A message on the topic of the character of the people. Characteristics of types of national characters

National character is a set of the most stable features of the emotional and sensory perception of the surrounding world for a given national community and forms of reactions to it. Expressed in emotions, feelings, moods, national character is manifested in national temperament, largely determining the ways of emotional and sensory mastery of reality, the speed and intensity of the reaction to current events.

Elements of national character were laid down in the early, pre-class stages of the development of society. They served as the most important way of spontaneous, empirical, everyday reflection of the surrounding reality. At subsequent stages of historical development, the national character is influenced by the system of society, but its value-semantic core remains constant, although it is adjusted by life, the regime, and the system as a whole. In crisis situations, during periods of aggravation of national problems and contradictions, certain traits of national character can come to the fore, determining people's behavior.

It is generally accepted that national character is an integral element and at the same time the basis of the psychological make-up of a nation and national psychology as a whole. However, it is precisely the interconnected and interdependent set of both emotional and rational elements that constitutes the psychological make-up of a nation or national character, which manifests itself and is refracted in the national culture, way of thinking and action, behavioral stereotypes, determining the specificity of each nation and its difference from others. I.L. Solonevich emphasized that the psychology and “spirit” of a people are the decisive factor determining the uniqueness of its state structure. At the same time, the components “that make up a nation and its special national character are completely unknown to us. But the fact of the existence of national characteristics cannot be subject to anyone... to doubt.” The influence of the “spirit” of the people on certain phenomena and processes is not always clearly visible, it is expressed in the form of adequate concepts and clear mental structures, but it is nevertheless present, manifesting itself indirectly in traditions, morals, beliefs, feelings, moods, relationships. E. Durkheim gave one of the most detailed characteristics of the “spirit” of the people as a set of beliefs and feelings common to all members of society. In his opinion, the “spirit” of the people is constant in the north and south of the country, large and small cities, it is independent of professional training and gender and age characteristics of individuals. It does not change with each generation, but, on the contrary, connects them with each other. Manifesting itself in the activities of individuals, it nevertheless “is something completely different than private consciousness,” for it “expresses the psychological type of society.”

Noting the presence of national identity, a specific way of thinking and behavior, it should be emphasized that the study of “national individuality” is fraught with great difficulties. As N. Berdyaev rightly pointed out, in defining the national type “it is impossible to give a strictly scientific definition.” There always remains something “incomprehensible to the end, to the last depth.”

The concept of national character is not theoretical and analytical, but evaluative and descriptive. It was first used by travelers, followed by geographers and ethnographers to designate specific features of the behavior and way of life of peoples. At the same time, different authors put different content into this concept. Some meant by national character the properties of temperament and emotional reactions of the people, others focused on social attitudes and value orientations, although the social and psychological nature of these phenomena is different. Due to the fact that penetration into the essence of national character is carried out, according to S.L. Frank, “only through a certain primordial intuition,” it has “too subjective a coloring to lay claim to complete scientific objectivity,” which inevitably turns into schematism.

Identifying specific national features that influence the perception of values also has objective difficulties. They are due to the fact that discrete periods of historical development have a significant impact on national character. Thus, the revolution of 1917 in Russia interrupted traditional methods and mechanisms for transmitting experience and traditions. In the figurative expression of I.A. Ilyin, the revolution “broke the moral and state backbone” of the Russian people, “deliberately incorrectly and ugly fused the fractures.” Indeed, after the revolution, national traditions were abandoned, and the conditions and mechanisms of their continuity changed qualitatively. But something else is also true. National character, together with other factors, has the opposite effect on the revolution, determining a specific “Russian revolutionary style”, making it “more terrible and more extreme” than revolutions in Western Europe.

Problems of a national character have long been the subject of diverse scientific research. The first serious attempts were presented within the framework of the school of psychology of peoples that emerged in Germany in the mid-19th century (W. Wundt, M. Laparus, H. Steinthal, etc.). Representatives of this scientific direction believed that the driving force of the historical process is the people, or the “spirit of the whole,” expressing itself in religion, languages, art, myths, customs, etc.

Representatives of the American ethnopsychological school in the middle of the 20th century (R.F. Benedict, A. Kardiner, R. Linton, R. Merton, M. Mead, etc.) focused their attention on building a model of the “average personality” of one or another national-ethnic groups, identifying in each nation a “basic personality” that combines the national personality traits common to its representatives and the characteristic features of the national culture.

At present, it is impossible to identify any holistic direction in the study of national character. Its research is carried out in different contexts and from different conceptual and theoretical positions. A fairly complete classification of points of view on national character is given by the Dutch scientists H. Duijker and N. Fried.

