The subject of ethnosociology. Types of ethnic groups - tribe, nationality, nation

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 is a historically established stable set of people with common features and peculiarities of culture, social psychology, ethnic identity. 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.

A 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 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 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 specificity of the sociological approach to the study of ethnic groups lies, first of all, in the fact that, unlike ethnography, which has a pronounced historical and descriptive character, in sociology ethnic communities are considered as elements of the social structure of society , in close connection with other social groups - classes, strata, territorial communities and various social institutions. In this regard, the problem of ethnic stratification arises as an independent topic, since ethnicity, nationality in modern world, especially in our country, is an important indicator of the social position of the individual and his ethnic group as a whole. In addition, ethnic groups and relations are analyzed within the framework of the conceptual model adopted in sociology, which expresses the relationship of three main levels - culture, social system and personality. In other words, the life of an ethnic group is considered within the framework of system-structural representations, and the ethnic community, as one of the subsystems of society as a whole, is in connection and relations with other social subsystems and social institutions.

Features of culture and life of various ethnic groups are the subject of close study of ethnographers. In sociology, ethnographic material is used by scientists to build general theoretical concepts and typologies.

It should be noted that, until recently, sociologists have been little interested in the study of ethnic groups, which usually belonged to the field of so-called "social problems", which have a purely applied, practical value and not scientific and educational. Over the last 20-30 years the situation has changed radically. For a number of reasons - economic, political, sociocultural, psychological, demographic, etc., the issues of studying national-ethnic relations in the modern world have acquired such relevance and significance that this problem has become the object of large-scale research. -ny. The wave of national-ethnic conflicts that have swept the world in recent decades has prompted sociologists, as well as representatives of other social sciences, to build new explanations for the phenomenon of national-ethnic relations, which seemed to many scientists solved and explained, since the process of formation of nation-states in the leading countries of the world was completed. The aggravation of national-ethnic processes in the countries of the former USSR can be regarded as an integral part of this global process of "return to ethnicity", although here it certainly has its own characteristics.

It is customary to distinguish three main types of ethnic groups - a tribe, a nationality and a nation, differing from each other in terms of the level of development of culture, economy, knowledge, etc.

Tribe- this is a kind of association of people, which is inherent in primitive formations and is characterized by consanguineous ties between people. The tribe is formed on the basis of several clans or clans, leading a common origin from one ancestor. People are also united into a tribe by common religious beliefs - fetishism, totemism, etc., the presence of a common spoken dialect, the beginnings of political power (council of elders, leaders, etc.), a common territory of residence. The leading form of economic activity at this historical stage was hunting and gathering.

Nationality differs from the tribal organization in a higher level of economic development, the formation of a certain economic structure, the presence of folklore, that is, folk culture in the form of myths, legends, rituals and customs. The nationality has an already formed language (written), a special way of life, religious consciousness, institutions of power, self-consciousness, expressed in its name. On the territory of the former USSR, more than a hundred different nationalities lived, administratively and territorially fixed in autonomous republics and districts. Many of them remain part of the Russian Federation.

Process of creation nation, as the most developed form of an ethnos, takes place during the period of the final formation of statehood, the wide development of economic ties in the territory previously occupied by several nationalities, general psychology (national character), a special culture, language and writing, developed ethnic identity. Nations that have become obsessed create states. In Europe, this process took place during the period of transition from feudalism to capitalism and finally ended during the creation of a mature capitalist economy and the creation of a national culture in the main countries of the European continent - France, Germany, Spain, etc. In Russia, a similar process The formation of nations began in the pre-revolutionary period, but it did not receive its natural completion, it was interrupted by the October Revolution, after which the national question began to be resolved from the positions of the Marxist-Leninist ideology, within the framework of a totalitarian system of power.

Of the three types of ethnos indicated, sociologists pay paramount attention to the study of nations and national relations, since this type of ethnos prevails in the modern world, including on the territory of our country. Therefore, in the sociological literature, the terms "ethnic" and "national" are often used as synonyms or in the phrase "national-ethnic".

Ethnographers studying the way of life and culture of various ethnic groups are now arguing about whether living on a common territory is an essential sign of an ethnic community. It is known from world practice that representatives of any ethnic group do not always live on the same territory and form a separate state. It often happens that representatives of one ethnic group can live in the territories of other states and ethnic groups (indigenous nation), while maintaining character traits of their ethnic nose - customs, traditions, stereotypes of behavior, not to mention the common language. Therefore, there are practically no states in the world, within the boundaries of which only representatives of one ethnic group would live. Even within the framework of European mono-national states - France, Germany, Sweden, etc., representatives of various ethnic groups live within the boundaries of one political entity. The column "nationality" in many Western countries is not used at all, they speak of French, German, American, etc. citizenship, and not about nationality, since the national and political characteristics of the ethnic community here coincide. -The term "American", for example, means not so much ethnicity as nationality.

Four types of ethnic or ethno-social communities are known in history, which are closely interconnected and which can be considered as certain stages in the development of an ethnos from small social groups to the big ones. These include clan, tribe, nationality and nation.

Genus- it's small ethnic group, whose representatives are related by blood ties and trace their origin along the same line (maternal or paternal). The genus replaced the primitive herd and its most important feature was exogamy, that is, the prohibition of marriages within the clan. Due to the latter circumstance, clans could not exist in isolation from each other and united into tribes, since otherwise it was impossible to ensure the physical reproduction of the population.

Tribe - it is an ethno-social community of a primitive communal (pre-class) system, which is a set of clans connected by a common culture, unity religious beliefs, consciousness of a common origin, as well as the presence of self-government and self-name. It was the tribe that served as the basic social unit primitive order, since it provided the necessary set of functions of social reproduction and, above all, the function of physical reproduction of new generations. The clan was a large consanguineous family, and it is more correct to consider it not so much as an independent ethno-social community, but as the main structural component of the tribe. The formation of the clan and tribe was associated with the same segment on the scale of historical time - the transition from the primitive herd to the social state.

The clan and tribe were the product and the main form of existence of the primitive communal system, however, tribal relations persist today, not only among small peoples living in isolation from the rest of the world (Australian natives and the like), but also in such completely civilized countries as India, Brazil, Indonesia, some peoples of the Caucasus, Central Asia, etc. - wherever significant elements of the traditional way of life have been preserved.

If the genus and tribe arise during the formation of the primitive communal system, then nationality appears during its decomposition. Nationality is an ethnic and social community that historically follows the tribe and precedes the nation. The nationality grows out of a mixture of different tribes and the formation of tribal unions associated with a certain territory. Nationality, therefore, is based not on consanguinity, but on territorial unity. Within the framework of a single territory, common economic and cultural ties arise between the tribes, a common language, a single religion, and a common self-name are formed. However, it should be borne in mind that residence in a certain area is a general condition for the formation of any ethnic group, and nationality is no exception in this respect. Each tribe always had its own territory, delimited from the territories of other tribes by some natural natural boundaries, but for the tribe, the main pivotal factor was still not the common territory, but blood ties and relationships. For the nationality, the commonness of the territory became such a main constitutive factor, and kinship, tribal ties faded into the background.

What is the new quality? community of territory at the people? As already noted, nationality arises during the period of decomposition of primitive collectivism and the establishment of a society based on social differentiation and social inequality. The inevitable product of such a society is state, which begins to control a certain territory, relying on legitimate coercion. The unity of the territory, maintained by state coercion and becomes the main constitutive condition and distinguishing feature of that new ethnic and social community, which is nationality.

So, nationality- this is a historical type of ethnic community that arises during the period of decomposition of the tribal organization of society and is based not on consanguinity, but on territorial unity, which is supported by state coercion. In other words, the basis of the nation is political unity, supported primarily by the power of state power.

The first peoples of the slave-owning era were formed - the ancient Egyptian, ancient Hellenic, etc. The process of the formation of nationalities in Europe ended mainly in the period of feudalism. In other parts of the world, this process continued in subsequent eras.

Nationalities usually consisted of several tribes, close in origin and language. For example, the Polish nationality was formed from the Slavic tribes of the Polans, Visslans, Mazovshans, etc., the German - from the Germanic tribes of the Swabians, Bavarians, Alemans, etc. , the French people arose from a mixture of Gallic tribes, Roman colonists and Germanic tribes.

The formation of nationalities went hand in hand with the process of the formation of the state, however, in the course of further historical development, nationalities could no longer coincide with the state either territorially or in language. So, for example, in the East of Europe, where the formation of centralized states took place in the feudal era, a number of nationalities were included in their composition. The decisive role in these states was played by the most politically and economically developed nationalities, for example, the Russians. Nationality is a product and the main ethno-social group of the Ancient World and the Middle Ages.

As the transition from a traditional agrarian society to an industrial one begins, the process of turning a nationality into a nation begins. Nations are usually further ethnic development certain nationalities and retain their names, although the territorial boundaries of those and others may not coincide. Thus, the nationalities, which were cut into pieces by the new state borders, gave rise to several national formations (Portuguese and Galicians, Germans and Luxembourgers, etc.). At the same time, there are cases when several nationalities participated or are participating in the formation of one nation. Thus, the Indonesian nation was formed from Javanese, Sunds, Madurese and other nationalities.

It should be added to what has been said that the process of turning peoples into nations is not universal or all-encompassing. Many nationalities, especially small and lagging behind in their development for a number of reasons, eventually enter into closer ties with other, more developed peoples and nations and gradually lose their ethnic characteristics in the field of culture and life, assimilate the culture and language of more developed peoples and gradually merge with them. Such a process is called assimilation.

