The concept of nation and ethnicity. Nation, ethnos, ethnic group
Often, speaking of a people, we use the word "nation". Along with it, there is a similar concept of "ethnos", 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.
Ethnos - 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 is a political community of citizens of a state, in the second, an ethnic community with a single identity and language. An ethnos is a group of people with common characteristics, which include origin, culture, language, self-consciousness, territory of residence, etc.
A nation, unlike an ethnos, has a broader concept, and is also considered a more complex and late formation. This is the highest form of ethnos, which replaced the nationality. If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced in the course of the entire world history, then the period of the formation of nations was the New and even the Newest time. A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups at once, brought together by historical fate. For example, the Russian, French, Swiss nations are multi-ethnic, while the Americans do not have a pronounced ethnicity at all.
According to numerous researchers, the origin of the concepts of "nation" and "ethnos" has a different nature. If the ethnos is characterized by the stability and repetition of cultural patterns, then the process of self-awareness through the combination of new and traditional elements is important for the nation. Thus, the main value of an ethnos is belonging to a stable group, while the nation strives to reach a new level of development.
TheDifference.ru determined that the difference between a nation and an ethnic group is as follows:
The nation is the highest form of an ethnos that has come to replace the nationality.
If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced in the course of the entire world history, then the period of the formation of nations was the New and even the Newest Time.
A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups at once, brought together by historical fate.
The main value of an ethnic group is belonging to a stable group, while the nation strives to reach a new level of development.
In the biological sciences, race refers to the commonality populations. A population is a group of individuals characterized by a certain stable set of features; its individuals interbreed, give productive offspring and live in a common area.
In relation to a person, there are several definitions of race and population, although their meaning is very close. The most common in domestic science is the following: race- this is a set of people who have a common physical type, the origin of which is associated with a certain territory. Under population is understood as a set of individuals belonging to the same species, able to mix indefinitely with each other and having one territory. The difference between race and population, which are, in fact, very close definitions, is that the size of the population is much smaller, it occupies less space; a race, on the other hand, consists of many populations that have the possibility of intermingling without limit. The limitation of mixing is associated only with the presence of insulating barriers (including those with large distances). Ethnos(people, nationality) refers to social departments of humanity. An ethnos is a stable set of people historically formed in a certain territory, characterized by a common culture, language, psyche and self-consciousness, reflected in the self-name (ethnonym). All three phenomena - population, race and ethnos - have a very important common feature: each of them has a specific habitat. This commonality contributes to the unity of the gene pool1, culture and language. Therefore, coincidences of the physical type with certain characteristics of the ethnos are sometimes possible. There is a certain correspondence between the great races and
large linguistic divisions. For example, most representatives caucasian race speaks in tongues Indo-European And Semitic-Hamitic families, and most Mongoloids- in languages Sino-Tibetan family. However, there is no causal, regular connection between the physical features of the population, on the one hand, and language and culture, on the other. Most ethnic groups have a complex anthropological (racial) composition, many ethnic groups are anthropologically polymorphic, and along with this, different peoples can belong to the same anthropological type. As the interdisciplinary study of many peoples of the world shows, the coincidence of cultural, linguistic and physical traits is a very rare phenomenon. It may arise as a result of some historical or natural causes, primarily social or geographical isolation. The formation, development and functioning of races and ethnic groups are subject to different laws: races - natural (biological), and ethnic groups - social (historical, etc.).
There are two main approaches to understanding the nation. In the first case, it is a political community of citizens of a state, in the second, an ethnic community with a single identity and language. An ethnos is a group of people with common characteristics, which include origin, culture, language, self-consciousness, territory of residence, etc.
Nation, unlike ethnos, it has a broader concept, and is also considered a more complex and late formation. This is the highest form of ethnos, which replaced the nationality. If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced in the course of the entire world history, then the period of the formation of nations was the New and even the Newest time. A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups at once, brought together by historical fate. For example, the Russian, French, Swiss nations are multi-ethnic, while the Americans do not have a pronounced ethnicity at all.
According to numerous researchers, the origin of the concepts of "nation" and "ethnos" has a different nature. If the ethnos is characterized by the stability and repetition of cultural patterns, then the process of self-awareness through the combination of new and traditional elements is important for the nation. Thus, the main value of an ethnos is belonging to a stable group, while the nation strives to reach a new level of development.
The difference between a nation and an ethnic group
The nation is the highest form of an ethnos that has come to replace the nationality.