1. National character is understood as the manifestation of certain psychological traits characteristic of all members of a given nation and only for them. This is a widespread but rarely encountered concept of national character in science.
2. National character is defined as a “modal personality”, i.e. as the relative frequency of manifestation among adult members of a nation of personalities of a certain type.
3. National character can be understood as “the basic structure of personality,” i.e. as a certain pattern of personality that dominates the culture of a given nation.
4. National character can be understood as a system of attitudes, values and beliefs shared by a significant part of a given nation.
5. National character can be defined as the result of an analysis of the psychological aspects of culture, considered in a certain, special sense.
6. National character is considered as intelligence expressed in cultural products, i.e. in literature, philosophy, art, etc.

In Russian literature there are attempts to identify the essence of national character through highlighting the values shared by the Russian people over the centuries. This approach is fruitful. Ethnosocial archetypes reproduce from generation to generation mental stereotypes, stable styles of behavior, features of the social worldview, social temperament of the people, the specifics of their adaptation, and orientation in the political sphere. Their presence is due to the long existence of leading forms of community life, stable mechanisms of public recognition, dominant forms of participation in socio-political life, and the typical nature of interaction between states and citizens. At the same time, ethnosocial archetypes, reproducing stereotypical mental and political attitudes, influence the functioning of political institutions and the political and cultural environment. In one historical period or another, foreign cultural formations are inevitably introduced into the national character, and innovative elements can become widespread, often quite widely. However, the components of the semantic core of national character are highly stable, although they are relaxed by temporary and other factors.

Thus, in Western and domestic science there is no single point of view on the problems of developing a national character. Some give priority to geographical factors, others to social ones. In some theories, the concept of national character is defined through the characteristics of the general psychological traits inherent in a given national community. In other concepts, the main emphasis is on the analysis of the sociocultural environment as a determining component in the formation of the characteristics of the nation’s psyche (A. Inkels, J. Levison). There is an opinion that the character of a nation is determined by the character of the elite. It is the latter that is the exponent of the national character, its essence. Some researchers have come to the conclusion that there is no need for a special definition, since all theories ultimately come down to a psychologized interpretation of national culture (Lerner, Hardy).

Despite the existing modifications, in studies of national character three main groups of scientists can be roughly distinguished. Some authors, focusing on the specificity and uniqueness of each nation, structure peoples into strictly fixed and opposing national-ethnic groups. Another group of researchers is inclined to believe that the very concept of “national character” is a fiction, a groundless hypothesis, devoid of a real objective basis, a purely ideological and therefore unscientific category, fundamentally unverifiable, suitable only for speculative conclusions.

The third group of scientists takes an intermediate position between the two extreme points of view. They believe that the concept of “national character” has theoretical, methodological and practical political value, although limited due to the great methodological difficulties of its empirical study and verification of the results obtained. At the same time, in any nation there are certain dominants, which allow us to talk about national character as an objective phenomenon of national existence. F.M. was right. Dostoevsky, when he argued that “one may not be aware of much, but only feel it. You can know a lot unconsciously."

The noted difficulties in the study of national character do not at all exclude the fact that the national “spirit” does not exist as something abstract, but as a “real concrete spiritual essence”, as “something completely concrete and truly integral”, and therefore is amenable to “understanding and... comprehension its internal tendencies and originality."

When studying national character, it is necessary to keep in mind the following points. Firstly, any national character is contradictory. As a holistic formation, it combines pairs of opposites - good and evil, hard work and laziness, love of freedom and servility, humility and rebellion, toughness and compassion, etc. Isolating some features does not at all exclude the existence of other components that can neutralize the paired component. To reveal the negative and strengthen the positive features of the psychology of a people means to reveal its most significant socio-psychological features. But none of them, taken on their own, is absolutely unique. The structure of the psychological characteristics of a nation and the nature of the relationship between elements are unique. All the elements included in this structure are common, inherent not only to this people, but also to many others. But the priority of certain traits, properties, qualities, the degree of their expression can fluctuate in a fairly wide range. Therefore, we are talking about dominance, but not the undivided dominance of certain traits. An analysis of the psychological make-up of a nation should include the main psychological features of the nation, the dominant features, i.e. inherent in the most numerous groups within a nation, the degree of homogeneity (homogeneity) or heterogeneity (heterogeneity) of mental traits within a nation. The mental make-up of a nation includes both relatively stable and temporary traits, and the political situation can strengthen or, on the contrary, weaken the degree of their manifestation. Within the framework of national character, we can also talk about the specificity of mental traits of layers, groups, strata, regional and professional formations. This approach complicates the analysis, but makes it more objective.

