Read Ksenia Kasyanova about the Russian national character. Ksenia Kasyanova, about the Russian national character. Other books on similar topics

It’s a very strange feeling after reading it... I can’t call it pleasant... Although, I probably even agree with some individual points, but overall, no. ... Just like I didn’t find “growth potential” in the book, rather some kind of dark past and hopeless future ... The described quantitative data were obtained based on the analysis of a fairly large sample of testing on the MMPI test and, for each discussed position, are presented in comparison with results of similar studies in the USA.

1. Nation as a special stage in the development of ethnic society.
2. Outsiders and their role in history.
3. National character and social archetype.
4. Stages of development of national identity in Russia.
5. Dual society.
6. Research hypothesis.
7. Method of testing a hypothesis.
8. Repression as a global model of “response”.
9. Epileptoid personality type.
10. Rituals in our culture.
11. Goal setting in our culture.
12. "Religious fundamentalist."
13. Our “judicial complex”.
14. Diffusion of communication.
15. Personal status in our culture.
Applications:
- Russia in currently is undergoing a period of transition to a nation state
- Do we, Russians, represent a nation?
- Some features of Russian ethnic character that may be important for the formation of market relations...
<...>

Outsiders and their role in history
A nation emerges from the ruins of a class society.<...>
Peasant community during the period of collapse(*using the example of the works of G. Uspensky*):<…>One is struck by the complete irresponsibility of liberated individuals, their freedom from any moral restrictions and their complete ignorance of moral issues. The falling away of masses of people from stable systems of collective ideas gives rise to a decline in morals, an increase in crime, drunkenness, hooliganism, and senseless cruelty. And all these people are yesterday’s peasants.<...>In the community, a peasant is like a peasant, but he leaves it and becomes a criminal? ... Take out of this life, harmonious, but subject to someone else’s will..., which must be replaced with your own human will, with your human mind... but it’s so difficult!
Images « extra people" V classical literature <...>"Outsiders", i.e. dropped out of different classes, as evidenced by the name “raznochinets” that stuck to them (*using examples of images from Bazarov to Herzen, Chernyshevsky, etc.*). Common intellectuals create an environment around themselves, connected by many circles in which they share their thoughts and observations...<...>
What is the intelligentsia and what is its role in society at the present time? <...>The future nation must perceive the ideas and principles developed by intellectuals as an expression of its own ideas and beliefs<...>intellectuals must identify and formulate...principles...of national character.

Dual society
<...>The bearers of the ethnic culture of the people - local communities - have completely disintegrated, and we have some kind of ... socially whole (encompassing, in addition to our own, also a number of ethnically dissimilar peoples) united state<...>Our relationship with our own state resembles the process of mastering a foreign language,<...>the “social archetypes” embedded in us... begin to be oppressed by this foreign language, based on other principles, and then the psyche rebels against this knowledge and pushes it out so that it does not interfere with life.
<...>Such a collision with each other in the sphere of personality does not pass without a trace both for archetypes, which are gradually destroyed, not receiving support from consciousness, and for verbal systems, which, turning out to be inconsistent in the sphere of behavior, gradually lose the status of social reality.
<…>We live in a society in which not everything is well, in which there is a process of disintegration of motivational systems, those systems that are installed by culture in human personality. And this means: the value structures instilled in a person in childhood begin to work idle.

Repression as a global model of “response”
Patience- our ethnic trait and, in a sense, the basis of our character. It manifests itself in big and small, and even in the smallest. We feel everything, it’s just not customary for us to express emotions in public. We control ourselves.
This control is not an external norm, but an internal one. It becomes a habit, flesh and blood, and becomes part of the personality.
The desire to suffer– there is a desire for self-actualization.<...>“Memory of death” and readiness to suffer is the basis of that meek and humble personality, the ideal of which occupies a high place in our ethnic culture.
<...>
In our culture there is no orientation towards the past, just as there is no orientation towards the future. No movement, stages, intermediate steps or points are expected. Hence...: “apocalyptic thinking and ahistorical nature” (according to Berdyaev).
<...>
Cruelty– this is passion and licentiousness, but not principle and order (*according to the analysis of the scale of “emotional bad manners” *).

Epileptoid personality type
<...>... Feeling your ethnic character from the inside, you can say that there is something in common: slowness and the ability to delay a reaction, the desire to work at your own rhythm and according to plan; some “viscosity” of thinking and action; difficulty switching from one action to another; explosion hazard...
This “portrait” is not a pure genotype, it is the product of a long interaction between nature and culture. Culture in this case is opposed to genotype. Its task is not to reflect or consolidate it, but to adapt it to the environment, to the environment... The job of the genotype is to create difficulties, the job of culture is to overcome them.
That. We - cultural epileptoids.
The epileptoid type is visible from our ethnic culture... But, if we take the original product, then our ethnic culture was formed as a response to this genotype, as a way of processing and overcoming it...

