CC BY
15
B. Aksyumov,
D. Sc. (Philosophy), North Caucasian Federal University FORMATION OF CIVILIZATORY IDENTITY AS SOCIAL CAPITAL OF MODERN RUSSIA
The Russian state and society are now at a stage of the fundamental socio-cultural transition and a search for the ways and technologies of evolution in the 21st century. This transition is accompanied with indefiniteness of new socio-cultural forms and turbulent development. However, if we look at the entire panorama of the development of the world community we shall see that the entire world is in a state of transition to turbulence, and Russia is not in any special position. The fundamental shifts in world development connected with the rapid leap into "post-modernity" have not only aggravated socio-political, cultural, civilizatory, and other contradictions, but put to the fore the problem of identity. The processes of globalization and localization, secularization and religious renaissance, post-modernization and archaism have complicated and muddled the social and cultural-civilizatory landscape of our epoch. This whimsical intertwining in a uniform chronological field of antipode worldviews, cultural standards and principles lead to a paradoxical effect, when, for example, in Saudi Arabia women are flogged for driving a car, and in Europe one-sex marriages are legalized
almost everywhere. In such world full of contradictions and paradoxes to the limit, the problems of identity invariably come to the fore.
Ethnic Confession as a Factor of Disintegration
In studying the problems of identity in Russia we should take into account the general situation in the world, inasmuch as it lays an imprint on many processes going on here. However, within the Russian socio-cultural medium contradictions between the universal and the local (specific), between tendencies of secularization and powerful processes of religious revival, between post-modernization and archaism become ever more evident. Such ambivalence of the evolution of the socio-cultural medium of Russia demonstrates considerable disunity of Russian society and the presence of actors with completely different values and cultural standards in it. Emphasis on cultural, ethnic and confessional differences sometimes provokes conflicts.
Such situation is natural, inasmuch as there is a crisis of integration forms of identity, along with the strengthening of ethno-confessional identities, which quite often come out as a disintegrating factor. As a result, conflicts flare up regularly on an ethnic and confessional basis, which are largely due to ethno-cultural differences. The exacerbation of the situation has taken place after the disintegration of the U.S.S.R., when in many areas of Russia, especially in the North Caucasus, the processes of ethnic and religious revival began to develop without any control. Ethnic and confessional identities, which had been suppressed for many decades, have "suddenly" become the key ones determining almost everything. As a result, group identities of some peoples of the Russian Federation have come to the fore primarily as ethno-confessional, and only then as civil.
One may argue that the key to solving interethnic and inter-confessional problems in the present-day Russian Federation is the
integrating structuring of identification area, which presupposes renunciation of the priority of ethnic-confessional factor and establishment of civil and civilizatory identities as the priority ones. However, to implement this model is far from simple because the present situation is not in favor of the integrating identities.
This assertion is confirmed by the results of sociological surveillances carried on in different Russian regions. For example, as shown by a survey in Bashkortostan in 2012, ethnic identification prevails over state-civil one at present, due to a number of reasons (socio-economic, political, security, etc.).
This conclusion is in line with the conclusion made after our survey carried out in some parts of the Southern Federal region in 2009. At that time ethnic identity was named as "very important" or simply "important" by 83.6 percent of respondents, which gave it the key role among all types of identity. At the same time ethnic identity was defined as "very important" by 55.9 percent of respondents, which largely surpasses the similar attitude to civil identity (35.2 percent). We made a conclusion that although civil and ethnic identities are not mutually exclusive and are included in the uniform "bag of identities" of modern Russian citizen, they compete with each other in the region under review. Such situation exists not only in the south of the country, but in other regions as well.
Naturally, such rivalry does not need to renounce any one of these types of identity. Ethnic and civil identities are related to each other not in the category "either - or" (one should oust the other), but in the category "and - and." At the same time it is necessary to note that a sharp increase of ethnic identity is a direct consequence of the collapse of Soviet identity and weakness of Russian civil identity. It can be said that along with increasing civil and civilizatory identities and their
integrating character the significance of ethnic, as well as confessional identities will gradually be reduced.