Secondly, it is reckless to look for a reason and see the “guilt” of an exclusively national nature in the dominance of certain cultural traditions. It is the way it is made by history, a certain biogenetic predisposition, geographical factors, the nature of the social system that influence the character, habits, manners, way of thinking, and behavior of individuals. Without denying the presence of natural, genetically determined differences in the content of mental processes of representatives of different nationalities and the entire nation as a whole, we note that social and cultural factors are no less important in the formation of inclinations, interests, value orientations, stereotypes of thinking and behavior. Certain traits are acquired and developed in the process of interaction with the political system and other people. Thus, national character, being a product of overlapping historical and cultural layers, is formed to a greater extent under the influence of the past. It has a direct impact on people’s behavior and an indirect impact on the system, determining the direction, nature, and pace of its transformations. In critical periods of crisis, national character largely determines the nation’s style of behavior.

Thirdly, it is unlawful to evaluate national character on a scale of “bad - good”, “developed - undeveloped”, etc. Even if experimentally it is possible to identify the degree of prevalence of certain qualities in him in comparison with other national characters. Such attempts are doomed to failure or an inadequate understanding of national character. Meanwhile, today, as in the times of N.A. Dobrolyubov, sometimes two opposing opinions are expressed about the Russian people. “Some people think,” wrote N.A. Dobrolyubov, - that the Russian person in himself is not good for anything, but others are ready to say that with us - no matter what the man, he is a genius.” The 17th-century Spanish moralist Baltasar Gracian rightly noted: every nation, “even a very enlightened one,” a people with positive traits, “is characterized by some natural defect,” which “neighbors usually notice ... with laughter or gloating.” And therefore, every nation “let them remember their own sin, and not poke others with their sin.”

Fourthly, the national character is not an absolutely constant quantity. It is changing, albeit slowly. The idea of changing the psyche was evoked by Ch. Darwin, G. Spencer. Modern psychologists, anthropologists, ethnographers have proved on concrete facts that the structure of consciousness changes with history. In the 1930s, the thesis about the historical nature of the human psyche was experimentally proved by domestic psychologists L.S. Vygotsky, A.V. Luria. Theoretically and practically, the statement about the fundamental inviolability of any properties of the national character is unjustified. The features that we perceive as specific features of the national psyche are in no small measure the products of certain historical conditions and cultural influences. They are derived from history, socio-political conditions and change along with them. As G.G. emphasized Shpet, “it would be completely wrong” to understand ethnic psychology as an “explanatory” science in relation to history. On the other hand, history also “only “accidentally” can explain certain phenomena of the national spirit, although, undoubtedly, it is history that “creates an objective orientation of the spiritual experiences of mankind”, it “sets milestones that mark the path of the spirit”. And therefore, the assertion that “the development of the spirit is “explained” by its history” is less one-sided and erroneous.

With a change in certain properties, qualities of the national character, over a certain time interval, the corresponding stereotypes about it change. There are quite a lot of examples confirming this idea. Thus, at the beginning of the 18th century in Europe, many believed that the British were prone to revolutionary, radical changes, while the French seemed to be a very conservative, “indecisive” people. However, a hundred years later, the opinion has changed diametrically: the British are considered a conservative nation, with strong traditions of stable democracy, and the French feel their inconsistency with the “Atlantic” model of social evolution, which means, first of all, its Anglo-American branch, due to the presence of a certain statist component in political history, tradition. Or, say, at the beginning of the 19th century, the Germans were considered (and they themselves shared this opinion) as an impractical people, prone to philosophy, music, poetry, but little capable of technology and entrepreneurship. But the industrial revolution took place in Germany, and new features were formed in the German national character, and the stereotype about the inability of Germans to do business became a hopeless anachronism. E. Fromm pointed out that the European character has evolved from “authoritarian, obsessive, accumulative” to “market” with such leading values as wealth, business, economy, skill, professionalism. The above does not deny the genetic predisposition, the social genotype of the ethnic group. It remains in its essential features, but functions differently in different historical, political, and cultural contexts.

Sociologist E. Vyatr gives a classification of the main factors influencing the transformation in the mental make-up of nations, highlighting the following components:

* elements of historical heritage, experience of the past, enshrined in the memory of living generations, as well as in historical documents, literature, monuments;
* the totality of conditions in which a nation exists, primarily the nature of the functioning of economic and political institutions, as well as the relationships of various social groups among themselves and with institutions of power;
* a set of actions consciously taken to form the psychological make-up of a nation. This is the educational, ideological activity of the state, other social forces, as well as educational influence within small social groups (family, neighbors, comrades, colleagues, etc.).