Nation represents the latest socio-ethnic formation from a historical point of view. It is a product and a typical form of existence based on the market economy of the bourgeois industrial society. The nation is an object of study of many sciences, including not only ethnography and sociology, but also history, social philosophy, demography, political science, law, etc. The complexity and versatility of the very phenomenon of the nation is manifested in the variety of approaches to determining its main features.

One of these approaches, which goes back to H. Spencer, is the definition of a nation as a continuation and complication of consanguineous, tribal relations. At the forefront here are the signs of a biological property associated with the similarity of physical traits, the unity of blood, the unity of the race. We have already spoken about the cognitive possibilities of such an approach; its initial premises and conclusions are refuted by reality itself.

Another understanding of the nation is offered by the so-called cultural-psychological theory. Its representatives (O. Bauer, R. Springer) consider the nation as a purely cultural community with a common self-consciousness and historical destiny and not rigidly associated with a certain territory or state affiliation. This theory formed the basis cultural and national autonomy programs.

This approach to understanding the nation has certain grounds. History really knows peoples who were or are in a state of diaspora or dispersion and do not have a compact residence in any territory, as well as a single statehood. Jews and Armenians can serve as an example. For such peoples, the only unifying basis remains ethnic self-consciousness - the preservation of the language, common cultural traditions, ideas about a common historical destiny, etc. And yet, most nations have both state and territorial certainty, and in their respect the cultural-psychological theory under consideration does not work well. The characteristics of the nation which this theory brings to the fore coincide with the most common features of any ethnic group and do not allow to differentiate its individual types, for example, to distinguish a nation from a nationality.

The following approach to the definition of a nation (we will call it provisionally statist) considers the nation as a fellow-citizenship, as a political community, as a collection of citizens of one state, regardless of their race, religious affiliation, linguistic and cultural differences. This approach has its own historical foundations; it took shape in the 17th-18th centuries. during the period of the first bourgeois revolutions in Western Europe, when the first secular national states took shape in the struggle against the feudal theocratic state. However, this approach also has its own definite limitations. In purely theoretical terms, from the standpoint of the etatist approach, it is rather difficult to distinguish between a nation and a nationality, since the latter is also a state-political community. This approach, voluntarily or involuntarily, leads to the idea that an ethnos turns into a nation only when it acquires its own statehood. Perhaps this thesis corresponded to the historical conditions of Western Europe in the 17th-18th centuries, but it clearly contradicts the conditions of modern life.

The number of states on our planet is an order of magnitude less than the number of existing ethnic groups. The vast majority of states are multiethnic and multinational, so the demand for their own statehood for each nation inevitably leads to an aggravation of interethnic contradictions and the growth of national separatism. To this it should be added that at present there are very few pure ethnic groups, which, without mixing with others, live compactly in a certain territory. It follows that in the modern world, the sign of a nation is not so much the presence of its own statehood, but the presence of statehood as such, – belonging to a particular state including multinational.

AT ordinary life people most often equate state and nationality, while sociology considers the state and the nation as interrelated, but different social phenomena. “British” and “English”, “Russian” and “Russian” are not coinciding concepts. The first concept in each pair characterizes the state affiliation of the individual, the second - his nationality. A British citizen can be not only an Englishman, but also a Scot, Welsh or Greek, just like a citizen of the Russian Federation by nationality can be Russian, Tatar, Chechen, Bashkir, etc.

The most important difference between state and nationality, from the point of view of sociology, is that the state is social institution, while the nation is a social community. Relations between the state and its subjects are built on completely different principles compared to relations between representatives of the same nation. The former is based on the real relationship between the subject and the object of management, the latter is based on national self-consciousness, built on the identification of an individual with collective ideas about a common historical fate and about their difference from other similar ethnic formations.

At the same time, it is impossible not to see that in practice there is some kind of mutual attraction between the state and the nation. The state seeks to appropriate the authority of the nation in order to strengthen its own demands on its subjects, and the nation seeks to take shape in the state and seize its power potential to realize its ethnic interests, which may include territorial, economic and cultural (religious, linguistic, etc.), and simply the need to strengthen the cohesion of the nation.

Every ethnic group, to one degree or another, is characterized by the so-called ethnocentrism- the conviction that one's own ethnic group and everything related to it is correct, morally approved and that one's own ethnic group, its interests should be given preference in any situation. An extreme form of ethnocentrism is the belief in the biological and cultural superiority of members of one's own ethnic group over other groups, but even in its mildest forms, ethnocentrism manifests itself as a tendency to evaluate all other ethnic groups in terms of one's own interests.

In relation to the nation, ethnocentrism manifests itself as nationalism. Belonging to a nation is understood by him as a destiny that is stronger than any person: it is the unity of the nation, its common destiny that precedes any economic or political interests and really gives these interests meaning and weight. Let's dwell on this issue in more detail.

Nationalism usually requires power, that is, the right to use violence, in order to ensure the safety and continuity of the nation. The state power, which has a monopoly on violence, is best suited for this purpose. As soon as one succeeds in identifying the state with the nation, presenting it as an organ of self-government of the nation, the chances of success for nationalism increase sharply. Government makes it possible to enforce exclusive use national language in all official institutions, to ensure control over education and culture as a whole with the aim of universal and mandatory introduction into the consciousness of every member of society of the values ​​of the dominant nation in this state and thereby make everyone national patriots from birth.

For its part, the state is also interested in nationalism, or rather in identifying itself with the nation. The state always needs to legitimize its power, to convince its subjects of its legitimacy, of the need to fulfill all its requirements. In a modern democratic society, this is most often achieved through rational persuasion with references to calculations and benefits. If the state manages to fully identify itself with the nation (of course, this does not apply to multinational states), then the situation changes fundamentally. The national state acts on behalf of the nation and requires submission not for the sake of any specific calculations and benefits, but in the name of the interests of the nation, which do not need any special justification, but are a value in themselves. Disobedience to the state now becomes something even worse than breaking the law - it turns into a betrayal of the cause of the nation, into a heinous immoral act that deprives the one who committed it of human dignity.

Thus, just as the state needs nationalism to legitimize itself, so nationalism needs the state to be more viable. The nation-state is the product of this mutual need. However, nation-states are much rarer in the modern world than one might expect, and this is explained by the fact that one of necessary conditions The emergence of such a state is the absolute predominance and compact residence of any ethnic group in a certain territory. Such ethnic groups are extremely rare today. In the Russian Federation, for example, out of 21 republics, only in 5 the titular population exceeds 50% of the population of this republic (including Chechnya). Nation-states are most often formed as a result of the collapse of various kinds of empires, for example, the colonial system of imperialism in the countries of Asia and Africa or multinational states built according to the national-territorial principle - the former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the USSR.

Summing up what has been said, it should be noted that the national community cannot be replaced by a state community, as well as by a racial, tribal, cultural, religious or territorial community. There are many different nations that are mostly of the same race. Representatives of the same nation often profess different religions, just as the same religion is professed by representatives of different nations. There are nations that live in one state and do not have their own national statehood, and vice versa, there are many nations, some parts of which live in different states (for example, Russians in the CIS countries). This, of course, does not mean that the listed signs have nothing to do with the nation, it is only that they do not reveal the essence of the concept of the nation, do not allow it to be distinguished from other historical types of ethnic and social communities.

The concept of a nation, of course, includes a common language, culture, ethnic identity, psychological warehouse, and a certain state and territorial affiliation, and joint economic, economic life. But what is the main one of the listed series? Which of these features is the initial, constitutive feature of the nation - a feature that distinguishes it from other historical types of ethnic communities, and, above all, from the nationality?

In modern and recent history, such a sign is community of economic life, which is formed on the basis of the formation of the domestic market. The development of industrial capitalism creates a socio-territorial division of labor that binds the population economically into a single economic organism. This also leads to political concentration - to the creation of nation-states in place of the former feudal fragmentation.

So, summing up, we can give a definition of a nation. Nation- an ethno-social community that has historically developed in a given territory, which is characterized by the unity of economic life (a single internal market), a common language, culture, typical features mental stock. Nations are formed when political unity within a territory begins to be maintained not only and not so much by state coercion, but also by economic interest in the functioning of a single economic mechanism, a single market.

Nations arise from kindred and unrelated tribes, races and nationalities. The Russian nation was formed from related East Slavic tribes, but at the same time many elements from the surrounding West and South Slavic, Germanic, Finno-Ugric and Turkic-speaking peoples joined it. The French nation was formed as a result of the merger of the Gauls, Germans, Normans, etc. The North American nation arose from immigrants of almost all European countries, with which, in part, Indians and blacks from Africa mixed.

The prototypes of the nation arose already in antiquity. They took shape where a market arose around large cities, there was trade, and people on large territories communicated in the same language. However, such communities of people were local in nature and did not differ in stability. Only the development of an industrial capitalist society led to the formation of an internal, and then a world market, and thereby laid the foundation for the formation of nations as a global phenomenon.

Europe became the epicenter of the formation of modern nations. Here, earlier than in other regions, national movements began, and a system of nation-states developed. XVI - XVIII centuries. and the first half of the nineteenth century. - the era of the formation of nations in Western Europe, North America and Russia. In the twentieth century The process of nation formation received an additional impetus due to the collapse of the world colonial system in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Last colonial empire – Portuguese – broke up in the 70s. 20th century

The article analyzes the problems that are of particular relevance in modern era. it is emphasized that the ethnos is a self-conscious cultural and linguistic community, and not a community in general. The article also provides a deep analysis of the concepts of population and society.

Keywords: society, geosocial organism, territory, population, people, ethnos, genetic and cultural community.

