Characteristic features of the Russian mentality. Unhealthy Lifestyle

October 23, 2013

Western social studies show that the mentality of the Russians is similar to the North Europeans. However, during the years of Putin's rule, most of them fell back into "traditionalism". The differences in the culture of Russians and Europeans are still significant ...

What is the Russian mentality is shown in the book “The Impact of Western Socio-Cultural Models on Social Practices in Russia” (Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2009, Circulation 500 copies). Its definition is described by several experiments.

For several centuries now, the main enemy of the Russian people has been considered the state in the form of a serving-punitive class. “The source of good in the Russian mentality is the community, today it is relatives and friends (Gemeinshaft), and evil is projected onto the state in the form of bureaucracy (previously - a gentleman, a policeman, etc.); the way of action is “everything will work out”, and we think the triumph of good is undeniable, but ... in the future (“not we, so our children ...”),” sociologists write.

The Russian mentality is characterized by extremes and contradictions. Russians are characterized by extreme coldness and warmth, laziness and bursts of energy. The geographical location combines the features of Europe and Asia in Russians: despotism - anarchism; cruelty - compassion; collectivism - individualism; religiosity - godlessness; blind obedience is rebellion.

A distinctive feature of the Russians has always been the predominance of intuition over logic (“maybe”).

Orthodoxy - Russians have always had one faith, pluralism of opinions is unusual for them. In Germany, there is such an opinion about Russians: they say that your problems are in the orthodoxy of your Orthodox Church. For us, it’s as if the earthly things are unimportant, we don’t have a home, give us the Universe. Take Russian philosophy. There is only about the life of the Spirit. The flesh is completely humiliated, everything material is humiliated. Human life immediately depreciates. And a Russian person says: "If I live there, then everything here is quite inexpensive for me."

The refusal to actively transform the surrounding world, patience for the sake of reward in the afterlife, accepted in Orthodox ethics, is fundamentally different from the norms of Western Protestant ethics.

The question is natural: what are the pros and cons of the Russian mentality in the implementation of "pro-Western" reforms? Sociologists answer this question: “A German does not rely on “maybe it will cost”, an Englishman or an American seeks justice in the courts that protect human rights, which are fixed in the Constitution on the basis of a “sacred” contract between citizens and their elected authorities. As for the victory of good over evil, Western culture it depends on the activities of the parties, their ideas about what is good and what is evil, and, most importantly, on the personal efforts of each citizen.

The core of the German mentality is the concept of professional duty. The main norm of Protestantism is rational management, focused on increasing productivity and multiplying capital. America's ideal: "a creditworthy good man whose duty it is to regard the increase of his capital as an end in itself."

The Protestant norm “earning money is my duty, this is my virtue and the source of my pride and respect from my fellow citizens” differs from the norm “I will earn money, and it doesn’t matter what others think about it.” This is a calling “from God”, and the most diligent fulfillment of this role is a sacred duty.

In Germany, as indeed in other Western European countries, the rational organization of one's own business is the salvation of one's own soul. Therefore, in Germany it is customary to count money, save and increase it. A German, English or American capitalist is pleasing to God not because he is rich and can rest, taste worldly fruits. He is pleasing because he cannot afford it, tk. performs the sacred duty of increasing capital, denying himself everything.

A characteristic feature of Protestant morality, which M. Weber called worldly asceticism, is the impossibility of rest, the high intensity of the fulfillment of labor duty due to the rejection of earthly joys.

Well, then sociologists move from theory to practice. Statistical data are available using psychological tests in cross-cultural studies. K. Kasyanova applied the MMPI test on Russian students and a control group of pilots, comparing her data with the results obtained by other psychologists from many countries. She found that the Russians go off scale in "cycloid". This concept from the language of psychoanalysts means that Russians are not inclined to systematically performed activities that do not depend on mood, unlike, for example, punctual Germans.

Interesting results intercultural studies were received by E. Danilova, E. Dubitskaya and M. Tararukhina. They used psychological test Dutch sociopsychologist Gerd Hofstede, developed by him in the 60s and actively used to this day. The test is designed to measure the parameters of organizational culture. Hofstede revealed the ethno-national features of labor relations and refuted the belief in their universal rationality. It turned out that the Germans and, for example, the Japanese act rationally in the same way, but they evaluate the balance of the resources expended and the results achieved differently.

According to the Hofstede test, 70 peoples were studied. IN last years mass testing of Russians was carried out: 1,700 respondents from among employees of energy companies in 23 regions of Russia and 518 employees of large machine-building enterprises in Moscow, the Volga region, and the Vladimir region. Power engineers are distinguished by the fact that managers and specialists of the new formation are sufficiently represented in their composition, and the latter (machine builders) are 90% ordinary Russian workers.

The authors have come to the following conclusions. According to the index "personal achievement - solidarity" Swedes, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians and Finns form one cluster. Dubitskaya and Tararukhina called it the "Northern European Solidarity Syndrome". The British, Americans, Irish, as well as Germans, Austrians, Italians and Swiss formed another statistical cluster, which was called the "Romano-Germanic achievement syndrome".

Russia, on the other hand, fell into the group of North Europeans (by the way, based on these results, it is clear what could take root in Russia as a political and economic formation - liberalism of the Anglo-Saxon type, South European paternalism or Scandinavian socialism).

The researchers defined another scale in the vocabulary of management as “loyalty to the company in exchange for guarantees”, and in broad sense it is a mentality of dependence on the external environment or, on the contrary, tuned to the social subject's own resource. In the logic of management, the first is the mentality of the employee, and the second is the partner. According to this index, Russians are among those who value the guarantees from the organization more.

In general, they conclude that the Russian cultural matrix (let us recall, the matrix of labor relations) is far from the Romano-Germanic one, and again closer to the mentality of employees in the Nordic countries. Organizational culture Russia is built on two pillars: solidarity between workers and subordination to the organization. In Hofstede's scales, this refers to the culture of "femininity" on test items: caring for each other, intuition, the value of free time. The opposite pole of "masculinity" is assertiveness, rationalism, perseverance in achieving goals, money.

“The subordination of the organization in the culture of labor relations is associated with a well-known feature of the Russian mentality - etatism, the attitude towards the state in the role of its subjects, not free citizens. In practice, this means loyalty to the existing order in exchange for guarantees from the state,” the sociologists conclude.

The system of values ​​in Russia compared with the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, is quite close to the Western European, "but more conservative, traditional, more prone to order, hierarchy, and less - to the rights and freedoms of the individual." In general, Western and Russian sociologists have not made any discoveries here. Another thing is more interesting: has there been a transformation of values ​​in Russia in the last 20 years? There are also studies on this topic.

In the 1990s, there was a marked shift towards the values ​​of the "modern personality" (intellectual autonomy, the value of mastery), especially among young people. However, in the period 2000-2005. an increase in hedonism was recorded instead of the values ​​of the development of creative abilities. In the most important areas, there has been a rollback ... the cultural preconditions for modernization have deteriorated. According to monitoring surveys carried out in 1998, 2004 and 2007. employees of the Institute of Sociology, in the period from 2004 to 2007. the share of the so-called modernists decreased from 26% to 20%, and the share of traditionalists increased from 41% to 47%, while maintaining the share of "intermediate" (33%).

The authors considered the acceptance of the values ​​of individual freedom as signs of modernity, which is “completely unacceptable” for traditionalists and intermediates in this matter (80% of the sample!). “For them,” writes M.K. Gorshkov, “the optimal model of development, traditional for Russia, is based on the omnipotence of the state, which, in the ideal of this model, serves as the spokesman for the interests of society as a whole and ensures the security of both each individual citizen and the community. Moreover, such a model is perceived more as a chaotic community, where everyone performs their own function, than as a community of free individuals who consciously build a variety of life strategies, guided by human rights, recognized as basic by both the state and society.

So, the above evidence suggests that the value system of Russians is “quite close” to the North European one, but is more inclined towards order, hierarchy, and less towards the rights and freedoms of the individual. In addition, in recent years, the proportion of traditionalists has increased.

However, the "cultural component" of the Russian mentality is still far from the European one.

The cultural parameters of the attitude towards exclusion in modern Russia are considered in the works of S.S. Yaroshenko (attitude towards the poor) and I.N. Tartakovskaya (gender stereotypes and lifestyles). The study by T.A. Dobrovolskaya and N.B. Shabalina noted the intolerance of Russian respondents in relation to the very idea of ​​coexistence with atypical people. Respondents expressed a negative attitude to the fact that a disabled person was their relative (39%), flatmate (37%), boss (29%), representative of authorities (27%), subordinate (22%), teacher of the child (20% ).

Other studies show that patience as a component of mercy and humanism is less and less valued in post-Soviet Russia. Thus, the studies of N.I. Lapin demonstrate changes in the structure of the basic values ​​of Russians over the period from 1990 to 2006: if in 1990 the traditional value of self-sacrifice was in 8th place among the fourteen basic values, then in 1994 it dropped to 11th place, and by 2006 she had fallen even lower in this list, more and more yielding to such modernist values ​​as independence and initiative.

The situation is different in European countries. A survey was conducted of 135 Russian and 98 foreign (USA, Canada, Austria, Germany) respondents - students, teachers and university staff.

An intercultural study by S.A. Zavrazhin showed that only half of the Russian respondents spoke in favor of providing assistance to mentally handicapped people (44% believe that such people should be isolated, 2% should be liquidated, 2% should be ignored), while among foreign respondents no one supported the idea of ​​eliminating, isolating or ignoring people with handicapped and 98% were in favor of helping them. Let's pay attention - this is a survey among the intelligentsia, and what can we say about the common people ...

What conclusions can be drawn from this study? In general, Russians in a “favorable environment” (democratic government, respect for individual rights, integration into western world) are potentially ready to become “Northern Europeans” (at the level of the same Finns, who a hundred years ago were the same Russians, and who made the transformation into Europeans in a very short period by the standards of world history).

But for now, it's all pie in the sky. And the "tit in the hands", the realities of today's life are shattered by the tactics of survival in an environment hostile to the average Russian - where only the highest power with its exclusive right to the "only European" acts as the only savior.

based on materials ttolk.ru

Nadezhda Suvorova

Unhealthy Lifestyle

It is sad, but the inhabitants of the country. Favorite phrase of Russians: "It will pass by itself!". It is not customary for us to trust doctors, but it is customary to use traditional medicine recipes. Some even treat cancer with herbs and magical devices.