Rituals in our culture
<...>We are not such ritualists, we are not afraid of anything and do not assume anything mystical... it's so convenient for us.
<...>During a calm period, the epileptoid always experiences mild depression. ... And there are three ways that can return an epileptoid to activity: immediate danger to life, a sense of duty and ... rituals. ... Our ritual is about establishing order in ourselves and around ourselves. ... which facilitates the transition from one type of activity to another, because One of the weak points of the epileptoid is the ability to quickly switch. In ritual, this transition occurs automatically, which does not require mobilization of the psyche.
But there are also rituals of a higher order, ... the function of which is the preventive emotional release of the epileptoid. Left to himself, the epileptoid suffers and represses... He does not own his own emotional sphere... However, culture has developed a form that regulates epileptoid emotional cycles. And this form is ritual.
<...>... Previously, man lived in the natural cyclical time of nature - winter, spring, summer, autumn; sowing, harvesting, threshing. And then the year was literally painted, embroidered, decorated with holidays. And each holiday was different in its originality - Christmastide, Maslenitsa, Trinity Semik with the curling of birch trees, meeting and seeing off spring, autumn beer brewing and wedding celebrations. All this passed in due time and returned a person to himself, taking him away from this moment the burden of all worries and thoughts about everyday affairs, drawing a conclusion and even imperatively demanding an outlet for emotions, feelings.”
<...>The specificity of the holidays is that they were long. Great holidays were celebrated for three days. In addition, there were whole holiday weeks...
<…>In general, the ancestors loved to go wild and celebrate. ... If we accept the hypothesis that our ancestors were epileptoids, then the epileptoid needs a lot of time to truly rest; It’s not his fault that he’s inhibited, that he’s repressed - he can’t just immediately start celebrating. ... On the other hand, having started to have fun, he cannot stop immediately, and has fun for a long time and thoroughly, until all his stock of fun disappears. And he has a large supply. So the holiday stretches out for several days, or even weeks.
<…>Preparations for the holiday were lengthy and highly hierarchical. And without going through it, a person did not achieve that natural state of liberation and a feast of feelings with which the holiday should end. ...
<… >The collapse began with a reduction in the time of celebration. The enslavement of the peasants, the development of the market and commodity-money relations, the outflow of part of the population to the cities, the increase in taxes, levies and duties - all this demanded more and more from the peasants. more work. And the epileptoid began to feel an emotional imbalance - he did not have time to discharge himself in holidays. And the rituals gradually died out. All games, round dances, fist fights, winter towns - became optional and were held from time to time. So special means the swings also disappeared. And then the epileptoid resorted to an ancient means of intensifying experiences and emotions - alcohol. Instead of a holiday.

Goal setting in our culture
<...>Our poor archetypal compatriot, placed from childhood in an environment of satisfying ever-growing needs, gets used to the idea that everyone lives like this. And he begins to satisfy his needs: he goes to sports section, does gymnastics, buys fashionable clothes... But, like a wolf raised in a cage, there lives in him a deep primitive longing for fast running, across the field, snow, for the moon at which you can howl.<...>
And the phenomenon of oppression of primary value systems arises.<...>Hence: a feverish pursuit of emotions, ... an indifferent attitude to their consistency and expediency. The personality becomes a piggy bank of experiences, a bag... The deepest devastation becomes a consequence of this emotional hoarding. ...<...>

"Judicial Complex"
“Judicial complex” means truth-seeking, i.e. the desire to establish the truth, and then the desire to establish objective truth. And, having found it, measure with it your actions and the actions of others, the whole world, past, present and future. This truth must be such that all actions and phenomena without exception fit under it.
The genotypic epileptoid trait - wild stubbornness - is very softened by culture, when we're talking about about the correspondence of an act and absolute truth is manifested in all its greatness.

Conclusion
<...>In general, our culture is very ancient and harsh, requiring strong self-restraint from a person, repression of his immediate internal impulses, repression of his personal, individual goals in favor of global cultural values.
<...>But the culture is destroyed, that's all most of the population falls into spiritual devastation and alcoholism. ...<...>

Conclusion

Sources and literature

Introduction

A lot has been written about Russian character: notes, observations, essays and thick works; They wrote about him with affection and condemnation, with delight and contempt, condescendingly and evilly. They wrote differently and were written by different people. The phrase “Russian character”, “Russian soul” is associated in our minds with something mysterious, elusive, mysterious and grandiose - and still continues to excite our feelings. Why is this problem still relevant to us? And is it good or bad that we treat her so emotionally and passionately?

I believe that there is nothing surprising or reprehensible in this. National character is a people’s idea of ​​themselves; it is certainly an important element of their national self-awareness, their overall ethnic self. And this idea has a truly fateful significance for its history. After all, just like individual, the people, in the process of their development, forming an idea of ​​themselves, form themselves and, in this sense, their future.

"Any social group“, writes the prominent Polish sociologist Józef Halasinski, “this is a question of representation... it depends on collective ideas and without them it is impossible even to imagine.” "And what is a nation? It is a large social group. Ideas about the character of any people are collective ideas that relate specifically to this group deserve special mention.

CHAPTER 1

Nation as a special stage in the development of an ethnic community

They taught us at school and in subsequent years educational institutions that a nation is a stable community of people, formed under the condition of the unity of language, territory, economy and some mental traits developed on the basis general culture. These four “unities” (or five, if you count culture) constantly appear in different versions as soon as the nation is discussed. Of these, in fact, only one, namely the unity of the economy, is characteristic of the nation, all the rest are characteristic of the previous stages of development of the ethnos as well, and not only of the nation.