Fifthly, it is necessary to take into account the relativity of any ethnopsychological characteristics. Certain judgments regarding national characteristics, expressed in the form of abstract opinions in general, without indicating who the given national character is being compared with, only give rise to misunderstandings. Let's say, such a quality of Russians as maximalism. Compared to whom do Russians look like maximalists? Is this statement correct? Yes and no. If we assume that absolutely all Russians are maximalists, then this statement is false. However, it contains some truth in the sense that there are much more maximalists among Russians than, say, among Americans.

National character - This is a set of the most stable, characteristic of a given national community, features of perception of the surrounding world and forms of reactions to it. The national character is, first of all, a certain set of emotional and sensory manifestations, expressed primarily in emotions, feelings and moods. - in preconscious, in many respects irrational ways of emotional and sensory exploration of the world, as well as in the speed and intensity of reactions to ongoing events.

The national character is most clearly manifested in the national temperament - for example, which distinguishes the Scandinavian peoples from, for example, Latin American ones. The fiery Brazilian carnivals can never be confused with the leisurely northern life: the differences are obvious in the pace of speech, the dynamics of movements and gestures, all mental manifestations.

The concept of national character in its origin was not at first theoretical and analytical. Originally, it was primarily descriptive. For the first time travelers began to use it, and after them geographers and ethnographers to designate the specific features of the way of life and the behavior of different nations and peoples. At the same time, different authors in their descriptions often meant completely different and sometimes simply incomparable things. Therefore, a synthetic, generalized interpretation of national character is impossible - it is obviously combinatorial and therefore insufficiently holistic. Within the framework of political psychology, the most adequate is still the analytical interpretation.

In an analytical context, it is generally accepted that national character- a component element and, at the same time, the basis (“platform”, “basic level”) of the mental makeup of the nation as a whole, and national psychology as such. A complex, interconnected and interdependent set of mainly emotional (national character) and more rational (national consciousness) elements precisely represents the “mental make-up of a nation” - that very “spiritual-behavioral specificity” that makes representatives of one national-ethnic group different from representatives of other such groups. The mental makeup of a nation is the basis of all national-ethnic psychology, already as the totality of this “warehouse” and the behavior determined by it.

In the origins National character lies primarily in the stable psychophysiological and biological characteristics of the functioning of human organisms, including as the main factors such as the reactivity of the central nervous system and the speed of nervous processes. In turn, these factors are connected, in their origin, with the physical (primarily climatic) conditions of the habitat of a particular national-ethnic group. The general, unified national character is a consequence, a mental reflection of the commonality of the physical territory, with all its features, on which a given group lives. Accordingly, for example, a hot equatorial climate gives rise to completely different psychophysiological and biological characteristics, and after them national characters, than a cold northern climate.

Of course formation modern national characters is the result of a complex historical and psychological process that has been going on for many centuries. Living in different natural conditions, people gradually adapted to them over time, developing certain generally accepted forms of perception and response to these conditions. This played an adaptive role, contributing to the development and improvement of human activity and human communication. Such adaptive forms of perception and response were consolidated in certain normative, socially approved and reinforced methods of individual and collective behavior that were most appropriate to the conditions that gave rise to them. The peculiarities of the national character found their expression in the primary, most profound forms of national culture, forming a kind of socio-cultural standards, standards and patterns of adaptive behavior. So, for example, artists long ago very figuratively noted that “the people of the fiery climate left the same bliss, passion and jealousy in their national dance” 132. On the contrary, in a special study, the Swedish ethnographer A. Daun, after analyzing extensive material, found that the main feature of the Swedish national character is extreme rationality of thinking. Swedes are not inclined to show off their feelings; in case of conflicts, they do not give free rein to their emotions and strive for compromise solutions. With this, A. Daun explains the peculiarities of the surprisingly clear functioning of the Swedish state machine, the weak religiosity of the population, the traditional mediating role of Sweden in international conflicts, etc.

With the increasing complexity of the methods of social organization of life, the adaptive role and adaptive significance of the national character, which directly linked a person and his behavior with the physical conditions of the environment, gradually faded into the background. In developed forms of sociality, national character reserves a much more modest function - a kind of “emotional feeding” of the behavior of representatives of national-ethnic groups, as if only sensually coloring those forms of behavior that are now secondary socially and culturally determined and, therefore, , inevitably more unified in nature, as well as giving emotional diversity to the action of general social factors, their perception and response to them. It is clear that a Russian politician or an Azerbaijani politician performs their, in general, identical social roles quite differently.

