Possibilities of Russian nationalism for the revival of Russia. The immediate causes of the emergence of modern Russian nationalism Modern nationalism in Russia
Russian nationalism is like electricity. An ordinary resident of Russia does not feel it, does not feel it, does not hear or see it, but uses this enormous power. Here, for example, is Stolypin, who managed to channel this great energy into the channel of successful state development. Here we see the Decembrists who tried to use the power of nationalism to achieve goals that they thought would benefit society.
The main problem of this force, oddly enough, is the lack of good conductors. Despite the enormous potential of electricity, it will not be possible to realize energy without technology. It’s the same with nationalism - there is energy, but not so much with infrastructure.
A seditious assumption: nationalism is used to one degree or another by all political forces in the Russian Federation. Crimea was returned under absolutely nationalist rhetoric. The LDPR is constantly flirting with nationalism, and even the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (what an irony) does not shun it. Well, Vladimir Vladimirovich and Dmitry Anatolyevich are generally (by their own admission) the main nationalists.
Then why is there not a single mainstream nationalist party in the Russian Federation, given such a huge and obvious demand for this force?
Let's try to figure it out.
The first reason: the inertia of Soviet propaganda
An obvious reason, but no less important. The Russian political community (it is not yet possible to call it a nation) clearly has an aversion to the term “nationalism,” associating this concept with Nazism, fascism and other Luciferian Satanism from the main Soviet myth. In principle, there is no need to explain that in fact there is nothing inherently bad or even simply radical in nationalism. There are a great many definitions of nationalism, and often the interpretation depends on the country, time and political preferences of the author.
The academic definition reads: Nationalism is an ideology and policy direction, the fundamental principle of which is the thesis about the value of the nation as the highest form of social unity, its primacy in the state-forming process. As a political movement, nationalism strives to defend the interests of a certain national community in relations with state authorities.
In the field of state propaganda, nationalism still means Hitler: Ukrainian right-wing radicals have replaced the scary skinheads as a horror story about the harm of nationalism.
Here's the first reason: Russian nationalism has so far been very little concerned with its own image, allowing fringe elements with swastikas to shape the face of the movement. Unfortunately, the “Russian March” caused more damage to the image of Russian nationalism than any federal TV channel with stories about skinheads and the murder of Tajik girls.
Second reason: no horns
No matter how brilliant and right your idea is, it makes no sense if society doesn’t know about it. Does Russian nationalism have at least one major media outlet that can influence the minds of the masses? Unfortunately no. For a quarter of a century, nationalism has not acquired a single national media outlet - Sputnik and Pogrom, with all its obvious advantages, are still far from this status. (Thank you - editor's note) The reason is obvious: the aggressive Russian media environment is purposefully destroying any beginnings of a free press.
In short, the population of the Russian Federation simply does not know about any nationalism, and the entire political discourse in the Russian Federation comes down to two equally idiotic polarities: either you are a statist and patriot of Vladimir Putin personally, or an oppositionist of the most caricatured liberal-ethnic kind. This is the degradation of politics, and the primary task of the Russian media is to disrupt this order of things, break through the wall of silence and provide people with access to real information, to the real state of affairs.
Third reason: no support at the top
Among the political elite of the Russian Federation there are simply no people who sympathize with Russian nationalism. The maximum that they can do is to use nationalist rhetoric in their nomenklatura interests. Characters like Dmitry Rogozin tried to create “Kremlin nationalism” by crossing a snake with a hedgehog, but “Motherland” as a project as a whole was a fiasco. Neither the security forces nor the market liberals want to invest in Russian nationalism. For obvious reasons: firstly, everything is fine with them, and secondly, for the most part they are simply not Russian. The same can be said about the business elite.
Here, in principle, there is nothing unexpected - it would be strange to expect that those layers that directly benefit from the current state of affairs and who, thanks to it, came to power and became rich, would suddenly begin to support a change in the status quo, and even with the help of such a dangerous for himself a political instrument, like Russian nationalism. Khodoroshvili, Abramovichidze and Vekselbergenko will not finance Russian nationalists, even if they really want to demolish the regime - because everyone, without additional explanation, understands what will happen to them in the Russian national state.
Fourth reason: mainstream politicians use nationalist rhetoric
Nationalists do not have a monopoly on their rhetoric. If necessary, both main themes of Russian nationalism (migrants and irredentism) can be hijacked by any nomenklatura clown without any difficulty: as already said, before the elections we are all a little bit nationalists - Zhirinovsky, Zyuganov, and even Putin. Thus, one of the most important tasks of nationalist propaganda is to defend its agenda and explain to people how real consistent nationalists differ from Soviet officials who change their colors ten times a day.
Speaking about postulates, one cannot help but mention the narrowness of the latter. Nationalist rhetoric focuses mainly on migrants and foreign policy, which is certainly important, but there are many other issues that require work. Moreover, many of these issues are not within the purview of any other political force - for example, the newly gaining strength in women's issues, ranging from motherhood to feminism. This also includes secularism as a response to the strengthening of clericalism, and opposition to globalism, and a huge number of other relevant topics.
Fifth reason: fragmentation, lack of leaders
Russian nationalists remain the most divided political movement. The Ukrainian crisis consolidated society, but specifically divided Russian nationalists into two irreconcilable camps (Russian nationalists and trans-Ukrainian zygomets - editor's note). Needless to say, even before this, Russian nationalists could not be called a single political force - it was always a disparate conglomerate of small groups, ranging from decent national democrats in suits to skinheads and other fringe groups.
Nationalists need a center of consolidation that can overcome the contradictions of the majority and assemble a single political monolith from many movements. Of course, this will require sacrifices and compromises, but otherwise Russian nationalists will face the same fate as Russian oppositionists, who see the enemy in their colleagues rather than in Putin.
From the point of view of a developed democratic process, the presence of many movements in one ideological camp is good, since competition will allow us to develop an optimal political base. However, in the political realities of modern Russia, such an approach is destructive; Russian nationalists do not want (and, frankly speaking, cannot) present a united front.
Sixth reason: the weakness of democratic institutions in the Russian Federation
Academic political science in the West has long proven the relationship between political nationalism and democracy: simply put, without democratic institutions, civil society and independent branches of government, there can be no nationalism. Nationalism in its essence means the power of the nation, or more precisely, the power of nationally oriented representatives of the people. Without the institution of elections or, for example, a referendum, the nation cannot express its interests, and the government cannot realize them.
The Soviet Union and its legal successor, the Russian Federation, crushed and are crushing any democratic transformations, and no civil society or system of real elections can appear here. Any decisions are made from top to bottom - that’s how the system is built.
Authoritarianism as a political model kills national identity and turns the nation into a mass that serves a group of elites. For an authoritarian state, the highest value is the dictator himself or a group of dictators, while the nation acts only as an element of support for the state system, in which the dictator feels himself to be the master of the situation.
Seventh reason: not all opportunities have been used
It has already been said above that nationalists appeal to a very narrow range of problems and topics that concern society. Moreover, they are not saying anything fundamentally new. Is there at least one federal politician or political force that openly declares the need for illegal migration? Of course not, any party will (to no avail) talk about control and limitation.
The national movement in Russia must use every opportunity, every chance to express itself. Environmental disaster? An immediate appeal to the theme of the native land. Women's theme? Only nationalism can offer true equality. Any problem, any crisis should be used to make a statement.
Another problem is that propaganda essentially covers only large cities, while the provinces remain out of sight. This is a gross political mistake; the experience of foreign right-wingers shows that it is the province that is usually most right-wing. Moreover, the further you are from Moscow, the lower the level of taboo on nationalism. Traditionally oriented towards strong government, residents of the regions do not accept the liberal opposition, but the costs of the Putin regime are most clearly visible in the provinces. Nationalists can act as a third force, untainted by either weakness or corruption.
Eighth reason: lack of historical continuity
Despite the obvious connection with the White movement, with Tsarist Russia of the early 20th century, with the imperial past, in the nationalist camp there are still people who sympathize with the USSR and other political mutants. Some even go so far as to worship mutants from other countries.
Any political propaganda must create the image of a bright, ideal reference point, a specific anchor from the past that sets the tone for the entire movement. For communists, this anchor is the USSR of the 70s; for liberals, this is the ideal picture of the European Union; for nationalists, this anchor should be Imperial Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
This is a profitable, beautiful and still unworn image, it’s not for nothing that Putin’s political strategists resort to it so often (Poklonskaya, opening of the monument to Stolypin). Well, of course, in no case should one rely on the history of a foreign country - this is not only strange, but also gives opponents an excellent opportunity to accuse nationalists of treason.
The ninth reason: misunderstanding of the essence of nationalism
We talk a lot about nationalism, but, frankly speaking, we know so little about this phenomenon that all our assumptions may turn out to be wrong. Russians must understand that nationalism is a reflection of the characteristics of a particular nation in the political sphere, and one cannot simply take and use someone else's experience. Each nationalism is unique, including Russian, with all its contradictions, problems, strengths and weaknesses. And if from an academic point of view nationalism as a phenomenon has been studied quite well, then in empirical terms everything is much worse. The construction of the Russian national state is comparable to a flight into space. Yes, we have approximate expectations and calculations - they may come true, or they may not.