From here it is very simple to determine whether a given ethnic entity has reached the level of a nation or not - it is enough to state the presence (or absence) of economic unity. In theory, everything is simple. Economic unity appears, which means that a nation will appear simultaneously with it (or as a result of it). And when will common economic conditions, are the same throughout the world, then all nations will merge into a joyful, harmonious and happy whole, and there will be neither a Greek nor a Jew, as in the Kingdom of Heaven.

The main thing is that somehow all this itself arises in this theoretical perspective: economic unity “takes shape” and the nation is “formed,” as well as all the steps that precede it: clan, tribe, nationality. But if you look back into history, how many tribes have disappeared without forming into a nation, and nationalities without forming into a nation. Where are the Hittites, Goths, where are all the white-eyed Chud, Murom and Rezan? They fell into the field of attraction of stronger ethnic formations, disintegrated, dispersed and assimilated with them, leaving their traces in them

CHAPTER 1

culture: some physical features, individual words, names of rivers and mountains, elements of ornaments and rituals.

They did not “form” and did not “form”. But what is the reason for this: is it the strength of a large ethnic group or, conversely, the weakness of a small one?

It seems to me that we will understand nothing about the complex mechanics of these processes if we talk about them only in terms of “folding” and “formation.” Each ethnic group throughout its history experiences periods of quiet development and crisis stages, when something in it disintegrates, is destroyed and the need for reformation arises. The systems of blood-kinship ties are weakening, people connected by distant degrees of kinship no longer feel like “members,” more and more strangers, strangers are settling in with relatives, and the need arises to develop some new cultural bonds to replace the old, related ones. If they are not developed and a local-territorial community (community, mark) is not formed in the place of the former tribe, then the very first wave of invasion of foreigners will sweep away the weakened ethnic formation and scatter across the face of the earth the descendants of a tribe that has existed, perhaps, for hundreds or thousands of years. And after two or three generations, the descendants will forget the language, customs, and songs of the tribe, becoming part of other formations.

And if a community has formed, it will continue a continuous cultural tradition, interacting with other communities (or tribes - those who happen to be nearby) as a whole, as living cell, capable of development in history. States and empires are “built” from communities, like bricks, and then fall apart. And communities continue to exist in their own rhythm and according to their own laws. And even in such fundamentally new formations as cities, the initially communal principle continues to operate: artisans form guilds, merchants form guilds. And although blood-kinship ties completely lose their strength here and a professional-class principle is already formed, the territorial one is still very strong, and in cities we find such purely territorial communities as “streets” and “ends” that act in solving some issues as a whole, which develops some of its own points of view, common to its members, and at the same time awakens in them the will and determination to put these ideas into practice. This process of developing ideas that unite people among themselves and create the basis for the crystallization of systems of social relations, a process that is people’s response to historical changes,

lysis and “circumstances” are somehow not taken into account at all in the concepts that were taught to us in schools. These concepts assume that such a process is something secondary, conditioned by circumstances and dependent on them, and therefore does not deserve special mention among the determining factors in the creation (or death) of a nation. But there are other concepts in which this factor is given paramount importance in the formation of a nation (namely a nation, as opposed to other forms of ethnic communities).

The main idea of ​​these concepts, which already have a long history and widespread use, was well formulated by Renan. Let us present here his definition, which José Ortega y Gasset called “Renan’s formula”: “Common glory in the past and common will in the present; remembrance of great deeds accomplished and readiness for further ones are essential conditions for the creation of a nation... Behind is the legacy of glory and repentance, ahead is a general program of action... The life of a nation is a daily plebiscite”2.

The process of nation formation in many countries is still ongoing. People comprehend it, create theories and plans, and make efforts to resolve practical difficulties and contradictions that arise in this process. And the “Renan formula” helps them a lot in this matter: they appeal to it, they develop it.

Leopold Sédar Senghor in the 60s, as president of the government of Senegal, put forward the following concept of nation formation. There is a certain ethnic entity called the “homeland”; it is a community of people bound by the unity of language, blood and traditions. And there is a nation. “The nation unites its homelands, going beyond their borders.” “A nation is not a homeland, it does not include natural conditions, it is not a manifestation of the environment, it is the will to create, more often to transform.” And again: “What shapes a nation is the united will to live together. As a rule, this united will grows out of the history of the neighborhood, and not necessarily from a good neighborliness.”3

When a social whole, expanding, goes beyond the boundaries of related and local neighborhood groups, connections by blood, by language, by territory (by community environment), personal acquaintance and relationships cease to serve as binding ties, and come to the fore ideas and plans, which should be based on some general ideas about the past and future.

CHAPTER 1

Some maximalists argue (including the already mentioned Jose Ortega y Gasset)4 that even ideas about the past do not play any role in the life of a nation, the only thing that is important in it is plans for the future, an idea of ​​the direction in which which must This social community can develop: only this can motivate its members to act, encourage them to make efforts and even make some sacrifices. What has passed should be forgotten as soon as possible, since the memory of the past is useless and in some sense burdensome.

All this seems convincing. It would seem, what constructive role can memories play? However, the same Ortega y Gasset asserts “that all power is based on the dominant opinion, that is, on the spirit, therefore, in the end, power is nothing more than a manifestation of spiritual power” and “the statement: in such and such an era is ruled by such and such a person, such and such a people, such and such a homogeneous group of peoples is tantamount to the statement: in such and such an era, such and such a system of opinions, ideas, tastes, aspirations, goals dominates the world.” And without this “power of the spirit,” “human society turns into chaos”5.

