What is the difference between the Russian mentality and the European one. The difference between the mentalities of Russia and the West

Russia, of course, is the origin of its culture European country. And since the time of Peter I, if not Ivan the Terrible, Russia has seen its mission as asserting itself as a European power.

As for the "Asian mentality", it is generally incomprehensible what it is. The very term "Asia", as well as the amazing science of Oriental studies, was actually invented by Europeans: before the beginning of the colonial era, the Arabs and Japanese, for example, hardly thought that they were united by a certain community called "Asia". So, speaking of Asia, it is necessary to clarify which cultures of the giant continent we mean.

The Russians, of course, lived for centuries next door to the Muslim peoples, have a huge border with China, but very few of these cultures have penetrated into ours: except perhaps the Turkisms, whose etymology we have long forgotten and perceive as native, as well as Chinese tea ( drink and name). Of course, with a system-forming influence on our culture Western Europe it doesn't compare.

The main problem with your question is that it is politicized to the extreme in Russian discourse. "Europe" and "Asia" are considered as certain poles of the social order, which are attributed to certain properties that do not change over time: for example, Europe - "individualism", freedom of the market, democratic and decentralized structure of the state, and Asia - "collectivism", political centralization , self-denial in the name of the state and, at the same time, a certain ideal of “social justice” (as a rule, extremely vague and without specifying specific guarantees to a member of society, while the birthplace of the modern concept of a welfare state is precisely Europe).

Asian politicians, of course, do not disdain to use this type of mythology to justify their goals: for example, the slogan "Asia for Asians" was one of the main slogans for Japan in World War II, and in the former European colonies it often fell on fertile ground: so, exactly Japanese occupiers played a key role in the development of Indonesian nationalism. However, in China, where there were no colonialists immediately before the occupation, and also in the Philippines, where the American protectorate was popular, the Japanese had to face strong nationalist resistance (in addition to the fact that there was communist resistance everywhere).

But still, for a number of reasons, these constructions are untenable. Firstly, there is nothing specifically Asian in those concepts and ideals that are attributed to the "East". It is enough to read the conservative German thinkers of the early 20th century to understand that the ideas of our “soilers” are quite in resonance with Western thought of a certain direction (now, fortunately, almost extinct). Everything in which they denounced the West (understanding it as Great Britain and France, as well as the United States) and for which they praised Germany, fully coincides with what Russian thinkers say and write today (with the replacement of Germany by Russia, of course). Here is an excellent article on this subject by a professor at the European University at St. Petersburg Dmitry Travin ()

Secondly, it is worth noting that such a question is the subject of discussion and reasoning, perhaps only in Russia. Countries East Asia such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, in recent decades have been democratic states with a developed market economy. Of course, these countries are by no means imitations of the United States, they have their own characteristic features, but these features are not close to the Soviet and Russian “special path”. Finland or Italy, say, also in many important aspects politicians and economics are not like America, but in our minds we do not exclude them from the "West" for this.

From the foregoing, we can conclude that it is not worth wasting energy on discussing the issues of “civilizational affiliation”, “ mysterious soul" and so on. First, cultures change and mix over time, and in the age of globalization this happens especially quickly. Secondly, a lot of what originated in Europe takes root perfectly outside of it (democracy, nationalism, Roman law), which indicates the permeability of cultural boundaries for truly fundamental concepts.

I have read and heard about European mentality, but somehow vaguely imagined it in my imagination. Here is an opportunity to fill in the gaps. True, through my daughter, but still I received some interesting information.

Here in the village there are people with German roots who went to Germany. Their grandmother died last week. They came to bury the whole family, including the German son-in-law. I don’t remember how many years they have been living there in this Germany, but they have picked up German habits. And this is very noticeable in comparison with our culture.

Early in the morning before the funeral, one of the relatives came to us to take a stretcher for the coffin and banners (the locals call these things “burdens” and “horynki” - a funny surzhik, right?). To do this, it was necessary to open the temple - the banners are kept in the temple, and the stretchers are on the side porch. Our dad instructed Lena to go and give everything away. As a result, Lena fell into a pleasant sediment. She even began to share her impressions with me.

Firstly, the man rang the doorbell and waited in the yard until the owners came out, and did not proudly run out into the street to his car (as the locals do - neither hello to you, nor please, as if we owe them something).

Secondly, he apologized for the disturbance and clarified whether the priest was free and whether he could give out the things mentioned.

