In the biological sciences, race refers to the commonality populations. A population is a group of individuals characterized by a certain stable set of features; its individuals interbreed, give productive offspring and live in a common area.

In relation to a person, there are several definitions of race and population, although their meaning is very close. The most common in domestic science is the following: race- this is a set of people who have a common physical type, the origin of which is associated with a certain territory. Under population is understood as a set of individuals belonging to the same species, able to mix indefinitely with each other and having one territory. The difference between race and population, which are essentially very close definitions, is that the size of the population is much smaller, it occupies less space; a race, on the other hand, consists of many populations that have the possibility of intermingling without limit. The limitation of mixing is associated only with the presence of insulating barriers (including those with large distances). Ethnos(people, nationality) refers to social departments of humanity. An ethnos is a stable set of people historically formed in a certain territory, characterized by a common culture, language, psyche and self-consciousness, reflected in the self-name (ethnonym). All three phenomena - population, race and ethnos - have a very important common feature: each of them has a specific habitat. This commonality contributes to the unity of the gene pool1, culture and language. Therefore, coincidences of the physical type with certain characteristics of the ethnos are sometimes possible. There is a certain correspondence between the great races and

large linguistic divisions. For example, most representatives caucasian race speaks in tongues Indo-European And Semitic-Hamitic families, and most Mongoloids- in languages Sino-Tibetan family. However, there is no causal, regular connection between the physical features of the population, on the one hand, and language and culture, on the other. Most ethnic groups have a complex anthropological (racial) composition, many ethnic groups are anthropologically polymorphic, and along with this, different peoples can belong to the same anthropological type. As the interdisciplinary study of many peoples of the world shows, the coincidence of cultural, linguistic and physical traits is a very rare phenomenon. It may arise as a result of some historical or natural causes, primarily social or geographical isolation. The formation, development and functioning of races and ethnic groups are subject to different laws: races - natural (biological), and ethnic groups - social (historical, etc.).

There are two main approaches to understanding the nation. In the first case, it is a political community of citizens of a state, in the second, an ethnic community with a single identity and language. An ethnos is a group of people with common characteristics, which include origin, culture, language, self-consciousness, territory of residence, etc.

Nation, unlike ethnos, it has a broader concept, and is also considered a more complex and late formation. This is the highest form of ethnos, which replaced the nationality. If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced in the course of the entire world history, then the period of the formation of nations was the New and even the Newest time. A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups at once, brought together by historical fate. For example, the Russian, French, Swiss nations are multi-ethnic, while the Americans do not have a pronounced ethnicity at all.

According to numerous researchers, the origin of the concepts of "nation" and "ethnos" has a different nature. If the ethnos is characterized by the stability and repetition of cultural patterns, then the process of self-awareness through the combination of new and traditional elements is important for the nation. Thus, the main value of an ethnos is belonging to a stable group, while the nation strives to reach a new level of development.

The difference between a nation and an ethnic group

The nation is the highest form of an ethnos that has come to replace the nationality.

If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced in the course of the entire world history, then the period of the formation of nations was the New and even the Newest time.

A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups at once, brought together by historical fate.

The main value of an ethnic group is belonging to a stable group, while the nation strives to reach a new level of development.

Introduction

ethnic community. Ethnos. People. Nation.

National-ethnic relations

The national question in modern conditions

Introduction

Ethnic sociology studies a very complex area of ​​national-ethnic relations. These relations concern almost all aspects of the life of various ethnic communities. In addition, they are often very confusing and contradictory. They express the natural and socio-psychological qualities of ethnic communities, or ethnic groups. Let's try to understand the essence of these phenomena and the concepts that reflect them, as well as the content of national-ethnic relations and historical trends in their development, the content of the so-called national question and its solution in modern conditions.

ethnic community. Ethnos. People. Nation Ethnic community

ethnic community- This is a group of people who are interconnected by a common origin and long-term coexistence.

In the course of a long joint life of people within each group, common and stable characteristics that distinguish one group from another. Such features include language, features of everyday culture, the emerging customs and traditions of a particular people or ethnic group (in various languages ​​and in scientific literature, the terms "people" and "ethnos" are used as synonyms). These features are reproduced in ethnic identity of the people, in which he is aware of his unity, first of all - the commonality of his origin and thus his ethnic kinship.

At the same time, it distinguishes itself from other nations, which have their own origin, their own language and their own culture. ethnic identity sooner or later, the identity of a people manifests itself in all its self-consciousness, in which its origin, inherited traditions, and understanding of its place among other peoples are recorded.

Types of ethnic communities

The most ancient ethnic communities are tribes whose life and work were based on tribal and social ties. Each tribe had signs of an ethnic community: they differed from each other in their origin, language, established customs and traditions, material and spiritual culture - from primitive to relatively highly developed. Each tribe formed its own ethnic identity. It had ethnonym(name). Tribes are a form of organization of the primitive communal system, which in different historical epochs existed on different continents of the earth. They still exist in some parts of the Asian, American, African and Australian continents.