Ortega y Gasset here emphasizes what Emile Durkheim had fearlessly and nakedly formulated somewhat earlier in his work “The Elementary Forms of Religious Life”: “Society is based ... first of all on the idea that it creates about itself”6.

Society is based on system opinions or on complex presentation about itself - and without this it is chaos. But a “system” or a complex representation is, first of all, some integrity, and not a random set of elements, and therefore, not any element (idea, goal, aspiration) can enter this model; some will be systematically rejected, and that is what the “plebiscite” is all about. However, this is where, in our opinion, the main problem begins: why are some elements accepted and incorporated into the existing system - strengthening, specifying and at the same time transforming it in a certain direction - while others do not receive recognition? Where is the selection criterion?

Since at the time of choice the criteria must exist as generally accepted, the path to the future begins not from the moment of the choice of goals itself, but much earlier, from the time when the selection criteria were formed. In other words, social goal setting is rooted in the culture of society, in its past.

Nation as a special stage in the development of an ethnic community

What do they usually appeal to when setting some national goals? To the people’s ideas about themselves: what they, the people, can do, what they want. And this last idea necessarily includes concepts not only about how a given people should live (in the sense of creating certain conditions of life and activity for themselves), but also about what they should serve, i.e. what they are called to in a general historical, global process, ideas about which are also included in the culture of any, even the smallest in size, ethnic group. In turn, the idea of ​​one’s place in the world and in history presupposes some kind of awareness of one’s characteristics in comparison with other ethnic groups, characteristics that are quite specific, often manifested at the level of even an individual person - a representative of a given ethnic group.

This is where the importance of ethnic character for goal-setting and development of an ethnos comes to light, and if we recognize that in a nation the moment of volitional effort towards “creation and transformation” plays a special, formative role, then reflection of one’s ethnic past, the ideals developed by a given people - all this should have special significance for an ethnic group striving to transform itself into a nation.

It is therefore not surprising that in the critical period preceding the consolidation of similar rural communities operating on the basis of the same culture into a national whole, interest in the past, in one’s own culture, in ideas about oneself increases unusually. This is very important point in the transformation of the self-awareness of the ethnos, and at the same time in a certain transformation of the forms of culture of a given people, which should prepare or ensure the creation of specific social structures corresponding to the stage of development of a given ethnos into a nation.

Let's try to more specifically describe the stage of this transformation into a nation, as they imagine it modern sociology and social anthropology.

S.B.: Could you formulate main idea Your book*?

K.K.: There are several provisions in my book that I consider basic. The first of them was formulated before me and, probably, better than me. This idea is that culture cannot be non-national. There are no non-national cultures at all, there are only national cultures. You can disagree with this idea or you can make amendments to it. I would probably make the following amendment: full-fledged culture can only be national.

S.B.: What is a full-fledged culture?

K.K.: This is a culture in which it is good for a person - the bearer of this culture - to live, let's give this definition.

My entire book is dedicated to this very problem.

Now the second thought, also important, this time my own. It concerns the problem of the relationship between culture and ethnic genotype. In the nineteenth century, many researchers gave this issue great importance, but they viewed culture as a continuation or natural consequence of the genotype. Then came the era of “cultural relativism” in sociology, that is, culture began to be considered largely independent of genotype. I believe that genotype is one of the most important factors formation of culture, but not in the sense that was previously thought. From my point of view, culture is not a continuation of the genotype, it is rather a mitigation of it. Culture interacts with the genotype, adapting it to the social form of life. And therefore, some things that have a “plus” in the genotype may have a “minus” in culture . In the book this is discussed in detail using the example of an epileptoid. An epileptoid by its genotype is a selfish person, an individualist. Therefore, culture orients him towards exactly the opposite. She orients him toward collectivism and selflessness. Culture sets these value orientations against his genotypic traits. Thus, culture and genotype are combined into one, complementing and adapting each other. As a result, the social character of the individual turns out to be balanced, in in a certain sense harmonious. In accordance with this, I believe that culture should indeed correspond to the genotype, but with the caveat that this is a complex correspondence, which is formed as if according to the principle of antiphase. This is why I believe that culture can only be national, that is, it must correspond to its ethnic genotype. It must adapt the person. And only one’s own can perform the adaptation function successfully, national culture. A foreign culture seems to be imposed on a person. A person can behave according to her standards, but internally this is not easy for him. A kind of neurosis of imposed culture arises, which keeps a person in tension all the time, increases internal maladjustment, and also increases the likelihood of a person’s rebellion against culture.

S.B.: By what mechanisms can a culture counteract the genotype, forming such a balanced “fusion”?

K.K.: Through socialization mechanisms. This is also noted in my book. A person’s assimilation of culture occurs very early, in the first years of his life. Freud in his works insists that by the age of five, a person’s character, as a rule, has already been formed. These character traits, social in nature, but formed in early childhood- very durable. In terms of their strength, they may not be inferior to genetically given properties, due to which an “alloy” is formed.

S.B.: What happens if a person with his own genotype ends up in a foreign culture?

