26. The subject of ethnosociology. Types of ethnic groups - tribe, nationality, nation. Signs of a nation.
ethnic communities occupy a prominent place in social life. Ethnos ethnonym
consanguineous
Family - the smallest consanguineous group of people connected by the unity of origin (grandmother, grandfather, father, mother, children).
Several families that have entered into an alliance form genus. Families united in clans
Clan - a group of blood relatives bearing the name of the alleged ancestor. The clan retained common ownership of land, blood feuds, and mutual responsibility. As remnants of primitive times, they remained in some areas of Scotland, among the Indians of America, in Japan and China. Several clans united to form tribe.
Tribe - a higher form of organization, covering a large number of clans and clans. Tribes have their own language or dialect, territory, formal organization (leader, tribal council), common ceremonies. Their number reached tens of thousands of people.
In the course of further cultural and economic development, the tribes were transformed into peoples, and those - at the highest stages of development - in the nation.
Nationality - an ethnic community that occupies a place on the ladder of social development between the tribes and the nation. Nationalities arise in the era of slavery and represent a linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. The nationality exceeds the tribe in number, blood ties do not cover the entire nationality, their significance is not so great.
Nation - an autonomous, not limited by territorial boundaries, political grouping, whose members are committed to common values and institutions. Representatives of one nation no longer have common ancestor and common origin. They don't have to have mutual language, religion.
So, the following ethnic communities have developed in history: tribe, people and nation.
Prerequisite The formation of an ethnic group is a common territory, which creates conditions for close communication and unification of people. However, then diasporas (scattering) are formed, although ethnic groups retain their identity. Other important condition The formation of an ethnos is the commonality of language. But the unity of spiritual culture, values, norms, patterns of behavior, traditions and related socio-psychological features of consciousness is of the greatest importance.
ethnic groups self-reproducing through internal marriages and through socialization and the creation of national statehood. Thus, society is individuals taken in stable, regular and institutionalized connections and interactions. They are united unified system social institutions and communities that ensure the satisfaction of people's vital interests.
27. The concept of ethnicity. Prerequisites, features and stages of the formation of the Russian ethnos.
Ethnos - this is a historically established stable set of people who have common features and characteristics of culture, social psychology, ethnic self-consciousness. The external form of expression of an ethnos is ethnonym , i.e. self-name (Russians, Germans).
Ethnic communities are also called consanguineous . These include clans, tribes, nationalities, nations, families, clans.
Russian ethnos
Russians- East Slavic people living mainly in Russia, and also constituting a significant proportion of the population of Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, Transnistria, Turkmenistan. They speak Russian of the eastern subgroup of the Slavic group of the Indo-European language family. Russians share a common history, culture and ethnic origin.
The number of Russians in the world is currently about 145 million, of which 116 million in Russia (2002), which is 79.8% of the total population of the country. The most common religion among Russian believers is Orthodox Christianity.
The subject of ethnosociology. Types of ethnic groups - tribe, nationality, nation. Signs of a nation.
ethnic communities occupy a prominent place in social life. Ethnos - this is a historically established stable set of people who have common features and characteristics of culture, social psychology, ethnic self-consciousness. The external form of expression of an ethnos is ethnonym , ᴛ.ᴇ. self-name (Russians, Germans).
Ethnic communities are also called consanguineous . These include clans, tribes, nationalities, nations, families, clans.
Family- the smallest consanguineous group of people connected by the unity of origin (grandmother, grandfather, father, mother, children).
Several families that have entered into an alliance form genus. Families united in clans
Clan- a group of blood relatives bearing the name of the alleged ancestor. The clan retained common ownership of land, blood feuds, and mutual responsibility. As remnants of primitive times, they remained in some areas of Scotland, among the Indians of America, in Japan and China. Several clans united to form tribe.
Tribe- a higher form of organization, covering a large number of clans and clans. Tribes have own language or dialect, territory, formal organization (chief, tribal council), general ceremonies. Their number reached tens of thousands of people.
In the course of further cultural and economic development, the tribes were transformed into peoples, and those - at the highest stages of development - in the nation.
Nationality- an ethnic community that occupies a place on the ladder of social development between the tribes and the nation. Nationalities arise in the era of slavery and represent a linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. The nationality exceeds the tribe in number, blood ties do not cover the entire nationality, their significance is not so great.
Nation- an autonomous, not limited by territorial boundaries, political grouping, whose members are committed to common values and institutions. Representatives of one nation no longer have a common ancestor and a common origin. They do not have to have a common language, religion.
So, the following ethnic communities have developed in history: tribe, people and nation.
Prerequisite The formation of an ethnos is the commonality of the territory, which creates conditions for close communication and unification of people. At the same time, diasporas (scattering) are then formed, although ethnic groups retain their identity. Another important condition for the formation of an ethnos is the common language. But the unity of spiritual culture, values, norms, patterns of behavior, traditions and related socio-psychological features of consciousness is of the greatest importance.
ethnic groups self-reproducing through internal marriages and through socialization and the creation of national statehood. Τᴀᴋᴎᴍ ᴏϬᴩᴀᴈᴏᴍ, society is individuals taken in stable, regular and institutionalized connections and interactions. Οʜᴎ are united by a single system of social institutions and communities that ensure the satisfaction of the vital interests of people.
The subject of ethnosociology. Types of ethnic groups - tribe, nationality, nation. Signs of a nation. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "The subject of ethnosociology. Types of ethnic groups - tribe, nationality, nation. Signs of a nation." 2017, 2018.
The word inhabited (-th, -th) in everyday speech, we characterize a place or territory where many people live, for example, a densely populated country, and the word "population" - people living in a given place, in a given territory. In demography, the term "population" is close to the interpretation of this word in everyday language. The concept of "population" has long been associated with the concept of "territory": population is primarily understood as the totality of people living simultaneously in any territory. Thus, the population can be considered the population of the whole Earth or part of the world, any state or geographical area. From the point of view of demographic studies, the population of a particular country is of greatest importance.
The concept of the population of the state coincides in form with the concept of the people of the state, but in content they are different categories. One of the criteria for referring to a particular people is residence in the corresponding area (or, at least, origin from that area), however, the people are historically linked together not only by the territory, but also by a common history, language, material and spiritual culture.
The globe is inhabited by many peoples ( ethnic groups) at various stages of socio-economic and cultural development. Ethnic groups are historically established in certain territories stable populations of people who have a single language, common relatively stable features of culture.
Historically, the earliest type of ethnic groups is a tribe. In the process of decomposition of the primitive communal system, new form ethnos - nationality. The first nationalities were formed in the slave era. The process of the formation of nationalities developed especially widely during the period of feudalism. With the development of capitalist relations and the strengthening of economic and cultural ties, the disunity characteristic of nationalities is eliminated, and they cease in the nation.
Nations are distinguished by a stable community of territory, economy and culture, a common language, common features of the national character, and a clear ethnic identity.
But the trinomial division of ethnic groups (tribe - nationality - nation) with the subdivision of nations does not reflect the entire diversity of forms of ethnic communities existing on Earth. The picture is complicated by the transitional ethnic groups that exist in many countries (they are especially characteristic of countries of immigration) - immigrants, as well as their descendants, partially subjected to assimilation by the main nation. They have not yet completely broken away from the people of their native country and have not completely merged into the ethnic group of the country that adopted them (such groups include, for example, Germans, Swedes, Italians, etc. in the USA and Canada). Peculiar "border" groups are also formed in the zone of ethnic borders, where two or more peoples come into contact. A characteristic feature of all these groups is the presence of a dual ethnic identity.
Among the processes of ethnic unification, there are consolidation, assimilation, interethnic integration and ethnogenetic mixing. Sometimes ethnic development is complex, and these processes occur simultaneously.
Consolidation is the merging of several related ethnic groups (tribes, nationalities) into a larger people or the further rallying of the formed people as its socio-economic and cultural development. In the first case, we are talking about inter-ethnic consolidation, in the second - intra-ethnic. Interethnic consolidation is accelerated in the case of a close relationship of peoples, the similarity of their languages and cultures. This process has taken place or is taking place in many countries of the world.
As part of any peoples, there are groups that retain some differences from the main ethnic array. Such groups, called ethnographic(now often referred to as sub-ethnic groups), represent separate parts of a nationality or nation, the culture and way of life of which retain some features (they have their own dialects or dialects, have specifics in material and spiritual culture, may differ in religious terms, etc.). Ethnographic groups are often formed during the assimilation of an ethnic group by a nationality or nation.
Groups are distinguished that differ from the main part of the ethnic group in confessional terms. For example, within the many consolidating peoples of Asia and Africa.
There are also communities that cover a whole group of peoples, the so-called meta-ethnic or supra-ethnic communities. They unite several peoples who have elements of a common self-consciousness based on ethno-genetic proximity or long-term cultural interaction, and in a class society, on political ties. Such communities include, for example, Slavic, Romanesque, Mongolian and other peoples, close not only in languages, but also to a certain extent in culture and way of life.
Ethno-confessional meta-ethnic communities took shape mainly in the feudal era. For example, Hinduism had a huge impact on the entire social and cultural life of the multilingual peoples of South Asia.
Determination of the national composition of the population in various countries of the world, as noted by S.I. Brook, the matter is complicated: because in connection with the development of the processes of assimilation and consolidation in many countries there are quite large groups of the population with transitional forms of culture and national identity. In addition, it is necessary to establish what a particular population group is: whether it is a people (ethnos), part of a people (sub-ethnos, ethnographic group), a group of peoples (a meta-ethnic community) or some other community (political, racial, confessional etc.).
Population records, as we have already noted, are conducted in most countries of the world. However, in many censuses (which in some countries have been regularly conducted since the end of the 18 early XIX c.) the national composition of the population is either not determined at all, or is not determined reliably enough.
At first, when the concept of “nationality” had not yet been formulated, the tasks of censuses were reduced to taking into account the languages of the population. Before the First World War, the question of language was included in the census programs of a number of multinational countries in Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, Austria-Hungary), the USA, India, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). The question of mother tongue was also raised in the first Russian census of 1897. The direct question of ethnicity (“nationality”) was included only in 1920 in the program of the first Soviet population census.
How many peoples are there on earth? Researchers usually count three to four thousand different peoples in the modern world - from the smallest tribes, the number of which is measured in hundreds or even tens of people (Toda in India, Botokuds in Brazil, Alakalufs and Yamanas in Argentina, etc.), to largest nations, numbering hundreds of millions of people.
According to the UN, by the end of the 20th century. the number of peoples, each of which exceeds 1 million people, amounted to over 350 (in 1961 there were 226 such peoples, in 1987 -310). These peoples account for more than 97% of the total population of the Earth.
As a result of uneven natural population growth in different countries of the world and among different peoples, their numbers change significantly. For example, the number of such large nations, as Colombian, Mexican, Algerian, Peruvian, Moroccan, Azerbaijani and others, doubled from 1960 to 1990, and Hindustani, Bengali, Brazilian increased by half. At the same time, the number of Germans, Englishmen, Russians and representatives of a number of other peoples decreased.
The largest nations of the world, whose number exceeded 100 million people. are: Chinese (more than 1 billion people), Hin-Dustanians (India), Bengalis (India, Bangladesh), Americans, Brazilians, Russians, Japanese, Punjabis (Pakistan, India), Biharis (India). The Mexicans, Javanese (Indonesia), Telugu (India) are close to this milestone in terms of numbers.
It is important to single out the classification of peoples by language. All languages are combined into language families, which are divided into language groups. The largest of them is Indo-European, the languages of which are spoken by more than 150 peoples of Europe, Asia, America, Australia, constituting 1/3 of the entire population of the Earth.
The peoples inhabiting the globe, for the most part, live compactly. An ethnically mixed population is characteristic of areas located along ethnic borders. A particularly variegated ethnic composition is observed in the large cities of countries of the resettlement type, in states with increased immigration.
According to the diversity of the ethnic composition, the countries of the world can be divided into three groups: multinational states (USA, Russia, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc.); binational (Belgium, Cyprus, Iran, Turkey, etc.); single-national (Germany, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Greece, Iceland, Portugal, etc.).
The main principles of the state national policy in the Russian Federation are:
equality of human rights and freedoms regardless of their nationality, language, religion, membership in social groups and public associations;
equality of peoples;
preservation of the historically established state unity of the Russian Federation;
equality of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in their relations with each other and with federal government bodies;
guarantee of the rights of indigenous small and dispersed peoples in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the principles and norms of international law recognized by the Russian Federation;
the right of every citizen to determine and indicate his national identity without any coercion from outside;
assistance in the development of national cultures and languages of the peoples of the Russian Federation;
the prohibition of any form of restriction of the rights of citizens on the grounds of national, linguistic, social and religious affiliation;
timely and peaceful resolution of contradictions and conflicts through the development and implementation of conciliation procedures;
the prohibition of public associations and organizations, as well as propaganda, agitation aimed at undermining the security of the state, at inciting ethnic and religious hatred;
protection of the rights and interests of citizens of the Russian Federation outside its borders in accordance with the norms of international law;
support for compatriots living in foreign countries in the preservation and development of their native language, culture and national traditions strengthening their ties with their homeland.
2. DEMOGRAPHIC PROBLEMS OF THE NORTH CAUCASUS REGION
Among the regions of Russia, the North Caucasus stands out both in absolute numbers and in the proportion of the population within the Russian Federation. On 01.01.1998 the region has 17.7 million inhabitants, or a little over 12% of the population of the Russian Federation. In terms of the absolute number of inhabitants, it is second only to the Urals (20.4 million people) and Central (29.7 million people) regions (Table 1).
Table 1
The actual population of the Russian Federation by economic regions as of January 1, 199K, million people
|
Russian Federation |
147,4 |
|
northern region |
5.8 |
|
Northwestern region |
80,0 |
|
central District |
29,7 |
|
In ol go- In yate to and and ra and about 11 |
8,4 |
|
Central Black Earth Region |
7,8 |
|
Volga region |
16,9 |
|
North Caucasus region |
17,7 |
|
Ural region |
20,4 |
|
West Siberian region |
15,1 |
|
East Siberian region |
9,1 |
|
Far East region |
The North Caucasus is the only major region in the Russian Federation where the overall population continues to grow. Among other regions, only the Volga region continued to “increase” the number of inhabitants, but only until 1995, and then natural losses began to exceed natural and mechanical growth in the Volga region as well.
Within the North Caucasus region, the increase in the number of inhabitants in the first half of the 1990s. took place in almost all subjects of the region, but with the beginning of the second half, the total increase sharply decreased and for 1995-1998. amounted to only 0.2%.
The absolute number of inhabitants decreased especially (by almost 20%) in Chechen Republic for reasons related not to a drop in the birth rate, but to the flight of residents in connection with the hostilities of 1995-1996, the “squeezing out” of the Russian-speaking population as a result of the aggravation of interethnic relations, the worsening of the crime situation and the growth of separatist tendencies.
table 2
Change in the actual population of the SCER for 1991-1998, thousand people
|
Theoretical unit |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1998 |
|
North Caucasian region, total |
17030 |
17392 |
17670 |
17701 |
17707 |
|
Republic of Adygea |
437 |
447 |
451 |
450 |
450 |
|
The Republic of Dagestan |
1854 |
1925 |
1997 |
2074 |
2095 |
|
The Republic of Ingushetia |
280 |
309 |
313 |
||
|
Chechen Republic |
1 309 |
1307 |
974 |
K 13 |
797 |
|
Kabardino-Balkarian Republic |
777 |
788 |
790 |
790 |
792 |
|
Karachay-Cherkess Republic |
427 |
434 |
436 |
436 |
436 |
|
Republic of North Ossetia Alania |
643 |
651 |
659 |
665 |
669 |
|
Krasnodar region |
4738 |
4879 |
5004 |
5070 |
5075 |
|
Stavropol krap |
2499 |
2580 |
2650 |
2674 |
2682 |
|
Rostov region |
4348 |
4383 |
4429 |
4420 |
4404 |
In 1999, and in connection with the start of new hostilities in Chechnya, the flow of refugees to the Stavropol and Krasnodar Territories sharply increased, which contributed to the growth in the number of their inhabitants and as a result of intra-regional redistribution of the population (but not its absolute growth in the North Caucasus.
The republics of Adygea, Karachay-Cherkess and Kabardino-Balkaria entered the period of stabilization of population reproduction, where for more than a decade a transition to a modern and rational type of reproduction has been made and conditions have arisen for a new demographic revolution - the revolution of a post-industrial society.