If the existence of ethnic groups can be traced in the course of the entire world history, then the period of the formation of nations was the New and even the Newest Time.
A nation, as a rule, includes several ethnic groups at once, brought together by historical fate.
The main value of an ethnic group is belonging to a stable group, while the nation strives to reach a new level of development.
A little
about nations, ethnic groups and scientific approaches.
About some concepts.
Ethnology from the Greek words - ethnos - people and logos - word, judgment - the science of the peoples of the world (ethnoses, more precisely,
distribution is due to the famous French physicist and thinker M. Ampère, who determined the place of ethnology in the system of the humanities along with history, archeology and other disciplines. At the same time, ethnology included, according to
Ampere's thoughts, as a subdiscipline of physical anthropology (the science of the physical properties of individual ethnic
groups: hair and eye color, skull and skeleton structure, blood, etc.). In the 19th century in Western European countries
ethnological studies were successfully developed. Along with the term "ethnology", another name for this science has become widespread - ethnography.
- from the Greek words - ethnos - people and grapho - I write, i.e. description of peoples, their history and cultural characteristics. However, during
second half of the 19th century the point of view prevailed, according to which ethnography was considered as
predominantly a descriptive science based on field materials, and ethnology as a theoretical discipline,
based on ethnographic data. Finally, the French ethnologist C. Levi-Strauss believed that ethnography, ethnology and anthropology are three successive stages in the development of the science of man: ethnography is a descriptive stage in the study of ethnic groups, field
research and classification; ethnology - the synthesis of this knowledge and their systematization; anthropology seeks to study
man in all his manifestations. As a result, at different times and in different countries, preference was given to any of these terms, depending on
developed tradition. So, in France the term "ethnology" (l'ethnologie) still prevails, in England, along with it
the concept of "social anthropology" (ethnology, social anthropology) is widely used, in the USA the designation
of this science is “cultural anthropology” (cultural anthropology). In the Russian tradition
the terms "ethnology" and "ethnography" were originally treated as synonyms. However, since the late 1920s in the USSR, ethnology, along with sociology, began to be considered
"bourgeois" science. Therefore, in the Soviet era, the term "ethnology" was almost completely replaced by the term "ethnography". In recent years, however,
the trend has prevailed to call this science, following Western and American models - ethnology or sociocultural
anthropology.
What is an ethnos, or an ethnic group (more precisely, an ethnic community or an ethnic
group)? This understanding varies greatly in different disciplines - ethnology,
psychology, sociology and representatives of different scientific schools and directions. Here
briefly about some of them.
Thus, many Russian ethnologists continue to consider ethnicity as a real
existing concept - a social group that has developed in the course of historical
development of society (V. Pimenov). According to J. Bromley, ethnos is historically
a stable group of people that has developed in a certain territory, possessing
common relatively stable features of the language, culture and psyche, and
also awareness of its unity (self-consciousness), fixed in self-name.
The main thing here is self-awareness and a common self-name. L. Gumilyov understands ethnicity
primarily as a natural phenomenon; this or that group of people (dynamic
system) that opposes itself to other similar collectives (we do not
we), having its own special internal
structure and predetermined stereotype of behavior. Such an ethnic stereotype, according to
Gumilyov, is not inherited, but is acquired by the child in the process
cultural socialization and is quite strong and unchanged during
human life. S. Arutyunov and N. Cheboksarov considered ethnicity as a spatial
limited clusters of specific cultural information, and interethnic
contacts - as an exchange of such information. There is also a point of view
which an ethnos is, like a race, originally, an eternally existing community
people, and belonging to it determines their behavior and national character.
According to the extreme point of view, belonging to an ethnic group is determined by birth -
at present, among serious scientists, almost no one shares it.
In foreign anthropology, there has recently been a widespread belief that ethnos
(or rather, an ethnic group, since foreign anthropologists avoid using
the word "ethnos") is an artificial construct that arose as a result of purposeful
the efforts of politicians and intellectuals. However, most researchers agree that ethnos (ethnic group)
represents one of the most stable groups, or communities of people.
This is an intergenerational community, stable over time, with a stable composition, with
In this case, each person has a stable ethnic status, it is impossible to “exclude” him
from an ethnic group.
In general, one should pay attention to the fact that the theory of ethnos is a favorite brainchild of domestic
scientists; in the West, the problems of ethnicity are discussed in a completely different way.