Thirdly, he did not dare to open the closed church gates! When Lenka approached the temple, she noticed that the stretcher was already tied to the trunk, and the gates were closed. She thought the German had opened them and then closed them. But everything turned out to be much more unexpected! When she gave him the banners, he humbly stomped around, through the gate (the gate is much closer!) - we always have two gates open so that people can pass through the church territory and shorten the path to the village council.

As Lena said, at that moment she finally woke up from surprise. How is our man doing? If he needs something, he literally opens the door with his foot! The hat is on one side, the collar is wide open, it pulls a mile away with fumes, unshaven, determination burns in the eyes. It goes all the way like a tank - wow ... part, I really need it! In short, ours would have opened the gates, loaded everything and drove off without closing the gates, without saying thank you. This was not observed here.

That's the cultural difference for you.

Oh yes. They also stood at the funeral service (the night before they served at their grandmother's house, deceased in the house), not moving! Our locals are always clamoring, fussing, pushing (what a funeral for them, what a wedding is all the same). It is always unpleasant to be in such an atmosphere. As you stand in the bazaar, and not at a church funeral. This time we were visited by an exception to the rule - everything was very touching and civilized. Wept quietly to ourselves, without interfering with the choristers, prayed, even the German son-in-law (yes, son-in-law, Karl!) fainted from grief. The granddaughters sincerely mourned for their grandmother. And the woman, by the way, was about 90 years old ... Many of us do not grieve for such old people at all, which always makes an unpleasant impression from the outside.

They organized a fasting dinner for the father. This was the first week of Lent, the strictest. All meals have been prepared. No fish for you. Well done, no words.

So I analyze everything now and, on the one hand, I rejoice for this German approach to life. After all, people come from the village. And in a few years, they managed to absorb accuracy, politeness, attentiveness, respect for others and other European good manners. On the other hand, I understand why Europe caved in under the Arab refugees. The Germans have everything by the rules! Template thinking. It would never occur to anyone to break anything or change stereotypes, adjusting the situation to their advantage. And the Slavs, they are rabid in nature and generally unpredictable. Figs just win us over! Well, I'm proud of us honestly. Although I can’t stand it when they open the gate with their foot or don’t say thank you ...

Other posts in this category:

✔ Christmas surprises

So weird for two days...

✔ About sad

It's interesting how the human psyche works. It's pumping...

✔ About value judgments + news

Yesterday I went to the speech therapist for classes, ...

✔ Last...

Buried today the last veteran Great...

✔ The folk trail will not overgrow...

Pulled Mr. Poroshenko to ban VKontakte last year! Vkontakte, my page lived quietly and inconspicuously, ...

Introduction

2. Specificity of European and Eastern mentality

3. Features of the Russian mentality and mentality

· Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

Culturology is the science of culture, of meanings. What distinguishes culturology from history is that history tries to establish the time of this or that fact, for the historian the fact itself is important, and for the culturologist it is important what culture meant at one time or another. The most common definition of culturology is its understanding as the science of the most general laws governing the development of culture. Cultural studies, as well as humanitarian knowledge in general, for a number of reasons, does not fully satisfy the criteria of scientific character that have been formed within the framework of natural sciences. Therefore, when they want to emphasize the socio-scientific nature of cultural research based on appropriate methods, they talk about social cultural studies. Following the scientific methodology in this case is mandatory and affects both the object and the subject and method of conceptual presentation.

The necessary empirical and theoretical basis, which serves as a kind of criterion for the validity of cultural hypotheses, determines the boundaries of their application. Humanitarian problems and the style of thinking corresponding to it are determined both by the uniqueness of each individual, his inner world, emotional states, feelings, giftedness, and its belonging to the socio-cultural environment. Depending on whether we are striving to explore the social forms of human life in culture, or, on the contrary, we want to understand the individual, personal refraction of sociocultural phenomena, the aspect of cultural studies is also chosen - either social or humanitarian.

Mentality is a certain property of traditional ethnic consciousness in a special way reflect (and express by their behavior) a certain ethnic picture of the world.

The ethnic picture of the world, in turn, is a person's ideas about the world, formed on the basis of certain cultural and value dominants. These representations are partly conscious, partly unconscious. In general, the ethnic picture of the world is a manifestation protective function in its psychological aspect.