K.K.: This question is ambiguous. Even in ethnically homogeneous human populations there are certain variations of genotypes, and culture tries to find some niches for them, but in principle, I repeat, such a person will feel uncomfortable, although he will not be aware of the reasons for this discomfort. The book describes in detail that in Russian culture, socially determined high repression is opposed to genetically determined epileptoidism. And if a person does not have epileptoid character traits, if he has a completely different genotype, then how will he live with such high repression? But culture will not allow him to live without developing this repression within himself. If he does not work it out, he will constantly commit inappropriate actions and run into sanctions. This means that repression is being developed in him, but it will not form a harmonious unity with his other personal traits. Personal and social dysfunctions will arise here, the nature of which has yet to be described.

S.B.: What happens to a crop if the genotype is broken?

K.K.: I used the expression “erosion of the genotype” in the book, but it may not be entirely correct. Mixing of peoples always occurred, and the genotype was transformed in accordance with this. Historians know this well. When did the breakup happen? Kievan Rus, then part of the population moved to the North-East, where the indigenous population were Finno-Ugric. These are the Ryazan and Murom regions. Where did the tribes “Ryazan”, “Muroma” and others go? They don’t exist, they assimilated and passed on many of their traits to us. If you take, for example, an anthropological portrait of a Chuvash, you will say about him: “This is a typical Russian!” The Russian genotype is mixed in origin, as is the case with the vast majority of peoples. But here it is important to distinguish between two things, two different states. The first is when, for some reason, peoples mix, live in the same territory, interact, but their genotype does not mix, or does not have time to mix. Such ethnically and culturally heterogeneous societies are in most cases unstable, partially disorganized, and cultural heterogeneity is a source of internal tension for them.

Sometimes such mixed societies cannot stabilize; Civil War, as a result of which territorial demarcation of peoples occurs and ethnic homogeneity is achieved. But another option is also possible when, as a result of the “fusion” of initially different genotypes, a new ethnic group, which simultaneously develops its own new culture, organically adapted to it, combining elements of the original cultures.

S.B.: You talked about the migration of part of the population of Rus' to the Northeast. What happened to the rest of the population?

K.K.: She partially migrated in the North-Western and Western directions, and partially remained in the same place. There was a break in nationality, as a result of which the Ukrainian and Belarusian nations were formed. If we talk about Ukrainians, then I believe that they are related to the Russian, but everyone here has a different ethnic genotype. Their ancestors mixed not with the Finno-Ugric, but with southern peoples. The influence of the Cumans was probably strong. As a result, Ukrainians are a related ethnic group to the Russians, but still a different ethnic group, having a slightly different genotype and, accordingly, a slightly different culture. After writing the book, I became convinced that Ukrainian differs from Russian in a number of ways. But I don’t have exact quantitative data; I need to conduct a special study.

S.B.: In your work you have repeatedly pointed out that Russian culture is weakening and falling apart. What does this mean?

K.K.: This means that the genotype begins to overcome the culture. Not only the test, but also ordinary consciousness is now recording that egoistic components in people’s behavior are beginning to dominate, and individualism is increasing. But here we must understand that egoistic components are always present in a person, such is his nature. Culture is precisely what is needed in order to socialize it and make it natural for life in society. A strong culture does this more effectively than a weak, disorganized one.

I want to emphasize that today, seeing the decline of morality, drunkenness, the collapse of work motivation and much more, we are not seeing Russian culture, but a collapsed Russian culture. These are completely different things. Russian or any other national culture is an ideal model that can never be fully realized, but can be realized to a greater or lesser extent. The collapse of culture is the weakening of its ideal model, the destruction of socialization institutions, which results in the growth of selfishness and acultural behavior.

S.B.: You named two main ideas of your work: that a full-fledged culture can only be national, and that the genotype determines culture according to the “antiphase” principle. What other provisions of your work do you consider to be the main ones?

K.K.: I have already mentioned the epileptoid genotype several times. Here is a statement of this fact: the fact that the original Russian genotype has epileptoid accentuation is also the result of my work. The result of processing many MMPI tests. The book uses a very small part of the entire database to calculate the scales. Now the volume of this database is approaching 1000 tests. But the scale continues to be very high, and even the most random additives do not knock it down.

S.B.: But what about other genotypical ones?

K.K.: Foreign genotypical people, if they are brought up in the conditions of our culture, receive epileptoid accentuation in the opposite way - through the assimilation of culture. Since it is an “alloy”, it is inseparable.

The fusion of genotypic traits and value orientations forms a social character. This is what we observe before us empirically, both in man and in the nation. It is only with the help of science that we can analytically dissect what comes from the genotype and what from culture.

S.B.: That is, inside even a homogeneous human community Are people different genotypically?

K.K.: Undoubtedly. The Russian genotype as a whole is epileptoid, but among the Russian population there is also a certain percentage of hysterics.

What is hysteroid? This is a person who always wants to demonstrate himself, wants to be the center of attention. A psychologist would say that there is such a hysterical accentuation. How can this accentuated personality type behave? He can display himself in the most stupid ways, but if he is well socialized, he can do it very beautifully. He can be an artist, he can play an important role in groups, there are some professions that are performed well by hysterics. For a hysterical person, it is important that everyone sees him and that he is praised for what he does. And it will be quite good for society if such people find constructive roles for themselves. A hysteroid can be, for example, a good leader and can conduct an election campaign brilliantly. In an election campaign, a hysterical person can be very good because he is given socially acceptable channels for self-expression. But now in our country the mechanisms of socialization and channels of self-expression of hysterics are falling apart.

S.B.: Do they disintegrate specifically for hysteroids?

