The problem of nationalism in foreign and domestic scientific research in psychology. Sources of nationalism, reasons for its revival
Cultures react to external influences in different ways: alternative reactions are the formulation of three types of “false nationalism” - great power as an end in itself, militant chauvinism and cultural conservatism.
However, true “nationalism”, with which Eurasianism identified itself primarily, is also possible as an option - it is based on the recognition of the necessary originality national culture and sets it as the highest and only task146.
In post-Petrine Russia (XVIII-XIX centuries) there was no true nationalism and the majority cultured people they did not want to be themselves, but wanted to be real Europeans. Those who recognized themselves as nationalists leaned mainly towards great power: to further parallel pan-Germanism, pan-Slavism was created147.
Right there. P. 59. 145
Trubetskoy N. About true and false nationalism // On the problem of Russian self-awareness. pp. 15-16. 146
Trubetskoy N. The Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages // Eurasian vremennik. Berlin, 1923. Book. 3. P. 111. 147
Trubetskoy N. About true and false nationalism. P. 14.
Every “nationalism,” according to the Eurasian concept, contains centralizing and separatist elements. There may be nationalisms of different amplitude and breadth, conjugating with each other like concentric circles: the centralizing and separatist elements of the same nationalism do not contradict each other, but the centralizing and separatist elements of two concentrated nationalisms exclude each other. In order for the nationalism of a given ethnic unit not to degenerate into pure separatism, it is necessary that it be combined with the nationalism of a broader ethnic unit, which it is part of as a subculture. Here nationalism manifests itself as passionarity, cultural tension359. Nationalism is a tougher category than separatism, and behind it lies the desire not for passive separation, but for the establishment of one’s own, but universally significant, social, political or cultural idea: centralizing tendencies prevail here. And yet, the introduction of this category into mental constructions primarily focuses attention on the problem of the peculiarity of a given sociocultural world and its delimitation from other spheres.
Thus, the spatial normalization of culture is limited to the concept of “border” (with all its modifications: internal-external, clear-blurred, stable-mobile, etc.). Drawing the border is a process of self-awareness of a given culture, identifying its specificity in a metacultural context.
Another condition for the existence of cultural organisms is time, and the mechanisms of regulation and prohibitions unfold within the framework of this dominant according to the laws that determine the face of a given culture and in terms of its dynamics. The time development of culture can be carried out both in a linear direction and in a closed cycle. Eurasian culture (as a concept) described itself, definitely focusing on the second path of temporary existence: “Of course, one should not completely equate culture with an organism, but still one should state a certain inexorability of a number of cyclic processes (my italics - Ya. #.) that explain both organizational processes and cultural-historical processes”360*\
The concept of “evolutionary ladder”, “stages of development”, etc. from a Eurasian point of view, these concepts are deeply egocentric, since they assume that various cultures differ in the degree of development and integration into a single cultural; process. But with this approach, it is necessary first of all to find the beginning of the evolutionary ladder, and it, in turn, can only be discovered by establishing big picture evolution.
The resulting vicious circle can only be broken through using an extra-scientific and extra-rational attitude - taking on faith that this or that
another culture is the beginning or the end of evolution. The Eurasian point of view proceeded from the position that in the history of European cultural evolution it was ego-centric psychology that played a decisive role, showing Romano-Germanic historians where to look for the beginning and end of the chain. Cultures that were more similar to the Romano-Germanic began to be recognized as more developed361. -A
In Romano-Germanic thinking, the national cultural j Problem is refracted through the prism of a world-historical plan for life and receives its resolution from the point of view of a single use | toric process and its linear orientation. “It is not a bunch of rays or a bunch of parallels, but only one single direction of the fate of humanity as a single whole towards the implementation of a single universal task that the temporary development of culture appears to this thinking”362. Cultures take turns, complementing each other, move towards this goal, and the latter (in turn) begins to realize that it is called upon to forever maintain the supreme role: this is how the Romano-Germanic culture sees itself. The solution to the world mystery has already been found, and the type of seekers of truth must be replaced by the type of peddlers of culture363. The picture of the future is thereby projected into the past or in the form of an eternal plan ruling Reason, either in the form of hidden potentialities of existence, unfolding with immanent necessity in time, or in the form of a consciously chosen will to live. Moreover, such a picture of the world allows us to assume the repeatability of history.
