Empty words: a short history of the term “nation. Briefly and easily: what is a nation

We easily use the word "nation" in everyday speech, considering it common and completely understandable to each of us. However, do we know what is the definition of the word "nation"? Where did it come from and in what cases is it appropriate to use it? In this article, we will look at these issues.

A bit of history

The term "nation" is a rather complex definition, because the points of view of scientists and researchers are strikingly different from each other. Ernest Gellner studied the concept of this word from the point of view of modernism. Before the industrialization of mankind, that is, before the emergence of the need for its education and well-coordinated work, such a concept did not exist. The author wrote that only aristocrats could be combined into the concept of "nation" in the face of the court, since it was not yet familiar to the lower strata of society. Simply put, ordinary people have not grown to nationalism. The pre-national state was based on one thing - submission to monarchs. Later, when industrialization took place, being a citizen began to mean an equal membership in society. That is, a person was not just called a citizen - he felt himself to be a part of a single nation.

Definition of what a nation means

Nation - translated from Latin means "tribe", "people". This concept was first mentioned in Russian documents at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries as borrowed. It is often used in the meaning ethnic community or nationality. It was only after the Great French Revolution that the term “migrated” into Russian-language usage. Uvarov in the triad “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality ”mentions the word“ nation ”, the concept and definition of which echoes with“ nationality ”, in fact, being its synonym. Belinsky in mid XIX century wrote: this word differs from the term "people" in that it covers the entire society, while the latter - only its lower strata.

What is a nation?

This question, with a seemingly simple answer, is dangerous due to many pitfalls, therefore it should be considered in more detail. In fact, a nation is a public association, which at first is not associated with political overtones. That is, first a people appears, and then a nation. For example, the Lithuanians initially appeared, and only after that the state of Lithuania emerged. In this regard, Soviet politicians were cruelly mistaken, calling the nation Soviet people... They reduced this concept to political sense forgetting that people were not united either by culture, or by biological kinship, or by other necessary characteristics. While the idea of ​​a nation is primarily based on the fact that a society of people has a single culture and history. Thus, a full-fledged nation cannot have a single link - there are many of them. Among them are politics, culture, history and other factors.

It is wrong to call Slavic peoples Russians, since each of them has its own peculiarities of culture and mentality. Russians are just one of the subgroups Slavic peoples... With such mistakes, confusion appears, and it becomes incomprehensible where the Russians are, and where are the other Slavic peoples.

Thus, a nation is a community that emerged in the industrial era. In international law, the meaning of the word "nation" is synonymous with the nation state.

Below are some definitions of a nation:

1. A nation is a society that is united by a common culture. The concept of "culture" includes norms of behavior, legend, communication, etc.
2. Two people belong to the same nation only if they themselves recognize each other's belonging to it. That is, a nation is a product of people's beliefs, their willingness to follow generally accepted rules and norms.

What factors unite a group of people into a nation?

The meaning of the word nation is as follows:

1. Living in the same territory, which is subject to uniform legislation. Its borders are recognized by other states.
2. Ethnic community. This concept includes culture, language, history, way of life.
3. Developed economy.
4. State. Every people has the right to call itself a nation if it is organized into a state and has its own legislation, system of government, etc.
5. National awareness. It is this that plays an extremely important role, because a person must understand that he is part of his people. He must not only honor his laws, but also love him. A people that in reality does not consider itself a nation, even if it possesses all of its aforementioned characteristics, is considered a people, but not a nation. For example, after the Second World War, the Germans ceased to consider themselves a nation, therefore they are called simply "the German people", but patriotic Americans, in fact, being a mixture of many ethnic groups, are a nation. Take America's last president: Ethnically Haitian and racially Negro, he is American nonetheless.

Signs of nationality

The fact that a person has a national identity is indicated by such signs as:

• knowledge of the history of their people, which is called ethnic memory;
• knowledge of customs and traditions, a sense of respect for them;
• knowledge of the native language;
• a sense of national pride, which is embedded in almost every citizen of the state.

All these signs indicate that in front of you is a worthy representative of this or that nation. They allow you to feel special, not like others, but at the same time give a sense of belonging to something big - a social whole, an ethnic group, a nation. This knowledge is able to protect a person from feelings of loneliness and defenselessness in the face of world danger.

Ethnicity and nation - concepts and differences

Ethnicity is a people that has one culture and lives in the same territory, but is not considered a state due to its absence. Ethnicity is often placed on the same level with the nation, balancing these concepts. Others believe that the nation stands on the bar higher, but at the same time practically does not differ from it. However, in reality, these terms are completely different. Ethnicity is not a state and is considered, rather, a tribe that has its own culture, but is not burdened with national identity. Ethnic groups that have developed historically do not set themselves any political goals, do not have economic ties with neighboring states and are not recognized by them at the official level. But the nation is also a political term, which consists in the work of the masses of people who set themselves certain goals and achieve them. Most often they are of a political nature. The nation is a social force to be reckoned with.

Instead of a conclusion ...

What is a nation, from the point of view of some experts? In fact, if we start from the versions of the origin of man (in particular, remember the story of Adam and Eve), each of us has one ethnos, one people. Each of us is an inhabitant of the Earth, and it is not so important in which part of the world you live, what kind of eye shape and skin color you have - all these nuances have developed historically under the influence of climate.

Nation(from Lat. "natio" - people) - 1) In the Western European tradition, initially, a nation is a synonym for an ethnos. Further, the totality of the subjects of one sovereign, citizens of one republic. With the emergence of the "nation's state" (national state) - a set of subjects, citizens of the state (historically formed polyethnic community). So, the Spanish nation is made up of ethnically proper Spaniards, Catalans, Basques. One of the common points of view is that nations are formed in the process of the emergence of industrial societies. Another point of view is that N. can be recognized as such an ethnos that created a national state or became the core of an empire. There is also a point of view that from the circle of ethnic groups that have a national statehood, only those who have made a significant contribution to the formation of world cultures can be considered a nation. 2) In Eastern Europe and Asia, the prevailing point of view is that an ethnos is considered a nation, which may include other ethnic groups (according to L.N. Gumilev - “xenias”), which share basic national interests. In view of the above, nationalism in some cases means the priority of the interests of an ethnic group; in other cases - the interests of civil society, the nation.

The concept of a nation (from the Latin "natio") for a long time was and was perceived as a synonym for the Greek word "ethnos". However, in the era of the High Middle Ages in Europe, due to some peculiarities of the development of Western European culture, it acquired a different sound and perception, becoming perceived as a "community". "For example, in the very famous in Europe Prague University of the time of Jan Hus, there were officially four" nations "(four corporations of students and teachers): Czech, Polish, Bavarian and Saxon."

Subsequently, the semantic load of this term in the West continued its evolution, simultaneously giving rise to two traditions of interpretation of this concept in science. Eastern tradition and Western tradition. Moreover, within them, as in the case of the categories “ethnos” and “ethnicity,” there is no consensus on the definition of the essence of this phenomenon, but there is a large number of different points of view, often depending on the political, ideological, cultural, and personal preferences of the authors. As a result, there is great confusion in the interpretation and use of the term "nation", as well as its relationship with the categories "ethnos", "people", "nationalism" and others.

V western tradition (which in our country is often called the Anglo-Roman, French or statist tradition), based on a formational approach to the process of social and historical development, a nation is a phenomenon characteristic exclusively of the New and Modern times. The emergence of nations as a historical phenomenon is associated with the formation of "nations states" (national states), as well as the formation of capitalist relations and the emergence of the bourgeoisie. One of the common points of view is that nations are formed in the process of the emergence of industrial societies. The formation of a nation is, according to E. Gellner, a direct result of the beginning of the process of modernization, i.e. transition from a traditional agrarian society to an industrial and post-industrial society. Before the beginning of the process of modernization, nations as such did not exist.