There are some peculiarities in the distribution of the population of the region between the city and the countryside:
Slow growth of the urban population in comparison with other regions of the country and Russia and in general;
Ruralization - a decrease in the proportion of the urban population by the end of the 1990s. compared to the end of the 1980s. (56.2 and 56.5% respectively).
A large number of small towns with weakly expressed urban functions (“undivided unity of the city and the countryside”) both in terms of the functions performed, reflected in the structure of employment of the population, and in terms of the level of improvement, the provision of urban forms of service, and the quality of life.
Ruralization of the population to a certain extent affected all regions of the country, although on a lesser scale than in the North Caucasus. In general, in Russia, there is a certain unstable balance in the distribution of the urban and rural population in the 1990s.
Unevenly, the processes of urbanization also covered individual republics, territories and regions of the North Caucasus.
Thus. four subjects of the region (Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Republic of Dagestan, Chechen, Ingush) have urban populations of less than half of the total population. North Ossetia-Llania has the highest level of urbanization. Rostov region and Kabardino-Balkaria. The maximum decrease in the share of urban residents in the total population falls on the Chechen Republic, the Rostov Region and Kabardino-Balkaria. Lost urban residents and Adygea and Karachay-Cherkessia, although to a lesser extent than the named three subjects of the region. IN Krasnodar Territory and the Republic of North Ossetia-Alaiia, the proportion of the urban population stabilized at the level of 1986, and even slightly increased towards the Stavropol Territory, which is primarily due to migration processes that ensured a significant mechanical increase in urban residents.
The natural movement of the population in the region has the same trends as in Russia as a whole. Differences are observed within the region itself: in the Rostov region. In the Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, in the Republic of Adygea, the birth rate is lower than the average for the region, and in the Rostov Region it is even lower than the average for the Russian Federation. Moreover, the decline in the birth rate in the region began much earlier than in Russia as a whole.
However, there are also leaders in the region in terms of the total birth rate) and - Dagestan and Ingushetia - those only within the region, but throughout Russia. The third place belongs to the Republic of Tuva, which, in sports language, is far behind (15.8 ppm) from the first two. In the region, the third place is occupied by Kabardino-Balkaria (sixth in the Russian Federation).
In other subjects of the North Caucasian region, the main reason for the decline in the level of urbanization is associated with the departure of part of the city dwellers and the countryside, where it is easier to solve problems.
The decline in the total fertility rate, as in Russia as a whole, in the region began in the late 1950s and early 1960s, although it proceeded more smoothly and from equal initial levels. Therefore, only in two subjects of the region - the Krasnodar Territory and the Rostov Region - by the beginning of the 1990s. completed the demographic transition from modern to post-industrial mud of population reproduction. The Stavropol Territory is approaching them today. The republics of Adygea and Karachay-Cherkess, in which either the majority or a significant proportion is the Slavic population, are more than others covered by depopulation processes.
The crude death rate in the region, with the exception of Dagestan and Ingushetia, either approaches the crude birth rate or significantly exceeds it. This figure is especially dramatic in the Rostov region. Krasnodar Territory. Republic of Adygea and partly in the Republic of North Osstia-Alapnya and the Stavropol Territory. In the first two, the mortality rates are higher than the average for Russia, in the last two they are approaching it. Practically only two of the subjects of the SCER have indicators traditional type mortality (Dagestan and Ingushetia), in the rest the demographic transition to a new type of population reproduction has already been completed.
It should be noted that the increase in the overall mortality rate occurs without such sharp drops as the birth rate. In general, in the region for 1985-1998. it increased by 14%, while the birth rate over the same period of time decreased by 1.7 times! Therefore, the main reason for the depopulation of the 1990s. - a rapid decline in the birth rate, an increase in the death rate only "complements" it. The undulating nature of both coefficients reflects the "waves" of previous reproduction rates (the difference in the number of individuals entering the critical age).
Of particular concern are the high rates of infant mortality and mortality of the population of working age, especially men.
On average for the region in 1997, all subjects of the SCER had a very high infant mortality rate (except for the Krasnodar Territory and Kabardino-Balkaria, above the average for the Russian Federation as a whole). Noteworthy is the spasmodic nature of changes in this indicator. It can hardly be explained by the level of medical care for the population, especially prenatal and postnatal care for women in labor and babies. Apparently, the reasons lie in another area. Although it is impossible to discount the state of medical care. In any case, infant mortality is 2.0-2.5 times higher than in the industrialized countries of the world and 1/3 higher than in St. Petersburg (11.00) and Leningrad region (11,1).
The second problem of the 1980-1990s. - high mortality rate of the population of working age, and the mortality rate of men is 3-4 times higher than that of women.
The natural increase in the region's population, as well as in Russia as a whole, had a negative balance in 1996 (0.2%), but already in the following year it turned out to be positive, although with a slight excess of births over deaths (0.3%). In the territorial context, the overall positive result is deeply differentiated: in the Krasnodar Territory, there has been an increase in absolute population losses since 1990, in the Rostov Region - since 1991, in the Stavropol Territory and the Republic of Adygea - since 1992.
By 1997 a stable negative total fertility rate covered half of the subjects of the region, concentrating 3/4 of its inhabitants. In this regard, it can be said with certainty that with the nerve to increase business activity, especially material production of the most economically developed subjects of the region, there will be a problem of shortage of labor resources. Migration will be the main source of replenishment of such resources. However, even today it provides not only compensation for the natural decline, but also the general increase in the population. And since the vast majority of Russian regions will experience a shortage of labor resources, the import of labor will become inevitable. In this regard, today the most important goal of demographic policy is to create such a system of measures that would help reduce the overall mortality rate, primarily for infants and men of working age; the death rate of women at this age deviates little from the rate of normal extinction of generations and can be reduced with a corresponding increase in the level of medical care).
The entire population policy in the country also requires improvement: the improvement of the family, the choice of new values of moral and aesthetic education, and so on.
Population migrations in the region were determined by the nature of population reproduction and the level of economic development of each subject. So, for the Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, the Republic of Adygea, the migration increase, starting from the 1960s. up to this day. was and remains the most important source of population growth. In the Chechen, Ingush and Dagestan Republics, after the return of the deported peoples, the seasonal migration of labor resources (the so-called otkhodnichestvo) to all regions of the former Soviet Union, which often ended in resettlement to labor-scarce areas, was widely developed.
In the 1990s among the regions of the Russian Federation that lost their inhabitants during the migration exchange, the following stood out: Northern (especially Karelia and the Nenets Autonomous Okrug). The Republic of Kalmykia in the Volga region, the East Siberian region with the exception of the Krasnoyarsk Territory (especially the national autonomous regions - Taimyr, Evenk and Chita region) and the Far East region, primarily the Sakhalin, Magadan, Kamchatka regions. Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. The rest of the regions, including the North Caucasus (with the exception of the Chechen and Dagestan Republics), have a positive coefficient of migration growth. This should also include Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia.
Thus, areas of intensive migration outflow of the population were clearly identified within the country. On the one hand, these are areas with extreme natural, climatic and socio-economic conditions, on the other - areas of interethnic conflicts and outright separatism.
Within the North Caucasus region, like natural growth, mechanical growth divides the subjects into two unequal parts. Subjects with a positive migration growth rate generally have a negative coefficient of natural movement and, conversely, a positive balance of natural growth is accompanied by a negative indicator of mechanical growth. The exception is Ingushetia, where both indicators are positive. There are no coincidences in the combination of indicators in either group.
Only three subjects had a permanently positive coefficient of migration movement of the population: the Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories and the Rostov Region. Moreover, the balance of migration growth of the latter is an order of magnitude smaller than the balance of the first two.
According to the absolute number of migrants in 1997. The Stavropol Territory took the first place - 61 thousand people, or 5.1% of the all-Russian indicator. Then Ingushetia (55 thousand people). Krasnodar Territory (44.3 thousand people) and Rostov Region (38.2 thousand people). However, according to SV Ryazantsev, these data reflect no more than 35-45% of the total number of actually arriving migrants.
The composition of migrants arriving in the North Caucasus from other regions of the country and neighboring countries is dominated by refugees and internally displaced persons. Their massive influx into the three main centers of attraction in the region (Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories, Rostov Region) began in the second half of the 1980s. in connection with a number of tragic events(Spitak earthquake. Karabakh, Sumgayit, South Ossetian, Abkhazian, Ossetian-Ingush, Chechen, Chechen-Dagestan conflicts both in the former Soviet republics and intra-regional).
Among the migrants of this period are mainly persons who have lost housing, property, jobs, pensions in their places of former residence, fleeing persecution and possible physical destruction. Without significant material assistance from local and all-Russian migration services, they could become an explosive social burden. Their accommodation, providing them with work and housing was extremely important, and at the same time, in the conditions of the general collapse of the economy, it was an extremely difficult task. Nevertheless, the local authorities coped with this task, although not without certain difficulties.
Migrants from the northern territories had a somewhat different social status. Eastern Siberia and the Far East. It is either relatively wealthy in material terms migrants forced to leave as a result of a reduction in production volumes or the liquidation of mining enterprises, or young people who left the North due to liquidation cations of a number of benefits, or pensioners who were contraindicated in extreme natural conditions for health reasons. All these categories of migrants made the decision to migrate either on the basis of their own financial capabilities or with the support of the relevant ministries (for example, the miners of the coal mines of Vorkuta), which undertook to provide the settlers with housing. Finally, a special category of migrants was made up of demobilized military personnel of the Western Group of Forces stationed in the Warsaw Pact countries and especially Germany. All of them were provided with housing built at the expense of the FRG, which was more interested than others in the liquidation of the military bases of the former USSR within Central and Eastern Europe.
Consider the structure of the population of the North Caucasus region. In the North Caucasus in 1989, persons aged 65 and over accounted for 12.7% of the total number of permanent residents. At the same time, in the Krasnodar Territory, their share reached the level modern Japan(14.5%), in the Stavropol Territory - 13.3%, in the Rostov Region - 13.2%. By the beginning of 1998 the situation has changed little due to the massive influx of migrants and the decline medium duration the life of the population.
There are problems and regions with a traditional or transitional type of population reproduction. In the Russian Federation, despite the completion of the demographic transition from the traditional to the industrial (rational) type of reproduction, some subjects have retained the features of the traditional in the current socio-economic situation. characteristic feature their population structure by age and sex is a significant proportion of people of working age with a relatively low mortality rate. As a result, some regions have a reduced proportion of people of retirement age (for example, the Far East region - 14.1% of all residents, East Siberian - 16.1%. Western - 17.3%). A relatively high proportion of the young population has autonomous entities (Yamal-Nenets, Khanty-Mansiysk, Taimyr, Koryak, Chukotka Autonomous Okrugs. Republics of Tuva and Sakha-Yakutia, Magadan Region), where people of retirement age make up 5-10% of the total number residents. This category of the population is slightly higher (from 10.2 to 15%) in the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, the Republics of Komi, and Ingushetia. Dagestan. Chechen, Buryatia and the Sakhalin region. Tyumen, Amur.
The nature of the “youth” of their inhabitants is somewhat different. In Ingushetia, the Chechen Republic, Dagestan, and partly Buryatia, the main factor in rejuvenation is high level mortality in all age groups of the population and short life expectancy as a result of extreme socio-economic and climatic conditions.
The problems associated with the “young” population of the region are essentially characteristic of only two republics: Dagestan and Ingushetia, but in the near future they will be compensated by the economic recovery of the country and the acute need for young labor resources in labor-sufficient regions. In the meantime, the high proportion of people of working age with limited economic opportunities makes it difficult to overcome the depressive trends in the economic development of these republics.
The Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories have a somewhat different nature of the problem of the age structure of the working-age population. Rostov region, the republics of Adygea and North Ossetia-Llania. Of concern is the sharp decline in the number of children aged 0-7 years, which by 2001 threatens a new wave of decline in the working-age population. So, for example, in the Rostov region on 01.01.1998 the number of children aged 0-7 years was 131.7 thousand (37.5%) less than in 1989. Although in general for the SCER from 1989 to 1995 the total number of people of working age increased by 58 thousand people. by increasing the number of children aged 8-15 years. Consequently, a particularly sharp decline in the birth rate has taken place since the early 1990s, more precisely since 1992.
Thus, we list the following demographic problems of the North Caucasus economic region, which includes the Krasnodar Territory:
DEMOGRAPHIC POLICY IN RUSSIA: TASKS AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION
ESSENCE, CONCEPT AND TYPES OF DEMOGRAPHIC FORECASTING
ethnic communities occupy a prominent place in social life. Ethnos - this is a historically established stable set of people who have common features and characteristics of culture, social psychology, ethnic self-consciousness. The external form of expression of an ethnos is ethnonym , i.e. self-name (Russians, Germans).
Ethnic communities are also called consanguineous . These include clans, tribes, nationalities, nations, families, clans.
Family- the smallest consanguineous group of people connected by the unity of origin (grandmother, grandfather, father, mother, children).
Several families that have entered into an alliance form genus. Families united in clans
Clan- a group of blood relatives bearing the name of the alleged ancestor. The clan retained common ownership of land, blood feuds, and mutual responsibility. As remnants of primitive times, they remained in some areas of Scotland, among the Indians of America, in Japan and China. Several clans united to form tribe.
Tribe- a higher form of organization, covering a large number of clans and clans. Tribes have their own language or dialect, territory, formal organization (leader, tribal council), common ceremonies. Their number reached tens of thousands of people.
In the course of further cultural and economic development, the tribes were transformed into peoples, and those - at the highest stages of development - in the nation.
Nationality- an ethnic community that occupies a place on the ladder of social development between the tribes and the nation. Nationalities arise in the era of slavery and represent a linguistic, territorial, economic and cultural community. The nationality exceeds the tribe in number, blood ties do not cover the entire nationality, their significance is not so great.
Nation- an autonomous, not limited by territorial boundaries, political grouping, whose members are committed to common values and institutions. Representatives of one nation no longer have a common ancestor and a common origin. They do not have to have a common language, religion.
So, the following ethnic communities have developed in history: tribe, people and nation.
Prerequisite The formation of an ethnic group is a common territory, which creates conditions for close communication and unification of people. However, then diasporas (scattering) are formed, although ethnic groups retain their identity. Another important condition for the formation of an ethnos is the common language. But the unity of spiritual culture, values, norms, patterns of behavior, traditions and related socio-psychological features of consciousness is of the greatest importance.
ethnic groups self-reproducing through internal marriages and through socialization and the creation of national statehood. Thus, society is individuals taken in stable, regular and institutionalized connections and interactions. They are united by a single system of social institutions and communities that ensure the satisfaction of people's vital interests.
A full-fledged member of the nation, a normative citizen, moving along trajectories strictly prescribed by logic without any danger of falling into an ethnos or myth, will be a human-like, but artificial being - a cyborg, clone, mutant, a product of genetic engineering. The optimal atom of the nation and civil society is a person without subconsciousness, without ethnic properties, a person completely created by the tools of culture and its ultralogical form. A civil society and a fully logical nation in its singularities and in its generalization can only be built if human-like apparatuses, machines, post-humans take the place of people. An ideal nation that strictly meets the criteria of logos in its most complete development is a nation of cyborgs, computers, biomechanoids.Professor's seventh lecture Alexandra Dugina, read at the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University named after Lomonosov as part of the course "Structural Sociology".
Part 1. Definition of ethnos and related concepts
The concept of ethnicity
The concept of ethnicity is extremely complex. In Western science, it is used quite rarely, and there are no strict classical scientific definitions that would be the subject of unconditional academic consensus. There are such directions in science as ethnology and ethnography. The first describes the various peoples of the world, their characteristics, and the second, according to the Levi-Strauss formula, is a subsection of anthropology and studies the structures of primitive ethnic groups and archaic tribes. From this usage it is clear that in the West it is customary to understand peoples whose culture belongs to the category of “primitive” by “ethnos”.
The etymology of the word "ethnos" goes back to the Greek language, where there were a number of concepts that describe approximately the same thing as Russian word"people". The Greeks distinguished
. το γένος - “people” in the proper sense - that which “was born”, “kind” (in Russian, the words “wife”, “woman”, that is, “creature that gives birth” ascend to this Indo-European root);
. η φυλή - (people, tribe, in the sense of "tribe", tribal community; "philes" were the oldest division of Greek clans - the Latin "populus" and the German "Volk" go back to the same root);
. το δήμος - people in the sense of "population" of some administrative state unit, policy; the people in the political sense, that is, the totality of citizens living in the policy and endowed with political rights, "civil society";
. ο λαός - people in the meaning of "gathering", "crowd", gathered for some specific purpose, as well as "army", "detachment" (in Christianity, baptized Christians are called λαός - which can also be translated as " holy people" and as "holy host"); and finally our
. το έθνος - "ethnos", which meant something similar to "genos", "genus", but was used much less often and in an understated context - often in relation to animals - in the sense of "pack", "swarm", "herd" or to foreigners, emphasizing the features (differences) of their customs; the words "το έθνος" ("ethnos", "people") and "το έθος" ("ethos", "morality", "mores", "custom") are similar in form and meaning; in plural"τα έθνη", "ethnoi" this word was used in the same sense as the Hebrew "goyim", that is, "tongues" ("non-Jews") and sometimes "pagans".
