Nation, ethnos, ethnic group. How is a nation different from an ethnic group?
Introduction
2. The concept of "ethnos" in foreign and domestic ethnopsychology
3. Problems of ethnic identity
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The relevance of the study is determined by two important aspects that are characteristic of modern social development.
First, it is the unprecedented role played by the concepts of ethnicity and nation in modern society.
These two concepts are increasingly becoming a system-forming factor of society on a regional, national and global scale.
They are a determining condition for the realization of the creative potential of the individual and society, a form of asserting the identity of the people and the basis of the spiritual health of the nation, a humanistic guideline and criterion for the development of society and the individual.
Secondly, it is the ever-increasing interest in the concepts of nation and ethnos, in their existence and interaction.
All this poses difficult tasks of understanding what is happening, the formation of a conceptual apparatus. It is necessary to substantiate the main priorities that are most important in our study, one of the conditions of which is the relationship between the concepts of "nation" and "ethnos" in the typology of ethnopsychology.
The need to study this complex of issues is also dictated by modern practical problems of coexistence and mutual determination of different types of concepts. Any nation and ethnos appear as a set of special ways and forms of human activity.
The nation is a complex phenomenon. It contains various elements connected by the seal of national identity. It was formed in the course of a long cultural development of the people, as a result of the creation of cultural values, as a result of the aesthetic development of reality by them. The unity and multitude of cultures of the peoples of the world - such is the objective dialectic of the cultural progress of mankind.
The relevance of the research topic also lies in the fact that the analysis of the typology of concepts implies an appeal to those universal determinants of development that are always assumed in its basis, reflection on which makes it possible to understand it. The concept of "ethnos" is much deeper than "nation" and carries a worldview content. “An ethnos is a social community that has specific cultural models that determine the nature of human activity in the world, and that functions in accordance with special patterns aimed at maintaining a unique for each society correlation of cultural models within society for a long time, including periods of major socio-cultural changes." In this sense, ST. Lurie considers ethnological culture as a structure that holds a given society together and protects it from disintegration. An ethnos has three levels of organization - family, groups, and sub-ethnoi. On the basis of ethnic groups, the phenomenon of national culture is formed, which is preserved even when an ethnic group dies or dissolves among other ethnic groups. The object of the study is the concepts of "nation" and "ethnos" in the context of historical typology.
The subject of the study is the relationship between the concepts of "national" and "ethnic" as a construct of a model for building a typology.
The purpose of the study is to identify the features and state at the present stage of the study of the concepts of "nation" and "ethnos".
The set goal dictates the need to solve the following tasks:
1) define the concept of "nation";
2) define the concept of "ethnos";
3) consider national exclusivity and ethnic roots;
4) reveal the ratio of "national" and "ethnic" in a single type of culture
1. The concept of "nation" in foreign and domestic ethnopsychology
Often between the concept of "nation" and the concepts of "people", "ethnos" put an equal sign. Indeed, the French are a people, an ethnos, and they are also a nation. From this the conclusion naturally arises: the ethnic community (the people) and the nation are one and the same. In our literature, it was usually added that a nation is not just an ethnos, but its highest form, which replaced the nationality.
In reality, ethnos and nation are phenomena belonging to different social spheres. The essence of the ethnic community is most clearly manifested in ethnic processes: ethnic assimilation, ethnic fusion, ethnic inclusion and ethnic splitting. They occur spontaneously and largely independently of the consciousness and will of people.
The essence of the nation is most clearly expressed in national movements, which are the activities of the masses of people aimed at achieving certain goals, most often political ones. Each such movement has a specific program. National movements, unlike ethnic processes, belong to the sphere of politics. They are one of the types of political movements. The nation in these movements acts as a certain social, primarily political, force that must be reckoned with.
Ethnic communities as more or less independent formations began to emerge with the transition from primitive to class society. The formation of nations is associated with the emergence first of the prerequisites of capitalism, and then of capitalism itself. Capitalism spontaneously originated in only one area of the globe - in Western Europe. It is she who gives us classic examples of the birth and development of nations.
In the era preceding those shifts that led to capitalism, in each of the territories on which capitalist geosocial organisms later developed, the bulk of the population belonged to one ethnic community or several related ethnic communities, which in our historical and ethnological literature are most often referred to as nationalities. In turn, these ethnic groups were divided into subethnoi, and the latter were often divided into subsubethnoi or ethnographic groups. This kind of ethnic picture had its roots in the structure of society, which was characterized by economic and political fragmentation, usually referred to as feudal.
A turning point in the development of feudal society occurred with the emergence of cities as centers of industry and trade. The development of commodity-money relations gradually led to the consolidation of previously isolated areas into a single economic entity, which necessarily implied political centralization. An economically unified sociohistorical organism was formed at the same time as a single centralized state.
The emergence of capitalist ties, the transformation of a country-wide market into a capitalist one, led to the further growth of the economic and political unity of the sociohistorical organism. Along with the emergence of such an economically unified socio-historical organism, its objective interests arose, which could not but be the interests of the bulk of the people who were part of it.
As a result of this, a single sociohistorical organism, which was at the same time a centralized state, appeared in the eyes of its members as their common fatherland, and they, taken together, became a social force that defended the interests of this fatherland, i.e. nation. A nation is a collection of people who have one common fatherland.
Fatherland, in the sense that this word acquired with the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern times, is (of course, we are talking about the ideal case, the norm, and not always possible and even inevitable deviations from it) a more or less large sociohistorical organism that has its foundation was initially simply market, and then market-capitalist ties. Ideally, belonging to a nation coincides with belonging to such a sociohistorical organism. This is what gave grounds to identify the nation with a socio-historical organism. As a result, the nation began to be ascribed such attributes ("community of territory", "community of economic life"), which actually characterize the capitalist geosocial organism.
The identification of the nation and the geosocial organism was facilitated by the fact that when the capitalist geosocial arose, there was a need to designate its objective interests. The easiest way, of course, would be to call them state, but this was prevented by the ambiguity of the term "state". The interests of the state could be understood not only as the interests of the sociohistorical organism, but also the interests of the state apparatus, primarily the ruling elite, which might not coincide with the sociological ones. In this regard, the term "national interest" was more preferable. The interests of the nation completely coincided with the interests of the sociohistorical organism.
This is the reason for the widespread use in the literature of the word "nation" to designate a sociohistorical organism. This has been observed since the 18th century. The title of the main work of the great economist A. Smith (1723-1790), published in 1776, is usually translated into Russian as “A Study on the Causes and Nature of the Wealth of Nations”, which is incorrect, because the original word is not “peoples” (peoples), and "nations" (nations). And by nations A. Smith understood not nations at all, but sociohistorical organisms based on market relations.
But even before A. Smith, the word "nation" was used to refer to socio-historical organisms, and of any type, by such prominent thinkers as J. Vico (1668-1744) in his work "The Foundations of a New Science of the General Nature of Nations" (1725) and A. Ferguson (1723-1816) in The Experience of the History of Civil Society (1767). This tradition has survived to this day. Suffice it to recall such names as "League of Nations" and "United Nations".
Thus, the word "nation" is also ambiguous. A nation is called not only a nation itself, but a sociohistorical organism. In addition, this word in English literature is often used in the same sense as the word "people", with the exception of only one of its meanings: it is never used to denote the social lower classes.
In the biological sciences, race refers to the commonality populations. A population is a group of individuals characterized by a certain stable set of features; its individuals interbreed, give productive offspring and live in a common area.
In relation to a person, there are several definitions of race and population, although their meaning is very close. The most common in domestic science is the following: race- this is a set of people who have a common physical type, the origin of which is associated with a certain territory. Under population is understood as a set of individuals belonging to the same species, able to mix indefinitely with each other and having one territory. The difference between race and population, which are, in fact, very close definitions, is that the size of the population is much smaller, it occupies less space; a race, on the other hand, consists of many populations that have the possibility of intermingling without limit. The limitation of mixing is associated only with the presence of insulating barriers (including those with large distances). Ethnos(people, nationality) refers to social departments of humanity. An ethnos is a stable set of people historically formed in a certain territory, characterized by a common culture, language, psyche and self-consciousness, reflected in the self-name (ethnonym). All three phenomena - population, race and ethnos - have a very important common feature: each of them has a specific habitat. This commonality contributes to the unity of the gene pool1, culture and language. Therefore, coincidences of the physical type with certain characteristics of the ethnos are sometimes possible. There is a certain correspondence between the great races and
large linguistic divisions. For example, most representatives caucasian race speaks in tongues Indo-European And Semitic-Hamitic families, and most Mongoloids- in languages Sino-Tibetan family. However, there is no causal, regular connection between the physical features of the population, on the one hand, and language and culture, on the other. Most ethnic groups have a complex anthropological (racial) composition, many ethnic groups are anthropologically polymorphic, and along with this, different peoples can belong to the same anthropological type. As the interdisciplinary study of many peoples of the world shows, the coincidence of cultural, linguistic and physical traits is a very rare phenomenon. It may arise as a result of some historical or natural causes, primarily social or geographical isolation. The formation, development and functioning of races and ethnic groups are subject to different laws: races - natural (biological), and ethnic groups - social (historical, etc.).
There are two main approaches to understanding the nation. In the first case, it is a political community of citizens of a state, in the second, an ethnic community with a single identity and language. An ethnos is a group of people with common characteristics, which include origin, culture, language, self-consciousness, territory of residence, etc.
Nation, unlike ethnos, it has a broader concept, and is also considered a more complex and late formation. This is the highest form of ethnos, which replaced the nationality. If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced in the course of the entire world history, then the period of the formation of nations was the New and even the Newest Time. A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups at once, brought together by historical fate. For example, the Russian, French, Swiss nations are multi-ethnic, while the Americans do not have a pronounced ethnicity at all.
According to numerous researchers, the origin of the concepts of "nation" and "ethnos" has a different nature. If the ethnos is characterized by the stability and repetition of cultural patterns, then the process of self-awareness through the combination of new and traditional elements is important for the nation. Thus, the main value of an ethnos is belonging to a stable group, while the nation strives to reach a new level of development.
The difference between a nation and an ethnic group
The nation is the highest form of an ethnos that has come to replace the nationality.
If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced in the course of the entire world history, then the period of the formation of nations was the New and even the Newest time.
A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups at once, brought together by historical fate.
The main value of an ethnic group is belonging to a stable group, while the nation strives to reach a new level of development.
Nation - type of ethnic group; a historically emerging socio-economic and spiritual community of people with a certain psychology and self-consciousness.
There is no single approach to the definition of this extremely complex phenomenon. Representatives psychological theory see in the nation a cultural and psychological community of people united by a common destiny.
The largest supporters of the materialistic concept focused on the commonality of economic ties as the basis of the national community.
One of the classics of modern sociology, P. Sorokin, considers the nation a complex and heterogeneous social body, an artificial structure without its own substance. Some researchers list common territory, economic ties, language, psychological make-up, history, culture and self-consciousness among the essential features of a nation.
The processes of nation formation are objectively connected with the formation of states. Therefore, K. Kautsky considered the national state to be the classical form of the state. However, the fate of far from every nation is connected with statehood; rather, this is an ideal coincidence. According to the concept of K. Kautsky, the most important factors in the consolidation of people into a nation were commodity production and trade. Most modern nations were born in the process of developing bourgeois relations (since the 9th-15th centuries), but they were also formed and developed before capitalism.
In countries where development was hindered for centuries by colonialism, this process continues to the present.
Last third of the 20th century marked by the emergence of national statehood on the ruins of pseudo-federal and allied states.
Ethnos (from Greek - "society", "group", "tribe", "people") - a stable community of people, a cultural and historical group, whose members were originally united by a common origin, language, territory, economic, life, and over time and spiritually on the basis of a common culture, historical traditions, socio-political ideals.
Types of ethnos - nations, nationalities, ethnic and ethnographic groups. Their representatives can live compactly with or without their own national statehood, or they can be distributed among other peoples.
Unlike a nation, a nationality is a socio-ethnic community with a relatively identical ethnic composition, a common consciousness and psychology, and less developed, stable economic and cultural ties.
An ethnic group is a small community, the basis of which is the language, common origin, culture, way of life and traditions.
An ethnographic group is a community that speaks the same language with a particular nation, nationality, but also has specifics in everyday life, traditions, and customs.
-
Concepts nation And ethnos. Nation- type ethnos -
Concepts nation And ethnos. Nation- type ethnos; a historically emerging socio-economic and spiritual community of people with a certain psychology and self-consciousness. -
Concepts nation And ethnos. Nation- type ethnos concept -
Concepts nation And ethnos. Nation- type ethnos -
Concepts nation And ethnos. Nation- type ethnos; historically emerged socio-economic and spiritual community of people with. concept one-dimensional and multidimensional stratification. -
Concepts nation And ethnos. Nation- type ethnos; historically emerged socio-economic and spiritual community of people with. Loading. -
Concepts nation And ethnos. Nation- type ethnos; a historically emerging socio-economic and spiritual community of people with a specific ... more ». -
... having a common mentality, national identity and character, stable cultural features, as well as an awareness of their unity and difference from other similar entities ( concepts « ethnos" And " nation"are not identical... -
Psychology nation. Large social groups - communities of people, characterized by the presence of weak contacts between representatives. In world history, people were classified into races And ethnic groups. -
Consequently, the mentality is also manifested in the characteristic of the representatives of this ethnos ways to operate in the environment.
There are general ideas and concepts that carry answers to such questions: what are the nature and capabilities of a person, what is he, can ...
Found similar pages:10
A little
about nations, ethnic groups and scientific approaches.
About some concepts.
Ethnology from the Greek words - ethnos - people and logos - word, judgment - the science of the peoples of the world (ethnoses, more precisely,
distribution is due to the famous French physicist and thinker M. Ampère, who determined the place of ethnology in the system of the humanities along with history, archeology and other disciplines. At the same time, ethnology included, according to
Ampere's thoughts, as a subdiscipline of physical anthropology (the science of the physical properties of individual ethnic
groups: hair and eye color, skull and skeleton structure, blood, etc.). In the 19th century in Western European countries
ethnological studies were successfully developed. Along with the term "ethnology", another name for this science has become widespread - ethnography.
- from the Greek words - ethnos - people and grapho - I write, i.e. description of peoples, their history and cultural characteristics. However, during
second half of the 19th century the point of view prevailed, according to which ethnography was considered as
predominantly a descriptive science based on field materials, and ethnology as a theoretical discipline,
based on ethnographic data. Finally, the French ethnologist C. Levi-Strauss believed that ethnography, ethnology and anthropology are three successive stages in the development of the science of man: ethnography is a descriptive stage in the study of ethnic groups, field
research and classification; ethnology - the synthesis of this knowledge and their systematization; anthropology seeks to study
man in all his manifestations. As a result, at different times and in different countries preferred one of these terms, depending on
developed tradition. So, in France the term "ethnology" (l'ethnologie) still prevails, in England, along with it
the concept of "social anthropology" (ethnology, social anthropology) is widely used, in the USA the designation
of this science is “cultural anthropology” (cultural anthropology). In the Russian tradition
the terms "ethnology" and "ethnography" were originally treated as synonyms. However, since the late 1920s in the USSR, ethnology, along with sociology, began to be considered
"bourgeois" science. Therefore, in Soviet era the term "ethnology" was almost completely replaced by the term "ethnography". In recent years, however,
the trend has prevailed to call this science, following Western and American models - ethnology or sociocultural
anthropology.
What is an ethnos, or an ethnic group (more precisely, an ethnic community or an ethnic
group)? This understanding varies greatly in different disciplines - ethnology,
psychology, sociology and representatives of different scientific schools and directions. Here
briefly about some of them.
Thus, many Russian ethnologists continue to consider ethnicity as a real
the existing concept social group, formed during the historical
development of society (V. Pimenov). According to J. Bromley, ethnos is historically
a stable group of people that has developed in a certain territory, possessing
common relatively stable features of the language, culture and psyche, and
also awareness of its unity (self-consciousness), fixed in self-name.