The article analyzes the most urgent issues of the contemporary epoch. The author emphasizes that ethnos is a self-identifying cultural and linguistic community and not a community in general. The article also provides a profound analysis of the notions of population and society.

keywords: society, a geosocial organism, territory, population, people, ethnos, genetic and cultural community.

Introductory note

The words "people", "ethnos" and "nation" are often used interchangeably. It is impossible to agree with this. But you can understand why this happens. All these words are used to characterize the composition of what is usually called the population or simply the population of society. Therefore, in order to understand this issue, it is necessary to first clarify the meanings of the words "society" and "population".

Society and population

In historical, ethnological (ethnographic, socio-anthropological), sociological and philosophical literature the word "society" has at least five basic meanings.

The first of these meanings is a specific separate society, which is a relatively independent unit of historical development. Each such society is localized in time and space: it occupies a certain territory, it must have arisen at some time, and many such societies that were born in their time have long since disappeared, left the historical arena. Society in this sense can be called a socio-historical (socio-historical) organism or, in short, a socior. Examples: Egypt, Republic of Athens, Sparta, Byzantium, Russia, Germany, etc.

The second meaning is a spatially limited system of socio-historical organisms, or a sociological system. Examples: society of Western Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, etc.

The third meaning is all the socio-historical organisms that have ever existed and still exist, taken together - human society as a whole. The fourth meaning is society in general, regardless of any specific forms of its real existence. The fifth meaning is a society of a certain type in general (a special society or type of society), for example, a feudal society, a capitalist society, a post-industrial society, etc.

The initial and therefore the most important of all five meanings of the word "society" is the first of these - the concept of a separate concrete society, a socio-historical organism.

Sociohistorical organisms can be subdivided into types according to different features content-based: by socio-economic system (slave-owning, feudal societies, etc.), the dominant sphere of the economy (agrarian, industrial and post-industrial societies), the form of government (monarchies and republics), the political regime (autocratic and democratic societies) , the dominant denomination (Christian, Islamic, pagan countries), etc.

But in addition to the division into such types, there is a division of sociohistorical organisms into two main types according to a sign related to their form, namely, according to the way they internal organization.

One of the first to draw attention to this was the well-known researcher of antiquity Barthold Georg Niebuhr (1776-1831). He is credited for posing the question of the nature of such an institution as the genus. In the three-volume "Roman History" (1811-1832), he painted a picture of the change of a society based on the tribal principle, a society with a state organization based on territorial division. And the Romans, according to Niebuhr, are no exception. The tribal structure of society was replaced by a territorial one among the ancient Greeks.

English jurist and legal historian Henry James Sumner Maine (Maine; Maine) (1822-1888) in his works "Ancient Law: its connection with the ancient history of society and its relation to modern ideas"(1861; translated from English: St. Petersburg, 1873; M., 2010) and" Lectures on early history institutions” (1875; translated from English: ancient history institutions. Lectures. St. Petersburg, 1876; M., 2010) was no longer talking about certain specific societies, but about society as a whole. He distinguished between societies based on kinship and those based on land and territory.

This idea was further developed by the great American ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) in his work " ancient society, or the study of the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization ”(1877; translated from English: L., 1933; 1934; M., 2012). The latter quite clearly singled out two types, or, as he put it, two "plans" of society, which are completely different in their foundations.

“The first in time,” wrote Morgan, “is based on personality and purely personal relationships, and may be called society (societas). The second plan is based on territory and private property and may be called the state (civitas). Political society is organized on a territorial basis, and its relation to the person and property is determined by territorial relations. In ancient society, this territorial plan was unknown. Its appearance constitutes the boundary line between ancient and modern society. L. G. Morgan associated the first type of society with primitiveness, the second - with a civilized, or class, society.

The assertion that sociohistorical organisms of only the second plan out of the two identified types are based on the territory has caused and still causes objections. Primitive communities, which for a long time were the only socio-historical organisms, undoubtedly, have always been associated with a certain territory. In the era of transition from primitive to class society, that is, in a pre-class society, more complex sociohistorical organisms arose, consisting of several communities. One of these varieties is usually called a tribe. A classic example of the latter are the Iroquois tribes described by L. G. Morgan: Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Mohawk, Oneida. Each of these tribes also had its own territory. The concepts of communal and tribal territory are widely used in ethnological and historical literature.

Of course, all specific individual societies were associated with a particular territory. And the socio-historical organisms of these two types differed not at all in the presence or absence of a territory, but in the principles underlying their organization, which predetermined their different attitude to the territory.

Society is always made up of people. But it is never a simple combination of them. People form a society insofar as they are included in a certain system of relations, which are usually called social. Therefore, society is first of all a certain system public relations in which people live.

Each sociohistorical organism is a separate concrete society, that is, a system of relations limited in a certain way, existing side by side with other similarly limited systems. It is quite clear that it includes a certain number of people who, again, live in a limited area. The most important is the problem of delimiting people who make up one sociohistorical organism from people who are part of other societies, that is, the problem of the sociological boundary, which is always the boundary of public power. The members of one socior are under the leadership of one authority, the members of another - under the auspices of another. There are two main ways of drawing the boundary between sociohistorical organisms.

It makes sense to begin consideration with sociohistorical organisms of the second, later type, since they are more understandable to modern man, who lives in precisely this kind of sociohistory. The boundary of such a socio-historical organism separates the territory it occupies from the territories on which neighboring sociors are located. This border in most cases is also the state border. The borders of the state, as is known, are usually more or less clearly marked. Tags are natural objects (rivers, hills, etc.) or objects artificially created for this purpose (border posts, etc.). All people living on the territory of a given state are part of this socio-historical organism.

Territorial are not only the external boundaries of such a socio-historical organism, but also the boundaries between the parts into which it is divided. All these parts occupy certain places in space, are territorial units. The order of arrangement of these subdivisions is also spatial. In short, sociohistorical organisms of this type are spatially organized, have a fixed territorial structure, usually hierarchical. So, for example, the Russian Empire was divided into provinces, those into counties, and the latter into volosts.

The inseparability of a sociohistorical organism of this kind from the territory it occupies finds its quite distinct expression in the fact that its name can only be territorial: France, Bulgaria, Turkey, etc. In what follows, I will call such sociohistorical organisms geosocial organisms ( geosociology). As already mentioned, geosocial organisms in the historical and social science literature are most often referred to as states. Another word used for geosociore is "country".

The word "country" is used to refer to any of the currently existing geosocial organisms. Countries are called not only the USA, Portugal, Italy, but also Luxembourg, Kuwait, Lesotho, Belize and even Andorra. The situation is more complicated with the use of this term in relation to the past.

Tradition plays a huge role here. If in the XIX and XX centuries. on a particular territory there was one geosocial organism, then this territory is also called a country in relation to those eras when this space was fragmented between many independent socio-historical organisms.

When we come across a geosocial organism, the fact already noted above is especially striking: although a society always consists of people, it is never a simple combination of them. First of all, society is a special objective formation with a certain system of relations. When it comes to a geosocial organism, it is such a system of social relations that is tightly soldered to a certain area of ​​the earth's surface and in this sense represents a certain territorial unit. Neither the geosocial organism itself as a whole, nor its constituent parts, in principle, are capable of moving from place to place. But the people who are part of the geosociorea, quite understandably, can move freely throughout its territory, as well as leave its boundaries.

The result is a certain confrontation between the geosocial organism as such, on the one hand, and the people that make up it, on the other. In this opposition, the geosocial organism acts only as a spatially organized system of social relations, and the people included in its composition - only as a simple set of individuals living on its territory, that is, as its population.

Of course, there is not and cannot be a country without a population, but nevertheless, a country and its population are always two different phenomena. The totality of people included in the geosocial organism always acts as something qualitatively different from itself. It is one thing - the geosocial organism itself, the country, the state, another - the population of the geosocial organism, the country, the state.

Socio-historical organisms of the first, more ancient type were organized differently than geosocial ones. Although each of them always occupied a certain territory, however, the boundaries of this territory were not his own boundaries. The people who were part of it were separated from everyone else in a different way. Each such sociohistorical organism was a kind of union of individuals with a clearly fixed personal membership.

There were rules that determined a person's belonging to this and not another union, to this and not another sociohistorical organism. This or that person became a member of a certain union, usually due to the connection that existed between him and the person who, at the time of his birth, was already in this union.

The main principle of membership in such a sociohistorical organism was kinship, and, of course, not biological, but social. If this organism was small, then at least its core always consisted of relatives. It was possible to get into their number not only by virtue of origin, but also by adoption (adoption or adoption). Another way to enter such a sociore is to marry a member of it.

If the sociohistorical organism was small, the existing rules directly determined the person's belonging to it. Large sociohistorical organisms were subdivided into parts. Sometimes there was a multi-stage "ladder" of such units. The number of these units and their mutual relations were also fairly fixed. The rules that existed in such a society determined that a person belonged to a lower structural unit, for example, a division of a clan, thereby to a given clan and tribe, which included this clan.

The units into which such a large sociohistorical organism was subdivided could be localized. However, the spatial relations between them did not constitute the structure of the socior of which they were parts. A sociohistorical organism of this type was organized according to the principle of formal membership: the membership of individuals and the membership of groups. As a result, he acted simply as a certain organized collection of people.

Of course, in this case, as in the case of any society, there was a certain difference between the sociohistorical organism and its human composition. It was expressed at least in the fact that not every division of this composition was necessarily a division of society. Not society in itself, but only its human composition was divided into children and adults, into men and women.

