Characters of peoples. Characteristics of types of national characters

Western European national character was formed under the dominant influence of an individualistic lifestyle, which subsequently determined, in combination with other factors, the primacy of individual rights and interests. The specificity of the formation and development of statehood in the West, which lies in the fact that foreign conquest forced society to legally formalize relationships with external forces, create states “out of itself,” clearly stipulate the rights and obligations, the limits of competence of each party. This contributed to the development of self-government mechanisms, formed a political culture of legal participation, dialogue, and reduced the distance between political institutions and subjects political life, created the possibility of control over power structures.

The results of a comparative analysis of Western European and Russian characters are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Criteria	Western European national character	Russian national character
Thinking type	Rationalistic	Anti-rationalist
The nature of perception of reality	Differentiated perception of reality, its fragmentation into parts, an alternative picture of the world	Undifferentiated perception of reality, holistic coverage of objects, rejection of a pluralistic picture of the world
Attitude to the outside world	Rational-critical	Emotionally sensual, idealistically intuitive
Attitude to power	Institutionalized attitude towards power as a source of order and legality	Sacralized attitude towards power, preference for priorities, images of leaders over institutions of power, attitude towards power as a source, criterion of truth
Attitude to law	Priority of law, law	Merging law with morality, the priority of not legal, but moral and ethical principles and norms

The priority basis for the formation of the Russian national character was the primacy of collectivist (patriarchal-communal) and quasi-collectivist forms of life, which determined the priority of collective rights and interests over personal ones. Russian statehood did not develop"out of oneself" but grew primarily “from above,” ignoring the mechanisms of self-government, self-regulation, and initiative, which made it difficult to form a political culture of legitimate civic and political participation.

Three most important categories form the value-semantic core of the Russian spiritual tradition, national character, determining the unique originality of Russian national culture - this Will, Moral Truth-Truth, Spiritual Brotherhood-Unity.

The entire course of Russian history indicates that the fragmentation of the Russian national type does not allow absolutization, the exaltation of any values, ideas, forms to the detriment of others, but requires their synthesis. Our social and existential existence requires ideals, without which a Russian person is capable of “reaching the point of bestiality,” but their adjustment, a kind of “grounding,” and setting realistically achievable goals are necessary. Russians are inherently inherent in the values of togetherness, conciliarity, and brotherhood. Justice and wisdom of government decisions are unthinkable without support from legal foundations.

Changing historical, socio-political, and psychological conditions contribute to the predominant manifestation and consolidation of some and relaxation of other properties, human traits, and community. However, the national character is very stable. It cannot be changed through administrative measures, mechanical imposition of other norms, values of life, and behavior patterns. Without belittling the role and significance of the genotypic component in the national character, it should be noted that, being a psychological phenomenon, it changes and transforms along with the modification of social reality.

The transition to civilized market relations and the rule of law will require not just the creation of a market economy with the appropriate infrastructure, but also the targeted formation of a number of new or significant transformation of severely deformed old qualities, such as adherence to the law, morality, focus on professionalism, discipline, independence, and the ability to compromise , dialogue, tolerance.

The concept of national character

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. National character is understood as the manifestation of certain psychological traits characteristic of all members of a given nation and only for them. This is a widespread, but rarely encountered in science, concept of national character.

2. National character is defined as a “modal personality,” that is, as the relative frequency of manifestation among adult members of a nation of personalities of a certain type.

3. National character can be understood as the “basic structure of personality,” that is, as a certain pattern of personality that dominates the culture of a given nation.

4. National character can be understood as a system of attitudes, values and beliefs shared by a significant part of a given nation.

5. National character can be defined as the result of an analysis of the psychological aspects of culture, considered in a certain, special sense.

6. National character is considered as intelligence expressed in cultural products, i.e. in literature, philosophy, art, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourth, national character is not an absolutely constant quantity. It is changing, albeit slowly. The idea of changing the psyche was evoked by C. Darwin and G. Spencer. Modern psychologists, anthropologists, ethnographers have proven using concrete facts that the structure of consciousness changes with history. In the 30s, the thesis about the historical nature of the human psyche was experimentally proven by domestic psychologists L.S. Vygotsky, A.V. Luria. Theoretically and practically, it is unlawful to assert the fundamental inviolability of any properties of the national character. The traits that we perceive as specific features of the national psyche are, to a large extent, products of certain historical conditions and cultural influences. They are derived from history, socio-political conditions and change with them. As G.G. emphasized Shpet, “it would be completely wrong” to understand ethnic psychology as "explanatory" science in relation to history. On the other hand, history can also “only by chance” explain certain phenomena folk spirit, although, undoubtedly, it is history that “creates the substantive orientation of the spiritual experiences of mankind,” it “sets milestones that mark the path of the spirit.” And therefore, the statement that “the development of the spirit is “explained” by its history” is less one-sided and erroneous.