Western scientists have priority in developing the theory of the nation.
Back in 1877, E. Renan gave an etatist definition of the concept of “nation”: a nation unites
all residents of this state, regardless of their race, ethnicity. Religious
accessories, etc. Since the 19th century.
Two models of the nation took shape: French and German. French model, following
Renan, corresponds to the understanding of the nation as a civil society
(state) based on political choice and civil kinship.
The reaction to this French model was that of the German Romantics, appealing
to the “voice of blood”, according to her, the nation is an organic community, connected
common culture. Nowadays people talk about "Western" and "Eastern" models of society,
or about the civil (territorial) and ethnic (genetic) models of the nation.
scientists believe that the idea of a nation is often used for political purposes - by the ruling
or wishing to gain power groupings. What
concerns ethnic groups, or ethnic groups (ethnic groups), then in foreign, and in recent
years and in domestic science it is customary to distinguish three main approaches to this
range of problems - primordialist, constructivist and instrumentalist
(or situationist).
A few words about each of them:
One of the "pioneers" in the study of ethnicity, whose research had a huge impact on social science,
was a Norwegian scientist F. Barth, who argued that ethnicity is one of the forms
social organization, culture (ethnic - socially organized
kind of culture). He also introduced the important concept of "ethnic boundary" - el
that critical feature of an ethnic group beyond which the attribution to it ends
members of this group itself, as well as the assignment to it by members of other groups.
In the 1960s, like other theories of ethnicity, the theory of primordialism (from the English primordial - original) was put forward.
The direction itself arose much earlier, it goes back to the already mentioned
ideas of the German romantics, his followers considered ethnos to be the original and
unchanging association of people on the principle of "blood", i.e. with permanent
signs. This approach has been developed not only in German, but also in Russian
ethnology. But more on that later. In the 1960s. spread in the West
biological-racial, and "cultural" form of primordialism. Yes, one of her
founders, K. Girtz argued that ethnic self-consciousness (identity) refers
to "primordial" feelings and that these primordial feelings largely determine
people's behavior. These feelings, however, wrote K. Girtz, are not innate,
but arise in people as part of the process of socialization and in the future there are
as fundamental, sometimes - as immutable and determining the behavior of people -
members of the same ethnic group. The theory of primordialism has repeatedly been subjected to serious criticism, in particular
from the supporters of F. Barth. So D. Baker noted that feelings are changeable and
are situationally determined and cannot generate the same behavior.
As a reaction to primordialism, ethnicity began to be understood as an element of ideology (attributing oneself to
this group or attributing someone to it by members of other groups). Ethnicity and ethnic groups have become
considered also in the context of the struggle for resources, power and privileges. .
Before characterizing other approaches to ethnicity (ethnic groups), it would be appropriate to recall the definition,
given to an ethnic group by the German sociologist M. Weber. According to him, this
a group of people whose members have a subjective belief in a common
descent by reason of similarity in physical appearance or customs, or both
the other together, or because of shared memory. Here it is emphasized
FAITH in a common origin. And in our time, many anthropologists believe that the main
a differentiating feature for an ethnic group can be an IDEA of community
origin and/or history.
In general, in the West, in contrast to primordialism and under the influence of Barth's ideas, they received the greatest
dissemination of the constructivist approach to ethnicity. His supporters considered
ethnos is a construct created by individuals or elites (powerful, intellectual,
cultural) with specific goals (struggle for power, resources, etc.). Many
also emphasize the role of ideology (above all, nationalisms) in the construction of
ethnic communities. The followers of constructivism include English
scientist B. Anderson (his book bears a “speaking” and expressive title “Imaginary
community" - its fragments were posted on this site), E. Gellner (about him, too
was discussed on this site) and many others whose works are considered classics.
At the same time, some scientists are not satisfied with the extremes of both approaches. There are attempts to "reconcile" them:
attempts to present ethnic groups as "symbolic" communities based on
sets of symbols - again, belief in a common origin, in a common past, a common
fate, etc. Many anthropologists emphasize that ethnic groups arose
relatively recent: they are not eternal and immutable, but change under
the impact of specific situations, circumstances - economic, political and
etc.