There is nothing in the Greek language that would indicate the specific meanings that we put into this concept today.
Ethnos - people - nation - race
Based on the uncertainty of the term "ethnos" and the ambiguity of its interpretation in various scientific schools, one can start not with a definition, but with a distinction between related concepts within the logic of the "Structural Sociology" course.
In ordinary speech, the following terms are sometimes used to denote what is meant by "enos", acting as synonyms or at least similar concepts.
We have taken two of these 5 concepts in brackets, since they practically have no scientific meaning and are the results of numerous stratifications, convergences and divergences of the meanings of the main 4 terms, which, on the contrary, denote rather definite, but different realities. Differences in the meanings of the main members of the chain - ethnos-people-nation-race - will lead us both to a clearer understanding of each term and to an understanding of the instrumental meaning of intermediate concepts taken in brackets.
Scientific definition of ethnos
The term "ethnos" was introduced into scientific circulation in Russia by a scientist who found himself in exile after the October Revolution (1887-1939). He owns the definition of "ethnos", which has become a classic.
"ethnos" is a group of people
Speaking the same language
Recognizing their common origin
Possessing a complex of customs, a way of life, preserved and consecrated by tradition and distinguished by it from those of other groups.
This definition emphasizes linguistic community(placed in the first place not by chance), common origin, the presence of customs and traditions (that is, culture), as well as the ability to clearly distinguish these traditions and customs from the customs and traditions of other ethnic groups (differentiation).
A similar definition of "ethnos" (more precisely, "ethnicity" - Ethnizitat) gives Max Weber- “Ethnicity is belonging to an ethnic group united by cultural homogeneity and belief in common origin". Shirokogorov's definition is more complete, as it emphasizes the commonality of the language.
The most important thing in the concept of an ethnos is the assertion of its basic reality at the basis of the entire structure of society. Every person has a language, culture, knowledge about the origins and customs. And this complex varies significantly from society to society. The fundamental matrix of such a complex (that is, a combination of all elements - sometimes collectively called "culture") is the ethnos.
The people are a common destiny
The Russian term “people” Shirokogorov proposes not only to separate from the concept of “ethnos”, but also not to use it in scientific constructions at all due to its “vagueness” and “polysemy” (we saw what a difficult hierarchy of the word for “people” existed in ancient Greek) . Nevertheless, for a more accurate understanding of the term "ethnos", we can try to define it. A people is an ethnos that brings a higher goal into the structure of its society, strives to transcend the usual limits of ethnic existence, consciously expand the horizons of culture and the scale of social structures. It can also be said that the people are an ethnic group in an upward movement, on the rise, in the dynamics of expansion, growth, takeoff (3) .
The people, in contrast to the ethnos, which is oriented towards a common origin, is oriented towards a common destiny, that is, not only the past and the present, but also the future, what needs to be done. The people are connected with the mission, the project, the task. It is organized along the force lines of the realization of the unrealized, the discovery of the undiscovered, the creation of the uncreated.
At its core, a people remains an ethnos and has all the properties of an ethnos, but a new component is added to this set - language, origin, custom, awareness of difference from others - mission, purpose, purpose.
Not every ethnos is a people in this scientific definition, but every people is basically an ethnos.
Soviet ethnologist Julian Bromley(1921-1990), studying ethnos, tried to emphasize the same difference. He contrasted "ethnos in the narrow sense" (that is, actually "ethnos" as such) with "ethnos in the broad sense", which he called "ethno-social organism" (4) . Under the "ethno-social organism" Bromley understood approximately the same as we under the "people". But, in our opinion, such a definition is extremely unsuccessful, since any ethnic group necessarily carries sociality, moreover, it is the matrix of sociality, its original and fundamental form (and in this sense, any sociality is always ethnic in its origins, at least) , and any ethnos is an organism, that is, it corresponds to the organizational code, is organized according to a certain paradigm, which may change or stagnate, but is always present.
It is much more constructive to use the term "people", each time emphasizing and keeping in mind its scientific definition. When translating the pair "ethnos" - "people" into European languages, you can use the Greek form "ethnos" (in French - l "ethnie) and the most accurately corresponding term "people" - the people, das Volk, le peuple, el pueblo and etc. In extreme cases, if this is not enough, it is possible to introduce the Russian word “narod” into scientific circulation - if only because this concept lies in the center of attention of Russian philosophy, which, starting from the era of the Slavophiles and up to the populists, paid to him the most important place in philosophical, historical and social theories and systems.
people, state, religion, civilization
The desire of the “people” to realize a mission that transcends the norms and rhythms of ethnic existence is embodied in practice in a limited range of possibilities. The “people”, realizing themselves as such and accepting responsibility for organizing the future, for fulfilling the mission, most often embodies this in the creation of three structures
Religions
. civilization
. states.
These three concepts, as a rule, are interconnected: the state is often based on a religious idea, civilization is made up of states and religions, and so on. But theoretically one can imagine peoples - and they exist in history - which are created only by the state, only by religion and only by civilization. The state, state, empire - these are the most natural forms of the historical creativity of the people, and there is no need to give examples here. The states that existed before and now exist are the product of the activity of ethnic groups that have become peoples.
The Jewish people, although historically it had statehood and it was restored in the 20th century, nevertheless, for two millennia it remained a people (and not just an ethnic group) mobilized by religious faith, that is, it lived by religion as a goal and destiny, without having a state.
The example of Ancient India shows that the Vedic Aryans, who came from Northern Eurasia to Hindustan, created greatest civilization a world in which statehood was weak and blurred, and religion was syncretic and included many not only Indo-European elements proper, but also autochthonous cults.
The ancient Greeks also created a civilization that lasted without a state for many centuries before Alexander the Great built an empire.
Nation as Nation-State
In contrast to the organic and always actually given, original "ethnos" and from the "people" that creates religions, civilizations or states, the nation is an exclusively political concept and is associated with the New Age.
In Latin, "natio" means exactly the same as "people", that is, "birth", "clan", and also "Motherland", the place where a person was "born". The Latin word has a binding to a place, but this is not expressed semantically, but rather associatively - based on the typical use of this term in Latin texts. This "natio" differs from "populus", which is more associated with "genus", "origin".
In political and scientific language, the term "nation" has acquired a stable meaning in connection with the concept of the state. There is the most important French phrase - Etat-Nation, literally "State-Nation". It emphasizes that we are not talking about an empire where a single politic system could include various ethnic groups, but about such an education, where the state-forming ethnic group completely turns into a people, and the people, in turn, embodies themselves in the state, turns into it, becomes it. A nation is a people that ceases to be an ethnic group and has become a state.
The state is an administrative apparatus, a machine, a formalized body of legal norms and institutions, a rigidly built system of power and control. A nation is what this mechanism consists of - a set of details, atoms, elements that allow this mechanism to function.
Nations appear only in modern times, in the era of Modernity, together with modern states - moreover, these are not two separate phenomena; one calls forth the other: the modern state brings with it the modern nation. One is unthinkable without the other.
The nation is, in a logical sense, the product of the completed implementation by the people of the task of building the state, and the opposite gesture of the state to establish the nation in the place of the people and instead of the people. The people create the state modern understanding), and this is where its function ends. Further, the state begins to act according to its own autonomous logic, depending on what idea, paradigm or ideology it has. If at the first stage the people create the state, then later, having taken place, the state itself artificially generates a certain analogue of the “people” - this analogue is called the “nation”.
In a Nation-State, by definition, there can only be one nation. This nation is determined primarily on a formal basis - citizenship. The basis of the nation is the principle of citizenship: nationality and citizenship are identical.
The Nation State has
One (rarely several) state language,
. obligatory historical episteme (narration about the stages of the formation of a nation),
. ruling ideology or its equivalent,
. legal legislation, the observance of which is an indisputable duty.
We see in the “nation” certain elements of both the “ethnos” and the “people”, but they are transferred to a different level, they are not an organic whole, but an artificially built rationalistic mechanism.
The nation is based on the transformation of the main people and the suppression (sometimes destruction) of small ethnic groups that fall within the zone of state control. In fact, everything ethnic, original, basic, traditional (which was also preserved among the people) disappears in the nation. The people that builds the state and becomes the core of the “nation” loses its own ethnicity, since living ties, the processes of evolution of language, customs, traditions acquire a fixed form in the state once and for all; social structures are transformed into legal codes; only one of the possible ethnic dialects is taken as a normative language, fixed as obligatory, and the rest are eradicated as "illiteracy"; and even the implementation of the goal, mission, the state rationalizes and takes responsibility for its achievement.
Race and racial theories
The term "race" has several meanings and varies significantly from language to language. One of the meanings - especially in German die Rasse, but also in French (la race) and English (the race) - strictly coincides with the meaning of the concept of "ethnos", but puts forward an additional criterion - biological and genetic relationship. In this sense, “race” should be understood as “ethnos” (as Shirokogorov or Weber defines it), but with the addition of biological genetic relationship.
This meaning is sometimes transferred to the concept of "ethnos", since the linguistic community and cultural unity of a certain biological relationship and physical similarity among their carriers imply. For this reason, in certain cases, race is understood as an "ethnos" or "ethnic group". In this sense, the expressions "Germanic race" or "Slavic race" are used, that is, "kindred groups of Germanic or Slavic ethnic groups."
The biological nature of the concept of race is also expressed in the fact that it refers to European languages to the classification of animal species, where they serve as a form of taxonomic identifier - what in Russian is conveyed by the word "breed". Hence the “purebred shepherd dog” - a dog belonging to the shepherd breed without mixing with other “breeds” - it will be a shepherd dog of a “pure race”, “purebred shepherd dog, “pedigreed shepherd dog”.
The mongrel is a "mixed race" dog.
In this sense, the concept of "race" was used by many authors of the 19th century - in particular, Ludwig Gumplovich, the author of the concept of "Racial Struggle", where "race" refers to ethnic groups.
The second meaning of "race" is an attempt to generalize about a large number ethnic groups into several macrofamilies, differing in skin and eye color, skull shape, hairline types and anatomy features (as well as the commonness of a once single language). In Antiquity and the Middle Ages, there was an idea of four races (white, black, yellow and red) or three (descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth).
“In modern times, the naturalist (1707-1778) divided all types of people into three types:
1) wild man - homo ferus, which included mainly cases of savagery and transformation into an animal state of children left without human education;
2) an ugly person - homo monstruosus, which included microcephaly and other pathological phenomena, and
3) homo diurnus, which includes four races, namely: American, European, Asian and African, distinguished by a number of physical features. Linnaeus also points to ethnographic signs. In his opinion: Americans are governed by customs, Europeans by laws, Asians by opinions, and Africans by arbitrariness. (5) The naivety of such a gradation is striking.
"At the end of the eighteenth century Blumenbach(1752 - 1840) - built a completely independent classification, basing it on the color of hair, skin and the shape of the skull. Blumenbach counts
five races, namely:
1) The Caucasian race - white with a round head - lives in North America, Europe and Asia to the Gobi Desert,
2) The Mongolian race - has a square head, black hair, yellow complexion, slanting eyes and lives in Asia, except for the Malay Archipelago,
3) The Ethiopian race - black, with a flattened head - lives in Africa,
4) The American race, - with copper-colored skin and a deformed head - and, finally,
5) Malay race - has brown hair and a moderately round head. This classification should be considered as purely anthropological, somatic.
Fr. Miller introduced into his classification, as a sign, and language. He believes that hair color and language are the most stable features that can serve as the basis for dividing people into races and establishes that there are:
1) Beam-haired - Hottentots, Bushmen, Papuans;
2) Rune-haired - Africans, Negroes, Kaffirs;
3) Straight-haired - Australians, Americans, Mongols and
4) Curly-haired - Mediterranean. These races give a total of 12 more groups." (6)
To date, the idea of the presence of three races has been established in science: 1) Caucasoid, 2) Mongoloid and 3) Negroid, although disputes about the justification and relevance of such a classification do not subside.
Racism is biological and cultural
Parallel to these primary systematizations of ethnic diversity, the idea arose to build a certain hierarchy of innate properties between races (which is already noticeable in Linnaeus). Arthur de Gobineau, Yours de Lapouge(1854-1936) and Gustav Le Bon develop theories about the "inequality of races", which indirectly justifies for Europeans their colonial conquests and leads a direct road to Nazism. The statement about the inequality of races and the ideas arising from it of preserving racial purity and justifying the persecution of people on racial grounds have been called "racism".
Racism was the official ideology of the white population of the American continent, who imported slaves from Africa, exterminated (in the North) or enslaved (in the South) the local Indian population and established "racial superiority" over "savages". The USA at its core was a racist state, which shaped the specifics American attitude to anthropology. Later, the idea of the racial superiority of whites over "colored" took the form of cultural racism, expressed in the conviction of Americans that their culture and civilization is the best and most universal, their values - freedom, democracy, the market - are optimal, and those who dispute this are at the "lowest degree of development."
One of the main theorists of racism in the twentieth century was H.F. Günther(1891-1968), who singled out the following taxonomy of races in Europe -
1) Nordic race,
2) Dinaric race,
3) Alpine race,
4) Mediterranean race,
5) Western race,
6) East Baltic race (sometimes he added the Fali race to them).
Gunther considered the creators of civilization to be representatives of the Nordic race - tall, blue-eyed dolichocephals. He considered Africans and Asians inferior. Most of all fell to the lot of the Jews, whom Günther referred to as "representatives of Asia in Europe" and, accordingly, the main "racial enemy." Racism became an integral part of the National Socialist ideology, and the implementation of racial principles led to the death of millions of innocent people.
The groundlessness of such generalizations was proved in a purely scientific (and not humanitarian and moral) key by modern anthropologists and, first of all, representatives of structural anthropology (especially Levi-Strauss). It is significant that it was his justification of the failure of the racial theory that was included in the textbook for French schools, as a classic definition of the equality of all human races and ethnic communities.
Since racism and racist theories, and especially the inhuman practices based on them, have left a terrible mark on the history of the twentieth century, the very term "race" and any form of "racial research" in our time have become rare and certainly arouse suspicion.
In a purely scientific and neutral sense, this concept means an attempt to classify ethnic groups according to physiological, phenotypic - sometimes linguistic - characteristics.
Terminological problems of Soviet ethnology
In Soviet times, the question of the definitions of ethnos, nation, people, etc. was complicated by the need to combine the theories of ethnos, nation, state with Marxist theory. In this particular case, all the difficulties that initially consisted in the desire to give the Bolshevik revolution the character of a legitimate implementation of the predictions of Marxist theory manifested themselves - despite the factors that blatantly contradicted this. Marx believed that socialist revolutions would take place in industrial countries, which are full-fledged Nation-States with a predominance of capitalist relations, developed classes - the industrial bourgeoisie, the urban proletariat, etc. That is, the socialist society, according to Marx, comes to replace the nation and replaces it with itself, reorganizing the economy and culture on a new class (proletarian) basis. In Russia, there was not the slightest prerequisite for such a turn of affairs - there was neither a developed bourgeoisie, nor sufficient industrialization, nor a predominant urban proletariat, and, moreover, there was no nation in Russia. Russia was an empire, that is, numerous ethnic groups and one power-forming Russian people lived inside it. The Nation-State would assume that neither ethnic groups nor people (in the full sense of the word) should exist.
But after the revolution, having gained control over the empire, the Bolsheviks were forced to urgently adjust the conceptual apparatus to the current situation. From this a confusion of concepts arose, and by "nation" they began to understand partly "ethnos", partly "people"; under the "people" - a semblance of "civil society", and in addition, additional terms were introduced - "nationality" and "nationality".
"People" meant a small ethnic group that retained the remnants of a traditional (pre-capitalist) society, and "nationality" - belonging to an ethnic group that has signs of social self-organization according to the criteria of the New Age. These completely conditional categories, which have no correspondence in European languages and scientific concepts, were also described with the help of numerous omissions, equivocations and impliations, which makes them completely inoperative in our time and deprives them of any instrumental value.