According to the Western tradition of understanding a nation, it is the next link in the chain of development of human collectives: clan - tribe - ethnos - nation. Or in its Marxist-Leninist interpretation: clan - tribe - nationality (people) - nation. The concept of a nation itself is a superclass concept. A nation as a special human collective is a historically formed polyethnic community - an aggregate of subjects, citizens of the state. For example, the Spanish nation is composed of ethnically proper Spaniards, Catalans, Basques. Therefore, it is not surprising that it is in this understanding that the category "nation" from the Anglo-Saxon system of law migrated and firmly entered into use in the system of international law. When we talk about the United Nations (UN), we are talking about nations in the sense of states ("nation-states)".

The concept of "nation" in the Western tradition is in principle inseparable from the concept of "nation state". In this tradition of interpreting the phenomenon of a nation, the main features of a nation are the presence of a single culture, national identity and statehood, or the desire to acquire one. The nationality of a person is determined not by his ethnicity, but exclusively by his state and legal affiliation.

National identity, in other words, the ability to perceive oneself as a member of a national collective, is a defining feature of a nation. It arises in modern times, when the usual forms of community of people (clans, workshops, communities) of a corporate nature are collapsing, a person is left alone with a rapidly changing world and chooses a new supra-class community - a nation. Nations emerge as a result of pursuing a policy focused on the coincidence of ethno-cultural and state borders. Political movement self-affirmation of peoples with common language and culture as a whole is nationalism ... Nationalism can be unifying (national movements in Germany and Italy of the XIX century) and disengaging (national movements in Austria-Hungary in the 19th - 20th centuries).

Within the framework of this tradition, the interpretation of the nation and nationalism is widely spread at the present time by postmodernist concepts of constructivism, which deny the natural and originally given essence of these phenomena (E. Gellner, B. Anderson, E. Hobsbawm and others).

Like an ethnos, they regard the nation as a social and intellectual "construct", an artificial social education, a product of purposeful activity. political elites(E. Gellner) or collective "imagination" (B. Anderson).

According to E. Gellner: "Nations as natural, God-established ways of classifying people, as a kind of primordial ... political destiny is a myth." A nation is a construct that creates nationalism: "It is nationalism that creates nations, and not vice versa."

There is nationalism - “a political principle, the essence of which is that the political and national units must coincide. Nationalistic sentiment is a feeling of resentment caused by the violation of this principle, or a feeling of satisfaction caused by its implementation. The nationalist movement is a movement inspired by this kind of feeling. "

B. Anderson is not so categorical in his conclusions and defines the nation as "an imaginary political community, and it is imagined as something inevitably limited, but at the same time sovereign." "It imaginary, for the members of even the smallest nation will never know, meet, or even hear about most of their fellow nation, while the image of their community lives in the minds of each of them.

The nation is imagined limited, because even the largest of them, numbering, say, a billion living people, has finite, albeit movable, boundaries beyond which other nations are. No nation imagines itself to be commensurate with all of humanity. Even the most messianic nationalists do not dream of the day when all members of the human race will join their nation, as was possible in some eras when, say, Christians could dream of an entirely Christian planet.

She imagines sovereign, for this concept was born in an era when the Enlightenment and the Revolution destroyed the legitimacy of the hierarchical dynastic state established by God. Reaching maturity at that stage human history when even the most ardent adherents of any universal religion inevitably encountered a living pluralism of such religions and the allomorphism between the ontological claims of each of the religions and the territory of its distribution, nations dream of being free and, if under the rule of God, then immediately. The pledge and symbol of this freedom is a sovereign state.
Finally, she is imagined as community, for regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may exist in each nation, the nation is always understood as a deep, horizontal partnership. Ultimately, it is this brotherhood over the past two centuries that has given many millions of people the opportunity not so much to kill as to voluntarily die for such limited products of the imagination. "

The concept of nation and nationalism in the Western tradition is an effective research tool public life Western world. However, it is not applicable in other regions. In this vein, the problems of inconsistency between theory and practice that arose among the Bolsheviks and Soviet scientists when they tried to apply pro-Western Marxist theories on Russian soil, where there were simply no nations in the Western European sense, are characteristic. After coming to power, the ethnic groups living in the USSR, the Bolsheviks were forced to divide into "nations" and "nationalities", where ethnic groups were considered nations, which, in the implementation of administrative-territorial delimitation, were endowed with a status semblance of statehood (in the form of union and autonomous republics), and All other ethnic groups that did not have their own administrative-territorial units were considered nationalities. At the same time, the argumentation of the validity and expediency of endowing this or that ethnic group with a status semblance of statehood was the far-fetched criterion of the presence or absence of an ethnic group of its own working class, as well as the level of urbanization.

In Soviet science, it was generally difficult to talk about any objectivity in defining and considering the essence of a "nation", since it was entirely dominated by the Marxist-Leninist ideology based on "progressive" and Eurocentric postulates and economic determinism, automatically winding down any polemics on this question and not "noticing" facts contradicting the theory. Therefore, it is not surprising that in her long time dominated, actually becoming official, without being subjected to any critical analysis, the definition of "nation", which was given in 1912 by I.V. Stalin in his work "Marxism and the National Question". Analyzing the polemics of two prominent theorists of Marxism Karl Kautsky and Otto Bauer, I.V. Stalin gave the following definition of a nation: “A nation is a historically established stable community of people that arose on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and a mental make-up, manifested in the community of culture ”. The characteristic features of a nation (not racial, not tribal, but a historically formed and stable community of people), in his opinion, are: "common language"; "Community of territory"; "Community of economic life, economic connectedness"; "Community of the mental make-up." And only the presence of all these combined characteristics makes it possible to consider this or that community as a nation.

Subsequently, practically none of the Soviet scientists dared to question the validity of this definition, although the indicated signs were to one degree or another inherent in other ethnic communities identified by Soviet scientists: a tribe, as well as nationalities. Stalinist signs could not explain the phenomenon, for example, the Jews and Gypsies who were aware of themselves as a nation (without a common territory and economy), as well as the Swiss (speaking three languages). However, everything is in the same vein already in the 80s of the XX century in the Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary a definition of a nation similar to the “Stalinist” was given as a “historical community of people, formed in the course of the formation of a community of their territory, economic ties, literary language, some peculiarities of culture and character ”.

Within the framework of the Soviet social sciences and humanities, in particular in the dualistic concept of the evolutionary-historical direction of primordialism, a nation as a kind of "ethnosocial organism (ESO)" and a socio-historical community was clearly tied to a certain socio-economic formation. With regard to the capitalist socio-economic formation, the category "bourgeois nation" was used; in relation to the socialist system - "socialist nation". “A socialist nation is a new social community of people that has grown out of a nation or nationality of capitalist society in the process of liquidating capitalism and the victory of socialism; which preserved, although they received a qualitatively new development, certain ethnic characteristics, but radically transformed on a socialist international basis, the entire way of political, socio-economic and spiritual life. "

The socialist nations were to be replaced by supranational, international communities, which should have happened in the era of mature communism.

Already in the post-Soviet period V.A. Tishkov, the main representative of constructivism in Russian science, interpreting the nation within the framework of this tradition, noted that one should abandon the understanding of the term "nation" in its ethnic meaning, using it exclusively within the framework of the Western tradition, in accordance with world legal and Western European political practice. The ethnic interpretation of a nation (as an ethno-nation), in his opinion, is a dangerous fruit of the creativity of politicians and can lead to acute interethnic conflicts, wars, and the collapse of states.