Mentality, thus, acts as a set of unconscious complexes that are formed in the process of adaptation of the human collective (ethnos) to the natural and social environment and play the role of the main mechanisms in ethnic culture responsible for psychological adaptation ethnic group to environment. These unconscious images, included in the system of ethnic constants in one way or another, determine the nature of human action in the world. The latter is specific to each ethnic culture. Mentality is a system of ethnic constants, which is the prism through which a person looks at the world.

This understanding of the problem is close to the classical views expressed by A.Ya. Gurevich, who defined "mentality" as "mental tools", "spiritual equipment", " specific structure consciousness”, “people's awareness of themselves, natural and social environment”; as mental attitudes, general orientations and habits of consciousness not formed explicitly, not expressed explicitly, not fully realized in culture; as common psychology and worldview, a way of worldview. There are other successful definitions, which the author largely shares.

Mentality as a collective-personal formation represents stable spiritual values, deep axiological attitudes, skills, automatisms, latent habits, long-term stereotypes considered within certain spatial and temporal boundaries, which are the basis of behavior, lifestyle and conscious perception of certain phenomena of reality. These are a special “psychological equipment” (M. Blok), “symbolic paradigms” (M. Eliade), “dominant metaphors” (P. Ricoeur), finally, “archaic remnants” (S. Freud) or “archetypes” (K. Jung), "... whose presence is not explained own life individual, but follows from the primitive innate and inherited sources of the human mind. Unlike Freud, Jung believes that not only the subjective, repressed beyond the "threshold of consciousness", but, above all, the collective and impersonal mental content is included in the area of ​​the unconscious. "The collective unconscious as a heritage of ancestors ... is not individual, but common to all people ... and represents the true basis of the individual psyche." The collective unconscious is based on stable images, called archetypes by Jung. In its essence, mentality is just historically processed archetypal representations, through the prism of which the perception of the main aspects of reality takes place: space, time, art, politics, economics, culture, civilization, religion. Consideration of the mental features of the consciousness of a particular social group allows you to penetrate the "hidden" layer public consciousness, more objectively and deeply conveying and reproducing the mood of the era, to reveal a deeply rooted and hidden behind the ideology slice of reality - images, ideas, perceptions, which in most cases remains unchanged even when one ideology changes to another. This is explained by the greater, in comparison with ideology, stability of mental structures.

Patterns of behavior, value orientations are usually set within the framework of the mentality of the educated part of society, and then, somewhat simplified, gradually penetrate into the mentality of the people, gaining a foothold in it. long years, decades and even centuries. The social differentiation of mentalities reflects the division into community groups with their inherent material interests, lifestyle, etc. For example, the peasant mentality of the last century in Russia was characterized by greater conservatism than the mentality of the educated classes, and even earlier peasant uprisings can be characterized as conservative, because their ideals were not in the future (like the intelligentsia), but in the past. Further, the peasant mentality, which forms and models the behavior of its bearers, was characterized by collective fears, fantasies, separate and rather cruel manifestations of fanaticism and cruelty, which was explained by difficult conditions. peasant life- poverty, famine, epidemics, high mortality. But, in contrast to the prevailing opinions about the "peasant mass", the Russian peasant was characterized by an awareness of his special "I", a tense perception of the relationship between eternity and temporality of being with a general orientation towards Christian values. By reproducing the peasant mentality step by step, one can gradually construct the way of life of the peasant, his spiritual and material world. The same method underlies the analysis spiritual world intelligentsia. Textual analysis of essays well-known representatives Russian intelligentsia, their language, reservations, manner of presentation, and finally, the suggestiveness of the text, allows us to judge their mentality; rationally designed systems, developed concepts speak about their ideology.

Let us pay attention to one more difference between mentality and ideology - the difference in the temporal aspect. Different structures of consciousness develop in different ways - some of them become stable for many generations, others disappear during the life of one generation of people. F. Braudel identifies three types of historical time - time of great length, time of medium length and short time. If the development of politics corresponds to a "short term", and the economy "time of medium duration", then the mentality exists in the "time of long duration" as the most stable and inactive structure of consciousness. “We come here to the question of the relationship between the brief real story, And long history intellectual phenomena. Their relationship is very complex. Nevertheless, it is clear that intellectual phenomena should be included in the history of "great duration" and great space. J. Le Goff noted that “inertia is a historical force of exceptional importance. Mentality changes more slowly than anything else, and studying them teaches how slowly history moves. In this regard, the statement of K. Marx seems interesting that "the traditions of all dead generations weigh like a nightmare over the minds of the living."