In domestic science, the theory of ethnos has become especially popular, moreover, initially
in its extreme primordialist (biological) interpretation. It was developed by S.M. Shirokogorov, who
considered the ethnos as a biosocial organism, singling out its main
characteristics of origin, as well as language, customs, way of life and tradition
[Shirokogorov, 1923. P. 13]. In many ways, his follower was L.N. Gumilyov,
partly continuing this tradition, he considered the ethnos as a biological system,
highlighting passionarity as the highest stage of its development [Gumilyov, 1993]. About
Quite a lot has been written about this approach, but now there are few serious researchers
fully shares the views of L.N. Gumilyov, which can be considered an extreme expression
primordial approach. This theory has its roots in the views of the German
romantics to a nation, or an ethnic group from the position of "common blood and soil", i.e.
some kindred group. Hence the intolerance of L.N. Gumilev to
mixed marriages, whose descendants he considered "chimerical formations",
connecting the unconnected.
P.I. Kushner believed that ethnic groups differ from each other in a number of specific features,
among which the scientist especially singled out language, material culture (food, housing,
clothes, etc.), as well as ethnic identity [Kushner, 1951. P.8-9].
The studies of S.A. Arutyunova and N.N.
Cheboksarova. According to them, “... ethnic groups are spatially limited
"clumps" of specific cultural information, and interethnic contacts - the exchange
such information”, and information links were considered as the basis for the existence
ethnos [Arutyunov, Cheboksarov, 1972. P. 23-26]. In a later work, S.A. Arutyunova
an entire chapter devoted to this problem bears a "talking" title: "The Network
communications as the basis of ethnic existence” [Arutyunov, 2000]. The idea of
ethnic groups as specific "clumps" of cultural information and
internal information relations is very close to the modern understanding of any
systems as a kind of information field, or information structure. IN
further S.A. Arutyunov directly writes about this [Arutyunov, 2000. pp. 31, 33].
A characteristic feature of the theory of ethnos is that its followers consider
ethnic groups as a universal category, i.e. people, according to it, belonged to
to some ethnic group / ethnic group, much less often - to several ethnic groups. Supporters
This theory believed that ethnic groups were formed in one or another historical
period and transformed in accordance with changes in society. Marxist influence
theory was also expressed in attempts to correlate the development of ethnic groups with a five-member division
development of mankind - the conclusion that each socio-economic formation
corresponds to its own type of ethnos (tribe, slave-owning people, capitalist
nationality, capitalist nation, socialist nation).
In the future, the theory of ethnos was developed by many Soviet researchers, in
features Yu.V. Bromley, who
believed that ethnos is “... a historically established
in a certain area
a stable group of people who share relatively stable
features of the language, culture and psyche, as well as the consciousness of their unity and
differences from other similar formations (self-awareness), fixed in
self-name" [Bromley, 1983. S. 57-58]. Here we see the impact of ideas
primordialism - S. Shprokogorov, and M. Weber.
The theory of Yu.V. Bromley, like his supporters, was rightly criticized back in the Soviet period.
So, M.V. Kryukov repeatedly and, in my opinion, quite rightly noted
the far-fetchedness of this entire system of nationalities and nations [Kryukov, 1986, p.58-69].
EAT. Kolpakov, for example, points out that under the Bromley definition of ethnos
many groups are suitable, not only ethnic ones [Kolpakov, 1995. p. 15].
Since the mid-1990s, Russian literature has begun to spread
views close to constructivist. According to them, ethnic groups are not real
existing communities, and the constructs created by the political elite or
scientists for practical purposes (for details, see: [Tishkov, 1989. P. 84; Tishkov,
2003, p. 114; Cheshko, 1994, p. 37]). So, according to V.A. Tishkov (one of the works
which bears the expressive name "Requiem for an Ethnos"), Soviet scientists themselves
created a myth about the unconditionally objective reality of ethnic communities, as
certain archetypes [Tishkov, 1989. p.5], the researcher himself considers ethnic groups to be artificial
constructions that exist only in the minds of ethnographers [Tishkov, 1992], or
the result of elite efforts to construct ethnicity [Tishkov, 2003. p.
118]. V.A. Tishkov defines an ethnic group as a group of people whose members have
a common name and elements of culture, a myth (version) about a common origin and
common historical memory, associate themselves with a special territory and have a sense of
solidarity [Tishkov, 2003. p.60]. Again - the impact of the ideas of Max Weber, expressed
nearly a century ago...
Not all researchers share this point of view, which has developed not without the influence of ideas
M. Weber, for example, S.A. Arutyunov, who repeatedly criticized it [Arutyunov,
1995. P.7]. Some researchers working in line with the Soviet theory
ethnos, consider ethnoi to be an objective reality that exists independently of our
consciousness.