There is only one way out: try.
National and ethnic problems at the present stage of human development are among the most acute and painful, and in this regard, the study of the phenomenon of nationalism in the history of political thought acquires particular relevance.
The intensification of the processes of nationalism is most pronounced among peoples who are at earlier stages of socio-political and economic development. Adaptation to global technogenic civilization is often perceived by them as economic and cultural expansion of more developed neighbors, accompanied by the imposition of an alien way of life on them. A similar situation is developing in today's Russia.
Law and modern states at the turn of the millennium, during the lifetime of one generation, the previously existing value system collapsed and a new one began to emerge, which led to a feeling of insecurity among a huge number of people. The previously clearly demarcated life in society has begun to lose its definition, and a person faces the problem of choosing new guidelines. Therefore, the desire to regain a stable social identity and the psychological comfort associated with it increases, which very often manifests itself in the form of nationalism.
Assessing nationalism from a moral and ethical point of view, most researchers recognize its enormous historical role in the formation of many nations and states. It is indicated that only over the past one and a half to two centuries, thanks to nationalism, France was consolidated, Italy and Germany were united, the political independence of Poland, Finland, and Greece was restored, and the independence of many peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America was won. This also includes the former Soviet republics. It is believed that it was nationalism that destroyed and erased such great world empires as the Austro-Hungarian, British, Ottoman, and Russian from the map of the Earth. We also note that many achievements in literature, art, culture and a number of humanities were largely due to nationalism.
At the same time, it should be noted that nationalism was a powerful weapon in the hands of the dictatorial regimes of Italy and Germany, Spain and Portugal, and in combination and intertwined with fascism and racism, it harmed the development of many peoples of the world.
Hundreds of books have been devoted to the problem of nationalism, the search for its roots and origins, and the revelation of the nature and essence of this phenomenon; however, it cannot be said that its mystery has been fully solved.
In the late 90s of the 20th century - the beginning of the 21st century, nationalism began to clearly manifest itself in the political and social life of Russia. It can be argued that there was an explosion of national intolerance, and nationalism acquired new strength, reflected in nationalist parties. The subject of our research topic is the concept of nationalism, and the object is the prospects for the development of the future of Russia in the conditions of nationalism.
The concept and essence of nationalism
There is no short and comprehensive definition of nationalism, and probably cannot be. Having examined the many existing definitions of this phenomenon, we can point to a number of qualities and characteristics of nationalism, which is a manifestation of respect, love and devotion to the nation, people, ethnic group to which a given person belongs - devotion to self-sacrifice in the present, reverence and admiration for the past and desire for prosperity, fame and success in the future. In this nation, every individual is a part of the whole, and the nation cannot and should not leave its people defenseless both inside and outside its habitat, and vice versa, every individual of this nation must always be ready to sacrifice himself for the sake of his people. Nationalism is often confused with patriotism, but there is a serious difference between them. Nationalism represents boundless love and readiness for self-sacrifice for one’s people, ethnic group, and patriotism represents the same love and readiness for self-sacrifice in the name of the homeland and state.
Nationalism is the spiritual self-awareness of the people, which has a Divine basis; instinct of national self-preservation, faith in the strength of one’s people; the predominance of the interests of one’s ethnic group over all others, leading to the nation’s ability to effectively fight hostile foreign elements. Nationalism represents the highest phase of the development of patriotism, in which the main truth is that the nation is primary, the state is secondary.
Now let's move on to the very essence of nationalism. The idea of a nation inevitably gives rise to specific political actions, which in a systematized form constitute nationalism. In the most general concept, nationalism is a political movement aimed at expressing and protecting the interests of a national community either in the international arena or in relations with state authorities. Moreover, the first of them is the nationalism of the leading, or main state-forming nation, while the second is the nationalism of an ethnic minority.
Objectively, national movements are aimed at using political mechanisms both within the state and in the international arena to increase the level of community of citizens of the same nationality and protect their interests. From the point of view of the political sphere, nationalism works most effectively only when relations within a country require cultural and social cohesion of society or certain segments of its population.
Practical experience has shown us that nationalism is not simply used to recognize the existence of a nation, as well as its special interests, but also claims the superiority of nationally oriented needs over all other hopes and plans of people. A high assessment of national priorities is often intertwined with ideas of independence, which in turn almost constantly gives rise to demands for obtaining a certain part of state sovereignty and its political and administrative consolidation. All this may mean granting the nation a certain autonomy within the state, and even the creation of an independent state entity.
In most cases, the goal of nationalism is to increase the efficiency of the state, to carry out reforms in it that can qualitatively increase the level of cultural and social security of citizens of a particular nationality. Another fairly common goal of national movements is the acquisition by national groups of “national-cultural autonomy,” which guarantees that citizens of a particular nationality will acquire other opportunities to express their identity, expand the rights to special forms of political representation, and legislative initiatives.
Given the high political importance of national movements in modern states, in many cases nationalism is used as a political cover for completely different social forces to gain power. This form of nationalism often becomes a cover or a tool for penetration into the political market of those forces that are not interested in public disclosure and presenting their true goals to public opinion.
Types of nationalism and reasons for its occurrence
Many researchers believe that nationalism is an ideology and policy that actively uses national feelings and emotions for its own purposes. Let's take a closer look at the classification of Snyder and Hayes.
According to Snyder, there are four types of nationalism:
1. Integrating nationalism (1845-1871). During this period, according to Snyder, nationalism was a unifying force that contributed to the consolidation of feudal-fragmented peoples (Italy, Germany).
2. Dividing nationalism (1871-1890). The successes of nationalism in the unification of Italy and Germany stimulated the struggle for national independence of the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and other empires, which ultimately led to their collapse.
3. Aggressive nationalism (1900-1945). The first half of the 20th century witnessed an acute conflict of opposing national interests, which resulted in two world wars. During this period, nationalism becomes identical to imperialism.
4. Modern nationalism (1945 - present). The new nationalism declared itself mainly through anti-colonial revolutions. This period was marked by the spread of nationalism on a global scale1.
Hayes in his classification identifies the following types of nationalism: Jacobin, traditional, liberal, integral and economic.
These two classifications do not explain anything and only serve as confirmation that nationalism is a policy and ideology that uses national feelings to achieve its goals.
Let's consider the most expanded classification of E.A. Pozdnyakova:
1. Ethnic nationalism is the nationalism of an oppressed or enslaved people fighting for their national liberation, it is the nationalism of a people striving to gain their own statehood. It has its own politics and ideology.
2. Power-state nationalism is the nationalism of state-formed peoples (nations) striving to realize their national-state interests in the face of similar nations.
3. Everyday nationalism is a manifestation of nationalistic feelings at the level of the individual and small social groups. It is usually expressed in xenophobia, in a hostile attitude towards foreigners and representatives of other ethnic groups.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that nationalism is nothing more than a combination of ideology and politics in their inextricable unity. If we remove at least one element, then we get a feeling of attachment to our people, as well as devotion to our homeland, that is, ethical categories that in themselves do not have real power. But if we add to them the appropriate ideology and politics, then we get nationalism, capable of creating and destroying states, uniting and dividing people, and, under certain conditions, inciting hostility, conflicts and hatred.
Nationalism has always been perceived ambiguously. In Marxist-Leninist historiography and political science, the nationalism of oppressed nations and the nationalism of the peoples of colonial and dependent countries were singled out as clearly positive. At the same time, bourgeois nationalism, despite its often creative role, was considered a negative phenomenon. As for proletarian, socialist or communist nationalism, it could not exist at all. Only internationalism could coexist with these epithets.
And modern nationalism is perceived in two ways in Russian society. Many condemn it, considering it a destructive ideology, while others actively support it, often in an aggressive form (for example, skinheads).
Nationalist problems at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries in Russia acquired unprecedented severity and relevance. What are the reasons for the spread of nationalist ideology at the end of the 20th century in a country that fought against nationalism, namely, its most extreme and harsh manifestation - fascism. First of all, it is worth noting that Russia is a multinational country, more than one hundred and thirty peoples and nationalities live in it, and national problems have always existed here. But in the 90s of the last century, national and racial conflicts on the territory of Russia, as well as confrontation between individual nationalities, reached a record high. The reasons for this phenomenon are instability in the country and low standard of living, uneven development of regions and increased migration processes, increased conflicts between cultures and ethnic groups, the war in Chechnya, separatism and terrorism.
Nationalism in the context of globalization
In the context of globalization, which occurs against the backdrop of a deep crisis of modern civilization, the problems of nationalism have become most relevant. This phenomenon has caused contradictory consequences. On the one hand, the living conditions of ethnic and national communities are drawing closer together due to integration processes. On the other hand, globalization leads to the loss of their identity by these communities, stimulating nationalism as a response. Thus, globalization and nationalism are two interdependent, often inseparable phenomena of our time. In Russia, the relevance of the problem of nationalism is not only associated with globalization, but also due to many prerequisites laid down during the period of “socialist national construction.” In connection with the collapse of the USSR, the transition of Russian society from the Soviet system to the liberal-democratic one, many of the “time bombs” laid by the founders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics exploded or are ready to explode.