This happens because for such a long period of existence of the country, we have not focused on health. We are not educated in this area and misunderstand the meaning of the saying: "What does not kill us makes us stronger." Love for an idle lifestyle leads Russian people to.

Fortunately, today the younger generation is beginning to take an interest in their health, are fond of sports, go to Gym to get a nice figure. But this is only the beginning of a long journey after realizing that Russia was going downhill.

Life "on the hook"

Another established distinctive feature of the Russian people is bribery. 200 years ago in Russia it was customary to pay officials for services, but even when this right was abolished, the habit remained.

Officials have taken root in comfortable conditions so much that they never wanted to lose financial injections from the people. Therefore, issues are still being resolved not according to the law, but “by pull”.

It is impossible to eradicate this feature at this historical stage of Russia, since there are other global problems, but the struggle has already begun and is bringing success.

Endurance

Historical events such as uprisings, wars, blockades and constant change of rulers have led to the trouble of the Russian people. This made it possible to cultivate endurance, patience and the ability to withstand adversity in people.

Russian people are only recently getting used to comfort. Previously, we spent a lot of time in the fields to feed our families, often the years were lean, so we had to work without sleep and rest.

Weather conditions also influenced the formation of the Russian mentality. Foreigners are terribly afraid of the cold. For them, 0 degrees is already a reason to wear a sheepskin coat. The Russian people are accustomed to such temperatures and tolerate them well. One has only to remember the tradition of dipping into the hole at Christmas. Some Russians even practice winter swimming all winter.

Today Russia is coming out of the crisis, the people are facing new tasks. Therefore, the mentality is gradually changing, acquiring new features. But some of them will forever remain in Russian souls and will help to remain invincible and fearless in the face of dangerous enemies.

February 26, 2014

In a book about Germany and the German mentality (“Watching the Germans”, “Germany Without Lies”, etc.), which was reprinted with updates, I had to compare the Germans with us. Not all readers agreed with me, but I am grateful to all of them: the book that you hold in your hands was born in disputes. For whom is it written? For every inquisitive person who is not happy with the knowledge that he already knows everything. This book is intended primarily for the inhabitants of Russia. It can also help foreigners understand Russians, find a common language with them, and adapt to Russia faster and easier.

Who we are, why we are and where we are going? How do we impress and attract foreigners? Is it true that the Russian soul is mysterious, and what are its secrets? Is it true that Russia, which we lost, was completely different? Why was it in Russia that the state first proclaimed the goal of building communism? How did the Russians influence the rest of the world? Why in Russia, the richest country in terms of its resources, people live poorer, and most importantly, not as comfortable as in developed countries? Is it possible, having understood the Russian character, to answer the question of what to do and to predict what awaits us? Ages, rulers, laws are changing, but do we understand where we are moving and what is stopping us? Maybe for this we need to understand ourselves and once again look in the mirror? Unpleasant? Recall Gogol - he took the epigraph to his "Inspector General" proverb "There is nothing to blame on the mirror ...". Someone will say that the mirror is crooked? But even in an attraction with crooked mirrors, it is interesting to look at yourself from the outside, and it won’t hurt to laugh at yourself. I had the opportunity not only to live in Russia for a long time, but also to spend a lot of time abroad. After that, much here becomes clearer. This book is based on my personal impressions, consistent with the research of sociologists. They are supplemented with materials from foreign and Russian press.

In the West, laziness, drunkenness and lack of culture are attributed to Russians, while domestic authors sometimes deny real problems. Discussions do not stop - there are and will be written hundreds of books and articles about the Russian mentality: the topic is inexhaustible. I am grateful to the authors with whom I managed to get acquainted, and I regret that it is not possible to list all of them. I will mention at least some of the comedians - Zhvanetsky, Zadornov, Irtenyev, Gorin, Shaov, Yankovsky, Melikhan, the authors of well-aimed statements on this topic.

Traditional ideas do not take into account the fact that in recent times the way of life of Russians, the mentality and system of values ​​have changed markedly. It is extremely important in which direction these changes are going and where they will lead. On the Internet they ask: “Is it possible to average all Russians? Everyone was very mixed up. My friends and I have a pedigree from Uzbeks and Chechens to Germans, British and Balts.” I will answer: the purpose of the book is to identify the main, common features of Russians, not necessarily belonging to each of them. We are talking about traits that, in my opinion, are inherent in the majority or even in the minority, if such traits are found and significantly affect our lives. If the book compares Russians with anyone, it is primarily with the peoples of developed and especially European countries. Because Russia is a country of high culture, close to European. Any nation has its pros and cons, and you will not find even two completely identical people. To some, the word “mentality” seems like a petrified rule, into which they personally try to fit it, and this is nothing more than “average temperature in a hospital”, which even before our eyes is changing and which everyone measures in their own way. Every reader probably has his own opinion about the Russian mentality, and he will find something to object to me. I tried to harmonize my thoughts with the research of sociologists, to supplement them with materials from the foreign and Russian press, and yet the book is based primarily on my personal impressions. Everything that is said in the book is just my views and value judgments. Everyone is entitled to other views, and I do not claim to be the ultimate truth. On the contrary, it is desirable that this book give rise to reflection and debate. In a dispute, truth is born - provided that both parties argue with mutual respect.

It is impossible not to admire our people, who managed to master a vast territory and create great culture in the most difficult conditions. Although the majority of Russians are nice and sympathetic people, this, of course, does not exclude contradictions or flaws in the Russian character. I want to reassure the reader that the author was not recruited or bribed by anyone. If, dear reader, your soul hurts for your country and you want life in it to become better, then you are certainly a patriot and this book is addressed to you. And if you don't want to change anything, because you are convinced that everything that surrounds you here is the best in the world? If you think that only enemies can talk about shortcomings? Then you are also a patriot. But a patriot of a different kind, and I advise you not to read this book: it is not for you.

In parts one and two, we will talk about the first impressions of foreigners when they meet Russians, that is, about those features of Russians that are striking. Gradually, we will move on to those features that require a closer acquaintance.

I am grateful to my wife Galina Tomchina for her invaluable and home help in editing the book, as well as Olga Papysheva, Maxim Tomchin, Leonid Zakharov, Mikhail Itsykson, and Lev Shapiro, who read the book in manuscript, for their valuable comments.

Part one. Foreigners about Russia. First Impressions

Russia is recognizable to a Westerner, but in some moments it is completely unpredictable. This is a completely different culture, a completely different society ... We, looking at you, as if in a mirror, see ourselves in a new way.

E. Miller

Russia is inhabited by people of more than a hundred nationalities - Russians. But I prefer the word "Russians". So I will call everyone who considers the Russian language and culture native and considers himself Russian. Abroad, all residents of Russia are called Russians. There is an anecdote: two Japanese, a Tatar, a Russian, a Ukrainian and an Armenian are riding in the hotel elevator. One Japanese quietly says to another: “Look at these Russians - they all look the same!” Whatever different inhabitants Russia was not, they have a lot in common.

“Whoever thinks in what language belongs to that people,” said Vladimir Dal. Tsar Nicholas II did not have even one hundredth of Russian blood, but he was a Russian man. Many "foreigners" made the most important contribution to Russian civilization. Among them are Pushkin, Lermontov, Fonvizin, Karamzin, Levitan, Bagration, Witte, and Dahl himself. According to the journalist L. Parfyonov, "Germans, Georgians and Jews were especially massive and brightly turning into" Russian ". The Jew Levitan was a Russian artist, and the German Catherine II was the Russian Empress. “One cannot assume that anyone brought up in Russian culture (whether he is a Chinese or an Armenian by the name of Khachikyan) can classify himself as a Russian. Even if the nanny read Russian fairy tales to him as a child,” Natalya V. writes on the Internet. And Nadezhda K. did not like Pushkin’s statement about Russians, and she assures that “he is just not Russian.” She considers herself a real Russian, although her Russian language is lame. What's the point in arguing with them? Let the fighters for the purity of Russian blood consider our classic an Ethiopian poet. And Okudzhava is a Georgian or Russian-speaking poet, but not a Russian.

Indigenous peoples of Russia famously renamed foreigners. Hamilton? So, you will be Khomutov. Koos von Dahlen? Kozodavlev! The hero of M. Weller's story, an English engineer, married a Russian woman and stayed in Russia. Walter (we have Bolt) got drunk and learned how to knock two kopecks at the store. Everyone loved him "as a kind, harmless fool, from whom life is more interesting." The Chinese living in Siberian cities already in the second generation begin to drink, take a steam bath and work without the former zeal. “In Russia, even the Jews grow Slavic cheekbones,” F. Engels noted. Russians show a rare ability to understand a person and recognize their own at first sight. The philosopher Vasily Rozanov said a hundred years ago: “Look at a Russian with a sharp little eye, he will look at you, and everything is clear, no words are needed. That's what you can't do with a foreigner." Jokers say that Russians are people who manage to survive in Russia. Maybe people are united by common difficulties? A common destiny and language is what unites all Russians.

135 years ago, the French psychologist and neuropsychiatrist Henri Vallon was born, who, relying on the works of the famous Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, introduced the concept of mentality.

"Russia is America in reverse..."

In general, many Russian psychologists believe that every nation has a mentality, and it is expressed in patterns of perception and behavior that affect the political and economic life of the country. Moreover, the national character is based on historical experience. For example, Russians and Americans can see the same event under different angle, just because of his mentality. Each nation will have its own truth, and it will be very difficult to convince each other. This is because values ​​are transpersonal in nature. For example, the English-speaking literary critic Van Wyck Brooks, studying Russian literature, said: “America is just Russia in reverse ...”

Like everyone else

They also study the mentality of the nation in order to understand with whom they will have to deal, or even wage war. For example, the Germans have always been keenly interested in the Russian people. The first detailed description of Russia was made by the German ethnographer Johann Gottlieb Georgi back in 1776. The work was called “Description of all peoples Russian state, their way of life, religion, customs, dwellings, clothing and other differences.

“... There is no such state on earth as the Russian State, which contained such a great variety of different peoples,” wrote Johann Georgi. - These are the Russians, with their tribes, like the Lapps, the Semoyads, the Yukaghirs, the Chukchi, the Yakuts, (there is a list of nationalities on the whole page). ... And also immigrants, like Indians, Germans, Persians, Armenians, Georgians, ... and new Slavs - the estate of the Cossacks.

In general, the ethnographer Johann Georgi noted that it is not unusual for Russians to see strangers. All this, of course, affected the mentality of the Russians. Already today, psychiatrist Igor Vasilievich Reverchuk, exploring the significance of ethnic self-consciousness in the clinical dynamics of various borderline mental disorders, found that 96.2% of Slavs living in Russia regard their nation as “equal among others”, while 93% - demonstrate a friendly attitude towards other ethnic groups.