K.K.: Nowadays, in general, everyone socializes poorly. Poor socialization means a person’s fall into a “natural” state, into the power of his nature. In this situation, the hysterical continues to express himself, but does so in a socially unacceptable way. Take, for example, the scientific field. Now a situation has arisen in science where not a single major scientific seminar can be held. The seminar can only be held in a narrow circle of close acquaintances. As soon as you give a wide announcement about holding a seminar, it is filled with a mass of hysterical people. This is a pure consequence of the collapse of the system of socialization of hysterics. Hysterics come out and start talking all sorts of nonsense, don’t let anyone talk and don’t listen to anyone. They express themselves in the simplest, “natural” way.

S.B.: If I get you right. Your model turns out to be quite complex. In any society there is a certain “dispersion” of individual genotypes, and in accordance with this, in any culture there should be corresponding models of their socialization?

K.K.: Absolutely right. Both socialization models and cultural models, including a set of social roles acceptable to them. There are genotypic and cultural dominants, but there is also a certain percentage of marginalized people who must also be somehow “integrated”, otherwise their activities will disorganize culture and society.

And here, to what was said above, I want to add one more thought, which I also consider one of the main ones in my work. The culture has now disintegrated, and it is not getting better spontaneously. The former traditional culture was being established over thousands of years, it was an unconscious process, and people never thought about it. A modern society too dynamic, and too profound changes have occurred in it, so the processes of self-organization no longer work in it. Therefore, we either must understand how to live, or we will fall apart. I mean that we will fall apart not as a people, but as individuals. There will be a massive process of personal disintegration. This process has already occurred to a large extent and continues to occur. Hence the massive phenomena of social deviation.

Throughout my work, I constantly refer to the idea that we must reflect on our culture. Without the inclusion of our thoughts and our analysis and synthesis, the process of “collecting” and adapting culture to new conditions will not proceed. We will mark time and continue to fall apart.

Our intelligentsia in late XIX- early 20th century failed to fulfill this task, this real mission of the intelligentsia, and now we are dealing with the consequences. And another important thesis that I formulate and describe in my work is the presence of the phenomenon of “false reflection”, “quasi-reflection”.

S.B.: What kind of phenomenon is this?

K.K.: This is a phenomenon created by borrowing another language to analyze one's own culture. At the same time, the deepest originality of one’s own culture is not realized at all. And that’s why it doesn’t open. What does it mean to use someone else's language? This means looking in your culture for elements of that or those cultures for the analysis of which these languages ​​​​were created (philosophical and scientific concepts). And if we do not find such elements and precisely in the form in which they are recorded in the indicated conceptual schemes, then we conclude that there is no such phenomenon in our culture. We do not find, for example, personality in her in the European sense - very developed sense self-esteem, proud to the point of narcissism, with a legally oriented understanding of their rights, etc. - it means we have no personality at all. Our culture does not respect the individual, and so on. and so on. This is how we view our own culture. And when we apply this kind of analysis to our own behavior, the consequences of such self-misunderstanding can be simply tragic: somehow life goes “in the wrong direction,” a feeling of chronic dissatisfaction arises, etc.

S.B.: But you have to assimilate not just some elements, but the mechanisms of global culture...

K.K.: There isn't one.

S.B.: But, for example, the market.

K.K.: The market is not culture. This is the principle. The principle of exchange. But not just naked exchange (then, perhaps, there was something universal in it). This is an exchange according to the rules. And through these rules he is immersed in culture. To the one in whose area it exists.

S.B.: I think I caught your idea. Yes, and I have an example that illustrates it. I will give it now so that it is clear what “immersion” of the market “into culture” means.

K.K.: Please bring it. I often lack knowledge in this area.

S.B.: I will give a specific example. One economist, a Jew, advised some kind of cooperative. The cooperative had a complex structure, many independent divisions. The consultant quickly identified one problem. The cooperative's divisions need loans, since they receive a profit only after the work is fully delivered to the customer. After passing they immediately receive large amounts money that could be used for mutual lending. This would be useful to everyone, but this practice did not work out. Why? The consultant made an accurate diagnosis. It turned out that in the cooperative, when making payments between divisions, it is not customary to take interest from each other. And there are clearly not enough other motives for mutual lending. Closely acquainted executives and personal friends help each other out with interest-free loans, but the volume of this lending is no more than twenty percent of what is economically feasible.

What did our save offer? Chuckling, he said that he had written down a clause in the cooperative’s charter: “Interest-free loans are prohibited.” However, he explained that if someone is very kind, he can assign the lowest percentage, for example, 0.1 percent. And the problem was solved. I believe that this man found a brilliant solution, which, moreover, was found by him instantly, because it corresponded to his intuition.

K.K.: A great example. The decision, indeed, is dictated by intuition, namely value intuition: the general value of our culture is selflessness. Many pages of my book are devoted to this value, as well as to the attitude towards work. But without connection with the market, since such problems existed in the very beginning of the 80s. (when this book was written) did not yet exist.

S.B.: What about other character traits that matter to the market?

K.K.: Essentially everything named in the books, although also without direct connection to the market. Here you should list all the specific personal qualities identified by the test.