The problem of nationalism
History provides many examples of nationalism. The most striking and close historical example is National Socialism or German Nazism, which was an extreme and cruel manifestation of nationalism. An economy destroyed to the ground, general lack of faith and apathy, mass unemployment - such was Germany, which was defeated in the First World War. Hitler came to power and instilled in the Germans the idea of their superiority over all other peoples. This idea has found many supporters, both in Germany and abroad. National Socialism became the dominant ideology of the Third Reich.
What was the essence of German Nazism? Its ideologists proclaimed the German nation to be the highest value, for the sake of which one could do anything. Jews and Gypsies turned out to be people outside the law and subject to immediate destruction; it was decided to leave the Slavs alive, but only as cheap labor. Hitler was also greatly irritated by blacks and mulattoes.
Nationalism destroyed Germany.
The logical consequence of the National Socialist ideology was an attempt to conquer “living space,” which turned into a grueling war in the East. However, Hitler miscalculated: the combined forces of the Allies defeated the troops of the Third Reich and their allies in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. This is how the Germans were cured of nationalism.
Today we are witnessing a revival of Nazism—neo-Nazism. And not only in defeated Germany or in countries allied with it. This phenomenon also affected the peoples of the former Soviet Union (especially Belarusians, Russians, Ukrainians), who fully experienced the horror of the Nazi invasion. And now not only individual politicians, but also entire organizations proclaim ideas of national exclusivity, skillfully confusing the average citizen, passing off nationalism as patriotism.
In our opinion, today the danger of the emergence of Nazism in our country is small, but the fact that this inhuman political doctrine still exists, and the number of its supporters does not decrease, leads to sad reflections about our future. Namely, will humanity be able to learn the lessons of past events and prevent a repeat of the collapse?
Modern nationalism in Russia
Currently, in Russia there is a noticeable increase in nationalist sentiments, evidence of which is not only the activities of Russian nationalist groups and organizations, but also millions of votes cast for the LDPR, a significant part of which belongs to nationalist-minded voters, as well as the intensification of separatist sentiments in the national republics of the Russian Federation. What is the socio-psychological basis of various manifestations of nationalism?
It is obvious that one of its carriers (perhaps the most widespread) is the lumpen part of society. Marx also saw in the lumpen proletariat - “this scum of all classes” - a layer of people who do not have a firm social position and are therefore unstable and corrupt. Nationalism attracts the lumpen because it gives him a sense of superiority over representatives of all other nations as a result of his mere belonging to a given national community. You don’t need any work, no effort, no talents or merits to consider yourself superior to a Tatar, Armenian, Uzbek or Jew just because I’m Russian. Or consider myself superior to a Russian because I am a Chechen (or a Jew, an Armenian, a Georgian, etc.). Nationalism divides nations.
As one of the factors influencing the processes taking place in society, in the sphere of national relations there is a certain tradition of a nationalistic character, suppressed in the past, but preserved and still feeding and supporting nationalist sentiments in the Russian environment. Indeed, in the USSR, not only the actively cultivated factor of “friendship of peoples” was at work, but also the conditions of hidden tension in interethnic relations and negative perception of people of other nationalities persisted. On the surface of public life, everything seemed to be in harmony with the official ideology of internationalism, but after its shackles were loosened, national problems began to appear already during the period of perestroika.
The collapse of the USSR led to the aggravation and emergence of new problems and contradictions in almost all of its former republics and largely contributed to the growth of nationalism in all parts of the former Union. Having acquired sovereignty, the new states needed ideological justification for their legitimacy, and the ideology of nationalism became the most convenient for this.
As for Russia, it has become like Germany during the Treaty of Versailles. Previously, throughout the world, Russia and Russians were identified primarily with the Soviet Union, but now from a powerful superpower, which was the USSR, it has turned into an economically uncompetitive state dependent on the West. In terms of a number of economic, demographic, and environmental indicators, Russia has moved backward. The death rate has exceeded the birth rate. The existence of Russian science, the only means by which the country can overcome its technological lagging behind the West in the long term, is threatened.
Russia has become a country without a past and a future, its entire recent history has been subject to revision and revision, and the life and activities of entire generations of Soviet people have been crossed out and made meaningless. With the collapse of the USSR, 25 million Russians lost their homeland, finding themselves in states adjacent to Russia, but now foreign ones. In some former republics of the USSR they began to be oppressed and expelled from the country, they began to be discriminated against based on their nationality. The country and people suffered terrible national humiliation. Isn't this the basis for nationalism?! One can only be surprised that his rise was not as powerful as one might have expected.
Nationalism as a political threat
The growth of nationalism poses a huge political threat to Russia, so it is necessary to put barriers in place.
Nationalism became the banner of reactionary political forces in Russia during the wars and revolutions of the early 20th century. The communists came to power under the banner of internationalism and international solidarity of workers and, indeed, they put these slogans into practice. The solution to internal national problems was associated with the building of socialism, with the progress of the economy and culture, i.e. was considered as part of the general process of social development. The class approach dominated.
But already before the war, under the banner of internationalism and under the pretext of fighting local nationalism, the destruction of national personnel began. A stream of repressions swept across all national republics and the Russian people suffered from this no less than others. During the Patriotic War, the place of internationalism was taken by patriotism and statehood. During this period, entire nations were subjected to repression. And a complete departure from the principle of internationalism was marked by the struggle against cosmopolitanism that began in 1948, when the former internationalists overnight became “rootless cosmopolitans.” At the same time, it is hardly possible to declare a transition of the party leadership to nationalism. The difference between patriotism and nationalism was discussed above, and the new policy became an expression of patriotism as the party ideology of statehood.
During the years of stagnation in the field of national relations and in the national question as a whole, as in many other things, there was doublethink, a split between the real life process and its ideological and propaganda clothing. Much was hidden from public opinion, from society’s assessment—moods, real problems, tension, conflict situations. Objective scientific study of the sphere of national relations was prohibited and publicity in this area was not allowed. Officially, the national question was considered resolved and not subject to discussion. All this had a corrupting effect on public consciousness.
Forces, in the early 90s. of the last century, who came to power in Russia on a democratic wave, set as their goal, at all costs, to put an end to the “empire” and free themselves from the power of the “center”, i.e. union leadership. At the same time, they rejected everything positive that was achieved in the relations between nations, in the rapprochement of peoples during the years of Soviet power, and completely ignored the patriotic feelings of the majority of the Soviet people, who voted in a referendum on March 17, 1991 to preserve the Union.
The paradox of history is that Russia, which for many centuries gathered lands around itself and created a powerful state, now, in the person of its supreme power, acted as the main initiator of the collapse of this state, declaring its sovereignty and the priority of its laws over the allied ones. For the Russians, this act was a violation of a long-standing historical tradition. And this very violation and the events that followed it contributed to the growth and strengthening of nationalism in the country. At the same time, by collapsing the Union, Russian “democrats” played into the hands of local separatists, for whom nationalism was the banner of their struggle for power.
A wave of anti-Russian nationalism arose in Ukraine, especially in its western regions. The President of Russia described this situation as follows: “What happened? What happened is that people are tired of poverty, of theft, of the rudeness of the authorities, of their irrepressible greed, of corruption, of the oligarchs who have climbed into power. People are tired of all this. And when society and the country slide into such a state, people begin to look for ways out of this situation and, unfortunately, partially turn to those who, speculating on current difficulties, offer some simple solutions. Among them are nationalists. What, we didn’t have this, perhaps, in the 90s? There wasn’t this “parade of sovereignties”, there wasn’t nationalism that flared up in bright colors then? Yes, it all happened, we went through it all! And this actually happens everywhere. This is what happened in Ukraine. These nationalist elements took advantage of this and brought everything to the state we are seeing now. Therefore, this is not our failure, it is a failure within Ukraine itself.” Nationalism began to spread in the Central Asian and Transcaucasian republics. Local nationalism and separatism also exist in Russia itself.
To overcome global problems and dangers, the combined efforts of all the peoples of the Earth, of all humanity, are required. And these dangers include not only the threat of depletion of non-renewable natural resources, but also much more. The prospect of isolation and national isolation of Russia, which nationalists offer it, will not protect Russia from these dangers, but rather will strengthen them. The current government is aware of this threat and is countering it. “As for radical nationalism, we have always fought against it and will continue to fight,” noted V.V. Putin. “I have repeatedly said that nationalism is a very harmful and destructive phenomenon for the integrity of the Russian state, because it initially developed as a multinational and multi-religious country.”
In the modern world, there are processes of internationalization of social life, caused by the dynamics of the world market, technological progress, the development of science and education, the informatization of society, and the growing mobility of the population. These processes are inevitable and it is pointless to resist them. But they give rise to contradictions, since they collide with traditional national cultures, and are themselves contradictory, since they not only smooth out national differences, but also open up new opportunities for national development.
Modern nationalism tries to slow down the processes of integration and internationalization taking place in society. But the path of nationalism is a dead end; its guidelines do not allow one to find ways to resolve the contradictions that arise here, or to develop principles for the coexistence of different cultures.