If ideology, with certain deviations, as a whole develops progressively, so to speak linearly, then within the framework of mentality, representations change in the form of oscillations of various amplitudes and rotations around a certain central axis. At the heart of such a movement and the development of ideology and mentalities lies a certain way of life. Thus, ideological theories were developed mainly by the intelligentsia, as a rule, living in cities, the rhythm of life of which was much more dynamic in comparison with the patriarchal and partly stagnant, cyclical (depending on the agricultural calendar) life in the countryside. With the development rural schools, a certain level of literacy in the village, with the advent of literature intended for peasants, certain elements of ideology penetrate into the village, contributing to social transformation peasant image life and accelerate the pace of its development.

So, mentality is a concept that is very rich in content, reflecting the general spiritual mood, way of thinking, worldview. individual person or social group, unreflexed or insufficiently conscious, great place in which the unconscious occupies.

The model of perception and comprehension of reality characteristic of its era consists of a large number elements that often contradict each other and is not limited to a reflection of external reality. In many ways, it is formed by already existing mental level customs, "prejudices" and superstitions, symbols and norms of behavior, hopes and phobias, along with material interests, the relationship with which in each case is different. Mentality reflects that layer of social and individual consciousness, in which systematization, reflection and self-reflection are virtually absent, and individual ideas are not the result of the activity of individual consciousness, but are unconsciously and automatically perceived attitudes that are common in general for a particular era and social group, representations and beliefs conditioned by collective determinants, traditions implicitly contained in the consciousness of values, attitudes, motives and behaviors that underlie rationally constructed and logically meaningful concepts, theories, ideological systems.

In contrast to the mentality, limited by certain spatio-temporal (epoch, period, region, state, ethnic territory) and socio-cultural (really existing communities and individuals) framework, the archetype is universal, regardless of time and place. It is a biosocial process, the purpose of which is the realization of the personality originally laid down in the embryo in all its aspects, with all its mental givens. If the mentality depends on the socio-cultural context with its inherent ethical ideas, then the archetype is ethically neutral. “An archetype is a structure-forming unit that serves as a basis (framework), a mental vector sociocultural development. The archetype is the root, on the surface of which history and culture produce ever new outlines and forms, colored with the whole gamut of colors of the human state of mind. Mentality is a formative unit that gives the archetypal content a qualitative characteristic. ... Archetype is an abstract category, mentality is always concrete, archetype is content, mentality is form, archetype is essence, mentality is phenomenon”. Mentality expresses its archetypal content through culture, that is, through a certain cultural code, the bearer of which, first of all, is the intelligentsia.

Specificity of European and Eastern mentality

One of the tasks of ethnological science long time there was a search methodological approach to the study of cultural complexes and the allocation of their variable types. Scientists have developed a seemingly coherent taxonomy (classification) of world cultures, based on such criteria as the spatial factor (geography of settlement), human type(race or phenotype), lifestyle (producing systems), or language ( language families). IN late XIX V. German scientists (L. Frobenius, F. Gröbner and others), then American anthropologists (K. Wissler, A. Kroeber) were among the main authors of such classifications, who divided the diversity of cultures on Earth into so-called "cultural circles" or areas. In Russian ethnography, this scientific tradition was reflected in the development of the category of “economic and cultural types”, or “historical and cultural areas” (V. G. Bogoraz, S. P. Tolstov, M. G. Levin, N. N. Cheboksarov ).

West and East - a conditional semantic construction used for the primary typology of world culture. West and East - a pair category expressing the dichotomy of a polarized whole world culture, therefore, it simultaneously characterizes both the ambivalent unity of the culture of mankind, and the division into fundamentally different from each other, and in many respects opposite models of cultural identity.

Western and Eastern cultures are such different worlds that it is impossible not to recall the well-known joke: Japanese and culture from other languages ​​and cultures? The correct answer is "Everyone". The only feature that certainly unites Western and Eastern cultures is that they are cultures. So, for example, modern Japanese scientists drew attention to the difference in the way of thinking of the Japanese and Europeans. They called their way of transmitting information "communication of the minimum message", and Europeans - "communication of the maximum message". The essence of the first is similar to the Zen way of communication "beyond words", because words cannot convey the essence: "Truth is beyond words." Therefore, there should be as few words as possible, but they should influence the consciousness in such a way as to cause an explosion of information in the mind of the perceiver, he should intuitively grasp the whole, the meaning of the unsaid.