The French "la nationalite" or the English "tha nationality" means strictly "citizenship", belonging to a well-defined Nation-State. Therefore, "nationality" is understood everywhere as a synonym for "nation" (in the sense of the Nation-State). The term “nationality” is simply untranslatable, and in the Russian language and the modern scientific sphere is meaningless.
For this reason, we put these definitions in the chain ethnos-people-nation-race in brackets.
At this stage, they can simply be crossed out and not mentioned again.
Ethnos - people - (nationality) - nation - (nationality) - race
Ethnos and race
Now it's time to make one more correction. The term race in our chain of concepts should be transferred to the ethnos cell, since, with sociological point From our point of view, the grouping of ethnic groups into races does not give us any meaningful additions - except for the sociology of racial theories, which, for obvious reasons, is out of the question. In addition, the variety of racial systematizations and the uncertainty of taxonomy does not allow us to consider race as a reliable matrix for the relationship between ethnic groups and the analysis of these relationships. Of course, it is possible to draw some positive conclusions based on the rapprochement between ethnic groups and their grouping into more general categories - sociologist Georges Dumézil, who studied mainly the family of Indo-European ethnic groups, came to extremely important sociological conclusions. But any generalizations here should be made with great caution, including taking into account the sad experience of Nazism.
And, finally, the close connection of race with biology does not carry relevant sociological information that would not be contained in the concept of ethnos.
Thus, we can remove race as an independent concept, either by identifying it with one of the generalizations in the systematized taxonomy of ethnoi, or by putting it aside altogether as something irrelevant to sociological research.
In this case, we got the following picture of the original chain of basic concepts -
ethnos - people - nation (race)
In what follows, we will consider only this triad.
Part 2. Ethnos and mythos
Ethnos and mythos
Let's correlate the triad ethnos-people-nation with the dual (two-story) topic within which we are conducting our research.
In this case, the following fraction will correspond to the ethnic group:
Ethnos is an organic unity, which is sealed by the commonality of the myth. If we take a closer look at the definition of Shirokogorov, we will see that the main characteristics of an ethnic group - language, common origin, ritual, traditions, distinctions - collectively determine the myth, are its constituent parts. Ethnos is a myth. A myth does not exist without an ethnos, but an ethnos does not exist without a myth either, they are strictly identical. There are no two ethnic groups with the same myths - each ethnic group must have its own myth.
This ethnic myth may contain elements that are common with the myths of other ethnic groups, but the combination is always original and applies only to this ethnic group and not to any other.
At the same time, at the level of ethnos and ethnic social structure, the myth is simultaneously in the denominator (it is always there and in all social models) and in the numerator, which creates complete homology between the structure of the unconscious and the structure of consciousness. Such homology is the main feature of an ethnos as a phenomenon - strictly identical processes take place in the mind and heart of an ethnic community.
Such a homology gives rise to the phenomenon that Lévy-Bruhl called "pralogic", that is, a special form of thinking, where rationality is not autonomous from the work of the unconscious, and all generalizations, taxonomies and rationalizations are carried out in terms of living organic impulses and symbols, which are indivisible units with set of meanings (polysemy). The pralogic of the "savages" is akin to the world of feelings, art and poetry: in it, each element carries many meanings and at any moment can change the trajectory of deployment and change the meaning.
The fraction mythos/mythos expresses the stability inherent in an ethnos in its normative state. The myth is told again and again, and remains the same all the time, although its internal elements may change places or the carriers of certain symbolic functions may replace each other.
Myth and mytheme in the structure of the ethnos
Here it is important to say a few words about how Lévi-Strauss understood the myth. Levi-Strauss proposed to consider the myth not as a story or notes describing the sequential development of a melody, but as a poem or accompaniment notes, where the structure of harmony, repetitions, changes of keys are clearly visible, against which the story-melody unfolds. In poetry, this is marked by rhyme (that is, rhythm), which implies a line break.
An acrostic is an example of this vertical reading.
Levi-Strauss came to the discovery of such a structure of myth under the direct influence of Roman Yakobson And Nikolai Trubetskoy, the largest representatives of structural linguistics, the creators of phonology and convinced Eurasians (Trubetskoy was the founder of the "Eurasian movement").
Levi-Strauss gives a classic example of the myth of Oedipus, where each episode from the story of the unfortunate king corresponds to a certain mythological quantum, which includes a whole system of meanings, associations, symbolic meanings, and although the story moves on and on, acquiring new plot twists, mythological quanta, being limited (as the number of chords and notes is limited - but not their combinations!), are periodically repeated, which allows you to fold the myth of Oedipus like a tape and read it from top to bottom. Levi-Strauss called these mythological quanta mythemes - by analogy with semes in structural linguistics, which denote the smallest particles of meaning.
This explanation is extremely important for understanding the ethnos. Being a myth, an ethnos always has in its structure a certain set of fundamental elements - mythems. This determines the fact that in different ethnic groups and cultures, even those extremely distant from each other and having no connections, we meet very close plots, symbols, concepts. This similarity is a consequence of the limited number of basic myths. But at the same time, each ethnic group builds its own special myths from these basic myths, common to all, combining them in a special order and in a special sequence. This creates differences between ethnic groups and underlies their identity - each of which is original, special and different from others.
The identity of mythems and the difference between diverse myths (as combinations of mythems) explains both the multiplicity of ethnic groups and the presence of a certain similarity between them.
Taking into account this amendment of Levi-Strauss and the introduction of the concept of "mytheme", it becomes clear the model of the structure of ethnic processes that occur even when the ethnos is in a state of maximum stability.
You can imagine the situation in this way. In an ethnos, the myth in the denominator is not a myth in the full sense of the word, but a set of myths tending towards a certain structuralization. How the structuring of archetypes occurs, we saw earlier on the example of the modes of the unconscious. Gilbert Durand in later works, he introduces into his theory the concept of "chreod" - a hypothetical process in biology (discovered by the biologist Conrad Waddington(1905-1975)), which predetermines the development of a cell along a predetermined path in order to eventually become a part of a strictly defined organ. Also, the mythems that are in the denominator of the ethnos are not a neutral set of possibilities, but groups that tend to be manifested in a strictly defined context and in strictly defined combinations - according to the logic of "chreod".
Mythemes "chreodically" crawling towards the clutch into the mode
And in the numerator of an ethnos, a myth is a real myth, a diachronic story, presented as a sequential unfolding of events. Between the mythems (chreods of myth) in the denominator and the myth in the numerator, a dynamic interaction unfolds, which gives rise to semantic tension. This tension is the life of an ethnos.
If, on superficial observation, the stable and balanced existence of an ethnos may seem like pure statics, this dialogue between the denominator and numerator freely interacting with each other forms the true dynamics of a full-fledged, developed, saturated and every time “new” (in the initiatory sense), but at the same time eternal being. .
The dual structure of the ethnos: phratries
The largest Russian linguist and philologist Vyach.Sun. Ivanov, speaking at one of the lectures (7) about his expedition to the Kets, he emphasized the “most important thing” that the interviewed representative of this ancient ethnos of Eurasia told the members of the expedition. "Never marry a woman of your own kind." This law is the fundamental axis of ethnic organization.
Levi-Strauss (8) and Huizinga (9) .
The prohibition of incest is an essential social rule found in all types of societies - even the most "wild". This prohibition, by its very nature, requires the division of society into two parts, phratries. These two parts are conceived as not connected with each other by ancestral ties. Roughly, we can say that in its purest form, the organization of a tribe, as the basic form of an ethnos (as a cell of an ethnos), necessarily implies two genera. These clans or phratries are conceived as exogenous to each other - that is, not connected with each other by ties of direct kinship.
The tribe is always dual, and marriages take place only between these opposite phratries. On this dualism of phratries the whole social morphology of the tribe is based. The genus is the thesis, and the other genus, the opposite phratry, is the antithesis. Contradictions are accentuated through many rituals, ceremonies, symbols, totemic associations. The phratries constantly and in many ways emphasize their difference, emphasize antitheticality and dualism. Sun.Vyach. Ivanov believes that twin myths, common among all peoples of the world, have a direct connection with this basic social duality of the tribe.
But this enmity, constant attacks and competition between the two phratries take place in the space of the game. Huizinga in the book "Homo Ludens" (10) shows that the game is the basis of human culture, and it is born from the original social structure of the tribe, divided into two opposite phratries. Phratries compete in everything, but in relation to what lies outside the tribal space (to enemies, natural disasters, predatory animals), they become solidary and united. In the ability to include disagreements, competition, differences and even enmity in the context of unity, Huizinga sees the main quality of culture.
But not only an external threat relieves tension between the two phratries. The institution of marriage and the property associated with it (that is, the relationship between the relatives of the parties who entered into marriage) is another fundamental point in the social organization of the tribe. With this is connected the statement of the Ket about "taking a wife from a strange family." This rule is the basis of the ethnos, the main law of social organization.
An ethnos is nothing but a tribe, only sometimes extended into several tribes, while maintaining the relations that prevail within the tribe. No matter how the size of the tribe increases, through demographic growth or merging with other tribes, within the ethnos the general structure remains the same. Hence the dual organization often found among ethnic groups. So, the Mordvins have a division into Erzei and Moksha. The Mari are divided into mountain, meadow, etc.
The boundaries of an ethnos are not in its numbers, but in its qualitative structure. As long as the formula is preserved
And the basic structure of society reproduces the dual structure of kinship/property of the tribe (or as "hordes" are sometimes called - this term, in particular, was used by Freud), we are dealing with an ethnos as an organic integrity.
Ethnos, community, family
If we apply sociological classification to the ethnos F. Tennis, - “community” (Gemeinschaft) / “society” (Geselschaft), - one can quite unambiguously identify an ethnos with a “community”. According to Tennis, "community" is characterized by trusting, family relationships, the perception of the team as a single whole organism. This "community" is characteristic of the ethnos, and the most important thing here is that the basic model of the family as a kind in the ethnos is supplemented by an integrating institution of property. The "community" absorbs the family as a clan and others (not a family, not a clan), who become "their own" while remaining outsiders. This is an extremely important feature of the ethnic group. Ethnos operates with the finest dialectics of relations between the native and the other (but one's own!), which constitutes a significant part of the myths and underlies the fundamental ethno-social processes. This dialectic of the family-community is not simply the extension of the principle of genus to another genus. We see that the prohibition of incest says quite the opposite. Strangers remain strangers, do not become part of their own family, their kind, and this alienation of the other serves as the basis for exogenous marriages. The ethnos manages to build a balance of such integration, which, starting from the genus, would create a “community” not as a continuation of the genus or not only as a continuation of the genus, but also as something third, which would include the thesis (genus) and antithesis (another genus). ).
Ties remain organic when they are based on consanguinity and when they are based on an alienated, heterogeneous property.
Initiation in the ethnic structure
From this subtlest dialectic of an ethnos, a society is born. The dynamics of the exchange of women of the tribe between the two phratries and complex complexes of patrilineal and matrilineal kinship, as well as matrilocal and patrilocal placements of newlyweds and their offspring, create the social fabric of the ethnos, in the space of which social institutions are formed. This space is located between the genera, expresses the synthetic nature of their constant interaction.
The most important tool here is initiation (which we discussed earlier in another context). Initiation is the introduction of the adolescent into a structure that is parallel to his race and which puts him to some extent "above" the race. But at the same time, it is initiation that makes the initiate a full-fledged member of the clan, possessing all its social powers. But this post-initiatic participation in the life of the species is qualitatively different from natural and pre-initiatic participation. The initiated young man symbolically returns to the clan as a bearer of an additional status, which he receives not in the clan, but in the initiatory male union, in brotherhood. And thus, every time he re-establishes the connection of the clan with the world of "forces", "deities", "spirits" - with the living presence of myth.
Initiation reveals to the initiate how the genus and tribe are arranged, that is, it endows him with sociological knowledge and, accordingly, power, since from now on he sees the structure of the life around him not just as a given, but as an expression of order, to the source of which he partakes in the course of initiation. .
Thus, the "community" becomes from a kind an ethnos through the procedure of initiation, and through the initiation, the main social institutions are constituted. The ket formula “always take a wife from a strange family” is an initiatory formula, with the help of which an ethnos becomes an ethnos and at the same time a society, since the ethnos is the original, basic, most fundamental form of society.
Ethnos Boundaries and Marriage Scaling
Establishing the "correct" boundaries of an ethnos, that is, determining what to include in it and what to exclude, and what are the proportions of inclusion, is the topic of countless mythological stories. Since the construction of an ethnos presupposes the establishment of the finest balance between kinship and property (the inclusion of native and non-native, but one's own into the community), this topic is described through well-known plots about marriage too close (incest) and marriage too far away.
Mythological stories that directly or allegorically describe incest (usually brother-sister) are constructed in such a way as to deduce catastrophic consequences from this fact. This is the meaning of the myth: incest = catastrophe. But the myth can unfold in another way - a catastrophe can cause the appearance of a brother and sister, the separation of a brother and sister can serve as an antiphrase of incest, or vice versa, a warning of incest, etc. Examples abound in the systematized myths of the Indians by Levi-Strauss, and Russian fairy tales collected by Afanasiev (11) .
Another theme is too distant marriages. This is an even more exciting part of mythology, which describes numerous versions of marriage with a non-human species - an animal (Masha and the Bear, the frog princess), an evil spirit (Kashchei the Immortal, the Dragon, the Fire Serpent Wolf), a fabulous creature (Snow Maiden, Fairy, Morozko).
Marriage myths are stretched between too close and too far marriage, as if they are aiming to hit right on target - and this target is "other like one's own", that is, a member of the opposite phratry. This is a real art, since the determination of the distance is the key to the creation and reconstruction of an ethnos. At the heart of the ethnos lies a precisely consummated marriage - a hit too close or too far is fraught with a fundamental catastrophe. Therefore, marriage themes are closely intertwined with initiation. Marriage crowns an initiation, which is a deepening into the myth in order to carry out this most important ethno-creative action in the most optimal way.
Bears are like people
Defining the boundaries of an ethnos, as we have seen, is not an easy task. You can make a mistake, going beyond it. Added to this complexity is the fact that ethnoi operate with "pralogic", that is, taxonomy of a mythological nature, which in practice is most often expressed in the use of totems and totem animals to systematize not only natural, but also cultural and social phenomena. The animal world, as well as the world of plants and elements in the mythological consciousness, participates in the structuring of culture and the organization of society.
Therefore, it is often placed not outside the boundaries of the ethnic group, but within them. In practice, this is expressed in the domestication of wild animals, the development of agriculture and the cultivation of horticultural and horticultural crops, when the natural world outside the ethnos is included in the inner circle of the ethnos. This is also a kind of zeroing in on what is the correct distance.
We can clearly see totemism in modern Russian surnames. Where do the Volkovs, Shcheglovs, Karasevs, Shchukins, Solovyovs and, finally, the Medvedevs come from? These are the consequences of the shooting of the Russian ethnos in determining their correct boundaries within the framework of totem consciousness.
Today, few people remember that the Russian people in ancient times attributed the bear to the human race. It was explained this way - the bear walks on two legs, it has no tail, and it drinks vodka. Until the 19th century, men and women in the Russian hinterland were completely sure of this, and therefore they went to a bear with a horn in the same way as to fist fights in a neighboring village. The bears had a typical middle name - Ivanovich - hence the full name Mikhail Ivanovich.
The bear was associated with marriage and fertility. In the course of the “bear wedding”, a pure maiden was taken into the forest and left there to become the wife of a bear (12). In wedding ceremonies, the groom and the bride were called “bear” and “bear”, and the boyfriend was called “bear”. In pre-wedding lamentations, the bride sometimes called her father-in-law and her mother-in-law “bears”. Matchmakers were often called "shaggy". In Russian folklore, the image of a bear - a matchmaker is popular.
This inclusion of the bear into the boundaries of the ethnic group has become so commonplace that the expression "Russian bear" has entered everyday speech as a phraseological phrase. This Russification of the bear reflects not just an ironic metaphor, but also deeper ethno-social patterns.