With the decomposition of the primitive communal system, the tribes also disintegrated. With the transition to civilization, in which not tribal, but social ties between people came to the fore, the tribe gave way to another type of ethnic community, - people. All peoples as ethnic communities at the stage of civilization (be it the peoples of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, Egypt, India or China, and in later periods - the peoples of France, Germany or Russia) have always been distinguished and are still distinguished by their special socio-ethnic characteristics. Including the peculiarities of their origin, language, culture, ethnic identity, etc.

Unlike the tribes peoples achieved in the era of civilization an incomparably greater socio-ethnic consolidation and a higher (by several orders of magnitude, as ethnographers, historians, linguists and other specialists record) development of their language, material and spiritual culture. It was at this time that the national characters of many peoples began to take shape, which found expression in their national consciousness and self-awareness. In other words, the tribes were replaced by the emerging ancient peoples - nations that reached their peak in subsequent historical epochs.

The formation of nations, which began with the disintegration of the tribal system, ended with the development of machine production and the capitalist market, which linked all regions and regions of a given country into a single economic organism. The intensification of economic communication inevitably activated the political and cultural communication of people, which led to their consolidation as nations, the flourishing of culture and national character.

Such an approach is somewhat at odds with the approach to the problem of the development of historical communities of people, according to which the primitive communal tribes developed into nationalities, and the latter into nations. At the same time, nationalities and nations were endowed with essentially the same characteristics, but differed from each other in the degree of development of these characteristics, it was emphasized that over time, nationalities become nations.

Similar, as it turned out, in many respects an artificial criterion for delimiting nations and nationalities has not received any evidence-based scientific justification. It remains unclear which ethnic community, for example, the Kirghiz, Chechens, Yakuts, can be considered a nation, and which - a nationality, and how to determine the moment when a nationality grows into a nation.

One of the famous domestic ethnographers M.V. Kryukov rightly asserts that, for example, Lenin used the terms "nation", "nationality", "nationality", "people" as synonyms and that the opposition between nations and nationalities was introduced by Stalin in 1921 in the theses "On the Immediate Tasks of the Party in national question." According to Kryukov, this was "theoretically untenable and practically harmful", because it artificially gave rise to new inter-ethnic contradictions related to the fact that not all ethnic communities considered it fair to arbitrarily classify some of them as nations, and others as nationalities. Like many other ethnographers, several years ago Kryukov proposed to return to the use of the phrase "peoples of the Soviet Union", similar to how it is indicated in the well-known "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia". In both cases, the term "peoples" replaces the terms "nations" and "nationalities", the difference between which is purely arbitrary.

Nation

In domestic and foreign literature, one can find many judgments about nations as ethnic communities that were formed long before capitalism. So, the French scientist J.E. Renan (1823-1892) believed that nations existed as early as the beginning of the Middle Ages, "starting from the end of the Roman Empire, or, better, from the time of the decay of the empire of Charlemagne ..."

What is a nation? Answering this question, Renan rightly argued that the nation cannot be reduced to one or another race. Race indicates "blood kinship", and nations can be formed in the process of living together and "mixing" representatives of different races. "The biggest countries - England, France, Italy - are those in which the blood is most mixed." It is this circumstance that characterizes the nations of these countries. Truly there is no nation, all the representatives of which would belong to only one race.

Nations combine natural and social properties. In any case, nations cannot be reduced solely to natural phenomena, as some scientists do. Even if we assume that one of the essential features of a nation is the commonality of its origin from some ancestors, then in this case it should be borne in mind that the nation is by no means reduced to this feature. Renan, as well as the German historian K. Kautsky (1854-1938) and other researchers, name the community of language, territory, and economic life as other signs of it, which, according to K. Kautsky, began to take shape as early as the 14th century, i.e. in the Middle Ages, and ended under capitalism.

One of the signs of a nation, Renan calls the community of interests of its members. The commonality of interests is determined, according to Renan, by the general conditions of life, the commonality of history and destiny, and is a powerful factor in the formation and development of a nation. Over time, a more or less rich spiritual world of the nation is formed, uniting all its representatives. "A nation is a soul," says E. Renan.

Spiritual signs of the nation noted by many thinkers. Thus, the French sociologist and social psychologist G. Lebon (1841-1931) proceeded from the fact that "every nation has a mental structure as stable as its anatomical abilities." From this "spiritual structure" flow the feelings of the people, their thoughts, beliefs, art, as well as various kinds of institutions that regulate their social life. Lebon spoke of the "soul of the people" and that "only she ... saves the nation." The soul of a people is its morals, feelings, ideas, ways of thinking. When morals deteriorate, nations disappear, Le Bon argued. In doing so, he referred to the example of ancient Rome. The Romans, he said, had a very strong ideal. This ideal - the greatness of Rome - absolutely dominated all souls; and every citizen was ready to sacrifice for him his family, his fortune and his life.

This was the strength of Rome. Subsequently, the desire for luxury and depravity came to the fore, which weakened the nation. "When the barbarians appeared at his (Rome's) gates, his soul was already dead."

The idea of ​​the "soul of the people" as the "soul of the nation" was supported and developed by the psychologist and philosopher Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920). He rightly argued that in order to understand the soul of a people, one must know its history. Useful, according to him, will be knowledge of ethnology, art, science, religion, language and customs.