Even in modern conditions many culturologists come to the conclusion that it is impossible to consistently implement the idea of ​​a single culture. This is expressed in the theories of polycentrism, which were discussed in detail above. Polycentrism should be understood as the idea of ​​a plurality of semantically different cultures. O. Spengler wrote most categorically about this: “There are numerous absolutely original cultures, just as there are different kinds plants with their own flowers and fruits, with their own definite cycle of growth and death. This also applies to the thesis of the primordial opposition of the West and the East. In practice, this means that all cultures can be classified as Western type or predominantly to the Eastern type.

Indeed, the words "West" and "East" mean two very various ways contact with the world.

What is the fundamental difference between Western and Eastern cultures, the roots of which are still in the first civilizations of both regions? Distinct differences between the West and the East came to light by the 3rd century BC. e. The beginning was laid almost simultaneously: from the sixth century BC. e. two main models, two programs are being formed. One in the west of the then Oikumene - in Athens, the other - in the east, in China. The first was created by Socrates and the sophists, the second - by the official and Teacher Kun-tzu.

The path of Athens is the all-round "emancipation" of a person and a new culture, autonomy, self-sufficiency of the individual, responsibility only to his own mind, "left hemisphere" (logic, rationalism, analysis, etc.). These are the basic principles that Socrates and the Sophists affirmed by their activities.

The transition to a new way of thinking was different in China. If the Hellenes moved in the future towards civilization (which is characterized by universality, comfort, technocracy) and towards a “post-biological” person, then Confucius saw this as a formidable danger. Gift new civilization- the consciousness of actions, the moral responsibility of the individual - he valued no less than the Hellenes. But he turned this gift not to a critical reassessment of tradition, like Socrates, but to its conscious maintenance, strengthening, conservation. Confucius thought about how, in the conditions of a new civilization, with its unsettled and at first somewhat chaotic position, to preserve the harmony of traditional, “natural” culture. And he succeeded. Through hierarchy, an internal return to nature with an external urban appearance, through reverence for elders and patriarchy, Confucius managed to combine the novelty of urban culture with tradition and naturalness, attractive to the East. And this still lies the qualitative difference between the East and the West from each other and from the initial common path: the Hellenes moved forward in a straight line, seeing the prospects, and this was for them culture itself, and progress, and civilization. China, on the other hand, went in a circle, from the "biological" man forward and upward, to new culture and back - to tradition, to the origins and the previously unknown attraction of constancy. Moreover, such a movement also represents nothing but progress. But its different understanding and adherence to it determined the dissimilarity at the high, developed and elite level of the two cultures.

characteristic feature Western culture (in the form that has developed over the past 300 years and is now spreading around the world at an accelerating pace) is the belief in the "omnipotence of science." Even recognizing the obvious crisis of science, Western civilization still considers its accelerated development a panacea for all ills. In the East for a long time It was believed that the development of science brings a person not so much happiness as all sorts of troubles. Hoping for the omnipotence of science, a person loses the ability for a quiet life, the gift of reconciliation with fate. Western culture, with its scientism, gives rise to a spirit of activity and energy in people, while Eastern culture educates a person in the spirit of prudence, helps to find "peace and clarity of the heart", "calm of the soul." The idea of ​​progress is alien to the traditional East, the minds of the Chinese and Indians are turned to the past. Their cultures are traditional. They, to a much greater extent than any Europeans, are drawn to the new, but they are less attracted by such a phenomenon. Western culture like fashion. European culture, seducing people with material goods, instills in them unlimited desires.

As already mentioned, the differences between East and West are already revealed in the very nature of their development. Eastern civilization climbed the steps of centuries smoothly and slowly, gradually adapting to new phenomena of life and (most importantly!) Carefully preserving established traditions. Western civilization, on the contrary, moved forward recklessly and rapidly, actively transforming reality, resolutely discarding everything obsolete and unnecessary and conquering more and more peaks of progress. A more complete picture of the features of these two civilizations will be given by their Comparative characteristics:

So, if the differences between East and West can be reduced to the difference between progress and traditional immutability, then it is already clear from this that they mutually complement each other, like two great axes of world development, two wings of human civilization.