The main thing here is self-awareness and a common self-name. L. Gumilyov understands ethnicity
primarily as a natural phenomenon; this or that group of people (dynamic
system) that opposes itself to other similar collectives (we do not
we), having its own special internal
structure and predetermined stereotype of behavior. Such an ethnic stereotype, according to
Gumilyov, is not inherited, but is acquired by the child in the process
cultural socialization and is quite strong and unchanged during
human life. S. Arutyunov and N. Cheboksarov considered ethnicity as a spatial
limited clusters of specific cultural information, and interethnic
contacts - as an exchange of such information. There is also a point of view
which an ethnos is, like a race, originally, an eternally existing community
people, and belonging to it determines their behavior and national character.
According to the extreme point of view, belonging to an ethnic group is determined by birth -
at present, among serious scientists, almost no one shares it.
In foreign anthropology, there has recently been a widespread belief that ethnos
(or rather, an ethnic group, since foreign anthropologists avoid using
the word "ethnos") is an artificial construct that arose as a result of purposeful
the efforts of politicians and intellectuals. However, most researchers agree that ethnos (ethnic group)
represents one of the most stable groups, or communities of people.
This is an intergenerational community, stable over time, with a stable composition, with
In this case, each person has a stable ethnic status, it is impossible to “exclude” him
from an ethnic group.
In general, one should pay attention to the fact that the theory of ethnos is a favorite brainchild of domestic
scientists; in the West, the problems of ethnicity are discussed in a completely different way.
Western scientists have priority in developing the theory of the nation.
Back in 1877, E. Renan gave an etatist definition of the concept of “nation”: a nation unites
all residents of this state, regardless of their race, ethnicity. Religious
accessories, etc. Since the 19th century.
Two models of the nation took shape: French and German. French model, following
Renan, corresponds to the understanding of the nation as a civil society
(state) based on political choice and civil kinship.
The reaction to this french model was the model of the German Romantics, appealing
to the “voice of blood”, according to her, the nation is an organic community, connected
common culture. Nowadays people talk about "Western" and "Eastern" models of society,
or about the civil (territorial) and ethnic (genetic) models of the nation.
scientists believe that the idea of a nation is often used for political purposes - by the ruling
or wishing to gain power groupings. What
concerns ethnic groups, or ethnic groups (ethnic groups), then in foreign, and in recent
years and in domestic science it is customary to distinguish three main approaches to this
range of problems - primordialist, constructivist and instrumentalist
(or situationist).
A few words about each of them:
One of the "pioneers" in the study of ethnicity, whose research had a huge impact on social science,
was a Norwegian scientist F. Barth, who argued that ethnicity is one of the forms
social organization, culture (ethnic - socially organized
kind of culture). He also introduced the important concept of "ethnic boundary" - el
that critical feature of an ethnic group beyond which the attribution to it ends
members of this group itself, as well as the assignment to it by members of other groups.
In the 1960s, like other theories of ethnicity, the theory of primordialism (from the English primordial - original) was put forward.
The direction itself arose much earlier, it goes back to the already mentioned
ideas of the German romantics, his followers considered ethnos to be the original and
unchanging association of people on the principle of "blood", i.e. with permanent
signs. This approach has been developed not only in German, but also in Russian
ethnology. But more on that later. In the 1960s. spread in the West
biological-racial, and "cultural" form of primordialism. Yes, one of her
founders, K. Girtz argued that ethnic self-consciousness (identity) refers
to "primordial" feelings and that these primordial feelings largely determine
people's behavior. These feelings, however, wrote K. Girtz, are not innate,
but arise in people as part of the process of socialization and in the future there are
as fundamental, sometimes - as immutable and determining the behavior of people -
members of the same ethnic group. The theory of primordialism has repeatedly been subjected to serious criticism, in particular
from the supporters of F. Barth. So D. Baker noted that feelings are changeable and
are situationally determined and cannot generate the same behavior.
As a reaction to primordialism, ethnicity began to be understood as an element of ideology (attributing oneself to
this group or attributing someone to it by members of other groups). Ethnicity and ethnic groups have become
considered also in the context of the struggle for resources, power and privileges. .
Before characterizing other approaches to ethnicity (ethnic groups), it would be appropriate to recall the definition,
given to an ethnic group by the German sociologist M. Weber. According to him, this
a group of people whose members have a subjective belief in a common
descent by reason of similarity in physical appearance or customs, or both
the other together, or because of shared memory. Here it is emphasized
FAITH in a common origin. And in our time, many anthropologists believe that the main
a differentiating feature for an ethnic group can be an IDEA of community
origin and/or history.
In general, in the West, in contrast to primordialism and under the influence of Barth's ideas, they received the greatest
dissemination of the constructivist approach to ethnicity. His supporters considered
ethnos is a construct created by individuals or elites (powerful, intellectual,
cultural) with specific goals (struggle for power, resources, etc.). Many
also emphasize the role of ideology (above all, nationalisms) in the construction of
ethnic communities. The followers of constructivism include English
scientist B. Anderson (his book bears a “speaking” and expressive title “Imaginary
community" - its fragments were posted on this site), E. Gellner (about him, too
was discussed on this site) and many others whose works are considered classics.
At the same time, some scientists are not satisfied with the extremes of both approaches. There are attempts to "reconcile" them:
attempts to present ethnic groups as "symbolic" communities based on
sets of symbols - again, belief in a common origin, in a common past, a common
fate, etc. Many anthropologists emphasize that ethnic groups arose
relatively recent: they are not eternal and immutable, but change under
the impact of specific situations, circumstances - economic, political and
etc.
In domestic science, the theory of ethnos has become especially popular, moreover, initially
in its extreme primordialist (biological) interpretation. It was developed by S.M. Shirokogorov, who
considered the ethnos as a biosocial organism, singling out its main
characteristics of origin, as well as language, customs, way of life and tradition
[Shirokogorov, 1923. P. 13]. In many ways, his follower was L.N. Gumilyov,
partly continuing this tradition, he considered the ethnos as a biological system,
highlighting passionarity as the highest stage of its development [Gumilyov, 1993]. About
Quite a lot has been written about this approach, but now there are few serious researchers
fully shares the views of L.N. Gumilyov, which can be considered an extreme expression
primordial approach. This theory has its roots in the views of the German
romantics to a nation, or an ethnic group from the position of "common blood and soil", i.e.
some kindred group. Hence the intolerance of L.N. Gumilev to
mixed marriages, whose descendants he considered "chimerical formations",
connecting the unconnected.
P.I. Kushner believed that ethnic groups differ from each other in a number of specific features,
among which the scientist especially singled out language, material culture (food, housing,
clothes, etc.), as well as ethnic identity [Kushner, 1951. P.8-9].
The studies of S.A. Arutyunova and N.N.
Cheboksarova. According to them, “... ethnic groups are spatially limited
"clumps" of specific cultural information, and interethnic contacts - the exchange
such information”, and information links were considered as the basis for the existence
ethnos [Arutyunov, Cheboksarov, 1972. P. 23-26]. In a later work, S.A. Arutyunova
an entire chapter devoted to this problem bears a "talking" title: "The Network
communications as the basis of ethnic existence” [Arutyunov, 2000]. The idea of
ethnic groups as specific "clumps" of cultural information and
internal information relations is very close to the modern understanding of any
systems as a kind of information field, or information structure. IN
further S.A. Arutyunov directly writes about this [Arutyunov, 2000. pp. 31, 33].
A characteristic feature of the theory of ethnos is that its followers consider
ethnic groups as a universal category, i.e. people, according to it, belonged to
to some ethnic group / ethnic group, much less often - to several ethnic groups. Supporters
This theory believed that ethnic groups were formed in one or another historical
period and transformed in accordance with changes in society. Marxist influence
theory was also expressed in attempts to correlate the development of ethnic groups with a five-member division
development of mankind - the conclusion that each socio-economic formation
corresponds to its own type of ethnos (tribe, slave-owning people, capitalist
nationality, capitalist nation, socialist nation).
In the future, the theory of ethnos was developed by many Soviet researchers, in
features Yu.V. Bromley, who
believed that ethnos is “... a historically established
in a certain area
a stable group of people who share relatively stable
features of the language, culture and psyche, as well as the consciousness of their unity and
differences from other similar formations (self-awareness), fixed in
self-name" [Bromley, 1983. S. 57-58]. Here we see the impact of ideas
primordialism - S. Shprokogorov, and M. Weber.
The theory of Yu.V. Bromley, like his supporters, was rightly criticized back in the Soviet period.
So, M.V. Kryukov repeatedly and, in my opinion, quite rightly noted
the far-fetchedness of this entire system of nationalities and nations [Kryukov, 1986, p.58-69].
EAT. Kolpakov, for example, points out that under the Bromley definition of ethnos
many groups are suitable, not only ethnic ones [Kolpakov, 1995. p. 15].
Since the mid-1990s, Russian literature has begun to spread
views close to constructivist. According to them, ethnic groups are not real
existing communities, and the constructs created political elite or
scientists for practical purposes (for details, see: [Tishkov, 1989. P. 84; Tishkov,
2003, p. 114; Cheshko, 1994, p. 37]). So, according to V.A. Tishkov (one of the works
which bears the expressive name "Requiem for an Ethnos"), Soviet scientists themselves
created a myth about the unconditionally objective reality of ethnic communities, as
certain archetypes [Tishkov, 1989. p.5], the researcher himself considers ethnic groups to be artificial
constructions that exist only in the minds of ethnographers [Tishkov, 1992], or
the result of elite efforts to construct ethnicity [Tishkov, 2003. p.
118]. V.A. Tishkov defines an ethnic group as a group of people whose members have
a common name and elements of culture, a myth (version) about a common origin and
common historical memory, associate themselves with a special territory and have a sense of
solidarity [Tishkov, 2003. p.60]. Again - the impact of the ideas of Max Weber, expressed
nearly a century ago...
Not all researchers share this point of view, which has developed not without the influence of ideas
M. Weber, for example, S.A. Arutyunov, who repeatedly criticized it [Arutyunov,
1995. P.7]. Some researchers working in line with the Soviet theory
ethnos, consider ethnoi to be an objective reality that exists independently of our
consciousness.
I would like to note that, despite the sharp criticism of the supporters of the theory of ethnos,
the views of constructivist researchers are not so radically different from
first glances. In the definitions of ethnic groups or ethnic groups given
listed scientists, we see a lot in common, although the attitude to the identified
objects diverge. Moreover, wittingly or unwittingly, many researchers
repeat the definition of an ethnic group given by M. Weber. I will repeat it again
times: an ethnic group is a group of people whose members have a subjective
belief in a common origin due to the similarity of physical appearance or customs,
or both together, or because of shared memory. So the basics
M. Weber had a significant impact on various approaches to the study of ethnicity.
Moreover, his definition of an ethnic group was sometimes used almost verbatim
supporters of different paradigms.
Professor's seventh lecture Alexandra Dugina read at the Faculty of Sociology of Moscow State University named after Lomonosov as part of the course "Structural Sociology".
Part 1. Definition of ethnos and related concepts
The concept of ethnicity
The concept of ethnicity is extremely complex. In Western science, it is used quite rarely, and there are no strict classical scientific definitions that would be the subject of unconditional academic consensus. There are such directions in science as ethnology and ethnography. The first describes the various peoples of the world, their characteristics, and the second, according to the Levi-Strauss formula, is a subsection of anthropology and studies the structures of primitive ethnic groups and archaic tribes. From this usage it is clear that in the West it is customary to understand peoples whose culture belongs to the category of “primitive” by “ethnos”.
The etymology of the word "ethnos" goes back to the Greek language, where there was whole line concepts that describe approximately the same as Russian word"people". The Greeks distinguished
. το γένος - “people” in the proper sense - that which “was born”, “kind” (in Russian, the words “wife”, “woman”, that is, “creature that gives birth” ascend to this Indo-European root);
. η φυλή - (people, tribe, in the sense of "tribe", tribal community; "philes" were the oldest division of Greek clans - the Latin "populus" and the German "Volk" go back to the same root);
. το δήμος - people in the sense of "population" of some administrative state unit, policy; the people in the political sense, that is, the totality of citizens living in the policy and endowed with political rights, "civil society";
. ο λαός - people in the meaning of "gathering", "crowd", gathered for some specific purpose, as well as "army", "detachment" (in Christianity, baptized Christians are called λαός - which can also be translated as " holy people" and as "holy host"); and finally our
. το έθνος - "ethnos", which meant something similar to "genos", "genus", but was used much less often and in an understated context - often in relation to animals - in the sense of "pack", "swarm", "herd" or to foreigners, emphasizing the features (differences) of their customs; the words "το έθνος" ("ethnos", "people") and "το έθος" ("ethos", "morality", "mores", "custom") are similar in form and meaning; in plural"τα έθνη", "ethnoi" this word was used in the same sense as the Hebrew "goyim", that is, "tongues" ("non-Jews") and sometimes "pagans".
There is nothing in the Greek language that would indicate the specific meanings that we put into this concept today.
Ethnos - people - nation - race
Based on the uncertainty of the term "ethnos" and the ambiguity of its interpretation in various scientific schools, one can start not with a definition, but with a distinction between related concepts within the logic of the "Structural Sociology" course.
In ordinary speech, the following terms are sometimes used to denote what is meant by "enos", acting as synonyms or at least similar concepts.
We have taken two of these 5 concepts in brackets, since they practically have no scientific meaning and are the results of numerous stratifications, convergences and divergences of the meanings of the main 4 terms, which, on the contrary, denote rather definite, but different realities. Differences in meanings among the main members of the chain - ethnos-people-nation-race - will lead us to a clearer understanding of each term and to understanding instrumental value intermediate concepts, taken in brackets.
Scientific definition of ethnos
The term "ethnos" was introduced into scientific circulation in Russia by a scientist who found himself in exile after the October Revolution (1887-1939). He owns the definition of "ethnos", which has become a classic.
"ethnos" is a group of people
Speaking the same language
Recognizing their common origin
Possessing a complex of customs, a way of life, preserved and consecrated by tradition and distinguished by it from those of other groups.
This definition emphasizes the linguistic commonality (which was placed in the first place not by chance), the common origin, the presence of customs and traditions (that is, culture), as well as the ability to clearly distinguish these traditions and customs from the customs and traditions of other ethnic groups (differentiation).
A similar definition of "ethnos" (more precisely, "ethnicity" - Ethnizitat) gives Max Weber- "Ethnicity is belonging to an ethnic group united by cultural homogeneity and belief in a common origin." Shirokogorov's definition is more complete, as it emphasizes the commonality of the language.
The most important thing in the concept of an ethnos is the assertion of its basic reality at the basis of the entire structure of society. Every person has a language, culture, knowledge about the origins and customs. And this complex varies significantly from society to society. The fundamental matrix of such a complex (that is, a combination of all elements - sometimes collectively called "culture") is the ethnos.
The people are a common destiny
The Russian term “people” Shirokogorov proposes not only to separate from the concept of “ethnos”, but also not to use it in scientific constructions at all due to its “vagueness” and “polysemy” (we saw what a difficult hierarchy of the word for “people” existed in ancient Greek) . Nevertheless, for a more accurate understanding of the term "ethnos", we can try to define it. A people is an ethnos that brings a higher goal into the structure of its society, strives to transcend the usual limits of ethnic existence, consciously expand the horizons of culture and the scale of social structures. It can also be said that the people are an ethnic group in an upward movement, on the rise, in the dynamics of expansion, growth, takeoff (3) .
The people, in contrast to the ethnos, which is oriented towards a common origin, is oriented towards a common destiny, that is, not only the past and the present, but also the future, what needs to be done. The people are connected with the mission, the project, the task. It is organized along the force lines of the realization of the unrealized, the discovery of the undiscovered, the creation of the uncreated.
At its core, a people remains an ethnos and has all the properties of an ethnos, but a new component is added to this set - language, origin, custom, awareness of difference from others - mission, purpose, purpose.