Humanity has already grown to understand that the diversity of nations, cultures, languages is its wealth, its heritage, which there is no need to give up. This means that the essence of the national question in its modern form can be formulated in one phrase: how can everyone learn to live together and in peace.
Ways to overcome the problems of nationalism
National contradictions and conflicts will continue to arise, since the relationship and interaction of nations has not only purely ethnic, but also economic, political, cultural and other components. And therefore, national policy and the development of mechanisms for resolving emerging contradictions are of paramount importance to ensure normal interethnic relations.
World experience shows that people of different nationalities can easily get along with each other if one nation does not put itself above others, if the language and culture of each nation can develop freely and no obstacles are put in their way, if people of different nationalities, based on the fact that the limit of my freedom is the freedom of another, they respect each other’s customs and traditions. Another very important point is how the peoples themselves relate to each other, what prevails more in their feelings - a calm and kind attitude towards this or that nation, or enmity, hostility and even hatred. Negative attitudes can flare up quickly but are resolved slowly. Therefore, a consistent policy focused on the peaceful resolution of contradictions and the prevention of national clashes and bloody showdowns is so important. These include democracy, political stability, the development of integration processes in the CIS, the right of a nation to self-determination up to the formation of statehood, the autonomy of nations in matters of culture and language and recognition of national equality. Of great importance is intolerance and the prevention of mutual hostility between nations, negative perception of other customs, traditions, characteristics, etc.
Whatever contradictions arise in the relations between nations, they must take into account each other’s interests. Integrative processes dominate the world, and the era of national wars is becoming a thing of the past. Learning how to continue to live peacefully and together is a big job that affects all aspects of public life: economics, politics, the social sphere, and culture. It is necessary to think through how to make the idea of the national revival of Russia a joint concern of all its peoples, where everyone, in accordance with their capabilities, contributes to the common cause, where the role of the Russian people and their responsibility is decisive, and where the movement forward will take place on the basis of the principles of democracy and patriotism , justice, humanism and mutual respect. Then nationalism will not come to Russia.
The emergence of ethnic conflicts and clashes has become a frequent occurrence in Russia. Nationalism arises at a low standard of living, with strong differentiation of society, and, penetrating into various layers of society, contributes to the emergence of aggressively minded youth and the emergence of political parties with a nationalist orientation.
At present, the immediate threat to democratic freedoms posed by a radical nationalist movement appears to be negligible. At the same time, due to a number of economic and social reasons, there is a possibility of a gradual shift of the current regime towards more radical forms of nationalist ideology. To solve problems associated with ethnic conflicts and xenophobic clashes, the state must choose and consistently implement a balanced policy.
Speech at the seminar “Nationalism in the scenario perspectives of the power-ideological transformation of Russia”, held on October 10, 2014 at the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology.
When analyzing the tasks of counter-liberal value reform in Russia, it is important to decide - what kind of state do we understand as the perfect and desired goal?
There are two possible answers to this question:
a) the state as creating a comfortable environment habitat (i.e. consumption);
In its pure form, civic nationalism involves introducing new citizens to a culture created by representatives of the ethnic core, and for the sake of which, with varying degrees of coercion, it levels and unifies ethnic principles, the accumulated diversity of folk culture and spiritual traditions of many nationalities living in such a nation-state. That is why the process of creating European nation-states was called the “cemetery of peoples.” Therefore, the question is extremely relevant: are there other meanings of Russianness as a state-centric concept, different from the nationalist discourse and its inherent moral flaws?
II. CIVILIZATIONAL DIMENSION OF RUSSIANITY
In the history of Russian statehood, even in the form of the USSR, due to many circumstances, a civil nation in the European sense did not develop. However, nationalism of this kind did not take place in post-Soviet liberal Russia, despite active attempts to implant it as a kind of advanced concept capable of resolving all the problems of domestic national politics.
Many Western nations were formed on the ruins of ancient imperial civilizational spaces that collapsed due to objective reasons. And now they are trying to scale this disintegration to the whole world, declaring it the only linear law of the evolution of statehood, and the nation-state as the pinnacle of this process.
The peculiarity of Russia is that, on the contrary, it was historically formed as a state-civilization. From the very beginning, its origin, Russia was not monoethnic. Russianness as a cultural, state and social phenomenon developed as an alloy and creative synthesis of many mutual influences of East and West, agricultural and nomadic cultures. Russia is a civilization of a special, gathering type - voluntarily uniting hundreds of peoples, represented by all world religions. Which gave rise to its own special civilizational characteristic - Russian culture as the pinnacle heritage of all ethnic groups and peoples living in our civilizational area. Not just living, but also surviving. After all, not a single people, not a single ethnic group disappeared or was destroyed in the Russian state.
Russian culture is “universally responsive”; it is supra-ethnic, but not hostile to the ethnic identity, spiritual and religious traditions of the peoples of Russia. Moreover, it was many people from a variety of nations who contributed to the Russian state and the synthesis of Russian culture.
There were very few civilizations in the world, and even fewer state-civilizations. It is our special historical advantage and responsibility to preserve this “flourishing complexity” of our national culture. The main unique feature of the Russian civilizational area, which does not fit into the Procrustean bed of Western nationalisms (as shown above, ethnic in their essence) is the coincidence of the Russian civilizational with the national. Our Russian national idea and national interests are precisely the Russian civilizational idea and civilizational tasks, and not ethnonationalism. And only in this vein is it possible to talk about the assimilation potential of Russianness - as an introduction to Russian culture.
This is exactly how the great Crimean Tatar educator Gasprinsky or the Kazakh educator Abai called for understanding Russianness when addressing their fellow tribesmen. And thus, the commander Bagration as a Georgian, the artist Levitan as a Jew, or the Dane Dahl became Russian without compromising their ethnicity.
Therefore, civilizational assimilation - which unites and enriches all peoples by joining the universal universe of Russian culture, protecting their identity, way of life and uniqueness - is radically different from assimilation during civil nation-building - when ethnic and religious unification occurs around the dominant ethnic group.
The potential of Russia as a state-civilization is far from being revealed. In many of its peak manifestations of the ancient Kiev period, the Moscow state, the Petrine Empire or the USSR, Russia showed significant achievements, but these are only individual elements, individual potentials of the possibility of a moral state. And the decline, unrest, and collapse of our state were associated precisely with the weakening of civilizational bonds (it’s good that these words have already appeared in the official lexicon).
III. MODERN CHALLENGES
Modern national and interethnic problems characteristic of Russia: cosmopolitanism and denationalization of part of Russian society, or ethnonationalist anomalies are associated precisely with the weakening of our civilizational identity. When, in the liberal-Darwinist frenzy of the 90s, the processes of hasty dismantling of the state were launched, the main blow was directed against Russian culture, which enriched all the peoples of Russia, was their crown, created Russia as a power of hundreds of nationalities - the inevitable result was a plunge into the barbarism of everything our vast space.
And vice versa, the Great Patriotic War is the clearest example of the advantages of the civilizational crystal of our historically established union of peoples, the possibility of solidarity and ultimate victory in the most unprecedentedly extreme conditions.
But, I repeat, without a single pinnacle Russian culture and its spiritual universe common to all of us, our civilizational advantage - multinationality - becomes a factor of hostility, isolation and disintegration instead of unity.
It is characteristic that modern attacks against Russianness, as a civilizational identity, take place, on the one hand, along the line of liberal-cosmopolitan depersonalization, forming certain “citizens of the world”, and on the other hand, by contrasting the ethnicity of our civilizational identity, with all the operetta and mummery of the newly-minted Russian “nationalists” "
This is clearly demonstrated by the modern Ukrainian crisis.
Conflict in Ukraine 2013-14 precisely not national, but civilizational, or rather Russian-civilizational, - between the rebel defenders of Russianness and Russian deserters from their identity - justifying personal betrayal or hypertrophy of ethnicity or European-orientation, or one and the other at the same time. Entire internationals are fighting on both sides - on the side of Novorossiya and ethnic Russians, and the Greeks of Mariupol, and Ukrainians-Little Russians, Jews, Abkhazians and Georgians (able not to quarrel only in civilizational unity) and many, many others - they are taking a blow for their Russian values.
And it is not at all a paradox that the opposite side - the Ukrainian Nazi Maidan - was supported by many Russian nationalists (dreaming of “Russia for the Russians” and “enough to feed ...”) and an ethnic rabble of extemists from all over the post-USSR and Europe. They oppose ethnic nationalism to civilizational one, and that is why they are attracted to Ukrainian localism.
Separately, it should be noted that Russia as a state cannot be distanced from the Ukrainian disaster as some kind of exclusively internal Ukrainian civil war. Ukrainian separatism, masquerading as ethnic regional rights, opposing the particular to the general, is the most serious disease of our Russian civilization, an attempt to destroy and devalue its unique moral and consolidating potential. Now Ukrainians are destroying the origins of Rus' and Russianness - Kyiv is “the mother of Russian cities.” And this cannot be condoned.
Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
The national character is unusually stable, perhaps it even always remains the same, and the most unexpected and incredible fluctuations of fate reveal only its hidden, but always present potentialities; so that from a deep understanding of character one can read his entire destiny.
Using the example of a story from one of the oldest Russian epics, B.P. Vysheslavtsev. touches on the problem of Russian national character. This is a Russian epic created over the centuries, therefore, it is an expression of the original folk spirit.]
The character of a person is not, however, something obvious, obvious; on the contrary, it is something hidden. (This is why it is difficult to understand character and surprises are possible. How often do people say: “I never expected this from you!” Character has its root not in distinct ideas, not in the content of consciousness, but rather in unconscious forces, in the area of the subconscious. There, in this subsoil, earthquakes and explosions are prepared, which cannot be explained if you look at the (word crossed out) external surface (surface exterieure). This is especially applicable to the Russian people. All of Dostoevsky’s heroes amaze. with such antics and outbursts. And the entire Russian people as a whole amazed the world with their revolutionary eruption. It must be said that the region of the subconscious in the soul of the Russian person occupies an exceptional place. He most often does not know what he wants, where he is drawn, why he is sad or happy. .
Do we even know how to want? Yes, we have instant and irresistible desires, and we [all] have a thirst for life, there is Eros, but we cannot determine the direction of the desire.; The favorite of the Russian fairy tale, Ivanushka the Fool, who had been lying on the stove for a long time, suddenly jumps up and shouts: “Oh, you grouse, unlock the doors, I want to go there, I don’t know where.” Russian nationalism public consciousness
But how to penetrate there, into the unconscious of our spirit? Freud thinks that it is revealed in dreams. Dreams are our subconscious aspirations. In dreams we see what we fear and what we crave. In this regard, dreams do not deceive: they unfold artistic symbols of the hidden forces of our soul.
To understand the soul of a people, it is necessary, therefore, to penetrate into their dreams. But the dreams of the people are their epics, their fairy tales, their poetry... Many were outraged by the vulgarity and immorality of the fairy tale. But dreams are different: prosaic, base, disgusting, and sublime, divine. Dreams, like folk tales, do not choose the most beautiful and noble, as the poet’s poems do; they, on the contrary, are inexorably truthful even in their cynicism.
The Russian fairy tale shows us clearly what the Russian people are afraid of: they are afraid of poverty, they are even more afraid of work, but most of all they are afraid of the “grief” that is attached to them.
Nationality and humanity
This article talks about the relationship between nationality and humanity, and also discusses the problem of the nationality of humanity as a whole. Berdyaev N.A. in his article pays attention to national individualities. Our nationalists and our cosmopolitans are at the mercy of rather low concepts of nationality; they equally separate the existence of nationality from the existence of a single humanity. The passions that usually cause national problems interfere with the clarification of consciousness. The work of thought on the problem of nationality must, first of all, establish that the opposition between nationality and humanity, national plurality and pan-human unity is impossible and meaningless. Meanwhile, this false opposition is made from two sides, from the side of nationalism and from the side of cosmopolitanism. It would be fundamentally unacceptable to oppose a part to a whole or an organ to an organism and to think of the perfection of the whole organism as the disappearance and overcoming of the multiplicity of its parts and organs. Nationality and the struggle for its existence and development does not mean discord in humanity and with humanity and cannot, in principle, be associated with an imperfect state of humanity that has not come to unity, subject to disappearance with the onset of perfect unity. False nationalism provides food for such notions of nationality. Nationality is an individual existence, outside of which the existence of humanity is impossible; it is embedded in the very depths of life, and nationality is a value created in history, a dynamic task. The existence of humanity in the forms of national existence of its parts does not necessarily mean a zoological and lower state of mutual hostility and extermination, which disappears as humanity and unity grow. Behind nationality there is an eternal ontological basis and an eternal valuable goal. Nationality is an existential individuality, one of the hierarchical levels of being, another level, a different circle than the individuality of man or the individuality of humanity as a kind of collective personality. The establishment of perfect brotherhood among men will not be the disappearance of human individuality, but will be their complete affirmation. And the establishment of a pan-human brotherhood of peoples will not be the disappearance, but the affirmation of national individualities. Humanity is a certain positive unity, and it would turn into an empty abstraction if by its existence it extinguished and abolished the existence of all levels of reality included in it, national individualities and personal individualities. And in the Kingdom of God we must imagine the perfect and wonderful existence of individuals-individuals and nations-individuals. Every being is individual. Abstraction is not being. In abstract humanism, liberated from any concrete plurality, there is no spirit of being, there is emptiness. Humanity itself is a concrete individuality of the highest hierarchical degree, a collective personality, and not an abstraction, not a mechanical sum. Thus, God is not the extinction of all individual stages of diverse being, but their completeness and perfection. The multiplicity of individual levels, the entire complex hierarchy of the world cannot be replaced by the unity of the highest level, the individuality of the one. Perfect unity (national, universal, cosmic or divine) is the highest and most complete form of existence of the entire multiplicity of individual existences in the world. Every nationality is the wealth of a single and fraternally united humanity, and not an obstacle on its path. Nationality is a historical problem, not a social one, a problem of a specific culture, not an abstract public.
Man enters humanity through national individuality, as a national man, and not as an abstract person, like a Russian, a Frenchman, a German or an Englishman. A person cannot skip over an entire stage of existence; this would make him poor and empty. A national person is more, not less, than just a person; he has the generic traits of a person in general and there are also individual-national traits. The least creative, outwardly technical side of culture is completely non-national, abstractly human, easily transported from people to people. Everything creative in culture bears the stamp of a national genius. Even great technical inventions are national, and only the technical applications of great inventions, which are easily adopted by all peoples, are not national. Even the scientific genius, the proactive one who creates the method, is national. Darwin could only be an Englishman, and Helmholtz could only be a typical German. The national and the universal in culture cannot be opposed. It is the peaks of national creativity that have universal significance. In the national genius the universal is revealed; through his individuality he penetrates into the universal.
The unification of humanity, its development towards the universe is accomplished through the painful, painful formation and struggle of national individuals and cultures. There is no other historical path, there is another path - abstraction, emptiness, or a purely individual retreat into the depths of the spirit, into another world. The destiny of nations and national cultures must be fulfilled to the end. Acceptance of history is already acceptance of the struggle for national individualities, for types of culture. Greek culture, Italian culture in the Renaissance, French and German culture in the flowering era are the paths of the world culture of a single humanity, but they are all deeply national and individually unique. All great national cultures are universal in their meaning
In the soul of the Russian people there is such immensity, boundlessness, aspiration to infinity, as in the Russian plain. Therefore, it was difficult for the Russian people to take possession of these vast spaces and formalize them. The Russian people had enormous elemental strength and comparative weakness of form. The Russian people were not a people of culture par excellence, like the peoples of Western Europe; they were more a people of revelations and inspirations; they did not know moderation and easily went to extremes. Among the peoples of Western Europe, everything is much more determined and formalized, everything is divided into categories and finite. (Not so with the Russian people, as they are less determined, as more turned towards infinity and do not want to know the distribution by categories. In determining the character of the Russian people and their vocation, it is necessary to make a choice, which the author calls an eschatological choice for the ultimate goal. Therefore, the choice of the century as the most characterizing the Russian idea and the Russian vocation is also inevitable. characteristic for Russia as internal liberation and intense spiritual and social quest.
Russian thinkers of the 19th century, reflecting on the fate and calling of Russia, constantly pointed out that this potentiality, unexpressed, non-actualized strength of the Russian people is the guarantee of its great future. They believed that the Russian people would finally say their word to the world and reveal themselves. The extraordinary, explosive dynamism of the Russian people was revealed in its cultural layer only from contact with the West and after the reform of Peter. Herzen said that the Russian people responded to Peter’s reform with the appearance of Pushkin. We will add: not only Pushkin, but also the Slavophiles themselves, but also Dostoevsky and L. Tolstoy, but also seekers of truth, but also the emergence of original Russian thought.
The Russian people were not only subjugated by the power that received religious sanctification, but they also gave birth from their depths to Stenka Razin, sung in folk songs, and Pugachev. Russians are runners and robbers. And Russians are wanderers seeking God's truth. The wanderers refuse to obey the authorities. The earthly path was presented to the Russian people as a path of flight and wandering. Russia has always been full of mystical and prophetic sects: And they have always had a thirst for the transformation of life.
Specifics of Russian nationalism
Professor Kovalevsky, who gave an overview of conservative political thought of this period, wrote: “The state known under the name of the Russian Empire was created by the Russian Slavs, descendants of the Scythians and Sarmatians. Only Russians worked in its creation - and not Poles, not Georgians, not Finns and other nationalities of Russia. The creator of the Russian state is the Russian nation, and therefore this nation, by all divine and human rights, must be the dominant nation, holding power, control and dominance in the state, or a sovereign nation. All other nations, as having already entered into a ready-made state, as having been annexed to it by a sovereign nation, must be subordinate to it.” “Only those who merged in blood and spirit with the Russian people, who fought in their ranks for their national tasks and became a hereditary shareholder of the great cultural historical heritage, have the indisputable right of Russian civil equality.”