Children of their land

Doctor of Philosophical Sciences Valery Kirillovich Trofimov, who specializes in the Russian mentality, noted that in the past, “Russia is a country of risky agriculture, where every third or fifth year there were crop failures. A short agricultural cycle - 4-5 months - forced the farmer to constantly rush. Sowing and reaping turned into a real suffering, a battle for the harvest. That is why our people tend to work urgently when it is critically important, and the rest of the time - to react to circumstances.
The Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky at one time also singled out this characteristic feature of the Russians. “Nowhere in Europe will we find such an unaccustomed to even, moderate and measured, constant work, as in the same Great Russia,” he noted. According to Professor of Philosophy Arseny Vladimirovich Gulyga, “rushing from one extreme to another is a typical Russian trait: from rebellion to humility, from passivity to heroism, from prudence to extravagance.”

reverie

Most of our ancestors rarely left their native village. This is because Boris Godunov enslaved the peasants by law in 1592. The Russian historian V.N. Tatishchev was sure of this. All this injustice, multiplied by a poor life, led to collective fantasies and dreams of universal justice, goodness, beauty and goodness. “Russian people in general had a habit of living with dreams about the future,” Professor Vladimir Nikolaevich Dudenkov is convinced. - It seemed to them that the everyday, harsh and dull life of today is, in fact, a temporary delay in the offensive true life, but soon everything will change, a true, reasonable and happy life will open. The whole meaning of life is in this future, and today does not count for life.

The mentality of a Russian official

It is known that in 1727 state salaries were no longer paid to petty officials in exchange for accidents. Later, this rule was abolished, but the habit of the sovereign's servants to live off "feeding" remained, and was not actually pursued. As a result, in the first half of the 19th century, bribery became the norm. For example, “solving a case” in the Senate cost 50,000 rubles. For comparison, a far from poor county judge had a salary of 300 rubles. Theophile Gauthier, a well-known writer from France, who visited St. Petersburg in 1858, wrote: “It is believed that people of a certain level do not walk on foot, it does not fit. A Russian official without a carriage is like an Arab without a horse.

It turns out that this part of our history can also be related to the mentality, however, of a certain group of Russian people. So, in the dictionary "Social Psychology" edited by M.Yu. Kondratiev, the term "mentality" was prescribed as "the specifics of the mental life of people (groups of people), determined by economic and political circumstances and having a supraconscious character."

Endurance and patience

American mentality experts are convinced that national character traits are influenced, among other things, by genetics, in which the behavior patterns of our ancestors are programmed. For example, if the family tree is represented by convinced monarchists, then the person will subconsciously feel sympathy for this form of government or its representatives. Perhaps this is the neutral, and even loyal attitude of the Russian people towards the political leaders who have ruled the country for many years.

This also has to do with such a mental trait of our people as patience. In particular, the historian N.I. Kostomarov noted that “the Russian people amazed foreigners with their patience, firmness, indifference to all deprivations of the comforts of life, which are difficult for a European ... From childhood, Russians were taught to endure hunger and cold. Children were weaned after two months and fed on roughage; the children ran in nothing but shirts without hats, barefoot in the snow in bitter cold.

Many Russian and foreign mentality experts believe that patience is our response to external and internal challenges, the basis of the Russian person.

Famous foreigners about Russians

Foreign politicians and journalists love to talk about the Russian mentality. Most often, our compatriots are called drunkards. Thus, the French journalist Benoit Raisky wrote that "rude Russians are known for their addiction to vodka." And on October 14, 2011, the englishrussia portal published the article “50 Facts About Russia In The Eyes Of Foreigners”, it gained a huge number of views. It says, in particular, “A non-drinking Russian is a fact out of the ordinary. Most likely, he has some kind of tragedy associated with alcohol.

However, there are other opinions about the Russians. For example, Otto von Bismarck considered Russians to be a cohesive nation. He argued: “Even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the decomposition of the main force of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians ... These latter, even if they are dissected by international treatises, just as quickly reconnect with each other, like particles of a cut piece of mercury ... " . However, history teaches nothing even to pragmatic Germans. Franz Halder, chief of staff of the Wehrmacht (1938-1942) was forced to state in 1941: “The peculiarity of the country and the originality of the character of the Russians gives the campaign a special specificity. The first serious adversary.

Expert opinion

Modern social Psychology does not confirm the thesis about the immutability of the mentality, - notes the head of the department of sociology of the INDEM Foundation Vladimir Rimsky. - The conditions in which people live, social relations are changing - and with them the mentality is changing. - It should hardly be considered that people have not changed their mentality since the Middle Ages. This is exactly an illusion. Let's say in the Middle Ages mass consciousness no desire to become famous at all. Is this true in today's society? Therefore, I would be careful not to say that the features of the modern Russian mentality were formed in Peter the Great or pre-Petrine times.

In Russia, the attitude to the mentality as something unchanging often leads to one purely practical consequence: we do not really try to do something to become different. And this is wrong.

You can, of course, say that the problem is in the mentality. But the point is rather that the conditions for the implementation of civil initiatives are simply not created in Russian society.

Or let's take the problem of corruption - it is really widely represented in Russia. It is believed that this is also a feature of our mentality. But I think we need to give people the opportunity to change their social practices. And then, quite possibly, the mentality will also change.

I should note that on a historical scale, the mentality can change rather quickly - in two or three decades. This, in particular, is evidenced by the examples of South Korea or Singapore - states that have changed dramatically over the course of one generation.

Or take a purely Russian example. The reforms of Alexander II affected, in particular, the judiciary. As a result, quite a lot of lawyers working on jury trials have appeared in Russia. These jurors were ordinary citizens, I assure you, they perfectly understood what kind of decisions the authorities needed - but often they made the exact opposite verdicts. As a result, a completely different attitude towards the court appeared in the Russian Empire - as a fair institution in which one can really defend one's rights. Before Alexander II, there was no such attitude to the judiciary.

I think that people, of course, have national and ethnic characteristics. But still, it should not be denied that a lot is determined by social relations and the social environment in which we live. If we were ready to change the environment, the mentality would also change. I'll give you another example.

It is customary for us to believe that in Russia from time immemorial they have not observed the laws, and there is nothing to be done about it. But I have talked more than once with Germans and Americans who came to Moscow to live and work. So, after a short stay in Russian capital, almost all of them began to violate traffic rules when driving a car, and give bribes to traffic cops. One lady, an American, to my question why she does this, replied that in America it would never have occurred to her to give a bribe to a policeman, but in Moscow “it’s impossible to do it any other way.”

As you can see, the mentality in the head of a particular American changes elementarily - as soon as he adapts to the Russian environment. But this example tells a different story. In America and the same Germany, without exception, they began to “live according to the law” relatively recently - about a hundred years ago. We can go the same way, and much faster...

Introduction

Important factor, which influences the culture of a particular country, is the mentality of the bearers of this culture that has been formed over the centuries. mentality from latin mens(mentis) - mind, thinking, way of thinking, mental warehouse, reason, mental development. This term denotes a set of habits and beliefs, a way of thinking characteristic of a particular community. The mentality is easier to describe with some key concepts than to give a clear definition.

It is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of "mentality" and "mentality". Only partially these words are synonyms. The term "mentality" expresses a specific, historical quality, the variability of mentality (a system of some relatively stable characteristics), the so-called. mental core, manifested in the language, in the national character, in folklore, in politics, in art.

In mentality, what is being studied is revealed historical era does not report directly; the epoch, as it were, against its own will, "blurs" about itself, about its secrets. At this level, it is possible to hear things that cannot be known at the level of conscious statements.

We learn about the mentality of a particular culture, first of all, from the deeds and writings of its representatives. Protection national cultures and becomes the most important task of society. Another, no less urgent task is not to impede cultural modernization, synthesis, and dialogue of cultures. Modern Russia and the emerging Russian mentality are rich and controversial material for cultural research, which is very relevant right now.

70 years of Soviet power left a deep and contradictory imprint in the culture of our country - one of the deepest after the adoption of Christianity, which formed the spiritual basis of Russian culture for centuries. An analysis of this complex, in many respects tragic period in the history of Russia is important right now, when the USSR as a state has already gone down in history, and the remnants of the former, Soviet mentality have remained.

The main problem of the Soviet mentality is alienation from religious values. The ideology that dominated the country for seven decades was based on the materialistic concept of Marxism-Leninism. Spiritual development has deeper roots.

The main problem of the Soviet mentality is that it is based on human teaching, not divine. By educating a person as a conductor of the pleasures of earthly life, we, without suspecting it ourselves, are building the former, Soviet mentality. A Soviet person is a person far from freedom of thought and creative self-realization.

In my term paper, I try to show the characteristic features of the Russian mentality, as well as their transformation under the influence of Soviet ideology. The culture of modern Russia is a synthetic culture (a synthesis of both pre-revolutionary and Soviet experience with the liberal-rationalist values ​​of the West); it has tendencies for further creative development, for overcoming those remnants of the Soviet mentality that prevent the Russian people in general and millions of individuals in particular from realizing their intellectual, creative and economic potential, to build a viable economic and political system based on democratic principles, absorbing into themselves both traditional and the latest phenomena of domestic and world culture.

Chapter 1. The origins of the Soviet mentality

1.1 Characteristic features of the Russian mentality

More V.O. Klyuchevsky revealed the relationship of natural and climatic conditions with the features national character one people or another. Russian thought was originally associated with the desire to understand nature. The formation of Rus' began on a territory covered with forests and steppes. The forest served as a reliable refuge from enemies, but was dangerous for people, the steppe formed the motive of space, but also carried the threat of wars and raids. Hence - the "rootless" of the Russian people.

The culture of Russia was formed under the influence of both the West (adoption of Christianity) and the East (in the XIII-XV centuries - Tatar-Mongol yoke, then - the capture and development of the eastern territories). A.O. Boronoev and P.I. Smirnov believe that the national Russian character is based on service, altruistic activity (alternative activity, For-The-Other-activity), and the role of the “Other” can be played by a person, and God, and nature, and the country (serving “Holy Rus'” as God's plan). This was facilitated whole line reasons - the borderline position of Russia, the need to defend both from the west and from the east, the need for mutual assistance. This hindered the development of market relations, but developed religiosity and asceticism in the minds of the Russian people. This is where the demarcation took place (namely, a demarcation, and not a complete break) with the rationalistic, more egocentric worldview of the West.