Established at the earliest, pre-social stages of the development of society, elements of national character served as the most important way of spontaneous, empirical, direct reflection of the surrounding reality in the psyche of members of a national-ethnic community, thereby forming its primary, natural-psychological unity. Preserving subsequently, they are subject to the influence of socio-political life, but they manifest themselves in everyday life mainly at the everyday level, in close connection with the forms of ordinary national consciousness. However, in certain situations associated with crises of traditional forms of sociality, with the aggravation of national problems and contradictions, with the emergence of a feeling of “loss of the usual order,” direct manifestations of national character can come to the fore.

In these cases, as if breaking free from the yoke of sociality, they directly determine the crisis behavior of people. Numerous examples of this kind are provided by the processes of modification of political systems, in particular, the collapse of totalitarian unitary states of the imperial type - for example, the USSR. It is with explosive manifestations of national character that most cases of the rapid rise of mass national liberation movements are associated.

IN structure national character is usually distinguished by a number of elements. Firstly, this national temperament- it can be, for example, “excitable” and “stormy”, or, on the contrary, “calm” and “slow”. Secondly, national emotions- such as “national enthusiasm” or, for example, “national skepticism”. Third, national feelings- for example, “national pride”, “national humiliation”, etc. Fourthly, primary national prejudices. Usually these are mythologies entrenched in the emotional sphere concerning the “role”, “purpose” or “historical mission” of a nation or people. These mythologems may also relate to the relationship of a national-ethnic group with neighboring nations. On the one hand, this is a “national minority complex”. On the other hand, it is a "national-paternalistic complex", usually manifested in the form of the so-called "imperial syndrome" or "great power syndrome" (sometimes referred to as "Big Brother syndrome"). A variety of national-ethnic prejudices are the corresponding stereotypes of response to ongoing events such as, for example, "national conservatism", "national obedience" or, on the contrary, "national rebellion" and "national self-confidence".

. National character- this is a system of relations of a specific ethnic community to various aspects of the surrounding reality, manifested in stable stereotypes of their thinking, emotional reactions and behavior in general

National character is a combination of physical and spiritual features that distinguish one nation from another (O. Bauer)

Each nation has its own specific culture, system of signs, symbols, customs, etc. In everyday consciousness, psychological differences between peoples are noticeable. Thus, punctuality is a valuable quality for the Germans and the Dutch, but the Spaniards do not attach much importance to this quality. Stereotypical ideas about the psychological properties and culture of different peoples, which are widespread in everyday consciousness, always have a value-based, evaluative nature and consciously and unconsciously correlate with individual ideas about the specifics of their people and their culture (according to IS. KonomKonom).

Each person has two types of consciousness that are directly related to her national character:

The first contains states that are characteristic of the individual;

The second contains states that are characteristic of a group of individuals

These states connect the individual with society, forming the so-called “society within us,” which exists in the form of reactions to ordinary situations of the same type for representatives of one ethnic community in the form of feelings, and constitutes the national character. National character is an important component of personality (E. Durkheim E. Durkheim).

National character traits are distributed unevenly among representatives of the nation - from the presence of all these traits to their complete absence. In this regard, the qualities of national character must be studied by analyzing national traditions, customs, beliefs, history and natural living conditions.

Character differs from temperament in content: character has common features among ethnic groups, and temperament is an individual characteristic of each person (GF. Hegel)

The classification of peoples based on mental functions (thinking, emotions, sensation and intuition) was carried out by KG. Jung. Based on these functions, the scientist was able to identify the corresponding psychological types: thinking, emotional, sensory and intuitive types. Each of the identified types can be introverted or extroverted, which is determined by the individual’s behavior in relation to any object. The classification of mental types correlates with ethnic communities, since the psychology of an ethnic group consists of the psychology of its representatives. The specificity of the psychology of an ethnos and its members is caused by the dominance of one of the listed mental functions. For example, residents. The East is an introverted race, which is aimed at its inner light.

Helvetius connected the national character with the system of government in the country, noting that a ruler who usurps power in the country becomes a despot, and despotism is a terrible enemy of the public good, ultimately leading to changes in the character of the entire nation.

Defining the concept of “national character”, in his work “On Man,” the scientist pointed out that “any nation has its own special way of seeing and feeling, which shapes its character. For all peoples, their character changes gradually or instantly. The factor of these changes is imperceptible instantaneous changes in forms of government and in public education; character has dynamic properties, or the ability to change under certain factors, in particular, as a result of changes in the form of government as a result of changes in forms of government.

D. Hume, in his work “On National Character,” also noted that the character of a people can change to a certain extent under the influence of a system of government and from mixing with other peoples. The philosopher pointed out that people do not owe this or that trait of their character to either the air or the climate. National character is formed as a collective concept on the basis of personal characteristics.