With these thoughts, Kovalevsky continues “Russian Truth” by P.I. Pestel, who suggested that foreigners leave their former nationality outside of Russia.
S.A. Khomyakov and M.N. Katkov later spoke out against petty originality, which does not want to merge with the great historical personality of the Russian people (“whatever the origin of Russian citizens, they should not have a fatherland other than Russia”, Russia “cannot have any states in the state, cannot allow any parts of the country to be organized in the sense of special political nationalities. One state means one nation”).
It should be noted that the distinctiveness of the Russian nation was not considered by Russian thinkers from exclusively spiritual, moral and cultural positions.
For example, the same professor Kovalevsky defines a nation through language, faith, unity of historical destiny, common physical and mental qualities and the formation of one’s own national culture. At the same time, the commonality of physical qualities is expressed in the early forms of Russian nationalism. Kovalevsky writes that pre-Petrine Russian nationalism was “animal, instinctive, biological, but it saved Russia its originality.” This alienation of Russian nationalism from the rational awareness of its long-term interests became, on the other hand, the reason for Russia’s lag behind the West. After the Tatar yoke it turned out that “Russia was higher, but darker” than the West. It was probably this circumstance that led to the constant deviations of the policies of Russian autocrats from the principle of Russian nationalism, which Russian historians and philosophers wrote about with bitterness.
Kovalevsky highlighted the differences between patriotism and nationalism. If the first is connected with the homeland and fatherland, but the second is with the clan, the nation. In the first case we are talking about a historical-geographical concept, in the second - about a psychological-anthropological one. The Russian anthropological type, therefore, is decisive for the formation of the nation as such in Russia. At the same time, Kovalevsky refers to the opinion of prof. Gradovsky: “...the more we see in a given state of localities and tribes that are in a special position, the further this state is from the full development of its national principles, the more obstacles and work it will have to overcome.”
N.S.Trubetskoy
N.S. Trubetskoy divided nationalism into true and false. True nationalism bears the features of the state and is aimed at protecting historical traditions and cultural identity, preventing assimilation. False - rather associated with ethnic nationalism, which strives for its own statehood, tearing apart the traditional, historically established state organism.
P.B.Struve
P.B. Struve distinguished between creative and protective nationalism. Creative nationalism, again, is of a state nature and seeks to create favorable conditions for the economic, political and cultural development of its people, in open competition with other countries and peoples. Protective nationalism, on the contrary, protects peoples from competition and creates artificial privileges. In the latter case, features of ethnic nationalism are also visible.
Both philosophers, like many others, came to the defense of the state, trying to eliminate the split between the nation and the state, putting the nation at the service of the state, but not vice versa. This was a major theoretical mistake.
Struve was an energetic promoter of liberal nationalism in Russia, calling on Russians for political self-education and strengthening the union of the nation with the state. In August 1918, he spoke about the Russian Revolution: “This was the first case in world history of the triumph of internationalism and the class idea over nationalism and the national idea.” Struve distinguishes between “nationalism” and the “national idea”. Probably due to the fact that the national idea was understood by him as the idea of nationality, national identity, as a passive feature inherent in the Russian people. At the same time, he regarded nationalism as the politicization of national consciousness and the demand for the creation of a nation-state: one people, one language, one faith, one law. This kind of unification was impossible in the Russian Empire, and for the Russian nation it was disastrous, since it deprived it of natural ethnic characteristics and a leadership role in the all-Russian society.
P.N. Milyukov
P.N. Milyukov in “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” defined Russian nationalism as a sign of an extinct state system. He contrasted national and social consciousness. The first, according to Miliukov, glorified the existing national qualities, the second criticized the existing order. Miliukov contrasted the concepts of “nation” and “people”. He included the negative interpretation of “nationalism” as national exclusivity to the first term, and the democratic structure of society to the second. Miliukov argued that nationalist sentiments must give way to a popular movement free from the burden of the past. This “populist” impulse is also discernible in V.N. Muravyov, one of the authors of the collection “From the Depths” (1918), who saw the Russian intelligentsia’s renunciation of the national idea as the main reason for the October Revolution.
We see that the leading liberal intellectuals of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century were not at all alien to the national idea, understanding by it some opposition to right-wing nationalism of a monarchical kind. The intelligentsia did not move away from the idea of a nation as such, but only from the concept that identifies the nation with autocracy, that is, with the traditional Russian state. Liberals selected a new state for the traditional nation, taking Europe as a model, where syntonic relations between the nation and the state were in most cases obviously impossible. Which, by the way, was a consequence of the colossal military defeats of Western democracies from the consolidated German nation.
The Russian scientist A.E. Presnyakov in his lectures on Russian history (1907) said that the state turns into a nation when national self-awareness or national will develops. “The will to a common political life, therefore, a phenomenon of the collective psyche of a given population, is the main feature of both personal and social “peoplehood” or “nationality” at that stage of historical development when nations are created.” Today, even when it comes to the nation, it is very difficult to understand what this or that author is talking about. But the term “nation” in Russia now most often sounds neutral-positive in the sense of “people,” but “nationalism” almost always sounds negative.
The traditions of Russian conservative thought, meanwhile, did not miss this topic and considered it with sufficient clarity to use previous methodological approaches in modern conditions. In particular, we are talking about understanding the structure of a common civil nation - its ethnic ingredients.
S.N. Bulgakov writes: “Even those states that in their final form consist of many tribes and nationalities arose as a result of the state activity of one people, which was in this sense “dominant”, or sovereign. You can go as far as you like in recognizing the political equality of different nations, but this still will not establish their historical equivalence in the state. In this sense, Russia, of course, remains and will remain a Russian state with all its multi-tribalism, even when implementing the broadest national equality.”
The position of the modern Western thinker E. Yang is close to this approach: “...democracy (the power of the people) in no case can be ethnocracy (the domination of a people with one language or culture). At the same time, any democracy inevitably has ethnocratic features, since, firstly, the choice of the state language actually puts in a privileged position those citizens for whom it is native, and, secondly, a privileged ethnoculture has a chance of being preserved on the territory of the state much higher than all the others. The ethnocratic character of a democratic state can be significantly softened if it not only recognizes the fact that its population is multiethnic and, possibly, multinational, but also makes every effort to support existing minorities.”
Soloviev
One of the liberal interpretations of the nation and nationalism belongs to Vl. Solovyov: “...Christian truth affirms the unchangeable existence of nations and the rights of nationality, condemns at the same time nationalism, which represents for the people the same thing as egoism for the individual: a bad principle that seeks to isolate the individual being by turning difference into division, and division into antagonism.” This position is partly shared by S.N. Bulgakov: “the path that history shows us should lead us to the rise of cultural patriotism and the weakening of political nationalism.”
I.A.Ilyin
The opposite understanding of nationalism is presented by I.A. Ilyin: “... nationalism manifests itself primarily in the instinct of national self-preservation, and this instinct is a true and justified state. One should not be ashamed of it, extinguish it or suppress it; it is necessary to comprehend it in the face of God, to spiritually substantiate and ennoble its manifestations.”
With all the diversity of interpretations of nationalism at the beginning of the twentieth century in Russia, an understanding of the place of the leading tribe and the Russian state itself as distinctive and having its own characteristics and interests was maturing. In 1912, such a liberal thinker as
E.N.Trubetskoy
E.N. Trubetskoy said: “We have been kept for too long in the belief that a Russian person is not just a person with certain specific traits of race and nationality, but an “all-man”, embracing the traits of all nationalities, which inevitably leads to the loss of his own national physiognomy. We are accustomed to seeing the whole world in Russia, and we are already beginning to say that there is nothing local in it, because it is neither west nor east, but “East-West”. We were carefully instilled with the idea that Russia or the Messiah or nothing, that the universal and the truly Russian are one and the same.”
But the bulk of the liberal intelligentsia, already in the second half of the 19th century, tried to turn Russians into slaves of the “all-human” idea, into a people-messiah who must endure all the vices of other civilizations, abandoning their own, and in this believing their own specialness. In the twentieth century, the socialist idea used this persistent messianic spirit, suitable only during the period of the highest imperial power of the Russians, and placed a heavy burden on the Russians with internationalism - the direct negation of nationalism as such. This unbearable burden has been and is crushing the Russian people for a whole century, forcing them to be the servant and donor of other ethnic and national organisms.
An analysis of the texts of Russian pre-revolutionary philosophers shows that the contradictions in their interpretations of nationalism are largely due to different assimilation of the newly introduced term. We prefer to rely on the developments of Ilyin, who paid more attention to understanding nationalism, especially focusing on false and harmful forms of nationalism. Ilyin points to possible “eclipses” of national feeling: “... the feeling and will of a nationalist are attached not to the spirit and not to spiritual culture, but to the external manifestations of people’s life - to the economy, to political power, to the size of the state territory and to the aggressive successes of his people. The main thing - the life of the spirit - is not valued... or being a means for what is not the main thing, i.e. turning into an instrument of economy, politics or conquest.” “...the feeling and will of a nationalist, instead of going into the depths of his spiritual state, goes into disgust for everything foreign.”