The nation, in his view, is “a political slogan and a means of mobilization, and not at all scientific category"," A phenomenon that simply does not exist, and makes judgments about persons and forces acting in social space on the basis of a proper criterion for a mythical definition. "

Within the framework of this tradition of interpreting the essence of a nation in Russian science and journalism, there are other points of view. While fundamentally disagreeing with the theses of constructivists and Marxists, a number of authors believe that an ethnic group can be recognized as a nation if it created a national state or was the core of an empire. There is also a point of view that from the circle of ethnic groups that have a national statehood, only those who have made a significant contribution to the formation of world cultures can be considered a nation. For example, S.P. Pykhtin interpreted the nation as "a qualitatively new community in the development of human self-organization." In his opinion: “Humanity develops in forms that change in a certain sequence. Family, clan, tribe, people - these are the phases of this process, which belongs to the natural nature of all continents where the species Homo sapiens exists. Under the influence of the political history of mankind, the folk form of self-organization, which had dominated for several millennia, acquired a new quality. First appeared only in the XVII-XVIII centuries AD. Unlike all other forms of self-organization, a nation is not a natural-historical, but a political form, outward sign which is the state ”.

"V general view a nation is an ethno-social, cultural-historical and spiritual community of people, formed in the process of forming a state and accelerating a developed culture. The term "state" in this definition is an key element, distinguishing this kind of community from the community called the people. The history of nature, of which human nature is a part, creates peoples. When nations enter political relations, nations are being formed. The modern ethnic map of the world has up to 2000 peoples, on the political map of nations there are less than 200. " ... Because of this: “We call the Russian nation a multiethnic community created by the Russian people and including all the numerous indigenous peoples integrated into the Russian spiritual, cultural and state tradition. Russians as a people, in turn, represent an ethnic community consisting of Great Russians, Little Russians, Belarusians and Rusyns. " ...

The philosophical and historical concept of A.G. Dugin, in which he, while analyzing the Marxist and postmodern approaches, calls for a pragmatic use of this term exclusively in the political and formal legal sense, as is customary in the West. He believes that: "Nation" is a political and legal phenomenon, almost completely coinciding with the concept of "citizenship". Belonging to a nation is confirmed by the presence of a mandatory document certifying the fact of citizenship. "

In the opinion of A.G. Dugina: ““ Nation ”in the classical sense of this term means citizens who are politically united into one state. Not every state is a "nation-state". The states of nations (or nation states) are modern states of the European type, most often secular and based on the political domination of the bourgeoisie. Only to the citizens of such a modern secular (secular, not religious) bourgeois state can we with good reason apply the definition of "nation". In other cases, it will be an unauthorized transfer of one semantic complex to a completely different one.

We meet the signs of an ethnos in all societies - archaic and modern, western and eastern, organized politically and living communities. And the signs of a nation are found only in modern, Western (by the type of organization) and politicized societies. "

“A nation is a purely political and contemporary phenomenon. In a nation, the main form of social differentiation is class (in the Marxist sense, that is, based on the relationship to ownership of the means of production). A nation exists only under capitalism. The nation is inextricably linked with " modern state"And the ideology of the New Age. A nation is a European phenomenon ”.

"Eastern" the tradition of interpreting the phenomenon of nation and nationalism, in contrast to the Western tradition, is based not on Eurocentric, progressive positions, but on polycentrism. This approach allows us to overcome the narrowness of the formational approach in its Marxist, neo-Marxist or postmodern interpretations, where the experience of the development of Western European culture is taken as a basis and is absolutized. Due to which, unfortunately, many researchers, as we have already seen, give the phenomena of nation and nationalism in their Western European understanding a global character and, wrongfully apply them to the study of social processes in other regions of the world, which leads to a distortion of the subject of research and causes a fair rejection the results of their research.

The position of polycentrism, on the basis of which stood such outstanding thinkers as F. Ratzel, N. Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev, O. Spengler, L.N. Gumilev and other authors, suggests the presence on Earth of several cultural centers with their own unique appearance and originality of development (the Middle East, India, China, the Pacific Islands, Eastern Europe). All these cultural centers can be described in terms developed by the "Eastern" tradition of researching social life. The “eastern” tradition of interpreting the nation and nationalism, in which a special role belongs to representatives of the German and Russian philosophical and political schools, is also more suitable for the analysis of the social life of Russia.

In the "eastern" (ethnic) tradition (widespread in Germany, Eastern Europe and Asia), the concept of a nation is synonymous with the concept of ethnos. A nation (or ethno-nation) is an ethnos that can include other ethnic groups (according to L.N. Gumilyov - "xenia"), which share the main national interests. In this tradition, one cannot do without understanding the ethnic nature of a nation, its natural essence, expressed in culture and folk character.

Let us recall that in accordance with the views of L.N. Gumilyov, ethnos is a stable human community historically formed on the basis of an original stereotype of behavior, a collective of people possessing a common self-awareness, some inherent stereotype of behavior and opposing itself to all other similar groups, based on the subconscious sympathy (antipathy) of people who recognize each other according to the principle “ your own - a stranger. " Ethnicity is manifested in the actions of people and their relationships, which makes it possible to divide into "us" and "strangers". The originality of an ethnos is not in the language, not in the landscape of the territory it occupies, not in the economic structures, but in the way of life and traditions of the people who make it up. Ethnic identity exists throughout historical life of humanity, becoming the second plane of national identity in the process of nation-building.

Each nation has its own unique spiritual identity and its own special historical mission. The nationality of a person is determined not so much by the state and legal status as by his self-consciousness, which has both ethnic and national components.

The emergence of this tradition of interpreting the phenomenon of a nation in Germany dates back to the end of the 18th century and is associated with the works of I. Herder and German romantics. Not accepting the interpretation of the nation as a totality of subjects, citizens of the state (political nation), they form the idea of ​​the nation as an ethnic, natural community of people, expressing the "folk spirit" ("Volksgeist") and based on common culture, values, ideological characteristics and common origin.

The interpretation of a nation not in the sense of a political nation, but of an ethno-nation, inevitably led to a different understanding of nationalism than in the Western tradition. G. Cohn proposed to distinguish between Western (he is - political, civil, state, liberal nationalism, dominant in England, France and the United States) and Eastern (ethnic, cultural, organic, dominant in Germany and Russia) nationalism. At the same time, many authors unreasonably confuse ethnic nationalism with tribalism or ethnic separatism, which, in our opinion, is not entirely true. But more on this in the next paragraph.

In the Russian philosophical and political science tradition, such famous thinkers as L.A. Tikhomirov, V.S. Solovyov, N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, P.B. Struve, I.A. Ilyin and many others. At the same time, the word nation was used by different authors and as describing an ethnic community, an individual's state affiliation, a form of state structure and the state itself, but always in close relationship with its Spirit, Idea.

L.A. Tikhomirov, considered the nation as one of the four elements of the structure of the state and defined it as “the whole mass of individuals and groups whose cohabitation gives rise to the idea of ​​supreme power, equally dominating over it. The state helps national cohesion, and in this sense contributes to the creation of a nation, but it should be noted that the state does not at all replace or abolish the nation. The whole history is full of examples that a nation is experiencing a complete collapse of the state and after centuries is able to create it again; in the same way, nations all too often change and transform state structures their. In general, the nation is the basis, with the weakness of which the state is also weak; the state that weakens the nation - thereby proves its failure ”.