I would like to note that, despite the sharp criticism of the supporters of the theory of ethnos,
the views of constructivist researchers are not so radically different from
first glances. In the definitions of ethnic groups or ethnic groups given
listed scientists, we see a lot in common, although the attitude to the identified
objects diverge. Moreover, wittingly or unwittingly, many researchers
repeat the definition of an ethnic group given by M. Weber. I will repeat it again
times: an ethnic group is a group of people whose members have a subjective
belief in a common origin due to the similarity of physical appearance or customs,
or both together, or because of shared memory. So the basics
M. Weber had a significant impact on various approaches to the study of ethnicity.
Moreover, his definition of an ethnic group was sometimes used almost verbatim
supporters of different paradigms.
Offhand, a rhetorical question. It seems that everything here is absolutely clear and understandable.
The nation is the people unitedits origin, language, common views, a single place of residence.
The people are people united not only by one history, land and common language, but also unifiedstate system.
It is from the identity of worldviews that such phrases as “the great American nation”, “Russian people”, “people of Israel” arose.
It must be said that with the words "nation" and "people" is closely connected the concept of " nationalism". And there are plenty of stories when liberal nationalism (protecting the interests of each people individually) can easily turn into extreme nationalism (chauvinism). Therefore, the issue under consideration requires careful attention to itself.
Foundations of Russian statehood
In the opinion of the progressively thinking part of the population, the question of peoples and nations should, first of all, be based on constitution the country in which the person lives and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first article of the main document of the United Nations makes it clear and simple that human beings are "born free and equal" both "in dignity" and "in rights".
People living in Russia and using a single state language (Russian) proudly call themselves Russians.
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 multinationalpeople».
Thus, the concept of "people" refers to all nations and nationalities living within the boundaries of one state.
And Russia is no exception. This is the birthplace of different peoples who speak different languages, who profess different religions, and, most importantly, are distinguished by their originality of cultures and mentality.
But the question posed in the title of the article excites the minds of the public and gives rise to many completely dissimilar opinions so far.
One of the main and state-supported opinions is the assertion that “ in the friendship of peoples - the unity of Russia". And "interethnic peace" is the "basis of life" of the Russian state. But this opinion is not supported by radical nationalists who, because of their convictions, are ready to blow up the state system of the Russian Federation.
Therefore, the issues of tolerance, patriotism, interethnic conflicts, an active life position, are brought up for public discussion by no means by chance.
After all, it is no longer a secret that in interethnic relations the problem of not only cruelty, but also real aggression, has become very aggravated. This is primarily due to economicproblems(competition for jobs), and after that with the search for those responsible for the current economic situation in the state. After all, it is always easier to say that if “not for these…”, then we would have butter on the table.
Scientific understanding of the terms "people" and "nation"
Let us consider the concepts of "nation" and "people" more specifically. There is no single understanding of the term “nation” today.
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 it is a community of people that happenedhistorically based on the unity of land, economy, politics, language, culture and mentality. All this together is expressed in a single civic consciousness.
The second point of view says that a nation is a unity of people who are characterized by a common origin, language, land, economy, perception of the world and culture. Their relationship is shown in ethnicconsciousness.
The first point of view asserts that the nation is democraticfellow citizenship.
In the second case, it is stated that the nation is an ethnos. It is this point of view that prevails in the general human consciousness.
Let's consider these concepts.
It is believed that ethnicity is historicallystable community of people living on a certain land, which have features of external similarity, a common culture, language, a single way of thinking and consciousness. On the basis of associations of clans, tribes and nationalities, a nation was formed. The creation of a cohesive state contributed to their formation.
Therefore, in the scientific understanding, the nation is considered as a civil community of people. And then, as a community of people of a certain state.
Civil and ethno-cultural nations
Despite the different approaches to the concept of the word "nation", all the participants in the discussions are unanimous in one thing: there are two types of nations - ethno-cultural and civil.
If we talk about the peoples of Russia, then we can say that all the small nationalities inhabiting the North of the Russian Federation are ethno-cultural nations.
And the Russian people is a civil nation, since it was practically formed already within the existing statehood with a common political history and laws.
And, of course, when it comes to nations, one should not forget their fundamental right - the right of a nation to self-determination. This international term, which is considered by representatives of all states, gives the nation the opportunity to secede from a particular state and form its own.