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

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

Elements of historical heritage, the experience of the past, enshrined in the memory of living generations, as well as in historical documents, literature, monuments;

The totality of conditions in which a nation exists, primarily the nature of the functioning of economic and political institutions, as well as the relationships of various social groups among themselves and with institutions of power;

A set of actions consciously taken to form the psychological make-up of a nation. This is the educational, ideological activity of the state, other socio-political forces, as well as educational influence within small social groups (family, neighbors, comrades, colleagues, etc.).

Fifthly, it is necessary to take into account the relativity of any ethnopsychological characteristics. Certain judgments regarding national characteristics, expressed in the form of abstract opinions in general, without indicating who the given national character is being compared with, only give rise to misunderstandings. Let's say, such a quality of Russians as maximalism. Compared to whom do Russians look like maximalists? Is this statement correct? Yes and no. If we assume that absolutely all Russians are maximalists, then this statement is false. However, it contains some truth in the sense that there are much more maximalists among Russians than, say, among Americans. Below we will conduct comparative analysis Russian national character with Western European, since “the whole fabric of Russian nature is different from the fabric of Western nature” (N. Berdyaev). At the same time, it is necessary to remember that the Europeans themselves, in contrast to our vision of the West, do not consider the Western European character to be “monistic” and make a distinction between the Anglo-American and continental European, Catholic and Protestant varieties. It is clear that ethnopsychological characteristics alone are not enough to explain political trends and traditions due to the instability, unreliability of the experimental base, and the significance of the element of implication. At the same time, ethnopsychological components should be studied, because they are not able to explain much in the realities of both the past and the present.

Mental signs of Russian and Western European national characters

The Russian national character is not just contradictory, like any other, but polarized and split. The opposites in it are sharpened to the extreme, and are not mediated by anything third. ON THE. Berdyaev noted that the Russian people are “the most apolitical, never able to organize their land” and at the same time Russia is “the most state-owned and the most bureaucratic country in the world”, everything in it “turns into an instrument of politics.” In the Russian element “there truly is some kind of national unselfishness, sacrifice” and at the same time it is a country of “unprecedented excesses, nationalism, oppression of subject nationalities, Russification.” Russians are submissive, humble, but at the same time they are “apocalyptic”, “nihilistic”, rebels, they have a lot of “chaotic, wild”, the other side of their humility is “extraordinary Russian conceit”. The Russian soul “eternally grieves over the grief and suffering of the people and the whole world,” but it is “almost impossible to budge, it has become so heavy, so inert..., lazy..., so meekly reconciled with its life.” The desire for “angelic Holiness” is paradoxically combined with “bestial baseness” and fraud. In a Russian, according to S. Askoldov, of the three human qualities: “holy,” otherwise sinless, “human,” that is, social, and “animal,” that is, natural, only the first and the last can be found. Russians’ sincere thirst for divine truth coexists with “everyday and external ritual understanding of Christianity,” which is far from genuine religious faith.

The reason for the polarization and fragmentation of the Russian national type N.A. Berdyaev explained the disharmony of the “masculine” and “feminine” principles in him. V.V. wrote about the same thing. Rozanov, Vl. Soloviev. The imbalance of these principles is inherent in an immature national character. The lack of masculinity, fortitude, will, and independence in the Russian people N.A. Berdyaev explains the underdevelopment of social classes in Russia, the hypertrophy of bureaucracy, and the specifics of the Russian autocracy. Thanks to the feminine component, the Russian “national flesh” has such qualities as mercy, sincerity, gentleness, selflessness, patience, responsiveness, and the ability to renounce goods in the name of a bright faith and ideal. But the harsh beginning also led to “passive receptivity” to good and evil, excessive dependence on “natural and collective elements”, submission to violence, “slave” status, which, accumulating, causes dull discontent, turning into bitterness, resulting in riots, desires to deal with with those who and what they worshiped. Not all of its analysts agreed with the lack of a “courageous” element in the Russian national character. For example, N.O. Lossky, on the contrary, believed that the Russian people, especially its Great Russian branch, “in highest degree“masculine”, in it “the combination of masculine nature with feminine softness is especially noteworthy.” And N.A. himself Berdyaev stated that “the courageous spirit is potentially contained in Russia.”

Without delving into the essence of the dispute about the relationship between the “male” and “feminine” principles (in other interpretations, the Russian national type is associated with the childish principle, a symbol of minority), we note that many factors underlie the phenomenon of polarization and fragmentation. The location of the country, where two types of civilization and cultures meet, is of significant importance. Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “Historically, Russia, of course, is not Asia, but geographically it is not quite Europe. This is a transitional country, a mediator between two worlds. Culture has inextricably linked it with Europe, but nature has given it characteristics and influences that have always attracted it to Asia or drawn Asia into it.”