It is clear that at the heart of Eurocentrism, Afrocentrism and Americanocentrism lies the culturological monism already known to us, when one's culture is opposed to everything else as genuine and real. Moreover, if the defenders of the "West" in this dispute point to its current achievements, then their opponents most often appeal to the distant past, when the Europeans were still unable to carry out global expansion. And the idealization of the past in this case is symptomatic. After all, the "East" in pure form no longer exists. And realistically thinking person should proceed not from the independent development of East and West, but from the result of their interaction.

On the difference in the approach to completing the task between Europeans and Russians:

In the seventies, it was customary to organize competitions between friendly armies. I served then in the artillery, and once I happened to be present at the championship, which was held between our unit and the fraternal German unit, which was armed with the same guns and tractors.

In addition to the combined arms running around and shooting, the program included the following exercise: the tractor, having left the starting point and driving 50 meters, must turn around so that the gun looks towards the enemy, the crew jumps off the tractor, unhooks the gun, uncovers it, spreads the support beds, aims at the target, charges, fires a shot, which must hit the target. The standard for everything is 45 seconds. There is only one line to complete this exercise, so they performed it in turn, who was faster - the stopwatch decided. By lot, first the Germans, then ours. Both divisions are present, rooting for their own.

The stopwatch clicked. The Germans have gone. They act clearly, you will fall in love. The tractor worked out jumps into position. The officer stands on the sidelines with binoculars, not interfering in anything. The sergeant gives orders, the soldiers act like automatic weapons, the beds are spaced, the covers are removed, the shell is in the barrel. Shot. The target is hit. 41 seconds. The Germans are jubilant. For 4 seconds the standard was blocked! The result is excellent.

Now ours. The tractor flies into position, the gun almost capsizes when turning, stands on one wheel, thinks for a moment whether to fall on its side or back to working position. Passed - fell as it should. The calculation of the crowd runs to her. The sergeant gives out kicks, the officer grabs the bed, drops the binoculars, which are crushed in the confusion, the mat-remote, loading almost stumbling, miraculously sends the projectile into the breech in the fall, shot! The target is hit. 17 seconds.

Pay attention - the Germans completed the task more accurately. More beautiful. More reliable. Without too much fuss and without crushing the binoculars. But the Russians spit on all these minor details and fired two and a half times faster.

This is precisely our strong point. Russians, if necessary, can muster their strength, clench their teeth into a fist and perform a feat with bestial effort. Moreover, the feat is not in the sense of "heroically die", a la Japanese suicides, but the feat in the sense of "perform the almost impossible." Achieve results. Win the war or launch a rocket into space.

If you need to do something carefully - call the German. If you need to do something beautiful - invite an Italian. If you need to brag about what you have done, contact an American. If a German, an Italian and an American cannot achieve a result in any way, call a Russian. He will solve the problem.

The well-known Russian-American political scientist Nikolai Zlobin wrote an interesting article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta devoted to this topic. In it, he recounts a conversation he once had with a prominent American lawyer:

In general, returning to our conversation about the differences in the mentality of the Russian and western man on the example of the principle of the rule of law, an obvious conclusion should be drawn: to put this principle at the foundation of the Russian world order means to pervert our entire nature, our entire being. It means putting an end to the Russians as a civilizational phenomenon and turning us into a pitiful copy of some puritan from New England. Normal, right? From Mitya Karamazov to make a "respectable" burgher shopkeeper. I'm not talking about Alyosha.

Yes, you go to the forest.

P.S.
Of particular interest to me personally is the fact that the described difference in mentality is not a trend last decade, or even two or three decades, when Postmodern declared itself to the world at the top of its voice. No, all this has long been rooted in the consciousness of Western society, nurtured in law schools, penetrated into the legal consciousness of the population. "What? Justice? Sit down, two. The law is the highest justice." It turns out that this is something that has been cultivated in Western society for many decades and even centuries. That is, even in those eras when this society was still considered Christian and considered itself as such.

After all, it is an interesting topic for serious cultural research. Compare how Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism influenced in this aspect the formation of personality and worldview in those societies where they dominated. In principle, even now we can conclude that it was Orthodoxy that did not allow the formation in the Russian mind of the idea of ​​the impossibility of Justice (Truth) as a universal idea. But Catholicism and Protestantism-allowed.

Here is the answer to the question, whose understanding of Christianity is closer to the Gospel and Christ.