The Eurasian point of view is different: culture cannot be learned: continuer cultural tradition Only the one who qualitatively renews it appears, turns tradition into his property and an integral element of personal existence and, as it were, creates it anew. History consists entirely of leaps, and where mutation stops, culture dies and only inert life remains. When building a plan for cultural-historical (linear) development, thinking proceeds from the silent premise that the past abuts the present as if it were a dead end: and if in the end it begins to seem to us that life is governed by the iron law of fatal predestination, it is only because from this the premises we proceed from. The calculation here is based on the fact that only everyday life is real, but not living culture364.
In the Eurasian historical consciousness, despite frequent attempts to draw specific parallels between the Russian, Byzantine and Slavic, the idea of “overcoming the organization,
the idea of a creative free personality. The Eurasian soul languished not about “system”, but about “spirit”: the specificity of this culture was determined by its removal from broader contexts (European culture, world culture) and orientation towards the discrete, mutational nature of cultural formation. Cyclicity was not attributed to the historical cultural process as a whole, but only to a certain autonomous culture; Moreover, the cycle must be closed, and only then did reading the cultural text become possible, since its beginning and end were obvious. Therefore, from the point of view of the Eurasian concept, the main creative efforts were aimed at developing the ideological foundations of culture, and not at shaping it organizational structures and institutions: an ideocratic system was taking shape, oriented inward and turning away from the outside (at least the Western) world.
Nationalism...It often leads to cruelty, violence, conflicts and even wars. Unfortunately, in modern world The issue of nationalism has remained popular for many decades. That is why L. Zhukhovitsky raises this problem in his text.
Revealing the problem of nationalism, the author draws the attention of readers to the attitude of many Russians towards people of other nationalities: “Because - “all sorts of people have come here in large numbers!” Wherever you look, they are everywhere.” However, the writer believes that “this is not a problem for us, but great luck". Also L. Zhukhovitsky emphasizes the role of those who came in large numbers in the development of our country, citing the example of Aram Khachaturian, Svyatoslav Richter, Vakhtang Chabukiani and others. Thus, the author says that the reason for the emergence of nationalism is the people themselves and their worldview.
Zhukhovitsky has a negative attitude towards the phenomenon of nationalism and believes that “the only real way out of the created mess is to recognize that we are all equal Russians.”
Indeed, we must understand that our country is multinational. Many peoples, completely different from each other, inhabit Russia. There are many things that make us different, but we are all citizens of the same big country and we should be proud of it.
Many writers have thought about the problem of nationalism. D.S. Likhachev in his work “Letters about the Good and the Beautiful” also considers this problem. The author emphasizes the difference between patriotism and nationalism.
According to D.S. Likhachev, the first is love for the Motherland, the second is hatred of other peoples. So, the writer calls on us to be patriots, not nationalists.
Turning to the textbook L.N. Bogolyubov "Social studies. Grade 11. Profile level", we can also read about the problem of nationalism. The author is convinced that any rivalry between ethnic groups can be considered an ethnic conflict. And this, in turn, is a consequence of the phenomenon of nationalism itself. That is, from this textbook we can learn that nationalism exists not because of the diversity of ethnic groups, but because of the diversity of those political and social conditions in which they develop.
Thus, L. Zhukhovitsky’s text awakened in my soul a desire to better understand the problem of nationalism.
Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) - start preparing
Updated: 2018-03-21
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Arguments in the composition of part C of the Unified State Exam in Russian on the topic “The Problem of Nationalism”
Text from the Unified State Examination
(1) “I love my fatherland, but with a strange love...”, Mikhail Lermontov once wrote, not without reason believing that only a few could share his feelings for the fatherland.
(2) What kind of strange love did he have? (3) And how should one love the fatherland correctly?
(4) At one time, A. Akhmatova very expressively emphasized one feature of our history: “The Russian land loves, loves blood.” (5) This “glory bought with blood” does not evoke sympathy from Lermontov. (b) However, when accepting an inheritance, we - whether we want it or not - accept everything: both good and bad.