Two civilizations met and crossed in Russia. The dualism of two worlds and cultures determined the “conflict” type of Russian civilization. In the Russian soul, two streams of world history collided and mixed - eastern and western, representing relatively independent normative systems incapable of fusion. They, according to N.A. Berdyaev, did not form an organically integral character, did not turn into “a single will and a single mind,” having become “entangled” in the soul. The crossroads between East and West, the intersection of two polar currents, mutually repelling, incompatible, but coexisting cultural traditions, began and determined the polarization of the Russian soul, its apocalypticism and nihilism, which “do not recognize the middle kingdom of culture.” Hence the haste, fussiness, haste with which the Russian person every time rushes to “make his presence known” in a good or bad matter. As NA figuratively put it. Berdyaev, he “wants everything to end as quickly as possible, either with everything or with nothing.” Russian polarization “finds expression equally in both the Black Hundreds and Bolshevism. The extreme right and the extreme left converge in our country, like one and the same dark element, the same mixture of unconscious and perverted apocalypse with nihilism.”

The polarization of the Russian national type is manifested in the “forgetfulness of every measure in everything”, the developed need to “grab over the edge”, to reach “to last line", "in a frozen sensation, having reached the abyss, hang halfway into it, look into the very abyss and - in special cases, but very often - throw yourself into it like a crazy person upside down."

In such fatal periods, according to F. Dostoevsky, a Russian person reaches “convulsive and instantaneous” self-denial and self-destruction, is capable of the most extreme actions, is ready to break all connections, relationships, renounce everything (family, customs, God), “burn all bridges." In the apocalyptic mood, striving for the end, and rejection of the middle culture, one should look for the source of both our historical achievements, ups, and fortitude, as well as falls, failures, and spiritual illnesses.

The situation of “hanging over an abyss”, “walking on the edge of an abyss” generates in society a special atmosphere of tension, anxiety, fear, discomfort, aggravates socio-economic and political problems, giving them a special urgency and tragedy, a feeling of “nearing the end”, a catastrophe. But it also creates conditions that stimulate spiritual creativity. In Russians, along with the tendency to self-destruction and self-denial, the impulses of self-preservation, self-salvation, self-restoration are strong, perhaps even more so, in which they show the same strength, assertiveness, and impetuosity. A Russian person, falling into the absolutization of one of the opposites and wanting to get rid of it, overcome it to the end, experiences an equally sincere need for another, opposing part of the whole.

The need for denial, destruction, sometimes of everything that is most important, sacred, and self-restoration, revival is nourished by the “heroic” essence of Russians. Russian people need great deeds and accomplishments, such as destruction and creation. He is disgusted by the gray, everyday, routine life. For Russians, creation occurs in no other way than through the destruction of everything and everyone, through social upheavals, crises and cataclysms, when the social organism is close to death. The meaning of destruction is to sweep away everything that is vile, ugly, and unsightly. Only after going through great upheavals, sacrifices, and repentance do people become capable of spiritual transformation, the revival of everything beautiful, and moral enlightenment. In this sense, the Russian soul, according to N.A. Berdyaev, “is capable of reaching the rapture of death.”

A characteristic feature of Western mentality is rationalism, orderliness, and a tendency towards formal, clearly defined, externally organized structures. “A man of Latin-Roman culture,” wrote P.E. Astafiev, - strives and is always ready to organize, crystallize in solid, precisely defined forms, economic differences, human brotherhood, love, and respect. For him, even the question of regulation, codification of morality in a narrow sense, so that moral motives act in the soul according to general rules, in precisely defined forms, etc.” . A. Aksakov, perhaps somewhat exaggeratedly, but very accurately characterized the rationalism of Western civilization. "In the west of the soul kill - he wrote, - being replaced by the improvement of state forms, police improvement; conscience is replaced by law, internal motivations are replaced by regulations, even charity turns into a mechanical matter; in the West all the concern is about state forms» .

Russian thinking is “absolutely anti-rationalistic,” stated S.L. Frank. Anti-rationalism is not identical to the vagueness, ambiguity, and logical undifferentiation of spiritual life; it does not mean that Russians do not accept the exact sciences or are incapable of them. It is expressed in non-subordination to the limit, the norm, in rejection of external forms, “organic dislike of all legality,” indifference to benefits, the results of one’s life and activity. The anti-rationalism of Russians found vivid expression in oral folk art. The image of a fool, so typical in folk tales, represents a challenge to sober calculation, common sense. Fool, by estimation E. Trubetskoy, is the favorite hero of the fairy tale precisely because “he does not believe in the human mind.” His actions contradict everyday calculations, at first glance they seem stupid, but in the end he turns out to be happier than his brothers, who acted prudently, coolly, thoughtfully, and plannedly.