S. Bulgakov, wrote about the nation as a “living spiritual organism”, belonging to which “does not depend at all on our consciousness; it exists before him and apart from him and even in spite of him. It is not only a product of our consciousness or our will, rather, on the contrary, this very consciousness of nationality and the will to it is the essence of its generation in the sense that generally conscious and volitional life already presupposes some existential core of the personality as a nutritious and organic environment in which they arise and develop, of course, and then receive the ability to influence the personality itself. "

P.B. Struve believed that: "A nation is a spiritual unity created and supported by a common spirit, culture, spiritual content bequeathed by the past, living in the present and creating the future in it." "A nation is always based on a cultural community in the past, present and future, a common cultural heritage, common cultural work, common cultural aspirations."

A.V. Gulyga, analyzing the views of Russian philosophers on the essence of the nation, noted that: “The nation is an organic unity, a part of which a person feels from birth to death, outside of which he is lost, becomes unprotected. A nation is a community of destiny and hope, metaphorically speaking. Berdyaev is right: “All attempts to rationally define nationality lead to failure. The nature of nationality is indefinable by any rationally perceptible characteristics. Neither race, nor territory, nor language, nor religion are the characteristics that determine nationality, although they all play one role or another in its definition. Nationality is a complex historical formation, it is formed as a result of a complex mixture of races and tribes, many land redistributions with which it connects its fate in the course of a spiritual and cultural process that creates its unique spiritual peak. And as a result of all historical and psychological research, an indestructible and elusive remnant remains, in which the whole mystery of national individuality lies. Nationality is mysterious, mystical, irrational, like any individual being. " The destruction of traditional foundations (the system of values ​​that has developed over the centuries) is disastrous for the nation ...

A nation is a community of shrines .... Nations are not going to merge, but there is no need to install additional partitions between them. Nationality is not a question of origin, but of behavior, not of "blood", but of culture, of that cultural stereotype that has become native. This is what the Germans call Wahlheimat. Everyone is free to choose his own nationality, you cannot drag in it, you cannot push out of it. You can live among the Russians and not accept their "faith". (Then you just don’t need to claim leadership, you cannot consider the people as a means, as a material for manipulation, this causes protest and excesses). Full acceptance of the culture of the people, merging with it, the willingness to share the fate of the people, make any “different faith” a Russian, as well as a German, etc.

The Russian nation is multi-ethnic and has many roots. That is why it is so numerous. The Russian nation in general is not kinship "by blood", what is important here is not the origin, but the behavior, the type of culture. You may not be born Russian, it is important to become. But it is not at all necessary to become. There are many peoples in Russia, but Russians have always been distinguished by national tolerance, it was she who turned Russia into a powerful state, which our country has been for centuries. " ...

Extremely important in the framework of the Russian philosophical and political science tradition of considering the phenomenon of a nation, are the concepts of "Spirit of the nation", "National Idea".

“The spirit of a nation is the most subtle, deeply integrated in the centuries of national history, the ontological core of national self-awareness. The spirit of the nation defies verbal description (“ the spirit has never been seen"), But it is he who enters as an unconditional generating principle into the entire national idea, national ideology and national-historical action, defining what is called national character, being the most fundamental constant of national existence. Where the national spirit is alive, the nation is also alive ”. The spirit of a nation is formed at the dawn of its formation. “Its basis and beginning is a complex of religious ideas and beliefs, which, being refracted in specific historical conditions, and creates the image of the nation, its specific features, the scale of its historical potential (passionarity). " ... But since “spirit is a substance inexpressible in a word, then the only verbal disclosure of the concept of historical passionarity is national idea. " ... "Concept passionarity the national spirit is manifested primarily in the content of its national idea. Those peoples and civilizations that possess and retain their fundamental spiritual and ideological foundations are the most historically stable (India, China, countries of the Islamic world). And those peoples who could not preserve their national idea or did not find ideological forms for it adequate to the national history have disappeared from the historical field or are on the verge of national degeneration (the peoples of Africa, Western Europe, and now Russia). Briefly, this thesis can be formulated as follows: there is an idea - there is passion, no idea - no passion .» .

Without taking into account the concepts “Spirit of the Nation” and “National Idea”, which additionally reveal the essence of the nation (ethno-nation) in the “eastern” tradition of its interpretation, the category of “nation” fades, loses its inner content, dooming itself to spiritual degeneration. In this connection, the words of the song of Hieromonk Roman (Matyushin) come to mind:

“Without God, a nation is a crowd,

United by vice

Or blind or stupid

Or what is even more terrible - cruel.

And may anyone ascend the throne,

The verb is in a high syllable.

The crowd will remain a crowd

Until he turns to God! " ...

It should be noted that a number of works have appeared within the framework of the modern Russian political science school, where the authors mean by the category "nation" - a super-ethnos, trying to reconcile the Western and "Eastern" traditions of interpreting the phenomenon of nation and nationalism. For example, the historian D.M. Volodikhin writes: “I put an equal sign between the concepts of“ superethnos ”and“ nation ”. From this point of view, a superethnos can be both polyethnic (it may contain at least 10 or even 20 ethnic groups) and monoethnic. Thus, a nation can be both multi-ethnic and mono-ethnic. Another thing is that a nation is always and invariably built around the everyday, linguistic and cultural preferences of one ethnic group. A superethnos, that is to say, a nation, is not a fusion of heterogeneous elements into a motley and forever frozen in its inviolability unity. A nation, for all the universality of its religious supervalue and high culture, nevertheless has a language, history and everyday life priorities of one ethnic group. And some inclusions from the history of everyday life of other ethnic groups that have entered the nation are attached to them. Leading. Predominant. At some point in the nation genesis - reigning supreme. In a word, an ethnos-builder. " ...

The pinnacle of the creative heritage of the Russian philosophical and political science school can rightfully be considered the works of I.A. Ilyin, in which he gives a philosophical and legal interpretation of the essence of the nation and a special, different from the Western, interpretation of the phenomenon of nationalism.

A nation is a socio-economic, cultural-political and spiritual community of the industrial era. There are two main approaches to understanding the nation: as a political community of citizens of a certain state and as an ethnic community with a single language and identity.

In international law, it is synonymous with the nation state.

Approaches to Understanding a Nation

Political nation

Supporters of constructivism believe that nations are artificial formations, purposefully constructed, created by intellectual elites (scientists, writers, politicians, ideologists) based on national project- the ideology of nationalism, which can be expressed not only in political manifestos, but also in literary works, scientific works, etc. According to constructivists, nationalism does not awaken a nation, which until then remains a thing-in-itself, but creates a new nation there, where she was not. Geographic boundaries In this case, the national project is the actual political boundaries of the state, and the ethnic differences of the population participating in the construction of such a nation do not matter at all.

One of the main theorists of constructivism, Benedict Anderson, defines nations as "imaginary communities": "I propose the following definition of a nation: it is an imaginary political community, and it is imagined as something inevitably limited, but at the same time sovereign." I mean, of course, not that nations are generally some fictions, but that only rationally thinking individuals really exist, and the nation exists only in their heads, "in the imagination," due to the fact that they identify themselves with this very thing. rather than some other way.

Constructivists deny the continuity between ethnic groups of pre-industrial society and modern nations, they emphasize that nations are products of industrialization, the spread of universal standardized education, the development of science and technology (in particular, printing, mass communications and information) and that in the pre-industrial era, ethnic groups and ethnic identity didn't play like that important role, because traditional society offered many other forms of identity (class, religion, etc.).