A sociohistorical organism, having arisen, could exist for a very long time. This is especially true of geosocio- rials , whose age was often calculated for many centuries. But the life span of each member of society is very limited. Therefore, the constant change of members of society, the renewal of its human composition is inevitable. The composition of society was constantly updated, but it itself remained as such.

But in contrast to the geosocial organism, in the sociohistorical organism of the type under consideration, its human composition did not act as a special phenomenon opposing it, as its population. As applied to a sociohistorical organism of this type, one can speak of its human composition, but not of its population. People do not inhabit such a socio-historical organism, they compose it.

This does not mean at all that the term "population" is generally inapplicable to the period of pre-class society. Of course, it is possible to talk about the population in relation to this era, but only about the population not of certain sociohistorical organisms, but of certain territories, regions, etc.

If we nevertheless try to use the word "population" in relation to a socio-historical organism of this type, then we will get something completely different than in the case when we are talking about geosociore. The geosocial organism has a population. The sociohistorical organism of the type under consideration is itself nothing but a specially organized, specially structured "population", coinciding with its own "population". Therefore, this kind of socio-historical organisms could be called demosocial organisms (demosociors). If a geosocial organism is inseparable from the territory it occupies, then a demosocial organism is inseparable from its personnel.

The consequence was the coincidence of the name of such an organism with the name of the totality of people who were part of it, and each individual person who belonged to it. An example is the name of the Iroquois tribes: Seneca, Cayugas, Mohawks, etc. Seneca is by no means the name of a territory, but at the same time: 1) a sociohistorical organism; 2) the totality of people that make it up; 3) every person belonging to it.

If the inseparability of the geosocial organism from the territory it occupies ensures the relative independence of its human composition in relation to itself, then the inseparability of the demosocial organism from its human composition turns into a large degree of its independence in relation to the territory on which it is located. This is expressed primarily in the fact that he can, while maintaining his identity, leave this piece of land and move to another. Unlike geosocial organisms, firmly attached to the territory, demosocial organisms are mobile, mobile.

The closest analogy of demosocial organisms is military units. Each of them represents a certain clearly fixed hierarchically organized circle of people. The regiment consists of battalions, battalions - from companies, companies - from platoons, platoons - from departments. When a person is enrolled in one of the departments, then by the same token he is part of the corresponding platoon, company, battalion. Regimental battalions can be localized, but their spatial distribution is not directly related to the structure of the unit. Due to this kind of internal organization, the regiment can be transferred to another place, while remaining the same military unit.

The difference between demosocial and geosocial organisms is so great that the same terms, when applied to both, have different meanings.

The size of a demosocial organism is determined by the number of people in its composition. The more people there are in its composition, the larger it is. The size of the territory that it occupies is not of fundamental importance, although, of course, a larger organism, as a rule, occupies a larger territory. On the contrary, the size of a geosocial organism is entirely determined by the size of the territory it occupies. The larger its territory, the larger it is, regardless of the size of its population.

The increase in the demosocial organism occurs by increasing the number of its members. For the time being, the growing demosocior may be limited to its original territory. However, sooner or later it becomes crowded on it, and he begins to occupy new lands, displacing other demosocciors from them. But the growth of the territory occupied by the demosocior is not an increase in himself. The territorial expansion of one or another demosocior does not necessarily imply the inclusion in its composition of the demosocial organisms that previously occupied the territory it occupied.

An increase in the size of a demosocial organism can lead to its disintegration into two new ones, which in some cases remain to live in the neighborhood, and in others they may turn out to be far from each other. Demosocial organisms were able not only to separate, but also to merge, parts of one could pass into the composition of another, etc.

In contrast to a demosocial organism, an increase in a geosocial organism can proceed only by expanding its territory. Together with the new territory, its population is also included. Thus, an increase in the size of one or another geosocial organism occurs at the expense of neighboring geosocials. These latter are either entirely included in its composition, or separate parts are torn off from them.

Of course, several geosocial organisms can unite and form one larger one. A single geosocial organism can be divided into several independent ones. But this happens differently than in the case of demosocial organisms. The unification of geosocial organisms presupposes the unification of their territories, the disintegration of the geosociore implies the division of its territory between the newly emerged states.

As the size of a geosocial organism increases, so does its population. But in itself, the increase in the number of people entering the geosocial organism does not at all mean an increase in its size. If the territory of a geosocial organism does not grow, then its size does not increase, no matter how much its population grows. The growth of a geosocial organism and the growth of its population are two different things.

The meaning of the terms "migration", "resettlement" as applied to demosocial organisms differs significantly from the meaning of these same terms when they are used in relation to geosocial organisms.

In the first case, we are talking primarily about the movement from one territory to another of the sociohistorical organisms themselves or their unions and superunions. This was the nature of the Great Migration of Nations, which destroyed the Western Roman Empire. This, of course, does not mean that people living in a primitive society can move only as part of socio-historical organisms. Individuals and their groups could easily move from one demosocior to another. But this was a secondary phenomenon. And when a group of people separated from one demosocior or another did not join another organism, but began to lead an independent existence, it itself became a new demosocial organism.

In the second case, we are talking about the movements of either individuals or their groups across the territory of a geosocial organism, or their eviction outside of it. At the same time, people are moving, moving, not sociohistorical organisms. special case is the eviction of a large group of people outside one socio-historical organism, who in a new place form a new geosocior belonging to the same type. An example is the ancient Greek colonization, as a result of which Greek policies arose on the shores of the Black Sea. British colonies on the east coast arose in a similar way. North America, which in the subsequent development gave rise to the United States. All this can be attributed to Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

People, ethnos and ethnic processes

All that has been said about geosocial organisms and their populations brings us close to understanding the word "people" as applied to class society. It, like the word "society", is also ambiguous. One of its meanings is the lower strata of a particular class society. It is precisely this meaning that is put into it when one speaks, for example, of the struggle of the people against the nobility, against the authorities, etc. But besides this, the word "people" when applied to class society is used in two more senses.

One of them is the whole set of people united by belonging to one or another geosocial organism. So, for example, they talked about the people of Yugoslavia, the Soviet people. They spoke and are still talking about the people of Pakistan, the people of Nigeria, the Indian people, etc.

But among the population of the once united, and now disintegrated Yugoslavia, such aggregates of people as Serbs, Montenegrins, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians (Bosnyaks, Bosniaks, Muslims), Macedonians were clearly distinguished. The population of India is made up of Hindustanis, Biharis, Tamils, Marathas, Telugus, Bengalis and many similar groups. Punjabis, Sindhis, Gujaratis, Kho, Kohistanis, etc. live in Pakistan. And the word “people” has also been used and is still being used to designate each of these communities of people. Exactly the same communities are the English, Scots, Irish, French, Italians, Russians, Ukrainians, Bashkirs, etc.

It is clear that when applied to the Serbs, the British, the Walloons, the Belorussians, the Dutch, etc., the word "people" has a different meaning than when one speaks of the Indian or Pakistani peoples. To express this, and not any other meaning in science, there are special terms. They are the word ethnos (Greek. ethnos- people) and the phrase ethnic community. There was a time when in our science it was believed that there were three forms of ethnic community that successively changed in the process of historical development: tribe, nationality, nation. And even years after the XX Congress of the CPSU, many Soviet scientists, primarily philosophers and historians, adhered to the definition of a nation given by Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (Dzhugashvili, 1879-1953) in his work Marxism and the National Question (1912), according to which the nation was characterized by four the main features: a common language, a common territory, a common economic life and a common mental warehouse, manifested in a common culture. This definition was far from original. J. V. Stalin borrowed the first three features from the works on the national question by the outstanding theoretician of Marxism Karl Kautsky (1854-1938), among which, first of all, the following works should be mentioned: “The Struggle of Nationalities and State Law in Austria” (1897-1898; transl. Russian: Kyiv, 1906), "The Crisis of Austria (language and nation)" (1903; Russian translation: Kyiv, 1905); "Nationality and internationality" (1908; translated into Russian. lang.: national problems. Pg., 1918); the fourth is from the work of another major Marxist ideologue, Otto Bauer (1882-1938) " national question and social democracy” (1907; translated into Russian: St. Petersburg, 1909) . In our science, it was believed that all these four features, to one degree or another, were also inherent in other forms of ethnic community: both nationality and tribe.

Such an approach not only did not help to understand the essence of the ethnic community, but, on the contrary, blocked the way to it. Indeed, what unites all Italians, regardless of their social position, political views etc. and at the same time distinguishes them from all Russians, Englishmen and Frenchmen? In any case, not being part of one geosocial organism, and thus not a common territory and economy. An Italian who even left his homeland forever and moved, say, to the USA, remains an Italian for a long time, and most often until the end of his days.

The first thing that, it would seem, makes all members of a given ethnic community related and at the same time distinguishes them from members of other similar communities is language. To a certain extent, this is true in relation to Russians, Poles, Bashkirs and many other ethnic groups. There is only one ethnic community in the world whose members speak Polish. These are Poles. The same can be said about Russians, Bashkirs, Finns, etc.

But this cannot be attributed to the British, Spaniards, Germans, French, Portuguese, Serbs. Language, while distinguishing the English from the French, does not separate them from Americans, Anglo-Canadians, Anglo-Australians, Anglo-Zealanders. Distinguishing the Spaniards, say, from the Swedes, the language does not distinguish them from the Mexicans, Cubans, Chileans, Argentines. German is spoken not only by Germans, but also by Austrians and German-Swiss. In addition to the French, French is spoken by Walloons, French-Swiss and French-Canadians. Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins and Bosnians speak the same language. However, the difference not only between Russians and Italians, but also between the British and Americans, Germans and Austrians, Serbs and Croats, French and Walloons is manifested in culture. There is no American language, but there is American culture. There is no Argentine language, but there is an Argentine culture. Serbs and Croats have one language, but different cultures.