Not every ethnos is a people in this scientific definition, but every people is basically an ethnos.
Soviet ethnologist Julian Bromley(1921-1990), studying ethnos, tried to emphasize the same difference. He contrasted "ethnos in the narrow sense" (that is, actually "ethnos" as such) with "ethnos in the broad sense", which he called "ethno-social organism" (4) . Under the "ethno-social organism" Bromley understood approximately the same as we under the "people". But, in our opinion, such a definition is extremely unsuccessful, since any ethnic group necessarily carries sociality, moreover, it is the matrix of sociality, its original and fundamental form (and in this sense, any sociality is always ethnic in its origins, at least) , and any ethnos is an organism, that is, it corresponds to the organizational code, is organized according to a certain paradigm, which may change or stagnate, but is always present.
It is much more constructive to use the term "people", each time emphasizing and keeping in mind its scientific definition. When translating the pair "ethnos" - "people" into European languages, you can use the Greek form "ethnos" (in French - l "ethnie) and the most accurately corresponding term "people" - the people, das Volk, le peuple, el pueblo and etc. In extreme cases, if this is not enough, it is possible to introduce the Russian word “narod” into scientific circulation - if only because this concept lies in the center of attention of Russian philosophy, which, starting from the era of the Slavophiles and up to the populists, paid to him the most important place in philosophical, historical and social theories and systems.
people, state, religion, civilization
The desire of the “people” to realize a mission that transcends the norms and rhythms of ethnic existence is embodied in practice in a limited range of possibilities. The “people”, realizing itself as such and taking responsibility for organizing the future, for fulfilling the mission, most often embodies this in the creation of three structures
Religions
. civilization
. states.
These three concepts, as a rule, are interconnected: the state is often based on a religious idea, civilization is made up of states and religions, and so on. But theoretically one can imagine peoples - and they exist in history - which are created only by the state, only by religion and only by civilization. The state, state, empire - these are the most natural forms of the historical creativity of the people, and there is no need to give examples here. The states that existed before and now exist are the product of the activity of ethnic groups that have become peoples.
The Jewish people, although historically it had statehood and it was restored in the 20th century, nevertheless, for two millennia it remained a people (and not just an ethnic group) mobilized by religious faith, that is, it lived by religion as a goal and destiny, without having a state.
The example of Ancient India shows that the Vedic Aryans, who came from Northern Eurasia to Hindustan, created the greatest civilization in the world, in which statehood was weak and blurred, and religion was syncretic and included many not only Indo-European elements proper, but also autochthonous cults.
The ancient Greeks also created a civilization that lasted without a state for many centuries before Alexander the Great built an empire.
Nation as Nation-State
In contrast to the organic and always actually given, original "ethnos" and from the "people" that creates religions, civilizations or states, the nation is an exclusively political concept and is associated with the New Age.
In Latin, "natio" means exactly the same as "people", that is, "birth", "clan", and also "Motherland", the place where a person was "born". The Latin word has a binding to a place, but this is not expressed semantically, but rather associatively - based on the typical use of this term in Latin texts. This "natio" differs from "populus", which is more associated with "genus", "origin".
In political and scientific language, the term "nation" has acquired a stable meaning in connection with the concept of the state. There is the most important French phrase - Etat-Nation, literally "State-Nation". It emphasizes that we are not talking about an empire where a single political system could include various ethnic groups, but about such an entity where the state-forming ethnic group completely turns into a people, and the people, in turn, embodies themselves in the state, turns into it, becomes him. A nation is a people that ceases to be an ethnic group and has become a state.
The state is an administrative apparatus, a machine, a formalized body of legal norms and institutions, a rigidly built system of power and control. A nation is what this mechanism consists of - a set of details, atoms, elements that allow this mechanism to function.
Nations appear only in modern times, in the era of Modernity, together with modern states - moreover, these are not two separate phenomena; one calls forth the other: the modern state brings with it the modern nation. One is unthinkable without the other.
The nation is, in a logical sense, the product of the completed implementation by the people of the task of building the state, and the opposite gesture of the state to establish the nation in the place of the people and instead of the people. The people create the state (in the modern sense), and this is where its function ends. Further, the state begins to act according to its own autonomous logic, depending on what idea, paradigm or ideology it has. If at the first stage the people create the state, then later, having taken place, the state itself artificially generates a certain analogue of the “people” - this analogue is called the “nation”.
In a Nation-State, by definition, there can only be one nation. This nation is determined primarily on a formal basis - citizenship. The basis of the nation is the principle of citizenship: nationality and citizenship are identical.
The Nation State has
One (rarely several) state language,
. obligatory historical episteme (narration about the stages of the formation of a nation),
. ruling ideology or its equivalent,
. legal legislation, the observance of which is an indisputable duty.
We see in the “nation” certain elements of both the “ethnos” and the “people”, but they are transferred to a different level, they are not an organic whole, but an artificially built rationalistic mechanism.
The nation is based on the transformation of the main people and the suppression (sometimes destruction) of small ethnic groups that fall within the zone of state control. In fact, everything ethnic, original, basic, traditional (which was also preserved among the people) disappears in the nation. The people that builds the state and becomes the core of the “nation” loses its own ethnicity, since living ties, the processes of evolution of language, customs, traditions acquire a fixed form in the state once and for all; social structures are transformed into legal codes; only one of the possible ethnic dialects is taken as a normative language, fixed as obligatory, and the rest are eradicated as "illiteracy"; and even the implementation of the goal, mission, the state rationalizes and takes responsibility for its achievement.
Race and racial theories
The term "race" has several meanings and varies significantly from language to language. One of the meanings - especially in German die Rasse, but also in French (la race) and English (the race) - strictly coincides with the meaning of the concept of "ethnos", but puts forward an additional criterion - biological and genetic relationship. In this sense, “race” should be understood as “ethnos” (as Shirokogorov or Weber defines it), but with the addition of biological genetic relationship.
This meaning is sometimes transferred to the concept of "ethnos", since the linguistic community and cultural unity of a certain biological relationship and physical similarity among their carriers imply. For this reason, in certain cases, race is understood as an "ethnos" or "ethnic group". In this sense, the expressions "Germanic race" or "Slavic race" are used, that is, "kindred groups of Germanic or Slavic ethnic groups."
The biological nature of the concept of race is also expressed in the fact that in European languages it refers to the classification of animal species, where they serve as a form of taxonomic identifier - what is conveyed in Russian by the word "breed". Hence the “purebred shepherd dog” - a dog belonging to the breed of shepherd dogs without mixing with other “breeds” - it will be a shepherd dog of a “pure race”, “purebred shepherd dog, “pedigreed shepherd dog”.
The mongrel is a "mixed race" dog.
In this sense, the concept of "race" was used by many authors of the 19th century - in particular, Ludwig Gumplovich, the author of the concept of "Racial Struggle", where "race" refers to ethnic groups.
The second meaning of the concept of "race" is an attempt to generalize a relatively large number of ethnic groups into several macrofamilies that differ in skin and eye color, skull shape, hairline types and anatomy features (as well as the commonness of a once common language). In Antiquity and the Middle Ages, there was an idea of four races (white, black, yellow and red) or three (descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth).
“In modern times, the naturalist (1707-1778) divided all types of people into three types:
1) wild man - homo ferus, which included mainly cases of savagery and transformation into an animal state of children left without human education;
2) an ugly person - homo monstruosus, which included microcephaly and other pathological phenomena, and
3) homo diurnus, which includes four races, namely: American, European, Asian and African, distinguished by a number of physical features. Linnaeus also points to ethnographic signs. In his opinion: Americans are governed by customs, Europeans by laws, Asians by opinions, and Africans by arbitrariness. (5) The naivety of such a gradation is striking.
"At the end of the eighteenth century Blumenbach(1752 - 1840) - built a completely independent classification, basing it on the color of hair, skin and the shape of the skull. Blumenbach counts
five races, namely:
1) The Caucasian race - white with a round head - lives in North America, Europe and Asia to the Gobi Desert,
2) The Mongolian race - has a square head, black hair, yellow complexion, slanting eyes and lives in Asia, except for the Malay Archipelago,
3) The Ethiopian race - black, with a flattened head - lives in Africa,
4) The American race, - with copper-colored skin and a deformed head - and, finally,
5) Malay race - has brown hair and a moderately round head. This classification should be considered as purely anthropological, somatic.
Fr. Miller introduced into his classification, as a sign, and language. He believes that hair color and language are the most stable features that can serve as the basis for dividing people into races and establishes that there are:
1) Beam-haired - Hottentots, Bushmen, Papuans;
2) Rune-haired - Africans, Negroes, Kaffirs;
3) Straight-haired - Australians, Americans, Mongols and
4) Curly-haired - Mediterranean. These races give a total of 12 more groups." (6)
To date, the idea of the presence of three races has been established in science: 1) Caucasoid, 2) Mongoloid and 3) Negroid, although disputes about the justification and relevance of such a classification do not subside.
Racism is biological and cultural
Parallel to these primary systematizations of ethnic diversity, the idea arose to build a certain hierarchy of innate properties between races (which is already noticeable in Linnaeus). Arthur de Gobineau, Yours de Lapouge(1854-1936) and Gustav Le Bon develop theories about the "inequality of races", which indirectly justifies for Europeans their colonial conquests and leads a direct road to Nazism. The statement about the inequality of races and the ideas arising from it of preserving racial purity and justifying the persecution of people on racial grounds have been called "racism".
Racism was the official ideology of the white population of the American continent, who imported slaves from Africa, exterminated (in the North) or enslaved (in the South) the local Indian population and established "racial superiority" over "savages". The United States was fundamentally a racist state, which shaped the specifics of the American attitude towards anthropology. Later, the idea of racial superiority of whites over "colored" took the form of cultural racism, expressed in the conviction of Americans that their culture and civilization is the best and most universal, their values - freedom, democracy, the market - are optimal, and those who dispute this are at the "lowest degree of development."
One of the main theorists of racism in the twentieth century was H.F. Günther(1891-1968), who singled out the following taxonomy of races in Europe -
1) Nordic race,
2) Dinaric race,
3) Alpine race,
4) Mediterranean race,
5) Western race,
6) East Baltic race (sometimes he added the Fali race to them).
Gunther considered the creators of civilization to be representatives of the Nordic race - tall, blue-eyed dolichocephals. He considered Africans and Asians inferior. Most of all fell to the lot of the Jews, whom Günther referred to as "representatives of Asia in Europe" and, accordingly, the main "racial enemy." Racism has become integral part national socialist ideology, and the implementation of racial principles resulted in the death of millions of innocent people.
The groundlessness of such generalizations was proved in a purely scientific (and not humanitarian and moral) key by modern anthropologists and, first of all, representatives of structural anthropology (especially Levi-Strauss). It is significant that it was his justification of the failure of the racial theory that was included in the textbook for French schools, as a classic definition of the equality of all human races and ethnic communities.
Since racism and racist theories, and especially the inhuman practices based on them, have left a terrible mark on the history of the twentieth century, the very term "race" and any form of "racial research" in our time have become rare and certainly arouse suspicion.
In a purely scientific and neutral sense, this concept means an attempt to classify ethnic groups according to physiological, phenotypic - sometimes linguistic - characteristics.
Terminological problems of Soviet ethnology
IN Soviet time the question of definitions of ethnos, nation, people, etc. was complicated by the need to combine the theories of ethnos, nation, state with Marxist theory. In this particular case, all the difficulties that initially consisted in the desire to give the Bolshevik revolution the character of a legitimate implementation of the predictions of Marxist theory manifested themselves - despite the factors that blatantly contradicted this. Marx believed that socialist revolutions would take place in industrial countries, which are full-fledged Nation-States with a predominance of capitalist relations, developed classes - the industrial bourgeoisie, the urban proletariat, etc. That is, the socialist society, according to Marx, comes to replace the nation and replaces it with itself, reorganizing the economy and culture on a new class (proletarian) basis. In Russia, there was not the slightest prerequisite for such a turn of affairs - there was neither a developed bourgeoisie, nor sufficient industrialization, nor a predominant urban proletariat, and, moreover, there was no nation in Russia. Russia was an empire, that is, numerous ethnic groups and one power-forming Russian people lived inside it. The Nation-State would assume that neither ethnic groups nor people (in the full sense of the word) should exist.
But after the revolution, having gained control over the empire, the Bolsheviks were forced to urgently adjust the conceptual apparatus to the current situation. From this a confusion of concepts arose, and by "nation" they began to understand partly "ethnos", partly "people"; under the "people" - a semblance of "civil society", and in addition, additional terms were introduced - "nationality" and "nationality".
“People” meant a small ethnic group that retained the remnants of a traditional (pre-capitalist) society, and “nationality” meant belonging to an ethnic group that has signs of social self-organization according to the criteria of the New Age. These completely conditional categories, which have no correspondence in European languages and scientific concepts, were also described with the help of numerous omissions, equivocations and impliations, which makes them completely inoperative in our time and deprives them of any instrumental value.
The French "la nationalite" or the English "tha nationality" means strictly "citizenship", belonging to a well-defined Nation-State. Therefore, "nationality" is understood everywhere as a synonym for "nation" (in the sense of the Nation-State). The term “nationality” is simply untranslatable, and in the Russian language and the modern scientific sphere is meaningless.
For this reason, we put these definitions in the chain ethnos-people-nation-race in brackets.
At this stage, they can simply be crossed out and not mentioned again.
Ethnos - people - (nationality) - nation - (nationality) - race
Ethnos and race
Now it's time to make one more correction. The term race in our chain of concepts should be transferred to the ethnos cell, since, from a sociological point of view, the grouping of ethnic groups into races does not give us any meaningful additions - except for the sociology of racial theories, which, for obvious reasons, is out of the question. In addition, the variety of racial systematizations and the uncertainty of taxonomy does not allow us to consider race as a reliable matrix for the relationship between ethnic groups and the analysis of these relationships. Of course, it is possible to draw some positive conclusions based on the rapprochement between ethnic groups and their grouping into more general categories - sociologist Georges Dumézil, who studied mainly the family of Indo-European ethnic groups, came to extremely important sociological conclusions. But any generalizations here should be made with great caution, including taking into account the sad experience of Nazism.
And, finally, the close connection of race with biology does not carry relevant sociological information that would not be contained in the concept of ethnos.
Thus, we can remove race as an independent concept, either by identifying it with one of the generalizations in the systematized taxonomy of ethnoi, or by putting it aside altogether as something irrelevant to sociological research.
In this case, we got the following picture of the original chain of basic concepts -
ethnos - people - nation (race)
In what follows, we will consider only this triad.
Part 2. Ethnos and mythos
Ethnos and mythos
Let's correlate the triad ethnos-people-nation with the dual (two-story) topic within which we are conducting our research.
In this case, the following fraction will correspond to the ethnic group:
Ethnos is an organic unity, which is sealed by the commonality of the myth. If we take a closer look at the definition of Shirokogorov, we will see that the main characteristics of an ethnic group - language, common origin, ritual, traditions, distinctions - collectively determine the myth, are its constituent parts. Ethnos is a myth. A myth does not exist without an ethnos, but an ethnos does not exist without a myth, they are strictly identical. There are no two ethnic groups with the same myths - each ethnic group must have its own myth.
This ethnic myth may contain elements that are common with the myths of other ethnic groups, but the combination is always original and applies only to this ethnic group and not to any other.
At the same time, at the level of ethnos and ethnic social structure, the myth is simultaneously in the denominator (it is always there and in all social models) and in the numerator, which creates complete homology between the structure of the unconscious and the structure of consciousness. Such homology is the main feature of an ethnos as a phenomenon - strictly identical processes take place in the mind and heart of an ethnic community.
Such a homology gives rise to the phenomenon that Lévy-Bruhl called "pralogic", that is, a special form of thinking, where rationality is not autonomous from the work of the unconscious, and all generalizations, taxonomies and rationalizations are carried out in terms of living organic impulses and symbols, which are indivisible units with set of meanings (polysemy). The pralogic of the "savages" is akin to the world of feelings, art and poetry: in it, each element carries many meanings and at any moment can change the trajectory of deployment and change the meaning.