(7) There is no doubt that specific historical figures admired the poet and he paid tribute to the heroes with the deepest respect. (8) That “proud peace” that is based on an imperious hand and reduces an individual to an insignificant grain of sand is not too dear to him. (9) His free spirit is close to completely different pictures.
(10) In addition, we must admit that love is an irrational thing. (11) “For what - I don’t know myself” - this confession is disarming. (12) After all, if you know exactly why you love,- Most likely, you are lying.
(13) Of course, the majestic Russian expanses will leave few people indifferent - they also attract the poet. (14) But he himself - a traveler on washed-out, rutted country roads - carefully peers into the essence of his homeland, and does not just admire its beauties. (15) It is these roads that allow you to see the true, deep, “interior” Russia with its often poor, and therefore “sad” villages.
(16) “The lovely groves of a shy homeland are the color of a tear or a harsh thread” - this is what his fellow worker will say at another time and will again confirm this strange love. (17) It’s also captivating that Lermontov is clearly on weak side: his “couple of birches” cannot compete with the proud greatness of a huge power. (18 He generally pays attention to all sorts of little things, like the dancing of drunken peasants, from which some patriot would proudly turn his gaze away.
(19) M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin once wrote that many of us tend to confuse two concepts - “fatherland” and “your excellency” - and it is in the love of “excellency” that they reveal their patriotism! (20) The poet’s “strange” love does not fundamentally bring these concepts closer together; on the contrary, they distance them from each other, because his fatherland is in no way friendly with the statist great power. (21 Accordingly and strong of the world he doesn’t sing along with this.
(22) His love does not shout: “Only I know how to love my homeland!” (23) His love is not proud. (24) At the same time, she is feigned, because she is not looking for anything for herself. (25) The poet’s feeling is intimate, individual, separated from the “overwhelming majority” - this is what inspires trust.
(26) Lermontov’s patriotism today is very instructive. (27) He tells us that a person’s relationship to his native land is the more vibrant and fruitful the more freedom he has and the less state officialdom. (28)06 this is evidenced by the creativity of those who different time contributed to the glory of Russia (whether in science or art); Lermontov also belongs to them. (29) The motto “those who are not with us are against us” is obviously unacceptable here. (ZO) Let us add that personal freedom and independence of views of love do not contradict, but they extinguish pride and aggressiveness. (31) Finally, rejecting violence and turning to to the common man They give patriotism itself an important element of nobility.
(32) Each citizen chooses independently what kind of love for his homeland he prefers, looking into his heart and not neglecting the voice of reason.
(Z.L. Sokolova)
Introduction
Love for the homeland has several faces, manifesting itself in the most various forms and actions. Sometimes it elevates a person, making him exceptionally devoted and law-abiding, making him a real protector who will come to the rescue at any moment, save him from misfortunes, not only preserve him, but also increase him.
But sometimes love for one’s native land, for one’s native people takes on perverted expressions, singling out one nation and belittling other nationalities, humiliating people of other nationalities. Love takes on the characteristics of aggression.
Problem
The problem of nationalism can be seen in the text of Z.L. Sokolova, who raises the theme of love for the motherland and its characteristics inherent in both creative individuals, and to ordinary people.
A comment
Despite the fact that the Russian land is soaked in blood, love for it includes both bad and good. The poet does not accept “proud peace” based on someone else’s strong power. Lermontov likes the spirit of freedom and will more. In addition, love is an illogical concept, and the poet himself does not know why. But this makes his love even more sincere, because if you know why you love, this is already deceit.
They involve M.Yu. Lermontov country roads with sad, unremarkable villages. His feeling is expressed in attention to detail, in admiration for the “couple of birches”, which obviously loses the importance of a great power.
Z.L. Sokolova recalls that M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin noticed very interesting fact: love for the homeland is often confused with love specifically for the fatherland. But " odd love“The poet clearly distinguishes between these concepts, on the contrary, moving them further and further away from each other, since his fatherland does not accept state great power.
His love does not impose its own rules, is not proud of itself, it is sincere, and does not require any benefit for itself. Lermontov's feeling is special, individual and extremely intimate - this inspires special trust.
Author's position
The author admires Lermontov's patriotism, considering it instructive. The more freedom and less officiality and statehood there is in love for one’s native land, the more vibrant and fruitful it is. The formula “Whoever is not with us is against us” is completely unacceptable.