S.N.Bulgakov
S.N. Bulgakov also points out the danger of perversions of nationalism, especially in conditions of prosperity: “By their high calling, the people not only rise, but they are also judged by them. ...Those whose hearts were bleeding from pain for their homeland were at the same time its impartial accusers. But only suffering love gives the right to this national self-destruction, and where it is not felt, defamation of the homeland, mockery of the mother, resulting from frivolity or spiritual opportunism, causes a feeling of disgust and indignation. National messianism is therefore a burning feeling, always oscillating between security and despair, full of fear, anxiety, responsibility. ...And this feeling of unworthiness in the election, which nevertheless remains unrevoked for the believing heart, fills the soul with confusion, fear, worries and torments it. In the national feeling, therefore, there is a terrible and always lurking danger of changing catholicity, pan-humanity for the sake of it, just as it is easy for the national church to separate itself from the universal church, “one, conciliar, apostolic.” Nationality, although organic, is not the highest form of human unity, for it not only connects, but also separates. And national messianism, especially in times of historical prosperity, too easily turns into national exclusivity... National feeling must therefore always be kept in check, subjected to ascetic regulation and never given over to it undividedly. The idea of election too easily degenerates into a consciousness of special privilege, whereas it should give rise to a heightened sense of responsibility and increase demands on oneself. …In a word, national asceticism must set the boundary for national messianism.”
List of used literature
1. N.A. Berdyaev “Russian idea”.
2. Vysheslavtsev B.P. Russian national character //Questions of Philosophy.-1995.-No. 6.
3. Likhachev D.V. Russian national character //Questions of Philosophy.-1990.-No. 4.
4. Lossky N.O. The character of the Russian people. - M., 1990.
5. Gromov M.N. Eternal values of Russian culture //Questions of Philosophy.-1994.-No. 1.
6. N.A. Berdyaev The fate of Russia. - M., 1990.
Posted on Allbest.ru
...Similar documents
Formation of the Russian type of culture. Russian national roots. National identity of Russian culture. The concept of mentality and national character. Peculiarities of the Russian national character. Formation and development of national identity.
abstract, added 08/23/2013
Conditions for the formation of the Russian type of culture. National identity of Russian culture. Formation and development of culture in Rus' in the 9th-17th centuries. Features of the mentality of the Russian nation. National character. Peculiarities of the Russian national character.
abstract, added 07/21/2008
Definition of the concept of tradition, consideration of its role in the formation of folk culture. A detailed study of family traditions and rituals of the Russian people. A study of the connection between calendar holidays and important events in the life of modern Russian people.
course work, added 11/23/2015
Definition of Russian mentality as a sociological category. The main character traits of the Russian people. Conditions for the formation and development of the mentality of Russian culture. Historical, natural and geographical features of the formation of mentality in Russia.
course work, added 12/28/2012
Historical information about samovars, their types and purpose. "Metal hot water vessels" as a symbol of Russian tea drinking. Features of the Soviet Tula coal samovar of the last century and modern automatic electric analogues.
presentation, added 12/01/2014
Cultural and historical prerequisites for the origin and development of patronage in Russia, its influence on the formation of national culture and art. The direction and motives of charitable activities, characteristic features of modern Russian philanthropy.
course work, added 12/06/2013
Formation of a general idea of the traditions and customs of the Russian family. Description of the Russian national costume and the household structure of the Russian home. Studying the rules of behavior at the table in a Russian family. Developing interest in the history of folk art.
presentation, added 09/22/2014
Philosophy of Russian diaspora. Literary and artistic creativity of Russian diaspora. Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. A.A. Sokolov is a famous Russian artist, emigrant. General A.V. Von Schwartz is a Russian military engineer in exile.
thesis, added 11/13/2015
Identification of the role of F. Volkov in the creation of the Russian national professional theater. A study of childhood and adolescence, impressions of first encounters with the theater. Establishment of the Russian State Public Theater. The last days of the actor's life.
abstract, added 02/06/2013
Characteristics of the Russian Baroque style. Transformation of society under the influence of a new style. Art of the first half of the 18th century - architecture, sculpture, painting, literature, military art.
Baranov Sergey Sergeevich Bachelor of Political Science, graduate of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow [email protected] Features of modern Russian nationalism The article is devoted to nationalist sentiments that arise in modern Russian society and have a great response among the population, the reasons for their emergence and the problem of self-identification as a citizen of Russia. These problems became especially important after the collapse of the USSR. The phenomenon of nationalism has not lost its severity, but is only developing. The article defines the ways of development of modern Russian nationalism and outlines the positioning of the people in their own country.
In the modern world, processes of intensive interaction between different peoples and cultures are taking place, and national borders are being erased. There are practically no mono-ethnic states left in the world. But along with this, there is a noticeable national isolation. Since the end of the last century, we can see how national and religious conflicts have increased in many regions and countries of the world.
Interethnic conflicts exist not only in third world countries, but also in very prosperous European countries. Major migrations there began after the World War from countries in Africa, the Mediterranean and South Asia. Currently, these migrants face manifestations of xenophobia and discrimination. Nationalist sentiments are developing in the societies of these countries, because many indigenous citizens are against the fact that strangers live next to them. Modern Russia faces a similar problem. “Russian society has always been and remains multi-ethnic, however, the Russian political tradition clearly contains the features of a “national state” formed by the dominant Russian ethnic group.” But at the same time, Western experts call our society an immigrant one. All this can be explained by the fact that we have a low level of natural reproduction and at the same time it is impossible to maintain a normal population level without the function of migration. Already now in Moscow and other Russian cities there are certain multinational communities where the share of immigrants is increasing. All this develops nationalist sentiments at the political and everyday levels. We can hear the slogans “Russia for Russians”, “Moscow for Muscovites”, which receive a great response. Considering this state of affairs, I can say that this work is relevant in its topic. The phenomenon of nationalism has not lost its severity, but is only developing. And the interesting thing is how aggressive or indifferent he can be. The problem of the study is to understand how the residents of Russia currently feel 20 years after the collapse of the USSR and taking into account the high growth of immigration in recent years.
Today, there are different interpretations of the word “nationalism”. The Sociological Encyclopedic Dictionary gives the following definition: “Nationalism is a system of views, an ideology that is fueled by ethnocentrism and has a large socio-political orientation.” V.V. Koroteeva writes that “the basic doctrine of nationalism can be reduced to several provisions: 1) a nation is a real community that has its own special qualities; 2) the interests and values of this nation have priority for the individual over other interests and values; 3) the nation must to be as independent as possible, which requires achieving political sovereignty.”
It is impossible, however, to say for sure whether nationalism is a positive or negative phenomenon. Of course, everything depends on the specific situation and country. An example is 19th century Japan with its attempt at modernization. “The Japanese elite made a decision - Japan’s national interests are that it should not follow the path of those countries that were initially weakened and then captured by the West.” Based on such statements, the Japanese had to achieve modernization by any means. And they did this, despite all the economic, moral and cultural sacrifices. Now we see Japan as one of the most economically developed countries. However, after this modernization and nationalist upsurges, monstrous consequences appeared. Chauvinist, fascist, Nazi and militaristic sentiments took hold in Japan. “But if today we compare Japan and the Philippines, where there is no smell of nationalism, we will see that nationalist modernization allowed Japan to become one of the most economically developed countries in the world, and as it was, it seems that to this day the majority of Japanese believe that it is much better to be Japanese than Filipinos.” Those. here we saw the double coloring of nationalism.
We can trace the most positive color to the Baltic countries after the collapse of the USSR. Thanks to their nationalist movements, the countries were able to get rid of the dominance of Moscow, but at the same time, the second pole was also at work - the desire for the West. They would not have been able to carry out all the reforms if such nationalist movements did not exist.
If we consider Russia in this context, then we cannot use such anti-Russian nationalism to generate mass support for reform and movement towards the West. In fact, the word “anti-Russian” can only evoke negative emotions, but nothing can be done about it. But on the other hand, Russian nationalism cannot be imperial. It is high time for Russia to stop considering itself a “Soviet center” and try to create a national state and preserve nationalism in this form. However, Russia is closely involved in interests with its neighboring republics to agree to this.
Under. Leitin, raising the issue of the identity of Russian citizens, should say that they position themselves from two angles: ethnocultural, which is associated with the word “Russian” and civil, expressed in the concept “Russian”. The latter has a more neutral connotation, characterizing only the person as a citizen of the Russian state.
Shporlyuk views this problem a little differently. He distinguishes between “empire rescuers” and “nation builders.” “The Saviors” consider the Russian and Soviet empires as “the legitimate national space of the Russian nation,” using the terminology of patron-client relations in relation to neighbors, according to which “to be Russian means to include and personify the general and universal, while other ethnic groups represent specific and special, in other words, something local, subordinate and unimportant." “The “builders,” who limit the space of the state to native Russian territories, do not seek to revive the empire, but, on the contrary, are interested in building a Russian national state in its place.”
The existing identity crisis allows the Russian people to enter into a system of horizontal interethnic relations with the aim of forming a civil nation. But on the other hand, there may be a search for new and different forms and a new model of government. And if it is impossible to realize new opportunities, ressentiment may occur, i.e. hatred, denial of the ideal model and hostility in society.