Ethnonation

Ethnonation (the theory of sociobiological primordialism of a nation) understands a nation as the transition of an ethnos to a special national stage of development, that is, as a biological phenomenon. The emergence of this kind of nationalism is associated with the formation of the mystical concept of the "folk spirit" (Volksgeist) within the framework of the German "populist" (volkisch) and racist, ariososophical nationalism of the 18th-19th centuries (in particular, in the works of representatives of German romanticism). The early German romantic nationalists believed that there was a certain "folk spirit" - an irrational, supernatural principle, which is embodied in various peoples and determines their identity and difference from each other, and which finds expression in "blood" and in race. From this point of view, the "national spirit" is transmitted with "blood", that is, by inheritance, thus, a nation is understood as a community descended from common ancestors, linked by blood ties.

In the nexus of nationalism and racism in Germany, oddly enough, linguistic studies played a decisive role, at the origins of which were also romantic nationalists such as Jacob Grimm. They discovered a similarity between modern European languages ​​and Sanskrit, on the basis of which the doctrine of "language families" was created, where relations between languages ​​were likened to consanguineous relations (progenitor languages ​​and descendant languages). As you can see, from the fact of the similarity of languages, a conclusion was drawn about the consanguineous connection of the peoples speaking them, in particular, from the postulation of the existence of the Indo-European family of languages, a conclusion was drawn about the biological origin of all European nations, and above all the Germans, from the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the mythical ancient "Aryans" who were endowed with idealized features

Since the 1950s, the theory of ethnonation is rapidly losing ground in Western science. The reason for this was, first of all, the fact pointed out by one of the main opponents of primordialism Benedict Anderson: “Theorists of nationalism were often perplexed, if not annoyed, by the following three paradoxes: The objective modernity of nations in the eyes of the historian, on the one hand, and their subjective antiquity in the eyes of a nationalist, on the other ... ”. The point is that historical research has shown that nations were formed in Western Europe not so long ago - in the early modern era, and in other regions and even later - in Eastern Europe in the 19th century, in Asia and Africa - in the 20th century. , so it is very problematic to raise them to any one ethnic group, the higher stage of development of which is supposedly the given nation. For example, french nation formed in the era of the Enlightenment and the Great French Revolution as a result of the unification of peoples of different cultures - Gascons, Burgundians, Bretons, etc. Many of them continued to exist in the 19th and 20th centuries, and did not become French until the end. In this regard, an expression like: "French culture of the XII century" looks doubtful. Moreover, after the collapse of the colonial system in the 1950s and 1960s, new nations began to form rapidly in Asia and Africa, including the most diverse ethnic groups. And this despite the fact that even a few decades ago the peoples of Africa, who later entered these or those nations, did not even have an idea of ​​such a community as a nation and nationality, they, together with the ideas of a national state and the ideology of nationalism, were brought to them by the European colonialists.

Nation and nationality

It is necessary to distinguish between such interrelated but not identical concepts as "nation" and "nationality". The concept of "nationality" in Russia and other countries of the post-Soviet space, expressing ethnic community, is only one of the factors of nation and nationality. Therefore, it is narrower than the concept of "nation". This does not apply to other countries, where nationality is belonging to a particular nation based on citizenship. The source of the ethnic connection of people is the community of cultural characteristics and natural conditions of life, leading to the differentiation of this primary group from another. Racist theorists believed that genetic characteristics are the basis of an ethnos, but this is empirically refuted (for example, Abkhaz blacks). A nation is a more complex and later formation. If ethnic groups have existed throughout world history, then nations are formed only during the New and even Modern times.

A nation can be of 2 types: multi-ethnic (multi-ethnic) or mono-ethnic. Ethnically homogeneous nations are extremely rare and are found mainly in remote corners of the world (for example, Iceland). Usually a nation is built on the basis of a large number of ethnic groups brought together by historical destiny. For example, the Swiss, French, British, Russian, Vietnamese nations are polyethnic, and Americans do not have any pronounced ethnic face at all. Latin American nations are racially heterogeneous - made up of whites, Africans, Creoles, and Amerindians.

In some cases, a synonym for a nation is the concept of "people"; in the constitutional law of the Anglo- and Roman-speaking countries - a term that usually means "state", "society", "the totality of all citizens."

In the USSR, a nation was more often understood as any ethnos within the state, and for a polyethnic community, the term “multinational people” was used, which included, for example, Soviet, Indian, American, Yugoslav and others. In English-language terminology (and in most of the current Russian terminology), a nation is associated with a state, for example, Indians are written about as a “multi-ethnic nation”. Some researchers believe that the definition of ethnic groups as nations in the USSR was associated with the political technological need to use the right of nations to self-determination to fight the multi-ethnic countries of the capitalist world.

Nation and Ethnicity in Academic Science

The scientific-functional approach to the difference between a nation and an ethnos is that ethnoses are studied by ethnology, for research in the field of ethnology they are given the titles of candidates and doctors of historical, sociological sciences or cultural studies (depending on the research topic). The theory of political doctrines studies the nation and nationalism. There is no "natiology", it is precisely a political doctrine. For research in this direction, they are awarded the title of candidates and doctors of political science. This title is not given for the study of ethnos. Ethnology is not included in the training curriculum for political scientists, the nation is not included in ethnological disciplines.

Academic science denies such a concept as "ethnonation", and recognizes as a nation only a political association of citizens on the basis of common citizenship.

Nation and language

Language is also not a universal differentiating feature of a nation: the uniqueness of a nation is not necessarily accompanied by the uniqueness of a language. There are nations that share the same language with each other (such are German, English, Arabic, Serbo-Croatian, Azerbaijani), and there are nations that speak a language that is foreign to all or almost all ethnic groups - Indians, Han Chinese (two main spoken languages ​​of China, Peking and Cantonese, although they are called dialects, are linguistically separated from each other further than English from German). There are also examples when a significant part of the representatives of a particular nation do not speak the language of their nation.

In Switzerland, a single nation speaks four languages: German (65% of the population), French (18.4%), Italian (9.8%), and Romansh (0.8%). There are many local dialects in Germany that are very different from standard German. Pakistan's national language is Urdu. Only 7% of the population speaks it.

Formation of nations

The emergence of nations is historically associated with the development of production relations, overcoming national isolation and fragmentation, with the formation of a common economic system, in particular a common market, the creation and dissemination of a common literary language, common elements culture, etc. Thus, the first European nations grew up on the basis of already established large nationalities that had a common language, territory and other ethnic characteristics that acted as conditions for the formation of these nations. In other cases, nations formed even when all the conditions for their formation were not yet fully prepared. So, in a number of countries in Asia and Africa, nations were formed during the struggle for independence and especially after its conquest on the territory historically formed as a result of colonial divisions from tribes and nationalities different in language, culture, economic ties and became a form of territorial and economic cohesion, political and cultural development of these countries. It should also be borne in mind that the formation of nations is not a universal stage in the development of all peoples of the world. Many small peoples (tribes, linguistic-territorial groups) often merge with large nations.

Ernest Gellner considered industrial society a condition for the emergence of nationalism, and Benedict Anderson considered nationalism a condition for the transition to an industrial society.

Poets, artists, journalists, historians and linguists play an important role in the formation of the nation (it is sometimes said that almost all European nations are projects of representatives of romanticism). The formation of the Scottish nation was greatly influenced by Robert Burns and Walter Scott, Danish - Hans Christian Andersen and Bertel Thorvaldsen, Polish - Frederic Chopin, Adam Mickiewicz and Henryk Sienkiewicz, Italian - Giuseppe Mazzini, Finnish - Elias Lönroth, German - Ben Yehuda, German - Friedrich Schiller, Johann Goethe and Johann Herder, and the Tatar one - Gabdulla Tukay.