Z.L. Sokolova argues that love and independence do not at all contradict love, and aggressiveness can sometimes extinguish pride. What an ordinary person chooses is his right, but the choice must be based on the dictates of the heart and attention to the voice of reason.
Your position
The author's position completely coincides with mine. I believe that aggression and violence have no place in such concepts as love of the motherland or patriotism. Statehood and officialdom do not at all mean sincerity of feelings; often they simply overshadow the selfishness and perverted ideology of nationalists.
Argument 1
A.I. Solzhenitsyn in the novel “In the First Circle” presents the main characters, talented, educated scientists, they passionately love their country. They all fight for the well-being of their homeland, for its freedom, sacrificing peace for the sake of an idea. Their feelings for their homeland push them into the Gulag, they rebel against the totalitarian regime. In his heroes, Solzhenitsyn also expressed his special form of love for the fatherland.
Argument 2
In the works of the writer-publicist, academician D.S. Likhachev we encounter the definition of patriotism. In “Letters on the Good and the Beautiful,” he argues that this is a deep, positive feeling, surrounded by an aura of beauty. It does not have a single similarity with nationalism, since patriotism creates, and nationalism only destroys and does not give anything in return. Only patriotism unites people of all cultures and nations, makes them blood brothers.
Conclusion
Love for the homeland, free and independent, elevating the individual, desiring the development and improvement of his country, and, consequently, the whole world - this is true patriotism. Everything else that brings destruction is false.
National and racial components have always been those unpredictable factors that could play a decisive role in the fate of a large state in the most unpredictable way. Either lead it to collapse, or, having enriched the primary nation with the experience of others, exalt it above the rest of the world. The concepts of “race” and “nation” have always existed, but they were defined differently. The whole problem is that since the 20th century, humanity has been forced to pervert these concepts because of specific historical figures and events...
Representatives of 24 large ones live in Russia, which are scattered and mixed throughout our country. The most large nations are Russians, Ukrainians, Chuvash, Tatars, Chechens and Bashkirs. And there are no cities where representatives of only one nationality are gathered. Such is our history, such is the size of our territory. For centuries, our ancestors created that national wealth in the form of forests, lakes, mountains. This was created through conquest, research, active colonization, and resettlement. And along with the new territory, new nationalities joined Russia.
So why, in a country where people with different skin color, eye shape, or simply speech went through side by side through many wars and events, suddenly, in just 15 years, the national card began to be played openly? Where did the attributes of intolerance towards certain nationalities and respect for the previously defeated ideals of Nazism come from? How can a state overcome national intolerance on the part of its own people towards itself, and what legal mechanism can it use to solve this problem? Let's try to figure it out.
Majority social phenomena V modern Russia caused by the events of the late 80s and early 90s of the XX century. The severe economic crisis, social and cultural upheavals, the conscious and enforced “sweeping away” of a 70-year period of history - all this has created a feeling of fear and uncertainty in many people. People with such feelings develop a feeling of not being in demand and they become marginalized, that is, simply put, “material” from which they can build what they want, put new values in place of lost ones, and occupy the vacuum of habitual faith in something.
And in such a situation it was not 5 thousand people, not a million. The whole country felt this way.
Many peoples similar situations, rally around national idea, that is, the stereotype is set that “we are all together, it’s easier for us together.” And many countries emerged from crises. So, after french revolution and subsequent interventions by other states, the French were able to resist only because they felt like the FRENCH, because it was to them that the French government turned with the cry: “The Fatherland is in danger!” And Germany, in the period after the First World War, began to increase its power only thanks to the desire for national revenge for defeat.
What about us? What did our idea of national salvation and survival result in during that difficult period? Where was that cry, after which one could feel that the country in this Hard time needs you? This could be the national appeal of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church with a call to comply with the rules of law, which can practically be called degenerated and modified commandments. But no such appeal was made. In general, no one said anything large-scale or worthy at that moment. And then various cries were heard from all sides, but much smaller and more petty in nature. One of them was the cry of the nationalists. And here there is a great danger of not confusing it with the national one. The marginalized responded to the calls of those who found those to blame for their problems, and a feeling of revenge arose. And so it began: persecution based on skin color, intolerance, secret paramilitary organizations, throwing right hand in the manner of “from heart to sun”, shaved heads and so on and so forth...