Completeness, integrity, depth of the inner world, conscience, justice are of paramount importance for the Russian people. The Russian always places “spirit,” morality, and personal conscience above impersonal legality, and the soul is more valuable to him than formal organization. P.E. Astafiev believed that for this reason the values of “moderation and accuracy” will never become fundamental in our country. Therefore, the Russian people are “not organizational” in the sense of their inability and inclination to higher organization, orderliness of life, not political, not legal, and even, according to P.E. Astafiev, not social in his ideals and aspirations. “We obey most willingly,” stated N.A. Gradeskul, - but not for fear, but for conscience and conviction... Caring for the “soul” and its inner “patience” is our typical Russian concern.” Both conservatives and radicals were distinguished by legal nihilism in Russia. Many of them rejected the constitutional state as alien to Russia. The rejection of legal principles and the mixing of law and morality are due to the peculiarities of the tribal life of Russia.

A comparative analysis showed that the ethno-national factor plays an important role in the political process. However, with all conceptual modifications, it is generally accepted that the political process reflects previously unidentified features of the real interaction of subjects of political life, which has developed not only in accordance with the intentions of leaders or party programs, but also as a result of the influence of various internal and external factors.

The ethno-national characteristics, regular signs, mechanisms and factors for the inclusion of individuals and groups in the political process in the Russian socio-cultural environment, identified within the framework of political psychology, have their own characteristics in comparison, for example, with Western European ones. Here the focus is on political attitudes, political activity, political orientation and positions that have largely absorbed a rich historical heritage.

2.4. Political elite in modern society

Modern society can be characterized by various criteria (bases): quantitative, age, national-ethnic composition, class affiliation, attitude to property, participation in power structures, etc. One of the bases may be the indicator of the participation of certain social groups in the development of progress, the significance of their intellect, will, organizational skills, talent in the prosperity of the nation, strengthening statehood, ensuring national security, technical development and maintaining international authority. Following this approach, it is possible to identify elite layers in the structural formations of society, as well as other, less active and even regressive parts. They all manifest themselves differently in the political sphere and require special analysis.

Dictionaries contain enough different approaches to the concept of the elite, its place, role in society, the order of formation, functions and principles of change. In recent years, much research has appeared on the problems of the elite in Russian socio-political and psychological science. The issue of the political elite is also being actively studied (see. Afanasyev M.N. Ruling elites and statehood in post-totalitarian Russia. - M.: Institute of Practical Psychology, 1996; Ashin G.K. Recruiting the elite // Power. 1997. No. 5; Okhotsky E. Political elite and Russian reality. - M., 1996; Gaman-Golutvina O.V. Political elites of Russia. Milestones of historical evolution. - M.: Intellect, 1998; Berezovsky E.V. The political elite of Russian society at the turn of eras: Historical and sociological silt research: In 2 hours - M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1999, etc.).

At the same time, the psychological aspects of the genesis, production and implementation of their powers by the political elite are not sufficiently considered. The motives for people’s desire to gain power, to participate in it, or to influence the distribution of power, whether between states or within a state between social groups, involve serious and varied issues that fall within the realm of political psychology.

The formulation of problems of the political elite has a long tradition, dating back to Plato (5th - 4th centuries BC), Aristotle (4th century BC), N. Machiavelli (1469 - 1527). IN modern idea the theory of political elites is based on the ideas of V. Pareto (1848 - 1923), G. Mosca (1853-1941), R. Michels (1876-1936). Thanks to the first, the term “elite” first entered the scientific circulation of sociology and political science. His colleague Mosca used the concept of political class. Michels is responsible for the development of ideas about the ruling elite and the substantiation of concepts associated with political parties and the oligarchy. All of them tried to isolate and systematize issues relating to the role of the ruling elite in the political process and make them the subject of special research.

The problems of the elite did not go unnoticed by Russian thinkers and scientists. Among them we should mention such names as the outstanding political and scientific figure of Peter the Great’s times V.N. Tatishchev (1686 - 1750) - division of society into the governed and the managers; one of the leaders of the Decembrist movement P.I. Pestel (1799 - 1826) - the division of society into those who command and those who obey; Slavophile K. S. Aksakov (1817 - 1860) - Russian national specificity of the people’s detachment from government; philosopher and sociologist N.A. Berdyaev (1874 - 1948) - the pattern of the existence of an organized minority to govern society; philosopher and political thinker I.A. Ilyin (1883 - 1954) - the dependence of the morality of politics on visionary, responsible and talented organizers.

The term “elite” means the best, the chosen, the chosen. For the first time, it began to be used for the evaluation of the best breeds of livestock, grain crops, and land. Over time, this word began to be applied to that part of society that consisted of respected, revered, rich, authoritative, famous representatives of various social groups. But above all, this concerned people from the highest strata of politics, business, art and the military sphere. They belonged, in terms of participation in public administration, to those who could be called a direct subject of politics and power, who were part of the structures of state institutions, developed laws, participated in decision-making procedures, the implementation of the military and judicial policies of the state, determined its trade climate and international connections. The objects of power of the political elite are state institutions, political groups and parties, socio-political movements and organizations, and all layers of civil society.