A common culture is what all English people have in common, as long as they remain English, and distinguish them from Americans, Irish, Scots and other similar communities of people who speak English. As for the linguistic community, it, both in the case when this community generally coincides with the cultural one, and in the case when it is much wider than the latter, is at the same time essential condition the emergence and development of a cultural community, and an essential component of the latter.

Without going into any details, it makes sense at least briefly to consider the concept of culture.

There is no doubt that the word "culture" is constantly used to refer to the totality of products of spiritual and material creativity of people. It is easy to be convinced of this by reading any book on the history of culture written by professionals, whether it is a work on the culture of Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Medieval Europe or Ancient Rus'. Such an understanding of culture can be declared primitive, superficial, simplistic, and even completely untenable, as some culturologists do. However, it exists, and this fact cannot be ignored. It is with this understanding of culture that its division into spiritual and material is connected.

However, the meaning of the term "culture" highlighted above is not the only one that exists in everyday speech. It is inextricably linked and intertwined with a different, deeper understanding of culture, which also manifests itself in the everyday use of this word. Culture in the second, and not in the first sense, is meant when one speaks of the transmission of culture, the mastery of culture, the assimilation of culture, familiarization with culture, etc. It is precisely with this understanding of culture that the opposition between the presence and absence of culture is connected individual people, as well as for entire social groups, the use of such definitions as “cultural”, “uncivilized”, “uncivilized” to characterize people.

Some culturologists categorically object to such, as they say, axiological (value, evaluative) approach to culture, considering it to be contrary to the very concept of culture. However, in this case, they are trying to replace the meaning of the word “culture” that has been established in the minds of most people with the meaning they themselves arbitrarily created.

If we try to express in one word the second real meaning of the term "culture", then it will be the word "experience". Culture is the experience of people's activities, which in the final analysis is of vital importance for any particular community as a whole. This socially significant, or generally significant, experience of people's life is fixed in the vocabulary, grammar and, in general, in the system of language, structures and ways of thinking, works of literature (proverbs, sayings, fairy tales, stories, novels, etc.), various kinds of techniques and methods of action, norms of behavior, and finally, in various types of material things created by man (tools, structures, etc.).

All phenomena in which this universally significant experience is embodied are called phenomena of culture. Due to the fact that culture as experience is always embodied in the phenomena of culture, exists in them, the totality of the latter can also be characterized and, as we have already seen, is usually characterized as culture.

Thus, the word "culture" has two meanings in everyday language. The first meaning of this word is the generally significant experience of people's life. The other is the totality of all phenomena in which this socially significant experience is embodied and fixed. The first concept expresses the essence of culture, the second - its external manifestation. These two concepts of culture are inextricably linked, but never completely coincide. Therefore, they must be clearly distinguished.

In the light of the approach to culture as a generally significant experience, that aspect of it, which is called axiological, becomes clear. A cultured person is one who has sufficiently assimilated the socially significant experience accumulated by previous generations and his own socially significant experience, and an uncultured person is one who has not joined him. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that mastering a culture means acquiring not only and not so much knowledge as skills. It is not enough, for example, to know how to behave, one must be able to behave accordingly.

At least three more are closely related to the concept of culture. The first of them is the concept of a program of activity, behavior. main meaning significant social experience in that it acts for each specific person who has mastered it, as a guide to action, as a program of his behavior.

Another closely related category of culture is the concept of continuity. Culture is the experience of human community, which is transmitted from one generation to another. Of course, culture is not limited to continuity. It is not only transmitted, but also enriched and developed. However, no enrichment, no development of culture is possible without the transfer of experience from generation to generation. Culture always includes both the experience gained from previous generations, that is, traditions, and own experience new generation, i.e. innovation.

And here we are faced with another concept - accumulation, accumulation. Socially significant experience, which is a program of human activity, is not only transmitted, but also accumulated. The process of cultural development is cumulative.

Culture is a shared experience. Therefore, it is always the experience of certain aggregates of people. Different human communities lived in different conditions. Therefore, each of them developed its own experience, different from the experience of other associations. Just as human society as a whole has always been a multitude of socio-historical organisms, human culture has always existed as a multitude of different concrete cultures. Such cultures were, for example, ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Hittite, Roman, Russian, etc.

Therefore, after the appearance of the concept of culture in general, there appeared, firstly, the concept of individual cultures, and secondly, the concept of human culture as a whole as the totality of all these individual cultures. Much later, these individual cultures were called local cultures.

The most important problem is what specific human communities were the creators and bearers of local cultures. As is clear from what has been said above about an ethnos, an ethnic community is one of the carriers of local cultures. But ethnos is not just a cultural community.

The fact is that sometimes differences in culture between parts of one ethnic community can be no less than between different ethnic groups. For example, the difference in traditional spiritual and material culture two groups of Russians, which in ethnography are usually called northern Great Russians and southern Great Russians, are no less than their difference from Belarusians and Ukrainians. And yet these groups are not ethnic groups.

Here we face another important factor - ethnic self-awareness, that is, the awareness of people who make up an ethnic community that they belong to this community, and not to any other community. Both northern Great Russians and southern Great Russians were equally aware of themselves as Russians. Thus, ethnic self-consciousness consists in the fact that a person is aware of himself as a Russian, an Englishman, a Norwegian. Thus, he is aware of the given community as “his own”, and the rest as “strangers”, the given culture as “his own”, and the rest as “strangers”.

The presence of ethnic consciousness necessarily presupposes the existence common name ethnos - ethnonym (from the Greek. ethnos- people and lat. nomina- name, name). An ethnic group can have several names, one of them is a self-name, others are names given to this ethnic group by people belonging to other peoples. Ethnic self-consciousness is impossible without self-name. If the members of one or another cultural and linguistic community do not have ethnic self-consciousness, then this group is not an ethnic group.

Ethnos is a social community and only social. But often it is understood not only as social, but also as biological. And this is understandable. Members of an ethnic group coexist not only in space, but also in time. An ethnos can exist when it is constantly reproduced. It has depth in time, has its own history. Some generations of members of the ethnos are replaced by others, some members of the ethnos inherit others. The existence of an ethnos presupposes inheritance.

But inheritance is different. There are two qualitatively different types of inheritance. One of them is biological inheritance, through the genetic program embedded in the chromosomes, the inheritance of the bodily organization. The other is social inheritance, the transmission of culture from generation to generation. In the first case, it is customary to talk about heredity, in the second - about continuity.

The transmission of ethnicity is a purely social, purely cultural inheritance, there is continuity. But under normal conditions, the cultural, social reproduction of man is inseparable from the biological. Children inherit from their parents not only bodily organization, but also culture and ethnic identity. As a result, the illusion of complete coincidence of social and biological reproduction, biological and social inheritance inevitably arises, moreover, the illusion of the derivativeness of social inheritance from biological.

From this follows the idea that an ethnic community is basically a community of origin, that an ethnos is a collection of people who have common flesh and blood, that each ethnos is a special breed of people. Thus, the inherently social community of people is perceived as a biological community, which is reflected in the language. The word "people", which in ordinary language is called an ethnos, comes from the words "genus", "give birth", "beget". And not without reason even in the XVII-XVIII, even in the XIX centuries. the word "race" was often used to designate an ethnos.

When a person who has never been engaged in theoretical discussions about the nature of an ethnos faces the question of why he belongs to this and not to another ethnic group, why, for example, he is Russian, and not a Tatar, an Englishman, etc., then he, of course, begs the answer: because my parents belonged to this ethnic group; because my parents are Russians, not Tatars, not English, etc. For an ordinary person, his belonging to one or another ethnic group is determined by his origin, which is understood as blood origin. This is the point of view of not only ordinary people.

It is shared and promoted by some politicians, and even by people who are considered scientists. So, for example, now ex-president Republic of Tatarstan Mintimer Sharipovich Shaimiev categorically stated: "National, religious characteristics are deeply seated in the souls, in the genes of people."

The point of view on ethnos as a biological phenomenon is defended by Doctor of Historical Sciences Valery Dmitrievich Solovey. “An ethnos (ethnic group),” he defines, “is a group of people that differs from other groups of people in a set of hereditary biological characteristics and archetypes inherent only in this group, whose members share an intuitive sense of similarity and kinship.” Based on this, he claims: scientific point Russians are those in whose veins Russian blood flows, or, scientifically speaking, who have a Russian genetic and biochemical constitution and a Russian anthropological type. And this V. D. Solovey declares despite the fact that the Russian ethnos consists of people belonging not only to different anthropological types and groups of anthropological types, but even to three different small races: the Atlanto-Baltic, White Sea-Baltic and Central European. And none of these races is inherent only in Russians. The Atlanto-Baltic race is an important element of the anthropological composition of Norwegians, Swedes, Icelanders, Danes, Scots, Belarusians, Latvians, Estonians, and is found among Finns, Germans and French. A significant part of the Germans, Austrians, northern Italians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Ukrainians belong to the Central European race.

And the doctor of medical sciences, head of the department of forensic medicine at the Moscow Institute of Medicine and Dentistry, Gurgen Amayakovich Pashinyan, assures: “We examined the dental arches at the department. And we can argue that racial and ethnic characteristics can be established from them. One can confidently distinguish a Russian from a Kazakh, a Georgian, an Estonian. In some places, the view of ethnos as a biological community is enshrined in law. Thus, according to the laws of the State of Israel, a person born to a Jewish mother is considered a Jew.

