Differences of cultural national character include. Scientific electronic library

). At the same time, modern researchers recognize that, in contrast to folk (ethnic), national character, as a phenomenon of life of a community more developed in its historical phase, appears to be a more complex phenomenon. This is due to the fact that representatives of the nation consciously participate in the political and legal spheres, think about the meaning of their own history, about the future of their country. The nation's attention is focused on problems related to the development of each person, the relationship between personal and public interests, etc. All these aspects and problems do not exist (or almost do not exist) in folk (ethnic) communities.

A separate detailed analysis requires clarification of the generality/specificity/correlation of the concepts of mentality, mentality and national (folk) character. In modern media, these concepts are often used as identical ones.

The question of variability (stability) remains debatable national character in the process of historical sociocultural macrodynamics.

Attempts to define

The word “character” came into the Russian language through Polish character– “character, rank”; in turn, Latin character comes from Greek Haravue, which meant a sign, imprint, attribute, distinctive feature.

Domestic and Western researchers - who recognize the existence of national character, its scientific, educational and practical value - include reactions to external world, some emotional signs; historically emerging, traditional, unique mass psychological properties; habits and behavior, emotional and psychological reaction to phenomena in the familiar and unusual environment, value orientations, needs and tastes; system of psychological stereotypes.

At the origins of studying the character of peoples in Western Europe there were such Enlightenment thinkers as Charles Montesquieu, David Hume, I.G. Herder, J. de Maistre, and later - representatives of German classical philosophy.

Montesquieu used the concept of “different characters of peoples” (divers caracteres des nations), linking these national differences with different climatic and geographical conditions. A similar idea was also expressed by Voltaire. Rousseau believed that every nation necessarily has, or at least should have, its own national character.

Later, Herder introduced the concept of "folk spirit". Considering the people as a “corporate personality,” he believed that its basis is formed by the national spirit, which spiritualizes the culture of the people and finds expression in its language, customs, traditions and values. According to Herder, the national spirit, which is “the innate or independently developed character of peoples,” is one of driving forces historical development nations. The idea of ​​the “national spirit”, introduced into the philosophy of history by J. Herder, was important for the development of G. Hegel’s system.

By the end of the twentieth century, a transition in the study of national character through the problem of holistic research and interpretation of culture became noticeable in American anthropology. In the context of national character studies, topics of study include nonverbal communication in ethnocultural communities, cross-cultural analysis of emotional and mental states, etc.

Study of national character in Russia

Comprehension of the people and their character (in the terminology of that period - “soul”, “spirit”, “national spirit”) in domestic humanitarian thought begins in the second half of the 18th century. The large-scale Europeanization of Russia and the break with the spiritual and cultural principles of life in Moscow Rus' could not but strengthen the desire to understand national identity, to find out who we are and how we differ from other peoples.

The tradition of studying national character in Russia is based on the ideas and reflections of outstanding Russian philosophers, scientists, and writers. Many Russian thinkers, similar to Western ones, used the category “soul” to describe the peculiarities of the psychology of the Russian people. Interest in national consciousness in a philosophical context was due to the need to reflect on the “Russian ideal” and the “Russian idea” at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries and to comprehend the paths of development Russian society in conditions of civilizational and cultural choice.

Among the domestic thinkers of the 19th - first half of the 20th centuries, who in one way or another touched upon problems of a national character (including Russian ones) in their works, it is necessary to note P.Ya. Chaadaeva, A.S. Khomyakova, I.V. Kireevsky, Yu.F. Samarin, Aksakov brothers, N.Ya. Danilevsky, F.M. Dostoevsky, N.G. Chernyshevsky, A.I. Herzen, K.D. Kavelin, father and son - Solovyov (historian and philosopher), V.O. Klyuchevsky, V.V. Rozanova, K.N. Leontyeva, N.A. Berdyaeva, P.N. Milyukova, S.N. Bulgakova, S.L. Franka, I.A. Ilyina, N.O. Lossky, B.P. Vysheslavtseva, G.P. Fedotova, G.G. Shpeta, V.I. Ivanova, F.A. Stepun, I.L. Solonevich, N.S. Trubetskoy, L.P. Karsavina and others. It should be noted that Russian philosophy before 1917, and Russian philosophers abroad, carried out the study of ethno-national character in the widest range of methodological positions.

It is interesting that V.I. Lenin passed over the problem of national character in silence; moreover, in a private conversation he expressed doubt about its existence.

Contribution of I.S. Kona

In the late 60s and early 70s of the 20th century, philosopher and sociologist Igor Kon published landmark and resonant articles on this issue for that time: National character - myth or reality? // Foreign literature. 1968. No. 9. P. 215-229; On the problem of national character // History and psychology. Ed. B.F. Porshneva and L.I. Antsyferova M., 1971. P. 122-158.

To the question “What is national character - myth or reality?” I. Kon answered: “... both. If national character is understood as some unchanging essence characteristic of all people of a certain nation, distinguishing them from all other ethnic groups and invisibly determining their social behavior, this, from a scientific point of view, is a myth. But, like any socio-psychological myth, it reflects a certain historical reality: a community of psychological traits and methods of action developed and adopted in the course of joint historical development, secured by group self-awareness." Despite the fact that in general his attitude towards the concept of “national character” was expressed as negative, Cohn raised a number of pressing and fundamental questions, introduced into circulation and made accessible the conclusions and judgments of foreign researchers of national character.

"Unknown" report by E.A. Bagramova

One of the reports of the Soviet delegation, presented in September 1973 at the 9th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences in the USA, was entitled “On the issue of the scientific content of the concept of “national character.” The author of the report was a well-known specialist in the problems of national relations at that time Eduard Bagramov (at that time - deputy editor-in-chief of the magazine "Communist").

The meaning and pathos of the report, written from a Marxist position and methodology, was that for Soviet Marxist social science there are no forbidden topics and problems, which in the USSR, according to Western analysts, included the concept of “national character.” Unfortunately, this report, published in the form of a brochure in a small edition, did not gain popularity in the USSR and remained unknown to specialists.

Discussion about national character at the turn of the 60-70s. XX century

Since the late 60s. XX century In Soviet science, a discussion of the concept of “nation” began, which acquired a generally positive direction for understanding the phenomenon of national character. As a result of the discussion, many meaningful concepts, first of all, “Russian national character” and “mental makeup of the nation.” Among the publications of this period the following can be noted:

• Rogachev P.M., Sverdlin M.A. On the concept of “nation” // Questions of history. 1966. No. 1;
• Kaltakhchyan S.T. On the question of the concept of “nation” // Questions of history. 1966. No. 6;
• Kaltakhchyan S.T. Leninism and the essence of the nation and the ways of forming an international community of people. M., 1969;
• Burmistrova T.Yu. Some questions of the theory of the nation // Questions of history. 1966. No. 12;
• Goryacheva A.I. Is mental makeup a sign of a nation? // Questions of history. 1967. No. 8;
• Dzhandildin N.D. The nature of national psychology. Alma-Ata, 1971;
• Nations and national relations. Frunze, 1966;
• Vorobyova N. National character and folk history// National and international in culture, folklore and language. Chisinau, 1971;
• History and psychology. Ed. B.F. Porshneva and L.I. Antsyferova. M., 1971.

Sun. Ovchinnikov about the national character of the British and Japanese

A certain contribution to the study of national character (on empirical level) began publications by Soviet journalists working abroad. For example, books by Pravda newspaper correspondent Vsevolod Ovchinnikov about England (“Oak Roots”) and Japan (“Cherry Branch”), published in the late 70s. last century, can serve as a kind of valuable “guide” in comprehending and understanding the character of the British and Japanese. These works of his were highly appreciated both in the USSR and abroad. In them the author showed himself not only as talented journalist, but also as an attentive scientist - ethnologist, culturologist - who has no doubt about the existence of a national character. Ovchinnikov’s books anticipated and preceded the appearance in our days of numerous works (Russian and foreign) on the characterological traits and characteristics of the peoples of the world, on their way of life, morals, behavior, etc.

Research by K. Kasyanova

In this work, the author tried to move away from Marxist attitudes and take a fresh look at problems of a national character. She considers culture to be the determining factor for national character. K. Kasyanova’s research was based on empirical data obtained by comparing the average characteristics of Russians and Americans according to the scales of the so-called “Minnesota test”. Based on their study, she put forward the assumption that the Russian person is an epileptoid, which is characterized by slowness and viscosity of thinking. Russians, in her opinion, combine patience and explosiveness, which makes them unpredictable and not always understandable in behavior. K. Kasyanova's research occupies an important place in the study of Russian national character.

In the 70s of the last century in the USSR, a campaign to promote the so-called new historical community of people began to gain momentum - “ Soviet people“, where there was no longer any place for such a concept as “national character”.

However, speaking about the Soviet period in the study of national character, it should be noted that, firstly, at a certain stage of the development of the Soviet social thought the very question of the existence of a national character began to be discussed, which was already enough important point. Secondly, the judgments and points of view of foreign researchers on problems of a national character were introduced into scientific circulation. And finally, thirdly, those who recognized the essence and significance of national character, the need to analyze it, pointed out that this should be done in the broad context of national culture, life, etc.

The modern stage of studying national character

At the turn of the 80s - 90s of the 20th century, the attitude towards research on national character changed dramatically - Marxist-Leninist attitudes in considering the problems of society and man became a thing of the past.

A certain landmark in the study of the character of the people was the article by Academician D.S. Likhachev in the journal “Questions of Philosophy” in 1990, in which he called for understanding and studying the traits of the Russian character.

Over the past two decades, domestic humanities have been intensively mastering everything related to the analysis of ethnicity, nation, and the characterological characteristics of the people. Social sciences and humanities in Russia and abroad today show special and close attention to the problems of national character - both to the theoretical and methodological side of the issue, and to the character of specific peoples, which is reflected in the huge volume of publications on this topic, which is difficult to accounting

In the discussion about ethno-national development in the late 80s - the first half of the 90s of the last century, the interest of domestic researchers focused mainly on the problems of the formation and development of ethnic groups and nations, ethnic identity and national consciousness. These questions became the subject of scientific discussion in the works of R.G. Abdulatipova, S.A. Arutyunova, G.G. Diligensky, V.M. Mezhueva, A.S. Panarina, I.K. Pantina, V.A. Tishkova, Zh.T. Toshchenko, I.G. Yakovenko, P.I. Gnatenko, M.P. Buzsky and others.

Interest in the problem of national character in Russia increased sharply in the second half of the 90s. This is due to various reasons, among which we can apparently highlight disappointment with liberal reforms in Russia in the first half of the 90s, against the backdrop of which the topic of searching for a Russian national idea, problems of national pride, national special path, etc. On the other hand, contact between domestic humanities scholars and foreign colleagues has become broader and more constructive, and familiarity with foreign concepts of national character and nationalism has expanded. Particular attention should be paid to the influence and role of modern media in the process of understanding national behavioral characteristics. At this time, works by such researchers as I.V. Komadorova, V.G. Nikolaev, M.O. Mnatsakanyan, G.G. Sillaste, Yu.V. Arutyunyan, L.M. Drobizheva, A.A. Susokolov, Z.V. Sikevich, E.S. Troitsky, V.G. Fedotova and others.

Modern science presents a range of directions, in a number of which the problem of national character is analyzed in the context of the study of culture, the Russian idea, issues of identity, consciousness and self-awareness, problems of Russian history, as well as in line with reflections on the Russian mentality and specific features of the Russian national character. Within the framework of these studies, significant contributions were made by G.S. Avanesova, V.A. Achkasov, A.S. Akhiezer, B.C. Barulin, B.N. Bessonov, E.M. Andreev, E.F. Solopov, G.D. Gachev, K.Kh. Delokarov, V.N. Sagatovsky, O.A. Sergeeva, K. Trofimov, N.A. Narochnitskaya, A.I. Vdovin, V.N. Romanov, V.V. Babashkin, I.E. Koznova, V.E. Bagdasaryan, V.A. Tishkov, Yu.V. Harutyunyan, A.O. Boronoev, P.I. Smirnov, Z.B. Kandaurova, F.Yu. Albakova, S.V. Lurie, A.A. Belik, S.S. Khoruzhy, G.F. Sunyagin, E.R. Yarskaya, E.V. Barkova, O.A. Astafieva, I.V. Kondakov, I.G. Yakovenko, T.F. Ermolenko, O.V. Belova, Zh.V. Chetvertakova, N.M. Lebedeva, A.N. Leontyev, T.I. Stefanenko, L.G. Pochebut, I.A. Beskova, V.G. Yaprintsev, A.Ya. Flier, A.N. Kochergin, I.A. Birich, B.S. Gershunsky, A.S. Zapesotsky, V.A. Nikitin, V.A. Slastenin, E.A. Yamburg and many others.

When studying a problem of national character in contemporary works a combination of different methodological approaches is used. For example, we can highlight such approaches in the works recent years: 1) interdisciplinary synthesis of historical, philosophical and socio-philosophical approaches (A.M. Chernysh); 2) integration of an interdisciplinary approach and system analysis (V.E. Kashaev); 3) a combination of historical and logical (Z.B. Prytkova); 4) methodological pluralism (I.V. Khramov); 5) sociocultural (E.V. Yuldashev); 6) system-holistic approach (N.A. Moiseeva) and others.

Today the concept of “national character” in Russian humanities appears as a kind of synthesizing unity of spiritual, cultural characteristics people, their value orientations, which are manifested in the historical, social, economic conditions of life and bind people into a single people.

Notes

Bibliography

• Aksyuchits V.V. Russian Character. M., 2011.
• Alexandrov V.A., Tishkov V.A. Russians. M., 1999.
• American character. Essays on US culture. M., 1995.
• Bagramov E. A. On the issue of the scientific content of the concept of “national character”. M., 1973.
• Barulin V.S. Russian man in the twentieth century: Losing and finding oneself. St. Petersburg, 2000.
• Bazhenova M. A., Bazhenov A. A. Russians and Germans. What are we and what are they? Methods of research of national character. Sarov, 2009.
• Bessonov B.N. The fate of Russia: the view of Russian thinkers. M., 1993.
• Boldin S.V. Russian tragedy (On the peculiarities of the Russian national character and power in Russia). M., 2007. ISBN 5-9788-5824176-8
• Boronoev A.O., Smirnov P.I. Russia and Russians. The character of the people and the fate of the country. St. Petersburg, 1992.
• Vyunov Yu.A. Russian cultural archetype. M., 2005.
• Gadzhiev K.S. American nation. M., 1990.
• Gubanov V. M. Russian national character in context political life Russia. St. Petersburg, 1999.
• Dzhandildin N. D. The nature of national psychology. Alma-Ata, 1971.
• Kandaurova Z.B. Russian national character in conditions modern society. Stavropol, 2005.
• Kasyanova K. About the Russian national character. M. - Ekaterinburg, 2003. ISBN 5-8291-0203-X, ISBN 5-88687-139-X.
• Kashaev V.E. National character: experience philosophical research. Ivanovo, 2000.
• Kon I. S. On the problem of national character // History and psychology. M., 1971 http://scepsis.ru/library/id_903.html
• Kortunov S.V. National identity: comprehension of meaning. M., 2009.
• Kustova L. S. The secret of national character. M., 2003. ISBN 5-7974-0069-3
• Likhachev D.S. On the national character of Russians // Questions of Philosophy. 1990. No. 4. P. 3-7.
• Lurie S.B. Historical ethnology. M., 2004.
• Malyshev V.N. Space of thought and national character. St. Petersburg, 2009.
• Moiseeva N.A. National character as a vector of social existence. M., 2012.
• Olshansky D. Fundamentals of political psychology. Ekaterinburg: Business book, 2001. ISBN 5-88687-098-9
• Pavlovskaya A.V. Russian world: character, life and customs. M., 2009.
• Peskov A.M. "Russian idea" and "Russian soul". M., 2007. ISBN 5-94282-387-1
• Platonov Yu. P. Psychology of national character. M., 2007. ISBN 978-5-7695-3882-7
• Pronnikov V.A., Ladanov I.D. Japanese (ethnopsychological essays). Ed. 2nd, Spanish and additional M., 1985.http://historic.ru/books/item/f00/s00/z0000006/index.shtml
• Reflections on Russia and Russians. Touches to the history of Russian national character. M., 1994
• Sivokon P.E. Russian character: the origins of popular optimism. M., 1995.
• Sikevich Z.V. Russians: “the image of the people.” Sociological essays. St. Petersburg, 1996.
• Chernysh A.M. Enter the people's soul. Domestic thought of the 19th-20th centuries about the character of the Russian people. M., 2011.
• Shumeiko V.F. Russia: what kind of people - such power. M., 2010.

Foreign studies

• Mead M. Culture and the world of childhood. M., 1988
• Mandelbaum D. On the Study of National Character, 1953
• Mead M. And Keep Your Powder Dry. N.Y., 1943
• Mead M. Soviet Attitude towards Authority. N.Y., 1951
• Mead M. National Character and the Science of Anthropology // Culture and Social Character. Glencoe, 1961.
• Benedict R. Patterns of Culture. Boston; N.Y., 1934
• Benedict R. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston, 1946
• Davis A., Dollard J. Children of Bondage. Wash., 1940
• Bateson G., Mead M. Balinese Character, a Photographic Analysis. N.Y., 1942
• Du Bois C.A. The People of Alor. Minneapolis, 1944
• Kardiner A. The Psychological Frontiers of Society. N.Y.; L., 1945
• Kardiner A., ​​Ovesey L. The Mark of Oppression. N.Y., 1951
• Linton R. The Cultural Background of Personality. N.Y.; L, 1945
• Gorer G. The American People, a Study in National Character. N.Y., 1948
• Haring D.G. Personal Character and Cultural Milieu. Syracuse; N.Y., 1948
• Erikson E.H. Childhood and Society. N.Y., 1950
• Duijker H.C.J., Frijda N.H. National Character and National Stereotypes. Amsterdam, 1960 (Russian translation in the collection: Modern foreign ethnopsychology., M., 1979).

• Askochensky D. M. The problem of national character and politics (according to foreign research) // Social and psychological problems of ideology and politics. M., 1991. P. 10-24.

Ukrainian studies

• Gnatenko P.I. Ukrainian national character. Kiev, 1997.
• Gnatenko P.I. National psychology. Dnipropetrovsk, 2000
• Buzsky M.P. National psychology and the existence of society. Dnepropetrovsk, 2002.
• Vishnevsky Omelyan. Ukrainian supreme ideal and national character. Drogobich, 2010.

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010. Encyclopedia of Sociology - the hypothesis according to which personal characteristics the average representative of the national population differ from those of the average representatives of other nationalities. Almost all studies indicate that the observed differences are not...

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy What is national character? Does it even exist? How legitimate is it to generalize typical traits on the scale of an entire nation, when it is well known that all people are different? An English proverb on this topic says: It takes all sorts to make a world

According to D. B. Parygin, “there is no doubt about the existence of psychological characteristics in various social groups, layers and classes of society, as well as nations and peoples.” N. Dzhandildin comes from a similar view, who defines national character as “a set of specific psychological traits that have become more or less to a lesser extent characteristic of a particular socio-ethnic community in specific economic, cultural and natural conditions its development."

S. M. Harutyunyan, who also recognizes the existence of a national character, or “the psychological make-up of a nation, defines it as “a peculiar national flavor of feelings and emotions, way of thinking and actions, stable and national features of habits and traditions, formed under the influence of conditions material life, features of the historical development of a given nation and manifested in the specifics of its national culture.

Quite widespread is the opinion of Y.L. Weisberger about national character, according to which it is not a set of specific, idiosyncratic traits inherent only to a given people, but a peculiar set of universal human traits.

In the scientific literature, one can trace two points of view on the problem of the relationship between social and biological in national character: according to the first, national character is not inherited from ancestors, but is acquired in the process of education, according to the second, the basis of national character is the psychophysiological characteristics of a nation, determined by its gene pool.

The validity of this or that point of view can only be asserted by referring to the authors’ conclusions about the existence of “a certain core,” a “psychophysical constant.” According to V.S. Barulin, “the human mentality is characterized by integrity, the presence of a certain quality core. This “unchangeable core” in the national character is the deep layers of the psyche that are characteristic of a given ethnic group, and which are nothing more than the constant basis of the national character. National character is based on the usual norms of interaction between people, determined by the type of society in which the nation lives. Then national character appears as a social phenomenon.” We should agree with the position of V.S. Barulin that “national character is a combination of natural and social principles.”

Many researchers adhere to the point of view that national character is capable of changing as society develops: both peoples and national characters change, just as people change with age, while maintaining their “core” unchanged.

It should be noted that some authors identify the concept of “national character” with the concept of “mentality” and understand it either as a set of basic personal traits inherent in representatives of a given nation (the concept of modal personality), or a system of basic ideas existing in an ethnic group: attitudes, beliefs, values, moods, etc. (concept of social personality). Mentality and character are not synonymous. The difference between mentality and national character is that the latter, being an integral part of mentality, includes general psychophysiological features of life (determined by the value system adopted by the nation). The concept of “mentality” is much broader in content than the concept of “national character”.

Sometimes researchers limit themselves to only verbal recognition of the reality of the existence of national character or pointing out its signs, which are either unprincipled or have nothing to do with national character. This gave V.I. Kozlov the opportunity to make a fair reproach to scientists studying the problem of a national character. In particular, he writes: “Foreign literature on issues of national character amounts to hundreds of works, although only a few researchers recognize it as an essential feature of a nation. At the same time, those of our scientists (mainly philosophers) who assert the importance of this characteristic are limited, as a rule, to general reasoning and usually cannot oppose bourgeois ethnopsychologists with essentially anything positive, except for the well-known thesis about the “elusiveness of national character” and a few philistine conclusions about the “temperament” of the Spaniards or the “wit of the French.” At the same time, it must be borne in mind that since the publication of this author’s books, a number of works have appeared in our literature in which certain aspects of the problem are studied in more detail.

In the 60s of the 20th century, I. Kon raised the question of whether national character is a myth or reality. In all publications of Soviet scientists of that period, it was noted that national character is not an eternal, unchanging substance, but changes in the process of changing historical and socio-economic conditions for the development of a given people.

The question was raised about the presence of, in addition to positive, negative traits in the national character. The assertions that national character is supposedly the sum of only positive qualities have been criticized.

However, the question of the content of the concept and its structural elements remained undeveloped. Hence the confusion and the emergence of contradictory judgments. Many authors, when considering the problem, did not take into account the dialectics of the general, the particular and the individual, as I. Kon rightly pointed out. This led to the fact that some researchers focused attention only on those qualities and properties that are supposedly characteristic only of a given people, ignoring the dialectic of the manifestation of the general in the individual, the individual in the universal. As a result, one or another people was endowed with traits that were unique to them, distinguishing them from other people, and the absolutization of these traits occurred.

In this regard, I. Kon writes: “They say that the distinctive feature of Russians is patience? But this quality also characterizes the Chinese. They say that Georgians are hot-tempered? But this is also typical for the Spaniards. Whatever quality, be it temperament or value orientation, we take, it will never be unique. The structure of the characterological characteristics of the nation is unique. But all the elements included in this structure are common.”

One of the reasons for this situation, it seems, is also the fact that many researchers essentially identify the concepts of national character and national temperament. Meanwhile, such an identification is unlawful. National temperament is the same reality as national character, but the difference lies, in particular, in the fact that national temperament contains the emotional and volitional aspects of the reaction of a particular people, determined by social and geographical factors. Its formation is also influenced by the genetic factor and the prevailing types of higher nervous activity in a given country.

As for national character, it is formed under the influence of historical and socio-economic conditions (although it would be wrong to deny the influence of the geographical factor on the formation of national character, but still in this case it is not decisive). Naturally, the environment and living conditions also influence changes in national temperament, as well as in personal temperament.

The identification of national character and national temperament leads to simplification and schematization of such a complex social phenomenon as national character. Hence the attempt of some authors, considering the national character of a particular people, to evaluate one of them as emotionally restrained, another as good-natured, and a third as impetuous and hot-tempered. Such assessments in no way reveal the essence of national character, and describe peoples rather from the perspective of national temperament. When, with the help of the properties and traits that make up the content of the latter, they try to interpret the national character, nothing but a vulgarization of the latter comes out.

Already in the early 60s of the last century, an attempt was made to analyze the problem of a national character. Thus, E. Bagramov notes the illegality of reducing national character to the psychology of the elite. He also noted that the national character is clearly reflected in folk art - literature, music, songs, dances.

A step forward in the study of the problem of national character in the 70s was the posing of the question of studying the methodological aspects of this problem in the works of E. Bagramov, N. Dzhandildin, I. Kon and others. Both the structure of national psychology and the structure of national character were considered.

Thus, N. Dzhandildin writes: “By national character we understand a set of specific psychological traits that have become, to a greater or lesser extent, characteristic of one or another social ethnic community in the specific historical, economic, cultural and natural conditions of its development.” According to the scientist, the structure of national character is as follows:

a) habits and behavior;

b) emotional and psychological reaction to phenomena in the familiar and unusual environment;

c) value orientations;

d) needs and tastes.

Following the works of N. Dzhandildin and I. Kohn, a study by E. Bagramov appears, in which he examines the methodological aspects of studying the problem and gives his definition of the subject: “National character is a reflection in the psyche of representatives of a nation of the unique historical conditions of its existence, the totality of some features of the spiritual the appearance of the people, which are manifested in the traditional forms of behavior characteristic of its representatives, perception of the environment, etc. and which are imprinted in the national characteristics of culture and other spheres of public life.”

From the point of view of D. G. Suvorova, national character is “a set of more or less stable psychological traits and properties inherent in the majority of representatives of the nation.”

The socio-economic, historical and natural conditions of a nation’s development, the peculiarities of its life activity cannot but influence the formation of its psychology, value systems, stereotypes, etc. However, nations do not develop locally, in isolation from other nations. In their development, they are subject to general laws, despite their specific features. Therefore, what is universal dominates the life of any nation, any people, no matter how unique the historical process is.

The question of defining national character is a very complex one. The definition, no matter how complete it may be, cannot provide an exhaustive socio-psychological description of the nation. In this regard, I. Kon writes: “Non-psychological scientists dealing with problems of national character, etc., are often dominated by the everyday idea that peoples, as individuals, have a set of stable qualities, “traits” that can be measured and compared more or less independently. The secret “blue” dream is to compile for each person a kind of psychological passport-characteristics, which would give his individual portrait. Alas, this is not feasible even for an individual.”

This thesis of I. S. Kon is developed by A. F. Dashdamirov: “We think that such passports are not only impossible, but also unnecessary, because such a task is not only illusory, but perhaps even harmful. The task of ethnopsychology, in our opinion, is not to summarize the characteristics of people determined by their ethnicity and nationality. It is to reveal and show how, under the influence of data, historically developed specific socio-economic, political and cultural conditions, traditions, customs, habits, attitudes and value orientations, tastes and preferences, moral psychological and volitional traits and characteristics, the main, prevailing trends in the emotional and psychological sphere, real manifestations of national self-awareness, national feelings and moods.”

Undoubted, however, is the fact that originality in the development of nations exists, and this originality gives us the right to talk about the Spanish national character, Russian, Ukrainian, etc. This originality finds its expression in the material and spiritual culture of the people, in their art , literature, traditions, customs, rituals, which, of course, various peoples are not the same.

Thus, based on the foregoing, we can conclude that national character is a combination of socio-psychological traits (national psychological attitudes, stereotypes) characteristic of a national community at a certain stage of development, which are manifested in value relations to the surrounding world, as well as in culture, traditions, customs, and rituals. National character is a unique, specific combination of universal human traits in specific historical and socio-economic conditions of existence of a national community.

The set of specific psychological traits, peculiarities of perception of the world and forms of reactions to it, which have become more or less characteristic of a particular socio-ethnic community, is called national character.

National character is primarily a certain set emotional and sensory manifestations, expressed, first of all, in emotions, feelings and moods, in ways of emotional and sensory exploration of the world, as well as in the speed and intensity of the reaction to ongoing events. National character, like all socio-psychic phenomena, is manifested in a way of behavior, way of thinking, mentality, customs, traditions, tastes, etc. large groups people and significantly less in individuals. National character is most clearly manifested in national temperament, for example, distinguishing northern peoples Russia from the Caucasus.

The specific features of national character are to some extent a condensed expression, passed through the prism of the material and spiritual life process, an expression of the social and natural conditions of the existence of the nation, as well as the historical interaction of the nation with other conditions. The decisive determinant of national character should be sought in the social conditions of a nation's existence. From this it follows, firstly, that national character is not immutable; it is constantly changing with the development of material conditions of life and the social life process; secondly, that the national character of a particular nation always unites universal human traits characteristic of many nations, with specific features, which are the result of specific natural and social conditions of life and the historical fate of a given nation. Many significant national traits character of one nation are also found in one form or another in other nations. It's hard to find any special feature, which could be considered exclusively belonging to only one nation. And attributing predominantly positive traits to one’s own nation, and predominantly negative traits to other nations, is a product of national prejudices, ethnocentrism, autostereotypes and nationalism.

All nations, in the course of their historical development, acquire positive national character traits that correspond to the needs of their lives and at the same time mean the enrichment of world culture. But at the same time, all peoples, under the influence of certain conditions, develop negative sides character that is in one form or another in conflict with public perception. Depending on specific historical conditions and the historical experience of peoples, the relationship between various national components of character may be different, and when considering it as a whole and over the long term, it is necessary to approach it differentiatedly, taking into account differences in the properties of a nation, which can be both positive, conducive to social and cultural progress, as well as negative ones that hinder it. In principle, there is no spiritual hierarchy, no hierarchy of nations by character, no “higher” and “lower” nations.

The concept of “national character” is not theoretical-analytical in origin, but descriptive. It was first used by travelers, followed by geographers and ethnographers to designate specific features of behavior and lifestyle of different nations and peoples. At the same time, different authors had different things in mind. Therefore, a synthetic, generalized interpretation of national character is obviously combined and therefore insufficiently holistic. It should also be borne in mind that a nation is not an absolute, but a relative community of character, since individual members of a nation, along with features common to the entire nation, also have personality traits in which they differ from each other.

National character has long been a subject scientific research. The first serious attempts were made within the framework of the established mid-19th century V. in Germany, the school of psychology of peoples (W. Wundt, M. Lazarus, H. Steinthal, etc.). The main ideas of this school were that main force history is the people, or the “spirit of the whole,” expressing itself in art, religion, languages, myths, customs, etc., as a whole, in the character of the people, or national character. American ethnopsychological school in the middle of the 20th century. (A. Kardiner, R.F. Benedict, M. Mead, R. Merton, R. Lipton, etc.) when constructing a number of concepts of national character, proceeded from the existence of specific national characters in different ethnic groups, manifested in stable psychological traits of an individual and affecting “cultural behavior”.

At present, it is not possible to identify any holistic direction in the study of national character. His research is conducted in different contexts and from different conceptual and theoretical positions. Some authors are still trying to find given, almost directly individually inherited, traits of national character that divide humanity into strictly fixed and opposing national-ethnic groups. Other scientists insist that the concept of “national character” was and remains a fiction, a myth, since national character is elusive. However, although the concept of “national character” has a number of certain difficulties in empirical study, nevertheless, those explosive manifestations of national character that are especially evident in extreme situations remain an undeniable reality.

Test questions and assignments

1. What is the structure of ethnic identity?
2. How is ethnic identity formed and developed?
3. Expand the content of the concepts “ethnic identification” and “ethnic self-identification”.
4. What types of ethnic identity can be distinguished?
5. What does ethnopsychology study and what practical significance does it have?
6. What are the content and structure of the concepts “national identity” and “national consciousness”?
7. What is national character?
8. Reveal the nature and manifestations of ethnic stereotypes.
9. How and why do ethnic autostereotypes arise?
10. What are ethnic attitudes and prejudices?
11. Try to determine the national character of “your” ethnic group.
12. Describe psychological characteristics ethnic groups well known to you.

Literature

1. Belik A.A. Psychological anthropology: history and theory. - M., 1993. . .
2. Boronoev A.0., Pavlenko V.N. Ethnic psychology. - St. Petersburg, 1994.
3. Wundt V. Problems of the psychology of peoples. - M., 1912.
4. Lebedeva I. Introduction to ethnic and cross-cultural psychology. - M., 1999.
5. Lebon G. Psychology of peoples and masses. - M., 1995.
6. Platonov Yu.P., Pochebut L.G. Ethnic social Psychology. - St. Petersburg, 1993.
7. Soldatova G.U. Psychology of interethnic tension. - M., 1998.
8. Tavadov G.T. Ethnology. Dictionary-reference book. - M., 1998.
9. Tokarev S.A. Ethnopsychological direction in American ethnography. - M., 1978.
10. Shpet G.G. Introduction to ethnic psychology. - M., 1996.
11. Ethnic psychology and society. - M., 1997.
12. Ethnic stereotypes of behavior. - L., 1985.
13. Ethnic stereotypes of male and female behavior. - St. Petersburg,
1991.
13. Shikhirev P. Modern social psychology. - M., 2000.

In general, the term “national character” belongs to the category of the most complex social phenomena and several concepts at once modern sciences: cultural studies, psychology, ethnology and the related science of ethnopolitical science.

1. National character. Definition of the concept

This definition describes various enduring characteristics that are characteristic of the majority of members of a particular ethnic or national community, and includes:

• spiritual values;
• ideas;
• interests;
• religion;
• morality;
• motives;
• mental makeup;
• socio-psychological defense mechanisms;
• aspirations;
• feelings.

All of the above can be confidently attributed to a nation or ethnic group.

Very often one hears a question regarding the differences between national and folk character. Is there a difference? Having studied a lot of specialized literature, I came to the conclusion, taking the side of the majority of specialists, that these two definitions are completely identical, because both reflect and express the features and specificity of views, values ​​and feelings generally accepted in a particular ethnic group.

2. National character in the modern world

However, some modern researchers, in turn, adhere to a slightly different point of view. They believe that the concepts of folk and national character need to be distinguished, because the latter should be understood as a more complex and historically developed phenomenon.

Why? This is primarily due to the fact that in individual countries some active representatives of an ethnic group or nation consciously take part in the most important spheres of life, namely legal and political. They are intentional about the history of their region, honor it, and want to preserve it for future generations. Those. All this happens quite consciously.

In this case, attention is focused on the problems of the nation as a whole, which means they are connected not only with the development of each individual, but also with the relationship between public and personal interests.

Scientists believe that these problems are not considered, or almost not considered, in folk communities, and they are dealt with primarily by national organizations, communities, and groups.

3. National character of the peoples of the world: Swedes and Russians

The main feature of the Swedes is perhaps their hard work. In addition, everyone who has visited this country will note that, unlike us Russians, the residents of this state are quite reluctant to express their point of view, do not show their emotions, feelings and experiences.

That is why, apparently, they enjoy the reputation of boring and uncommunicative people. You will rarely see a Swede boasting about his successes or achievements. Representatives of this culture generally prefer not to talk about themselves or their family members. Moreover, this is not snobbery at all, as many believe, this is the norm of their behavior. For a Swede, unlike an ordinary Russian, it is quite easy to not know the neighbors next door, not to visit on holidays, not to bring gifts from vacations or business trips.

Although there is a certain paradox here: if by some miracle you manage to get a Swede to talk, then it will be simply impossible to silence him. He is more willing to make contact with a foreigner, more openly shares with him episodes about his personal life, the nuances of business and the achievements of his children. Just don’t expect to find grateful listeners; not only do they not know how to listen, they don’t feel such a need at all.

Russian national character also provides for completely different relationships between representatives of the opposite sex. Unlike us, the Swedes have a completely different attitude towards the fair sex. They will never pay for their companion in a cafe, cinema or tram. And this is not at all out of greed. The men of this country sincerely believe that by doing this, they are degrading the working woman, who, in turn, will not perceive this as a gesture of politeness, but rather as a sop.

The signs of mentality coincide with the characteristics of the phenomenon designated by the concept of “national character”.

National character is a unique, specific combination of typical traits in the specific historical and socio-economic conditions of a nation’s existence; the people’s idea of ​​themselves, a set of stable, fundamental for the national community, features of perception of the surrounding world and reactionary forms of it.

National character fixes certain typical features, which are most often found in cases where we're talking about not about individuals, but about groups. However, typical features of national character should not be absolutized, since national and social qualities coexist in any group of people. Any trait of national character cannot concern only a specific nation; each of them is also a universal human trait. After all, it does not happen that one people is characterized by organization, another by neatness. Therefore, it is more rational to think not about a different set of traits, but about the different degrees of manifestation of a specific trait, about the specifics of its manifestation. So, the originality of the national psychology of the people is expressed not in unique psychological traits, but in their unique combination, manifestation in certain customs, historical traditions etc.

An important area of ​​manifestation of national character is activity, therefore it is studied, taking into account the products of this activity, including works folk art, language. The study of language is especially important since the transmission of national character traits is carried out with its active participation. In ethnic groups, such elements of mental makeup as temperament and abilities are also recorded, although not all researchers recognize the legitimacy of posing the problem of the specific manifestation of temperament and abilities in different ethnic groups.

The study of the specifics of national character is complicated by many circumstances. One of them is the phenomenon of stereotyping inherent in any perception of social phenomena, which is especially evident when studying representatives of another ethnic group.

Ethnic stereotype - produced under the influence of a specific ethnic culture, relevant for representatives of a separate ethnic community, stable, emotionally rich, value-defined, standardized image, idea of ​​a specific object.

The emergence of ethnic stereotypes is associated with the development of ethnic self-awareness, awareness of one’s own belonging to a particular ethnic group. This kind of “we-by-gut” captures the awareness of the characteristics of one’s own group, its difference from other groups. The stereotype image is formed under the influence of interethnic relations, special social attitude to a representative of another group. Past experience of communicating with another ethnic group also plays a certain role in this: if the relationship was hostile, then each representative of this group will be subject to negative attitude. The image crystallized according to the attitude acts as an ethnic stereotype, which does not necessarily negatively represent another ethnic group, but always confirms the subjective perception of it.

Awareness of the characteristics of one's ethnic group does not contain prejudices regarding other groups. Not associated with prejudices and stating the differences between them. With the transition from a statement to an assessment of another group, distortions in its image are possible, associated with the psychological phenomenon of ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism (Greek tribe, people and core) is a psychological tendency to perceive all life events from the perspective of one’s ethnic group, considering it the standard.

Ethnocentrism is a set of irrational ideas about one's ethnic community as the center around which all others are grouped. Such ideas are considered psychological formations of mass consciousness, which generously endow the image of their people with positive features. Moreover, they significantly exceed similar features in ideas about other peoples. Ethnic stereotypes are always formed in a specific social context. Having subsequently acquired a stable form of prejudice (of a standard and negatively colored emotional nature), they can easily be used as a means of inciting national hatred. Therefore, a socio-psychological analysis of the formation of ethnic stereotypes, explaining the mechanism of their emergence in the process of interethnic communication, is an important means of preventing interethnic friction and conflicts.

National character is a rather stable and contradictory mental formation, the structure of which combines positive and negative traits and features. For example, the Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev (1874-1948) drew attention to the fact that in the Russian character kindness and cruelty, mental delicacy and rudeness, altruism and selfishness, great love of freedom and despotism, self-abasement and national pride and chauvinism. Such polarization is inherent in every nation. Therefore, it is important to know what historical conditions caused the emergence of traits, habits, and feelings in the national character of the people that representatives of another ethnic group may interpret as negative. It is equally important to recognize the shortcomings in the mental composition of one’s own people, and not to absolutize positive features, do not hush up those that hinder its development.