As to confessional identity, its significance in the structure of identities of modern Russian citizen is quite great. This concerns certain republics of the North Caucasus. The ideology of unity of all Muslims and their imperative affiliation with the world Muslim umma make it possible to talk not only of the value-worldview, but also of civilizatory separation of the North Caucasus as a Muslim region.
As a result of actualization and politicization of ethno-confessional identities a conflict of identities arises in the format of individual being, and also in big social groups. The ideas of national consolidation and civil unity concentrated at the level of civil identity do not always get priority over narrow ethnic and narrow confessional values and principles. Such conflict of identities is expressed, for instance, in unwillingness to observe the principles of secular society, in preservation of archaic socio-cultural models in the conditions of modernization. The presence of such conflict shows weakness of the modern variant of Russian civil identity and its insufficiency to ensure the national unity of the Russian Federation.
Weakness of Russian Civil Identity
Indeed, Russian civil identity in modern Russia is a very important but relatively simple construction based on the formal fact of citizenship. It forms citizens, but does not create a people. Insufficiency of civil identity as the foundation of national unity is manifested in intercultural relations in Russian society, when representatives of various cultural areas often feel mutual alienation, and sometimes even hostility. Social consciousness continues to be dominated by numerous ideological and cultural stereotypes. This leads to disunity of people who do not understand the essence of their unity, despite their being
citizens of one state, and do not see common aims and social orientation points. In the conditions of intercultural disunity, disharmony of worldview principles and value orientations, civil identity plays the role of the formal marker of citizens' affiliation to a definite state, and nothing more. Civil community formed on the basis of civil identification is devoid of deep-going integrating ties today, the cementing ties which make society consolidated and precludes conflicts between citizens.
According to sociological polls revealing civil identity in 2011, 95 percent of those polled identified themselves as "citizens of Russia," and 72 percent felt their community with Russian citizens "to a considerable degree." Judging by the results of surveillance, this is the strongest and more confident identity among other quite significant identities.
In our view, such conclusion can be made with regard to a great part of the Russian population at the present time. The point is that the Russian people have been included in the processes of ethnoconfessional revival in lesser degree and throughout the postSoviet years remained a people oriented not to ethno-determined structures and organizations, but to the state. In determining Russian nationalism and its manifestations and taking into consideration the measures undertaken for the revival of Orthodox Christianity, a great part of the Russian population has been, and remains, uncommitted ethnically and indifferent enough to religious problems. The level of ethnic mobilization of the Russian population and the degree of its religiousness are much weaker than those of other peoples of the Russian Federation. In Soviet time the Russian population in national republics played a considerable stabilizing and integrating role. After the disintegration of the U.S.S.R. and the actual eviction of Russians from a number of national republics of the North Caucasus, the
situation has become rather tense, and separatist tendencies have grown much stronger there. As a result, there were two Chechen wars and virtual cultural-civilizatory disintegration of the eastern republics of the North Caucasus.
A view seems quite justified that it is precisely the Russians who influence the formation of common all-Russia cultural values and orientations to supporting Russian self-consciousness and patriotism. The Russian population also plays an important role of the stabilizing element in interethnic relations in the region, preventing tensions and conflicts between groups and between titular ethnic groups, which have historical roots. In the conditions of the total reduction of the numerical strength of the Russian population the significance of the common Russian values and symbols in the North Caucasian region have sharply diminished. In this connection one can argue that in some national republics of the Russian Federation civil identity means, first of all, loyalty to the state which is regarded as the patriarchal origin rather than the real feeling of affiliation to its values and symbols.
It was due to this reason that the modern variant of Russian civil identity is unable to solve the task of overcoming interethnic and interconfessional contradictions. In other words, Russian identity has formed, but it has not resulted in any improvement of the interethnic situation in the country, moreover it becomes exacerbated from time to time.
Naturally, solution of the complex of ethnoconfessional problems is a systemic task requiring socio-economic progress, political stability and cultural efforts. But in our view, the problem is concentrated in the identification field. If civil identity, at least in the form of its existence in the mentality of Russians nowadays, is not effective enough, it is necessary to search for such form of identity which would give an opportunity to advance along the road of solving the task of
harmonization of ethnoconfessional relations in the Russian Federation. Civilizatory identity, that is, a considerable social capital of modern Russia, is precisely such form of identity.