1.1.1 Religiosity as a fundamental feature of the Russian mentality

The most striking feature of the Russian mentality noted by philosophers is religiosity. The religion and philosophy of all peoples established long before Christianity that mankind as a whole and each individual aspires to God. Christianity of the Byzantine model, if not immediately, but firmly laid down on the pagan basis of Slavic religiosity.

Christian religiosity is manifested in the search for absolute, perfect goodness, realizable only in the Kingdom of God. This spiritual search is based on two biblical commandments: love God more than yourself and your neighbor as yourself. According to Christian teaching, relative blessings, not based on a clear distinction between good and evil, do not lead to the Kingdom of God.

In the famous work of S. M. Solovyov "History of Russia from ancient times" one can find the texts of chronicles, official documents, reports of diplomats, commanders. All these documents are full of references to God, God's will. Princes usually took the monastic vows before they died. In the 18th century, when the ideas of the Enlightenment began to penetrate into Russia, the activities of Freemasons developed widely, seeking to deepen the understanding of the truths of Christianity through cultural and religious synthesis (Christianity, Judaism, medieval alchemy, the legacy of antiquity). In the 19th and early 20th centuries, religiosity was expressed in works of poetry, prose, drama, and religious philosophy.

A religious person seeks absolute goodness in freedom. Both Western (Byzantine) and Eastern (Arabic) sources testified to the love of freedom of the Slavs. This was reflected in Russian folklore (melodiousness, melodiousness of Russian fairy tales, songs, dances).

1.1.2 The desire for service and self-sacrifice as a national Russian trait

The inclination towards isolation, the development of complex plans, the ability for collectivism, self-sacrifice - these are the features of the Russian psychology. The affairs of the social whole are put above one's own business. Service turned out to be the most appropriate form of activity for the Russian mentality, and indeed life in general. For a Russian person, the value of individual life is negligible compared to the common value (family, community, Fatherland). Hence - the spirit of Russian sovereignty, the merger of the state and society. Orthodox humility gave birth in Russian people to sacrifice, asceticism, neglect of the values ​​of worldly comfort and well-being. However, humility does not mean inactivity; it presupposes a volitional act (feat, virtue).

The consequence of Christian humility is the spiritual warmth of Russians, a hospitable attitude towards foreigners, a sense of community, the need for disinterested communication. The Russian mentality is characterized not by egocentric incentives for self-affirmation, but by the desire for spiritual freedom. This desire in relation to management is also manifested in relation to material goods.

1.1.3 Attitude towards money and wealth

In no nation, perhaps, a negative attitude towards material well-being is not rooted as deeply as among the Russians. In Rus', in Russia, a wealthy person had to look for "excusing reasons" for his wealth. Hence the craving for charity, for patronage (remember the Morozovs, Mamontovs and other famous Russian merchant dynasties)

The focus on economic well-being turned out to be more characteristic Western mentality. It turned out to be both more stable and more competitive. With the beginning of the New Age in Europe, and then in America, the so-called. "middle class" - the social stratum of people with a stable financial position which, nevertheless, does not allow one to live without working (the “middle class” in Russia was only seriously discussed at the end of the last century). In the Russian character, the desire to cherish material wealth, respect for material values, respect for work, and responsibility for one's own destiny are not sufficiently developed.

1.1.4 Attitude towards work

There are two directly opposite opinions about the attitude of Russians to work. Some observers consider Russians to be lazy due to centuries of everyday unsettledness, while others insist on industriousness. Oddly enough, there is no contradiction here. The Russian mentality is not characterized by love for work as such. For Russians, the goal of labor is important - not for themselves, but for a high goal (for the sake of saving the soul, for obedience, for the Motherland). At the same time, Russians tend to strive for self-expression in creativity. Difficult task, interesting job or a problem is a good incentive for a Russian to intensive, often financially unprofitable work.

A component of the Russian mentality is a tendency to collective, artel work. Earnings are usually divided not by contribution to the result, but “by fairness”.

Russian entrepreneurship is also largely based on the Orthodox tradition. Neither the peasant nor the merchant aspired to wealth as main goal existence. The Orthodox tradition forbids the collection of interest (interest) from a neighbor and claims that only labor can be a source of wealth. At the heart of pre-revolutionary Russian entrepreneurship was the motive of serving: the tsar, the Fatherland (the early Stroganovs, Demidovs), God (the builders of monasteries and temples), the people (patrons and benefactors - see 1.1.3).

Among Russian entrepreneurs, paternalistic, “family” relations with hired personnel traditionally dominated, in any case, with a permanent part of it close to the owner (the same was in the relationship between landowners and serfs). Dating back to Domostroy (XVI century), they were ubiquitous at the end of the XIX century.

Traditionally, the Russian family economy was natural, only what could not be made independently was bought. Residents of cities - petty bourgeois, workers, merchants, whose main activity was not related to agriculture, still sought to have their own economy. Only in Russia did a special type of settlement appear - a city estate.

1.1.5 Relationship to the state

In public life, the love of freedom of Russians is expressed in a penchant for anarchy, in a certain contempt for the state. This feature of the mentality influenced such thinkers as Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Leo Tolstoy, Old Believer rumors and some modern religious associations.

Russian contempt for the state - contempt for the bourgeois focus on property, on earthly goods, to the so-called. "philistinism". This was alien to the European mentality even in the crisis era between the two world wars (let us recall, for example, the novel by H. Hesse “The Steppenwolf”, imbued with the spirit of escapism, where, nevertheless, the “petty-bourgeois” spirit is described with sympathy).

Unlike Western Europe, where states arose through conquests, statehood in Rus', according to historical sources, was established through the voluntary calling of Varangian rulers by the people. The ruling classes lived by the "external" truth, creating external rules of life and resorting to coercive force in case of their violation. “Earth”, the people lived by the “inner”, Christian truth. Even the conquest of new territories went largely not at the expense of power, but at the expense of the population, who often fled from state persecution (Cossacks); the state overtook the pioneers only during the development of new lands. The formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia took place not only thanks to the efforts of the rulers, but also thanks to the support of the people. The years of war were more frequent than the years of peace. Service to the higher principle, characteristic of the Russian mentality, prompted huge sections of the population (clergy, merchants, military) to subordinate their freedom to the state, as a necessary condition for curbing evil. The clergy were called to the same end. The church became an instrument of the fight against evil by moral means, and the state became a means of coercion.

Patriotism, natural love for the motherland, and national feeling, that is, love for the Russian people, were combined in the church into one inseparable whole. The Orthodox clergy became the stronghold of the Russian autocracy.

Politically, Russia remained an absolute monarchy, while bourgeois revolutions were in full swing in Europe and constitutional orders were being established. At the same time, in public life, everyday democracy was more pronounced than in the West (dislike for the conventions of the nihilists of the sixties, greater freedom from church prescriptions than Catholics and Protestants).

Thus, the Russian mentality combines diverse and even opposite properties and ways of behavior. N. Berdyaev expressively emphasized this feature of the Russian people: “Two opposite beginning formed the basis for the formation of the Russian soul: natural, pagan Dionysian elements and ascetic monastic Orthodoxy. One can discover opposite properties in the Russian people: despotism, hypertrophy of the state and anarchism, liberty; cruelty, propensity to violence and kindness, humanity, gentleness; ritual belief and the search for truth; individualism, heightened consciousness of the individual and impersonal collectivism; nationalism, self-praise and universalism, all-humanity; eschatologically messianic religiosity and outward piety; the search for God and militant atheism; humility and arrogance; slavery and rebellion."

Higher education at universities and technological institutes was not in Russia the privilege of rich people. Russian everyday democracy contributed to the abundance of scholarships and assistance to students from societies at universities. Therefore, the Russian intelligentsia was non-class and non-class, heterogeneous. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia had a chance to develop its own constitutional order, the foundations of a rule of law state (perhaps with monarchical form government, possibly from a republican one) and civil society, if not for the First World War and the Bolshevik coup. However, after October 1917, and especially after Stalin came to power, the development of the country, and with it the development of mentality, took a different path.

1.2 From the Russian mentality to the Soviet one

In the first years of Soviet power, the upbringing of the younger generation was focused on the development of the individual, the upbringing of the "new man". Subsequently, the Bolshevik government took the opposite path, believing that in a totalitarian state it was more important to subordinate the individual to the collective.

The Soviet mentality was by no means formed only on Marxist-Leninist foundations, but in many respects - on the basis of the Christian mentality of the Russian people. The attitude to work, to material wealth, to statehood has remained the same over the years.

Just as the Russian peasant owner worked hard from dawn to dusk, so did the Soviet worker and the collective farmer quickly and on time carry out plans and orders. The tradition of the Russian city estate (see 1.1.4) resulted in a special movement of gardeners, found nowhere else, that originated in the Soviet era and had no economic roots. Patriarchal relations in production (albeit in a somewhat distorted form) were still encountered in Soviet times at enterprises headed by talented Russian directors.

The Soviet slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” also has Christian roots, leading from the principle of sharing material wealth “accordingly”. The primordially Russian property not to strive for wealth, for profit by any means migrated into the Soviet consciousness.

The attitude towards the state continued to be twofold. The Soviet era is characterized by such phenomena as the personality cult of the leader (Lenin, Stalin, Brezhnev - under Khrushchev this was less evident), exaggeration of the role of the party in public life. At the same time, the “unofficial”, everyday attitude towards state power was less serious, more ironic, often quite condescending (“political” anecdotes, cartoons of the Brezhnev era).

The fundamental link in the transition from the Russian mentality to the Soviet one was a change in attitude towards religion. It was believed that the establishment of communist ideology leads to the overcoming of religious consciousness and the establishment of atheism. The policy of the state towards the church changed at different stages of Soviet history from attempts to cooperate in the first months after the October Revolution, to the displacement and restriction of church activities, the destruction of churches in the 30s. The Bolsheviks initially did not seek conflict with the church, but the decrees of the Soviet government on the separation of the church from the state and the school from the church and the transition to the Gregorian calendar provoked the condemnation of Patriarch Tikhon. This leads to conflict; the church is declared a stronghold of the counter-revolution. The Soviet government is trying to win over a part of the clergy to its side and at the same time is striving to liquidate the Moscow Patriarchate. By the end of the 1920s, the Bolsheviks managed to ensure a split in the church and intensify the persecution of those who were not ready to cooperate.