What about the state? A state that at one time defeated fascist Germany with the National Socialist idea at its head? The state pretended that it did not see any surges of national intolerance. That everything is the same, that people of the former fraternal republics simply cannot suddenly hate each other. And here we are not talking about nations and nationalities that are outwardly different from each other, but about the fact that even Russians began to openly dislike (to say the least) Ukrainians. Yes, before there was no special love between these countries either, but this was not demonstrated so openly and biasedly.
Yes, in our country there is an article of the Criminal Code that provides for liability for inciting racial hatred; there are additional qualifying criteria for other crimes committed on the basis of national hatred. But we can say that arbitrage practice there is no application of such articles. Yes, cases are regularly initiated, but during the investigation process they turn into “hooliganism” articles, since the motive of national hatred itself is very difficult to prove due to its specificity. After all, shaving your head to zero, wearing military boots and leather jacket wearing camouflage trousers is not incitement to racial hatred. And talking about the role of the state in the life of the state cannot be a crime, since expressing one’s thoughts cannot and should not be punishable in any state in the world. There is no doubt that when such thoughts are clothed in the form of an appeal or slogan, the state’s reaction must be quick and immediate, since a repetition of the 30s and 40s of the last century cannot be allowed. But what is important here is the degree of faith of such a state in its democratic values, that is, in freedom of speech, choice, action, etc.... By prohibiting any phenomenon of reality that is widespread pronounced character beliefs of many layers of society, the state risks sliding towards authoritarianism, and this is hardly better from the point of view of its domestic and foreign policy.
So where is the border between patriotism? Is it necessary to artificially limit the manifestations of individual thought? How is this multinational country How Russia can avoid pranking national maps V different regions?
It is almost impossible to answer such a question simply and unambiguously, and even if you answer, it will only be a manifestation of the subjective perception of the problem. However, I would like to note that no one can restrict the freedom of expression of thoughts. Therefore, I would like to give a point of view on the above issues, which can be called the point of view of a lawyer. A person's rights end where another person's rights begin. No one has the right to limit the rights of another person on the basis of only one national or racial characteristic. And you cannot interrupt the expression of any thought, even if it is of a national bias, having only one reason for this - the perverted perception of the national idea by specific historical figures of the past.
The objectives of our work include a brief description of the history of the issue (Chapter 1), a presentation of the most striking approaches to the consideration of nationalism within the framework of political psychology and social psychology(Chapter 2), as well as an analysis of the main results and key problems of the psychological study of nationalism.
Just as in the Soviet period nationalism existed simultaneously among supporters of the government, its opponents and within itself and its administrative apparatus, in modern Russia it is impossible to say definitely where the source of “Russian nationalism” is. Speeches that are classified as “nationalist” come from a wide variety of places and spaces. Nationalism is polyphonic, in other words, everyone has their own nationalism: there is the nationalism of the losers as a result of post-Soviet reforms, which is expressed in protest voting for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation or for Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party; there is nationalism of political elites who supported the patriotic call" United Russia", uniting nostalgia for the Soviet Union and post-Soviet realities; there is the nationalism of the poorly educated and low-income youth, which expresses itself in acts of skinhead violence; and finally, the nationalism of the urban middle class - which, by the way, was the last to appear on the scene, is pro-European and democratic in nature, but at the same time xenophobic - the spokesmen of which were the national democrats
In the second half of the 1970s, the emphasis in the study of nationalism shifted from Russia in the 19th century to the then Soviet society. This was the merit of such an author as Alexander Yanov, who tried for many years to draw attention to the phenomenon, which they defined as “the revival of Russian nationalism.” He studied a trend that seemed paradoxical to him: the growing interest among Soviet dissidents in topics that were considered nationalist, which was expressed in reference to the imperial past and in the protection of historical and natural monuments, as well as a parallel growing attention to the same topics among the “official” Soviet intelligentsia, manifested mainly in literature (" village prose") and in fine arts, approved by the party Mitrokhin N. “Russian Party”: The Movement of Russian Nationalists in the USSR 1953-1985. - M.: NLO, 2003. - P. 25..