The inclusion of a bear (and in this case also a tiger) in the ethnic system of other peoples - this time the Tungus - is described by Shirokogorov, who participated in a number of ethnographic expeditions in Manchuria. Here is his story in full:
“In northern Manchuria, there are two types of bear, a large dark brown bear and a small brown one, there is also a tiger and, finally, people. Depending on the season, both the bear and the tiger, as well as the man, change their places, to which they are forced by the movement of the game on which they feed. The big bear goes in front and takes the best places, followed by the tiger, sometimes challenging its territory, in the worst places in terms of game, but good enough in other respects, the small brown bear settles and, finally, the Tungus hunters. This movement from one place to another, and in the same constant order, takes place every year. But sometimes there are clashes between young tigers and bears because of the territory (each of them occupies a small river for itself). Then the matter is decided by a duel, as a result of which the weakest gives way to the strongest. These duels are sometimes fought for three years, and for competition the bear gnaws one tree, and the tiger scratches it, and if he manages to scratch above the place gnawed by the bear, then either the bear leaves, or the issue is resolved next year in the same order. If neither one nor the other is inferior, then a fierce battle takes place. Local Tungus hunters, having studied well this order of division of territory between young individuals, willingly take part in battles, knowing their date (this happens annually at the end of April) and place (a gnawed and scratched tree in the previous year). The hunter usually kills both fighters. Cases are known when a person has to give up his occupied place, if he has taken it away from a tiger or a bear, as a result of violent and systematic attacks of these animals on domestic animals and even on a person’s home. It is quite understandable, therefore, that many Tungus consider some rivers inaccessible to themselves (for hunting), since they are occupied by tigers or big bears.
Thus, due to the fact that the bear cannot but roam, since it is adapted to existence in this way, but another species of bear, tiger, and man is adapted in the same way, competition is created between them all, and, finally, they enter into some relationships, become dependent on each other and create a kind of organization - a “taiga society”, controlled by its own norms, customs, etc., allowing a person to live next to a bear, when the bear does not touch a person if he does not see from him sides of signs of attack, and when people and a bear pick berries at the same time without harming each other. (13)
The “taiga society” of the Tungus, whose full members are two species of bears and a tiger, who share hunting grounds, rivers and thickets, is a model of an ethnos that integrates vital elements of the surrounding world.
In mythology, the bear plays a very important role. The ancient Greeks, the autochthons of Siberia and the Slavs associate the bear with the feminine. The Greek hunter goddess Artemis (goddess of the moon) was considered the patroness of bears. The bear is a chthonic creature associated with the earth, the moon and the feminine. Hence its role in marriage ceremonies and rituals. We can say that the bear is a feminoid.
Ethnos and modes of the unconscious
The structure of the sociocultural topic of the ethnos that we have clarified - myth / myth - leads us to the conclusion that the ethnos includes two regimes and three groups of archetypes. Moreover, we can expect to meet them not only in the sphere of the unconscious (the denominator), but also in the sphere of the numerator. So it is, because each ethnos has a mythological system, in which it manifests itself how it constitutes itself through a set of myths.
Here, the same regularities that we saw in the analysis of the regimes are manifested. The diurne mode tends to rise into the numerator, while the nocturne modes are ready to stay in the denominator. Thus, in parallel with the refined myth/mytheme topic, we can offer the ethno-social topic diurn/nocturne. However, here we encounter a certain problem: this theoretical assumption, based on the axiomatic assertion that social structures, society unfolds in all societies around the vertical axis of diurn, is not supported by observations. Even more precisely, if the society as a phenomenon is always and in all circumstances the construct of the diurnic myth (it does not matter whether the diurn has switched to the logos mode or remained at the myth level), then ethnic groups can put in the numerator various myths, that is, not necessarily diurnic. In this we fix the main difference between society and ethnos. The society is always and without any exception unfolding by the diurna myth in parallel with the suppression of the nocturne regime, or at least through its exorcism. But ethnic groups can be structured differently.
This means that we were able to see the difference between the ethnos and society, which is especially evident in cases where the myth of the nocturne is in the numerator of the ethnos.
At first glance, we have come to a contradiction - the numerator is the area of society, and the ethnos is society. This is true, but the myth, which is in the numerator of the ethnos, may be an expression of the nocturne regime, but at the same time, sociality - as in any case - will bear the imprints of the diurna regime. That is, the ethnic, coinciding with the social as a whole, can diverge from it in the nuances of mythological regimes.
This circumstance is extremely important, since it shows us the importance that ethnos plays in sociology. If it were not for this small, at first glance, difference, ethnos as a phenomenon would be superfluous, and the sociologist could be completely satisfied with the study of societies without introducing the additional and cumbersome concept of "ethnos". Ethnos - in contrast to society - is the ability of society to exist in the mode of an unstructured dream, that is, if the structures of society are violated, the ethnos is able to survive.
The reason for this should be sought in those institutions that are socio-forming in the ethnos - that is, in initiation. And the first hypothesis that suggests itself is the exogenous nature of society in those ethnic groups where the myth in the numerator is configured according to the nocturne model. That is, in this case we are dealing with societies where sociality was introduced from outside the ethnic circle (including bears, tigers, etc.). We previously encountered a somewhat similar scenario in the form of archeomodernity (pseudomorphosis), but there it was about modern societies, and the logos figured. Now we are faced with a similar situation in the very depths of primitive society.
This hypothesis of the gap between the ethnos and society suggests the following: the structure of society, in which the myth in the numerator is not diurnic, bears the imprint of the influence of another ethnos, which either mixed with the given one at some stage, or conquered it, and then dissolved in it or conveyed social structures in some other way.
Thus, we gradually approached the theory of cultural circles or diffusionism.
cultural circles
The most prominent representative of the theory of cultural circles (also called "diffusionism") was a German ethnologist and sociologist (1873-1938). Other scientists adhering to this direction were the founder of political geography Friedrich Ratzel And Fritz Gröbner(1877 - 1934). Archaeologist Grebner put forward a tough thesis: in the history of mankind, every object - material or spiritual - was invented only once. Then it was transmitted along complex historical and geographical trajectories.
Many structuralist features can be found in Frobenius. So, in particular, he believed that each culture has its own “code” or “soul”, which he called “paideuma” (in Greek, literally “what a child is taught”, “skills”, “knowledge”, “ability to "). And culture itself is primary in relation to its bearers, that is, to people. According to Frobenius, it is not people who make culture, but culture makes people (quite a structural sociological thesis, by the way). The entire cultural and historical process is the translation of "paideums". The meaning of this concept lies in the fact that culture can be transferred from one soil, where it arose and developed, to another alien one - and there it will develop according to a completely different logic.
The theory of diffusionism proceeds from the fact that each cultural type is based on a very definite center, from where this type further spreads - just as a stone thrown into water produces circles diverging strictly around the place where it fell. This can be traced on the remains of the material culture of antiquity or on the fate of the spread of religions, rituals, ideas, etc.
This principle tells us how to solve the problem of the presence of society in those ethnic groups where the nocturnal myth dominates in the numerator. Within the framework of diffusionism, this is explained simply - the "paideum" of the diurnic culture, due to some circumstances, was transferred to the soil of the ethnos with the dominance of the nocturnal myth and became the basis of society there and predetermined the structure of initiation.
Frobenius divided all cultures into two types - chthonic and telluric. The chthonic (then Greek “chthonos”, “earth”) type is a type in which images of caves, pits, holes, and concavity dominate. It has matriarchal features, carriers of this type are prone to balance, balance, harmony with nature, peacefulness.
In the telluric type (also from the word "earth", only Latin - tellus) hills, mounds, and bulges predominate. It has patriarchal features and is associated with militancy, aggressiveness, expansion, cruelty, the will to power.
We absolutely unequivocally identify the nocturne regime in the chthonic type, and the diurna regime in the telluric type. If we accept the version of Frobenius about the dual type of cultures and about cultural circles and the translation of "paideums", then we get the following picture.
There are two huge families of ethnic groups, each of which includes many groups, regardless of their racial, linguistic, religious or political affiliation, as well as the level of development of culture and geographical location. One family - chthonic - is guided by the nocturne/myth formula (there may be elements of diurn in the unconscious, but they do not dominate and cannot break out into the numerator).
The second family - telluric - is based on the diurn/myth formula (the denominator may also contain nocturne elements, but they are restrained by the diurn energies in the numerator). These two families cover the entirety of the ethnic groups of mankind, and any representative of mankind necessarily belongs either to one or to another ethnic family. At the same time, practically all - perhaps with the rarest exception of some archaic tribes (like the Pirakhan tribe, which was already discussed earlier) - ethnic groups have social structures in themselves as their organic part. In the case of telluric societies, the identity ethnos=society is complete and perfect. And in the case of the chthonic ones, we are forced to recognize the exogenous nature of the social structure and initiation brought - according to the logic of the translation "paideums" - by the carriers of the telluric cultural code, that is, the ethnic groups of the diurna.
This hypothesis is in complete agreement with the theory Ludwig Gumplovich about the "racial struggle", if we take into account, as we said earlier, that by "race" in his case should be understood ethnos. In this case, the Gumplovich theory in our terms will look like this. Telluric cultures are created by the Diurna ethnic groups, which, in accordance with their “heroic” orientation, are extremely active and aggressive, and therefore, spreading dynamically throughout the world, subjugate the chthonic ethnic groups, prone to peacefulness. Since the myth of the duirna is the axis of the initiatory deployment of the vertical and individuation, these ethnic groups carry in their cultural code (paideum) the foundations of society - with its stratification, main sociological axes, relationships, roles and structures. Seizing power over chthonic ethnic groups, they assert their social models (diurna models) in them, which are a kind of pseudomorphosis (according to Spengler). Under certain circumstances, they dissolve into chthonic ethnic groups, which gradually return to the nocturne/myth model that is natural for them (thus, a smooth surface appears again on the spot, a stone thrown into the water), but the formal remnants of their presence are preserved in the form society, social structure and, most importantly, initiation.
Germanic mythology vividly describes to us warlike telluric aces (Odin, Thor, etc.) and chthonic peace-loving vans. According to Dumézil, the Indo-European ethnic groups and, most importantly, the Indo-European cultural type, the Indo-European paideuma, are a classic diurn.
The vast majority of ethnic groups - both archaic and modern - that we can study today show us just such a model: either these ethnic groups themselves carry society in themselves, or they are the guardians and repeaters of the society that was entrusted to them by "aliens", "others", bearers of the telluric culture, which gradually either transformed or remained in its original form.
A Pirahã Indian tribe in the Amazon who did not have numerals, even as simple as one and two, who did not have any prohibitions (including the prohibition of incest) and structured myths (but who at the same time saw spirits and communicated with them in an ordinary mode) is an exceptionally pure example of a chthonic culture, that is, a nocturnal ethnos. The absence of structured myths and the presence of abilities for direct visionary vision should not confuse us: we are talking about the fact that the pirates operate with myths, from basic elements myth that has not yet unfolded into a structured narrative - these are individual notes or chords taken at random. The spirits that the Pirahã Indians see, hear and interact with outside of religion, rituals and myths - these are nocturnal myths. Their case is a unique phenomenon of an ethnos with the following mytheme/mytheme formula. It is a pure form of the chthonic type.
Ethnic Differences and the Collective Unconscious
Being organic units completely predetermining the structure of society (directly or through complex operation exogenous introduction of the myth of evil into the myth of nocturne), ethnic groups are different from each other. And these differences are the differences of myths. Each ethnic group has its own edition of the myth/myth formula. This is manifested in language, culture, rituals, beliefs, images of origin.
Ethnos can be likened to Do Kamo, which was discussed in the chapter of social anthropology. Or more precisely, two Do Kamo, since Do Kamo, as an individuating (initiatory) exponent of the power of the clan, necessarily deals with the exponent of the power of another kind, opposite to the phratry. Here we can recall the twin myth and the dual organization of society, about which Vs. Vyach wrote a lot. Ivanov (17) . Before Kamo - twins, hence the frequent case of the presence in the ethnic group of two leaders or two elders in the tribe. They are one and different at the same time, symmetrical and asymmetrical. There is no hierarchy between them, but there is no equality either. It cannot be ruled out that the bifurcation of power functions between the priest (flamen) and the king (rex) was one of the consequences of the reinterpretation of the twin character of the ethnic organization.
Each ethnic group has its own version of the twin code, its own balance of myths, archetypes, its own combination of denominator and numerator, its own trajectories of combinations of "chreods", its own combinations of myths. This statement is tantamount to saying that cultural circles also exist in the space of the collective unconscious. The general structure of this collective unconscious is the same. But for each ethnic group, in the case of each myth / myth formula, we are dealing with different parts or holograms of a single whole. The unity of humanity and man is due to the single most fundamental bottom structure of the myth. And at the other end - at the level of striving for the logos - the goal is also common, individuation. But the ways and strategies of this individuation are different. They are different in the case of each person, but a person, according to Frobenius, is nothing more than a “carrier” of “paideums” that is neutral in itself, that is, in other terms, a person is an expression of an ethnos. Outside the ethnos and society, largely conditioned by this ethnos, there is no person. He cannot individuate the collective unconscious by starting directly from himself. By definition, he deals with how this unconscious is structured in an ethnos, that is, what is its structure - and, among other things, what is the structure of the balance of the denominator and numerator in each particular case. A person is completely and without a trace predetermined by the ethnos, but not as a biological fate, but as an element of myth, a cultural code. He is incapable of individuation without ethnos. Individuation takes place only within the ethnos and, in fact, by the ethnos itself. Man is only an instrument of this ethnic individuation, its moment, its interval.
Ethnos - this is a person in its maximum understanding. And just as different people are among themselves, so are ethnic groups. The only difference is that people are not self-sufficient - they do not have a half for the production of offspring, there is no dialectical balance between native and alien-own, there is no initiation, as an institution of death and a new birth, it does not have its own myth, and the ethnos has all this there are - and couples for marriage, and the space of communications, and the possibility of procreation, and the myth, and initiation. Therefore, the differences between ethnic groups and their relations with each other is a truly meaningful and important process, and a person acquires significance and weight only if he realizes himself in an ethnic group, and already through the ethnic group, its myths and its structures, comes into contact with the rest of the world, which is an ethnic, ethnically predetermined, ethnically conditioned, ethnically structured world.
Interethnic interactions according to Shirokogorov
We considered the main type of interethnic interaction on the example of the ethnic groups Diurna and Nocturne. From the point of view of the structural sociology of an ethnos, they represent the most important paradigm, since it is precisely this moment of inoculation of tellurism into chthonic ethnic groups (and these inoculations can be done many times) that constitutes the most important moment of the birth of society - with its institutions, statuses, roles, etc. .
At a more mundane level, Shirokogorov proposed to consider three types of interaction between ethnic groups -
Commensalism (from the French commensal - "companion" - a form of symbiosis (cohabitation) of two ethnic groups that interact with each other, but this interaction and exchange is not fundamental for either one or the other, and in the absence of it will not cause serious damage to any of them );
Cooperation (when each of the two ethnic groups is vitally interested in the other, and in the event of a rupture of ties, both will be seriously affected)
Shirokogorov describes commensalism in this way. “The weakest connection between the two ethnic groups is a form of commensalism, i.e. when one and the other ethnic group can live on the same territory without interfering with each other and being in one way or another useful to each other, and when the absence of one does not in the least interfere with the prosperous life of the other. So, for example, the existence of a farmer occupying a limited area uninhabited by wild animals, with a hunter who feeds on hunting products, is quite possible. Although each of the commensalists may be independent of each other, they may also see mutual benefit - the hunter can be provided with agricultural products in case of a temporary hunger strike, and the farmer can have some hunting products - meat, furs, skins, etc. An example of such relations can be Russian settlers of Siberia and local natives, as well as ethnic groups South America coexisting on the same territory are the farmers and hunters of Brazil. (14)
Cooperation is such a form of relations between two ethnic groups, which assumes that one ethnic group cannot live without the other and both are equally interested in each other's existence. Such relations exist, for example, between the Indian castes, between the conquerors who separated themselves into an estate (for example, the Germans) of nobility or chivalry, and the local population (Gauls, Slavs). In the case of such cooperation among ethnic groups, they choose a form of social organization that is equally convenient for both sides. Depending on ethnic stability, further biological or cultural absorption of one ethnic group by another may occur, and the social organization continues to exist, as can be observed, for example, in some castes of India and others, but with the transition to another form of social organization through merger or absorption, complete loss of ethnic identity. (...)
Ethnoses and war
Another form of interethnic interaction is, according to Shirokogorov, war. This is an extreme but permanent format of interethnic relations. An ethnos on the rise crushes an ethnos in a state of stability or in decline. Since ethnic groups as a whole are constantly dynamically pulsating, moving in space, changing, translating and adapting cultural codes, mastering various types of management, acquiring new technological skills and losing the old ones, between them - in addition to the three forms of peaceful coexistence - very often erupt wars - the very "racial struggle" of Gumplovich.