When the ancestors of a person do not belong to one, but to different ethnic groups, then often he himself, and other people who know about this, are counting how many “different bloods” there are in him and what is the share of each of them. They talk about the shares of Russian, Polish, Jewish and other "bloods".

Therefore, the consciousness of belonging to one or another ethnic community, until very recently, has never been considered as something purely subjective, entirely dependent on the mind and will of a person. A person has precisely such and not other parents, precisely this, and not another origin, precisely this, and not another blood.

But the consciousness of ethnicity cannot be regarded as a purely subjective phenomenon, even if one understands ethnicity as a social and only social education what he really is. It includes as an essential component a sense of ethnicity. And the feelings of a person, as you know, are formed to a large extent, and sometimes completely independently of his mind, reason. “Love is evil, you will love a goat,” says a Russian proverb.

Consciousness and a sense of ethnicity is formed under the influence of the objective conditions of a person's life and, having arisen, already exists largely independently of his consciousness and will. This independence, of course, is largely facilitated by the awareness of ethnicity as belonging to a special biological breed of people. A person cannot arbitrarily change the consciousness that has developed in him of belonging to this and not another ethnic group, although, of course, he can hide this and declare his belonging to another group.

Of course, the consciousness of belonging to one ethnic community can be replaced by the consciousness of belonging to another ethnic group, but this does not happen as a result of a person's volitional decision, but due to certain objective conditions.

If a person forever finds himself in a foreign ethnic environment, then he is forced to live normally in new conditions, to master the language spoken by the people around him. Step by step, he begins to absorb a culture that was previously alien to him and gradually forget more and more about the one that was native to him. This long process, which is called ethnic assimilation, ethnic retraction or dissolution, ends with a change in the consciousness of ethnicity. But most often this happens only in the second or even in the third generation.

The complete completion of the process of ethnic assimilation is hampered, of course, by the awareness of an ethnic community as a community of origin. Not only the person who was the first to find himself in a foreign ethnic environment, but also his descendants remember that although they now do not differ in language and culture from the people around them, they are different in origin, in blood. This is how characteristics such as an American of Irish, German, etc. origin arise. And the memory of various groups of Americans about the difference in their roots prevents them from becoming one single ethnic group. This is especially clearly seen in the example of African Americans (Negroids), who are really different in their bodily nature from other residents of the United States, most of them belonging to Caucasians.

Cultural-linguistic or linguistic assimilation can be subjected not only to individuals, but also to entire groups of people belonging to a particular ethnic group. And if at the same time they do not lose their former ethnic self-consciousness, then they continue to remain members of the original ethnic group. But along with this, they form a special group in its composition. Such are the Teryukhans who completely switched to Russian, but at the same time retained the memory of their Mordovian origin. Finally, entire ethnic groups can switch to a foreign language, which does not necessarily lead to the loss of their ethnic identity. For example, almost completely switched to English language, but at the same time the Welsh, Scots and Irish remained as an ethnic group.

In connection with the transition to the Russian language of the majority of Belarusians, some Belarusian writers and the poets started talking about the genocide of this people. Greater nonsense is hard to come up with. Even if Belarusians lose their former ethnic self-consciousness and consider themselves part of the Russian ethnos, there can be no question of any genocide. The genocide of an ethnic group in the exact sense of the word is the direct physical extermination of its members or dooming them to biological extinction. But most likely, the Belarusians will remain as an ethnic group even if they stop speaking the Belarusian language.

Summing up, we can say that ethnos, or ethnic community, is a collection of people who have common culture, speak, as a rule, the same language, have a common self-name and are aware of both their commonality and their difference from members of other similar human groups, and this commonality is most often recognized as a common origin.

Ethnos can have a different structure. It may consist of: 1) an ethnic core - the main part of the ethnic group living compactly in a certain territory; 2) ethnic periphery - compact groups representatives this ethnic group, one way or another separated from its main part; 3) ethnic diaspora - individual members of an ethnic group scattered over territories occupied by other ethnic communities.

the whole ethnos can be subdivided into subethnoi - groups of people distinguished by their unique culture, language and a certain self-consciousness. In this case, each of the members of the ethnos is included in any of its constituent subethnoi. Thus, Georgians are divided into Kartlians, Kakhetians, Imeretians, Gurians, Mokhevs, Mtiuls, Rachintsy, Tushins, Pshavs, Khevsurs, etc. Members of such an ethnos have a dual ethnic self-consciousness: the consciousness of belonging to an ethnic group and the consciousness of belonging to a subethnos.

The main part of the Russian ethnos is not subdivided into subethnoi. Northern and southern Great Russians have never been such, despite cultural and linguistic differences. Neither of them ever had their own self-consciousness. These are not sub-ethnic groups, but only ethnographic groups. Several subethnoi existed and to some extent continue to exist mainly on the periphery of the Russian ethnos. These are Pomors, Don, Terek, Ural Cossacks, Kolyma, Russian-Ustyintsy on Indigirka, etc. But the vast majority of Russians are now directly included in their ethnic group, bypassing both ethnographic groups and sub-ethnic groups.

Above, one ethnic process was characterized - ethnic assimilation (retraction, dissolution). But there are others besides him. One of them is the process of ethnic merging (consolidation), which consists in the fact that several neighboring ethnic groups close in culture and language are combined into one, while often continuing to remain as parts of this new ethnic group - subethnoi for a long time. Most often this happens when they all find themselves within the same geosocial organism.

Education in the ninth century united state- Rus' - on the territory inhabited by several related tribes - glades, Drevlyans, northerners, Vyatichi, Krivichi, etc. - led to their consolidation into one ethnic group, which was called the "Russian people". In literature, this state is usually called Kievan Rus, and the people are called Old Russian, but it must be remembered that these names are artificial. They were created by historians many centuries after the end of this period in the history of the Eastern Slavs.

Along with ethnic consolidation, ethnic inclusion, or ethnic incorporation, can take place - the transformation of a previously independent ethnos into a subethnos within a large neighboring ethnos. So, for example, by now the Mingrelians, and to some extent the Svans, who until recently were completely independent peoples, have turned into subethnoi within the Georgian ethnos.

The direct opposite of ethnic consolidation is the process of ethnic splitting, or ethnic divergence - the division of a previously single ethnic group into several new independent ethnic communities. Most often this is due to the disintegration of one or another geosocial organism. After the Mongol invasion, Northern Rus' came under the rule of the Golden Horde. The remaining lands of Rus' eventually became part of either Poland or the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As a result, people who formed one ethnic group ended up in different geosocial organisms.

As already noted, each sociohistorical organism is a relatively independent unit of historical development. Different sociors have different histories or, as is often said, different historical destinies. The entry of people belonging to the same ethnos into different sociohistorical organisms meant drawing them into different specific historical processes and thereby dividing their historical destinies. This most often, although not always and not immediately, leads to the disintegration of a previously single ethnic group into several independent ethnic communities.

This is exactly what happened to the Russian ethnos. It broke up into three new ethnic groups. One of them retained the old name, the other two acquired other names over time: Belarusians and Ukrainians. However, it should be noted that in the Western Ukraine up to the very latest time, the population called themselves Russians (Russians, Ruthenians), and the inhabitants of Carpathian Rus, which was torn away from Rus' back in the 11th century, still call themselves that.

The fact that in the formation of new ethnic groups the decisive role is played not by the degree of cultural and linguistic proximity, but by the sociological border, at least this fact speaks. If you look at the “Experience of the Dialectological Map of the Russian Language in Europe” (M., 1915), which reflects the distribution of the East Slavic languages ​​at the beginning of the 20th century, you can easily see that a significant part of the Smolensk province is included in the zone of dialects of the Belarusian language. But most of the inhabitants of the Smolensk region have considered themselves Russians for many centuries and have never considered themselves Belarusians. This is due to the fact that the Smolensk land, captured by the Lithuanians in 1404, already in 1514 became part of the Muscovite state and since then, with a short break (1611-1654), was within Russia.

By the way, the border between Serbs and Croats does not coincide with linguistic differences. The Shtokavian dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language is spoken by most Serbs, a significant part of the Croats, as well as Montenegrins and Bosnians, and the Chakavian dialect is spoken by a part of the Croats. The decisive factor was not the dialect, but the sociological, political boundaries that separated the future Serbs from the future Croats. This was followed by the adoption by some of Orthodoxy and the Cyrillic alphabet, by others - Catholicism and the Latin alphabet, etc.

All the above examples make it possible to understand why common historical destiny is often named as one of the signs of an ethnos. The stay of several close cultural and linguistic communities within one geosociorea most often leads to their consolidation into one ethnic group, the entry of parts of one ethnic group into different sociora - most often to their transformation into independent ethnic groups.

The foregoing makes it possible to understand the relationship between an ethnos and a sociohistorical organism.

In literature, ethnos is often identified with society. This, in particular, is expressed in the fact that certain authors talk about the socio-economic and political structures, about the economy of the ethnos. As a result, some of them consider the ethnos as a certain unit of historical development independently developing according to special laws. And in most cases, when ethnic groups or peoples are declared to be substances (subjects) historical process, in practice, we mean not ethnic groups proper, but sociohistorical organisms.

It is possible to understand the researchers who speak about the socio-economic and other structures of an ethnos. People who make up an ethnos, of course, always live in society, in a system of socio-economic, political and other social relations. However, one cannot agree with them.

In fact, ethnos and society are, although related, but completely different phenomena. This is especially evident when people belonging to the same ethnic community are part of several different geosocial organisms. There was a time when Poland disappeared from the map of Europe, and the Poles found themselves within three different geosociores. Poland as a socio-historical organism was gone, but the Polish ethnos continued to exist. And in the case of the GDR and the FRG, the Germans lived not just in different geosocial organisms, but in different types of societies with different socio-economic and political systems.