History

The first modern nations, according to the classic of the study of nationalism Benedict Anderson, were Latin American, formed during the struggle against the Spanish crown, followed by the United States and then France by a small margin. For the first time, the concept of a nation in its political meaning appeared precisely during the Great French Revolution, when it became necessary to form a certain community to replace the lost “citizenship of the French crown”.

Before 1750, it is already very difficult to detect the beginnings of nationalism, nationalism is a phenomenon of the modern era.

German nationalism arose in the 1800s, followed by the nationalisms of Greece and the Scandinavian countries (1810-20), Italian nationalism (1830s), in the 1850-1900s nationalism spread to the countries of Eastern Europe and India, and at the beginning XX century - to the countries of Asia and Africa. The nations of the Vietnamese and Cambodians have become the historically youngest nations - their birth took place in the 1930-50s.

Thus, the ideology of nationalism in one of its aspects consists in the isolation and isolation of a separate nation from the total peoples who lived before the emergence of the nation in a certain territory. After the isolation of the nation, the paradigm of nationalism begins to work on the formation, protection and strengthening of its nation (cf. the formation of the majority of Slavic nations during the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire).

National culture

A nation is primarily a political phenomenon, and only then an ethnic and social one. Therefore, the main task of the nation is to reproduce the cultural identity common to all citizens of the country in political interests... For this, there are ministries of culture, whose task is to determine the format of the national culture, common to all.

National culture in general cannot be limited by the narrow framework of a homogeneous ethnic community. On the contrary, the full development of a nation requires much more high level differentiation of spiritual orientations and lifestyles than ethnic. It includes various options for subcultures due to ethnic, geographic, social, economic and class factors. It is often noted that a nation is not formed through the assertion of uniformity. It is an extremely heterogeneous formation, consisting of components of various kinds, although each of them individually contains common cultural characteristics that distinguish a given nation. A characteristic feature of national cultures is their wide differentiation according to professional and social characteristics.

Psychological aspect

In the traditional economy, a person is born, lives and dies in the same circle, is surrounded by the same people, without feeling the need for another community. The industrial society breaks this picture: people become more and more mobile, neighbors and family ties are severed. The nation restores human mental and social ties at a new level corresponding to the global scale Everyday life... Benedict Anderson called the nation "an imaginary community" - a community that is created and maintained not by the personal acquaintance of members, but by the power of their imagination, their fraternal feelings.

(Visited 11 times, 1 visits today)

Political terms are not ideologically neutral, but, on the contrary, are most often a tool of actual political struggle or an expression of the system of power relations existing in society. T&P reviewed the works of the largest modern researchers of political history, finding out what certain terms meant in different time and what is behind them now.

It is assumed that voters and citizens of the country exactly understand the language in which the politician speaks to them or statesman, and thus can understand what awaits them in the future or what they already have in the present. From political terms in such a case, objectivity and clarity are required, taking into account that political language is, among other things, an important tool for political socialization and education. However, upon closer examination, it turns out that the same words meant different, often opposite things, depending on who used them and at what time.

Nation

In classical Roman usage, which runs through the Middle Ages up to modern times, natio, as opposed to civitas, means the unification of people on the basis of a common origin that does not initially have a political dimension.

Historian Alexei Miller points out that at the beginning of the 18th century, the word "nation" appears in various Russian documents as borrowed, most often in the meaning of ethnicity and nationality. The Great French Revolution introduced a clear political content into the concept of nation, which was later transferred to Russian-language usage. The word "nation" evoked stable associations with national sovereignty and national representation that had formed after the French Revolution, therefore Uvarov, in his famous triad ("Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality"), used the concept of "nationality" that intersected with it semantically, linking the latter with the principle of conservatism and loyalty to the authorities. In the 1840s, Belinsky wrote about the relationship between the concepts of nation and people, that people denotes only the lowest stratum of the state, while a nation is "the totality of all estates."

Ernest Gellner is one of the first researchers of the nation to take a modernist approach to the study of this concept. Before industrialization, humanity lived in closed communities, the masses were engaged in manual labor, in the process of work they communicated in the same circle. In an agro-literary society, culture is an expression of an internal differentiated status system with its own complex, intertwining power relations. The cultural differences of each social group serve to disintegrate in such a society. In an industrial society, there is already a need for a universal worker with his ability to move. Education, written culture, and the national language are gaining strength, uniting many separate communities within the state. Industrial society presupposes new ways of communication that do not depend on everyday communication within closed local communities. Labor ceases to be physical and becomes semantic. Thus, more universal mass information channels are emerging through which standardized messages independent of the local context are transmitted. This is a new, standardized culture that brings people together.

"The aristocracy represented a kind of" nation "in the face of the court, that is, in fact, it was the only representative of that early form of the nation, access to which had not yet been obtained by the broad masses of the population."

The role of standardizing culture at that time could only be assumed by the state, so each individual culture sought to acquire statehood. Gellner believes that nations began to emerge in the 19th century. By 1848, cultural and linguistic boundaries began to correlate with political ones, and the legitimacy of political power began to be determined by correlation with the concept of "nation". In the new industrial society, constant economic growth becomes important, which, in turn, depends on the efficiency of each employee. In such a situation, the old social structure is impossible, in which the position of the individual was established not by his efficiency as a worker, but by origin.

According to Jurgen Habermas, the success of nation states in the 19th century is due to the fact that the tandem of bureaucracy and capitalism (the state needs taxes, capital needs legal guarantees) turned out to be the most effective remedy for social modernization. Feudal society was based on a system of privileges granted by a monarch in need of taxes and a regular army. The aristocracy represented a kind of "nation" in the face of the court, that is, in fact, it was the only representative of that early form of the nation, access to which had not yet been obtained by the broad masses of the population. Subsequently, it was the national consciousness that turned out to be a powerful stimulus for growth. political activity the masses, which led to the democratic transformation of society. On the other hand, in the process of the separation of the church from the state, prepared by the thinkers of the Enlightenment, the need for a new legitimation of power arose.

In a pre-national state, the ownership of a citizen was determined only by the subordination of the monarchical power. Now, to be a citizen meant not to be a subject of the monarch, but above all to belong to a community of equal citizens. In the industrial era, new, non-class principles of social ties have emerged. In order to push the country's population to maintain new social ties in the name of abstract rights and freedoms after the approval of a new type of government, marked by the American and French revolutions, served as the idea of ​​a nation with a single culture and history. Intellectuals - philosophers, writers, artists - begin to carefully construct romantic myths and traditions corresponding to the "spirit of the nation."

In his work The invention of tradition, Eric Hobsbawm convincingly shows how the need for a national myth was met by the invention of tradition. Tradition gives any change the sanction of precedent in the past, expressing, first of all, the balance of power in the present (as, for example, the claim to the territory, historically supposedly belonging to the ancestors). Tradition makes these claims perpetual, so invariance is required of tradition (which distinguishes it from more flexible and changeable customs). As soon as these or those practices lose their practical function, they turn into a tradition. Tradition is created in the process of ritualization and formalization through repeated repetition and reference to the past. Modern symbols Scotland - kilt and "national" music played on bagpipes, which, in theory, should indicate something ancient, in fact, are a product of modernity. The spread of Scottish kilts and clan tartans took place after the alliance with England in 1707, and before that, in a still extremely undeveloped form, most Scots were considered an expression of the rudeness and backwardness of the Celtic highlanders (although even the highlanders did not find anything particularly ancient and distinctive in them for their culture).