Modern interpretation of the composition political elite implies that it includes not only the first persons state power, but also those who directly ensure the normal legitimate functioning of this power throughout the state and in its various spheres: representatives of the legislative, executive and judicial branches, advisers and experts, analysts and heads of permanent bodies for organizing elections, leaders of large political parties, associations and movements, etc.

There are three main trends in the research literature assessments of the political elite V general structure elites of society:

1) positional - the influence of a representative of the political stratum depending on his place in the system of power structures;

3) functional - the degree of proximity of the subject to the area of political decision-making.

The latter position is harmoniously combined with the concept of political leadership by J. Blondel, who defined power as the ability of “one person at the top to force others to do something positive or negative that they would not do.” Distinguish implied and potential power.

Implicit power is possessed by the one whose intentions and actions cannot be ignored by the final decision maker. Potential power is possessed by someone who has power but does not exercise it. There are also direct, indirect and nominal influence. Direct influence involves direct participation in the final decision; indirect influence implies a direct influence on the final decision makers. Nominal influence - influence only on limited issues and at certain times. The political elite most of all uses its weight and potential to exercise indirect influence. The influence itself should also be considered from both a positive and a negative point of view: whether it stimulates, helps the commission of political acts or inhibits them. We can also propose a more general - systematic approach to the classification or typification of the political elite (see Fig. 5).

Rice. 5. Classification of modern political elites

The political elite is a social community of a heterogeneous nature, united by the proximity of socio-psychological attitudes, stereotypes and norms of behavior, possessing unity - sometimes relative - of shared values. It is important to note that real and declared standards of her behavior may differ significantly. The degree of internal cohesion of the elite depends on the degree of its social and national homogeneity, the dominant models of elite recruitment, the prevailing style of political leadership, the level of political culture, etc.

Among the reasons that determine the appearance and the existence of political elites, Let's indicate the most important ones:

1) psychological and social inequality of people, their unequal abilities, opportunities and desire to participate in politics;

2) the operation of the law of division of labor, which requires professional management work as a condition for its effectiveness;

3) high social significance of managerial work and its corresponding stimulation;

4) the attractiveness of wide opportunities to use management activities to obtain social privileges;

5) the practical impossibility of fully exercising comprehensive control over political leaders by the broad masses;

6) a certain passivity of ordinary citizens, various segments of the population in relation to political participation.

Resources used by the political elite are quite diverse and not necessarily political in nature. Social space is multidimensional, so the sources of political capital used by the elites can be multidimensional: financial and economic, cultural, social, power, symbolic. They acquire a political character if they are used to influence the process of political decision-making.

The political elite is a smaller but important component of civil society, because it is often a direct participant in the formation of the domestic and foreign policy of the state and an influential force in regulation political processes, defining goals, choosing priorities and strategies for their implementation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourthly, national character is not an absolutely constant value. It is changing, albeit slowly. The idea of changing the psyche was evoked by C. Darwin and G. Spencer. Modern psychologists, anthropologists, ethnographers have proven using concrete facts that the structure of consciousness changes with history. In the 1930s, the thesis about the historical character human psyche Russian psychologists L.S. experimentally proved Vygotsky, A.V. Luria. Theoretically and practically, it is unlawful to assert the fundamental inviolability of any properties of the national character. The traits that we perceive as specific features of the national psyche are, to a large extent, products of certain historical conditions and cultural influences. They are derived from history, socio-political conditions and change with them. As G.G. emphasized Shpet, “it would be completely wrong” to understand ethnic psychology as an “explanatory” science in relation to history. On the other hand, history can also “only “by chance” explain certain phenomena of the national spirit, although, undoubtedly, it is history that “creates the substantive orientation of the spiritual experiences of mankind”, it “sets milestones indicating the path of the spirit.” And therefore, the statement that “the development of the spirit is “explained” by its history” is less one-sided and erroneous.

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

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

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

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

national character) N. x. reflects the personal characteristics of the average representative of the national population, in which he differs from the average representatives of other nationalities. From view measurements, N. x. represents differences in personality trait scores between samples of different national populations. Some researchers, based on such differences, are trying to create a generalized picture of what they call “French character”, “American character”, etc. In a number of studies. methods of raising and educating children in different cultures and attempts are being made to establish their connection with the personality traits of their adult representatives. In attempts to determine national differences, psychologists and anthropologists use psychol. tests. The work of David McClelland and his colleagues on the achievement motive suggests that N. x. may vary depending on the prevailing values in a given culture, but most of these studies have been related to changes in a single culture, e.g. in England over a period of time. There are separate studies. on changes in motivation in a particular culture. Almost all research N. x., however, say that the observed differences are only trends or tendencies. This means that erroneous attempts to stereotype national traits should be avoided. See also Infant Socialization, Personality Types, Stereotypes by W. E. Gregory

NATIONAL CHARACTER

a set of stable, community-specific features of perception of the surrounding world and forms of reactions to it; a certain set of emotional and sensory manifestations. (D.V. Olshansky, p.323)

National character

a hypothesis according to which the personal characteristics of the average representative of a national population differ from those of average representatives of other nationalities. Almost all studies indicate that the observed differences are no more than trends or tendencies due to an individual's self-identification with a particular nationality, rather than genotypic differences.