Let's start with introversion, “turning inward.” This is our characteristic feature. In general, a good market requires extroversion, openness and interest in the world around you. But an introvert has his own strong quality: he strives to have deep and lasting relationships with the people around him. Perhaps the number of people around him will be smaller, but the connections will be deeper and stronger. IN market conditions this means: I strive to have a stable circle of suppliers with whom we negotiate on a cordial basis. Something similar, as far as I can tell, exists in Japan.

Another quality is the specificity of leadership relationships, personal status. It is clear that an entrepreneur must be a leader. But in our conditions, leadership cannot be based on the amount of monetary income or monetary status. In our conditions material wealth soon harms the leader, so he will have to prove public opinion that recognizes and respects the core values ​​of our culture.

If an entrepreneur wants to be a leader, he must understand what qualities of a person form his high personal status in our culture. Many people feel this intuitively, at least, partly feel that such intuition needs to be developed. This requires a reflexive attitude towards culture. Understanding of these things must be made publicly available.

S.B.: Are there cultures with representatives of which conflict arises, for example, in the “market” field?

K.K.: I think so. And those with whom conflict is minimal. For example, Russians and Finno-Ugric people. The component of humility among the Finno-Ugric people is even more pronounced than among the Russians. When communicating with each other, these peoples did not irritate each other. Klyuchevsky wrote about this, in particular. I also think that we have an ethnic community with the Lithuanians, because they are strong collectivists. It seems to me that it is more difficult for us to get along with Estonians, because they are more individualistic. But these are my hypotheses that need to be tested.

S.B.: And with which peoples of the USSR do we have the greatest mutual misunderstanding?

K.K.: Especially with Caucasians. In general, by their genotype, they are very temperamental, this causes conflicts. True, if there is flexibility in the character of our partners, then there are conflicts. can be removed. As far as I can tell, many cultures focus their ethnic groups on the need to mitigate conflicts. Such, from my point of view, are Armenians and Jews. Russians, by the way, do not have this trait. They have patience, which is not the same thing. The Russian avoids conflicts, endures until the last possible opportunity, but if he does not have the strength to endure, then an emotional explosion occurs. And Jews have a cultural obligation to extinguish conflicts. This may surprise Russians: yesterday they quarreled to pieces, but today they talk as if nothing happened. There is an unreflected value incompatibility with Jews. Chronic irritation is unreflected value differences. But Jews react to this irritation in their own cultural way - they try to extinguish conflicts. In general, Jews have their own strong culture. They have their limits and they respect them. In particular, they love children very much. The family is of great value to them; they strive to prevent its disintegration. I talk a lot about Jews because I know them better. As for the other peoples of the USSR, I have almost no information about them. I can't say much about them.

S.B.: Still, I would like to understand: is the influence of foreign cultures good or bad?

K.K.: Depends on the situation. The important thing here is that our own culture is collapsed and sick. She ceases to master the alien elements invading her. The process of such an invasion always occurs; it would be utopian to try to isolate ourselves from it. New elements of culture appear, but a holistic system is not formed from them. A heterogeneous conglomerate is formed, which is reflected in a person’s personality by the emergence internal conflicts. A person ceases to understand how to behave correctly. In some situations, he seemed to do the right thing, but from another point of view, it seemed to be wrong. And he doesn’t understand how it should be done. Increasing heterogony of cultures is a specific version of anomie. At the same time, the effect of social norms is weakened, and neuroses become widespread.

Now there is a growing individualistic component in our society. This is partly a consequence of the collapse of culture, and partly the cause of its collapse. Individualism as an ideology is borrowed from the West. Western culture is much more individualistic, and in our country individualism comes into conflict with the general values ​​of culture. Our culture does not adapt individualism, it destroys it.

S.B.: But, on the other hand, the market requires individualism...

K.K.: The market can be organized by the most different ways, - you just need to work hard to think.

S.B.: Let's leave the market for now. There are also other areas. For example, political. Are there any special features here?

K.K.: Yes, definitely. How could they not be? The state is always somehow organized. Let's take the lower levels of government, that is, local government. Before the revolution, these lower floors in our country were arranged in a rather specific way. By the way, few people know this; decisions of village assemblies were made not by majority vote, but by the principle of unanimity. Of course, there were always people who disagreed with the majority, but the meeting convinced them, partly even exerted pressure, because the goal was to achieve unanimity, otherwise the decision would be invalid. A minority maintaining officially and publicly its particular point of view was not typical for Russia. And the minority itself was inclined to consider this order fair based on the principle “one should not disturb people.” There was, as it were, a moral norm that recommended a person to humble himself and not go against the majority. In other words, the culture had a mechanism for ensuring consensus.

S.B.: Was this mechanism then used by Stalin to conduct unanimous votes?

K.K.: Yes, sure. A mechanism is a tool, a method, and it can be constructive or destructive, depending on how it is used. But the other extreme is possible, which arises as a result of the collapse of cultural regulatory mechanisms. In this case, extreme blocs opposing each other are formed, points of view are polarized, and parliament becomes ineffective. As far as I know, such polarization of opinions is often found in developing countries, where traditional methods of reaching consensus have already been destroyed, and newer ones have not yet emerged.

S.B.: So, will acultural ways of conducting discussion become characteristic?

K.K.: At the first stages - certainly yes, but then personal statuses will begin to develop. This is our specific national leadership mechanism. A leader by definition is someone who leads people. In all political parties or blocks have their own leaders. But in our culture it is very great place assigned to personal status. This is a kind of high informal authority. A person may not be a leader, but have a high personal status and be an authority. Moreover, this authority is under-received regardless of party affiliation. I see two types of grounds on which a person can receive such a status: the first is good professional, an expert in his field, and secondly, a person who suffered for the truth.