“Anderson views the emergence of a nation as a profound change in the picture of the world, in the perception of time and space. The nation is becoming a new form of religious consciousness. "

Until the end of the 17th century, in general, in fact, there were no highlanders as a cultural community. The western part of Scotland was extremely close, culturally and economically, to Ireland and was, in fact, its colony. In the 18th-19th centuries, the rejection of Irish culture and the construction of a single Scottish nation took place, including through the artificial creation of the mountain tradition. The folk epic of the Scottish Celts is created on the basis of Irish ballads, for which purpose James Macpherson in the middle of the 18th century invented the “Celtic Homer” Ossian (according to his idea, the folk epic of the Celts was stolen by the Irish in the late Middle Ages). Spread in Germany, France and the United States in the 19th century National symbols- flags, memorable dates, public ceremonies, monuments - are part of the "social engineering" that, by inventing tradition, creates a nation.

Benedict Anderson argues that a nation is such an “imaginary community”, limited and sovereign, which emerges as the power of the church and dynasties diminishes. It is imaginary because all members of the community will never be able to get to know each other, as, for example, the inhabitants of one village. The image of a community belongs to the realm of the imagination, having no concrete, material expression. A nation is born with the destruction of three key concepts: first, about the sacredness of a special written language, which gives access to ontological truth, secondly, about the natural organization of society around centers (monarchs whose power is of divine origin) and, thirdly, the concept of time in which cosmology is inextricably linked with history, and the origin of people and the origin of the world are identical. What Anderson calls "print capitalism," when the market boom led to widespread distribution of printed literature on national languages... It was capitalism, says Anderson, that, like nothing else, contributed to the collection of related dialects into unified written languages.

Anderson views the emergence of a nation as a profound change in the picture of the world, in the perception of time and space. The nation becomes a new form of religious consciousness, having a historical extent, in which the individual, reckoning himself as a nation, acquires imaginary immortality. A nation is thought of as something that has no beginning or end, but abides in eternity. Language unites the past with the present, gives the nation the appearance of "naturalness".

An example of modern usage:

“Thanks to the unifying role of the Russian people, centuries-old intercultural and interethnic interaction in the historical territory Russian state a unique civilizational community was formed - a multi-ethnic Russian nation, whose representatives consider Russia their homeland. Russia was created as a unity of peoples, as a state, the backbone of which is historically the Russian people. The civilizational identity of Russia and the Russian nation is based on the preservation of Russian culture and language, the historical and cultural heritage of all peoples of Russia. " Strategy of the national policy of the Russian Federation until 2025.

Bibliography:

E. Gellner. Nations and nationalism

A. Miller. The Romanov Empire and nationalism

J. Habermas. Political works

E. Hobsbawm. The invention of tradition

B. Anderson. Imaginary communities. Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism.

from lat. natio - people) - historical. community of people, formed on the basis of the commonality of their language, territory, economic. life, culture and certain character traits. Economical the basis for the emergence of N. is such a development produces. forces and the totality of industries. relations, a swarm is first achieved during the transition from feudalism to capitalism. The development of capitalism creates a socio-territorial division of labor, which binds the population economically in N. This leads to a political. concentration, to the creation of nat. state in the place of the former feud. fragmentation of the country (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 4, p. 428 and so 21, pp. 406-16). N. arises from kinship. and unrelated. tribes, races and nationalities. Rus. N. developed from part of the Old Rus. nationalities, edges, in turn, was formed from kinship. East Slavic tribes, but many elements from the surrounding western countries merged into it. and south. Slav., German., Finno-Ugric and Turkic-speaking peoples, etc. French N. was formed as a result of the amalgamation of Gauls, Germans, Normans, and other North-Amer. N. arose from immigrants from almost all Europe. countries with which blacks from Africa and Indians partly mixed. You can not replace the nat. a community of racial, tribal, as well as religion. and state. community. There are many. different N., to-rye generally belong to the same race. There are N., parts of which profess different religions. On the other hand, there are different N., professing the same religion. There are N. who live in one state and do not have their own nat. statehood, and, conversely, there are many such?., dep. parts of which live in different states. Therefore, racial, tribal, religious. and state. community cannot be included in the general concept and definition of N. as its necessary features. Lenin showed, criticizing the views of the populist Mikhailovsky, that during the formation of N. the clan and tribal organization of society no longer exists, and N., like nationalities, arise on the basis of territorial-economic. connections. Therefore, they cannot be regarded as a simple continuation and expansion of clan and tribal ties. Clans and tribes - historical. communities of people of the era of the primitive communal system, and nationalities - the era of slave owners. and the feud. societies - preceded by N. Economich. the basis of the process of formation of N., cementing their linguistic, territorial and cultural community, was the development of commodity production, the emergence of local markets, their merger into a single national. market. "... The creation ... of national ties," wrote Lenin, "was nothing more than the creation of bourgeois ties" (Op. , v. 1, p. 137-38). Common language and territory, based on common economic. life is d. signs of N. Common language, territory, economic. The life and culture of N., growing on the basis of capitalism and, moreover, of socialism, is qualitatively different in terms of its social type, character, and level of development historically higher than analogous communities among the clan, tribe, and nationalities that arose in precapitalist. formations. The development of capitalism will liquidate the feud. economical, political and cultural disunity of the population speaking the same language, through the growth of industry, trade, market. This leads to economical. and polit. consolidation of nationalities in N., to the creation of centralized nat. state-in, to-rye, in turn, accelerate the consolidation N. Economich. and polit. N.'s consolidation promotes the formation of a single nat. language from the language of nationalities based on the convergence of written lit. language with folk spoken; nat. the language gradually overcomes the dialectal fragmentation of the language of the nationality, which also contributes to the creation of stable ties between people in a given territory. Features historical. development N., its economic. structure, culture, way of life, customs and traditions, geography. and historical. environments leave their mark on its spiritual appearance, create the peculiarities of the nat. character or psychology in the people who make up this N., give them special "national. feelings" and "national. consciousness." But these features cannot be interpreted in the spirit of the ideology of the nat. "exclusivity", according to a cut some N. are hardworking, businesslike, revolutionary, etc., while others do not or cannot possess these qualities. Noting this or that feature in a given N., we do not at all deny it in other H., but only emphasize that it is especially vividly and strongly developed in a given N. at a given moment and is uniquely combined with other traits and features of her character. In an exploitative society, the class position and interests of people, and not their nat. affiliation decisively determines the driving motives and goals of their activities, incl. their nat. will, feelings, consciousness and self-awareness. Nat. consciousness expresses not only a person's belonging to the definition. nation, but also this or that attitude towards other N., this or that understanding of the nat. interests with t. sp. define. social group, class. Nat. character is a phenomenon of spiritual life, it reflects economic. and socio-political. N.'s system manifests itself in its culture and is formed under their influence. Commonality of economic. life, culture and character of the bourgeois. N. is very relative and does not exclude class antagonism. If in the culture of N. under capitalism there are "two cultures", then both its character and its nat. consciousness, too, seems to be "bifurcated". Bourges. nationalism and span. internationalism is two opposite worldviews and two opposite policies in the nat. question. The corresponding classes of different N. have common social, class, and also special nat. features. Him. bourgeois differs in nat. features of French, American, Japanese, although their class consciousness is essentially the same. The class consciousness, interests and character of the bourgeois and the proletarian of any N. are directly opposite to each other. The proletariat is international by nature, while remaining national at the same time. Rus. the worker differed and differs from German, English, French in language, etc. nat. peculiarities, according to the conditions of life and culture, and therefore, according to the peculiarities of the nat. character, although class traits and interests, goals, ideals and feelings they have common, international. The latter play a decisive role in his character, manifested in his nat. features. These moments are not disclosed in the Stalinist definition of the "community of the mental make-up" of the bourges. N. and nat. specifics (see "Marxism and the national question", Soch., vol. 2, Moscow, 1954), which left loopholes for the bourgeois. theories of "national exclusivity". So, the features of the nat. psychology (character) also constitute a necessary, although not primary, but derived characteristic of N. Some of the characteristics of N. can be general, the same for several. N. There are various N. who speak the same language (for example, Englishmen and North Americans, Portuguese and Brazilians, Mexicans, Cubans, Argentines and Spaniards), or living in a common territory, or having close territorial and economic, state. and cultural ties and, as a result, there is a lot in common in their history, culture, everyday life, in customs, traditions, in psychology. N. has not only a special feature, something that distinguishes them from each other, but also a general feature that brings them together and unites them. The nature of the economical. system determines the social structure and political. N.'s system, the nature of her life and culture, psychology and spiritual image. In the bourgeois. sociology has no generally accepted theory of N. It is dominated by nonscientific. etatist theories linking N. with the state. In others, idealistic. theories protrudes nat. consciousness, "national spirit" or nat. character as a leader, and sometimes unities. signs of N. (American sociologists V. Sulbakh, G. Cohn, American lawyer K. Eagleton, and others). N. is viewed as only a subjective feeling and desire, will, decision of an arbitrary group of people (G. Kon) or "psychological. Concept", "unconscious. Mental. Community" (Maritain). Mn. modern bourgeois. ideologists rely on the theories of O. Bauer and K. Renner, which reduced N. to the generality of nat. character on the basis of a community of fate, to the union "equally thinking people The ideologists of modern reformism, revisionism and national communism are sliding towards bourgeois nationalism and great-power chauvinism, inflating national moments in the development of their countries, ascribing to all N. in general, including socialist N., then, what is inherent in the bourgeoisie is the struggle to subjugate other countries and nations. creates tendencies and material prerequisites for their unification and merger. Marx and Engels pointed out that by exploiting the world market, the bourgeoisie makes the production and consumption of all countries cosmopolitan. " all-round dependence of nations on each other. This applies equally to material and spiritual production. The fruits of the spiritual activities of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness are becoming more and more impossible ... "(Soch., 2nd ed., Vol. 4, p. 428). Lenin developed these theses in relation to the new historical era, revealed the contradictions between the two tendencies of capitalism in the national question - the tendencies of awakening N. and the internationalization of their economic life, showed the resolution of these contradictions in the process of socialist construction, worked out the program of the party of the proletariat on the national question.The socialist revolution creates the basis and conditions for the transformation of the bourgeois N. into a socialist N., for transition to socialism of peoples who have not passed (fully or partially) the stage of capitalism.Socialist N. differ radically from bourgeois ones in their economic foundations, social structure, socio-political and spiritual appearance, because they are free from social, class antagonisms, Socialist N. from the very beginning strive not towards isolation from each other, but towards rapprochement. went into a single family of nations, achieved tremendous success in the development of their nat. statehood, economy and culture. On this basis, the friendship of the peoples of the USSR was strengthened, and multinationals arose. owls. people - a new, higher type of historical. communities of people are their intern. community. An important condition that contributed to the development of socialist. N., was the party's criticism of the personality cult, violations of the principles of the Leninist nat. politicians. The party decisively put an end to these perversions and held events that strengthened the friendship of the peoples of the USSR, intern. their ties with the peoples of the socialist camp and the working people of the whole world. The period of the extensive construction of communism is a stage in the further comprehensive development and convergence socialist. N., their achievement of complete economic, political, cultural, spiritual unity. The building of communism in the USSR and other countries of the world socialist system prepares the conditions for the complete voluntary merger of N. after the victory of communism throughout the world. The conditions and prerequisites for this future stage of the merger of N. are: a) the creation of a single world communist. economics; b) complete and widespread disappearance of class differences; c) leveling economical. and the cultural level of all N. and countries on the basis of their general rise; d) complete withering away on this basis of state and state. borders, creating full scope for the mobility of the population around the world; e) the development of the communist. everyday life and culture of peoples, international in its foundations, character and content; f) the maximum convergence of the spiritual image and psychology, the character of N.; g) the emergence of a common world language, most likely through the voluntary adoption as such of one of the most developed modern. languages ​​that are already performing the functions of means of international. communication. The CPSU program emphasizes that all questions of the development of N. and nat. The party decides relations from the standpoint of the span. internationalism and Lenin's nat. politicians; you can neither exaggerate nor ignore the nat. peculiarities and differences, neither to delay the progressive process of their erasure, nor to accelerate it artificially, by pressure and coercion, for this can only slow down the processes of rapprochement of N. And after the building of basically communism in the USSR, it would be wrong to declare the policy of N. , who complains about the ongoing processes of gradual erasure of nat. differences and features. Communism cannot perpetuate and preserve the nat. features and differences, because he creates a new, internat. community of people, intern. the unity of all mankind. But such unity and complete fusion of N. will be realized only after the victory of socialism and communism on a world scale. Lit .: K. Marx and F. Engels, On the colonial system of capitalism. [Sat. ], M., 1959; Lenin V.I., About nat. and the national-colonial question. [Sat. ], M., 1956; him, Abstracts of the abstract on nat. issue, Soch., 4th ed., vol. 41, p. 273, Lenin collection, XXX, [M. ], 1937, p. 61–70, 98–112, 189–99; The CPSU in Resolutions and Decisions, 7th ed., Part 1, M., 1953, p. 40, 47, 54, 82, 286, 314-15, 345, 361, 416-17, 553-62, 709-18, 759-66; h. 4, 1960, p. 127-32; Materials of the XXII Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1961; Materials of the XXIII Congress of the CPSU, Moscow, 1966; Program documents of the struggle for peace, democracy and socialism, Moscow, 1961; Cammari M.D., Socialist. the nations of the USSR in the transition from socialism to communism, Kommunist, 1953, No 15; his, To complete unity, M., 1962; Socialist. nations of the USSR, M., 1955; I. Tsameryan, Sov. multinational roc-in, its features and ways of development, M., 1958; Dunaev ?. ?., Cooperation socialist. nations in the construction of communism, M., 1960; Bypassing capitalism. [Sat. Art. ], M., 1961; Formation of socialist. nations in the USSR. [Sat. Art. ], M., 1962; Alekseev V.V., Genus, tribe, nationality, nation, M., 1962; Batyrov Sh. B., Formation and development of socialist. nations in the USSR, M., 1962; Kravtsev I.E., Development of nat. relations in the USSR, Kiev, 1962; Chekalin M.V., Communism and N., L., 1962; From socialism to communism. Sat. Art., M., 1962 (see Art. Oleinik I.P., Kammari M.D. and Dzhunusov M.S.); Semenov Yu. I., From the history of theoretical. development by V.I. Lenin nat. question, "Peoples of Asia and Africa", 1966, No. 4 (the article contains the materials of the discussion of the question of N. in the Soviet literature); Synopticus [Renner K.], State and Nation, trans. from German., St. Petersburg, 1906; Springer R. [Renner K.], Nat. problem. (Struggle of nationalities in Austria), trans. from it., St. Petersburg, 1909; Bauer O., Nat. question and social democracy, trans. from it., St. Petersburg, 1909; K. Kautsky, Nat. problems, [lane. with him. ], P., 1918. See also lit. at Art. Nationalism. M. Cammari. Moscow.