NATIONAL CHARACTER

This is a historically established set of stable psychological traits of a nation that determine the habitual behavior and typical way of life of people, their attitude to work, to other peoples, and to their culture. In N.kh. elements of consciousness, ideology, moral culture, behavior and social psyche are closely intertwined. The attitude towards the environment characterizes the orientation of people's national consciousness. To this group of traits N.kh. include such as conservatism, religiosity, optimism, pessimism, etc. Attitudes towards work are manifested in N.H. in the form of such traits as efficiency, practicality, accuracy, punctuality, commitment, enterprise, passivity, disorganization, etc. Representatives of different nations have different manifestations of these qualities. Hard work is inherent, perhaps, in all nations of the world. But there is a difference between the hard work of Americans, Japanese, Germans and representatives of other nations. Japanese hard work is meticulousness, patience, dexterity, diligence, and perseverance. The German's hard work is neatness, thoroughness, punctuality, precision, and discipline. The American's hard work is scope, energetic assertiveness, inexhaustible business passion, risk-taking, initiative, and rationalism.

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

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

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

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

The first contains states that are characteristic of the individual;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National character has the following properties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National character cannot be limited to just one dominant trait. It is necessary to avoid accentuation and absolutization of negative traits

Consequently, national character is a set of traits that have developed historically among representatives of a particular nation, determining the habitual manner of their behavior, the typical mode of action that manifest themselves in the everyday sphere, the surrounding world, work, attitude towards their own and others.

IN sociological theories, dedicated to the nation, the problem of “national character”, “mental traits of the nation” or “mental makeup of the nation” is necessarily addressed. Thus, in the definition of a nation developed in the circles of Austro-Marxism, the general national character became the first and main criterion for identifying a nation. Otto Bauer wrote the following about this: “A nation is a relative community of character, since over the centuries a number of identical traits can be observed in large masses of members of a nation, and although all nations, like people, have a certain number of matching traits, there are certain features that are unique to this nation and distinguish it from others; This is not an absolute, but a relative community of character. since individual members of a nation, along with traits common to the entire nation, also have individual traits (as well as group, class, professional traits) that distinguish them from each other.”

Modern literature most often speaks of the “mental make-up of a nation” or “national character” and emphasizes the connection between them and national culture

The category of national character or its equivalents is widely reflected in the literature. As examples, we can mention the works of such authors as M. Ginsberg, M. Mead, A. Inkelesgo, A. Kardiner and R. Lntonm, and from earlier authors - E. Baker.

In these definitions, as a rule, there is no analysis of the specific class content of the national character. At the same time, the opinion is expressed that the historical destinies of a nation lead to the formation of peculiar mental traits of its members and that these traits, often called national character, significantly influence the behavior of the nation in various life situations. In Western literature one can also find a significant divergence of opinions regarding the very definition of national character. Duniker and Frinda (Netherlands), whose work contains a lot of factual data on this issue, identify six main definitions of national character.

National character is understood as certain psychological traits characteristic of all members of a given nation, and only for them. This is a widespread but rarely encountered concept of national character in science.
National character is defined in the same way as “modal personality,” that is, as the relative frequency of manifestation of a certain type of personality among the adult members of a nation.
National character is understood as the “basic structure of personality,” that is, as a certain pattern of personality that dominates the culture of a given nation.
National character can be understood as a system of attitudes, values and beliefs shared by a significant part of a given nation.
National character is determined by analyzing the psychological aspects of culture, considered in a certain, special sense (in particular, in the works of F. Znaniecki).
National character is considered in the same way. as intelligence expressed in cultural products, that is, in literature, philosophy, art, etc.

Not all of these definitions are found equally often in modern scientific literature. It seems to me that the second, third and fourth of the above definitions of national character are most used, and not all authors clearly distinguish between the meanings in which this term is used.