During the Great Patriotic War, Stalin not only removed restrictions on the activities of the Orthodox clergy, but also returned part of the churches, monasteries and helped restore the Moscow Patriarchate. Under Khrushchev, on the contrary, the authority of science is strengthened and atheism is declared again. During the Brezhnev years, the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church, although under the strict control of the party and the KGB, were nevertheless encouraged and supported, and anti-religious campaigns were directed primarily against sectarians, which received the approval of the highest church officials. However, the country's religious traditions were lost; a significant part of the clergy was either repressed or emigrated. This happened not only with Orthodoxy. In the 30-40s, entire nations were destroyed along with their beliefs, with their temples, rituals, and customs.

Despite the fact that in the USSR it became outdated and sometimes shameful to be a believer, the remnants of religion were preserved in the form of numerous signs and superstitions, which became another integral feature of the Soviet mentality. The Soviet era did not eliminate all forms of mass religious consciousness, but pushed them out of the traditional norms into the realm of everyday mysticism. The level of religious culture of the population has significantly decreased; state ideology took the place of religion.

The predominance of the value of an idea over the value of human life, a tendency to asceticism was also characteristic of the pre-revolutionary mentality. Soviet propaganda transformed this idea by removing Christian overtones from it. It has become righteous to sacrifice oneself not in the name of God, but for the sake of the triumph of the ideology of communism, for the sake of future generations. This attitude remained in the mentality of several formations. Soviet people. The loss of the religious heritage changed the attitude to morality, to morality, led to the decline of legal culture. It has become natural for a Soviet person to strive for his goal, not shunning any means.

Cultural potential pre-revolutionary Russia was lost not only because of the persecution of the clergy and the systematic destruction of the "reactionary" remnants of Christianity in the mentality of the people. The secular culture of Russian society was also lost: the flower of the scientific and creative intelligentsia, the traditions of merchants, entrepreneurship, and peasant management ( tragic consequence collectivization and "dispossession"), jurisprudence, public administration. The formation of the Soviet mentality took place in the conditions of a cultural crisis, which was hushed up by the official ideology. The continuity of generations and traditions was broken, which affected the seven decades of building socialism and continues to affect modern, capitalist Russia.

Chapter 2. Characteristic features of the Soviet mentality

As already mentioned in the previous chapter, the Soviet mentality, although it contained many common Russian features, nevertheless, differed very significantly from the pre-revolutionary one. The period of socialism led to the formation of a contradictory mentality of the "Soviet man". This chapter will discuss its characteristic features that developed during the years of the Soviet regime in our country.

2.1 Citizen feeling of a superpower

After the start" cold war The world has become bipolar. The main world confrontation was the confrontation between two systems - socialism and capitalism, two world powers - the USA and the USSR. The new role of the country in the world community has also affected people's minds.

The main thrust of Soviet propaganda was the conviction of the decline of capitalism, the "decay" of Western society and the advanced position of the Soviet Union. This concerned not only politics, the economy, the military industry, influence in the world, the development of new territories and space, but also moral values, artistic culture, sports achievements. The roots of anti-American sentiments still prevalent in Russian society date back precisely to the times of the Cold War.

By opposing itself to the "capitalist" world of the West, the USSR found itself in cultural isolation. Sometimes the contradictory processes that took place in Western culture (the aggravation of the political struggle, youth movements, the growth of protest moods) did not receive a sufficient response in the culture of our country. Interest in Western culture, literature far from the principles of socialist realism, non-Marxist-Leninist philosophy, Western music of the twentieth century (“Today he plays jazz, and tomorrow he will sell his Motherland; today he plays rock, and tomorrow he will receive a term”) if not suppressed, it was not encouraged by society. Even in the "fraternal" socialist countries of Eastern Europe this phenomenon was not as widespread as in the Soviet Union. Censorship in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland was not prohibitive, but permissive. Synthetic phenomena in culture went underground; many of them were talked about only when they themselves became the property of Soviet history.

It was officially believed that all the processes that are taking place in America and Europe (economic crises, unemployment, the growth of crime, the moral decay of society) only lead to the collapse of the capitalist system of values, while this does not exist under socialism. In practice, it turned out that similar phenomena in Soviet society were simply hushed up, and people were not ready for the crisis of socialism during the years of Brezhnev's "stagnation", for the realization of the utopian nature of the communist goal, the discrepancy between propaganda and the real situation in the country and the world.

An important setting in the mentality of a Soviet person was confidence in the future, in the future of both his family, future generations, and the whole country. Modern supporters of the communist ideology note this quality, lost by the modern Russian mentality, as unambiguously positive. At the same time, it was precisely this false confidence that prevented millions of Soviet citizens from adjusting to the social changes of recent decades.

2.2 Constructing the image of the enemy

The Soviet mentality was characterized by an unambiguous division of those around them into “us” and “them”. Anyone who did not fit into the system of values ​​imposed "from above", from the outside, could become an "outsider". The image of the enemy (the enemy of the country, society, and with it the ordinary Soviet citizen) was constructed by official propaganda.

As the years passed, the circle of forces "hostile" to Soviet society only expanded. At the dawn of the revolution, the opponents were all those who did not accept the new order, the new way of life. With the beginning of Stalin's rule, with the intensification of repressions, the struggle for power, inner-party contradictions, this circle was replenished by representatives of the ruling circles, the official ideology, who tried to resist the dictatorship. During the years of Khrushchev's "thaw", when the party set out to expose Stalin's personality cult, public opinion condemned adherents of the old ideological clichés. In the Brezhnev era, the totalitarian regime began to take on authoritarian features, and those who did not obey authority, did not adapt to the majority, openly expressed their own opinion, expressed sympathy both for the West and for the remnants of the pre-revolutionary mentality, became “enemies”. The attitude towards supporters of changes in art, science, social thought, adherents of one religion or another, people involved in artistic creativity (both professionals and amateurs) remained wary. Although the methods of combating dissent were not as openly cruel as under Stalin, the fates of many people were broken in prisons and psychiatric hospitals.

Even among the creative intelligentsia, always trying to resist stereotypes, hostile images were constructed. The division into “friends” and “strangers”, people of the “party” and “philistines” worked. Contempt for the "philistines", for the "soviet" as the antipodes of the representatives of "their own circle" did not go as far as a complete denial of the values ​​of Soviet society, as happened from time to time in the West; in practice, intellectual "freethinking" was primarily declarative. The "protest" attitudes of the Soviet era were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of conformism, easily explained by the desire of people to survive in the bowels of the system and build their own system on its basis. The same desire was observed in the youth movements of the perestroika years; it is observed even today. This is partly why the contradictory, but undoubtedly rich counter cultural heritage 50-70s in Europe and America received a powerful echo in the USSR only in the late 70s - early 80s, and many phenomena became known in Russia only in the 90s.

Throughout the entire period of influence of socialism in the world, the establishment of communist ideology was very uneven. A large number of "doubters" who were ready to weaken the influence of the USSR on the politics, culture, mentality of their country remained in the Baltic republics, which were annexed to the Soviet Union only during the Second World War, in the countries of Eastern Europe, where the formation of socialism took place under the sign of the victory of the USSR over fascism . This doubt had to be paid with considerable blood, which explains the dislike for the Russians of the inhabitants of the current independent states - Russia's western neighbors. No matter how hard the Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Latvians, Estonians try to disown the socialist past, a new image of the enemy in the face of modern Russia, the desire to shift responsibility for their past to the entire Russian people can also be regarded as a relic of the Soviet mentality.

In the everyday life of Soviet people, representatives of any minorities could fall under the image of an “enemy”: national (I’ll tell you more about “domestic” xenophobia), religious, sexual (the criminal prosecution of homosexuals that began in the Stalin years caused a wave of homophobia that does not fade in modern Russia), and just those who stood out too much from the crowd, "white crows". The feeling of enmity was instilled from childhood (remember the film "Scarecrow") - to people gifted with this or that skill, talent, to those who studied, worked better or worse than most, were poorer or richer, differed in the manner of dressing, holding on, think.

The Cold War, anti-American propaganda constructed a hostile image of America. Young people's interest in the culture of the West began during the Khrushchev "thaw" - just when Europe and the United States were seized by protest moods. The Soviet intelligentsia discovered the works of writers of the "lost generation" - Ernest Hemingway, Richard Aldington, Francis Scott Fitzgerald, novels and short stories by contemporary authors - Jerome David Salinger, John Updike, Jack Kerouac were published in periodicals. However, all this was presented under a certain ideological angle; a point of view, often of an anti-American character, was imposed on the reader, which did not correspond to the worldview of the writers themselves. In the late 60s and throughout the 70s, interest in the West did not fall, but, on the contrary, increased. Images gleaned from books, from Eastern European periodicals (censorship in the "countries of victorious socialism" was not as strict as in the Soviet Union), from the impressions of the military, sailors, diplomats who were abroad, differed significantly from those propagated. The fascination with the culture of Europe and America was, first of all, characteristic of young intellectuals, who less strongly absorbed ideological attitudes and were critical of them. There was a gap between the generation of "fathers", for whom the dominant ideology was undeniable, and the generation of "children", who tried, if not completely to deny the generally accepted ideals, then at least critically and creatively rethink them. Yes, and in the youth environment, "dandies", "informals", subject to the "pernicious influence of the West", found their opponents among party and Komsomol activists. Such stamps in the minds of people (including the carriers of "protest" attitudes themselves) did not disappear even at the turn of the millennium.

Scientific and technological progress, the development of the natural sciences, the military-industrial complex led to another division of society - into "physicists" and "lyricists". The Soviet consciousness adopted an attitude to the priority of technical knowledge over the humanities. Representatives of creative professions and the humanities fell under the image of the "enemy", "stranger"; they were treated as "loafers", "people without education". Even in the 1990s, when with the development of information technologies and relations between countries, humanitarian knowledge turned out to be more and more in demand, many professionals were unable to overcome the stereotype left over from Soviet times.

The spirit of hostility permeated the entire Soviet society. An atmosphere of fear and suspicion lay at the heart of the socialist order; she was the cause of his downfall. This relic of the Soviet mentality is dangerous in today's Russian society, which is even more heterogeneous than the Soviet one. It is dangerous because anyone can fall under the image of the enemy - by skin color or political convictions, by demeanor, by religious or aesthetic preferences. The outward attitude towards tolerance does not always turn into tolerance in everyday life, more often the other way around. To overcome hostility, hostile attitudes in the mind, it will take a lot of time.

After the Great Patriotic War Soviet Union positioned himself as the main winner of fascism. Hence - the declaration of friendship between peoples, internationalism as a counterweight to "bourgeois" nationalism, neo-fascism.