The fraction mythos/mythos expresses the stability inherent in an ethnos in its normative state. The myth is told again and again, and remains the same all the time, although its internal elements may change places or the carriers of certain symbolic functions may replace each other.
Myth and mytheme in the structure of the ethnos
Here it is important to say a few words about how Lévi-Strauss understood the myth. Levi-Strauss proposed to consider the myth not as a story or notes describing the sequential development of a melody, but as a poem or accompaniment notes, where the structure of harmony, repetitions, changes of keys are clearly visible, against which the story-melody unfolds. In poetry, this is marked by rhyme (that is, rhythm), which implies a line break.
An acrostic is an example of this vertical reading.
Levi-Strauss came to the discovery of such a structure of myth under the direct influence of Roman Yakobson And Nikolai Trubetskoy, major representatives structural linguistics, creators of phonology and convinced Eurasians (Trubetskoy was the founder of the "Eurasian movement").
Levi-Strauss gives a classic example of the myth of Oedipus, where each episode from the story of the unfortunate king corresponds to a certain mythological quantum, which includes a whole system of meanings, associations, symbolic meanings, and although the story moves on and on, acquiring new plot twists, mythological quanta, being limited (as the number of chords and notes is limited - but not their combinations!), Are periodically repeated, which allows you to fold the myth of Oedipus like a tape and read it from above down. These mythological quanta Levi-Strauss called mythems - by analogy with semes in structural linguistics, which denote the smallest particles of meaning.
This explanation is extremely important for understanding the ethnos. Being a myth, an ethnos always has in its structure a certain set of fundamental elements - mythems. This is determined by the fact that in different ethnic groups and cultures, even extremely remote from each other and having no connections, we meet very close plots, symbols, concepts. This similarity is a consequence of the limited number of basic myths. But at the same time, each ethnic group builds its own special myths from these basic myths, common to all, combining them in a special order and in a special sequence. This creates differences between ethnic groups and underlies their identity - each of which is original, special and different from others.
The identity of mythems and the difference between diverse myths (as combinations of mythems) explains both the multiplicity of ethnic groups and the presence of a certain similarity between them.
Taking into account this amendment of Levi-Strauss and the introduction of the concept of "mytheme", it becomes clear the model of the structure of ethnic processes that occur even when the ethnos is in a state of maximum stability.
You can imagine the situation in this way. In an ethnos, the myth in the denominator is not a myth in the full sense of the word, but a set of myths tending towards a certain structuralization. How the structuring of archetypes occurs, we saw earlier on the example of the modes of the unconscious. Gilbert Durand in later works, he introduces into his theory the concept of "chreod" - a hypothetical process in biology (discovered by the biologist Conrad Waddington(1905-1975)), which predetermines the development of a cell along a predetermined path in order to eventually become a part of a strictly defined organ. Also, the mythems that are in the denominator of the ethnos are not a neutral set of possibilities, but groups that tend to be manifested in a strictly defined context and in strictly defined combinations - according to the logic of "chreod".
Mythemes "chreodically" crawling towards the clutch into the mode
And in the numerator of an ethnos, a myth is a real myth, a diachronic story, presented as a sequential unfolding of events. Between the mythems (chreods of myth) in the denominator and the myth in the numerator, a dynamic interaction unfolds, which gives rise to semantic tension. This tension is the life of an ethnos.
If, on superficial observation, the stable and balanced existence of an ethnos may seem like pure statics, this dialogue between the denominator and numerator freely interacting with each other forms the true dynamics of a full-fledged, developed, saturated and every time “new” (in the initiatory sense), but at the same time eternal being. .
The dual structure of the ethnos: phratries
The largest Russian linguist and philologist Vyach.Sun. Ivanov, speaking at one of the lectures (7) about his expedition to the Kets, he emphasized the “most important thing” that the interviewed representative of this ancient ethnos of Eurasia told the members of the expedition. "Never marry a woman of your own kind." This law is the fundamental axis of ethnic organization.
Levi-Strauss (8) and Huizinga (9) .
The prohibition of incest is an essential social rule found in all types of societies - even the most "wild". This prohibition, by its very nature, requires the division of society into two parts, phratries. These two parts are conceived as not connected with each other by ancestral ties. Roughly, we can say that in its purest form, the organization of a tribe, as the basic form of an ethnos (as a cell of an ethnos), necessarily implies two genera. These clans or phratries are conceived as exogenous to each other - that is, not connected with each other by ties of direct kinship.
The tribe is always dual, and marriages take place only between these opposite phratries. On this dualism of phratries the whole social morphology of the tribe is based. The genus is the thesis, and the other genus, the opposite phratry, is the antithesis. Contradictions are accentuated through many rituals, ceremonies, symbols, totemic associations. The phratries constantly and in many ways emphasize their difference, emphasize antitheticality and dualism. Sun.Vyach. Ivanov believes that twin myths, common among all peoples of the world, have a direct connection with this basic social duality of the tribe.
But this enmity, constant attacks and competition between the two phratries take place in the space of the game. Huizinga in Homo Ludens (10) shows that play is the basis human culture, but it is born from the original social structure of the tribe, divided into two opposite phratries. Phratries compete in everything, but in relation to what lies outside the tribal space (to enemies, natural disasters, predatory animals), they become solidary and united. In the ability to include disagreements, competition, differences and even enmity in the context of unity, Huizinga sees the main quality of culture.
But not only an external threat relieves tension between the two phratries. The institution of marriage and the property associated with it (that is, the relationship between the relatives of the parties who entered into marriage) is another fundamental point in the social organization of the tribe. With this is connected the statement of the Ket about "taking a wife from a strange family." This rule is the basis of the ethnos, the main law of social organization.
An ethnos is nothing but a tribe, only sometimes extended into several tribes, while maintaining the relations that prevail within the tribe. No matter how the size of the tribe increases, through demographic growth or merging with other tribes, within the ethnos the general structure remains the same. Hence the dual organization often found among ethnic groups. So, the Mordvins have a division into Erzei and Moksha. The Mari are divided into mountain, meadow, etc.
The boundaries of an ethnos are not in its numbers, but in its qualitative structure. As long as the formula is preserved
And the basic structure of society reproduces the dual structure of kinship/property of the tribe (or as "hordes" are sometimes called - this term, in particular, was used by Freud), we are dealing with an ethnos as an organic integrity.
Ethnos, community, family
If we apply sociological classification to the ethnos F. Tennis, - “community” (Gemeinschaft) / “society” (Geselschaft), - one can quite unambiguously identify an ethnos with a “community”. According to Tennis, the "community" is characterized by trusting, family relationships, the perception of the team as a single whole organism. This "community" is characteristic of the ethnos, and the most important thing here is that the basic model of the family as a kind in the ethnos is supplemented by an integrating institution of property. The "community" absorbs the family as a clan and others (not a family, not a clan), who become "their own" while remaining outsiders. This is an extremely important feature of the ethnic group. Ethnos operates with the finest dialectics of relations between the native and the other (but one's own!), which constitutes a significant part of the myths and underlies the fundamental ethno-social processes. This dialectic of the family-community is not simply the extension of the principle of genus to another genus. We see that the prohibition of incest says quite the opposite. Strangers remain strangers, do not become part of their own family, their kind, and this alienation of the other serves as the basis for exogenous marriages. The ethnos manages to build a balance of such integration, which, starting from the genus, would create a “community” not as a continuation of the genus or not only as a continuation of the genus, but also as something third, which would include the thesis (genus) and antithesis (another genus). ).
Ties remain organic when they are based on consanguinity and when they are based on an alienated, heterogeneous property.
Initiation in the ethnic structure
From this subtlest dialectic of an ethnos, a society is born. The dynamics of the exchange of women of the tribe between the two phratries and complex complexes of patrilineal and matrilineal kinship, as well as matrilocal and patrilocal placements of newlyweds and their offspring, create the social fabric of the ethnos, in the space of which social institutions are formed. This space is located between the genera, expresses the synthetic nature of their constant interaction.
The most important tool here is initiation (which we discussed earlier in another context). Initiation is the introduction of the adolescent into a structure that is parallel to his race and which puts him to some extent "above" the race. But at the same time, it is initiation that makes the initiate a full-fledged member of the genus, possessing all its social powers. But this post-initiatic participation in the life of the species is qualitatively different from natural and pre-initiatic participation. The initiated young man symbolically returns to the clan as a bearer of an additional status, which he receives not in the clan, but in the initiatory male union, in brotherhood. And thus, every time he re-establishes the connection of the clan with the world of "forces", "deities", "spirits" - with the living presence of myth.
Initiation reveals to the initiate how the clan and tribe are arranged, that is, endows him with sociological knowledge and, accordingly, power, since from now on he sees the structure of the life around him not just as a given, but as an expression of order, to the source of which he partakes in the course of initiation. .
Thus, the "community" becomes from a kind an ethnos through the procedure of initiation, and through the initiation, the main social institutions are constituted. The ket formula “always take a wife from a strange family” is an initiatory formula, with the help of which an ethnos becomes an ethnos and at the same time a society, since the ethnos is the original, basic, most fundamental form of society.
Ethnos boundaries and marriage scaling
The establishment of the "correct" boundaries of an ethnos, that is, the determination of what to include in it and what to exclude, and what are the proportions of inclusion, is the subject of countless mythological plots. Since the construction of an ethnos presupposes the establishment of the finest balance between kinship and property (the inclusion of native and non-native, but one's own into the community), this topic is described through well-known plots about marriage too close (incest) and marriage too far away.
Mythological stories that directly or allegorically describe incest (usually brother-sister) are constructed in such a way as to deduce catastrophic consequences from this fact. This is the meaning of the myth: incest = catastrophe. But the myth can unfold in another way - a catastrophe can cause the appearance of a brother and sister, the separation of a brother and sister can serve as an antiphrase of incest, or vice versa, a warning of incest, etc. Examples abound in the systematized myths of the Indians by Levi-Strauss, and Russian fairy tales collected by Afanasyev (11) .
Another theme is too distant marriages. This is an even more exciting part of mythology, which describes numerous versions of marriage with a non-human species - an animal (Masha and the Bear, the frog princess), an evil spirit (Kashchei the Immortal, the Dragon, the Fire Serpent Wolf), a fabulous creature (Snow Maiden, Fairy, Morozko).
Marriage myths are stretched between too close and too far marriage, as if they are aiming to hit right on target - and this target is "other like one's own", that is, a member of the opposite phratry. This is a real art, since the determination of the distance is the key to the creation and reconstruction of an ethnos. At the heart of the ethnos lies a precisely consummated marriage - a hit too close or too far is fraught with a fundamental catastrophe. Therefore, marriage themes are closely intertwined with initiation. Marriage crowns an initiation, which is a deepening into the myth in order to carry out this most important ethno-creative action in the most optimal way.
Bears are like people
Determining the boundaries of an ethnos, as we have seen, is not an easy task. You can make a mistake, going beyond it. Added to this complexity is the fact that ethnoi operate with "pralogic", that is, taxonomy of a mythological nature, which in practice is most often expressed in the use of totems and totemic animals to systematize not only natural, but also cultural, social phenomena. Animal world, as well as the world of plants and elements in the mythological consciousness, participates in the structuring of culture and the organization of society.
Therefore, it is often placed not outside the boundaries of the ethnic group, but within them. In practice, this is expressed in the domestication of wild animals, the development of agriculture and the cultivation of horticultural and horticultural crops, when the natural world outside the ethnos is included in the inner circle of the ethnos. This is also a kind of zeroing in on what is the correct distance.
We can clearly see totemism in modern Russian surnames. Where do the Volkovs, Shcheglovs, Karasevs, Shchukins, Solovyovs and, finally, the Medvedevs come from? These are the consequences of the shooting of the Russian ethnos in determining their correct boundaries within the framework of totem consciousness.
Today, few people remember that the Russian people in ancient times attributed the bear to the human race. It was explained this way - the bear walks on two legs, it has no tail, and it drinks vodka. Until the 19th century, men and women in the Russian hinterland were completely sure of this, and therefore they went to a bear with a horn in the same way as to fist fights in a neighboring village. The bears had a typical middle name - Ivanovich - hence the full name Mikhail Ivanovich.
The bear was associated with marriage and fertility. In the course of the “bear wedding”, a pure maiden was taken into the forest and left there to become the wife of a bear (12). In wedding ceremonies, the groom and the bride were called “bear” and “bear”, and the boyfriend was called “bear”. In pre-wedding lamentations, the bride sometimes called her father-in-law and her mother-in-law “bears”. Matchmakers were often called "shaggy". In Russian folklore, the image of a bear - a matchmaker is popular.
This inclusion of the bear into the boundaries of the ethnic group has become so commonplace that the expression "Russian bear" has entered everyday speech as a phraseological phrase. This Russification of the bear reflects not just an ironic metaphor, but also deeper ethno-social patterns.
The inclusion of a bear (and in this case also a tiger) in the ethnic system of other peoples - this time the Tungus - is described by Shirokogorov, who participated in a number of ethnographic expeditions in Manchuria. Here is his story in full:
“In northern Manchuria, there are two types of bear, a large dark brown bear and a small brown one, there is also a tiger and, finally, people. Depending on the season, both the bear and the tiger, as well as the man, change their places, to which they are forced by the movement of the game on which they feed. The big bear goes in front and takes the best places, followed by the tiger, sometimes challenging its territory, in the worst places in terms of game, but good enough in other respects, the small brown bear settles and, finally, the Tungus hunters. This movement from one place to another, and in the same constant order, takes place every year. But sometimes there are clashes between young tigers and bears because of the territory (each of them occupies a small river for itself). Then the matter is decided by a duel, as a result of which the weakest gives way to the strongest. These duels are sometimes fought for three years, and for competition the bear gnaws one tree, and the tiger scratches it, and if he manages to scratch above the place gnawed by the bear, then either the bear leaves, or the issue is resolved next year in the same order. If neither one nor the other is inferior, then a fierce battle takes place. Local Tungus hunters, having studied well this order of division of territory between young individuals, willingly take part in battles, knowing their date (this happens annually at the end of April) and place (a gnawed and scratched tree in the previous year). The hunter usually kills both fighters. Cases are known when a person has to give up his occupied place, if he has taken it away from a tiger or a bear, as a result of violent and systematic attacks of these animals on domestic animals and even on a person’s home. It is quite understandable, therefore, that many Tungus consider some rivers inaccessible to themselves (for hunting), since they are occupied by tigers or big bears.
Thus, due to the fact that the bear cannot but roam, since it is adapted to existence in this way, but another species of bear, tiger, and man is adapted in the same way, competition is created between them all, and, finally, they enter into some relationships, become dependent on each other and create a kind of organization - a “taiga society”, controlled by its own norms, customs, etc., allowing a person to live next to a bear, when the bear does not touch a person if he does not see from him sides of signs of attack, and when people and a bear pick berries at the same time without harming each other. (13)
The “taiga society” of the Tungus, whose full members are two species of bears and a tiger, who share hunting grounds, rivers and thickets, is a model of an ethnos that integrates vital elements of the surrounding world.
In mythology, the bear plays a very important role. The ancient Greeks, the autochthons of Siberia and the Slavs associate the bear with the feminine. The Greek hunter goddess Artemis (goddess of the moon) was considered the patroness of bears. The bear is a chthonic creature associated with the earth, the moon and the feminine. Hence its role in marriage ceremonies and rituals. We can say that the bear is a feminoid.
Ethnos and modes of the unconscious
The structure of the sociocultural topic of the ethnos that we have clarified - myth / myth - leads us to the conclusion that the ethnos includes two regimes and three groups of archetypes. Moreover, we can expect to meet them not only in the sphere of the unconscious (the denominator), but also in the sphere of the numerator. So it is, because each ethnos has a mythological system, in which it manifests itself how it constitutes itself through a set of myths.