The Austrian sociologist and politician Otto Bauer pointed to the natural and cultural characteristics of a nation. He wrote that the nation as a "natural community" proceeds from "physically conditioned heredity, through which the properties of parents are transmitted to children." However, Bauer considered the main distinguishing features of the nation to be its language and culture. "Community of origin without cultural community always forms only a race and never creates a nation," he argued. National consciousness is interpreted by him as the consciousness of the fact that people converge among themselves "in the possession of certain cultural values", as well as in the direction of their will, which is the characteristics of their national character. Theoretically, national consciousness is the consciousness that I and my compatriots are products of the same history.

Developing the theory of national-cultural autonomy, which is very relevant today, Bauer saw the main task in "making national culture ... the property of the whole people and in this way, the only possible way to unite all members of the nation into a national-cultural community."

Summarizing what has been said, it can be argued that nation- this is a special historical community of people, characterized by the commonality of its origin, language, territory, economic structure, as well as mental temperament and culture, manifested in the commonality of its ethnic consciousness and self-consciousness.

The national in any of its manifestations is associated with the unique ethnic characteristics of the nation. This connection can be expressed to a greater or lesser extent, but it always takes place. Thus, economic or political relations acquire national content exactly to the extent that they are connected with the solution of ethnic problems in the life of peoples - nations. Beyond these limits, they may turn out to be social-class or some other relations, but not national ones. The same can be said about moral, aesthetic and other relations. They acquire a national character when their social content is organically combined with the ethnic, "melted" with it.

In the future, we will use the terms "ethnos", "people", "nation" as synonyms, i.e. equivalent in meaning, let's say the Russian people is the Russian ethnic group and the Russian nation. The volume and meaning of these phenomena and the concepts and terms expressing them are essentially the same. The same applies to the Ukrainian, Kazakh, Georgian or French and German peoples (ethnic groups, nations), the corresponding concepts and terms. Currently, many scientists, including very well-known ones, dismantle just such an approach to this issue. As identical uses the concepts of "ethnos" and "people" L.N. Gumilev. V.A. Tishkov, a well-known ethnographer, suggests that instead of the concepts of "people" and "nation" to use one concept - "people".

concept nationality designates the ethnic characteristics not only of entire nations compactly living in certain territories, but also of all its representatives, wherever they live, including in the territories of other peoples and states.

A little
about nations, ethnic groups and scientific approaches.

About some concepts.
Ethnology from the Greek words - ethnos - people and logos - word, judgment - the science of the peoples of the world (ethnoses, more precisely,

ethnic communities) their origin (etognenesis), history (ethnic history), their culture. The term ethnology
distribution is due to the famous French physicist and thinker M. Ampère, who determined the place of ethnology in the system of the humanities along with history, archeology and other disciplines. At the same time, ethnology included, according to
Ampere's thoughts, as a subdiscipline of physical anthropology (the science of the physical properties of individual ethnic
groups: hair and eye color, skull and skeleton structure, blood, etc.). In the 19th century in Western European countries
ethnological studies were successfully developed. Along with the term "ethnology", another name for this science has become widespread - ethnography.
- from the Greek words - ethnos - people and grapho - I write, i.e. description of peoples, their history and cultural characteristics. However, during
second half of the 19th century the point of view prevailed, according to which ethnography was considered as
predominantly a descriptive science based on field materials, and ethnology as a theoretical discipline,
based on ethnographic data. Finally, the French ethnologist C. Levi-Strauss believed that ethnography, ethnology and anthropology are three successive stages in the development of the science of man: ethnography is a descriptive stage in the study of ethnic groups, field
research and classification; ethnology - the synthesis of this knowledge and their systematization; anthropology seeks to study
man in all his manifestations. As a result, at different times and in different countries, preference was given to any of these terms, depending on
developed tradition. So, in France the term "ethnology" (l'ethnologie) still prevails, in England, along with it
the concept of "social anthropology" (ethnology, social anthropology) is widely used, in the USA the designation
of this science is “cultural anthropology” (cultural anthropology). In the Russian tradition
the terms "ethnology" and "ethnography" were originally treated as synonyms. However, since the late 1920s in the USSR, ethnology, along with sociology, began to be considered
"bourgeois" science. Therefore, in the Soviet era, the term "ethnology" was almost completely replaced by the term "ethnography". In recent years, however,
the trend has prevailed to call this science, following Western and American models - ethnology or sociocultural
anthropology.

What is an ethnos, or an ethnic group (more precisely, an ethnic community or an ethnic
Group)? This understanding varies greatly in different disciplines - ethnology,
psychology, sociology and representatives of different scientific schools and directions. Here
briefly about some of them.
Thus, many Russian ethnologists continue to consider ethnicity as a real
existing concept - a social group that has developed in the course of historical
development of society (V. Pimenov). According to J. Bromley, ethnos is historically
a stable group of people that has developed in a certain territory, possessing
common relatively stable features of the language, culture and psyche, and
also awareness of its unity (self-consciousness), fixed in self-name.
The main thing here is self-awareness and a common self-name. L. Gumilyov understands ethnicity
primarily as a natural phenomenon; this or that group of people (dynamic
system) that opposes itself to other similar collectives (we do not
we), having its own special internal
structure and predetermined stereotype of behavior. Such an ethnic stereotype, according to
Gumilyov, is not inherited, but is acquired by the child in the process
cultural socialization and is quite strong and unchanged during
human life. S. Arutyunov and N. Cheboksarov considered ethnicity as a spatial
limited clusters of specific cultural information, and interethnic
contacts - as an exchange of such information. There is also a point of view
which an ethnos is, like a race, originally, an eternally existing community
people, and belonging to it determines their behavior and national character.
According to the extreme point of view, belonging to an ethnic group is determined by birth -
at present, among serious scientists, almost no one shares it.