Changes in the personality traits of Poles under socialist society have been discussed in a number of serious publications. In 1968, the editors of the weekly Politika conducted a survey on this topic. Sayings are pretty wide range scientists and publicists were then published as a separate book. The theoretical problems of personality change in the conditions of socialist construction were considered by J. Szczepanski. Important notes about psychological appearance of the modern Polish nation are contained in V. Markiewicz’s article on pathetic culture. These issues are also raised in several journalistic articles by J. Szczepanski. It is also worth mentioning the interesting, but extremely controversial book by A. Bochenski, in which the mental traits of our nation are attacked. The point of view was criticized by numerous publicists, who mostly rightly accused him of a lack of deep analysis and of superficial, simplistic argumentation. However, these accusations do not mean that Bochenski's statements should be completely ignored. Although his book is controversial, controversial in many respects, and erroneous on a number of fundamental issues, it still poses an important problem in assessing the personality of a modern Pole. Finally, I will mention the section on national character in my book on national question: This provides a broader review of the literature on the subject.

In another publication, considering the changes that occurred in the character of the Polish nation under the conditions of socialist construction, I also touched upon changes in the appearance of the individual.

In some of the works mentioned here, the term “mental makeup of a nation” appeared. It is understood as a set of mental traits, that is, positions, values, beliefs and predispositions that are currently inherent in representatives of a nation. Since these traits are very different, an analysis of the mental makeup of a nation should include: a) the average mental traits of the nation, b) the dominant traits, that is, those inherent in the largest groups within the nation, c) the degree of homogeneity (homogeneity) or difference (heterogeneity) of mental traits within the nation. It should also be remembered that the mental make-up of a nation includes both relatively stable and temporary traits, both characteristic only of a given nation and those found in other nations.

A narrower concept is the empirical national character, by which I mean the statistical resultant of the national, specific mental traits of the members of a nation. In other words, these are mental traits that are characterized by relatively strong stability and that distinguish a given nation from others more than individual social groups within that nation. Thus, national character is the main part of the mental make-up of a nation, but does not exhaust this concept.

Finally, we use the concept of “national character” in a normative sense, meaning the personal model (or personal models) that dominates the educational system inherent in a given nation and is objectified in such obvious cultural products as literature, legends, historical tradition. Normative national character has a significant influence on education and therefore must be taken into account in this context. Determining the extent to which the normative national character coincides with the empirical one and the extent to which it is a factor shaping the typical behavior of members of the nation should become the subject of research. In addition to these three definitions, you can find one more - “national stereotype”. When we talk about national stereotypes, we mean generalized and emotionally charged ideas about other nations or about our own nation. Depending on who the stereotype concerns, we talk about stereo types and our own stereotypes. Stereotypes are a kind of ideas about other nations, and one's own stereotypes are ideas about oneself. Stereotypes are images of a nation, but they are images of a special type. They show generalization, in other words, simplification, and also - and this is their most important feature- emotional coloring. There is an extensive sociological literature devoted to the problem of stereotypes. They are also a rewarding topic for research. National stereotypes to some extent reflect the mental traits of representatives of the nation that recognizes this stereotype; in this sense, analyzing stereotypes tells us more about those who believe the stereotypes than about those who are affected by the stereotype. There is also no doubt that national stereotypes play a large role in shaping the behavior of large groups of people. This is an important basis for conducting research on this issue.

The current state of sociology, psychology and ethnography allows us to formulate some conclusions about phenomena defined by the concepts of “mental appearance of a nation” or “national character”. In the light of scientific data, previous ideas on this issue have been refuted, especially the view that the mental traits of a nation are supposedly of an innate nature (explained by the “blood flowing in the veins” or were “absorbed with mother’s milk,” as it was formulated in everyday expressions that do not have nothing to do with science).

We know that the mental traits of a nation change, that they undergo evolution under the influence of various historical circumstances. We are also aware that some traits are relatively more permanent (although never immutable) than others. Personal dispositions, for example, are less subject to rapid change and transformation than views and opinions on individual issues. From this follows the methodological postulate of a careful study of the changes occurring in the mental appearance of the nation.

We are aware that the mental traits of a nation do not have the character of absolute qualities of all its members that are universally manifested within a given nation. Every nation includes a whole range of personality types. The only thing we can assert from the study of mental makeup or national character is that certain traits are more common in a given nation than others, that in a statistical sense they dominate. However, in no case will this mean that such traits will necessarily be inherent in every member of this nation.

We also know that the mental make-up of a nation differs not only in the individual, but also in the group and especially class sense. As A. Kloskowska rightly notes, the character of a typical Polish intellectual is not at all similar to the character of a typical peasant or worker. An analysis of the psychological make-up of a nation should therefore be aimed at determining not only the average statistical indicators for the entire nation, but the peculiar mental traits characteristic of individual classes, strata, regional and professional groups within the nation. This approach significantly complicates the analysis of the mental make-up of a nation.

Finally, there is a lot of data indicating that in every society there are certain group mental traits that are imposed on representatives of other groups as a role model and in this sense represent the dominant element of the mental makeup of the nation. K. Dobrovolsky notes, for example, that typical of former Poland was the copying by peasants of some features of the gentry, however. however, that the peasants adopted gentry traits belatedly, when they no longer appeared in gentry circles. This type of class-group borrowing is a particularly important, although insufficiently studied, mechanism for the formation of the mental makeup of individual classes and strata within the nation.