After the collapse of the USSR, a huge number of citizens could not understand their national identity. Adaptation to the new government system was slow and painful. According to the Russian Independent Institute of Social and National Problems, in 1996, only a little more than half of Russians (53.1%) considered themselves citizens of Russia, 15.5% citizens of the USSR, and 23% did not know who to feel like. At the beginning of 2000, the share of people who felt themselves citizens of the Russian Federation was 67.5%, although the share of those who identify themselves as citizens of the USSR remains noticeable - 11.2%. Those who felt like “nobody” were 16.7%.
The cataclysms of recent years have not been able to completely destroy the “imperial spirit” in our citizens. The threat of loss of identification affected primarily the Russian people, who, being an imperial people, were accustomed to identifying themselves through the state and language. But is it possible to find the necessary balance between the imperial and the national? Many scholars say that “attempts at forced Russification initially laid a mine under the foundation of the Russian Empire. The flip side of these attempts was the growth of separatism and nationalism on the outskirts.”
The crisis of the imperial identity of the Russians and the resulting state of resentment, according to D. Laitin’s theory, pushed them to revive their national identity, the basis of which could be the actualization of either imperial feelings or ethnocultural principles. To actualize the first type of identity, Russia has, firstly, all the necessary resources: fuel and energy, human, economic, military, etc. Secondly, “re-imperialization” is facilitated by the weakness of the CIS as an institution of multilateral cooperation with the growth of bilateral agreements.
An equally important problem is the mutual influence of nationalism (the attitude of Russians towards themselves, that is, the degree of satisfaction with their own identity) and xenophobia. These phenomena are closely related to each other:
The extent to which nationalism influences the level of xenophobia allows us to speak not only about the content of the former, but also about the direction of its development. Thus, in the case of the growing influence of Russian nationalism, the level of xenophobia can be judged by the presence of prerequisites for the development of the ethnic identity of Russians (that is, the formation of their own ethnic identity while opposing themselves to other ethnic groups), and vice versa, as such influence decreases, it is appropriate to talk about the development of imperial/civil identity . Without a doubt, here we have a rather strong simplification, so it is additionally important to take into account the ethnic dimension: the strength of ethnic cohesion, expressed in the individual’s sense of closeness to “his” group. In other words, in the case of strong ethnic identification and the influence of nationalism, xenophobia can speak of the development of the ethnic identity of Russians in the form of ethnocultural nationalism. Weak ethnic cohesion with a pronounced influence of nationalism
xenophobia indicates the development of imperial identity and imperial colonialism of two types. “The first of them is characterized by a weakly organized imperial nation with a low degree of ethnic tolerance (apparently, Russia in the 2000s can serve as a striking example of this). For the second
a cohesive imperial nation, tolerant of other ethnic groups (the French or British colonial empires may be partly an example of such states). In the case of weak ethnic identification and the influence of nationalism
In response to xenophobia, we can talk about the formation of a classical imperial identity (traditional Roman, Ottoman, Russian empires).” This type corresponds to a civic identity with weakly expressed nationalist sentiments. The position of Russia as an empire changed over time depending on the severity of the relevant factors, while “strong” and “weak” their influence on each other are relative concepts. It is obvious that for empires the development of ethnocultural nationalism
rather typical in times of crisis. Thus, in the Russian Empire, such nationalism began to develop after the revolution of 1905, when the tsarist authorities contributed to the emergence of the Black Hundred and other radical nationalist organizations. Then in the USSR, in the form of the “fight against cosmopolitanism” campaign created by the authorities in the late 1940s, and finally in Russia in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, with constant attempts to transfer social discontent towards ethnic phobias due to the war in Chechnya. Consequently, outbreaks of Russian ethnocultural nationalism
Usually they were sporadic in nature. From all this it should be understood what served as the engine in the development of Russian identity? As we can see, its main factor is the state: with the weakening of state power, imperial sleep occurs and national identity grows, and vice versa.
Another interesting question is why nationalist, as well as chauvinist, fascist, etc. movements have started to gain popularity in recent years? It may come as a shock to many citizens when they see young people with swastikas on their sleeves and flags. The answer to the question must be sought in changes in society at the end of the 20th century. The collapse of the USSR was a profound shock to the mass consciousness, accompanied by mockery of Soviet history, people, and feelings. After this, the time of economic recession began,
marginalization, declining living standards, “brain drain”. All these splits led to disorientation of political consciousness. And this traumatized consciousness was impressed by various concepts of “saving the state,” restoring the unity of the nation, and so on. This is how people began to become attached to all radical ideas.
It should be said separately about xenophobia in Russian nationalism among different age groups. According to the results of research by K. Kalinin at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century, nationalist sentiments were expressed mainly among young and elderly people. At the same time, as you grow older, not only the level of Russian identity increases, but also the level of xenophobia. In 2003, the growth of the subjective social status of individuals was positively associated with the level of nationalism and negatively with the level of identity and xenophobia. From this we can conclude that less protected social strata have more pronounced nationalism and xenophobia. With the growth of state centralization, ethnic ties between Russians, on the one hand, are weakened, but on the other hand, they are strengthened due to the growth of ties between individuals and the state. Information about the weakening influence of ethnic cohesion of Russians allows us to conclude that with a pronounced influence of the level of nationalism, the level of xenophobia can be judged by the development of imperial identity and imperial colonialism as a policy in modern Russia. The factor of nationalism becomes more ethnically “colored,” and in the structure of individual identity the relative importance of language and religion increases. Modern Russia, building democracy, demonstrates the development of imperial colonialism and ethnocultural nationalism. The result of their interaction and mutual influence determines the specifics of the social situation in our country, the development of imperial nationalism in it. Most likely, in the near future it will move along an ascending line. Indeed, at the level of mass consciousness there is support for the imperial project and the associated concept of authoritarian modernization due to disappointment in all other liberal and communist paradigms. At the elite level, the implementation of the imperial project is an opportunity to return once lost prestige and superpower status. Without a doubt, for both the elites and the masses, this project serves as a way to overcome the state of ressentiment that arose after the collapse of the USSR. The emergence of nationalist, fascist groups in Russia in the last decade is a very natural process caused by the collapse of not only the socialist, but also the liberal democratic political project. It is also likely that the development of Russian ethnocultural nationalism will continue to be used by political elites as a means of mobilizing the population in order to build an imperial state. Moreover, this form of interaction between the elites and the masses gives rise to an additional synergistic effect, the result of which is the self-expansion of imperial nationalism in Russian society, deeply penetrating political and
social institutions. This leads to an additional swing of the ethnopolitical pendulum, because the growth of Russian ethnonationalism is accompanied by a reciprocal increase in the frustration of national minorities, which in turn spurs the development of Russian imperial nationalism, etc. on an increasing basis. The disastrous consequences of such a process for the future of the Russian state are not difficult to imagine. In addition to this, one should also point out the ideological attitudes of Russian youth, which, ultimately determining the future of the country, guarantee the stability of the current political regime. It is not surprising that after the “color” revolutions, the ruling circles, having realized the importance of the role of young citizens in politics, are fighting for the opportunity to “impose” their vision of the world and ideology on them. Modern Russian youth have become more nationalistic compared to other age groups, which means that today is an important resource for the implementation of the current imperial project, and tomorrow
capable of further swinging the ethnopolitical pendulum. In any case, once formed at the level of mass consciousness, ideological attitudes are very difficult to change. This means that today the fate of the Russian state and the Russian nation is being decided for many years to come.
Links to sources1) Sidorina T.Yu. Nationalism: theories and political history [Text]: textbook. manual for universities / T.Yu. Sidorina, T.L. Polyannikov; State unt – Higher School of Economics. –M.: Publishing house of the State University Higher School of Economics, 2006 –356 p.2) Osipov G.V. Sociological encyclopedic dictionary / Editorial coordinator G.V. Osipov. – M.: Infra.M – NORM, 1998. – 488 pp. 3) Bykov P. Good bad nationalism / P. Bykov, O. Vlasova // Expert. –2005. –No. 18 (465). -WITH. 86914)Kalinin K.O. Russian nationalism: comparative analysis of 1995 and 2003 / Kalinin K.O. // Social Sciences and Modernity. –2008. No. 3. -WITH. 64765)Russians about the fate of Russia in the 20th century and their hopes for the new century: Analytical report commissioned by the Moscow Representative Foundation named after. F. Ebert. M. - 2000.
Related articles
The best amulets against the evil eye and damage Amulet against the evil eye with hands for children
How to read the Psalter correctly
Delicious dishes with sausages
A glimpse of Bella. Romantic chronicle. A glimpse of genius. Messerer about Akhmadulina Boris Messerer glimpse of Bella romantic chronicle
I dreamed that I was sailing on a boat on the river
How to cook beef entrecote in a frying pan
About the company Foreign language courses at Moscow State University
Which city and why became the main one in Ancient Mesopotamia?
Why Bukhsoft Online is better than a regular accounting program!
Which year is a leap year and how to calculate it