Years of perestroika and collapse Soviet Union became a kind of golden age for research in the field of “nationalism,” which was no longer limited to Russia, but embraced all the peoples of the USSR.
Political and social upheavals in the newly emerged countries were interpreted as the “awakening” of peoples who were under Russian oppression, which was called “chauvinistic”. Thus, nationalism was viewed within a binary framework: the nationalism of non-Russian peoples, because it was democratic and anti-colonial, was considered “healthy”, as were the “popular fronts” of the Gorbachev era, while the nationalism of Russians was defined as conservative, autocratic and colonial , the symbol of which was the anti-Semitic “Pamyat”, the main organization of Russian nationalists. About the “Memory” organization, see: Korey W. Russian Antisemitism, Pamyat and the Demonology of Zionism. Harwood Academic Publishers for the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study
of Antisemitism, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995. See also: Likhachev V. Political Anti-Semitism in Post-Soviet Russia: Actors and Ideas in 1991-2003. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag, 2006. Some works have attempted to explore the differences between “good” and “bad” nationalism, as if its intuitively defined binary nature and direct influence on Western foreign policy (support for new states in their opposition to Russian domination ) could be a sufficient basis for recognizing the legitimacy of this kind of division.
As rightly noted in his study by A.S. Mukanova, “During the Soviet period, the place and role of nationalism was determined as a force hostile to socialism, opposing the ideas and policies of internationalism. Nationalism was assessed and criticized in accordance with the ideas of K. Marx, F. Engels, V. Lenin, I. Stalin. Soviet scientists in within the framework of studying issues of ethnogenesis and interethnic relations, they indirectly touched upon the problems of nation and nationalism.
Formulated in 1913 and subsequently refined, the famous Stalinist (four-signature) definition of a nation long years will become a dogma in Soviet social science and will close the way to many innovations in the field of research on ethno-national issues in the Soviet Union. During the times" Khrushchev's thaw"researchers and social scientists T.Yu. Burmistrova, M.S. Dzhunusov, P.M. Rogachev and M.A. Sverdlin consider the nation in a broader framework, there is a departure from previous definitions. A nation for them is a historically emerged socio-ethnic community ", which has qualitatively different characteristics than national communities (tribe and nationality). Although many researchers, for example, M.I. Kulichenko, also defining a nation as a socio-ethnic community, at the same time, put it on a par with pre-national communities" Mukanova A.S. Evolution of views on the phenomena of nation and nationalism in the context of Soviet national policy // Ural Historical Bulletin. - 2009. - No. 4 (25). - pp. 65-66..
At this time, the theory of a new historical socio-political and international community (the “Soviet people”) was being actively developed. ON THE. Berkovich, Yu.Yu. Weingold, M.S. Dzhunusov, L.V. Efimov, A.A. Isupov, M.D. Kammari, N.M. Kiselev, L.N. Knyazev, I.S. Kohn, P.N. Fedoseev, A.I. Kholmogorov, N.N. Cheboksarov in his works attempted to define a new supra-ethnic community, which is of particular interest to researchers who understand the nation in civilian terms.
In the 1970-1980s. problems of the theory of the formation and evolution of ethnic groups and nations, national and ethnic identity were reflected in the works of R.G. Ablulatipova, V.A. Avksentyeva, S.A. Arutyunova, S.M. Harutyunyan, E.A. Bagramova, Yu.I. Bromley, L.N. Gumileva, P.G. Evdokimova, M.V. Jordana, V.I. Kozlova, M.V. Kryukova, A.N. Melnikova, L.V. Skvortsova, A.K. Uledova, S.V. Czech and many others. The identification of the ethnic component in modern nations was characteristic of the Soviet theory of ethnicity, in particular the concept of Yu.V. Bromley about the nation as an ethnosocial organism. There are analogies with the theory of E. Smith.