Here, the same regularities that we saw in the analysis of the regimes are manifested. The diurne mode tends to rise to the numerator, while the nocturne modes are ready to stay in the denominator. Thus, in parallel with the refined myth/mytheme topic, we can offer the ethno-social topic diurn/nocturne. However, here we encounter a certain problem: this theoretical assumption, based on the axiomatic assertion that social structures, society unfolds in all societies around the vertical axis of diurn, is not supported by observations. Even more precisely, if the society as a phenomenon is always and in all circumstances a construct of the diurnic myth (it does not matter whether the diurn has switched to the mode of logos or remained at the level of myth), then ethnic groups can put various myths in the numerator, that is, not necessarily diurnic ones. In this we fix the main difference between society and ethnos. The society is always and without any exception unfolding by the diurna myth in parallel with the suppression of the nocturne regime, or at least through its exorcism. But ethnic groups can be structured differently.
This means that we were able to see the difference between the ethnos and society, which is especially evident in cases where the myth of the nocturne is in the numerator of the ethnos.
At first glance, we have come to a contradiction - the numerator is the area of society, and the ethnos is society. This is true, but the myth, which is in the numerator of the ethnos, may be an expression of the nocturne regime, but at the same time, sociality - as in any case - will bear the imprints of the diurna regime. That is, the ethnic, coinciding with the social as a whole, can diverge from it in the nuances of mythological regimes.
This circumstance is extremely important, since it shows us the importance that ethnos plays in sociology. If it were not for this small, at first glance, difference, ethnos as a phenomenon would be superfluous, and the sociologist could be completely satisfied with the study of societies without introducing the additional and cumbersome concept of "ethnos". Ethnos - in contrast to society - is the ability of society to exist in the mode of an unstructured dream, that is, if the structures of society are violated, the ethnos is able to survive.
The reason for this should be sought in those institutions that are socio-forming in the ethnos - that is, in initiation. And the first hypothesis that suggests itself is the exogenous nature of society in those ethnic groups where the myth in the numerator is configured according to the nocturne model. That is, in this case we are dealing with societies where sociality was introduced from outside the ethnic circle (including bears, tigers, etc.). We previously encountered a somewhat similar scenario in the form of archeomodernity (pseudomorphosis), but there it was about modern societies, and the logos figured. Now we are faced with a similar situation in the very depths of primitive society.
This hypothesis of the gap between the ethnos and society suggests the following: the structure of society, in which the myth in the numerator is not diurnic, bears the imprint of the influence of another ethnos, which either mixed with the given one at some stage, or conquered it, and then dissolved in it or conveyed social structures in some other way.
Thus, we gradually approached the theory of cultural circles or diffusionism.
cultural circles
The most prominent representative of the theory of cultural circles (also called "diffusionism") was a German ethnologist and sociologist (1873-1938). Other scientists adhering to this direction were the founder of political geography Friedrich Ratzel And Fritz Gröbner(1877 - 1934). Archaeologist Grebner put forward a tough thesis: in the history of mankind, every object - material or spiritual - was invented only once. Then it was transmitted along complex historical and geographical trajectories.
Many structuralist features can be found in Frobenius. So, in particular, he believed that each culture has its own “code” or “soul”, which he called “paideuma” (in Greek, literally “what a child is taught”, “skills”, “knowledge”, “ability to "). And culture itself is primary in relation to its bearers, that is, to people. According to Frobenius, it is not people who make culture, but culture makes people (quite a structural sociological thesis, by the way). The entire cultural and historical process is the translation of "paideums". The meaning of this concept lies in the fact that culture can be transferred from one soil, where it arose and developed, to another alien one - and there it will develop according to a completely different logic.
The theory of diffusionism proceeds from the fact that each cultural type is based on a very definite center, from where this type further spreads - just as a stone thrown into water produces circles diverging strictly around the place where it fell. This can be traced on the remains of the material culture of antiquity or on the fate of the spread of religions, rituals, ideas, etc.
This principle tells us how to solve the problem of the presence of society in those ethnic groups where the nocturnal myth dominates in the numerator. Within the framework of diffusionism, this is explained simply - the "paideum" of the diurnic culture, due to some circumstances, was transferred to the soil of the ethnos with the dominance of the nocturnal myth and became the basis of society there and predetermined the structure of initiation.
Frobenius divided all cultures into two types, chthonic and telluric. The chthonic (that is the Greek “chthonos”, “earth”) type is a type in which images of caves, pits, holes, and concavity dominate. It has matriarchal features, carriers of this type are prone to balance, balance, harmony with nature, peacefulness.
In the telluric type (also from the word "earth", only Latin - tellus) hills, mounds, and bulges predominate. It has patriarchal features and is associated with militancy, aggressiveness, expansion, cruelty, the will to power.
We absolutely unequivocally identify the nocturne regime in the chthonic type, and the diurna regime in the telluric type. If we accept the version of Frobenius about the dual type of cultures and about cultural circles and the translation of "paideums", then we get the following picture.
There are two huge families of ethnic groups, each of which includes many groups, regardless of their racial, linguistic, religious or political affiliation, as well as the level of development of culture and geographical location. One family - chthonic - is guided by the nocturne/myth formula (there may be elements of diurn in the unconscious, but they do not dominate and cannot break out into the numerator).
The second family - telluric - is based on the diurn/myth formula (the denominator may also contain nocturne elements, but they are restrained by the diurn energies in the numerator). These two families cover the entirety of the ethnic groups of mankind, and any representative of mankind necessarily belongs either to one or to another ethnic family. At the same time, practically all - perhaps with the rarest exception of some archaic tribes (like the Pirakhan tribe, which was already discussed earlier) - ethnic groups have social structures in themselves as their organic part. In the case of telluric societies, the identity ethnos=society is complete and perfect. And in the case of the chthonic ones, we are forced to recognize the exogenous nature of the social structure and initiation brought - according to the logic of the translation "paideums" - by the carriers of the telluric cultural code, that is, the ethnic groups of the diurna.
This hypothesis is in complete agreement with the theory Ludwig Gumplovich about the "racial struggle", if we take into account, as we said earlier, that by "race" in his case should be understood ethnos. In this case, the Gumplovich theory in our terms will look like this. Telluric cultures are created by the Diurna ethnic groups, which, in accordance with their “heroic” orientation, are extremely active and aggressive, and therefore, spreading dynamically throughout the world, subjugate the chthonic ethnic groups, prone to peacefulness. Since the myth of the duirna is the axis of the initiatory deployment of the vertical and individuation, these ethnic groups carry in their cultural code (paideum) the foundations of society - with its stratification, main sociological axes, relationships, roles and structures. Seizing power over chthonic ethnic groups, they assert their social models (diurna models) in them, which are a kind of pseudomorphosis (according to Spengler). Under certain circumstances, they dissolve into chthonic ethnic groups, which gradually return to the nocturne/myth model that is natural for them (thus, a smooth surface appears again on the spot, a stone thrown into the water), but the formal remnants of their presence are preserved in the form society, social structure and, most importantly, initiation.
Germanic mythology vividly describes to us warlike telluric aces (Odin, Thor, etc.) and chthonic peace-loving vans. According to Dumézil, the Indo-European ethnic groups and, most importantly, the Indo-European cultural type, the Indo-European paideuma, are a classic diurn.
The vast majority of ethnic groups - both archaic and modern - that we can study today show us just such a model: either these ethnic groups themselves carry society in themselves, or they are the guardians and repeaters of the society that was entrusted to them by "aliens", "others", bearers of the telluric culture, which gradually either transformed or remained in its original form.
A Pirahã Indian tribe in the Amazon who did not have numerals, even as simple as one and two, who did not have any prohibitions (including the prohibition of incest) and structured myths (but who at the same time saw spirits and communicated with them in an ordinary mode) is an exceptionally pure example of a chthonic culture, that is, a nocturnal ethnos. The absence of structured myths and the presence of abilities for direct visionary vision should not confuse us: we are talking about the fact that the pirates operate with mythems, from the basic elements of a myth that has not yet unfolded into a structured narrative - these are individual notes or chords taken at random. The spirits that the Pirahã Indians see, hear and interact with outside of religion, rituals and myths - these are nocturnal myths. Their case is a unique phenomenon of an ethnos with the following mytheme/mytheme formula. It is a pure form of the chthonic type.
Ethnic Differences and the Collective Unconscious
Being organic units completely predetermining the structure of society (directly or through a complex operation of exogenous introduction of the myth of evil into the myth of nocturne), ethnic groups are different from each other. And these differences are the differences of myths. Each ethnic group has its own edition of the myth/myth formula. This is manifested in language, culture, rituals, beliefs, images of origin.
Ethnos can be likened to Do Kamo, which was discussed in the chapter of social anthropology. Or more precisely, two Do Kamo, since Do Kamo, as an individuating (initiatory) exponent of the power of the clan, necessarily deals with the exponent of the power of another kind, opposite to the phratry. Here we can recall the twin myth and the dual organization of society, about which Vs. Vyach wrote a lot. Ivanov (17) . Before Kamo - twins, hence the frequent case of the presence in the ethnic group of two leaders or two elders in the tribe. They are one and different at the same time, symmetrical and asymmetrical. There is no hierarchy between them, but there is no equality either. It cannot be ruled out that the bifurcation of power functions between the priest (flamen) and the king (rex) was one of the consequences of the reinterpretation of the twin nature of the ethnic organization.
Each ethnic group has its own version of the twin code, its own balance of myths, archetypes, its own combination of denominator and numerator, its own trajectories of combinations of "chreods", its own combinations of myths. This statement is tantamount to saying that cultural circles also exist in the space of the collective unconscious. The general structure of this collective unconscious is the same. But for each ethnic group, in the case of each myth / myth formula, we are dealing with various parts or holograms of a single whole. The unity of humanity and man is due to the single most fundamental bottom structure of the myth. And at the other end - at the level of striving for the logos - the goal is also common, individuation. But the ways and strategies of this individuation are different. They are different in the case of each person, but a person, according to Frobenius, is nothing more than a “carrier” of “paideums” that is neutral in itself, that is, in other terms, a person is an expression of an ethnos. Outside the ethnos and society, largely conditioned by this ethnos, there is no person. He cannot individuate the collective unconscious by starting directly from himself. By definition, he deals with how this unconscious is structured in an ethnos, that is, what is its structure - and, among other things, what is the structure of the balance of the denominator and numerator in each particular case. A person is completely and without a trace predetermined by the ethnos, but not as a biological fate, but as an element of myth, a cultural code. He is incapable of individuation without ethnos. Individuation takes place only within the ethnos and, in fact, by the ethnos itself. Man is only an instrument of this ethnic individuation, its moment, its interval.
Ethnos - this is a person in its maximum understanding. And just as different people are among themselves, so are ethnic groups. The only difference is that people are not self-sufficient - they do not have a half for the production of offspring, there is no dialectical balance between native and alien-own, there is no initiation, as an institution of death and a new birth, it does not have its own myth, and the ethnos has all this there are - and couples for marriage, and the space of communications, and the possibility of procreation, and the myth, and initiation. Therefore, the differences between ethnic groups and their relations with each other is a truly meaningful and important process, and a person acquires significance and weight only if he realizes himself in an ethnic group, and already through the ethnic group, its myths and its structures, comes into contact with the rest of the world, which is an ethnic, ethnically predetermined, ethnically conditioned, ethnically structured world.
Interethnic interactions according to Shirokogorov
We considered the main type of interethnic interaction on the example of the ethnic groups Diurna and Nocturne. From the point of view of the structural sociology of an ethnos, they represent the most important paradigm, since it is precisely this moment of inoculation of tellurism into chthonic ethnic groups (and these inoculations can be done many times) that constitutes the most important moment of the birth of society - with its institutions, statuses, roles, etc. .
At a more mundane level, Shirokogorov proposed to consider three types of interaction between ethnic groups -
Commensalism (from the French commensal - "companion" - a form of symbiosis (cohabitation) of two ethnic groups that interact with each other, but this interaction and exchange is not fundamental for either one or the other, and in the absence of it will not cause serious damage to any of them );
Cooperation (when each of the two ethnic groups is vitally interested in the other, and in the event of a rupture of ties, both will be seriously affected)
Shirokogorov describes commensalism in this way. “The weakest connection between the two ethnic groups is a form of commensalism, i.e. when one and the other ethnic group can live on the same territory without interfering with each other and being in one way or another useful to each other, and when the absence of one does not in the least interfere with the prosperous life of the other. So, for example, the existence of a farmer occupying a limited area uninhabited by wild animals, with a hunter who feeds on hunting products, is quite possible. Although each of the commensalists may be independent of each other, they may also see mutual benefit - the hunter can be provided with agricultural products in case of a temporary hunger strike, and the farmer can have some hunting products - meat, furs, skins, etc. An example of such relations can be the Russian settlers of Siberia and local natives, as well as the ethnic groups of South America, coexisting on the same territory - the farmers and hunters of Brazil. (14)
Cooperation is such a form of relations between two ethnic groups, which assumes that one ethnic group cannot live without the other and both are equally interested in each other's existence. Such relations exist, for example, between the Indian castes, between the conquerors who separated themselves into an estate (for example, the Germans) of nobility or chivalry, and the local population (Gauls, Slavs). In the case of such cooperation among ethnic groups, they choose a form of social organization that is equally convenient for both sides. Depending on ethnic stability, further biological or cultural absorption of one ethnic group by another may occur, and the social organization continues to exist, as can be observed, for example, in some castes of India and others, but with the transition to another form of social organization through merger or absorption, complete loss of ethnic identity. (...)
Ethnicities and war
Another form of interethnic interaction is, according to Shirokogorov, war. This is an extreme but permanent format of interethnic relations. An ethnos on the rise crushes an ethnos in a state of stability or in decline. Since ethnic groups as a whole are constantly dynamically pulsing, moving in space, changing, broadcasting and adapting cultural codes, mastering different kinds management, acquire new technological skills and lose the old ones, then between them - in addition to the three forms of peaceful coexistence - wars flare up all the time - that very "racial struggle" of Gumplovich.
In the war of ethnic groups, many levels and forms can be distinguished - rivalry for resources (in the spirit of the example of the struggle between a bear, a tiger and Tungus hunters, which we cited), battles for territory, the desire to conquer another and force him to work for himself or pay tribute, the desire to impose on others your cultural code, etc. We are interested in highlighting here only one factor related to the structure of archetypes.
The fact is that the heroic archetype of diurna has an arrow and a sword as one of the main symbols. These are not mere metaphorical images, they are the plastic embodiment of the diurna movement itself, which represents the impulse for war. The archetype of diurna bears within itself the call to war, as it is in its very depths - a war with death and time. But another thing becomes the expression of death, the monster for the heroic impulse.
Since the other within the ethnos is included as one's own, heroism must be projected outside the tribe. This is where the call to war begins. The other outside the ethnos is another ethnos. His demonization, his transformation into an enemy, the projection onto him of images that oppose the diurnic impulse, this is the most natural operation that the code of telluric culture carries within itself. In other words, society itself is based on the spirit of war, society is generated by war, as it is generated by a warrior fighting in initiation against death and defeating death in a “new birth”.
Probably here one should look for the source of war - not in material limitations or objective factors, war is born in an ethnos, in a person, in its depths of depths and rises from there to reorganize everything around, adjust the world around to its scenarios. Ethnic groups howl because the spirit of war lies at the heart of ethnic groups - at least, those ethnic groups that belong to the telluric type. But even those who perceived diurnic moments in an exogenous way are not free from this - in the most peaceful mood, they often honor warlike spirits and gods by inertia, since they contain the axis of the social structure revolving around the sword, arrow, scepter (in a softened form of a staff - where does the staff have a bent or forked handle).