In the war of ethnic groups, many levels and forms can be distinguished - rivalry for resources (in the spirit of the example of the struggle between a bear, a tiger and Tungus hunters, which we cited), battles for territory, the desire to conquer another and force him to work for himself or pay tribute, the desire to impose on others your cultural code, etc. We are interested in highlighting here only one factor related to the structure of archetypes.
The fact is that the heroic archetype of diurna has an arrow and a sword as one of the main symbols. These are not mere metaphorical images, they are the plastic embodiment of the diurna movement itself, which represents the impulse for war. The archetype of diurna bears within itself the call to war, as it is in its very depths - a war with death and time. But another thing becomes the expression of death, the monster for the heroic impulse.
Since the other within the ethnos is included as one's own, heroism must be projected outside the tribe. This is where the call to war begins. The other outside the ethnos is another ethnos. His demonization, his transformation into an enemy, the projection onto him of images that oppose the diurnic impulse, this is the most natural operation that the code of telluric culture carries within itself. In other words, society itself is based on the spirit of war, society is generated by war, as it is generated by a warrior fighting in initiation against death and defeating death in a “new birth”.
Probably here one should look for the source of war - not in material limitations or objective factors, war is born in an ethnos, in a person, in its depths of depths and rises from there to reorganize everything around, adjust the world around to its scenarios. Ethnic groups howl because the spirit of war lies at the heart of ethnic groups - at least, those ethnic groups that belong to the telluric type. But even those who perceived diurnic moments in an exogenous way are not free from this - in the most peaceful mood, they often honor warlike spirits and gods by inertia, since they contain the axis of the social structure revolving around the sword, arrow, scepter (in a softened form of a staff - where does the staff have a bent or forked handle).
Part 3. The people and their logos
Now consider what happens when an ethnos becomes a people. In our sociocultural topic, the formula of the people is as follows
The most important difference between an ethnos and a people is in the numerator. There stands the logos instead of the mythos. This logos represents the introduction of a fundamentally new dimension into ethnic life - a dimension that is now formulated in rational terms, operates with the category of goal, which is fundamentally absent in mythos. Mythos explains how it is now, how it was before, and why one must continue to do one thing and not do another. There are no questions in mythos - why? Where? for what? It lacks a telos. The introduction of telos turns mythos into logos, gives it a completely new structuring, reorganizes the internal resources of the ethnos, directing them in a new direction. These are no longer chreods of mythems, which are vaguely pushed towards cohesion with other elements in order to come to an organization (although the chreod implies some semblance of teleology), it is a rigidly drawn and strictly formalized path, almost a railway track along which the energies of the ethnos will henceforth ply.
The logos that separates the people from the ethnos is the national logos, deeply rooted in the ethnos and its myths, but rising above them in order to establish itself in a new dimension and, at the same time, to constitute and create this dimension.
The transition from an ethnos to a people is not a quantitative, economic or political process. This is a deep philosophical phenomenon, when a shift occurs in the structure of myth, and it turns into something qualitatively different - into logos.
Heidegger pointed out that initially in the philosophy of Ancient Greece there were two basic concepts introduced - fusis and logos. Both of them represent a rationalization of agrarian metaphors - fusis originally meant shoots, and the verb legein, from which logos comes etymologically - the process of reaping, cutting ears, picking fruits. Fusis is an ethnos in which a myth freely (or chreodically) sprouts.
As long as there is only a fusis, the myth freely spreads throughout the entire space of society, constituting this space, being it. When the logos is introduced, a new phase begins, fundamentally different from the previous one - the phase of the harvest, the phase of the logos. This is the moment of the birth of a people: an ethnos turns into a people when it begins to think rationally, i.e. reap your own content.
Greeks as a people
The Greeks begin to fully comprehend themselves as a people just at the time of the emergence of philosophy, and this philosophy itself, isolating the Greek logos from Greek myth, serves as the axis of Greek self-consciousness as ecumenes, civilizations. The Greeks become a people from a multitude of Mediterranean ethnic groups precisely through the unity of culture. Various political regimes are formed in the policies (such polar ones as the ascetic militaristic Sparta and democratic hedonistic Athens), local cults and customs differ significantly from each other, many ethnic groups included in the ancient Greek area sometimes speak different languages, but all this diversity is decentralized and original - united by the commonality of civilization, the adoption of the ecumenical Hellenic paideum. So, a common language, and a common script, and a common mythology are gradually taking shape, but this language, this script, and this mythology already have a significantly different character - supra-ethnic, rationalized, schematized, oriented towards a specific telos. So it's about the people. And at a certain stage, the emergence of pre-Socratic philosophy becomes the crystallization of this process. IN Plato and Aristotle, the Greek logos, the logos of the Greeks as a people, reaches its climax and is clearly aware of itself and its nature, and the student Aristotle, a descendant of the Diurnic Macedonians who took Athens, Alexander the Great, guided by this logos and embodying this telos, builds a gigantic world empire.
In this case, we see that the Greeks became a people from the constellation of Mediterranean ethnic groups without a state, but at some stage they created a world empire. When this empire fell, giving way to new empires and kingdoms, primarily Rome, new ethnic groups and peoples began to form on its ruins, and some ethnic groups returned to their previous state, but in any case retaining a colossal trace of belonging to Greek culture.
We meet the next stage of Greek identity as a people in Byzantium, after the Western provinces fell away from it, captured by the barbarians. Then the "people of the Romans" (that is, literally "Romans" - since the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire), as the Greeks of this period called themselves, once again formulated their logos, this time as the core byzantine empire and the priority bearer of the Orthodox religion.
people of india
The Vedic Aryans turn into a people when, from a warlike diurnic ethnos (one of the many that roamed the steppes of Eurasia), the custodian of “telluric”, according to Frobenius, solar myths, they invade Hindustan, where they realize their myth as the structure of a universal logos and create a majestic civilization, based on a unique millennial process of rationalization of the Vedas through the Brahmanas, Puranas, Upanishads, Samhitas and countless philosophies.
If, from an ethnic point of view, this process can be described in terms of interethnic relations of the Aryan elite, who created the social system of India, with the autochthonous population of Hindustan, mainly Dravidians, then from another point of view, this is an example of the deployment of the people as a logos / mythos formula.
Formation of the Islamic Ummah
Through religious idea formed the Arab people. Being previously disparate ethnic groups, the Arabian Arabs of the era Muhammad(571-632) gradually rallied around a new religious preacher who was recognized as a prophet. In this case, the Koran acted as a logos, which contained rational prescriptions for behavior, social organization, economic and ethical laws, the foundations of law, and listed the duties of each member of the community (ummah). In Islamic philosophy, there is an exact equivalent to the Greek concept of logos - this is "kalam", in Arabic a pen with which God writes the content of the world.
The new religion, which was carried by the Arabian tribes, gives a giant impetus to integration at the beginning of the Arabian Peninsula, and then provokes a wave of Arab conquests that swept over Eurasia, reaching Europe (where the Arabs were stopped only by Karl Martell(686-741) during the famous Battle of Poitiers) in the West and to India and Indonesia in the East.
The Arabs became a nation that received the logos in the form of the "Koran", and began to spread this religiously understood model of the people ("Ummah") to the whole world. In this case, three parallel processes took place -
Arabization (assimilation into the Arab people - with the language, customs, type of behavior) of many ethnic groups of North Africa and the Middle East;
Islamization (conversion of all conquered peoples and ethnic groups to Islam);
Creation of the caliphate (establishment of the political power of the Arab nobility over the conquered territories within the framework of a single Islamic empire).
Here we see that several Arabian tribes, in particular, the Quraysh, under the leadership of a religious figure, are rapidly turning into a people, and he, in turn, creates a civilization and a gigantic state. Religion and the holy book of Muslims "Quran" are played here leading role- the role of the logo.
At the same time, as in the case of the Greeks, who, starting from civilization and partly philosophy, approached the creation of an empire, the Arabs, this time, starting from religion, developed an entire civilization on its basis and built a powerful world state.
This shows that the previously identified forms of transformation of an ethnos into a people - religion, state, civilization - can unfold in a different order and at different stages flow one into another. Most important of all is precisely that deep moment when the register changes, and the myth in the numerator is replaced by logos.
Empire of Genghis Khan
There are a great many examples of how an ethnos becomes a people through the creation of a state. The history of any state necessarily has a phase of an internal leap from mythos to logos, after which a people is found in place of an ethnos.
Impressive building example the greatest state and, accordingly, the creation of a people practically from scratch - without civilization and without a specific religion - gives us the Mongol Empire. The petty prince of the Mongolian tribe Kiyat-Borjigin, who is in a stable ethnic state and does not show any signs of becoming a people, on the contrary, weakening and losing positions among other Mongolian ethnic groups, Temujin(1167-1227) suddenly and almost single-handedly switches the mode of ethnic existence and begins a series of never-ending conquests. In lightning time, a gigantic Mongol Empire is being created, surpassing in scale the greatest empires of antiquity.
The builder of an empire is Mongolian people, which is formed from various ethnic groups by the will of the supreme ruler Genghis Khan. In the shortest period of time, not only various Mongolian tribes, but also hundreds of other Eurasian ethnic groups are fused into a single structure, becoming accomplices in an undertaking of a global scale.
In this case, the “Yasa” code designed by Genghis Khan, the legislative principles of the organization of the World State, acts as a logos. This code, poorly studied in the scientific literature, is a rationalization and absolutization of the basic principles of the duirn regime - friend-foe dualism, the highest values - loyalty, valor and honor, normative contempt for comfort and material well-being, equating life with an endless war, a ban on alcohol etc. This style of society was typical for most of the nomadic tribes of Eurasia and before the Mongols (Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Turks, Goths, etc.), but Genghis Khan raises myth into logos, custom into law, following the traditions of the past into a project achieving the highest goal - the creation of a world Mongolian power and the conquest of the world.
It is significant that from the very beginning, Genghis Khan was building an empire, a state-world, in which the rights of the conquered ethnic groups and the religious issue were clearly stipulated. The Mongol Empire undertakes to observe a certain autonomy of those ethnic groups that have submitted to the authority of the "Great Khan", representatives of all religions are considered inviolable, get rid of tribute and receive guaranteed support from the state.
The Mongolian logos is expressed in a unified tax collection system, the organization of a professional army, and the establishment of pit communication systems throughout the empire. But at the same time, he keeps the myth, ethnos and religion intact, coordinating with the universal model only the most general administrative and legal positions.
Genghis Khan creates a state, but this state does not abolish ethnic groups and myths. The logos and the people (Mongolian) come to the fore, but the myth is not erased and is not driven underground. Such a model can be called an imperial logos, a logos that does not conflict with mythos. The people (in this case, the Mongols), which becomes the bearer of such an imperial logos, is constituted according to the formula
The ratio of logos in the people building an empire and ethnic groups (with their own myths - including the main empire-building ethnos) differs significantly from how the balance between logos and mythos develops in the case of creating other types of statehood.
It can be noted that in an era collectively defined as the Premodern era, all forms of state created by the people are empires in their type. This is not an indicator of the volume of their territorial conquests, the universal scale of their idea or the presence of an emperor, but describes the specifics of the relationship of logos to mythos in them. The logos in the Premodern states - large or small - never becomes in direct opposition to the mythos (that is, the ethnos), and the poet is always imperial.
We see this in full measure in the formation of the Russian State: Rurik Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes belonging to various ethnic groups are invited to rule. And in the new statehood, their ethnicity is not erased, not suppressed, but preserved and continues to exist in a natural rhythm for many centuries. This means that Kievan Rus from its first steps was an imperial-type state - the logos in this case was Varangian, and the mythos was Slavic and Finno-Ugric.
According to the same model, the state of the Franks was created, which gave birth to modern France, as well as almost all the states of the premodern era known in history - they were all empires (either universal, or medium, or tiny).
The balance of logos and mythos among the people
Nevertheless, the people who create the state in the process of deploying their logos, in any case, change the structure of their ethnicity. The myth goes below the line of the fraction, the direct homology between the numerator and the denominator (as in the ethnic formula mythos/mythos) is violated. More complex relationships are built between the structure of the unconscious and the structure of consciousness than in myth. Something passes from the myth into the logos of the people, but something does not.
Theoretically, there is room for potential conflict, at least for some friction.
This is clearly seen in the example of becoming Greek philosophy: as it develops, there is a rationalization of the myth with a parallel division of what lends itself to it and enters the structure of philosophical systems, and what is discarded as "fables", "fairy tales", "prejudices".
A people leaving an ethnos sends some part of its “former” (in a logical, not chronological sense) state to the periphery.
The same is true with the advent of Islam. Mohammed partly accepts the ethnic traditions of the pre-Islamic period - in particular, the black stone of the Kaaba in Mecca, many religious and everyday prescriptions of the ancient Arabs, and partly rejects them and declares a religious war on them - as a battle with disbelief and "giving associates to God" (shirk).
Similarly, with Genghis Khan's "Yasa", where certain ethnic codes of the nomadic code of the Mongols are elevated to the status of law, and some traditions - in particular, ritual Mongolian drunkenness, as well as many others - are severely rejected.
The imperial logos does not come into conflict with myth, but nevertheless strictly and clearly distinguishes itself from myth. At the next stage, this difference can lead to serious contradictions.
Passionary push
The event described by Gumilyov - a passionary impetus as the start of the process of ethnogenesis - exactly corresponds to what we designate as a transition from an ethnos to a people. Gumilyov described this in terms of "energy", an active force that suddenly opens up in an ethnos and brings it to a new scale of historical existence. He associated this with an increase in the number of "passionaries" - that is, people of a heroic, sometimes somewhat adventurous type, driven by an excess of internal forces.
Regarding the cause of passionary shocks, Gumilyov gave a very peculiar explanation, linking them to the pulsations of solar cycles, the connection of which with the biological cycles of life on earth was studied by a Russian scientist A.L. Chizhevsky(1897-1964)(18). With all the wit of such a hypothesis, it has nothing to do with sociology and structural sociology. But the following is extremely important: Gumilyov described in detail and correctly singled out in the history of ethnic groups those moments when the transition from an ethnic group to a people took place, that is, he compiled a systematic table of ethnic groups in geographical and chronological order, including all cases of such a switching of regimes, whenever they neither occurred - both in antiquity and in recent centuries.
And if Gumilyov's answer to the ethnological problematics: why the transition from an ethnos to a people occurs can be found controversial or irrelevant, the very attraction of fixed attention to this topic can hardly be overestimated. In that part of structural sociology that studies ethnos - that is, in the field of structural ethnosociology - Gumilyov's theory is an essential component.
The mechanics of ethnogenesis according to Gumilyov
In its most general form, Gumilyov's theory of ethnogenesis is as follows. Within the framework of existing ethnic groups, Gumilyov singles out “convixia” (“community”) as the basic cell. Numerous "convixions" add up to "consortia". Groups of "consortia" form a "sub-ethnos". The next step is "ethnos", and, finally, "superethnos".
The process of movement from convixion to ethnos and superethnos is a route that in the vast majority of cases remains in a potential state - and every existing social system is in balance. But in the rarest cases, under the influence of an inexplicable (or heliobiological) impulse - a passionary impulse - a single "convixia" (for example, a community, a group of like-minded people, a band of robbers, a tiny religious sect, etc.) begins to behave actively, aggressively, violently, capturing with its energy everything around itself - that is, other convixions. If this process continues, then convixia will form a new consortium, then a subethnos - and so on up to a superethnos. The full path in history was passed in isolated cases - two of which we mentioned: the Empire of Genghis Khan and the Arab Caliphate. This also includes the spread of early Christianity - from a small group of apostles to a world empire and world civilization. For the most part, passionary impulses go out at intermediate stages. Thus, the structure of conviscia-consortium-subethnos-ethnos-superethnos can be perceived as a chreod, that is, a probable path for the development of passionarity processes, which in reality will be passed only with a combination of many additional conditions.
Passionarity and diurn
In Gumilyov's theory, the similarity between the phenomenon of passionarity and the mode of imagination that Gilbert Durand describes as the mode of diurn is immediately striking. In its pure mythological form, diurn carries something similar to passionarity. The complex of myths and symbols of the diurn unfolds in the mode of a tough and sharpened dramatic confrontation between the imaginer of death and time. The heroic diairesis rejects the euphemism of the nocturnal regimes and defies the times. The balance on which the habitual life of an ethnos is based is based on a compromise between the diurn (the basis of initiation and social institutions, the structure of individuation practices) and the exorcism of the nocturne (which was discussed earlier). An excess of diurna may well consider such a compromise as the transition of the entire system to the side of the "enemy" - time-death, and the delicate ethnic balance of kinship and property, in which twin opposites are resolved dialectically, in this case it may be violated - which will lead to the destabilization of the tribe (ethnos ) and the beginning of unpredictable (catastrophic) events.