MI. Piren defined national character as a set of traits that have historically developed among representatives of a particular nation, determining the habitual manner of their behavior, the typical mode of action that manifests itself in relation to the everyday sphere, the surrounding world, work, and the attitude towards oneself and others together.

National character has the following properties:

It records typical traits, formed to varying degrees and present in various combinations in the majority of representatives of the ethnic group; it is by no means a simple sum of the qualities of individual people

What is unique is not the traits or their sum, but the structure of the character; therefore, it is unacceptable to consider any qualities as inherent in a separate ethnic community

regarding national character and their properties. GM. Andreeva put it this way: “We are talking not so much about a certain “set” of traits, but about the degree of manifestation of this or that trait in this set, about the specific nature of this manifestation.”

For example, hard work is one of the most important traits of both the Japanese and German national character. However, the Germans work “economically”, they have everything planned and calculated. The Japanese, on the other hand, devote themselves to work selflessly, with pleasure; they have an inherent sense of beauty, which they also show in the process of labor.

In order to understand character traits, it is necessary to compare them with the general system of values, which depends on the lifestyle, socio-economic and geographical conditions of life of the people. For example, the purpose of youth as a universal human quality acquires a unique value essence in each culture.

Important factors in the development of specific character traits in a particular ethnic group are life and landscape. The sources of development of national character are: family, parental home, clan, natural environment

National character develops slowly over centuries and therefore can change quickly. National psychological qualities are distinguished by conservatism, stability and slight changeability

Traits of national character are passed on from generation to generation, forming a strong and stable structure, which can be compared to a huge and heavy chain net that firmly holds each link - the individual as a representative of a certain ethnic group.

According to modern theories of inheritance of national character traits, these traits can be transmitted in the following ways:

Genetic - in this case we are talking about the inheritance of memory regarding the historical experience of one’s people, that is, the collective unconscious; genetic memory contains the imprints of the historical experience of the nation, the number of cream, prehistoric human existence

Socio-psychological - in the usual or traditional way. Traditions are synthesized, subordinated to the national ideal of beliefs, ways of thinking, feelings, aspirations, suffering, norms of the duel of previous generations. As a result of the change in ideals and value orientations, the traditions of the time and the previous traditions are destroyed. The functioning of traditions is ensured by the action of such mechanisms: us leading, suggestion, persuasion and emotionality. Tradition is the main mechanism for integrating people into a single whole. For example, an American is a slave to standards, an Englishman is a slave to his traditions.

According to research results. D. Chizhevsky ("Essays on the History of Philosophy in Ukraine"), the main positive and negative features of the Ukrainian national character are:

The national character cannot be limited to only one dominant feature. It is necessary to avoid accentuation and absolutization of negative traits

Consequently, the national character is a set of features that have historically developed among the representatives of a particular nation, which determine their habitual manner of behavior, a typical course of action that manifests itself in the domestic sphere, the world around, work, attitude towards one's own and others.

The national character is the totality of the most stable features of the emotional-sensory perception of the surrounding world and the forms of reactions to it for a given national community. Expressed in emotions, feelings, moods, the national character is manifested in the national temperament, largely determining the ways of emotional and sensory development of political reality, the speed and intensity of the reaction of political subjects to ongoing political events, the forms and methods of their presentation of their political interests, the ways of fighting for them. implementation.

Elements of national character were laid down in the early, pre-class stages of the development of society. They served as the most important way of spontaneous, empirical, everyday reflection of the surrounding reality. At subsequent stages of historical development, the political system of society influences the national character, however, its value-semantic core remains constant, although it is corrected by political life, the regime, the system as a whole. In crisis situations, during periods of exacerbation of national problems and contradictions, certain features of the national character can come to the fore, determining the political behavior of people.

It is generally accepted that the national character is an integral element and at the same time the basis of the psychological makeup of the nation and national psychology as a whole. However, it is precisely the interconnected and interdependent set of both emotional and rational elements that constitutes the psychological make-up of a nation or national character, which manifests itself and is refracted in the national culture, way of thinking and action, behavioral stereotypes, determining the specificity of each nation and its difference from others. I.L. Solonevich emphasized that the psychology and “spirit” of a people are the decisive factor determining the uniqueness of its state structure. At the same time, the components that “form a nation and its special national character stock, we absolutely unknown. But fact the existence of national characteristics cannot be subject to anyone... to doubt.” The influence of the “spirit” of the people on certain phenomena and processes is not always clearly visible, it is expressed in the form of adequate concepts and clear mental structures, but it is nevertheless present, manifesting itself indirectly in traditions, morals, beliefs, feelings, moods, relationships. E. Durkheim gave one of the most detailed characteristics of the “spirit” of the people as a set of beliefs and feelings common to all members of society. In his opinion, the “spirit” of the people is constant in the north and south of the country, large and small cities, it is independent of professional training and gender and age characteristics of individuals. It does not change with each generation, but, on the contrary, connects them with each other. Manifesting itself in the activities of individuals, it nevertheless “is something completely different than private consciousness,” for it “expresses the psychological type of society.”