Part 3. The people and their logos
Now consider what happens when an ethnos becomes a people. In our sociocultural topic, the formula of the people is as follows
The most important difference between an ethnos and a people is in the numerator. There stands the logos instead of the mythos. This logos represents the introduction of a fundamentally new dimension into ethnic life - a dimension that is now formulated in rational terms, operates with the category of goal, which is fundamentally absent in mythos. Mythos explains how it is now, how it was before, and why one must continue to do one thing and not do another. There are no questions in mythos - why? Where? for what? It lacks a telos. The introduction of telos turns mythos into logos, gives it a completely new structuring, reorganizes the internal resources of the ethnos, directing them in a new direction. These are no longer chreods of mythems, which are vaguely pushed towards cohesion with other elements in order to come to an organization (although the chreod implies some semblance of teleology), it is a rigidly drawn and strictly formalized path, almost a railway track along which the energies of the ethnos will henceforth ply.
The logos that separates the people from the ethnos is the national logos, deeply rooted in the ethnos and its myths, but rising above them in order to establish itself in a new dimension and, at the same time, to constitute and create this dimension.
The transition from an ethnos to a people is not a quantitative, economic or political process. This is a deep philosophical phenomenon, when a shift occurs in the structure of myth, and it turns into something qualitatively different - into logos.
Heidegger pointed out that initially in philosophy Ancient Greece featured two basic concepts introduced - fusis and logos. Both of them represent a rationalization of agrarian metaphors - fusis originally meant shoots, and the verb legein, from which logos comes etymologically - the process of reaping, cutting ears, picking fruits. Fusis is an ethnos in which a myth freely (or chreodically) sprouts.
As long as there is only a fusis, the myth freely spreads throughout the entire space of society, constituting this space, being it. When the logos is introduced, a new phase begins, fundamentally different from the previous one - the phase of the harvest, the phase of the logos. This is the moment of the birth of a people: an ethnos turns into a people when it begins to think rationally, i.e. reap your own content.
Greeks as a people
The Greeks begin to fully comprehend themselves as a people just at the time of the emergence of philosophy, and this philosophy itself, isolating the Greek logos from Greek myth, serves as the axis of Greek self-consciousness as ecumenes, civilizations. The Greeks become a people from a multitude of Mediterranean ethnic groups precisely through the unity of culture. Various political regimes are formed in the policies (such polar ones as the ascetic militaristic Sparta and the democratic hedonistic Athens), local cults and customs differ significantly from each other, many ethnic groups included in the ancient Greek area sometimes speak different languages, but all this diversity - decentralized and original - is united by a common civilization, the adoption of the ecumenical Hellenic paideum. So, a common language, and a common script, and a common mythology are gradually taking shape, but this language, this script, and this mythology already have a significantly different character - supra-ethnic, rationalized, schematized, oriented towards a specific telos. So it's about the people. And at a certain stage, the emergence of pre-Socratic philosophy becomes the crystallization of this process. IN Plato and Aristotle, the Greek logos, the logos of the Greeks as a people, reaches its climax and is clearly aware of itself and its nature, and the student Aristotle, a descendant of the Diurnic Macedonians who took Athens, Alexander the Great, guided by this logos and embodying this telos, builds a gigantic world empire.
In this case, we see that the Greeks became a people from the constellation of Mediterranean ethnic groups without a state, but at some stage they created a world empire. When this empire fell, giving way to new empires and kingdoms, primarily Rome, new ethnic groups and peoples began to form on its ruins, and some ethnic groups returned to their previous state, but in any case retaining a colossal trace of belonging to Greek culture.
We meet the next stage of Greek identity as a people in Byzantium, after the Western provinces fell away from it, captured by the barbarians. Then the “Roman people” (that is, literally “Romans” - since the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire), as the Greeks of this period called themselves, once again formulated their logos, this time as the core of the Byzantine Empire and the priority bearer of the Orthodox religion.
people of india
The Vedic Aryans turn into a people when, from a warlike diurnic ethnic group (one of the many that roamed the steppes of Eurasia), the custodian of “telluric”, according to Frobenius, solar myths, they invade Hindustan, where they realize their myth as the structure of a universal logos and create a majestic civilization, based on a unique millennial process of rationalization of the Vedas through the Brahmanas, Puranas, Upanishads, Samhitas and innumerable philosophies.
If, from an ethnic point of view, this process can be described in terms of interethnic relations of the Aryan elite, who created the social system of India, with the autochthonous population of Hindustan, mainly Dravidians, then from another point of view, this is an example of the deployment of the people as a logos / mythos formula.
Formation of the Islamic Ummah
Through the religious idea formed arab people. Being previously disparate ethnic groups, the Arabian Arabs of the era Muhammad(571-632) gradually rallied around a new religious preacher who was recognized as a prophet. In this case, the Koran acted as a logos, which contained rational prescriptions for behavior, social organization, economic and ethical laws, the foundations of law, and listed the duties of each member of the community (ummah). In Islamic philosophy, there is an exact equivalent to the Greek concept of logos - this is "kalam", in Arabic a pen with which God writes the content of the world.
The new religion, which was carried by the Arabian tribes, gives a giant impetus to integration at the beginning of the Arabian Peninsula, and then provokes a wave of Arab conquests that swept over Eurasia, reaching Europe (where the Arabs were stopped only by Karl Martell(686-741) during the famous Battle of Poitiers) in the West and to India and Indonesia in the East.
The Arabs became a nation that received the logos in the form of the "Koran", and began to spread this religiously understood model of the people ("Ummah") to the whole world. In this case, three parallel processes took place -
Arabization (assimilation into the Arab people - with the language, customs, type of behavior) of many ethnic groups of North Africa and the Middle East;
Islamization (conversion of all conquered peoples and ethnic groups to Islam);
Creation of the caliphate (establishment of the political power of the Arab nobility over the conquered territories within the framework of a single Islamic empire).
Here we see that several Arabian tribes, in particular, the Quraysh, under the leadership of a religious figure, are rapidly turning into a people, and he, in turn, creates a civilization and a gigantic state. Religion and the holy book of Muslims, the Koran, play the main role here - the role of the logos.
At the same time, as in the case of the Greeks, who, starting from civilization and partly philosophy, approached the creation of an empire, the Arabs, this time, starting from religion, developed an entire civilization on its basis and built a powerful world state.
This shows that the previously identified forms of transformation of an ethnos into a people - religion, state, civilization - can unfold in a different order and at different stages flow one into another. Most important of all is precisely that deep moment when the register changes, and the myth in the numerator is replaced by logos.
Empire of Genghis Khan
There are a great many examples of how an ethnos becomes a people through the creation of a state. The history of any state necessarily has a phase of an internal leap from mythos to logos, after which a people is found in the place of an ethnos.
An impressive example of the construction of the greatest state and, accordingly, the creation of a people practically from scratch - without civilization and without a specific religion - is given by the Mongol Empire. The petty prince of the Mongolian tribe Kiyat-Borjigin, who is in a stable ethnic state and does not show any signs of becoming a people, on the contrary, weakening and losing positions among other Mongolian ethnic groups, Temujin(1167-1227) suddenly and almost single-handedly switches the mode of ethnic existence and begins a series of never-ending conquests. In lightning time, a gigantic Mongol Empire is being created, surpassing in scale the greatest empires of antiquity.
The founder of the empire is the Mongolian people, which is formed from various ethnic groups by the will of the supreme ruler Genghis Khan. In the shortest period of time, not only various Mongolian tribes, but also hundreds of other Eurasian ethnic groups are fused into a single structure, becoming accomplices in an undertaking of a global scale.
In this case, the “Yasa” code designed by Genghis Khan, the legislative principles of the organization of the World State, acts as a logos. This code, poorly studied in the scientific literature, is a rationalization and absolutization of the basic principles of the duirn regime - friend-foe dualism, the highest values - loyalty, valor and honor, normative contempt for comfort and material well-being, equating life with an endless war, a ban on alcohol, etc. This style of society was typical for most of the nomadic tribes of Eurasia and before the Mongols (Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Turks, Goths, etc.), but Genghis Khan raises myth into logos, custom into law, following the traditions of the past into a project achieving the highest goal - the creation of a world Mongolian power and the conquest of the world.
It is significant that from the very beginning, Genghis Khan was building an empire, a state-world, in which the rights of the conquered ethnic groups and the religious issue were clearly stipulated. The Mongol Empire undertakes to observe a certain autonomy of those ethnic groups that have submitted to the authority of the "Great Khan", representatives of all religions are considered inviolable, get rid of tribute and receive guaranteed support from the state.
The Mongolian logos is expressed in a unified tax collection system, the organization of a professional army, and the establishment of pit communication systems throughout the empire. But at the same time, he keeps the myth, ethnos and religion intact, coordinating with the universal model only the most general administrative and legal positions.
Genghis Khan creates a state, but this state does not abolish ethnic groups and myths. The logos and the people (Mongolian) come to the fore, but the myth is not erased and is not driven underground. Such a model can be called an imperial logos, a logos that does not conflict with mythos. The people (in this case, the Mongols), which becomes the bearer of such an imperial logos, is constituted according to the formula
The ratio of logos in the people building an empire and ethnic groups (with their own myths - including the main empire-building ethnos) differs significantly from how the balance between logos and mythos develops in the case of creating other types of statehood.
It can be seen that in the era, collectively defined as the era of Premodernity, all forms of the state created by the people are empires in their type. This is not an indicator of the volume of their territorial conquests, the universal scale of their idea or the presence of an emperor, but describes the specifics of the relationship of logos to mythos in them. The logos in the Premodern states - large or small - never becomes in direct opposition to the mythos (that is, the ethnos), and the poet is always imperial.
We see this in full measure in the formation of the Russian State: Rurik Slavic and Finno-Ugric tribes belonging to various ethnic groups are invited to rule. And in the new statehood, their ethnicity is not erased, not suppressed, but preserved and continues to exist in a natural rhythm for many centuries. It means that Kievan Rus from its first steps it was a state of the imperial type - the logos in this case was Varangian, and the mythos was Slavic and Finno-Ugric.
According to the same model, the state of the Franks was created, which gave rise to modern France, as well as almost all the states of the premodern era known in the history - they were all empires (either universal, or medium, or tiny).
The balance of logos and mythos among the people
Nevertheless, the people who create the state in the process of deploying their logos, in any case, change the structure of their ethnicity. The myth goes below the line of the fraction, the direct homology between the numerator and the denominator (as in the ethnic formula mythos/mythos) is violated. More complex relationships are built between the structure of the unconscious and the structure of consciousness than in myth. Something passes from the myth into the logos of the people, but something does not.
Theoretically, there is room for potential conflict, at least for some friction.
This is clearly seen in the example of the formation of Greek philosophy: as it develops, myth is rationalized with a parallel division of what lends itself to it and enters the structure of philosophical systems, and what is discarded as “fables”, “fairy tales”, “prejudices”.
A people leaving an ethnos sends some part of its “former” (in a logical, not chronological sense) state to the periphery.
The same is true with the advent of Islam. Mohammed partly accepts the ethnic traditions of the pre-Islamic period - in particular, the black stone of the Kaaba in Mecca, many religious and everyday prescriptions of the ancient Arabs, and partly rejects them and declares a religious war on them - as a battle with disbelief and "giving associates to God" (shirk).
Similarly, with Genghis Khan's "Yasa", where certain ethnic codes of the nomadic code of the Mongols are elevated to the status of law, and some traditions - in particular, ritual Mongolian drunkenness, as well as many others - are severely rejected.
The imperial logos does not come into conflict with myth, but nevertheless strictly and clearly distinguishes itself from myth. At the next stage, this difference can lead to serious contradictions.
Passionary push
The event described by Gumilyov - a passionary impetus as the start of the process of ethnogenesis - exactly corresponds to what we designate as a transition from an ethnos to a people. Gumilyov described this in terms of "energy", an active force that suddenly opens up in an ethnos and brings it to a new scale of historical existence. He associated this with an increase in the number of "passionaries" - that is, people of a heroic, sometimes somewhat adventurous type, driven by an excess of internal forces.
Regarding the cause of passionary shocks, Gumilyov gave a very peculiar explanation, linking them to the pulsations of solar cycles, the connection of which with the biological cycles of life on earth was studied by a Russian scientist A.L. Chizhevsky(1897-1964)(18). With all the wit of such a hypothesis, it has nothing to do with sociology and structural sociology. But the following is extremely important: Gumilyov described in detail and correctly singled out in the history of ethnic groups those moments when the transition from an ethnic group to a people took place, that is, he compiled a systematic table of ethnic groups in geographical and chronological order, including all cases of such a switching of regimes, whenever they neither occurred - both in antiquity and in recent centuries.
And if Gumilyov's answer to the ethnological problematics: why the transition from an ethnos to a people occurs can be found controversial or irrelevant, the very attraction of fixed attention to this topic can hardly be overestimated. In that part of structural sociology that studies ethnos - that is, in the field of structural ethnosociology - Gumilyov's theory is an essential component.
The mechanics of ethnogenesis according to Gumilyov
In its most general form, Gumilyov's theory of ethnogenesis is as follows. Within the framework of existing ethnic groups, Gumilyov singles out “convixia” (“community”) as the basic cell. Numerous "convixions" add up to "consortia". Groups of "consortia" form a "sub-ethnos". The next step is "ethnos", and, finally, "superethnos".
The process of movement from convixion to ethnos and superethnos is a route that in the vast majority of cases remains in a potential state - and every existing social system is in balance. But in the rarest cases, under the influence of an inexplicable (or heliobiological) impulse - a passionary push - a single "convixia" (for example, a community, a group of like-minded people, a band of robbers, a tiny religious sect, etc.) begins to behave actively, aggressively, violently, capturing with its energy everything around itself - that is, other convixions. If this process continues, then convixia will form a new consortium, then a subethnos - and so on up to a superethnos. The full path in history was passed in isolated cases - two of which we mentioned: the Empire of Genghis Khan and the Arab Caliphate. This also includes the spread of early Christianity - from a small group of apostles to a world empire and world civilization. For the most part, passionary impulses go out at intermediate stages. Thus, the structure of conviscia-consortium-subethnos-ethnos-superethnos can be perceived as a chreod, that is, a probable path for the development of passionarity processes, which in reality will be passed only with a combination of many additional conditions.
Passionarity and diurn
In Gumilyov's theory, the similarity between the phenomenon of passionarity and the mode of imagination that Gilbert Durand describes as the mode of diurn is immediately striking. In its pure mythological form, diurn carries something similar to passionarity. The complex of myths and symbols of the diurn unfolds in the mode of a tough and sharpened dramatic confrontation between the imaginer of death and time. The heroic diairesis rejects the euphemism of the nocturnal regimes and defies the times. The balance on which the habitual life of an ethnos is based is based on a compromise between the diurn (the basis of initiation and social institutions, the structure of individuation practices) and the exorcism of the nocturne (which was discussed earlier). An excess of diurna may well consider such a compromise as the transition of the entire system to the side of the "enemy" - time-death, and the delicate ethnic balance of kinship and property, in which twin opposites are resolved dialectically, in this case it may be violated - which will lead to the destabilization of the tribe (ethnos ) and the beginning of unpredictable (catastrophic) events.
Something similar can take place when the male union as an initiatory structure is separated from the rest of the tribe - up to complete isolation, migration, separation, resettlement. The male union as an institution for the cultivation of the heroic principle - warriors, hunters, young aggressive men - in isolation from the restraining nocturne bonds of an equilibrium ethnos will most likely behave according to a passionate scenario.
And finally, it can be assumed, in the spirit of Frobenius-Grebner's diffusionism, that some ethnic groups or tribes are obviously endowed with increased diurnic properties and have the corresponding structure of myth and the dominant heroism in the unconscious, and the movement of such ethnic groups - sometimes difficult to distinguish in detail - over space gives rise to a series of explosions of passionarity or channels of its distribution.
In this case, passionarity can be described (but not explained, which we do not pretend to be) as a concentration of diurn, which serves as a combustible material for the dynamics of the processes of ethnogenesis and, accordingly, sociogenesis.