However, it must be said that during the collapse of the USSR, the Russian people, who are in most republics in a large numerical superiority, did not manage to use this right and practically remained the most divided nation in the world.
About the main differences between the people and the nation
Based on all of the above, we can safely say that the nation and the people - conceptstotally different, but having a single root of education.
The people are culturalcomponent, that is, these are people connected not only by blood ties, but having a single state language, culture, territory and common past.
Nation - politicalcomponent of the state. That is, a nation is a people who have managed to create their own state. Without it, the nation does not exist. For example, Russians who live abroad are among the Russian people, but not the Russian nation. They are identified with the nation of the state where they live.
Citizenship is the only criterion by which a nation is determined. In addition, one must reckon with such a concept as a “titular” nation. Their language is most often the state language, and their culture becomes dominant. At the same time, other nations and nationalities living on their territory do not lose their individuality.
Conclusion
And there is one more thing I would like to say. Nations, good or bad, do not exist, there are people, good or bad, and their actions. This should always be remembered. After all, Russia is a lot of nationality. And knowledge of the concepts of "people" and "nation" will help to accept and understand the ethnic diversity of the country with the proud name of Russia.
Increased attention to national problems gave impetus to the development of ethnology (or ethnography) - a science that studies the composition, origin, settlement and cultural and historical relationships of peoples, their material and spiritual culture, and features of life. In ethnology, the concepts of an ethnos and a nation, which is a type of ethnos, are separated.
Approaches to the definition of an ethnos: 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 by 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. Gumilyov, O. Huntington and others.
So, according to Yu.V. Bromley, an ethnic community is “only that set of people who are aware of themselves as such, distinguishing themselves from other similar communities”. If we consider the problem of isolation, isolation of ethnic communities in its genesis, then the initial stage was the isolation, isolation 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 a causal, 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 being, self-determining as an independent social subject with its own essential forces, ethnic individuality.
In the theory of the creation of ethnogenesis, a huge role belongs to L.N. Gumilyov. In his vision, "an ethnos is a stable, naturally formed group of people that opposes itself to all other similar groups and is distinguished by a peculiar stereotype of behavior that naturally changes in historical time." Ethnos 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 customs, customs, and cults.
Ethnicity, found in the minds of people, is not a product of consciousness itself. It reflects some side of human nature, much deeper, external in relation to consciousness and psychology, by which we mean a form of higher nervous activity.
Any ethnic group living in its usual landscape is almost in a state of equilibrium. Ethnos, on objective grounds, is a natural phenomenon, and according to the 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 ethnos is subjected to a whole range of interrelated 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 is no longer just mores and customs, but state law and systematized morality. A necessary prerequisite for a nation is a developed culture.
The basis of the ethnos is the folklore-ethnographic, national-spiritual basis - an expanded cultural principle. If in the first case, relations between people are regulated through customs, traditions, then in the second case through state-legal norms. The nation is polyethnic.
A nation, unlike 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 does not have any personal merit in belonging to an ethnic group, he does not choose an ethnic group, then a nation can be chosen. The nation can also be changed.
In any case, ethnicity does not yet characterize belonging to a particular nation. It is possible to be ethnically Lithuanian and consider yourself belonging to the American nation. The nation is the state, social, cultural affiliation of the individual, and not his anthropological and ethnic certainty.
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 one nation only if they are united by one culture, which in turn is understood as a system of ideas, conventional signs, 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 convictions, passions and inclinations."
The national affiliation of a person as a specific form of social relations is a more complex phenomenon than the ethnicity of a person. It includes the specifics of social relations, social institutions, traditions that take place in a given national community. National affiliation is an indicator that the national as a public education is individualized, national values, a system of national traditions in various spheres of public life, customs, rituals, social symbols are included in the characteristics of the individual.
The ethnicity of a person cut off from the bulk of his people, living as part of other nations and in other states, is transmitted by virtue of 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 in this case is the change in the ethnic consciousness of the individual. Only then can we talk about assimilation, when new signs are formed and new ethnic variants are created.
V. Tishkov proposed to abandon the term "nation" in its ethnic meaning and to keep 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 a nation as a fellow-citizenship. From their point of view, only "own" national-territorial formations will protect ethnic minorities from the loss of their rights.
These are the main characteristics of an ethnos and a nation that are currently taking place in the scientific community. The range of these concepts is much wider, but here are the most common ones.