The common social experience, the deep folk spirit, manifests itself even in such seemingly abstract things as mathematics. N.Ya. Danilevsky pointed to a well-known fact: the Greeks in their mathematical research used the so-called geometric method, while the scientists of new Europe used the analytical method. This is the difference in research methods, according to N.Ya. Danilevsky, not by chance. It is explained by the psychological characteristics of the peoples of the Hellenic and German-Roman types.

The listing and characterization of certain traits of a people, the emphasis on their advantages and disadvantages are largely subjective, often vague, often arbitrary, and determined by the author’s research interest. A great difficulty is also associated with determining the priority of biogenetic or socio-historical foundations in the formation of national character and the ways of its transmission from generation to generation.

The identification of specifying national features that affect the perception of political ideas, values, the attitude of citizens to political institutions, the authorities to citizens, the forms of political interaction, the nature of the participation and activity of political subjects, in addition to subjectivity in the selection and interpretation of historical material, has objective difficulties. They are due to the fact that discrete periods of historical development have a significant impact on national character. Thus, the revolution of 1917 in Russia interrupted traditional methods and mechanisms for transmitting experience and traditions. In the figurative expression of I.A. Ilyin, the revolution "broke the moral and state backbone" of the Russian people, "deliberately incorrectly and ugly spliced the fractures." Indeed, after the revolution, national traditions were abandoned, and the conditions and mechanisms of their continuity changed qualitatively. But something else is also true. National character, together with other factors, has the opposite effect on the revolution, determining a specific “Russian revolutionary style”, making it “more terrible and more extreme” than revolutions in Western Europe.

Problems of a national character have long been the subject of diverse scientific research. The first serious attempts were presented within the framework of the school of psychology of peoples that developed in Germany in the middle of the 19th century (W. Wundt, M. Laparus, H. Steinthal, and others). Representatives of this scientific direction believed that the driving force of the historical process is the people, or the “spirit of the whole”, expressing itself in religion, languages, art, myths, customs, etc.

1. National character is understood as the manifestation of certain psychological traits characteristic of all members of a given nation and only for them. This is a common, but already rare concept of a national character in science.
2. National character is defined as a "modal personality", that is, as the relative frequency of manifestation among the adult members of a nation of personalities of a certain type.
3. The national character can be understood as the "basic structure of the personality", i.e. as a certain pattern of personality that dominates the culture of a given nation.
4. National character can be understood as a system of attitudes, values and beliefs shared by a significant part of a given nation.
5. National character can be defined as the result of an analysis of the psychological aspects of culture, considered in a certain, special sense.
6. The national character is considered as an intellect expressed in the products of culture, i.e. in literature, philosophy, art, etc.

The complexity of scientific analysis of problems of a national character is largely due to the fact that empirical data and theoretical conclusions are often used in politics by one or another nationalist or even racist trends, movements, unions, forces to achieve their selfish, narrowly nationalistic goals, inciting hostility and mistrust peoples

The noted difficulties in the study of national character do not at all exclude the fact that the national “spirit” does not exist as something abstract, but as a “real concrete spiritual essence”, as “something completely concrete and truly integral”, and therefore lends itself to “understanding and... .comprehension of its internal tendencies and originality.”

Mentality and national character

The most important concepts in connection with analysis collective linguistic personality at the national level are mentality, national spirit, national character, concept sphere, linguistic picture of the world, type (archetype) and stereotype . Modern researchers are trying to define Humboldt’s concept of folk spirit through the terms “collective memory”, “mentality”, “picture of the world”, “linguistic culture”.

Collective memory , imprinted in language and spiritual culture, acts as a means of storing and accumulating information, requiring the maintenance of sign systems, a certain method of ordering, organizing information according to its value and content. Collective memory correlates with the concept of “shared knowledge”, on the basis of which new content is built in the process of communication - a product of the joint creativity of communicants.

It is necessary to distinguish between national mentality and national character. National difference mentality from national character is as follows: mentality is associated primarily with the logical, conceptual, cognitive activity of consciousness, and national character is associated with the emotional and psychological sphere. National character – these are the established emotional and psychological norms of human behavior in society. In other words, national character – These are psychological stereotypes of people's behavior.