Formation of Civilizatory Identity - Foundation
of Ensuring National Unity of Russia
Interest in civilizatory identity as a new opportunity to ensure national unity of Russia has become much greater. Against the backdrop of the collapse of the policy of multiculturalism in many European countries, it became evident that reliance on the formation of civil identity alone with the absolutization of civilizatory self-determination does not justify itself.
The subject of searching for civilizatory identity is developed in the Strategy of state nationalities policy of the Russian Federation during the period until 2025. It noted, among other things, that the modern Russian state is united by the single cultural (civilizatory) code based on the preservation and development of Russian culture and the language, historical and cultural heritage of all peoples of Russia and characterized by striving for truth and justice, respect of original traditions of the peoples inhabiting Russia and ability to integrate their best achievements in single Russian culture.
The concept of "civilizatory code" fulfills the most important function to consolidate the ideas of continuity of Russia's being in the world and in the mentality of Russian citizens. It is the mythology of the civilizatory code that lies in the basis of the formation of civilizatory identity of present-day Russian society. The main component of this civilizatory identity is the idea of unity and inviolability of the millennium-long historical experience of Russia's existence, conviction of the need to preserve cultural and civilizatory constants, which became part of our present life, despite the collapse of
the state systems of Russia in different epochs - Kiev Rus, Moscovy Czardom, and the Soviet Union.
In this sense the new Russian state is a historically conditioned modification of the cultural-civilizatory tradition, which has been developing for over one thousand years already. The formation of civil identity of new Russia should proceed on the basis of the trans-historical civilizatory principles symbolizing the continuous development and entirety of the millennium-long existence of Russia in world history. The crisis of civil identity, which has not yet been overcome, is conditioned by the crisis of civilizatory identity, the loss of deep-going ties with the civilizatory code of Russia and its cultural and historical heritage. As a consequence, civil identity is built on the basis of the new Russian state and its symbols, which have largely lost their historical aura and sacral meaning in the mentality of Russian citizens.
Full-fledged civil identity constituting such important parameters of human life as values, meanings, principles, cultural standards, etc. is only possible on the basis of civilizatory identity. Inasmuch as the latter is only at the time of origination, becoming an expression of an abstract civilizatory code, Russian citizens often do not feel their community, they have no common socio-cultural values and orientations, which may result in inter-ethnic and inter-religious conflicts.
Ethnocultural differences between citizens of the multinational Russian state, having no integrating cultural-civilizatory foundation, become a conflictogenic factor, but not an advantage of Russia as compared to other states which Russian political figures often talk about. The ethnocultural variety of Russia will become a factor of development and modernization, when it is founded on the common Russian cultural-civilizatory platform enriched by the quintessence of the positive experience of Russian civilization in its thousand-long history. Civilizatory identity is an enormous social capital of modern
Russia capable to contribute to the harmonization of interethnic and inter-confessional relations, as well as to ensure national unity of the Russian Federation.
"Vestnik Rossiiskoi Natsii," Moscow, 2013, No 5, pp. 51-61.
E. Arutyunova, A. Bravin, R. Valiakhmetov,
Political analysts
TATARSTAN: PROCESS OF RE-ISLAMIZATION AND MODERN DEVELOPMENT TRENDS OF MUSLIM IDENTITY
Religious renaissance of the Tatars, taking place in the form of re-Islamization, has traversed an arduous path during the past two decades. In the early 1990s - during the crisis years of Soviet identity and in the conditions of social vacuum in the post-Soviet area the Tatars, just as the greater part of the country's entire population turned to the "original roots of the people," the "faith of the ancestors."
Re-Islamization was going on at the time in the form of ethnic confessionalization, when religion was taken for a part of popular culture, as national tradition, and Muslim identity among the Tatars bore the character of "religious nationalism." That was a period of the beginning of the restoration of the traditional Muslim status of the Tatars and the extensive development of the Muslim sphere of the republic; an ever greater number of Tatars self-identified themselves as Muslims declaring that "they were born Muslims." More mosques were built, more religious functions were arranged at various places - theaters, stadiums, at home, and elsewhere. However, the general level of interest in religion was limited to symbolic and cultural aspects.