The USSR was a multinational state. The vast territory of the former Russian Empire was not fully developed; the peoples inhabiting it were at different levels of development. Since Stalin's times, official propaganda testified to the increase in the cultural level of the peoples of the Far North, the Far East, Central Asia, the Caucasus, the development of education, writing, and literature in the union republics. This phenomenon had great consequences, and by no means only positive ones. The national-cultural autonomies that existed in tsarist Russia were destroyed; in the Stalin years, entire peoples were deported (Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans). The traditional way of life of the peoples of the North and Siberia was destroyed by outside interference, which led to the death huge amount people, the growth of drunkenness, which was not characteristic of these peoples before, the loss of traditional culture, beliefs, folklore, crafts. As Nazism used as one of its foundations neo-paganism, based on ancient Germanic and Scandinavian religion and magic, so did Stalinism in the Far North, in Siberia, on Far East largely established by paganism and shamanism.

The high-profile processes of the Stalinist years (first internal repressions, and then the notorious "doctors' case"), the dissatisfaction of the Soviet leadership with the policies of the young state of Israel during Brezhnev's rule led to the spread of anti-Semitism in society. Despite the fact that among the first revolutionaries, among the members of the Bolshevik party there were many representatives of the Jewish people (which is easily explained by Jewish pogroms, the growth of Black Hundred sentiments at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries), for the "ordinary Soviet person" the word "Jew" became abusive. Belonging to a particular nationality was associated in the mentality with certain qualities, character traits, often negative, “hostile” to Soviet society (stinginess, propensity for gain, selfishness). This is despite the fact that it was the Jewish people who showed the Russian and Soviet society a whole galaxy of figures of science and artistic culture. Many people hid their origin, changing their surnames to Russians, hushing up their ancestry.

"Everyday" xenophobia, rooted in the Soviet mentality, also affected people from the Caucasus and Central Asia. We can safely say that the growth of such sentiments in modern Russia, the constant armed conflicts in the southern territories of the former USSR are a consequence of the remnants of the Soviet consciousness. People from the south increasingly found themselves in territories with a predominance of the Russian population: some ended up in the RSFSR after the war and Stalin's deportations, others came to study at universities or work by distribution. Insufficient knowledge of the Russian language, different from the Central Russian attitude towards the family, towards a woman, towards an older person set her against southerners indigenous people. Hence the numerous jokes and jokes “About the Georgian”, “About Uzbeks”, the contemptuous names “Khachik”, “Churka”, “Chuchmek”, “Black Sea” unrevigentlyed by nationality.

Under the motto of internationalism, the Soviet Union welcomed the national liberation movements in the former European possessions in Asia and Africa, the countries of Latin America, and established diplomatic relations with new states in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. At the same time, the Soviet government supported dictatorial regimes, often established after the victory of liberation movements in these states, which cost the lives of thousands of people.

Natives of the countries of the "third world" came to study in Soviet universities. Along with their higher education, there was also an “export of the revolution”, the imposition of national entities with an undeveloped mentality Soviet values. The "export of the revolution" became the cause (albeit not the only one, but an important one) of the civilizational conflict at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. The attitude towards foreigners within the Soviet Union continued to be wary, to the point of hostility.

The declared internationalism, the notorious "friendship of peoples" led, on the one hand, to the establishment of ties between the population of the whole country, and of the whole world, on the other hand, they left an indelible mark on the mentality and culture of the peoples of the USSR. And this trail did not always benefit the cultural level of the population. People broke away from their roots, forgot the traditions of their people - and at the same time remained "strangers" for others. national controversy as post-Soviet space, and around the world have become one of the main problems of the new millennium.

2.4 Collectivism

communist ideology put the interests of the collective ahead of the interests of the individual. The status of a Soviet citizen throughout his life largely depended on his belonging to certain groups, social formations- either obligatory (October, Pioneers), or desirable (Komsomol, party, trade unions).

Soviet schoolchildren - Octobrists, pioneers, Komsomol members - were inspired that relations within the team should be placed above family and friendly ones, that a comrade can be disliked because of some personal qualities, but one cannot refuse to help him. With the same attitude, a person went into adulthood. Here one can notice the legacy of the communal order traditional for Russia, echoes of the Christian mentality (“love thy neighbor”), though devoid of a religious component.

Despite the fact that the collective really strengthened the feeling of comradely responsibility, it also deprived the individual of the opportunity to develop within the individual framework. Membership in the Communist Party, public work in the Komsomol, trade union organization, service in the armed forces were encouraged both morally and materially, increased social status Soviet citizen. If a person isolated himself from the group or denied its interests, he inevitably became an outcast. Individualism, striving for personal improvement, refusal to follow generally accepted patterns, escapism¸ egocentrism were condemned by society. The team did not accept those who were noticeably different from the majority - in terms of their way of thinking, in terms of intellectual level, range of interests and communication. Bright individualities sometimes could not be fully realized, revealed in the depths of one or another cell of society.

When, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the usual social patterns began to break down, people sometimes lacked the strength and experience to adapt to new conditions. The development of the Russian market, and with it market system values, contradicted the beliefs fixed in the minds of several generations, which led to a crisis of values ​​in modern Russia.

2.5 Anti-intellectualism

Contempt for intelligence has always played an important role in the Soviet mentality. The word "intellectual" was offensive throughout Stalin's reign. The Soviet leaders considered themselves entitled to impose their opinions on scientists, artists, and writers under pain of reprisals. During the years of Soviet power, many representatives of the intellectual stratum had to emigrate; many of those who remained in the USSR became victims of the totalitarian regime or "internal emigrants". Until now, key positions in Russian science and art are occupied by those who made their careers through political means.

Anti-intellectualism was the result of the imprint of the official ideology in the mentality of people. In the view of the Soviet layman, an intellectually developed person was "ideologically unreliable." The Soviet “intellectual” gravitated toward values ​​alien to society that contradicted generally accepted ideas, was critical of the phenomena that took place in the country and the world, did not bow to the authorities, was interested in the culture of the capitalist West, and, therefore, could be dangerous.

Lack of complete freedom of speech in the country, censorship of media mass media led to the fact that the legacy of pre-revolutionary Russian culture, the culture of the Silver Age and the first years of Soviet power, the work of the victims of Stalinism, as well as a huge layer Western art, philosophy (even of a Marxist persuasion) turned out to be unknown to the Soviet reader, listener, viewer. Many phenomena were talked about during the years of perestroika, but a significant part went unnoticed national culture.

The glorification of criminality, immorality, the reckoning of drunkenness, hooliganism, mindlessly applied physical force to a person’s personal achievements, although not officially declared, has become a hallmark of the Soviet mentality. Even for the artistic intelligentsia, it became common to mock both their own value priorities and “philistine” stereotypes, and often this went beyond the limits of a harmless joke. To be smarter, more educated than his surroundings became ashamed. The attraction to "thieves" romance, "everyday" alcoholism, disrespect for both morality and the rule of law has become a habit of the whole society, regardless of cultural and educational level. The decline in the cultural level of the Soviet people, hushed up for decades, made itself felt at the turn of the 80s and 90s, when everyone started talking about everything openly.

2.6 The desire to shift responsibility for one's destiny to the authorities

The totalitarian regime that had developed in the Soviet Union reached its peak in the 1930s and 1950s, later taking on authoritarian features. The political struggle within the one-party system was weakened, and the citizens were given the illusion of "stability", the unshakable power.

The low level of political culture, unfamiliarity with the mechanism of democratic elections led to the fact that an individual, an individual, could rarely make informed political decisions. As during the autocracy, the people had hope for a “good tsar,” so in Soviet times, people relied, first of all, on the authorities, and not on themselves. The main difference was that in pre-revolutionary Russia there was a tradition of tsarist, then imperial power; the Soviet regime did not develop such a tradition.

The Soviet mentality did not contain the desire to argue with the authorities, to rebel. In the 80s, this led to the fact that all reforms, as in XIX-XX centuries, occurred "from above". The country turned out to be unprepared neither for the mechanism of free democratic elections, nor for market changes in the economy. populace were easily led to the slogans of populist politicians who promised to solve all their problems and fulfill all their aspirations. When promises were not kept in practice, new demagogues came with new programs, most often incompatible with the real situation in the country.

Here is a short list of features of the mentality that developed during the Soviet period and became an obstacle on the inconsistent path from socialism to capitalism, from dictatorship to democracy. The confusion of the 90s led to apparent stability at the beginning of the new century. The authority of a “solid” state power, a well-defined ideology was again designated, a new turn towards authoritarianism, and, possibly, a new totalitarian regime, was outlined. In order to avoid this, it is important to understand which features of the modern Russian mentality can help and which can hinder this process.

Chapter 3. Features of Russian and Russian mentality in overcoming Soviet stereotypes

3.1 At the turn of the century: from the Soviet mentality to the Russian

The main mistake perestroika was an attempt to mechanically instill elements of Western culture on Russian soil. The older generation of Soviet citizens lost confidence (even if often illusory) in the future, which was offered by the system of “developed socialism”, the younger generation sometimes thoughtlessly adopted new values, paying, first of all, attention to their external, image aspects, rather than internal content. . Nevertheless, at the end of the last century, there was a transition from the Soviet mentality to the modern Russian one.

The life of the people of post-communist Russia is individualized and less regulated "from above" than before (before perestroika and market reforms). Freedom of choice is assumed, and, consequently, both risk and responsibility. The right of every person to build his life independently is not only a right, but in many respects an obligation. Without a conscious choice of the present, subsequent success becomes impossible (which is fundamentally the opposite of the Soviet illusion of "belief in a brighter future").

From such an attitude it follows that modern Russians have a different attitude to money and wealth than the Soviet one. It became not shameful to work and earn money, but, on the contrary, it was prestigious. Material values ​​began to be perceived as a sign of strength (both physical and intellectual), success, luck. At the same time, the discussion of income and salaries is increasingly becoming a bad form - as in America and Europe.

Here the influence of the Western, rationalistic mentality is great, but in the pre-revolutionary culture of Russia one can find the forerunner of this phenomenon. Both the Russian peasant and the Russian merchant were, first of all, owners, for whom material wealth meant glory, power and confidence (remember how painfully, at the cost of huge human sacrifices, collectivization and “dispossession” took place in the Stalin years).