Since the late 1980s - early 1990s, with the beginning of “perestroika”, the collapse of the USSR, research national problems are beginning to move away from traditional Soviet methodology. There was access to the conceptual developments of Western scientists, which began to be actively studied and comprehended by Russian researchers. Philosophers, political scientists, and anthropologists have actively participated in discussions about the ethno-national structure of Russia. During this period, the interest of domestic scientists was concentrated mainly on the study of national processes after the collapse of the USSR, problems of national consciousness, ethnic identity, the relationship of nationalism with the processes of formation and development of ethnic groups and nations Mukanova A.S. Soviet national policy and its role in the formation of views on the phenomena of “nation” and “nationalism” // Vestnik MGOU. Series "History and political science". - 2009. - No. 4. - P. 88..
In the Soviet, and then Russian science and in psychological and political practice, the term “nationalism” was used in a negative sense and contained an assessment of certain social movements that, for some reason, did not qualify for recognition as “national liberation”. It was customary to contrast “bourgeois nationalism” with “proletarian internationalism.” Russian researchers began to consider nationalism not on an ideologically based assessment scale, but as a really existing socio-political phenomenon. This approach allowed Russian researchers to share the point of view of many Western European and American scientists, according to which the nature of nationalism is ambivalent and multivariate. The change in the methodological paradigm made it possible not only to use typologies of nationalism developed by Western researchers in the analysis, but also to offer our own version that more accurately reflects Russian realities. It can be stated that the knowledge and practical research experience accumulated by modern Russian scientists allow them, together with the world scientific community, to continue studying the phenomenon of nationalism. However, it should be noted that the mass consciousness of Russians still perceives the term “nationalism” as evaluative, and most often having a negative meaning. The same position is shared by many representatives of the political elite. This clearly outdated and unsafe dogma is supported by the media. Thus, as noted by L.M. Drobizhev, “there is a growing gap between populist, journalistic, ideologized political views to nationalism and scientific developments problems of nationalism. This negatively affects the interaction of peoples" Drobizheva L.M. The possibility of liberal ethnonationalism // The reality of ethnic myths. Analytical series. Issue 3. Carnegie Moscow Center. - M.: Gandalf, 2000. - P.78..
The emerging traditions of studying the phenomenon of nationalism in the post-Soviet and, especially, Russian territory bring to the fore such a function as political mobilization. There are both objective and subjective reasons for such a campaign. Objective factors include the specifics government structure former USSR, persisting in modern Russian Federation. It's about about the double principle of state-political structure - national-territorial and administrative-territorial, which gave (and in the conditions of the Russian Federation continues to give) the process of formation of civil nations (" Soviet people", "Russians", "Tatarstanians", etc.) have a specific character. The specificity lies in the fact that instead of one “nationalizing state” there is a whole set of such state entities. More precisely: within the common state there were political territorial entities of different status, embodying sovereignty ethnic nations. In the modern Russian Federation, the previous configuration, logically complete in form and content, is being transformed into a new one, with a still unclear final appearance. During the fundamental changes in the state structure of the USSR and the Russian Federation, political elites everywhere used nationalism for the political mobilization of ethnic nations. Weak and obscure efforts are being made attempts to form civil nations both on the scale of the entire Federation (“Russians”) and at the level of some subjects (“Tatarstanians”, “Bashkortostanians”) Therefore, the study of national movements, their ideology and political practice in the post-Soviet geopolitical space inevitably turns into a subject of research mobilization possibilities of nationalism. Among the subjective factors that determined the attention of Russian researchers to the above-mentioned function of nationalism, one can name the deeply rooted mass consciousness, including in the scientific community, a tradition of a negative or, at best, suspicious attitude towards this phenomenon. Hence, in our opinion, the desire to understand not so much “what is it?”, but rather “what does it look like in Russian conditions?”, “what role does nationalism play in modern Russian society"Of course, such a research position contributed to focusing attention on the functions of nationalism in general; objective circumstances made additional adjustments. In the course of specific studies and comprehension of their results, Russian scientists made interesting and fruitful theoretical generalizations that complemented ideas about nationalism. The very first studies of the phenomenon, conducted without ideological blinders, the study of the theoretical developments