In foreign anthropology, there has recently been a widespread belief that ethnos
(or rather, an ethnic group, since foreign anthropologists avoid using
the word "ethnos") is an artificial construct that arose as a result of purposeful
the efforts of politicians and intellectuals. However, most researchers agree that ethnos (ethnic group)
represents one of the most stable groups, or communities of people.
This is an intergenerational community, stable over time, with a stable composition, with
In this case, each person has a stable ethnic status, it is impossible to “exclude” him
from an ethnic group.

In general, one should pay attention to the fact that the theory of ethnos is a favorite brainchild of domestic
scientists; in the West, the problems of ethnicity are discussed in a completely different way.
Western scientists have priority in developing the theory of the nation.

Back in 1877, E. Renan gave an etatist definition of the concept of “nation”: a nation unites
all residents of this state, regardless of their race, ethnicity. Religious
accessories, etc. Since the 19th century.
Two models of the nation took shape: French and German. French model, following
Renan, corresponds to the understanding of the nation as a civil society
(state) based on political choice and civil kinship.
The reaction to this French model was that of the German Romantics, appealing
to the “voice of blood”, according to her, the nation is an organic community, connected
common culture. Nowadays people talk about "Western" and "Eastern" models of society,
or about the civil (territorial) and ethnic (genetic) models of the nation.
scientists believe that the idea of ​​a nation is often used for political purposes - by the ruling
or wishing to gain power groupings. What
concerns ethnic groups, or ethnic groups (ethnic groups), then in foreign, and in recent
years and in domestic science it is customary to distinguish three main approaches to this
range of problems - primordialist, constructivist and instrumentalist
(or situationist).

A few words about each of them:

One of the "pioneers" in the study of ethnicity, whose research had a huge impact on social science,
was a Norwegian scientist F. Barth, who argued that ethnicity is one of the forms
social organization, culture (ethnic - socially organized
kind of culture). He also introduced the important concept of "ethnic boundary" - el
that critical feature of an ethnic group beyond which the attribution to it ends
members of this group itself, as well as the assignment to it by members of other groups.

In the 1960s, like other theories of ethnicity, the theory of primordialism (from the English primordial - original) was put forward.
The direction itself arose much earlier, it goes back to the already mentioned
ideas of the German romantics, his followers considered ethnos to be the original and
unchanging association of people on the principle of "blood", i.e. with permanent
signs. This approach has been developed not only in German, but also in Russian
ethnology. But more on that later. In the 1960s. spread in the West
biological-racial, and "cultural" form of primordialism. Yes, one of her
founders, K. Girtz argued that ethnic self-consciousness (identity) refers
to "primordial" feelings and that these primordial feelings largely determine
people's behavior. These feelings, however, wrote K. Girtz, are not innate,
but arise in people as part of the process of socialization and in the future there are
as fundamental, sometimes - as immutable and determining the behavior of people -
members of the same ethnic group. The theory of primordialism has repeatedly been subjected to serious criticism, in particular
from the supporters of F. Barth. So D. Baker noted that feelings are changeable and
are situationally determined and cannot generate the same behavior.

As a reaction to primordialism, ethnicity began to be understood as an element of ideology (attributing oneself to
this group or attributing someone to it by members of other groups). Ethnicity and ethnic groups have become
considered also in the context of the struggle for resources, power and privileges. .

Before characterizing other approaches to ethnicity (ethnic groups), it would be appropriate to recall the definition,
given to an ethnic group by the German sociologist M. Weber. According to him, this
a group of people whose members have a subjective belief in a common
descent by reason of similarity in physical appearance or customs, or both
the other together, or because of shared memory. Here it is emphasized
FAITH in a common origin. And in our time, many anthropologists believe that the main
a differentiating feature for an ethnic group can be an IDEA of community
origin and/or history.

In general, in the West, in contrast to primordialism and under the influence of Barth's ideas, they received the greatest
dissemination of the constructivist approach to ethnicity. His supporters considered
ethnos is a construct created by individuals or elites (powerful, intellectual,
cultural) with specific goals (struggle for power, resources, etc.). Many
also emphasize the role of ideology (above all, nationalisms) in the construction of
ethnic communities. The followers of constructivism include English
scientist B. Anderson (his book bears a “speaking” and expressive title “Imaginary
community" - its fragments were posted on this site), E. Gellner (about him, too
was discussed on this site) and many others whose works are considered classics.

At the same time, some scientists are not satisfied with the extremes of both approaches. There are attempts to "reconcile" them:
attempts to present ethnic groups as "symbolic" communities based on
sets of symbols - again, belief in a common origin, in a common past, a common
fate, etc. Many anthropologists emphasize that ethnic groups arose
relatively recent: they are not eternal and immutable, but change under
the impact of specific situations, circumstances - economic, political and
etc.

In domestic science, the theory of ethnos has become especially popular, moreover, initially
in its extreme primordialist (biological) interpretation. It was developed by S.M. Shirokogorov, who
considered the ethnos as a biosocial organism, singling out its main
characteristics of origin, as well as language, customs, way of life and tradition
[Shirokogorov, 1923. P. 13]. In many ways, his follower was L.N. Gumilyov,
partly continuing this tradition, he considered the ethnos as a biological system,
highlighting passionarity as the highest stage of its development [Gumilyov, 1993]. About
Quite a lot has been written about this approach, but now there are few serious researchers
fully shares the views of L.N. Gumilyov, which can be considered an extreme expression
primordial approach. This theory has its roots in the views of the German
romantics to a nation, or an ethnic group from the position of "common blood and soil", i.e.
some kindred group. Hence the intolerance of L.N. Gumilev to
mixed marriages, whose descendants he considered "chimerical formations",
connecting the unconnected.

P.I. Kushner believed that ethnic groups differ from each other in a number of specific features,
among which the scientist especially singled out language, material culture (food, housing,
clothes, etc.), as well as ethnic identity [Kushner, 1951. P.8-9].

The studies of S.A. Arutyunova and N.N.
Cheboksarova. According to them, “... ethnic groups are spatially limited
"clumps" of specific cultural information, and interethnic contacts - the exchange
such information”, and information links were considered as the basis for the existence
ethnos [Arutyunov, Cheboksarov, 1972. P. 23-26]. In a later work, S.A. Arutyunova
an entire chapter devoted to this problem bears a "talking" title: "The Network
communications as the basis of ethnic existence” [Arutyunov, 2000]. The idea of
ethnic groups as specific "clumps" of cultural information and
internal information relations is very close to the modern understanding of any
systems as a kind of information field, or information structure. IN
further S.A. Arutyunov directly writes about this [Arutyunov, 2000. pp. 31, 33].

A characteristic feature of the theory of ethnos is that its followers consider
ethnic groups as a universal category, i.e. people, according to it, belonged to
to some ethnic group / ethnic group, much less often - to several ethnic groups. Supporters
This theory believed that ethnic groups were formed in one or another historical
period and transformed in accordance with changes in society. Marxist influence
theory was also expressed in attempts to correlate the development of ethnic groups with a five-member division
development of mankind - the conclusion that each socio-economic formation
corresponds to its own type of ethnos (tribe, slave-owning people, capitalist
nationality, capitalist nation, socialist nation).

In the future, the theory of ethnos was developed by many Soviet researchers, in
features Yu.V. Bromley, who
believed that ethnos is “... a historically established
in a certain area
a stable group of people who share relatively stable
features of the language, culture and psyche, as well as the consciousness of their unity and
differences from other similar formations (self-awareness), fixed in
self-name" [Bromley, 1983. S. 57-58]. Here we see the impact of ideas
primordialism - S. Shprokogorov, and M. Weber.

The theory of Yu.V. Bromley, like his supporters, was rightly criticized back in the Soviet period.
So, M.V. Kryukov repeatedly and, in my opinion, quite rightly noted
the far-fetchedness of this entire system of nationalities and nations [Kryukov, 1986, p.58-69].
EAT. Kolpakov, for example, points out that under the Bromley definition of ethnos
many groups are suitable, not only ethnic ones [Kolpakov, 1995. p. 15].

Since the mid-1990s, Russian literature has begun to spread
views close to constructivist. According to them, ethnic groups are not real
existing communities, and the constructs created by the political elite or
scientists for practical purposes (for details, see: [Tishkov, 1989. P. 84; Tishkov,
2003, p. 114; Cheshko, 1994, p. 37]). So, according to V.A. Tishkov (one of the works
which bears the expressive name "Requiem for an Ethnos"), Soviet scientists themselves
created a myth about the unconditionally objective reality of ethnic communities, as
certain archetypes [Tishkov, 1989. p.5], the researcher himself considers ethnic groups to be artificial
constructions that exist only in the minds of ethnographers [Tishkov, 1992], or
the result of elite efforts to construct ethnicity [Tishkov, 2003. p.
118]. V.A. Tishkov defines an ethnic group as a group of people whose members have
a common name and elements of culture, a myth (version) about a common origin and
common historical memory, associate themselves with a special territory and have a sense of
solidarity [Tishkov, 2003. p.60]. Again - the impact of the ideas of Max Weber, expressed
nearly a century ago...

Not all researchers share this point of view, which has developed not without the influence of ideas
M. Weber, for example, S.A. Arutyunov, who repeatedly criticized it [Arutyunov,
1995. P.7]. Some researchers working in line with the Soviet theory
ethnos, consider ethnoi to be an objective reality that exists independently of our
consciousness.

I would like to note that, despite the sharp criticism of the supporters of the theory of ethnos,
the views of constructivist researchers are not so radically different from
first glances. In the definitions of ethnic groups or ethnic groups given
listed scientists, we see a lot in common, although the attitude to the identified
objects diverge. Moreover, wittingly or unwittingly, many researchers
repeat the definition of an ethnic group given by M. Weber. I will repeat it again
times: an ethnic group is a group of people whose members have a subjective
belief in a common origin due to the similarity of physical appearance or customs,
or both together, or because of shared memory. So the basics
M. Weber had a significant impact on various approaches to the study of ethnicity.
Moreover, his definition of an ethnic group was sometimes used almost verbatim
supporters of different paradigms.

What is an ethnos, what is a nation?

What is an ethnos, what is a nation?

ethnicity nation stereotype

It should be said that although these concepts of "ethnos" and "nation" are in the focus of an accentuated scientific and political interest, nevertheless, there is still no unambiguous answer to the questions: what is an ethnos, what is a nation.

Note that the characteristics of the concepts of "ethnos" and "nation" are given by Russian scientists, this gives them a certain epistemological status. Nevertheless, there is a cognitive difficulty in their analysis. And not only because there are ongoing discussions about their nature. These concepts need to be clarified for a variety of reasons. One of them is related to the fact that a linguistic tradition has developed in Russia, in contrast to the Western lexicon, in which ethnos and nation are identified. In Russian ethnology, the term ethnos is used in almost all cases when it comes to a people and even a nation. Without going into analysis, let us recall the traditional characterization of an ethnos as a less developed form of a historical community of people, which in its development passes into another community - a nation (of course, a non-civilian interpretation of the nation was implied). It should also be said that in Russian ethnology the real content of the ethnos was questioned; the question was raised: ethnos - myth or reality?

First of all, we note that the ethnos is considered by us as a special kind of social community. Understanding "ethnic" depends on many factors. One of the main ones is the methodology of the study, since the chosen methodological approaches allow revealing the essence of the phenomenon under study and predetermining its significance in the future.

"Ethnic" is derived from "ethnos". The Greek "ethnos" originally meant "pagan". In this sense, "ethnic" was used in English from the 14th century to the middle of the 19th century. In the United States, the term "ethnic groups" was actively used during the Second World War in relation to Jews, Italians, Irish and other peoples who did not belong to the population of the United States, which had British roots.

However, it should be said that there is no universally recognized assessment of the theory of ethnos in domestic science.

Ethnos (in ancient Greek - the people) - a historically emerging type of stable social community of people, represented by a tribe, nationality, nation. In the ethnographic sense, "ethnos" is close to the concept of "people". Sometimes they designate several peoples (ethno-linguistic groups, for example, Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Bulgarians, etc. - a Slavic ethnic community) or separate parts within a people (ethnographic groups).

In the discussion on the definition of ethnos, three extreme positions are noticeable: 1) ethnos is a phenomenon of the biosphere (L.N. Gumilyov); 2) ethnos is a social, not a biological phenomenon (Yu. Bromley, V. Kozlov); 3) ethnos is a mythological phenomenon: “ethnos exists only in the minds of ethnographers” (V. Tishkov).

According to L.N. Gumilyov, the first general concept of an ethnos as an independent phenomenon, and not a secondary one, belongs to S.M. Shirokogorov (20s of the XX century). He considered ethnos "a form in which the process of creation, development and death of elements that enable humanity as a species to exist" takes place. At the same time, an ethnos is defined "as a group of people united by the unity of origin, customs, language and way of life."

The concept of ethnos proposed by S.M. Shirokogorov, did not receive support in domestic science due to the fact that the ethnos was interpreted as a biological category, and not as a social one. Due to his emigrant status, this concept was not included in Soviet science.

The concept of ethnogenesis L.N. Gumilyov was developed within the framework of geographical determinism. His theory about the deepest connection of the nature, customs and culture of peoples with the landscapes of the psychology of the people with the biosphere is close to the ideas of the Eurasians. Ethnos is an integral part of the organic world of the planet - it arises in certain geographical conditions. Considering ethnos as something primary, as a phenomenon of the biosphere, he ascribes a secondary character to culture.

Features of the ethnogenesis of L.N. Gumilyov reduces to the following provisions. Ethnos is a system that develops in historical time, has a beginning and an end, more precisely, ethnogenesis is a discrete process.

There is only one universal criterion for distinguishing ethnic groups from each other - a stereotype of behavior - a special behavioral language that is inherited, but not genetically, but through the mechanism of signal heredity based on a conditioned reflex, when offspring, by imitation, adopt behavioral stereotypes from parents and peers that are simultaneously adaptive skills. The systemic connections in the ethnos are the sensations of "one's own" and "alien", and not conscious relations, as in society.

The development of ethnic groups is determined by L.N. Gumilyov by the presence of special people in them - passionaries with super-energy. The activity and activities of the latter are the cause of the main historical events in the life of the people. The influence of passionaries on the masses is explained by passionary induction, and their activity is connected with the landscape, historical time and cosmic factors (solar activity).

According to the concept of L.N. Gumilyov, ethnos is not a social phenomenon that obeys the laws of social development. He considers ethnos as a natural community, not reducible to any other types of association of people. This is a biosphere phenomenon.

Many domestic scientists did not accept the concept of L.N. Gumilyov. Yu.V. Bromley completely rejected the doctrine of passionaries. Ethnos is defined by him as “a stable intergenerational set of people that has historically developed in a certain territory, possessing not only common features, but also relatively stable features of culture and psyche, as well as self-consciousness of their unity and difference from other entities (self-consciousness), fixed in the self-name (ethnonym) .

The encyclopedic definition of an ethnos implies a common territory, language and identity.

Since the 50s, significant changes have taken place in the field of conceptualization of the theory of ethnos, as well as cultural pluralism. The transformation of the policy of cultural pluralism was reflected in many theoretical approaches used in the analysis and assessment of the causes of the emergence of an ethnos and ethnic identity, nation and nationalism: neo-Marxist, modernization, cultural-pluralistic, status-group, rationalistic, etc.

Among the many approaches to the issue of ethnic groups and ethnicity, we single out two main (diametrically opposed) “constructivist” and “primordialist” ones, since they have been functioning for the past thirty years.

Constructivism claims that political and cultural identity is the result of human activity. The main thesis of the constructivists is that ethnicity is not seen as “some given”, but as a result of creation, it is a social construct (social constructs), created artificially with the help of rituals, ceremonies, various symbols and ideologies.

The primordial (primordial - original, primordial) approach presents ethnicity as an objective reality, that is, ethnic groups are considered as communities that are formed historically on the basis of objectively specified properties of a biological, cultural or geopolitical nature. So, according to E. Geertz, human beings realize themselves through the culture they create, which plays the role of a given in public life. The primordial roots of ethnicity are also associated with cultural anthropology by F. Barth and C. Case. In their studies, the socio-historical factor noticeably appears as a determining factor.

So, primordialism considers ethnos as a historically given community that can have a biogenetic nature, economic or cultural determination. The primordialist point of view, in the figurative expression of M. Bank, places "ethnicity" in the heart of man.

"Modernists" believe that ethnicity is based on the idea of ​​the political origin of nations and is represented in the works of B. Anderson and E. Gellner. They believe that the nation is the product of political action. According to Gellner, in a traditional society there could not be a sense of national community, because the society was divided by numerous class partitions and geographically. Only a small elite owned the culture in its written form. In the process of modernization, traditional boundaries are collapsing, and social mobility is growing. To master the skills of industrial labor, a person needs literacy. Representatives of all classes master a written culture, a national language is developed, in which all representatives of a given nation are socialized - as Germans, French, etc.

Nation (from lat. nation - tribe, people). Speaking about the phenomenon of the nation, it should be remembered that in the 16th century there were neither nations nor nationalities as a subject of practical politics or an object of theoretical disputes. If we approach the concept historically, then the nation is the “name” of a new people born in France. During the French Revolution, during the negotiations of the representatives of the authorities (June 1789) with the delegation of the third estate, the latter refused to consider themselves "representatives of the French people." It called itself the "National Assembly". The nation was then considered an association of like-minded people who opposed the old order.

France set an example in the formation of a nation. The French nation was formed from different ethnic groups (Breton, Provencals, Basques, Northern French people), which became close to each other in the process of establishing a common economic structure, a national market, a state with a single center and language.

Speaking about domestic research practice in the field of nations and national relations, it should be said that here, as a rule, all definitions of a nation are considered, starting with the definition of the French philosopher and historian of the 19th century E. Renan (1877) and ending with the definition of I.V. Stalin (1913). Having changed the traditional system of research, let us dwell on the (conditional) classification of definitions of a nation according to its essential features.

The first group consists of psychological definitions of the nation, the basis of which was laid by E. Renan, his famous saying: "The existence of a nation is a daily plebiscite" cultural definitions. For example, according to one of the Austro-Marxists, K. Renner (R. Springer), a nation is "a union of like-minded and like-speaking individuals." This is a "cultural union". The basis of the third group - "historical-economic" - is the definition of the famous Marxist theorist K. Kautsky, who singles out the language, territory and community of economic life as the main features of a nation.

In 1913 I.V. Stalin, relying on the historical and economic theory of the nation by K. Kautsky, gave the following definition: “A nation is a historically established stable community of people that has arisen on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and mental make-up, manifested in a common culture.” This materialistic definition of the nation formed the basis of the fourth group.

The problem of the nation occupies a certain place in Marxist studies, although neither K. Marx nor F. Engels engaged in a special analysis of the national question. Within the framework of the Marxist tradition, the theory of the nation was further developed in the works of V.I. Lenin. The Marxist-Leninist approach was different in that the national was subordinate to the class.

The existing approaches to the problem of the nation are due to the tradition of distinguishing between the "French" (civil) and "German" (ethnic) models of the nation, which developed in the 19th century. This distinction persists in modern science.

So, turning to the study of the problems of ethnic groups and nations, we proceeded from two circumstances. The first concerns a conceptual problem. The traditional conceptual apparatus that has developed in domestic science in the field of the ethnosphere does not correspond to current realities in some respects. The ambiguous interpretation and interdisciplinary nature of the concepts used make it difficult to study ethnic issues. The second circumstance has to do with methodology. The fact is that the lack of a theory that adequately reflects the processes taking place in this area makes it difficult to study ethnic processes. True, as noted above, a certain research experience has been accumulated, although among domestic and foreign specialists studying this problem, there is still no single methodological approach and a developed general concept. Given these circumstances, attention was paid to the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study and disclosure of the historical and philosophical aspects of the concepts that will be used in the work, the definition of the author's vision and research approaches.

The family is what surrounds every person from the moment of birth. Having matured a little, the child learns about such concepts as nationality, nation. Over time, he begins to understand what kind and nation he belongs to, gets acquainted with their culture. However, often both in children and adults there is confusion between such similar terms as nationality, nation, ethnic group, tribe, clan. Although they are often considered synonymous, they have different meanings.

The meaning of the concept of "ethnos"

The very word "ethnos" in Greek means "people". Previously, this term meant a community of people united by blood kinship.

Today, the concept of ethnicity has become much broader.

Now ethnic groups are distinguished not only by kinship, but also by the common territory of residence, language, culture and other factors.

The main types of ethnic groups

Clans, families, tribes, nationalities, nations are types of ethnic groups. At the same time, they are the stages of the historical evolution of the ethnos.

According to the hierarchy of ethnic groups, there are six types of them:

• family;
• clan;
• tribe;
• nationality;
• nation.

All of them existed in a certain historical period, but later changed under the influence of external and internal factors. At the same time, such species as clan, clan and tribe in a civilized society have long disappeared or remained as a tradition. In some places on the planet they still exist.

Most scientists believe that the most important stages in the development of an ethnos are a tribe, a nationality, a nation. This is due to the fact that these ethnic groups no longer depended on blood relationship, their commonality was based on cultural and economic grounds.

It is worth noting that sometimes modern scientists single out the seventh type of ethnic group - an interethnic nation of citizens. It is believed that modern society is gradually moving towards this stage.

Family, clan and clan

The smallest ethnic community is the family (an association of people connected by blood ties). It is noteworthy that before the formation of such a social institution as the family, group marriage was widespread. In it, kinship was conducted from the mother, since it was almost impossible to establish who the father of a particular child was. did not last long, as incest and, as a result, degeneration became frequent.

To avoid this, over time, an ethnic community was formed - a clan. The genera were formed on the basis of several families that entered into a kindred union with each other. For a long time, the tribal way of life was the most common. However, with an increase in the number of representatives of the genus, the danger of incest arose again, “fresh” blood was required.

Clans began to form on the basis of clans. As a rule, they bore the name of either a famous founding ancestor, or revered as a patron and protector. The clans, as a rule, owned land, which was inherited. Today, the clan system has been preserved as a tradition in Japan, Scotland and some Indian tribes in South and North America.

By the way, the concept of "blood feud" became widespread precisely during the existence of this

Tribe

The above types of ethnic groups are rather small in terms of the number of their representatives, based on family ties. At the same time, a tribe, a nationality, a nation are larger and more developed ethnic groups.

Over time, ethnic groups based on blood relationship began to evolve into tribes. The tribe already included several clans and clans, so not all of its members were relatives. In addition, with the development of tribes, society began to gradually divide into classes. Compared to clans and clans, tribes were very numerous.

Most often, the tribes were united by the need to protect their territories from outsiders, although over time they began to form their own beliefs, traditions, and language.

In a civilized society, tribes have long ceased to exist, but in many less developed cultures today they play a major role (in Africa, Australia and Polynesia, on some tropical islands).

Nationality

At the next stage of evolution, which the ethnos (tribe, nationality, nation) underwent, states appeared. This was due to the fact that the number of members of the tribe grew, in addition, the arrangement of this type of ethnic group improved over the years. Closer to the period of the slave system, such a thing as nationality appeared.

Nationalities arose primarily not because of family ties or the need to protect their lands, but on the basis of an established culture, laws (which appeared instead of tribal customs), and economic communities. In other words, the nationality differed from the tribes in that it not only existed permanently in any territory, but could also create its own state.

Nation and nationality

The formation of a nation was the next and most perfect stage of the evolution of an ethnos (tribe, nationality) today.

A nation is not just a grouping of people according to a common territory of residence, language of communication and culture, but also according to similar psychological characteristics and historical memory. The nation is distinguished by its nationality in that its representatives were able to create a society with a developed economy, a system of trade relations, private property, law,

The concept of "nation" is associated with the emergence of nationality - belonging to or the state.

Throughout history, most nations have gone through all stages of the evolution of an ethnos: family, clan, clan, tribe, nationality, nation. This contributed to the emergence of nations and countries known to everyone today.

It is noteworthy that, according to the ideology of fascism, there was a chosen nation, called upon to destroy all the others over time. That's just, as practice has shown throughout history, any ethnic group degenerated without interaction with others. Therefore, if there were only pure-blooded Aryans, then after a few generations, most of the representatives of this nation would suffer from numerous hereditary diseases.

There are ethnic groups that do not develop according to the general scheme (family, clan, tribe, nationality, nation) - the people of Israel, for example. So, despite the fact that the Jews called themselves a people, according to their way of life they were a typical clan (common ancestor Abraham, blood relationship between all members). But at the same time, in just a few generations, they managed to acquire the signs of a nation with a clear system of legal and economic relations, and a little later they formed a state. However, at the same time, they retained a clear clan system, in rare cases allowing family ties with other nationalities. Interestingly, if Christianity had not arisen, dividing the Jews into two opposing camps, as well as the fact that their state was destroyed, and the people themselves scattered, degeneration would have awaited the Jews.

Today people live in a society made up of nations. Belonging to one of them determines not only the thinking and consciousness of a person, but also his standard of living. Interestingly, the most developed countries today are multinational, so the likelihood of an interethnic nation of citizens is very high.