It would be erroneous to say unequivocally that the only sign of a change in the post-Soviet mentality is a rethinking of the attitude to the material side of life to the detriment of the spiritual. As the attitude towards income changes, so does the attitude towards education. Without special knowledge and skills, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve financial well-being, And Russian citizens of all ages and social strata are increasingly drawn to new knowledge. Graduates of higher and secondary specialized educational institutions of the Soviet era are re-educated both in Russia and abroad, mastering professions that are in demand in a market economy.

The opinion that exists in the minds of many citizens of our country about the “lack of spirituality” of young people is by no means always justified. The stereotypes imposed by the media only partially reflect the processes taking place in real life. There are many more young Russians thinking people than is commonly believed. For people born in the 70s-80s and even the early 90s, it is characteristic that no ideology has become mandatory for them. Thousands of young Russians in our time are in a political, religious, ethical and aesthetic search. And the preferences of peers, representatives of the same generation and even the same social stratum often differ to the extreme. Some, in search of a moral guide, turn to the Soviet past, feeling unrooted in modern society, others - to the origins of Russian pre-revolutionary culture, to Orthodoxy, some - to Russian nationalism and monarchism, still others - to the values ​​of the West, fourth - to the religion and philosophy of the East. Freedom of choice is the freedom of religion, political preferences, and everyday values ​​of a person and society.

Another important change in the mentality of Russians, which affected primarily young people (to a lesser extent, older generations) - in relation to the intimate sphere, to nudity, to the discussion of details related to sexuality. This corresponds to the modern Western European standard of propriety.

On the one hand, in the minds of Russians, sexual relations have acquired the right to exist outside of family and, in general, outside of any spiritual sensations. On the other hand, among the educated part of the population, the attitude towards this sphere of life has become more rational.

E. Bashkirova in the article "Transformation of values democratic state” tries to reveal the structure and dynamics of value preferences in Russian society, based on empirical research data (data from two sociological surveys - 1995 and 1999 are presented). An analysis of the answers of Russians to questions about traditional, "universal" values ​​allows us to identify the following hierarchy of priorities (as their importance decreases):

family - 97% and 95% of all respondents in 1995 and 1999, respectively;

work - 84% (1995) and 83% (1999);

friends, acquaintances - 79% (1995) and 81% (1999);

free time- 71% (1995) and 68% (1999);

religion - 41% (1995) and 43% (1999);

politics - 28% (1995) and 38% (1999).

Immediately striking is the commitment of the population to traditional values ​​for any society (family, communication), the attitude towards which changes very little over the years. The priority of work as a source of income in an unstable market economy prone to frequent crises is also easily explained. At the same time, work is often also a way to realize the intellectual and creative potential of a person.

Somewhat unexpectedly, religion and politics are placed in the hierarchy of values: after all, in the course of Soviet history, atheism and "political literacy" were actively cultivated in the country. Constitution Russian Federation guaranteed every citizen the freedom to profess any creed independently or in community with others. The liberalization of legislation in this area led to the fact that in the late 80s and early 90s the number of religious associations in the country increased markedly. The separation of church and state was also legally fixed, and, therefore, the right to be outside of religion.

Since for many centuries the fate of the Russian people was closely connected with Orthodoxy, other religions (even other models of Christianity) do not easily take root in society. There are quite a few people who consider the Orthodox Church the only guardian of national spiritual treasures. According to the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center, 45 percent of Russians are Orthodox believers.

ROC plays essential role in the life of the country (suffice it to recall the widely discussed project with attempts to introduce lessons of Orthodox culture in schools), which sometimes negatively affects the relationship between representatives of different faiths. The current state of the church is reminiscent of the situation at the beginning of the 20th century: on the one hand, social self-isolation, on the other hand, close contact with the state apparatus.

To a large extent, the process of religious identification and religious enlightenment of ordinary Russians is complicated by the ubiquitous spread of pseudo-mystical religions and cults. New, sometimes frankly totalitarian doctrines in their meaning and direction, nevertheless, receive their social order.

The Orthodox clergy usually incite parishioners against various kinds of "heretic sectarians" and almost traitors to Russian traditions, among which Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and even Christians of other branches are completely unfairly included.

On the other hand, religious minorities are also trying to keep their faith. The 1990s was a time of restoration not only of Orthodox churches that were closed and destroyed during the Stalin years, but also of churches, mosques, and synagogues. Religious communities are being created, religious schools and higher educational institutions are being opened.

Another phenomenon that began back in the 70s and 80s and continues to this day is the growing interest in the religion and philosophy of the East. This interest does not always take the form of a cheap hobby for mysticism. There are those who, having been brought up from childhood in the Christian tradition or in the spirit of Soviet-style atheism, consciously accept Buddhism or Hinduism, Judaism or Islam. This phenomenon did not become widespread; it is mostly common among young intellectuals. Nevertheless, the increase in the level of tolerance towards adherents of non-dominant confessions, the tendency to independently choose their religious affiliation is undoubtedly a progressive shift in the development of mentality.

The danger of increased attention to religion in general lies in the fact that certain political forces can play on this (there are enough examples: the so-called "Islamic extremism"; "Orthodox nationalism"; neo-paganism and occultism as a means of propagating right-wing ideas). Religious associations should not in words but in deeds be equal before the law and be minimally involved in the struggle of parties and movements.

The role of politics in the lives of citizens of our country is steadily increasing. With the collapse of the USSR, countless parties and movements entered the political arena, only a small part of which had a built-in program of action and enlisted sufficient support in society. Over the years, their number began to decline; more powerful forces formed the system of state power, smaller parties and movements either united or remained on the periphery of the political struggle.

Let politic system in Russia has so far become only a semblance of democratic models, the level of political consciousness of citizens has nevertheless increased somewhat due to the right to elect and be elected. In the past few years, there has even been a certain “fashion” for politics, especially for youth (the influence of the “orange” revolutions in the union republics, dissatisfaction with the political course of representatives of different, sometimes opposing, beliefs). In the media, ratings of young politicians are increasingly common - from 18 to 30 years old. Perhaps it is these forces that will influence the political development of Russia in the 21st century.

However, as follows from the results of the survey, personal interests still prevail over public ones. There are obvious consequences of the synthesis of the Western, native Russian and Soviet value systems, which nevertheless led to some democratization of the Russian mentality. Unfortunately, this does not happen everywhere. In the next section, I want to talk about the remnants of the Soviet mentality in the self-consciousness of the citizens of our country.

3.2 Remnants of the Soviet mentality in post-communist Russia

In the twentieth century, the Western world has gone far ahead in its development. Modern Russia has to assimilate a foreign culture, foreign values, sometimes ignoring centuries-old traditions. The weakness of Russian liberalism is the belief in the universality, absoluteness, and objectivity of the laws of the development of society. In fact, this attitude is a Marxist position. Social laws are not absolute, but dependent on people, their national character, traditions, and culture.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of citizens changed behavioral attitudes rather quickly, the same thing could not happen so easily with values. Values ​​in Russia often contradict each other. In this regard, modern literature often talks about their crisis in Russian society. The wave of the pre-revolutionary Russian intelligentsia, which became decisive in the formation of the mentality of the Russian people turn XIX-XX centuries, either emigrated to the West or was destroyed by the Stalinist system. Freedom of creative realization 50 years later faced with the value disorientation of society. The ideals propagated were often either not credible or seemed unattainable.

Over the past 20 years, the Russians have opened up a much greater freedom of choice than in the seven decades of socialism. Unfortunately, the recognition of this fact often leads to the denial of the entire experience of the previous generation. The image of the “ordinary Soviet citizen” during the years of perestroika turned into one of the variants of the image of the enemy. This was especially pronounced in the second half of the 1980s. On the one hand, it was during this period that the rich heritage of the country, the history and fate of which was hushed up for half a century, was widely spoken about. On the other hand, the phenomena of Soviet culture often began to be thoughtlessly "thrown off the ship of history", instead of being subjected to rethinking and constructive criticism. This led to a gap between generations. Young people in the Soviet and post-Soviet space were not instilled from birth with respect for the family, for the elders. With the change in the values ​​of society, the older generation in the eyes of young people began to be perceived as the bearer of old, "Soviet", outdated views.

The self-critical, sometimes on the verge of self-abasement tone in which they spoke about the Soviet and Russian mentality persisted in Yeltsin's Russia. The first Chechen campaign caused a wave of anti-patriotism and defeatism.

Changes at the turn of the 80s-90s did not entail revolutionary changes in the mentality of the majority of Russians. The very imprint of the Soviet mentality in the mind of a Russian person turned out to be one of the deepest after the adoption of Christianity in Rus'. The years of perestroika can rather be perceived as another period of "thaw" in the minds of the people. The desire to defend the newly acquired freedom of private life from uninvited intrusions, including those of the state, continues to be combined with a craving for authoritarianism, which is characteristic of the Russian mentality.

Mosaic representations, their fragmentation is clearly manifested in the political sphere. The general trend for all CIS countries - strengthening the influence of the executive branch. Here, such a feature of the Soviet mentality as the desire to shift responsibility for one's own destiny to the authorities was manifested. The citizens of Russia at the referendum in the spring of 1993, having failed to make a choice between a strong presidential and legislative power, on the one hand, sanctioned the coexistence of the leader and an independent parliament as elements of different cultures, on the other hand, they showed the inability to choose, characteristic of a Soviet person. There is a synthesis of Western and Soviet cultures. Another illustrative example is the results of a sociological survey conducted in Crimea. It turned out that various groups of the population, supporting democratic values ​​(freedom of speech, press, equality of forms of ownership), at the same time they believe that in order to get the country out of the crisis, a leader like Lenin, Stalin, Andropov is needed, that is, they combine political ideals characteristic of the West with ideas about a "strong hand". The current cultural situation is made up of disparate elements: Soviet culture as a system of ideas has disintegrated, but continues to exist in the form of separate fragments; representations characteristic of modern Western culture are actively spreading; the influence of the Russian-Orthodox or other national-religious mentality is increasing.

Since the mid 90s. the terms “Soviet mentality” and “Russian mentality” have become less and less synonymous. Although they still had some negative connotation, nevertheless, in the contexts in which they were used, there was a desire, on the one hand, to build bridges between Russia before 1917 and Russia after 1993, on the other hand, to rehabilitate the “simple Soviet person”. The search for cultural identity, which took place in this vein, led to a more balanced assessment of the Soviet period. national history. Increasingly, voices began to be heard asserting that “not everything was bad” with us. This, of course, has its own very sober grain. However, faith in authority (which lost its original, religious content in Soviet times) is still combined with distrust of liberal values ​​allegedly introduced from outside, to democratic institutions.