Accepting the premise of historical variability in the mental makeup of each nation leads to the need to determine the factors that cause these changes. I define these factors as follows:

1) elements of historical heritage, that is, everything that was accumulated in the past and that influences the mental traits of the nation, in particular these include:

a) personality types inherited from the past,

b) reinforcing their personal patterns contained in the national culture, and patterns contained in literature are especially important,

c) historical experience of the past, enshrined in the memory of living generations, in historical documents and monuments of the national past;

2) structural factors, that is, the totality of conditions in which a nation currently exists, these primarily include:

a) types and methods of functioning of economic and political institutions,

b) relationships between social classes and strata;

3) educational factors, that is, a set of actions consciously taken to form the mental makeup of the nation, among them we highlight;

a) educational activities of the state and the socio-political forces dominant in the state,

b) educational activities of other social forces. guided by other goals different from the goals of the state,

c) spontaneous educational influence within small social groups, especially in the family, among friends or neighbors.

Under the influence of all these influences, different personality types are formed. From the point of view of the degree of coincidence of personality types with the educational goals of the system, we can distinguish three main types: a personality type that is adequate to the requirements of the system, that is, a personality type in which the traits dominate, the formation of which is sought by the governing forces of a given system; a personality type that preserves the remnants of the past , that is, a type of personality that resists accepting new traits and retains as dominant those traits that the system is trying to overcome, a type of negative adaptation, that is, a type of personality that adapts to the way the new system functions not by accepting its values, but by mastering the mechanisms of successful action within the framework of new institutions.

The concept of national character in its modern interpretation, free from idealistic content, is a very essential element of the sociological analysis of political relations, because it allows one to avoid one-sidedness in explaining the interdependence between social structure and political system, as well as between geopolitical conditions and state policy.

The same structure or the same geopolitical conditions can give rise to different political relations depending on which type of national character formed by history is dominant.

Using modern sociological terminology, we can say that national character turns out to be the central “variable” in this case.

The dependence between national character and political relations is bilateral, not multilateral, because:

National character, being the product of overlapping historical influences, is formed to a large extent - although not exclusively or even mainly - under the influence of the political relations of the past. Under the influence of historical conditions, those aspects of the national character that have special political significance are formed. A long stay under the despotic yoke of foreign invaders contributes to the formation of an anarchic attitude towards power. A long stay in a state of war or preparation for war contributes to the formation of such national traits as military valor and a sense of honor. Long-term experience of the successful operation of democratic institutions is necessary for such functional traits in relation to these institutions as tolerance, readiness for business cooperation with people who share different views, and respect for the rights of minorities to appear in the national character. In short, the analysis of changes occurring in political relations must take into account their impact on the traits of national character.
National character simultaneously influences the political behavior of people, and thereby - albeit indirectly - on political system. Some behavior, prompted by relatively stable traits of national character, may turn out to be functional, while other behavior may be dysfunctional in relation to a particular system. Many of the failures of political reformers occurred because these figures did not take into account the interdependence that existed between the traits of national character and the characteristics of the order they were trying to create. This is manifested, for example, in the failure of attempts to transfer North American models of government to Latin America. National character also influences the direction of evolution of the political system, and most often it happens that in the process of this evolution not only institutions, but also the traits of national character are modified, resulting in a new, more harmonious whole. National character largely determines the behavior of nations in crisis situations.

It is impossible, for example, to understand the unanimous unity of the Polish people in the face of Hitler's blackmail in the spring of 1939 if one does not take into account such features of the Polish national character as love of independence, a sense of honor and military valor. The fact that the Poles were the first to offer armed resistance to Nazi Germany did not stem from the existing strategic position, which was qualitatively better than the position of previous victims of Hitler’s aggression, but rather from certain national traits that, regardless of the deep political differences that were splitting the Polish nation, made capitulation to the enemy unacceptable.

A politician, taking into account the national character of the people, knows that he must take them into account in his actions and influence them. Actions that do not correspond to the stable traits of national character lead to failure. This is known to politicians who, based on experience or scientific knowledge, understand that methods of government that once brought success elsewhere may be doomed to failure in their country. At the same time, a realist politician can look for the most appropriate ways to influence the national character in a direction that coincides with the long-term goals that he sets for himself. Such influence will be successful only when it is based on the consistent formation of objective conditions that contribute to the emergence of certain mental traits of the nation. If the goal is to instill a sense of state responsibility among citizens, then it is not enough, for example, just to call them to this using means of propaganda, but it is necessary to create political conditions in which citizens could actually take responsibility. In Soviet literature, there is a widespread point of view that a more significant influence on political institutions and political relations is exerted by political culture, not national character.

I would be grateful if you share this article on social networks:

Site search.