People and Diurn
Continuing this line, we can say that the deployment of the heroic principle - diurna - in the structure of the unconscious and in the general architecture of myth - leads
In the first (logically, but not necessarily chronologically) stages towards the organization of the ethnos in accordance with the social order along the vertical axis (in an endogenous or exogenous way - as we talked about earlier);
In some cases - to the concentration of this principle in special initiatory organizations;
Sometimes - to the mobilization of the entire ethnic group to solve heroic (militant, aggressive, extensive) tasks;
And in the form of a culmination - to the design of the heroic myth in the logos, embodied in the creation of empires, religions, civilizations.
In other words, an extremely high concentration of diurn elements is responsible for the transition from an ethnos to a people. Gumilev's theory of ethnogenesis and its stages may well be interpreted with the help of this toolkit.
At first glance, the question may arise, what has changed when we replaced one rather mysterious term "passionarity" with another, no less mysterious one - "myth of diurna"? A lot has changed. Gumilyov's passionarity referred us to the bioenergetic theories of modern science, which is a multiple derivative of basic anthropological and sociological paradigms. This science is a layering of so many layers of sociologically determined conventions that even a metaphorical use of its terms and its procedures can significantly lower the level of hypotheses, not to mention etiology or causality - to believe in this is at least naive. Having interpreted the phenomenon of passionarity as a specific mode of work of the imagner, we immediately find ourselves in the center of the problem, since the action of this mode fits into general context not only in psychoanalysis and psychoanalytic topics, but also in the context of sociology and structural anthropology. Moreover, in this case, passionarity can be consistently explored inside its core - that is, to reveal the mechanics of passionarity - to demystify it (in particular, freeing it from depressing heliobiology, because the sun is a social and mythological phenomenon, and, as such, belongs to the realm of imagination) .
Thus, summing up the analysis of the relationship between people and logos, we can say that the key moment of the transition from ethnos to people (with the corresponding forms of large-scale historical creativity) is the sharp dominance of the diurna regime in the structure of the ethnos. Logos is born from a heroic myth, and for this to happen, a high degree of concentration of this particular myth must be achieved both in the numerator and in the denominator of the mythos/mythos ethnos formula. When this formula takes the form
the desired leap of passionarity will take place, the diurn in the numerator will turn into a logos, and the ethnos will become a people.
Part 4. The nation against the myth
Perenniality of the ethnos
We meet ethnos throughout the entire space of the historical syntagma Premodern-Modern-Postmodern. In one form or another, it is everywhere as a constant of human society. Any society is directly or indirectly ethnic, whether it is recognized or not. At various points in the sociocultural topic, in different ways with its other components, but the myth is present everywhere - as a constant of the collective unconscious, as the imaginer himself. A person is ethnic in an absolute way, he is always an ethnic person. Similarly, society: it bears the imprint of the ethnos in the most direct and immediate way. At the same time, ethnicity can be the only content of a person and society as part of a tribe or archaic forms of society, or it can be combined with more complex systems - when we are dealing with a people and more abstract structures built by them - civilization, religion, and especially the state. In the first case, ethnos is the only thing that is given (the formula mythos/mythos), in the second case, ethnos is combined with a certain supra-ethnic (super-ethnic, according to L. Gumilyov) superstructure (the people's formula logos/mythos).
Ethnos has always been and is. This circumstance is deliberately singled out and substantiated by the primordialist or perennialist theory (from the Latin "primordial" - initial and "perrenis" - eternal, constant, unchanging). In general, it was first formulated by German philosophers Johann Gottlieb Fichte(1762-1814) and Johann Gottfried Herder(1744-1803). From the point of view of the synchronistic approach and structuralism, it is in the ethnos that one should look for the keys to understanding a person as such. This is connected with the whole direction of structural anthropology, which studies the institutions, psychology, mentality, symbols, rituals, way of life and thoughts of peoples who are in a state of ethnos. Therefore, we meet the ethnic at all stages of history - from Premodern through Modern and up to Postmodern.
As for the people, that is, the transition of an ethnos into a special regime of passionary tension or an overconcentration of diurn, this does not happen in all ethnic groups. Ethnos is something obligatory and present with necessity as a fundamental anthropological and sociological given. We meet people much less often. This is an optional and not necessary form of society. It is associated with a set of emerging factors that are combined under the influence of many diverse and multi-level causes. There is no predestination that an ethnos becomes a people, and there is no guarantee that, having become a people, that is, a superethnos in Gumilyov's terms, it will not again break up into ethnic units - either old or new, or that such units will not break away from it . The transformation of an ethnos into a nation is a reversible phenomenon.
Although we meet peoples - precisely peoples (not ethnic groups) - on ancient stages of known history, their existence, while logically probable, is not strictly necessary. In this they differ from the ethnos, which is necessary and present everywhere. The people, as a special case of an ethnos ignited by heroic super-energy, is thus a probabilistic quantity.
Genesis of the nation
The phenomenon of the nation, for its part, has a strictly defined temporal localization and belongs to the New Age. Previously, we do not meet the nation as such (that is, the Nation-State), it is an exceptional phenomenon of Modernity and fully belongs to its paradigm. Nation is a modern concept, inextricably linked with the Enlightenment and the Modern paradigm. In this it differs from both the ethnos and the people, which are present in all paradigms.
The genesis of the nation is connected with the concept of the state. The state, in turn, as we have seen, is one of the three possible forms of embodiment of the creative power of the people (along with religion and civilization). A people is an ethnos that has acquired a logos. And finally, the logos is born from the mythological regime of the diurna, which, in turn, constituting the logos, leaves its other equally diurnic and heroic, but not logical, possibilities unused. Everything that does not pass from one state to another does not disappear, but remains as active factors that continue to exert a huge influence on the entire structure. The genesis of a nation can be described as a process of successive selection of mythological potential.
The diagram shows four logical steps in the emergence of a nation. If we project these logical steps onto a diachronic picture, then the transition to the lower level will be carried out strictly in the New Age, which makes us classify the nation as a purely modern phenomenon. The use of the same term in earlier epochs leads us to interpret the statement as referring either to a people or to an ethnos.
Such a strict definition of the nation is extremely important in order to unravel the tangle of countless contradictions, confusions of concepts and anachronisms in the use of the term "nation".
The nation is genetically connected with the ethnos, as it appears from the matrix of the ethnos. But as it develops, the nation more and more frees itself from what was its source, up to the point that in its finished form it becomes in absolute opposition to the ethnos.
The Nation State as an Ethnocide Machine
We see that the Nation-State does not recognize the presence of myth in its structure at all and identifies itself exclusively with the realm of the logos. This is strictly clear from the history of the formation of the New Age, which took place under the sign of the complete liberation of the mind from "pre-rational", "non-reasonable" impurities. This was the meaning of the Enlightenment - the expulsion of myth.
Therefore, in the political practice of the formation of modern Nation-States, we see the deployment of a systematic ethnocide - the destruction of ethnic groups and even people (as having too much of the myth in itself - albeit in the denominator).
Thus, during the formation of the French State-Nation, dozens of ethnic groups that once inhabited the territory of the French kingdom became victims. These are Oktsy, Aquitanians, Basques, Gascons, Normans, Bretons, Provencals, etc. A single homogeneous field is made up of several ethnic groups and is made up from above - from the side of the state, which introduces a common social standard, which includes the normative national language, common law (which abolishes ethnic differences), the principle of secular, secular education, the foundations of the economic system are fixed, artificially and uniformly formed authorities and other institutions.
The state develops a certain logos, as a mechanical model of rigid laws, and fits under this logos not only small ethnic groups that find themselves within its borders, but also the people themselves, who launched the state, consistently clearing it of myth.
The state as an anti-empire artificially generates a nation
It is indicative that only a state of a non-imperial type generates a nation. In principle, the modern state, whose theorists were Machiavelli, Hobbes And Jean Bodin, was conceived as anti-empire, as the antithesis of empire.
The nation-state is being consistently cleansed of other forms of people's creativity - civilization and religion. In the history of Europe, this meant ignoring such a phenomenon as European civilization and the desire to justify national statehood on the rationally meaningful selfish interests of a particular group that created the state and enjoyed its fruits. On the other hand, modern states were built in polemic with the universalist claims of papal power, which explains either the secular nature of these theories, or the fact that their creators were Protestants (like Jean Bodin or Thomas Hobbes). And finally, in practical optics, they opposed the lines of Austria-Hungary, the last imperial formation in Western Europe.
The empire combines the centralist logos with the polyphony of ethnic groups, it also keeps the empire-forming people relatively intact. In terms of logos-mythos, it combines the universalist logos with mythological diversity in a denominator that is recognized both de jure and de facto.
A nation is not just a certain stage in the existence of a people. Here the sequence is different. The people create a state (at first, as a rule, an empire). An empire, under certain conditions (and by no means always) transforms into a state of a secular, non-imperial type. And only then does this state of a non-imperial type artificially generate a nation, establish it, politically, socially, legally, administratively, institutionally, territorially, and even economically, it constitutes and constructs. The nation is a construct of the state, that is, a completely and completely artificial phenomenon, based on the application of an abstract logos to specific historical, ethnic and political conditions.
Citizen - the logical artifact of the nation
The basis of the nation is not some organic community, but the individual, the citizen. The citizen is a unit of a purely logical order. It is constructed not on the basis of something existing, but on the basis of a rational imperative. The citizen is introduced as an established identity, subject to the first three laws of logic - "A=A", "A not not-A", and "either A or not-A". A citizen is such a unit that fully satisfies this law. It stands out from the general mass of an ethnos or people, connected by numerous threads of mythos in its denominator, and with this separation it cuts off all ties with the natural collective whole (myth in the denominator), turning into a new artificial collective aggregate based on logical operations. This artificially constructed unit is the nation.
Earlier we talked about how the transfer of an element from the realm of mythos to the realm of logos places it before a cold and impartial analysis, alienated by a mechanical judgment. The citizen, as the basis of the nation, is a man cut off from his natural environment, awakened from his dreams and rhetorical discourses, and called to court. This is the basis of the idea of national law. Law in the Nation State is the basis for the functioning of the whole mechanism, it is the scheme of the apparatus and the operating instructions. The basis of the nation is the Constitution, as the basic document that defines the main parameters of the blueprint and the mechanism of interaction between the individual parts of the common national apparatus.
The citizen is the universal detail of this logical machine.
If we again recall the concepts of the sociology of Tennis, we can say that the nation is the expression of "Geselschaft" ("society"), as an artificial bond between atoms, into which the organic whole was previously divided. A nation is a robot of a people and an ethnos, one can also say that it is an automatic stuffed animal, from which internal organs are carefully removed and replaced with mechanical parts, these organs are approximately imitating.
The Hypotype of the “People” in the Constitutions
A nation is an anti-ethnos, an anti-people. The memory of the people as the initiator of the emergence of the nation is often still contained in the Constitutions of most nations, but this mention is in the nature of a hypotyposis (that is, an anachronistic euphemism) - "the people" is mentioned as a living reminder of what preceded the emergence of the state and the creation of a nation on its basis. In the present, in the National State, there is no longer a people, instead of it there is a nation - it is it that is governed by the Constitution and is constituted by it. But the hypothetical appeal to the people in the present tense is a figure of speech, which, among other things, leads to the incorrect and purely anachronistic conclusion that the nation could be something that preceded the state (although this is a logical and chronological, syntagmatic contradiction).
Causes of confusion in the definitions of nation (nationalism) in political science
These nuances are associated with the fact that very often under the “nation”, which has a strictly mechanical and civil content, other realities are understood - that is, “people” and “ethnos”, as a society where the positions of the myth are completely legitimized, and sometimes legal. Such a failure of concepts makes the same representatives of Modernity and the modern state act both as supporters of the nation and as its opponents. They are supporters when they understand civil society in the spaces of the state by “nation” (that is, in fact, what should be understood by “nation”), and they are opponents, as soon as this concept is invested with an anachronistic content (“people” and / or "ethnos").
The same duality, not based on fuzzy word usage, also affects the concept of "nationalism". Strictly speaking, "nationalism" is a phenomenon of unity and mobilization of citizens of a state for the realization of some state goal - victory in a war, expanding one's political influence or a zone of economic control. Such nationalism does not conflict conceptually with the norms of civil society and is quite acceptable in most modern societies. But if by “nation” it is incompetent to understand “people” or “ethnos”, then the meaning of the concept changes to the exact opposite, and “nationalism” is understood in this case as a counterattack of the outlawed mythos against the logos, usurping all powers in the modern state, that is an attempt by the "Gemeinschaft" ("community") to win back some of their rights from the "Geselschaft" ("society"). To emphasize these differences, compound terms such as "ethno-nationalism", "ethnocracy", "Volk-nationalism" (or "volkisch" - from the German "das Volk", "people"), "national intolerance" or "racism" are used. Obviously, such complex constructions only obscure the essence of the problem, forcing the development of systems of concepts and definitions, including legal ones, based on exaggerations, polysemy and omissions, which only harms the harmony of scientific, political and legal discourse. Examples of such inadequate use of the terms “nation” and “nationalism” are full of world and Russian media, cases of legal practice, typical political polemics that never lead to anything, since terminological confusion is at the very basis of the positions and priorities discussed.
Causes of confusion in the definitions of nation (nationalism) in ethnology
Another kind of confusion of concepts takes place in the scientific community. This is related to the "ethnos" theories discussed by contemporary ethnology and anthropology. IN Russian science an extremely incorrect and irrelevant practice has developed to oppose each other the primordial (perennialist) theory of ethnos (we outlined it above) and the so-called "social constructivism". Primordialism recognizes "ethnos" as a primordial and fundamental phenomenon, given as an unfolding of the structures of the unconscious (with or without the addition of the idea of ancestral ties - we have seen that in any ethnos both kinship and property are involved, and both of them are constitutive for the definition of ethnos only in the aggregate , which makes the criterion for the presence of ancestral ties in determining an ethnos incomplete and misleading). The "constructivism" opposed to it tries to explain the emergence of an ethnos as an artificial cultural, political and linguistic initiative of elites or individual small groups. And here, as in the everyday language of politicians and journalists, we are faced with a confusion of concepts and anachronistic extrapolations. Ethnos is a strictly and unambiguously primordial phenomenon, and there is no other explanation for its origin. The only thing is that the processes of ethnogenesis can be interpreted differently - through the energy theory of passionarity (as in Gumilyov), through a combination of unconscious modes (especially with an emphasis on the socio-forming function of the diurna) or in some other way. Herder metaphorically defined "ethnoi" (= "peoples") as "the thoughts of God". In the religious ideas of the Jews and partially Christians, the difference between ethnic groups and peoples is explained through the idea / plurality of angels - each people (ethnos) has its own angel, symbolically personified by the prince of this people. Thus, members of the chain angel-prince-people (ethnos) can act as metonymic concepts.
Constructivism begins in full measure where nation-building takes place. Here, indeed, there is nothing primordial and perrenial - this national structure is built completely artificially and with the help of mechanical and logical laws. Here, indeed, the power and intellectual elites play an important role, developing purely logically and speculatively those ideas, principles, interests and values around which the artificial civil community constituted by them is called upon to unite. In the case of large nations this is obvious and needs no proof. Problems can arise only with small nations, the emergence of which is taking place before our eyes. In the post-Soviet space, in each of the CIS Republics, except Russia, the process of creating new nations, as a rule, never existed in history, is in full swing.
Similar attempts are being made at a lower level - within separatist tendencies and within Russia itself, and in this case the appeals of the operators of the creation of new nations to the ethnic factor are even more striking. A superficial reflection on these phenomena led a group of incompetent Russian scientists from the "Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology" of the Russian Academy of Sciences ( V.ATishkov) to the opposition of primordialism and constructivism. The fact is that appeals to ethnic principles in the creation of a nation do not define the essence of ethnogenesis and lose sight of the very content of the ethnos. This factor, indeed artificial and mechanically constructed, serves as a nuance to the formation of a nation in its civic political sense. In this, the general civilizational mood of Modernity makes itself felt.