Something similar can take place when the male union as an initiatory structure is separated from the rest of the tribe - up to complete isolation, migration, separation, resettlement. The male union as an institution for the cultivation of the heroic principle - warriors, hunters, young aggressive men - in isolation from the restraining nocturne bonds of an equilibrium ethnos will most likely behave according to a passionate scenario.
And finally, it can be assumed, in the spirit of Frobenius-Grebner's diffusionism, that some ethnic groups or tribes are obviously endowed with increased diurnic properties and have the corresponding structure of myth and the dominant heroism in the unconscious, and the movement of such ethnic groups - sometimes difficult to distinguish in detail - over space gives rise to a series of explosions of passionarity or channels of its distribution.
In this case, passionarity can be described (but not explained, which we do not pretend to be) as a concentration of diurn, which serves as a combustible material for the dynamics of the processes of ethnogenesis and, accordingly, sociogenesis.
People and Diurn
Continuing this line, we can say that the deployment of the heroic principle - diurna - in the structure of the unconscious and in the general architecture of myth - leads
In the first (logically, but not necessarily chronologically) stages towards the organization of the ethnos in accordance with the social order along the vertical axis (in an endogenous or exogenous way - as we talked about earlier);
In some cases - to the concentration of this principle in special initiatory organizations;
Sometimes - to the mobilization of the entire ethnic group to solve heroic (militant, aggressive, extensive) tasks;
And in the form of a culmination - to the design of the heroic myth in the logos, embodied in the creation of empires, religions, civilizations.
In other words, an extremely high concentration of diurn elements is responsible for the transition from an ethnos to a people. Gumilev's theory of ethnogenesis and its stages may well be interpreted with the help of this toolkit.
At first glance, the question may arise, what has changed when we replaced one rather mysterious term "passionarity" with another, no less mysterious one - "myth of diurna"? A lot has changed. Gumilyov's passionarity referred us to the bioenergetic theories of modern science, which is a multiple derivative of basic anthropological and sociological paradigms. This science is a layering of so many layers of sociologically determined conventions that even a metaphorical use of its terms and its procedures can significantly lower the level of hypotheses, not to mention etiology or causality - to believe in this is at least naive. Having interpreted the phenomenon of passionarity as a specific mode of work of the imagner, we immediately find ourselves in the center of the problem, since the operation of this mode fits into the general context not only of psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic topics, but also in the context of sociology and structural anthropology. Moreover, in this case, passionarity can be consistently explored inside its core - that is, to reveal the mechanics of passionarity - to demystify it (in particular, freeing it from depressing heliobiology, because the sun is a social and mythological phenomenon, and, as such, belongs to the realm of imagination) .
Thus, summing up the analysis of the relationship between people and logos, we can say that the key moment of the transition from ethnos to people (with the corresponding forms of large-scale historical creativity) is the sharp dominance of the diurna regime in the structure of the ethnos. Logos is born from a heroic myth, and for this to happen, a high degree of concentration of this particular myth must be achieved both in the numerator and in the denominator of the mythos/mythos ethnos formula. When this formula takes the form
the desired leap of passionarity will take place, the diurn in the numerator will turn into a logos, and the ethnos will become a people.
Part 4. The nation against the myth
Perenniality of the ethnos
We meet ethnos throughout the entire space of the historical syntagma Premodern-Modern-Postmodern. In one form or another, it is everywhere as a constant of human society. Any society is directly or indirectly ethnic, whether it is recognized or not. In different moments of the socio-cultural topic, in different relations with its other components, but the myth is present everywhere - as a constant of the collective unconscious, as the imaginer himself. A person is ethnic in an absolute way, he is always an ethnic person. Similarly, society: it bears the imprint of the ethnos in the most direct and immediate way. At the same time, ethnicity can be the only content of a person and society as part of a tribe or archaic forms of society, or it can be combined with more complex systems - when we are dealing with a people and more abstract structures built by them - civilization, religion, and especially the state. In the first case, ethnos is the only thing that is given (the formula mythos/mythos), in the second case, ethnos is combined with a certain supra-ethnic (super-ethnic, according to L. Gumilyov) superstructure (the people's formula logos/mythos).
Ethnos has always been and is. This circumstance is deliberately singled out and substantiated by the primordialist or perennialist theory (from the Latin "primordial" - the original and "perrenis" - eternal, constant, unchanging). In general, it was first formulated by German philosophers Johann Gottlieb Fichte(1762-1814) and Johann Gottfried Herder(1744-1803). From the point of view of the synchronistic approach and structuralism, it is in the ethnos that one should look for the keys to understanding a person as such. This is connected with the whole direction of structural anthropology, which studies the institutions, psychology, mentality, symbols, rituals, way of life and thoughts of peoples who are in a state of ethnos. Therefore, we meet the ethnic at all stages of history - from Premodern through Modern and up to Postmodern.
As for the people, that is, the transition of an ethnos into a special regime of passionary tension or an overconcentration of diurn, this does not happen in all ethnic groups. Ethnos is something obligatory and present with necessity as a fundamental anthropological and sociological given. We meet people much less often. This is an optional and not necessary form of society. It is associated with a set of emerging factors that are combined under the influence of many diverse and multi-level causes. There is no predestination that an ethnos becomes a people, and there is no guarantee that, having become a people, that is, a superethnos in Gumilyov's terms, it will not again fall apart into ethnic units - either old or new, or that such units will not break away from it . The transformation of an ethnos into a nation is a reversible phenomenon.
Although we meet peoples - precisely peoples (not ethnic groups) - on ancient stages of known history, their existence, while logically probable, is not strictly necessary. In this they differ from the ethnos, which is necessary and present everywhere. The people, as a special case of an ethnos ignited by heroic super-energy, is thus a probabilistic quantity.
Genesis of the nation
The phenomenon of the nation, for its part, has a strictly defined temporal localization and belongs to the New Age. Previously, we do not meet the nation as such (that is, the Nation-State), it is an exceptional phenomenon of Modernity and fully belongs to its paradigm. Nation is a modern concept, inextricably linked with the Enlightenment and the Modern paradigm. In this it differs from both the ethnos and the people, which are present in all paradigms.
The genesis of the nation is connected with the concept of the state. The state, in turn, as we have seen, is one of the three possible forms of embodiment of the creative power of the people (along with religion and civilization). A people is an ethnos that has acquired a logos. And finally, the logos is born from the mythological regime of the diurna, which, in turn, constituting the logos, leaves its other equally diurnic and heroic, but not logical, possibilities unused. Everything that does not pass from one state to another does not disappear, but remains as active factors that continue to exert a huge influence on the entire structure. The genesis of a nation can be described as a process of successive selection of mythological potential.
The diagram shows four logical steps in the emergence of a nation. If we project these logical steps onto a diachronic picture, then the transition to the lower level will be carried out strictly in the New Age, which makes us classify the nation as a purely modern phenomenon. The use of the same term in more early eras forces us to interpret the statement as referring to either a people or an ethnic group.
Such a strict definition of the nation is extremely important in order to unravel the tangle of countless contradictions, confusions of concepts and anachronisms in the use of the term "nation".
The nation is genetically connected with the ethnos, as it appears from the matrix of the ethnos. But as it develops, the nation more and more frees itself from what was its source, up to the point that in its finished form it becomes in absolute opposition to the ethnos.
The nation-state as an ethnocide machine
We see that the Nation-State does not recognize the presence of myth in its structure at all and identifies itself exclusively with the realm of the logos. This is strictly clear from the history of the formation of the New Age, which took place under the sign of the complete liberation of the mind from "pre-rational", "non-reasonable" impurities. This was the meaning of the Enlightenment - the expulsion of myth.
Therefore, in the political practice of the formation of modern Nation-States, we see the deployment of a systematic ethnocide - the destruction of ethnic groups and even people (as having too much of the myth in itself - albeit in the denominator).
Thus, during the formation of the French State-Nation, dozens of ethnic groups that once inhabited the territory of the French kingdom became victims. These are Oktsy, Aquitanians, Basques, Gascons, Normans, Bretons, Provencals, etc. A single homogeneous field is made up of several ethnic groups and is made up from above - from the side of the state, which introduces a common social standard, which includes the normative national language, common law (which abolishes ethnic differences), the principle of secular, secular education, the foundations of the economic system are fixed, artificially and uniformly formed authorities and other institutions.
The state develops a certain logos, as a mechanical model of rigid laws, and fits under this logos not only small ethnic groups that find themselves within its borders, but also the people themselves, who launched the state, consistently clearing it of myth.
The state as an anti-empire artificially generates a nation
It is indicative that only a state of a non-imperial type generates a nation. In principle, the modern state, whose theorists were Machiavelli, Hobbes And Jean Bodin, was conceived as anti-empire, as the antithesis of empire.
The nation-state is being consistently cleansed of other forms of people's creativity - civilization and religion. In the history of Europe, this meant ignoring such a phenomenon as European civilization and the desire to justify national statehood on rationally meaningful selfish interests. particular group that created the state and enjoys its fruits. On the other hand, modern states were built in polemic with the universalist claims of papal power, which explains either the secular nature of these theories, or the fact that their creators were Protestants (like Jean Bodin or Thomas Hobbes). And finally, in practical optics, they opposed the lines of Austria-Hungary, the last imperial formation in Western Europe.
The empire combines the centralist logos with the polyphony of ethnic groups, it also keeps the empire-forming people relatively intact. In terms of logos-mythos, it combines the universalist logos with mythological diversity in a denominator that is recognized both de jure and de facto.
A nation is not just a certain stage in the existence of a people. Here the sequence is different. The people create a state (at first, as a rule, an empire). An empire, under certain conditions (and by no means always) transforms into a state of a secular, non-imperial type. And only then does this state of a non-imperial type artificially generate a nation, establish it, politically, socially, legally, administratively, institutionally, territorially, and even economically, it constitutes and constructs. The nation is a construct of the state, that is, a completely and completely artificial phenomenon, based on the application of an abstract logos to specific historical, ethnic and political conditions.
Citizen - the logical artifact of the nation
The basis of the nation is not some organic community, but the individual, the citizen. The citizen is a unit of a purely logical order. It is constructed not on the basis of something existing, but on the basis of a rational imperative. The citizen is introduced as an established identity, subject to the first three laws of logic - "A=A", "A not not-A", and "either A or not-A". A citizen is such a unit that fully satisfies this law. It stands out from the general mass of an ethnos or people connected by numerous threads of mythos in its denominator, and with this separation it cuts off all ties with the natural collective whole (myth in the denominator), turning into a new artificial collective aggregate based on logical operations. This artificially constructed unit is the nation.
Earlier we talked about how the transfer of an element from the realm of mythos to the realm of logos places it before a cold and impartial analysis, alienated by a mechanical judgment. The citizen, as the basis of the nation, is a man cut off from his natural environment, awakened from his dreams and rhetorical discourses, and called to court. This is the basis of the idea of national law. Law in the Nation State is the basis for the functioning of the whole mechanism, it is the scheme of the apparatus and the operating instructions. The basis of the nation is the Constitution, as the basic document that defines the main parameters of the blueprint and the mechanism of interaction between the individual parts of the common national apparatus.
The citizen is the universal detail of this logical machine.
If we again recall the concepts of the sociology of Tennis, we can say that the nation is the expression of "Geselschaft" ("society"), as an artificial bond between atoms, into which the organic whole was previously divided. A nation is a robot of a people and an ethnos, one can also say that it is an automatic stuffed animal, from which internal organs are carefully removed and replaced with mechanical parts, these organs are approximately imitating.
The Hypotype of the “People” in the Constitutions
A nation is an anti-ethnos, an anti-people. The memory of the people as the initiator of the emergence of the nation is often still contained in the Constitutions of most nations, but this mention is in the nature of a hypotyposis (that is, an anachronistic euphemism) - "the people" is mentioned as a living reminder of what preceded the emergence of the state and the creation of a nation on its basis. In the present, in Nation State there is no longer a people, instead there is a nation - it is it that is governed by the Constitution and is constituted by it. But the hypothetical appeal to the people in the present tense is a figure of speech, which, among other things, leads to the incorrect and purely anachronistic conclusion that the nation could be something that preceded the state (although this is a logical and chronological, syntagmatic contradiction).
Causes of confusion in the definitions of nation (nationalism) in political science
These nuances are associated with the fact that very often under the “nation”, which has a strictly mechanical and civil content, other realities are understood - that is, “people” and “ethnos”, as a society where the positions of the myth are completely legitimized, and sometimes legal. Such a failure of concepts makes the same representatives of Modernity and the modern state act both as supporters of the nation and as its opponents. They are supporters when they understand civil society in the spaces of the state by “nation” (that is, in fact, what should be understood by “nation”), and they are opponents, as soon as this concept is invested with an anachronistic content (“people” and / or "ethnos").
The same duality, not based on fuzzy word usage, also affects the concept of "nationalism". Strictly speaking, "nationalism" is a phenomenon of unity and mobilization of citizens of a state for the realization of some state goal - victory in a war, expanding one's political influence or a zone of economic control. Such nationalism does not conflict conceptually with the norms of civil society and is quite acceptable in most modern societies. But if by “nation” it is incompetent to understand “people” or “ethnos”, then the meaning of the concept changes to the exact opposite, and “nationalism” is understood in this case as a counterattack of the outlawed mythos against the logos, usurping all powers in the modern state, that is an attempt by the "Gemeinschaft" ("community") to win back some of their rights from the "Geselschaft" ("society"). To emphasize these differences, compound terms such as "ethno-nationalism", "ethnocracy", "Volk-nationalism" (or "volkisch" - from the German "das Volk", "people"), "national intolerance" or "racism" are used. Obviously, such complex constructions only obscure the essence of the problem, forcing the development of systems of concepts and definitions, including legal ones, based on exaggerations, polysemy and omissions, which only harms the harmony of scientific, political and legal discourse. Examples of such inadequate use of the terms “nation” and “nationalism” are full of world and Russian media, cases of legal practice, typical political polemics that never lead to anything, since terminological confusion is at the very basis of the positions and priorities discussed.
Causes of confusion in the definitions of nation (nationalism) in ethnology
Another kind of confusion of concepts takes place in the scientific community. This is related to the "ethnos" theories discussed by contemporary ethnology and anthropology. IN Russian science an extremely incorrect and irrelevant practice has developed to oppose each other the primordial (perennialist) theory of ethnos (we outlined it above) and the so-called "social constructivism". Primordialism recognizes "ethnos" as a primordial and fundamental phenomenon, given as an unfolding of the structures of the unconscious (with or without the addition of the idea of ancestral ties - we have seen that in any ethnos both kinship and property are involved, and both of them are constitutive for the definition of ethnos only in the aggregate , which makes the criterion for the presence of ancestral ties in determining an ethnos incomplete and misleading). The “constructivism” opposed to it tries to explain the appearance of an ethnos by an artificial cultural, political and linguistic initiative of elites or individual small groups. And here, as in the everyday language of politicians and journalists, we are faced with a confusion of concepts and anachronistic extrapolations. Ethnos is a strictly and unambiguously primordial phenomenon, and there is no other explanation for its origin. The only thing is that the processes of ethnogenesis can be interpreted differently - through the energy theory of passionarity (as in Gumilyov), through a combination of unconscious modes (especially with an emphasis on the socio-forming function of the diurna) or in some other way. Herder metaphorically defined "ethnoi" (= "peoples") as "the thoughts of God". In the religious ideas of the Jews and partially Christians, the difference between ethnic groups and peoples is explained through the idea / plurality of angels - each people (ethnos) has its own angel, symbolically personified by the prince of this people. Thus, members of the chain angel-prince-people (ethnos) can act as metonymic concepts.
Constructivism begins in full measure where nation-building takes place. Here, indeed, there is nothing primordial and perrenial - this national structure is built completely artificially and with the help of mechanical and logical laws. Here, indeed, the power and intellectual elites play an important role, developing purely logically and speculatively those ideas, principles, interests and values around which the artificial civil community constituted by them is called upon to unite. When big nations this is obvious and does not require proof. Problems can arise only with small nations, the emergence of which is taking place before our eyes. In the post-Soviet space, in each of the CIS Republics, except Russia, the process of creating new nations, as a rule, never existed in history, is in full swing.