of Western scientists began to change ideas about nationalism. In 1993, L. M. Drobizheva, speaking at an international conference, noted that after the removal of " iron curtain"Russian scientists began to understand nationalism in two ways: firstly, as ethno-isolationism and the priority of one ethnic community over the other, as ethnic discrimination; secondly, as a principle according to which peoples, in an effort to preserve cultural identity, strive to live under “their own political roof”, to have their own statehood and rulers Drobizheva L.M. Intelligentsia and nationalism. Experience of the post-Soviet space // Ethnicity and power in multi-ethnic states. Materials of the international conference 1993. / Rep. ed. V.A. Tishkov. - M.: Nauka, 1994. - P.72.. In other words, nationalism can be different in essence and consequences. This understanding of the nature of nationalism has long been established in world literature. The most common is the binary model: Western - Eastern; civil - ethnic. According to Russian researchers of the concepts of nationalism A.I. Miller and V.V. Koroteeva, this tradition was founded by the American historian Hans Kohn See: Miller A.I. Ernest Gellner’s theory of nationalism and its place in the literature of the issue // Nationalism and the Formation of Nations. Theories - models - concepts. - M., 1994. - P. 13-14; Koroteeva V.V. Theories of nationalism in foreign social sciences. - M., 1999. - P. 26-27. Thus, in his work “The Idea of Nationalism,” published in 1944, he wrote about “Western” nationalism as rational, civil and about “Eastern” as irrational, ethnic. The first type is typical for the advanced countries of Europe and the USA, the second - for Germany, Russia, and other countries of Eastern Europe, a number of Asian countries. The differences are determined by the conditions of formation, in particular, the social base and the relationship between the nation and the state.
Domestic scientists T.I. Bonkalo, V.A. Ilyin and S.V. Bonkalo recently conducted an empirical study devoted to identifying patterns of transformation of patriotism into nationalism depending on the level of psychosocial development of the individual. And based on the results of the study, the authors formulated “a number of well-founded generalizing conclusions:
1. Ethnonational attitudes of the individual, in fact, are one of the phenomenological manifestations of the process and result of psychosocial development at the basic stages of the epigenetic cycle.
3. Young people with clearly expressed nationalist attitudes are characterized by “conservation” - unresolved crises of the early stages of development and, as a consequence, psychosocial confusion, while their peers with neutral-negative ethnonational attitudes are distinguished by stable positive resolution these crises. Young people with patriotic attitudes occupy an intermediate position in this regard.
4. Currently, there is a tendency towards growth of nationalist sentiments among young people. This is due both to external influence, in particular, to aggressive nationalist propaganda, and to the fundamental problems of modern, primarily preschool and school education.
5. One of the most important strategic directions for the prevention of nationalism among young people seems to be real and radical reform high school in the logic of shifting the emphasis from formal education to full-fledged personal development students" Bonkalo T.I., Ilyin V.A., Bonkalo S.V. Ethnonational attitudes and psychosocial development of personality: experience of empirical research // Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. - 2015. - No. 4. - pp. 13-14 ..
According to T.I. Bonkalo, V.A. Ilyin and S.V. Bonkalo, the key in terms of the “patriotism-nationalism” dichotomy is the fifth stage. Age periodization, developed by E. Erikson, is based on the consideration life cycle of man as in successively successive eight developmental crises. Each age crisis is, according to E. Erikson, a turning point in general process psychosocial development. The source of the crisis is the conflict between the positive, or vital, principle, reflecting the essence human nature, and a negative or destructive principle, manifested in specific forms characteristic of a certain age. Such conflicts are resolved according to the genetic makeup of the individual, the characteristics of her previous experience and the social situation of her development. psychosocial development (ideology), if only because, according to a number of authors, “the origins of national feeling are connected with the need for a positive social identity” Erikson E. Identity: youth and crisis. - M.: Progress, 1996. - P. 66.. Without going into methodological details, the above researchers note that within the framework of the theoretical scheme they use, the concept of “social identity” is specific in relation to generic concept"identity". Identity, from the point of view of the psychosocial approach, is a kind of epicenter of the life cycle of each person. It is formalized as a psychological construct in adolescence, and the functionality of the individual in adulthood depends on its qualitative characteristics. independent life Ilyin V.A. Using the theory of psychosocial development to predict the risk of suicidal behavior in adolescence. Materials III All-Russian scientific and practical conference "Social-psychological prevention and psychotherapy of suicidal personality state" / under scientific. ed. E.A. Petrova, T.I. Bonkalo. - M., 2014. - P. 9-32..