S.B.: How will our parliament differ from the US parliament?

K.K.: If it is cultural, then I think that it will be more unanimous and, in this sense, stronger and more authoritative. This is an ideal to which we must strive, and strive consciously, understanding that this particular way of working stems from cultural values. We must understand that a conflict of opinions will cause an acute negative reaction from the population.

People with high personal status will play a very important role in our parliaments. During elections, such people can often be nominated without an alternative, and one must understand that the lack of alternative, if it is not imposed by a totalitarian state, can be a cultural component.

S.B.: Until all this comes together and forms, what should we do?

K.K.: Tolerate. Patience is our purely ethnic response to the situation. Everyone who has ever studied Russian culture has always been surprised at our patience. No matter how much we were reproached with this “stupid patience”, “submissiveness”, even accused of fatalism...

S.B.: Isn’t there any of this?

K.K.: There is certainly no fatalism. Remember and compare. One poet said: “What worse would your lot be if you endured less?”, and another, even earlier: “God forbid we see a Russian rebellion, senseless and merciless.” The people themselves do not want to see such a rebellion and therefore tolerate it and do not give in to reckless adventures and appeals. The people know themselves very well from the inside - this epileptoid genotype - that they are not only patient, but also explosive. It would be good if our politicians (and not ours too) kept this component of explosiveness in mind and did not go too far. As soon as it is bent, everything around will burst into flames. And for a very long time later we will be dealing with the consequences of this fire, so Chernobyl will seem like a trifle to us.

S.B.: Which values ​​do you consider genuine for Russian culture and which are false?

K.K.: Material well-being is a false value for us. In our culture, its implementation will never give a person true satisfaction. Hedonism is also a false, very fragile satisfaction. Extreme hedonism is prohibited in all cultures, but there are certainly differences in the degree of permissibility. Our culture has stricter prohibitions against hedonism. A very powerful “export” of hedonism comes to us from Western countries, and it is not mastered by culture, which is why it has turned into a gigantic sphere without action social control. I must also say that we now have a very large sphere of self-realization transferred to leisure. This is essentially the same hedonism, only disguised as cultural interests. At work, very few people realize themselves. Work motivations have disintegrated.

This book was written in the late 70s and was finally completed in 1983. After that, no changes were made to it. Naturally, due to the major changes that have occurred over the past 10 years, some of the provisions expressed in it are outdated. Most of all, this applies to the analysis of state and political structures, which in the previous period, being borrowed from countries with a democratic form of government, functioned very well. in a strange way: predominantly “centrifugally”, transmitting decisions made “at the top” to the “masses” and without implementing practically any “ feedback"with these same "masses". Currently, as a result of a number of significant shifts in political life this situation has changed: now the “centripetal movement” - “from below” - has not only revived, but to a certain extent, apparently, suppresses “centrifugal tendencies” (which is also, of course, dysfunctional, although understandable as a reaction to the pressure experienced in recent past). It is still difficult to say what balance will be established here and what impact this will have on culture. Therefore, we considered it premature to make any changes to our analysis (correct, in our opinion, for the previous period). The same can be said about the “struggle of the intelligentsia against the government.” Naturally, as the crisis worsened, this confrontation was lifted: the government tried to win over the intelligentsia to its side and the goals of the “warring parties” came closer together to a large extent. But with a wide pluralism of opinions, the monolithic front of dissident intelligentsia disintegrated into different directions and currents. When it became possible and necessary to move from protecting the primary, so to speak, conditions of existence to culture-creating activity, it was revealed that constructive ideas and forms were ill-conceived and undeveloped. They were not “in reserve” at the start of perestroika, and now they are just being formed. But these changes do not affect the main content of the work, which is at a deeper level.

Moscow, May 1993

“To preserve its past is the duty of every people, a duty not only towards itself, but also towards all humanity. Nothing should perish before we are fully aware of its uniqueness and originality, before we imprint it in our memory. This remains true for all peoples, but it is especially true for peoples who are in a privileged situation: experiencing their past at the moment when a different future opens up for them."

Claude Lévi-Strauss

Introduction

A lot has been written about Russian character: notes, observations, essays and thick works; They wrote about him with affection and condemnation, with delight and contempt, condescendingly and evilly - they wrote in different ways and were written by different people. The phrase “Russian character”, “Russian soul” is associated in our minds with something mysterious, elusive, mysterious and grandiose - and still continues to excite our feelings. Why is this problem still relevant to us? And is it good or bad that we treat her so emotionally and passionately?

I believe that there is nothing surprising or reprehensible in this. National character is a people’s idea of ​​themselves; it is certainly an important element of their national self-awareness, their overall ethnic self. And this idea has a truly fateful significance for its history. After all, just like an individual, a people, in the process of its development, forming an idea of ​​itself, forms itself and, in this sense, its future.

“Any social group,” writes the prominent Polish sociologist Józef Halasinski, “is a matter of representation... it depends on collective representations and without them it is impossible even to imagine it.” What is a nation? This is a large social group. Ideas about the character of any people are collective ideas that relate specifically to this group. Special mention should be made about her.

Other books on similar topics: