Increased attention to national problems gave impetus to the development of ethnology (or ethnography) - a science that studies the composition, origin, settlement and cultural-historical relationships of peoples, their material and spiritual culture, and the peculiarities of life. In ethnology, the concepts of ethnos and nation, which is a type of ethnos, are separated.
Approaches to defining an ethnic group: the first - preference is given to social aspects in the genesis and existence of ethnic groups, and its functioning is associated and determined by them with the level of development of productive forces and production relations (Yu.V. Bromley, V.I. Kozlov, M.V. Kryukov, S.A. Tokarev); the second is focused more on the analysis of the natural aspects of ethnogenesis and its further functioning and connects the emergence and existence of an ethnos and its essential features with the impact of the biological and genetic consequences of human evolution, the process of race formation and adaptation mechanisms to the environment and is presented by such authors as S.M. .Shirokogorov, V.P.Alekseev, L.N.Gumilev, O.Huntington and others.
Thus, according to Yu.V. Bromley, an ethnic community is represented “only by that totality of people that recognizes itself as such, distinguishing itself from other similar communities.” If we consider the problem of separation, isolation of ethnic communities in its genesis, then the initial stage was the separation, separation of man from nature, which gave him the opportunity to realize his difference from the world of animals and plants, thereby realizing himself as a person.
The isolation of ethnic communities was not only causally determined, but also a historically progressive phenomenon, since the process of ethnic consolidation of a community begins with isolation, during which it acquires its own unique, original existence, self-defines as an independent social subject, possessing its own essential forces, ethnic individuality.
In the theory of the creation of ethnogenesis, a huge role belongs to L.N. Gumilev. In his vision, “ethnicity is a stable, naturally formed group of people, opposing itself to all other similar groups and distinguished by a peculiar stereotype of behavior that naturally changes in historical time.” Ethnicity is, as it were, a purely natural community, which, on the one hand, depends on the landscape and natural conditions, on the other hand, is characterized by local mores, customs, and cult.
Ethnicity found in people's consciousness is not a product of consciousness itself. It reflects some aspect of human nature, much deeper, external to consciousness and psychology, by which we understand a form of higher nervous activity.
Any ethnic group living in its familiar landscape is almost in a state of equilibrium. Ethnicity, on objective grounds, is a natural phenomenon, but on methods of self-organization, it is a sociocultural phenomenon. It has a number of general patterns that operate in it at all stages of functioning and development. At the same time, at each stage of development, an ethnic group is subjected to a whole complex of interconnected and interdependent natural and sociocultural influences, which determines the specifics of its manifestation, as well as the factor of psychological characteristics in accordance with these specific conditions.
A nation is something that necessarily presupposes the experience of state-legal construction, which constitutes not just morals and customs, but state law and systematized morality. A necessary prerequisite for a nation is a developed culture.
The basis of the ethnos is folklore-ethnographic, national-spiritual basis - an expanded cultural principle. If in the first case relations between people are regulated through customs and traditions, then in the second case through state legal norms. The nation is multiethnic.
A nation, in contrast to an ethnos, is something that exists not in a person, but outside a person, which is given to him not by the fact of his birth, but by his own efforts and personal choice. If an individual has no personal merit in belonging to an ethnic group, he does not choose an ethnic group, then a nation can be chosen. You can also change your nation.
In any case, ethnicity does not yet characterize belonging to a particular nation. One can be Lithuanian by ethnic origin and consider oneself to belong to the American nation. A nation is a state, social, cultural affiliation of an individual, and not his anthropological and ethnic identity.
For a citizen living in a Western European country or in North America, belonging to a nation and ethnicity are two different things. According to Professor E. Gellner, “two people belong to the same nation only if they are united by one culture, which in turn is understood as a system of ideas, symbols, connections, ways of behavior and communication,” or “if they recognize each other's belonging to this nation. In other words, nations are made by man, nations are the product of human beliefs, passions and inclinations."
The nationality of an individual as a specific form of social relations is a more complex phenomenon than the ethnicity of an individual. It includes the specifics of social relations, social institutions, traditions that take place in a given national community. National identity is an indicator that the national as a social entity is individualized; the characteristics of the individual include national values, a system of national traditions in various spheres of public life, customs, rituals, and social symbols.
The ethnicity of an individual, cut off from the bulk of his people, living as part of other nations and in other states, is transmitted due to inertia from one generation to another. Among this category of people, the language, customs, and norms of behavior of other peoples are borrowed. If this continues for a number of generations, then we are talking about the assimilation of a person from one ethnic group to another. The most significant thing in this case is the change in the ethnic consciousness of the individual. Only then can we talk about assimilation when new characteristics are formed and new ethnic variants are created.
V. Tishkov proposed to abandon the term “nation” in its ethnic meaning and preserve its meaning, which is accepted in the world scientific literature and international political practice, that is, a nation is a collection of citizens of one state. A similar point of view was expressed by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. The concept of “nation,” in their opinion, unites all people living in a given territory, recognized as citizens of the state located on it and considering themselves as such. Representatives of national minorities sometimes oppose the understanding of the nation as co-citizenship. From their point of view, only “own” national-territorial entities will protect ethnic minorities from the loss of their rights.
These are the main characteristics of an ethnos and a nation that currently exist in the scientific community. The range of these concepts is much wider, but the most frequently encountered ones are given here.
07.11.2015
There are several main approaches to defining ethnicity: primordialist, constructivist, instrumentalist and essentialist. What approach do you take? How is it practically more useful than others, especially for the Russian state?
These are purely scientific definitions that are conditional in nature and do not have fundamental significance for real social practice and politics. The same explanatory model contains elements of all these approaches, just as the phenomenon of ethnicity itself contains different factors or components. The primordial approach gives the ethnic substance or feeling an initial meaning in comparison with other aspects of human existence, and the ethnic community itself and belonging to it have an innate character and even a biological (ethnogenetic) basis.
According to primordialists, there have always been ethnic groups, and it is they who constitute the basic units into which all of humanity is divided. They are the creators of culture, statehood, and determine social and political relations, including conflicts. This is the essence of this approach, which became widespread in late Soviet times, especially in the works of Yu. V. Bromley and L. N. Gumilev. In world science, this approach has not received recognition and dissemination, as well as the term “ethnos” itself, which is almost unknown to scientists and politicians and is very rarely used by anyone.
Another approach draws attention to the importance of the purposeful activities of people, primarily politicians and intellectuals, in the creation of both the cultural complexes and traditions of ethnic groups (peoples), and in the formation of a sense of belonging to a particular community and group solidarity. The theory of the social construction of reality has dominated world social science for the last 30-40 years. Its supporters pay more attention to the phenomenon of ethnic identity as one of the forms of collective self-awareness, which is fluid and complex.
The very concept of construction does not mean voluntaristic improvisation, and for the formation and support of one or another identity, that is, ethnic self-awareness, cultural realities are needed, including those with deep historical, socio-psychological and other roots. Constructivism is associated with an explanation of ethnicity from the point of view of its use as a tool for human mobilizations, to ensure the solidarity of people, to achieve power and access to resources.
In my research I use an integrative approach that combines different approaches, but does not absolutize any of them. To explain Russian and more broadly post-Soviet reality, this view is the most optimal. We have everything: the deep historical roots of virtually all Russian nationalities, and giving the ethnic factor fundamental importance right down to the state administrative structure, and the popularity in the broad consciousness of the very categories of “friendship of peoples”, their “centuries-old union”, as well as the innate nature of the nationality, which is determined by one of the parents. But at the same time, we have the most obvious manipulations and large political projects with the construction of an ethnic nomenclature, the formation of socialist nations from the once existing tribal diversity, experiments with the suppression and sponsorship of ethnicity.
In our time, other forms of identity come to the fore (civil in the homeland, professional and others), and modern man is the bearer of several cultural traditions, including knowledge of languages. The number of descendants of mixed marriages who themselves choose and instrumentally use one or another ethnic (national) affiliation is increasing. Political, intellectual and media prescriptions regarding who these or those human communities are and what they should be called are of great importance.
- What is the difference between a nation and an ethnic group?
In Russian science and politics, an ethnos refers to communities of people that exist on the basis of cultural similarity, common history, language, group self-designation and other characteristics. In world science and politics there are similar terms “ethnic groups”, “minorities”, “aboriginal peoples”, but they are not used in relation to the main population of countries. There are similar terms "peoples" and "nationalities", but they are also used to designate communities within the state. The term “ethnos” is not used in Russian legal and everyday language, and now it is used less and less by scientists, although Gumilyov’s works retain their popularity among the general public.
As for the nation, this fundamental and long-standing concept has changed its meaning and today is used in two ways. The most common and legitimate understanding is co-citizenship under one sovereign authority, which is united by people's loyalty to their country (state), common history, culture and identity. Almost all nations have a complex ethnic and religious composition and varying degrees of consolidation and maturity of national institutions.
The Spaniards include both Castilians and Catalans, Basques, Galicians and other historical-regional communities. The British nation includes both the English and the Scots, the Northern Irish and others. Together with Russians, the Russians include representatives of more than a hundred nationalities. There are over 300 different ethnic groups within the Indian and Indonesian nations. There are 56 officially recognized nationalities within the Chinese nation. In the Russian Federation, relatively recently, the Russian people (Russians) began to be called a civil nation, although the term “national” itself has been used in the general civil sense for a long time and widely (health of the nation, national legislation, budget, GDP, sports teams, etc.).
The second meaning of the concept - “nation” has also been used for quite a long time (especially in Eastern Europe) in relation to ethnic communities (ethnic groups), and in the USSR, nation and national generally meant only an ethnic, and not a national, meaning. The use of the term “nation” in the ethnic sense continues today (Russian, Tatar, Chechen, Chuvash and other nations). Some historical regional communities fighting for separate status or statehood, as well as aboriginal peoples of the world within multi-ethnic states, attach the same meaning to their self-designation as nations.
Some countries do not allow the dual use of the term "nation" (for example, China and Spain), but in most countries of the world, nations are understood as both civil communities and ethnic communities. The latest version of the double use of the word is spreading in the Russian Federation.
- In your opinion, what is the future of the North Caucasus?
The future of the North Caucasus is the future of all of Russia, which is very difficult to predict, although the general trend in recent years is rather positive, especially in terms of the social prosperity of the population and ethnocultural development. Ethno-territorial autonomies for the North Caucasian peoples must be preserved, just as the borders between the subjects of the federation must be preserved. There are great political and emotional meanings embedded in the current republican statuses and territories, and it is impossible to take all this back.
The future lies in improving governance through economic development, reducing corruption, and ensuring legal equality for citizens regardless of nationality. The division into titular and non-titular should lose its meaning in civil life and in government. The North Caucasian peoples will preserve some distinctive traditions, languages, religions, and this side of their life requires recognition and support from the state.
There is still no clarity with the so-called non-titular, primarily Russian, population of the region, which is declining in number and is experiencing inconvenience in the face of the growing influence and demographic weight of the North Caucasians. The presence of Russians is a condition for modernization, civil and interethnic stability. If this presence and influence continues to decline, then inter-ethnic and inter-republican tensions between the North Caucasian peoples themselves will worsen. If, through special measures of the state and a change in position on the part of the North Caucasians themselves, it is possible to maintain and even increase the share of Russians and other “non-titular” people in the population of the republics and the region as a whole, then it has a good future.
The North Caucasus has many sufficient resources, both natural and human, but the political situation and local nationalisms have so far prevented the accelerated development and prosperity of this part of Russia. The external influence on the region from Russia’s geopolitical rivals and foreign diasporas also has a negative impact. This influence must be limited or turned in a positive direction.
- And one more question about the future: how long will it take for Russian citizens to begin to understand themselves as a civil nation?
There is not a single large nation in the world that does not include dissidents, separatists and other radicals who reject the common socio-political space of a single country. It is important that the majority of the population recognize their Russian citizenship through obtaining passports and fulfilling civic duties. It is important that the majority of the population can delegate their original sovereignty to the legitimate government through democratic procedures. It is important that the majority recognize Russia as their homeland and have and demonstrate a sense of belonging to their country. It is desirable that this involvement be expressed in a feeling of patriotism and love for the Motherland.
Finally, the most important thing is that the majority of citizens answer the question “Who are we?” answered: “First of all, I am Russian.” Sociological surveys in recent years show that Russian identity has come to the forefront compared to other forms of collective identity - on average in Russia it is more than 60 percent. All this means that Russian identity is a reality, and therefore the Russian nation itself is a reality. If someone is uncomfortable calling the Russian people a nation, there is nothing wrong with that - let them continue to use an adjective without a noun (as if there is a nationality, but without a nation). The main thing is the recognition of the Russian people (Russians) themselves as a historical, cultural and state-political integrity.
Text: Arthur Vafin
The essence of the concept people lies in spontaneous ethnic processes that do not always depend on the consciousness and will of people. Nation It is closely connected with national movements that have a specific program, with the activities of a group of individuals aimed at achieving certain goals (most often political). The nation in this case acts as a social (political) force that must be taken into account.
A people is a collection of people whose community is based on a single blood origin, special traditions and customs, and way of life. The nation is based on common market and economic ties and follows the same civil laws. Common language, common culture – heritage people, and the common territory and unity of economic life are closer to the concept nation. A nation manifests itself through a system of public institutions, in particular through the state.
What are the similarities and differences between a nation and a nationality?
Nation and nationality have similarities in only one thing - both of these categories denote large (great in number) communities of people who, as a rule, live in the same territory. They seem to denote many people who have a lot in common - language, culture, history, name (self-name). “People” also refers to these concepts. All of these are “related”, “similar” people, and this is the similarity of these concepts.
As a rule, peoples and nationalities were formed a long time ago. It is believed that at first there were tribes (nationalities), which later grew into larger social formations - peoples. It turns out that the people unite several nationalities and integrate them into a new human community.
What is the difference between nation, nationality and ethnicity
In Western terminology, “nationality” is citizenship. If they say “French nation”, this means belonging to France as a state. In the West, ethnicity is distinguished from nationality. There are also Arabs within the French nation; they will be French by citizenship.
And in Russia there is a previous tradition where nationality meant ethnicity and citizenship, and even in census materials there was a question about nationality. Now there is an attempt to move to Western terminology, and when the concept of “Russian nation” is introduced, this means belonging to the country and Russian citizenship.
Difference between people and nation
Fighting stereotypes with prohibitive measures can be dangerous. For example, the former dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at St. Petersburg State University, scientist Yuri Solonin, translated a lot and commented on the works of the German nationalist Ernst Junger, who had a difficult and complex relationship with Hitlerism. He and many outstanding minds of the German people subsequently made a sharp break with Nazism because they did not accept anti-Semitism. Ernst Junger fought against stereotypes, and he was their source. The Germans had a stereotype that Jews were robbing their nation, hindering the development of the German people.
– I’m just talking about the Russian nation, without using the word “people”. In my opinion, the term “people” is somewhat ambiguous in political terms. In general, in the Constitution I would replace the phrase “we are a multinational people” with “we are the Russian nation.” This would introduce specificity and remove ambiguity. I would call the Day of National Unity the Day of the Russian Nation, which would also give it a clear political meaning.
How a nation differs from a people: features and differences of concepts
Let us consider the concepts of “nation” and “people” more specifically. Today there is no single understanding of the term “nation”.
But in the sciences that deal with the development of human society, two main formulations of the word “nation” are accepted.
The first says that this is a community of people who it worked out historically based on the unity of land, economy, politics, language, culture and mentality. All this together is expressed in a single civic identity.
It should be noted that the Constitution of the Russian Federation begins with words that reflect the essence of the life principles of Russians: “We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation...”. And in Chapter 1 of the “Fundamentals of the Constitutional System” Article 3 explains that “the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people».
Fundamental differences between people and nations
Imagine a world where writing does not exist. If there is no writing, then there are no countries that rely on writing. And if there are no such countries, then there are no nations. A nation can only exist in conditions if there is a country based on writing (and with this - passports and other documents that determine a person’s nationality). But the nationality not only exists in the absence of writing, but it is precisely in such conditions that it is reborn. After all, there is always a need to establish a person’s membership in one group or another. And nationality is established by external signs - language, appearance, belonging to a particular family, etc.
It might seem that in modern circumstances, when writing dominates, the role of the people is diminishing. But this is far from true. There are many examples when countries cease to exist, and with this, nations. For example, there is no longer such a nation as the Yugoslavs. Or there is no such nation as the Czechoslovakians. In the Soviet Union, Latvians, Estonians and Lithuanians ceased to be nations, they became, as before, nationalities. This can still be felt in the Baltic states. Latvians or Estonians are precisely a nationality, not a nation. This is a big difference from Finland, where Finns are not strictly a people, but there is also a nation, which also refers to Swedish-speaking local people, etc.
What is the difference between nationality and nationality
People in a nation should, ideally, feel “unified.” This unity consists of a common history, race, language, culture and religion. People must also “feel” like a nation, otherwise they are “just” people and not a nation. People who become a nation experience a national awakening.
can define “the state as a unique political community with its own set of rules and practices, more or less separated from other communities. For specific IR [International Relations] purposes, "state" refers to a modern sovereign state that has "legal personality" and is recognized as having certain rights and responsibilities. [. ]
Lesson plan for social studies (8th grade) on the topic: Lesson outline for social studies 8th grade - Ethnicity: nations and nationalities
- Know what “ethnicity” is and what characterizes various stable intergenerational communities of people;
- Be able to analyze various ethnic-forming factors, illustrating your positions with specific historical facts;
- Determine the similarities and differences between nations and nationalities;
- Be able to competently analyze the traditions and customs of different peoples and respect their culture and life.
- Motivation for activity. Ensuring students' interest in studying this topic by involving them in active activities in the lesson.
- What are "Ethnicities"? Let's get acquainted with the concept.
- Factors influencing the formation of ethnic groups and their role in the development of societies.
- Nationalities and nations.
Populists and nationalists
Remaining only a people, it is difficult to see in another people something close to you in spirit and mentality. Therefore, the expression “friendship of peoples” is not entirely correct. It is not nations that are friends, but people representing different nations who identify themselves not only by blood and biological kinship. Ethnic groups in which the individual has not yet separated from the collective, having structural similarities, as a rule, lack the gift of communication, are more likely to see in other ethnic groups, if not an enemy, then a stranger (this, it seems to us, is the source of all interethnic conflicts). And only nations formed by the free individual choice of its members acquire the ability to communicate with other nations and exchange their discoveries and inventions with each other. When their interests collide, peoples prefer to solve their problems by force, while nations prefer to negotiate and conclude agreements.
A thin line separates the concept “ nation"(a word of Latin origin that does not have a Russian translation) from the concept " people" It is recorded in all European dictionaries, but is often not taken into account in Russian word usage. Both concepts come extremely close in our speech and consciousness, indicating that, while undoubtedly being a people (and even a great people), Russians do not always and not in their entire mass recognize themselves as one nation. Until now, in our calls and appeals we appeal not so much to the nation as to the people (the authorities and the people, the intelligentsia and the people), apparently believing that it is enough to be a people to consider ourselves a nation. We oppose ourselves to the established European nations as not a nation, but a people, thereby blocking the path to any kind of mutual understanding and communication.
To the concepts of “ethnicity” and “nation”
The human desire for social integration requires a certain mechanism of consistency in the form of certain cultural institutions shared by representatives of all structural segments of society. It is a single culture that, as a result, determines the boundaries of a social community, while simultaneously forming among its individuals ideas about unity on the basis of common cultural characteristics. Such integrative mechanisms are characteristic of all known types of ethnocultural formations: tribe, ethnic group and nation.
Thus, the emergence of nations is due to a fairly high industrial and cultural level of development of society, education of the people, the development of the media and communications, the training of qualified personnel, and the pace of formation of the national elite. Only under such circumstances does the maturation of an ethnic community into a nation become a necessary condition for the further progress of society.
05 Jul 2018 943Among ethnologists there is no unity in the approach to the definition of ethnos and ethnicity. In this regard, several of the most popular theories and concepts are highlighted. Thus, the Soviet ethnographic school worked in line with primordialism, but today the highest administrative post in official ethnology in Russia is occupied by constructivist supporter V. A. Tishkov.
Primordialism
This approach assumes that a person’s ethnicity is an objective fact that has its basis in nature or society. Therefore, ethnicity cannot be created artificially or imposed. Ethnicity is a community with really existing, registered characteristics. You can point out the characteristics by which an individual belongs to a given ethnic group, and by which one ethnic group differs from another.
"Evolutionary-historical direction." Proponents of this trend view ethnic groups as social communities that arose as a result of the historical process.
Dualistic theory of ethnicity
This concept was developed by employees of the Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now) headed by Yu. V. Bromley. This concept presupposes the existence of ethnic groups in 2 senses:
Sociobiological direction
This direction assumes the existence of ethnicity due to the biological essence of man. Ethnicity is primordial, that is, initially characteristic of people.
Pierre van den Berghe's theory
Pierre L. van den Berghe transferred certain provisions of ethology and zoopsychology to human behavior, that is, he assumed that many phenomena of social life are determined by the biological side of human nature.
Ethnicity, according to P. van den Berghe, is an “extended kinship group.”
Van den Berghe explains the existence of ethnic communities by a person’s genetic predisposition to kin selection (nepotism). Its essence lies in the fact that altruistic behavior (the ability to sacrifice oneself) reduces the chances of a given individual to pass on its genes to the next generation, but at the same time increases the possibility of its genes being passed on by blood relatives (indirect gene transfer). By helping relatives survive and pass on their genes to the next generation, the individual thereby contributes to the reproduction of his own gene pool. Since this type of behavior makes the group evolutionarily more stable than similar other groups in which altruistic behavior is absent, the “altruism genes” are maintained by natural selection.
Passionary theory of ethnos (Gumilyov’s theory)
In it ethnos- a group of people that naturally formed on the basis of an original behavioral stereotype, existing as a systemic integrity (structure), opposing itself to all other groups, based on a sense of complementarity and forming an ethnic tradition common to all its representatives.
An ethnos is one of the types of ethnic systems, it is always part of superethnoses, and consists of subethnoses, convicts and consortia.
Elitist instrumentalism
This direction focuses on the role of elites in the mobilization of ethnic feelings.
Economic instrumentalism
This direction explains interethnic tensions and conflicts in terms of economic inequality among members of different ethnic groups.
Ethnogenesis
The basic conditions for the emergence of an ethnos - common territory and language - subsequently act as its main features. At the same time, an ethnos can be formed from multilingual elements, formed and consolidated in different territories in the process of migration (gypsies, etc.). In the conditions of early long-distance migrations of “Homo sapiens” from Africa and modern globalization, ethnic groups as cultural and linguistic communities moving freely throughout the planet are becoming increasingly important.
Additional conditions for the formation of an ethnic community can be a common religion, racial proximity of the components of an ethnic group, or the presence of significant mestizo (transitional) groups.
In the course of ethnogenesis, under the influence of the characteristics of economic activity in certain natural conditions and other reasons, features of material and spiritual culture, everyday life, and group psychological characteristics specific to a given ethnic group are formed. Members of an ethnos develop a common self-awareness, in which the idea of their common origin occupies a prominent place. The external manifestation of this self-awareness is the presence of a common self-name - ethnonym.
The formed ethnic community acts as a social organism, self-reproducing through predominantly ethnically homogeneous marriages and the transfer of language, culture, traditions, ethnic orientation, etc. to the new generation.
Anthropological classification. Ethnicity and race
The basis of anthropological classification is the principle of dividing ethnic groups into races. This classification reflects the biological, genetic and, ultimately, historical kinship between ethnic groups.
Science recognizes the discrepancy between the racial and ethnic divisions of humanity: members of one ethnic group can belong to both the same and different races (racial types), and, conversely, representatives of the same race (racial type) can belong to different ethnic groups, etc.
A fairly common misconception is expressed in the confusion of the concepts of “ethnicity” and “race”, and as a result, erroneous concepts are used, for example, such as “Russian race”.
Ethnicity and religion
Ethnicity and culture
Culture - it is difficult and, perhaps, even impossible to give a universal, comprehensive definition for this concept. The same can be said about “ethnic culture”, since it manifests itself and is realized in different ways and ways, so it can be understood and interpreted in different ways.
However, some researchers clearly formulate the differences between a nation and an ethnos, pointing to the different nature of the origin of the concepts of “ethnicity” and “nation”. Thus, in their opinion, an ethnos is characterized by supra-individuality and stability, repeatability of cultural patterns. In contrast, for a nation, the determining factor becomes the process of its own awareness based on the synthesis of traditional and new elements, and the actual ethnic identification criteria (language, way of life, etc.) of belonging fade into the background. For a nation, those aspects that ensure supra-ethnicity, the synthesis of ethnic, interethnic and other ethnic components (political, religious, etc.) come to the fore.
Ethnicity and statehood
Ethnic groups are subject to changes in the course of ethnic processes - consolidation, assimilation, etc. For a more sustainable existence, an ethnic group strives to create its own socio-territorial organization (state). Modern history knows many examples of how various ethnic groups, despite their large numbers, were unable to solve the problem of socio-territorial organization. These include the ethnic groups of Jews, Palestinian Arabs, Kurds, divided between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. Other examples of successful or unsuccessful ethnic expansion are the expansion of the Russian Empire, the Arab conquests in North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula, the Tatar-Mongol invasion, and the Spanish colonization of South and Central America.
Ethnic identity
Ethnic identity is an integral part of a person’s social identity, awareness of one’s belonging to a certain ethnic community. In its structure, two main components are usually distinguished - cognitive (knowledge, ideas about the characteristics of one’s own group and awareness of oneself as a member of it based on certain characteristics) and affective (assessment of the qualities of one’s own group, attitude towards membership in it, the significance of this membership).
One of the first to study the development of a child's awareness of belonging to a national group was the Swiss scientist J. Piaget. In a 1951 study, he identified three stages in the development of ethnic characteristics:
1) at 6-7 years old, the child acquires the first fragmentary knowledge about his ethnicity;
2) at 8-9 years old, the child already clearly identifies himself with his ethnic group, based on the nationality of his parents, place of residence, and native language;
3) in early adolescence (10-11 years old), ethnic identity is fully formed; the child notes the uniqueness of history and the specifics of traditional everyday culture as the characteristics of different peoples.
External circumstances can force a person of any age to rethink their ethnic identity, as happened with a resident of Minsk, a Catholic, born in the Brest region bordering Poland. He “was listed as a Pole and considered himself a Pole. At the age of 35 I went to Poland. There he became convinced that his religion united him with the Poles, but otherwise he was Belarusian. From that time on, he realized himself as a Belarusian” (Klimchuk, 1990, p. 95).
The formation of ethnic identity is often a rather painful process. For example, a boy whose parents moved to Moscow from Uzbekistan before his birth speaks Russian at home and at school; however, at school, due to his Asian name and dark skin color, he receives an offensive nickname. Later, having reflected on this situation, to the question “What is your nationality?” he may answer “Uzbek”, but maybe not. The son of an American and a Japanese woman may turn out to be an outcast both in Japan, where he will be teased as “long-nosed” and “butter-eater,” and in the United States. At the same time, a child who grew up in Moscow, whose parents identify themselves as Belarusians, most likely will not have such problems at all.
The following dimensions of ethnic identity are distinguished:
see also
- Ethnopolitics
- Ethno-territorial conflict
Notes
Literature
- Kara-Murza S. G. “Theory and practice of constructing nations”
- Shirokogorov S. M. “Ethnos. Study of the basic principles of change in ethnic and ethnographic phenomena"
- Gulyaikhin V. N. Ethno-collective unconscious as a determinant of socio-political development // Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Episode 7: Philosophy. Sociology and social technologies. 2007. No. 6. P. 76-79.
- Sadokhin A. P., Grushevitskaya T. G. Ethnology: Textbook for students. higher textbook establishments. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2003. - P. 320. -
Often, when talking about a people, we use the word “nation”. Along with it, there is a similar concept of “ethnicity”, which rather belongs to the category of special terms. Let's try to identify the main differences between them.
What is a nation and ethnicity
Nation– spiritual, cultural-political and socio-economic community of the industrial era.
Ethnicity – a group of people with common objective or subjective characteristics.
Difference between nation and ethnicity
There are two main approaches to understanding the nation. In the first case, it represents a political community of citizens of a state, in the second, an ethnic community with a common identity and language. Ethnicity is a group of people with common characteristics, which include origin, culture, language, identity, territory of residence, etc.
A nation, in contrast to an ethnos, has a broader concept and is also considered a more complex and later formation. This is the highest form of ethnic group, which replaced the nationality. If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced throughout world history, then the period of formation of nations was the New and even Contemporary time. A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups brought together by historical fate. For example, the Russian, French, and Swiss nations are multi-ethnic, while Americans do not have a clearly defined ethnicity at all.
According to numerous researchers, the origin of the concepts “nation” and “ethnicity” has a different nature. If an ethnos is characterized by stability and repeatability of cultural patterns, then the process of self-awareness through the combination of new and traditional elements is important for a 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.
TheDifference.ru determined that the difference between a nation and an ethnic group is as follows:
A nation is the highest form of ethnicity, replacing a nationality.
If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced throughout world history, then the period of formation of nations was the New and even Contemporary time.
A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups 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.