But even then, when the geosocial organism and the ethnos in their own way human composition exactly the same, they are by no means the same. In the case of the presence of several ethnic groups in one geosocial organism, the latter are by no means subdivisions, parts of society. This division is only within the population of a society, and not within a society, as is often understood. Ethnic groups (or parts of ethnic groups) are just groupings of the population of a society. Therefore, they obviously cannot have economic or political structures. Only society, a sociohistorical organism, has such structures. In this regard, it must be emphasized that although ethnic groups are cultural and linguistic communities, both culture and language are primarily products not of an ethnic group or ethnic groups, but of a society or societies.

As all the materials cited above clearly show, in relation to society and ethnos, society is primary. Ethnic groups do not have their own independent history. Their movement, change, development is determined by the history of the societies of which they are a part. Ethnic groups are the product of society. But this does not at all exclude the possibility that, under certain conditions, they can acquire relative independence, sometimes even significant.

The position on the primacy of society in relation to the ethnos is confirmed by the entire course of historical development. Among the signs of an ethnos is neither a common territory nor a common economic life. But one can understand why they were considered as such.

In principle, members of one ethnos can live in completely different territories and belong to different economic communities, but an ethnos cannot arise without a more or less compact joint residence of its future members in a certain territory and the existence of some, albeit minimal, economic ties between them. . When considering the issue of the formation of a particular ethnic group, it is necessary to keep in mind not the abstract "community of territory" and "community of economic life", but specific geosocial organisms with their territory and economy.

Ethnic groups are groupings of the population. But one can speak about the population of a society as an independent phenomenon, different from the society itself, only after the replacement of demosocial organisms by geosocial ones. And this means that ethnic groups in the exact sense of the word exist only in a class, or civilized, society. They do not exist in primitive society. But if there were no ethnic groups in the pre-class society, then cultural and linguistic communities existed there, but they were qualitatively different from ethnic groups.

Demosocial organisms, genetic and cultural communitiesand genetic cultural-linguistic conglomerates

The process of formation of man and society, which began approximately 1.9-1.8 million years ago, ended approximately 35-40 thousand years ago. The pra-society was replaced by a ready-made, formed human society.

The greatest turning point in the development of ready-made society was the emergence of social classes and the state, the emergence of a class or, as it is often called, civilized society. The first civilizations arose at the end of the 4th century. BC e., that is, about 5 thousand years ago. The entire previous period of the existence of a ready-made society in our science is usually referred to as a primitive society.

In the development of this society, the following are quite clearly distinguished: 1) the era of primitive society itself; 2) the era of transition from primitive society proper to class society. The society of this transitional era is often called pre-class society. In turn, in the evolution of the primitive society itself, the following stages can be distinguished: a) early primitive (primitive communist) society; b) late primitive (primitive-prestigious) society.

At the stages of primitive-communist and primitive-prestigious society, communities and only communities were socio-historical organisms. The numerical composition of the early primitive communities never exceeded hundreds of individuals (and most often they consisted of 25-50 people), and the late primitive ones usually did not go beyond a thousand people.

The people who were part of each community, of course, had a common culture, spoke the same language. And it goes without saying that they were aware of their commonality and their difference from people who belonged to other groups of the same kind. thus, the community was a cultural and linguistic community. However, its essence was not at all in this.

The community was first and foremost a sociohistorical organism. And the consciousness of communal unity was basically the consciousness of belonging not to a cultural and linguistic community, but to a demosocial organism, a specific concrete society. The cultural-linguistic community in this case was not an independent phenomenon, which is an ethnos in a class society, but only an aspect, one of the sides, and not the most important, of the sociological, more precisely, demosoccioric community. Therefore, it was not an ethnic community in the sense that this term is used when we use it in relation to a class society.

The demosocial community at these stages was also cultural, and the cultural community included the unity of language as its most important moment. But if the sociological community was at the same time a cultural-linguistic community, then the cultural-linguistic community, as a rule, has always been wider than the sociological one.

Growing, the primitive communities disintegrated, and the daughter communities inherited from the mother community of culture and language. Divided, in turn, and daughter communities. “Granddaughter” communities, “great-granddaughter” communities, etc. appeared. Even if we assume that the new communities that arose did not maintain any contacts with each other, the formation of a broad cultural and linguistic community was still inevitable. This cultural and linguistic unity was the result of a common origin. Therefore, such unity can be called a genetic cultural-linguistic, or, in short, a genetic-cultural community.

In reality, such a community originally existed as a set of communities that had a common ancestor. These communities were connected by a common origin. The totality of communities connected by this kind of peculiar cultural and linguistic kinship, I will call a genetic demosocial conglomerate.

I prefer to speak of a demosocial rather than a communal genetic conglomerate because communities were the only sociohistorical organisms only at the stages of early primitive and late primitive society. With the transition to the stage of pre-class society, the situation changed. Along with single-communal demosocial organisms, multi-communal ones appeared.

They are tribes in the sense of the word in which L. G. Morgan used it. As already noted, the word "tribe" has several meanings in ethnographic and historical literature. In order to avoid confusion, I will henceforth call such multicommunal demosociors tribal demosociors or, in short, tribosociors (from lat. tribe- tribe).

Previously, ethnographers called tribes all multi-communal demosociors. However, in recent decades it became clear that among them there are those who are qualitatively different from the tribes in the Morganian understanding. AT Western literature the word was used to denote them chiefdom. In our literature, this kind of multi-communal demosocior is called chiefdom, or chiefdom. The last word is a Russian calque of the word chiefdom. In my works, I proposed calling this kind of multicommunal demosociors protopolitarchies. Protopolitarchies are emerging states.

With the transition from the late primitive society to the pre-class society, communities underwent significant changes. From the late primitive ones, they turned either into pra-peasant communities, or into super-communities, or great communities. Part of the prapeasant communities became part of the tribosociors and protopolitarchies. As a result, they ceased to be sociohistorical organisms and turned into social suborganisms. Another part of the pro-peasant communities and almost all of the great communities continued to exist as independent demosociors. To distinguish them from communities that have ceased to be demosociors, I will call them communitysociores.

If at the stages of early primitive and late primitive societies genetic demosocior conglomerates consisted of communities, then at the stage of pre-class society they consisted of community sociors, tribosociors and protopolitarchies, which did not change their nature.

A cultural-genetic community cannot be called an ethnos. And the point is not only and not so much in the lack of awareness of this community, but, thereby, of self-name. The main thing was that, unlike an ethnos, it was not a collection of people taken by themselves, but, above all, sociohistorical organisms.

Each genetic demosocial conglomerate was the bearer of a certain local culture but not by its creator. In contrast to it, the demosocial organisms that were part of it were not only carriers, but also creators of culture. Each of them accumulated new experience, which could not but differ from the experience of other demosociors. The result was the accumulation of certain differences in culture already among the daughter communities, even greater differences among the “granddaughter” communities, etc.

As a result, cultural and genetic communities, which acted as genetic conglomerates of various kinds of demosocial organisms, inevitably had a hierarchical structure. There were demosocior conglomerates of the first, second, third order, etc. (primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.). The higher the order, the less was the cultural and linguistic community between the demosociors. As we moved away from a common ancestor, cultural and linguistic differences increased, while the differentiation of culture went faster than the differentiation of language.

But the latter also happened. People who were part of the demosociors, which formed a genetic conglomerate of the first order, could speak one dialect of one language. The next order could already be characterized by the presence of a common language, but several dialects. Even higher there could be several related languages, and their similarity continuously decreased as we moved upwards.

The hierarchically constructed genetic cultural and linguistic communities did not completely disappear with the transition to a class society and with the transformation of demosocciors into geosociores. But now, firstly, they began to consist no longer of demosociors, but of ethnic groups, and secondly, they became not so much cultural and linguistic, but simply linguistic.

The main link in this hierarchy is the families of languages, which are subdivided into branches and groups of languages, and sometimes they themselves are combined into macrofamilies, or stems. An example of such a family is Indo-European languages which is now spoken by 45% of the world's population. It is possible that this family, together with the Kartvelian, Afroasian, Uralic, Altaic, Dravidian and some other families, as well as a number of isolated languages ​​​​(Japanese, Korean, Yukaghir) forms a Nostratic (Hyperborean, Boreal) trunk.

Indo-European family languages ​​is divided into two main branches: eastern and western. The first group includes the Indo-Iranian (Aryan) languages, including the Indo-Aryan, Iranian and Nuristani groups intermediate between them, as well as Greek and Armenian languages. The western branch includes Italic, Romance, Celtic (three subgroups), Illyrian and Germanic (three subgroups) languages. An intermediate position between the eastern and western branches is occupied by the Balto-Slavic languages, which are divided into Baltic and Slavic. The latter, in turn, are divided into East Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian), West Slavic (Czech, Slovak, Polish, Kashubian, Lusatian) and South Slavic (Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian) languages.

But it would be a mistake to assume that the belonging of people to one or another language group is always the result of a common origin. For example, a significant proportion of European Jews spoke Yiddish, which belongs to the group of West Germanic languages, and the native language of African Americans in the United States has long been English. The kinship of languages ​​does not necessarily coincide with the kinship of people who speak these languages.

Cultural-linguistic unity could be maintained for a long time even in the absence of contacts between related communities. But establishing and maintaining links between neighboring communities was necessary and inevitable. Local (local) systems of communities could and did arise. Such community systems could be called demosocial associations. If at the stages of early primitive and late primitive societies demosocior associations consisted only of communities, then at the stage of pre-class society they could and did consist of community sociors, tribosociors, great communities and protopolitarchies.