As the collapse of imperial formations or the collapse of large states that did not have time or did not want to completely destroy the original ethnic groups within their borders, ethnic elites try to imitate the example of Western Nation-States and repeat the entire cycle of ethnos-people-nation, even if for internal prerequisites for this have not matured. In this case, we are dealing with archeomodern or pseudomorphosis, which we have repeatedly spoken about. Ethnic elites are educated in Modern institutions. And then they project the resulting epistemes - in the political, cultural, sociological sense - onto their own ethnic groups that continue to live within the traditional society. In such cases, we see constructivism, but this constructivism has nothing to do with either the essence of an ethnos or ethnogenesis (no matter how it is understood), it explains only the behavior of the elite, which projects the procedures for creating a nation onto a fundamentally and invariably primordial ethnos (and most often, if not always, Nation-States), gleaned from someone else's experience through education in other social contexts and in a different historical paradigm - in the Modern paradigm, where no ethnos is already assumed. From such attempts, only another pseudomorphosis can appear, which we see in the example of crippled Georgia, torn apart by the contradictions of modern Ukraine, or a complete failure to build the Nation State Dudayev(1944-1996) and Maskhadov(1951-2005), which was rightly criticized by Chechen traditionalists and ethnocrats (in particular, HA. Nukhaev).
The fate of mythos in modernity
If we carefully follow the development of the course in the description of the nation, we come across a certain contradiction. On the one hand, we said that the logos/mythos fraction and the two-story topic itself, which underlies structural sociology, is a universal model applicable to all sociological, psychological and anthropological phenomena. But when describing the State-Nation, we are talking only about a logos, and one that declares war on the destruction of mythos - to the extent that it does not recognize its very existence and tries to describe Modern society as a pure Geselschaft, which has no denominator at all. This corresponds to the diachronic sequence with which we began the presentation of the course. Modern believes that only the diachronic scheme of the temporal syntagma is correct:
We have shown that thanks to the discoveries of structuralists, linguists and psychoanalysts, it became clear that the mythos has not disappeared anywhere, it has remained in the unconscious and continues to exist there, despite the logos denying this very existence. Therefore, when we say that the nation as a purely logical and artificial phenomenon is based entirely on the logos, we describe the situation from the side of the logos itself: this is how the nation and the state think of themselves and their atomic composition (citizens). For clarity, you can build the following chain:
It strictly corresponds to the equivalent chain:
In a nation, the logos seeks to abolish the mythos, to cross it out, to remove it as a phenomenon. If you believe the nation and Modernity as a whole, then the ethnos and mythos are abolished during the transition to the New Age. Nations are replaced by peoples and ethnic groups. Nominally and legally, this is how it is, and there is nothing in the denominator of the logos and the nation. But structuralism reveals this “nothing” like a film, and gradually through its methodology, through the study of narrative and rhetoric, through the discovery of the collective unconscious and paradigm approach, the features of a long-familiar phenomenon appear from scratch, which, as it turns out, has not disappeared anywhere. This discovery makes sociologists, anthropologists and linguists (starting with the largest E. Durkheim, M. Moss, K. Levi-Strauss, R. O. Jacobson, N. S. Trubetskoy, etc.) turn to primitive societies, archaic tribes, ancient languages, traditions, fairy tales and legends in search of the content of this “nothing”, exposed as something.
Ethnos as the subconscious of the nation
The same is true of the nation. The nation believes that it has “got rid of the ethnos” and ignores the ethnic in legal, conceptual, political, administrative and institutional systems. The nation pretends that "there is no ethnos", and when it declares itself, it seeks to suppress it, or even simply destroy it - either through nationalization (forcible conversion to a national type through language, culture, law, etc.), or by extermination. When creating an American nation around white colonizers with a dominant Anglo-Saxon and Protestant socio-cultural code, the local population, the Indians, turned out to be completely unable (both subjectively and objectively) to integrate into it. This led to their extermination or to apartheid, which in fact de facto exists in the United States to this day. The Indians were ethnic groups, and with developed purely ethnic features, and could not be integrated into the nation. The situation was more complicated with black slaves, torn from the soil and arbitrarily mixed by white planters without regard to their ethnicity (after all, among the black slaves there were representatives of completely different ethnic groups, caught in Africa for purely economic purposes). African Americans were thus included in the American nation on an individual basis - as black citizens without any ethnic context. Therefore, the question of their integration was easier, and when the North and the abolitionists defeated the Confederates and the planters of the South, legally the way for the integration of blacks into the American nation was opened. It alone took more than one hundred and fifty years until this theoretical equality was realized to such an extent that the first mulatto with an African phenotype in the history of this nation became the President of the United States. The Indians, however, remained behind the line.
But in fact, the ethnos has not disappeared anywhere, and shines brightly through the formal claims of nations to create purely logical societies. Ethnicity affects the behavior of the elites, and the historical choice of the masses, and the system of values and interests, which, albeit rationally externally, but always irrationally internally, are chosen as national priorities. The ethnos does not have a legal place in the nation, but it controls, to a large extent, the legitimation procedures (19), which are of an informal nature. And it already quite frankly dominates public opinion and collective consciousness, predetermining its semantic chains, including failures and such phenomena as heterotelia.
The status of an ethnos in the Nation-State fully corresponds to the status of the unconscious (or subconscious) in a Modern man. The unconscious, of course, exists and actively influences the personality, the functioning of the mind, the very structure of the ego - whether the ego recognizes it or not. Similarly, the ethnos, which can be called the "unconscious" of the nation. It is strictly denied, abused, suppressed, driven underground, but it continues to live there - illegally and without registration, predetermining much, if not all, of what happens at the logos level - as in the main titular composition of the nation ("titular nation" - that is, in the people who created the state that established the nation), and in ethnic minorities - both autochthonous and those who entered the nation as a result of migration.
Nation and diurn
If we turn again to the scheme of the genesis of the nation, we will see that the nation is the product of the work of the heroic mode of the unconscious - the diurna. If we recall what we said at the beginning of this section about the participation of diurna work in the social structures of an ethnos (regardless of the archetypes dominant in the ethnos), then we can trace the entire chain.
1) The Diurnic myth develops a social vertical that organizes the ethnos into a social structure.
2) The next stage of the deployment of the diurn leads to the appearance of the logos and transforms the ethnos into a people (superethnos).
3) The people (superethnos) through its logos (with everything relying on that diurn - but already in the unconscious, in the denominator) creates a civilization and / or religion and / or a state (as an empire).
4) In the case of the state-empire, the absolutization of the logos (again, continuing the trajectory of the deployment of the diairetic myth and its energy, aimed at rationalization and division outside world) can lead to the creation of the Nation-State, where the state establishes the nation instead of the people and ethnos.
5) Diurnic aggressiveness turns into a battle between the logos and its own denominator, and the nation begins to repress the ethnos, leading to its destruction.
So, at all stages, we see the predominance of the diurnic principle, brought to its absolute forms and entering into conflict even with what gave rise to it - that is, with the diurnic myth as an unconscious archetype. In the logos, diurnus saw the possibility of being henceforth conscious (the 4 laws of logic) and turned this possibility against his own roots. This is the project of civil society in its purest form (as presented by Kant), where the continuation of the same logic requires the rejection of the irrationalism of war and, ultimately, of the state.
Civil society is the final stage in the development of the diurn, in which it comes to the negation of the nation itself and the state itself in favor of pure logic and a purely logical unit - the citizen, at the previous stage, constituted and constructed by the state and the nation.
Therefore, to the 5 steps listed above in the development of the diurn, we can add the 6th.
6) The Diurnic logos of the nation comes to the need to replace the nation as an interlocked agglomeration of citizens-atoms with the same atoms in a free state, and in the course of the general program of liberation from mythos, it begins to dig out the roots of the diurn itself, which led to the emergence of civil society along the sequential chain of deployment of the diuretic myth. Hence pacifism, the denunciation of the will to power (as an irrational form of diurn), Popper's "open society", liberal democracy, and, finally, postmodernity. Diurn, starting with his priority self-affirmation, comes to self-denial and self-destruction.
On this 6th point, the work of the diurn reaches its logical limit and exhausts its potential.
Within the framework of our topic, we can trace where the synchronic moment dominates over the diachronic, and, therefore, build a picture of the movement of diurn from myth to logos and from ethnos to nation, and from the standpoint of what is discarded in the course of this process. If for the diurn itself, and captured by its energy, this does not matter, for the general picture of a society-fraction it is extremely important, as it illuminates changes in the structure of the denominator, which, being fundamentally identical, is able to take in some elements "falling" into him from the numerator during the "great purge" - which is what the diurn principally does.
You can call this logic -- the scheme of accumulation of "residuals" (residui), replenishment of a kind of "residual thesaurus". This thesaurus includes everything that is discarded by the successive actions of the diurn, which asserts its "heroic" (diauretic) order.
From this scheme, we see how the denominator (unconscious) of the Modern era is replenished with content that previously constituted the competence of diurna. Thus, not only the nocturne, but also the irrational aspects of the diurn, and moreover, those manifestations of the logos - religion, civilization, empire, which were the property of the logos - the numerator (!) - at the previous stages, fall into the area of the marginal, illegal in the regime of the nation.
If we extend this chain further - into the postmodern, which will be discussed a little later - we will see how this thesaurus will be replenished with such completely logos concepts as the nation and the state, if we apply to them on a new round and with new care the criteria of strict observance logo requirements.
The structure of the residual thesaurus, where in the era of Modernity there is not only an ethnos, but also the people and their creations, different from the State-Nation, that is, certain forms of logos, and not just mythos, significantly nuances the general topic of structural sociology, since it includes in the area of the denominator a series of positions which in the early stages belonged to the numerator and belonged to the order of the logos.
Cyborg Nation
The idea of transition from an ethnos and people to a nation in the course of the diurna regime, as we have shown, at a certain moment performs the most important operation - it transfers a piece of myth - a fragment of an ethnos or a collective unconscious striving for individuation (Before Kamo) - into the space of logic. This is the citizen as the atomic link of the nation. But being placed in a mechanical system according to mechanical logic, a citizen at some point comes to a decisive point. Or he will continue to deploy unconscious structures in his civil status (although illegally, but still brought by him from the former states of Premodern, that is, from the ethnos, from the myth), and in this case he will remain not just a citizen, but something yet, violating the three laws of logic; or at some point it will have to be replaced by a normative citizen with a consciousness and behavior systems that are completely adequate to the nation, without any deviation from logical standards. The first case will mean that the nation gives up in the face of the impossibility of fully realizing its task and establishing a system of citizens instead of organic collective units. But such a recognition would be tantamount to admitting Modernity was unable to fulfill its program (this is the conclusion reached by the philosophers of the Frankfurt School or Levinas(1906-1995), who thought “from Auschwitz and Auschwitz”, that is, they stated the inability of the Western European Modern to change the ethnic and mythological nature of man and replace it with a well-functioning mechanism). Even taking into account such a statement, the very diurnic nature of the logos, albeit dialectically overcome and condemned by its subsequent editions, contradicts such “fatalism”, and the spirit of Modernity will look for ways to overcome this.
And here we are approaching the next most important step: a full-fledged member of the nation, a normative citizen, moving along strictly prescribed logical trajectories without any danger of falling into an ethnos or myth, will be a humanoid, but artificial being - a cyborg, clone, mutant, a product of genetic engineering . The optimal atom of the nation and civil society is a person without subconsciousness, without ethnic properties, a person completely created by the tools of culture and its ultralogical form.
A civil society and a fully logical nation in its singularities and in its generalization can only be built if human-like apparatuses, machines, post-humans take the place of people. An ideal nation that strictly meets the criteria of logos in its most complete development is a nation of cyborgs, computers, biomechanoids.
Here we again approach the line where Modernity ends with its achievements in the eradication of the logos of mythos (a nation of ethnos) and enters postmodernity, where new metamorphoses of the logos and posthuman "anthropology" await us" open society» mutants, clones and cyborgs. The cleansing of the nation from the ethnos leads to the liberation from man and his structures. And the concept of "civil society" as the optimal form of development of the same impulse that led the logos to the formation of the nation, can be implemented in practice only through going beyond the person, who, as it turns out, is so closely and inextricably linked with ethnos and myth that an attempt tearing him away from ethnos and myth leads to only one result - to the end of man, to his death. This is what the “new philosophers” stated ( Bernard Henri Levy, Andre Glucksman etc.), declaring that "the man is dead."
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have clarified the following fundamental positions of ethnosociology:
1) Ethnos is a primordial component of a person as a phenomenon and retains its fundamental significance throughout the entire historical cycle of the development of the syntagma from the archaic to the present. The primordialist (perennialist) theory of ethnos is the only adequate and operational one.
2) The formula of the ethnos is the mythos/mythos ratio, where the numerator differs from the denominator in proportion to the superiority of the diurn, which is responsible for the deployment of social (vertical) structures and institutions in the ethnos.
3) In Western society, the fate of an ethnos goes through all the stages of development of the diurna dominant according to the chain of formulas:
mythos/mythos (=enos) => logos/ethnos (=people) => logos/0(zero) (=nation)
4) Diurn, by deploying his inherent script, generates a people, then a state, then a nation, then a figure of a citizen, then a civil society.
5) Along the line of the logos, each previous stage is removed and disappears into nothing, along the line of mythos, the discarded possibilities accumulate in the denominator, making up the residual thesaurus.
6) In the transition from Modern to Postmodern, the task is to create a new subject, as a completely logical unit of civil society, devoid of a denominator. The figure of a cyborg, a mutant, a clone, a robot becomes such a posthuman singularity.
7) Taking into account Postmodernity, the complete chain of transformations of the ethnos in the sociological perspective of the diachronic syntagma looks like this:
ethnos - people - nation - civil society - nation (society) of cyborgs (posthumans)
Notes
(1) Shirokogorov S.M. "Ethnos: A Study of the Basic Principles of Changing Ethnic and Ethnographic Phenomena. - Shanghai", 1923.
(2) Max Weber Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundries der verstehenden Soziologie. Tubingen 1976
(3) A. Dugin "Social science for the citizens of the new Russia". M., 2007
(4) Y. Bromley Essays on the history of ethnic groups M., 1983, Modern problems of ethnography. M., 1981
(5) Shirokogorov S.M. "Ethnos", op.
(6) Ibid.
(8) C. Levy-Strauss Les Structures élémentaires de la parenté, P., 1949
(9) Huizinga Johan. Homo ludens. Articles on the history of culture M., 1995
(10) Dec. op.
(11) Afanasyev A. N. Folk Russian fairy tales. In 3 vols. Moscow, 1984
(12) Ivanov V.I., Toporov V.N. Slavic language modeling semiotic systems. - M., 1965 See also Voronin N.N. Bear cult in the Upper Volga region in the 11th century // Regional Studies Notes. -Yaroslavl, 1960. Issue. IV, Gromyko M.M. Pre-Christian beliefs in the life of the Siberian peasants of the 18th - 19th centuries // From the history of the family and life of the Siberian peasantry in the 17th - early 20th centuries. - Novosibirsk, 1975.
(13) Shirokogorov S.M. "Ethnos", op.
(14) Ibid.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Vyach. Sun. Ivanov. The dual organization of primitive peoples and the origin of dualistic cosmogonies (reviewed in the book Zolotarev 1964). - Soviet archeology, 1968, No. 4; aka Notes on a Typological and Comparative Historical Study of Roman and Indo-European Mythology // Semeiotike. Works on sign systems. T.4. Tartu, 1969, aka Binary Symbolic Classification in African and Asian Traditions // Peoples of Asia and Africa. M., 1969, No. 5, also known as "Binary structures in semiotic systems" // System Research. Yearbook 1972. See also A.M. Zolotarev. Tribal system and primitive mythology. M., 1964.
(17) L. Gumilyov "Ethnogenesis and biosphere of the Earth", L., 1989
(18) See A. L. Chizhevsky. "Physical Factors historical process”, Kaluga, 1924, aka “Theory of heliotaraxia”, M., 1980
(19) The difference between legality and legitimacy has been extensively studied by the German philosopher and jurist Carl Schmitt, see Carl Schmitt, "Legalitat und Legitimitat," Munich, 1932