Similar attempts are being made at a lower level - within separatist tendencies and within Russia itself, and in this case the appeals of the operators of the creation of new nations to the ethnic factor are even more striking. A superficial reflection on these phenomena led a group of incompetent Russian scientists from the "Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology" of the Russian Academy of Sciences ( V.ATishkov) to the opposition of primordialism and constructivism. The fact is that appeals to ethnic principles in the creation of a nation do not define the essence of ethnogenesis and lose sight of the very content of the ethnos. This factor, indeed, artificial and mechanically constructed, serves as a nuance for the formation of a nation in its civic political sense. In this, the general civilizational mood of Modernity makes itself felt.
As the collapse of imperial formations or the collapse of large states that did not have time or did not want to completely destroy the original ethnic groups within their borders, ethnic elites try to imitate the example of Western Nation-States and repeat the entire cycle of ethnos-people-nation, even if for internal prerequisites for this have not matured. In this case, we are dealing with archeomodern or pseudomorphosis, which we have repeatedly spoken about. Ethnic elites are educated in Modern institutions. And then they project the resulting epistemes - in the political, cultural, sociological sense - onto their own ethnic groups that continue to live within the traditional society. In such cases, we see constructivism, but this constructivism has nothing to do with either the essence of an ethnos or ethnogenesis (no matter how it is understood), it explains only the behavior of the elite, which projects the procedures for creating a nation onto a fundamentally and invariably primordial ethnos (and most often, if not always, Nation-States), gleaned from someone else's experience through education in other social contexts and in a different historical paradigm - in the Modern paradigm, where no ethnos is already assumed. From such attempts, only another pseudomorphosis can appear, which we see in the example of crippled Georgia, torn apart by the contradictions of modern Ukraine, or a complete failure to build the Nation State Dudayev(1944-1996) and Maskhadov(1951-2005), which was rightly criticized by Chechen traditionalists and ethnocrats (in particular, HA. Nukhaev).
The fate of mythos in modernity
If we carefully follow the development of the course in the description of the nation, we come across a certain contradiction. On the one hand, we said that the logos/mythos fraction and the two-story topic itself, which underlies structural sociology, is a universal model applicable to all sociological, psychological and anthropological phenomena. But when describing the State-Nation, we are talking only about a logos, and one that declares war on the destruction of mythos - to the extent that it does not recognize its very existence and tries to describe Modern society as a pure Geselschaft, which has no denominator at all. This corresponds to the diachronic sequence with which we began the presentation of the course. Modern believes that only the diachronic scheme of the temporal syntagma is correct:
We have shown that thanks to the discoveries of structuralists, linguists and psychoanalysts, it became clear that the mythos has not disappeared anywhere, it has remained in the unconscious and continues to exist there, despite the logos denying this very existence. Therefore, when we say that the nation as a purely logical and artificial phenomenon is based entirely on the logos, we describe the situation from the side of the logos itself: this is how the nation and the state think of themselves and their atomic composition (citizens). For clarity, you can build the following chain:
It strictly corresponds to the equivalent chain:
In a nation, the logos seeks to abolish the mythos, to cross it out, to remove it as a phenomenon. If you believe the nation and Modernity as a whole, then the ethnos and mythos are abolished during the transition to the New Age. Nations are replaced by peoples and ethnic groups. Nominally and legally, this is how it is, and there is nothing in the denominator of the logos and the nation. But structuralism reveals this “nothing” like a film, and gradually through its methodology, through the study of narrative and rhetoric, through the discovery of the collective unconscious and paradigm approach, the features of a long-familiar phenomenon appear from scratch, which, as it turns out, has not disappeared anywhere. This discovery makes sociologists, anthropologists and linguists (starting with the largest E. Durkheim, M. Moss, K. Levi-Strauss, R. O. Jacobson, N. S. Trubetskoy, etc.) turn to primitive societies, archaic tribes, ancient languages, traditions, fairy tales and legends in search of the content of this “nothing”, exposed as something.
Ethnos as the subconscious of the nation
The same is true of the nation. The nation believes that it has “got rid of the ethnos” and ignores the ethnic in legal, conceptual, political, administrative and institutional systems. The nation pretends that "there is no ethnos", and when it declares itself, it seeks to suppress it, or even simply destroy it - either through nationalization (forcible conversion to a national type through language, culture, law, etc.), or by extermination. When creating an American nation around white colonialists with a dominant Anglo-Saxon and Protestant socio-cultural code, the local population, the Indians, turned out to be completely unable (both subjectively and objectively) to integrate into it. This led to their extermination or to apartheid, which in fact de facto exists in the United States to this day. The Indians were ethnic groups, and with developed purely ethnic features, and could not be integrated into the nation. The situation was more complicated with black slaves, torn from the soil and arbitrarily mixed by white planters without regard to their ethnicity (after all, among the black slaves there were representatives of completely different ethnic groups, caught in Africa for purely economic purposes). African Americans were thus included in the American nation on an individual basis - as black citizens without any ethnic context. Therefore, the question of their integration was easier, and when the North and the abolitionists defeated the Confederates and the planters of the South, legally the way for the integration of blacks into the American nation was opened. It alone took more than one hundred and fifty years until this theoretical equality was realized to such an extent that the first mulatto with an African phenotype in the history of this nation became the President of the United States. The Indians, however, remained behind the line.
But in fact, the ethnos has not disappeared anywhere, and shines brightly through the formal claims of nations to create purely logical societies. Ethnicity affects the behavior of the elites, and the historical choice of the masses, and the system of values and interests, which, albeit rationally outwardly, but always irrationally internally, are chosen as national priorities. The ethnos does not have a legal place in the nation, but it controls, to a large extent, the legitimation procedures (19), which are of an informal nature. And he already quite frankly dominates in public opinion and collective consciousness, predetermining its semantic chains, including failures and such phenomena as heterotelia.
The status of an ethnos in the Nation-State fully corresponds to the status of the unconscious (or subconscious) in a Modern man. The unconscious, of course, exists and actively influences the personality, the functioning of the mind, the very structure of the ego - whether the ego recognizes it or not. Similarly, the ethnos, which can be called the "unconscious" of the nation. It is strictly denied, abused, suppressed, driven underground, but it continues to live there - illegally and without registration, predetermining much, if not all, of what happens at the logos level - as in the main titular composition of the nation ("titular nation" - that is, in the people who created the state that established the nation), and in ethnic minorities - both autochthonous and those who entered the nation as a result of migration.
Nation and diurn
If we turn again to the scheme of the genesis of the nation, we will see that the nation is the product of the work of the heroic mode of the unconscious - the diurna. If we recall what we said at the beginning of this section about the participation of diurna work in the social structures of an ethnos (regardless of the archetypes dominant in the ethnos), then we can trace the entire chain.
1) The Diurnic myth develops a social vertical that organizes the ethnos into a social structure.
2) The next stage of the deployment of the diurn leads to the appearance of the logos and transforms the ethnos into a people (superethnos).
3) The people (superethnos) through its logos (with everything relying on that diurn - but already in the unconscious, in the denominator) creates a civilization and / or religion and / or a state (as an empire).
4) In the case of the state-empire, the absolutization of the logos (again continuing the trajectory of the development of the diairetic myth and its energy, aimed at rationalizing and dividing the outside world) can lead to the creation of the State-Nation, where the state establishes the nation instead of the people and ethnos.
5) Diurnic aggressiveness turns into a battle between the logos and its own denominator, and the nation begins to repress the ethnos, leading to its destruction.
So, at all stages, we see the predominance of the diurnic principle, brought to its absolute forms and entering into conflict even with what gave rise to it - that is, with the diurnic myth as an unconscious archetype. In the logos, diurnus saw the possibility of being henceforth conscious (the 4 laws of logic) and turned this possibility against his own roots. This is the project of civil society in its purest form (as presented by Kant), where the continuation of the same logic requires the rejection of the irrationalism of war and, ultimately, of the state.
Civil society is the final stage in the development of the diurn, in which it comes to the negation of the nation itself and the state itself in favor of pure logic and a purely logical unit - the citizen, at the previous stage, constituted and constructed by the state and the nation.
Therefore, to the 5 steps listed above in the development of the diurn, we can add the 6th.
6) The diurnic logos of the nation comes to the need to replace the nation as a linked agglomeration of citizens-atoms by the same atoms in a free state, and in the course of general program liberation from mythos begins to dig out the roots of the diurn itself, which led, along the consistent chain of deployment of the diairetic myth, to the emergence of civil society. Hence pacifism, the denunciation of the will to power (as an irrational form of diurn), Popper's "open society", liberal democracy, and, finally, postmodernity. Diurn, starting with his priority self-affirmation, comes to self-denial and self-destruction.
On this 6th point, the work of the diurn reaches its logical limit and exhausts its potential.
Within the framework of our topic, we can trace where the synchronic moment dominates over the diachronic, and, therefore, build a picture of the movement of diurn from myth to logos and from ethnos to nation, and from the standpoint of what is discarded in the course of this process. If for the diurn itself, and captured by its energy, it does not matter, for overall picture fractional societies, this is extremely important, as it illuminates changes in the structure of the denominator, which, being fundamentally identical, is able to accept some elements that “fall” into it from the numerator during the “great purge” - which is what the diurn principally does.
You can call this logic -- the scheme of accumulation of "residuals" (residui), replenishment of a kind of "residual thesaurus". This thesaurus includes everything that is discarded by the successive actions of the diurn, which asserts its “heroic” (diauretic) order.
From this scheme, we see how the denominator (unconscious) of the Modern era is replenished with content that previously constituted the competence of diurna. Thus, not only the nocturne, but also the irrational aspects of the diurn, and moreover, those manifestations of the logos - religion, civilization, empire, which were the property of the logos - the numerator (!) - at the previous stages, fall into the area of the marginal, illegal in the regime of the nation.
If we extend this chain further - into the postmodern, which will be discussed a little later - we will see how this thesaurus will be replenished with such completely logos concepts as the nation and the state, if we apply to them on a new round and with new care the criteria of strict observance logo requirements.
The structure of the residual thesaurus, where in the era of Modernity there is not only an ethnos, but also the people and their creations, different from the State-Nation, that is, certain forms of logos, and not just mythos, significantly nuances the general topic of structural sociology, since it includes in the area of the denominator a series of positions which in the early stages belonged to the numerator and belonged to the order of the logos.
Cyborg Nation
The idea of transition from an ethnos and people to a nation in the course of the diurna regime, as we have shown, at a certain moment performs the most important operation - it transfers a piece of myth - a fragment of an ethnos or a collective unconscious striving for individuation (Before Kamo) - into the space of logic. This is the citizen as the atomic link of the nation. But being placed in a mechanical system according to mechanical logic, a citizen at some point comes to a decisive point. Or he will continue to deploy unconscious structures in his civil status (although illegally, but still brought by him from the former states of Premodern, that is, from the ethnos, from the myth), and in this case he will remain not just a citizen, but something yet, violating the three laws of logic; or at some point it will have to be replaced by a normative citizen with a consciousness and behavior systems that are completely adequate to the nation, without any deviation from logical standards. The first case will mean that the nation gives up in the face of the impossibility of fully realizing its task and establishing a system of citizens instead of organic collective units. But such a recognition would be tantamount to admitting Modernity was unable to fulfill its program (this is the conclusion reached by the philosophers of the Frankfurt School or Levinas(1906-1995), who thought “from Auschwitz and Auschwitz”, that is, they stated the inability of the Western European Modern to change the ethnic and mythological nature of man and replace it with a well-functioning mechanism). Even taking into account such a statement, the very diurnic nature of the logos, albeit dialectically overcome and condemned by its subsequent editions, contradicts such “fatalism”, and the spirit of Modernity will look for ways to overcome this.
And here we are approaching the next most important step: a full-fledged member of the nation, a normative citizen, moving along strictly prescribed logical trajectories without any danger of falling into an ethnos or myth, will be a humanoid, but artificial creature - a cyborg, clone, mutant, a product of genetic engineering . The optimal atom of the nation and civil society is a person without subconsciousness, without ethnic properties, a person completely created by the tools of culture and its ultralogical form.
A civil society and a fully logical nation in its singularities and in its generalization can only be built if human-like apparatuses, machines, post-humans take the place of people. An ideal nation that strictly meets the criteria of logos in its most complete development is a nation of cyborgs, computers, biomechanoids.
Here we again approach the line where the Modern ends with its achievements in the eradication of the logos of mythos (the nation of the ethnos) and enters the postmodern, where new metamorphoses of the logos and the posthuman "anthropology" of the "open society" of mutants, clones and cyborgs await us. The cleansing of the nation from the ethnos leads to the liberation from man and his structures. And the concept of "civil society" as the optimal form of development of the same impulse that led the logos to the formation of the nation, can be implemented in practice only through going beyond the person, who, as it turns out, is so closely and inextricably linked with ethnos and myth that an attempt tearing him away from ethnos and myth leads to only one result - to the end of man, to his death. This is what the “new philosophers” stated ( Bernard Henri Levy, Andre Glucksman etc.), declaring that "the man is dead."
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have clarified the following fundamental positions of ethnosociology:
1) Ethnicity is a primordial component of a person as a phenomenon and retains its fundamental significance throughout historical cycle development of the syntagma from the archaic to the present. The primordialist (perennialist) theory of ethnos is the only adequate and operational one.
2) The formula of the ethnos is the mythos/mythos ratio, where the numerator differs from the denominator in proportion to the superiority of the diurn, which is responsible for the deployment of social (vertical) structures and institutions in the ethnos.
3) In Western society, the fate of an ethnos goes through all the stages of development of the diurna dominant according to the chain of formulas:
mythos/mythos (=enos) => logos/ethnos (=people) => logos/0(zero) (=nation)
4) Diurn, by deploying his inherent script, generates a people, then a state, then a nation, then a figure of a citizen, then a civil society.
5) Along the line of the logos, each previous stage is removed and disappears into nothing, along the line of mythos, the discarded possibilities accumulate in the denominator, making up the residual thesaurus.
6) In the transition from Modern to Postmodern, the task is to create a new subject, as a completely logical unit of civil society, devoid of a denominator. The figure of a cyborg, a mutant, a clone, a robot becomes such a posthuman singularity.
7) Taking into account Postmodernity, the complete chain of transformations of the ethnos in the sociological perspective of the diachronic syntagma looks like this:
ethnos - people - nation - civil society - nation (society) of cyborgs (posthumans)
Notes
(1) Shirokogorov S.M. "Ethnos: A Study of the Basic Principles of Changing Ethnic and Ethnographic Phenomena. - Shanghai", 1923.
(2) Max Weber Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundries der verstehenden Soziologie. Tubingen 1976
(3) A. Dugin "Social science for the citizens of the new Russia". M., 2007
(4) Y. Bromley Essays on the history of ethnic groups M., 1983, Modern problems of ethnography. M., 1981
(5) Shirokogorov S.M. "Ethnos", op.
(6) Ibid.
(8) C. Levy-Strauss Les Structures élémentaires de la parenté, P., 1949
(9) Huizinga Johan. Homo ludens. Articles on the history of culture M., 1995
(10) Dec. op.
(11) Afanasyev A. N. Folk Russian fairy tales. In 3 vols. Moscow, 1984
(12) Ivanov V.I., Toporov V.N. Slavic language modeling semiotic systems. - M., 1965 See also Voronin N.N. Bear cult in the Upper Volga region in the 11th century // Regional Studies Notes. -Yaroslavl, 1960. Issue. IV, Gromyko M.M. Pre-Christian beliefs in the life of the Siberian peasants of the 18th - 19th centuries // From the history of the family and life of the Siberian peasantry in the 17th - early 20th centuries. - Novosibirsk, 1975.
(13) Shirokogorov S.M. "Ethnos", op.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Vyach. Sun. Ivanov. The dual organization of primitive peoples and the origin of dualistic cosmogonies (reviewed in the book Zolotarev 1964). - Soviet archeology, 1968, No. 4; aka Notes on a Typological and Comparative Historical Study of Roman and Indo-European Mythology // Semeiotike. Works on sign systems. T.4. Tartu, 1969, aka Binary Symbolic Classification in African and Asian Traditions // Peoples of Asia and Africa. M., 1969, No. 5, also known as "Binary structures in semiotic systems" // System Research. Yearbook 1972. See also A.M. Zolotarev. Tribal system and primitive mythology. M., 1964.
(17) L. Gumilyov "Ethnogenesis and biosphere of the Earth", L., 1989
(18) See A. L. Chizhevsky. "Physical factors of the historical process", Kaluga, 1924, aka "Theory of heliotaraxia", M., 1980
(19) The difference between legality and legitimacy has been extensively studied by the German philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt, see Carl Schmitt, "Legalitat und Legitimitat," Munich, 1932
