requiem for an Ethnos: Studies in the Socio-Cultural
anthropology. – M.: Nauka, 2003.
13. Tishkov V.A. The Russian people: the history and meaning of national identity.
– M.: Nauka, 2013. – P. 7.
14. Akaev V. Strange statement of the governor // http://rukavkaz.ru/articles/
comments/2461/
15. Putin V.V. Russia: the national question // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. - 2013. - 22
January.
16. Ibid.
17. Quote: Ibid.
November 71, 2014 №11

Vainakh, №11, 2014

The destruction of great-power traditions, ideas and myths, and then the Soviet system of values, 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, in all the newly formed states, it became necessary to create a new national identity. This issue was most difficult to resolve in Russia, since it was here that “Soviet” value orientations were introduced deeper 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 the old foundations of life, the displacement of the old value-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 system of values ​​plunged Russian society into a deep value and identification crisis, in which another problem arose - national consolidation. It was no longer possible to solve it within the framework of the old one; it was not 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. The inert policy of the state in the period of the 90s. in the field of social reform and the lack of new value orientations led to an increased interest of citizens in the historical past of the country, people tried to find answers to the burning questions of today in it.

There was an interest in historical literature, 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 broadcasts, historical facts were interpreted in a rather free context, the arguments were not supported by arguments, many of the so-called “facts” were falsifications. Today, it has become obvious to most educated people how much damage such programs have caused to society, first of all, young people, who are hostages of screen culture, have suffered.

On the front of screen culture, “confusion and vacillation” is still observed today, 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, have a destructive effect. impact 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 flows of information that deform historical consciousness and perception of national identity. As a result, the myth of the “ideal” times of the past was firmly entrenched in the minds of Russian citizens. Despite these problems, positive trends have emerged in Russian society in recent years. So, according to sociological surveys in modern Russian society, the mass interest of people in patriotic ideas, slogans, symbols has significantly increased, there is an increase in the patriotic self-identification of Russians.

The problem of national identity today is widely discussed in society. This is due to the fact that in the age of global changes - integration, globalization, transnational migration and global catastrophes - man-made, environmental, people began to rethink their worldview baggage, while wondering about their involvement in the history of the country, the national community and the process of its development. The Russians have a need to revise the 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. It is obvious that in the event that the ideology and cultural and moral values ​​in society are not clearly defined, or do not meet the expectations of the main part of society, there is a gradual change in the structure of the individual's personality itself, a change in value orientations, which ultimately leads to an identification crisis.

The most clear characterization of the identity crisis was given by the outstanding psychologist Eric Erickson, who characterized 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. In a crisis, the individual is more and more detached from social communities - individualized, and the maintenance of identity is carried out through interpersonal communication, in particular, through social networks, which allows you to maintain your "I" and build a dialogue with "We".

The way out of the crisis is possible only if the political and cultural elites reach a balance within their social groups and start implementing new identification projects, the purpose of which is to cause 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 possible only 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 epochs, the balance in this pair was constantly disturbed. The beginning of the dominance of the “I” over the “We” is recognized as the Renaissance, it was at this time that the “I” broke free and left the bonds of the “We”. This was due to several factors - the erasure of class boundaries, increased attention to the individuality of a person in literature and painting, with the expansion of the boundaries of worldview due to scientific and geographical discoveries. Centuries passed, and in developed societies, the “I” became more and more isolated from the “We”, with the intensification of the processes of integration and globalization, it lost its clear outlines and national identity (national-state we-identity). At present, in Russian society, largely due to the policy 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 - the reconstruction of historical monuments, the creation of historical museums in various cities of Russia, there are series of programs dedicated to our history, literature, culture, the Olympics have become a new victory in this direction, now Crimea is being restored before our eyes . Today in Russia, the reassessment of the cultural and historical baggage of the past continues, 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 of Russian history. Such cultural constructs have a serious impact on the formation of national identity. In recent years, young people in Russia have been demonstrating their national identity more and more, while the older generation, on the contrary, is discovering the inertia of Soviet identity.

This fact can be fully explained by the fact that the older generation experienced the shock of the “lost generation” at one time - in the post-perestroika period, many were thrown out of the “ship of modernity”, their knowledge, skills, and skills 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 attitudes. People whose active period of socialization took place during the period of totalitarian political culture, having lost sight of the ideological goals and moral values ​​rigidly set by the political elite, lost their I-We-identification in the new conditions of personal freedom, openness and initiative. 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 the historical and cultural memory formed during the period of totalitarian culture. Despite a certain incompleteness and mythologization, historical and cultural memory is the constant on the basis of which the 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 that form a structure of values ​​that not only determine the actions and actions of people in the present and future, but also 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 a special form of 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 a sense of purposefulness, self-esteem, and participation in the achievements of their country among citizens.

REFERENCES:

1. Bourdieu Pierre. Practical meaning / Per. from fr. / St. Petersburg, Aletheya, 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 III millennium. M.: Oriental literature. 1999.

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

5. Lapkin VV, Pantin VI 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 the value orientations of Russians in the 90s // ProetContra, vol. 4. 1999, no. 2.

7. Pokida A. N. The specificity of the patriotic feelings of Russians // Power. 2010. No. 12.

8. Khjell L., Ziegler D. Theories of personality. 2nd ed. SPb.: Peter, 1997. Erickson E. Identity: youth and crisis / Per. 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.