In the minds of many, nostalgia for the “superpower” coexists with the “image of the enemy” left over from Soviet times. The collapse of the Soviet empire, along with the aggravation of interethnic conflicts, led to the growth of nationalist sentiments in society - from moderate to openly fascist. Unfortunately, in recent years this has been happening rapidly and is felt especially sharply - only the objects of hatred are changing. The anti-Semitism of the era of stagnation was replaced by the anti-Islamic sentiments of the times of "wild capitalism". A huge percentage of people still have a negative attitude towards the United States and Americans, which was established during the years of the Cold War. The image of the enemy, supported by Soviet propaganda, only became more colorful in the 90s: these are representatives of other nationalities (Azerbaijanis, Chechens, Jews), and homosexuals, and the authorities, and the church. The series can be continued indefinitely.

With the appearance of ideological pluralism for 20 years, the state has not developed a political scale. The level of political and legal culture, which has remained low since Soviet times, is compensated by trust in power based on force. There has not yet been a force ready to resist extremism, especially right-wing extremism. Xenophobia, homophobia, religious fanaticism under the guise of "spiritual revival" resonate in the post-Soviet consciousness. "Antifascist", human rights movements are too heterogeneous in their social, ideological component; their slogans are often declarative (a relic of the Soviet mentality), and, unfortunately, their methods of struggle often differ little from those of their opponents.

A negative consequence of Gorbachev's reforms, when everything that was economically efficient was considered moral, was the criminalization of society and the state. Getting used to freedom and private initiative is accompanied by a reluctance to take responsibility for the consequences of one's own decisions.

A. Ovsyannikov in the article “The Sociology of the Catastrophe: What kind of Russia we carry in ourselves” cites data that speaks of the criminalization of the consciousness and behavior of people (in % of the respondents).

Now, at the beginning of the new millennium, the disrespect for the law left over from Soviet times leads to a high level of crime and the inability of citizens to defend their rights. It comes from ignorance of official legislation, legal framework, and from the instability of moral norms in the mentality of Russians.

Perestroika and the years of “wild” capitalism that followed it exposed all the problems that existed in the Soviet period and about which it was customary to remain silent. The mental, value gap between different formations, between different social strata led to a cultural crisis in the country. The intelligentsia rediscovered the pre-revolutionary and early Soviet, pre-Stalin cultural heritage of Russia, the culture of the Russian diaspora; the mass media started talking about the unofficial culture of the USSR, about the Soviet "underground". The works of the classics were published with might and main Western literature both past centuries and the twentieth century. At the same time, that part of world literature that was covered in books and periodicals in the USSR (literature of the socialist countries, countries of the “third world”, former Soviet republics) often ceased to be republished and remained forgotten.

The abolition of censorship led to the fact that it became possible to cover almost everything in the media, and far from always this “everything” turned out to be High Quality. The fall in the level of literacy of journalists, observers, publishers, the blind copying by Soviet mass culture (already often quite miserable) of American models (we are not talking about American pop culture as a whole, which is a heterogeneous, synthetic and, of course, an interesting phenomenon, but about its most “commercial” and meaningless aspects), the growing popularity of “tabloid” reporting – all this has been revealed to Russians in recent decades.

This is only a cursory list of those real contradictions that do not allow us to unambiguously assess Russia's place in the modern world. It will take a lot of time and effort to overcome the entire set of problems associated with culture and mentality. However, modern Russian culture has not lost all the strength that will help the formation of a new mentality that does not contradict either the original Russian or Soviet, but still differs from them.

3.3 Overcoming the Soviet mentality as an individual and social task

For the formation of qualitatively new values, it is necessary to rethink the centuries-old cultural experience of Russia. Understanding the values ​​of your country is an understanding not only of its present, but also of its past. To raise the cultural level of Russians, an interest in the history of their country and their people is important.

The study of history should be as free as possible from any ideology. Not a single historical event, not a single era should be evaluated unambiguously; everywhere you need to look for both positive and negative sides. Any point of view must be supported by historical facts, expert opinions. Impossible without it Objective assessment historical events.

An important, key period in the history of the country was the period between two revolutions (1905-1917). With the restriction and the subsequent fall of the absolute monarchy, a semblance of political pluralism was formed in the country. The parties of the Social Revolutionaries, Cadets, Octobrists, the Menshevik faction for some time represented real political forces capable of resisting both the ruling, Black Hundred circles, and the Bolsheviks. The beginning of the twentieth century was not only the flourishing of social thought and artistic culture, but also the rise of legal culture, the development of jurisprudence, which is lacking in modern Russian society.

For the rehabilitation of this heritage in the culture and mentality of Russians, it is important to renew interest in the culture of the Russian diaspora. Despite the fact that a significant part of non-Bolshevik public figures emigrated, not wanting to cooperate with the new regime, the majority supported the Soviet Union and the anti-Hitler coalition during the Second World War. The rehabilitation of pre-revolutionary values, which began during the years of perestroika, should not be interrupted, but it should not be unambiguously anti-Soviet either. Frankly criminal acts must be condemned, regardless of the religious or ideological banner under which they were committed. The condemnation of the system as a whole (and, even more so, the “fight” against it) is not only biased, but also meaningless.

The borderline geopolitical position forces Russia to reckon with the values ​​of both the West and the East. It is necessary both to establish diplomatic relations with the closest neighbors and to develop the culture of small peoples within the country. A Russian should not be ashamed of his nationality or religion. The predominance of adherents of a certain religion (Orthodoxy) among believers, the centuries-old priority of Christian values ​​in the Russian mentality should not turn this religion into an official, state religion. Secondary and higher education, legislation, and business should be based on universal human values ​​and not unequivocally identified with any religion. Religious extremism is also unacceptable, regardless of what denomination it identifies with.

One cannot but reckon with Western values, whose influence on the Russian mentality has become noticeably more tangible over the past 20 years. It is also necessary to talk about Western culture, and contradictory phenomena must be studied objectively. An individual should be judged as a representative of his time and his culture; unequivocal rejection of, say, the American, Jewish or Islamic value system is criminal. Mass media have provided the opportunity for dialogue with the inhabitants of different parts of the world, and if possible, this dialogue should be conducted peacefully, whether it be personal correspondence, business cooperation or diplomatic negotiations.

Just as the rise of the Russian national idea above all others is unacceptable, it is also worth avoiding frankly Russophobic sentiments. It is important to cultivate, if not love, then at least respect for certain representatives of your country, your culture - contemporaries or prominent personalities from the past.

Unfortunately, in recent years there has again been a trend towards the suppression of ideological pluralism. The modern regime in Russia, proclaimed democratic according to the Constitution, is actually authoritarian. There are fewer and fewer real political forces ready to participate in the struggle for power. Under the guise of fighting extremism, political opposition is increasingly suppressed, while the criminal acts of extremists remain unpunished. This is fraught with either the establishment of a new dictatorship or another sharp change in political course. This should be remembered by everyone who is somehow connected with politics. It remains to be hoped that the current representatives of power, politicians of the "Soviet" hardening will be replaced by those for whom this will not be the fulfillment of some false obligations, but a full-fledged profession.

However, the spiritual factors underlying the synthetic Russian mentality should be placed higher than political and economic ones. The introduction of elements of the Western worldview, which turned out to be more viable in a democracy and a market economy, is inevitable. Russia is connected with the West through a system of Christian values. The roots of the Russian mentality are in Byzantine Orthodoxy, while the Western one is in Protestant ethics. The formation of two value systems took place in parallel; the Soviet period suspended this process. Now that the Iron Curtain has collapsed, Russia needs a harmonious interaction between the primordial foundations of its own culture and the best practices of other countries.

Conclusion

At the turn of the century, Russia is again at a crossroads, trying to disengage from the countries of Europe and the United States, whose experience had to be adopted starting from the mid-80s. Despite the contradictory consequences of such borrowing, this experience should not be unambiguously denied; rather, it is useful to rethink all gains and losses.

In the Marxist system of values, culture was only a superstructure; the basis of any socio-economic formation was considered the type of management. Tragic events throughout the twentieth century - wars, revolutions, the death of a huge number of people - proved that it was cultural characteristics the activities of the country, the people are determined.

The study of cultures, the synthesis of cultures, attempts to understand someone else's value system - these are the steps towards a multipolar world in which Russia can and must take its place. Raising the cultural level of society is unthinkable without raising the cultural level of individual individuals. Values ​​focused on the development of the individual should become dominant in society. No idea should cost more than a human life; this is the overcoming of one of the negative, most destructive aspects of the Soviet mentality.

I would like to hope that the development of Russia in the new century will still follow the path of democracy. The "firm hand" of state power will undoubtedly play its role. It is important that a competent politician is at the head of the state, and that there are those around him who could challenge his point of view, offer their own alternatives to the political, economic, cultural development countries. It is important that the representatives of the authorities could be supported by the population through the mechanism of free elections. But the establishment of a new order will still require a considerable period of time, during which Russia must try to realize its place in the past, present and near future.

Bibliography

1. Bashkirova E. Transformation of the values ​​of a democratic state / E. Bashkirova // World of Russia. - 1999. - No. 4

2. Berdyaev N.A. Russian idea / N. Berdyaev. – M.: Midgard, 2005. – 834 p.

3. Boronoev A.O. Russia and the Russians. The nature of the people and the fate of the country / A. O. Boronoev, P.I. Smirnov. - St. Petersburg, 2001. - 252 p.

4. Dyakonov B.P. How common sense fights in the Soviet mentality / B.P. Dyakonov // Business quarter. - 2003 - No. 35

5. Zenkovsky V.V. Russian thinkers and Europe // In search of their own way: Russia between Europe and Asia. - M., 1997

6. Ilyin I. A. About Russian nationalism / I. A. Ilyin. – M.: Russian fund culture, 2002. - 152 p.

7. Karsavin L.P. Fundamentals of medieval religiosity in the XII-XIII centuries. / L.P. Karsavin - St. Petersburg, 1997. – 341 p.

8. Ovsyannikov A.A. Sociology of catastrophe: what kind of Russia we carry in ourselves / A.A. Ovsyannikov // World of Russia. - 2000. - No. 1.

9. Philosophical principles of integral knowledge// Solovyov V . C. Op. in 2 vols. - T. 2, M., 1988

10. Fedotov G.P. The fate and sins of Russia. Selected articles on the philosophy of Russian history and culture. - In 2 vols. - St. Petersburg, 1991

11. Shchuchenko V.A. Spirituality of Russia: I.A. Ilyin in the context of modernity // Spirituality of Russia: traditions and current state

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.