Mentality is understood as a way of thinking, a psychological mindset, characteristics of thinking and much more. But, taking into account the fact that mentality is a concept that characterizes not only the nation as a whole - various social groups of people also have a specific mentality, we can say that mentality is a specific way of perceiving and understanding reality, determined by a set of cognitive stereotypes of consciousness characteristic of a certain group of people.

The main feature of the concept of “mentality” is its belonging to a particular social or cultural group. Thus, it initially contains the potential to be opposed to the mentality of another group. The parameters of opposition can be cognitive and mental schemes and models, images and value guidelines.

We can talk about the mentality of an individual, a group and a people (ethnic group). The mentality of a particular individual is determined by the national, group mentality, as well as factors of a person’s personal development - his individual education, culture, experience of perception and interpretation of reality. These are personal mental mechanisms of perception and understanding of reality.

Group mentality is the peculiarities of perception of reality by certain social, age, professional, and gender groups of people. It is well known that the same facts of reality, the same events can be perceived and interpreted differently by different groups of people. Thus, it is known that the players of the losing team tend to attribute the defeat to the influence of objective factors (bad field, biased refereeing, etc.), while observers tend to attribute the defeat to subjective factors (did not show will, did not try, lacked speed, etc.). ). There is a child's, a man's, and a women's “logic.” There is a national mentality - a national way of perceiving and understanding reality, determined by the totality of cognitive stereotypes of the nation. Different national mentalities may perceive the same subject situations differently. The national mentality seems to force a person to see one thing and not notice another.

The Russian mentality, for example, invariably records the submissiveness of Asian women and does not notice the increased activity of their own, while Asians primarily record the activity and even aggressiveness of Russian women, without noticing the submissiveness and passivity of their own.

Understanding what is perceived is also largely determined by mentality. For example, an American, when he sees a person getting rich, thinks: “rich means smart.” In this case, a Russian usually thinks “rich means a thief.” The concept of “new” is perceived by an American as “improved, better,” while by a Russian it is perceived as “untested.” Russian students understand a teacher’s repeated explanation of the same material as a desire to achieve a better understanding of this material and to help the student, while Finns often think about such a teacher: “He thinks we are fools.”

Mentality is predominantly associated with the evaluative-value sphere, the value aspect of consciousness. It evaluates what is perceived as good or bad, as being of value, consistent with values or not consistent with them. For example, the concept White crow is assessed negatively by the Russian mentality, since there is a value - conciliarity, collectivism.

National mentality is a national way of perceiving and understanding reality on the basis of stereotypes, ready-made thoughts, explanation schemes for phenomena and events, and mechanisms of causal attribution present in the national consciousness. These are stereotypes thinking. Following G. Malecke, S. Dahl identifies the following factors influencing the paradigm of thinking: logic of thinking; development of inductive and deductive, abstract and concrete thinking. There is an opinion that Western thinking, built on Aristotelian logic, is analytical, linear, rational, while Eastern cultures are characterized by holistic, associative, affective logic. In Western thinking, the inductive principle prevails, and in the Eastern, the deductive principle prevails. Although Dahl notes the equal ability of Russians and Americans to think abstractly, Americans tend to have more concrete forms of thinking than Russians.

Social, physical and communicative behavior are determined by mentality. Moreover, the national mentality directs the dynamics of the formation and development of concepts. A number of studies confirm that there is a close connection between mentality and language.

Individual linguistic personality is realized at the level idiolect, which represents the “personal” linguistic system of a particular communicant, with variations at the phonological, grammatical and lexical level. Each idiolect is unique, like an individual's fingerprints. His character is influenced by many factors: gender, age, social status, place of residence, psychotype, physiological characteristics, etc., which together form what is called individuality.

Idiolectal differences are manifested in the subtlest nuances of pronunciation and intonation, specific to a given individual, selection of lexical means, features of syntax, etc. Even minimal units (sounds, letters and numbers) can acquire individual symbolic meanings and associations. So, for example, Kafka admitted that he found the letter TO “offensive, even sickening,” despite the fact that it is “his” letter.

Due to cultural differences, the idiolect mosaic differs from one culture to another. The complex interweaving of the collective and the individual in language and speech causes additional difficulties in MC. The fact is that it is often difficult to determine what in an individual’s communicative behavior belongs to him personally, and what is a reflection of the nationally specific characteristics of the entire linguistic community. As a result, when representatives of different cultures communicate, the traits of an idiolectal personality can be generalized and erroneously elevated to the rank of nationally specific ones. This is exactly what it is mechanism for the formation of stereotypes . On the other hand, national-cultural traits of behavior can be ignored on the basis that a representative of another culture does not identify them as generalized, but considers them to be inherent only to a specific individual.