Each association usually consisted of demosociors belonging to the same genetic and cultural community. These demosociors were thus united by a common origin. In this sense, they, taken together, were at the same time a genetic demosocial conglomerate. But the demosociors who were part of the association were united not only and not so much by the unity of culture and language inherited from the past, but by a multitude of various kinds of practical ties. A wide variety of contacts were constantly maintained between them. Genetic unity was supplemented by practical, organic unity.

The presence of practical unity to a great extent contributed not only to the preservation, but also to the further development of the commonality of culture and language between all the demosocciors that were part of the association. The people who were part of all these demosociors, to one degree or another, were aware of their unity, which was often expressed in the appearance of a common name for all of them. Just like genetic demosocioral conglomerates, demosocioral associations could have a hierarchical structure. We can talk about associations of the first, second, third, etc. order (primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.)

The primary associations of communities, which were both organic and genetic-cultural communities, are most often referred to in ethnographic literature, like the tribosociors mentioned above, as tribes. Such are the tribes among the natives of Australia: the Dieri, Kurnai, Aranda, Warramunga, Tiwi, etc. As tribes, communal associations of higher orders are sometimes characterized. But in the English-language ethnological literature they were often called nations.

Ethnographers call tribes not only communal associations. They often use this word to refer also to any territorial clusters of communities with a common or similar cultures and with a common or close languages. At the same time, neither the existence of more or less permanent ties between these communities, nor the awareness of unity, nor the existence of a common name is considered necessary.

These same aggregates of communities, as well as communal associations, especially of higher orders, are often called peoples. The word "people" is also used to designate tribosociors, tribosociors and protopolitarchic associations of any order and simply any combination of communitysociors, tribosociors, great communities and protopolitarchies, completely regardless of the existence of practical ties between these demosociors, but provided that there is at least some kind of cultural (common) relationship between them. or similar cultures) or linguistic (one or similar languages) unity.

Thus, in relation to primitiveness, a people is called not an ethnic community, which as a special phenomenon did not exist in that era, but either a multi-communal demo-social organism, or any set of demo-social organisms related in culture and language, and completely regardless of whether it represents an association or any other organic community or does not represent. This is the fourth meaning of the word "people".

On the early stages In the history of mankind, the socio-historical organism included people who, as a rule, had one culture and spoke the same language. During the period of transition from primitive society to class society, when not only predatory and conquering-migration wars, but also wars of conquest and subjugation began, large sociohistorical organisms began to arise, into which demosociores could be incorporated, consisting of people who differ in language and culture from conquerors.

Simultaneously, during the same period, the transformation of demosocial organisms into geosocial ones began, and the increase in the size of sociohistorical organisms greatly contributed to this process. A large socio-historical organism inevitably "grew" to the territory and acquired a territorial structure, although the remnants of demo-social structures could remain in it for a long time. And ideas rooted in this era continued to live even longer. Indeed, even in the Middle Ages, the French monarchs were called kings not of France, but of all the French, and the English - the kings of all the English. Relatively small sociohistorical organisms of the era of pre-class society had both demosocial and territorial structures, were both demosociors and geosociors.

On the whole, development proceeded along the lines of the transformation of demosocial organisms into geosocial ones, that is, into countries, and thus the identification of the country's population as a special phenomenon, different from the country itself. And if the population of the country was heterogeneous in linguistic and culturally, then the aggregates of people speaking the same language and having the same culture began to act more and more as a special kind of community, different from the given sociological and, in general, from sociological communities. With the emergence of a special self-consciousness, these communities turned into ethnic ones. In the same place, where the population of the country was homogeneous in cultural and linguistic terms, a special ethnic self-consciousness could not take shape for a long time. It was inseparable from the consciousness of the sociological community.

This was one of the ways to form ethnic communities. But certain genetic and cultural communities could turn into ethnic groups. Thus, for example, a Hellenic ethnic community arose, whose members lived as part of many geosocial organisms - city-states, policies. Political fragmentation did not prevent the Greeks from realizing their cultural and linguistic community, which was clearly expressed in the appearance of the ethnonym "Greeks".

Ending to be.

1 For more details, see: Yu. I. Semenov. Philosophy of History: General Theory, Main Problems, Ideas, and Concepts from Antiquity to the Present Day. - M., 2003. - S. 21-27.

Morgan L. G. Ancient Society, or Exploring the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. - L., 1934. - S. 7.

Semenov Yu. I. Origin of marriage and family. - M., 1974; 2010; He is. Relationship // social philosophy. Educational Dictionary / ed. I. A. Gobozova. - M., 2008. - S. 263-269.

Offhand, a rhetorical question. It seems that everything here is absolutely clear and understandable.

The nation is the people unitedits origin, language, common views, a single place of residence.

The people are people united not only by one history, land and common language, but also unifiedstate system.

It is from the identity of worldviews that such phrases as “the great American nation”, “Russian people”, “people of Israel” arose.

It must be said that with the words "nation" and "people" is closely connected the concept of " nationalism". And there are plenty of stories when liberal nationalism (protecting the interests of each people individually) can easily turn into extreme nationalism (chauvinism). Therefore, the issue under consideration requires careful attention to itself.

Foundations of Russian statehood

In the opinion of the progressively thinking part of the population, the question of peoples and nations should, first of all, be based on constitution the country in which the person lives and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first article of the main document of the United Nations makes it clear and simple that human beings are "born free and equal" both "in dignity" and "in rights".

People living in Russia and using a single state language (Russian) proudly call themselves Russians.

It should be noted that the Constitution of the Russian Federation begins with words that reflect the essence of the life principles of Russians: "We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation ...". And in chapter 1 of "Basic constitutional order» Article 3 explains that «the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinationalpeople».

Thus, the concept of "people" refers to all nations and nationalities living within the boundaries of one state.
And Russia is no exception. This is the homeland of different peoples who speak different languages who profess different religions, and, most importantly, are distinguished by the originality of cultures and mentality.

But the question posed in the title of the article excites the minds of the public and gives rise to many completely dissimilar opinions so far.

One of the main and state-supported opinions is the assertion that “ in the friendship of peoples - the unity of Russia". And "interethnic peace" is the "basis of life" Russian state. But this opinion is not supported by radical nationalists who, because of their convictions, are ready to blow up the state system of the Russian Federation.

Therefore, issues of tolerance, patriotism, ethnic conflicts, an active life position, are brought up for public discussion by no means by chance.

It is no longer a secret that interethnic relations the problem of not only cruelty, but also real aggression, has become very acute. This is primarily due to economicproblems(competition for jobs), and after that with the search for those responsible for the current economic situation in the state. After all, it is always easier to say that if “not for these…”, then we would have butter on the table.

Scientific understanding of the terms "people" and "nation"

Let us consider the concepts of "nation" and "people" more specifically. There is no single understanding of the term “nation” today.
But in the sciences that deal with development issues human society, two main formulations of the word "nation" are adopted.
The first says that it is a community of people that happenedhistorically based on the unity of land, economy, politics, language, culture and mentality. All this together is expressed in a single civic consciousness.

The second point of view says that a nation is a unity of people who are characterized by a common origin, language, land, economy, perception of the world and culture. Their relationship is shown in ethnicconsciousness.
The first point of view asserts that the nation is democraticfellow citizenship.
In the second case, it is stated that the nation is an ethnos. It is this point of view that prevails in the general human consciousness.
Let's consider these concepts.

It is believed that ethnicity is historicallystable community of people living on a certain land, which have features of external similarity, a common culture, language, a single way of thinking and consciousness. On the basis of associations of clans, tribes and nationalities, a nation was formed. The creation of a cohesive state contributed to their formation.

Therefore, in the scientific understanding, the nation is considered as a civil community of people. And then, as a community of people of a certain state.

Civil and ethno-cultural nations

Despite the different approaches to the concept of the word "nation", all the participants in the discussions are unanimous in one thing: there are two types of nations - ethno-cultural and civil.

If we talk about the peoples of Russia, then we can say that all the small nationalities inhabiting the North of the Russian Federation are ethno-cultural nations.
And the Russian people is a civil nation, since it was practically formed already within the existing statehood with a common political history and laws.

And, of course, when it comes to nations, one should not forget their fundamental right - the right of a nation to self-determination. This international term, which is considered by representatives of all states, gives the nation the opportunity to secede from a particular state and form its own.

However, it must be said that during the collapse of the USSR, the Russian people, who are in most republics in a large numerical superiority, did not manage to use this right and practically remained the most divided nation in the world.

About the main differences between the people and the nation

Based on all of the above, we can safely say that the nation and the people - conceptstotally different, but having a single root of education.

The people are culturalcomponent, that is, these are people connected not only by blood ties, but having a single state language, culture, territory and common past.

Nation - politicalcomponent of the state. That is, a nation is a people who have managed to create their own state. Without it, the nation does not exist. For example, Russians who live abroad are among the Russian people, but not the Russian nation. They are identified with the nation of the state where they live.

Citizenship is the only criterion by which a nation is determined. In addition, one must reckon with such a concept as a “titular” nation. Their language is most often the state language, and their culture becomes dominant. At the same time, other nations and nationalities living on their territory do not lose their individuality.

Conclusion

And there is one more thing I would like to say. Nations, good or bad, do not exist, there are people, good or bad, and their actions. This should always be remembered. After all, Russia is a lot of nationality. And knowledge of the concepts of "people" and "nation" will help to accept and understand the ethnic diversity of the country with the proud name of Russia.