вход по аккаунту



код для вставки
UDC 32
V.L. Khamov
Russian state social university
Kamensk-Shakhtinsk, Russia
[Ментальность как категория современного политического дискурса]
Considering the specific reaction of Russian society modernization impulses in the political sphere, it is necessary to address the underlying reasons of political processes, including, of course, is the phenomenon of mentality, unambiguous interpretation which would satisfy the theoretical framework of the representatives of different sciences.
Speaking about the peculiarities of the political mentality must come from their formation is influenced by two main
factors: the specificity of culture of Russia and specificity of formation and functioning of power in the Russian state.
Key words: political mentality, stereotypes of modern politics, the personification of political institutions, the
formation and functioning of government, the specifics of the Russian culture.
Speaking about the process of political modernization in contemporary Russia, it should be
noted that under the political modernization, we understand the formation, development and
dissemination of modern political institutions, practices, and contemporary political structures that
are most likely to provide an adequate response to the challenges of the political system of today. It
should be emphasized that the modern Russian society responds to specific modernization impulses
in the political sphere, reaching the top. Among the main features of this reaction can be identified
aversion, passive resistance of the population to all kinds of innovations (including political), the
slow accumulation of contradictions and potential discontent crisis nationalism Local or personal
identity. In the understanding of these processes, scientists are increasingly turning to the deep
foundations of political processes, including, without Sun yakogo doubt, is the phenomenon of
At present, the study of mentality can be reliably measured are the following areas:
philosophical, political science, historical, psychological, ethnological, mythological, philological,
cultural, sociological, economic, science. For each of these areas there are dozens of scientists and
hundreds of studies. But from a preliminary analysis of the degree of scientific problem elaboration
influence mentality on the processes of political modernization hundred becomes noticeable by the
fact that an unambiguous interpretation of the phenomenon of mentality is hardly possible, it is
impossible, and probably the definition of mentality that to satisfy the theoretical level
representatives of the various sciences. According to the compiler the famous book "The history of
mentalities, historical anthropology 'EM Mikhina, when studying the mentality of the most glaring
problem - the lack of unity over the fact that she is the same mentality. [1]
Here is how the characteristic of mentality in the field of political science: "For the
mentality characterized by: unreflecting , stereotypical manifestations (subconscious nature of
response); high stability, the effects of recalcitrance by the state and others. social institutions in
trying to radical changes . Development and specific mentality determined by a complex of factors:
geoclimatic (topography, climate, geographical location, etc..), Ethnohistorical , socio-economic,
religious, political (the influence of the political regime), and others. "[2]. As we see here, instead of
determining the characteristic of listing the symptoms, and it does not have a definition in its
original meaning .
To analyze contemporary reading mentality we have attempted to give his definition of this
Mentality - is biologically determined, socially and culturally anchored particular variants of
thinking and actions of individuals, groups and society as a whole concrete, which can be
accumulated and transferred into the sphere of the subconscious, performing further function
reflexes. This definition we consider an operational, without claim to comprehensiveness.
Let us now consider the following problem - on the features of the political mentality.
These features are influenced by two main factors: the specificity of Russian culture and specificity
of formation, functioning government in Russia's com State.
Understandably, start the analysis of the political mentality in its Russian version is
necessary since the distinctive features of "Russian-ness" which have already recorded some
researchers in the analysis of Russian culture.
It should be recognized that the allocation of the archetypal characteristics of Russian
political culture is one of the most difficult research problems, that very accurately noticed VY
Surkov: "Stereotypes of modern politics are played with a unique matrix of the national way of life,
character, and worldview." He writes that this fact gives the Russian political practice at least three
clear characteristics:
Firstly, it is the desire for political integrity through the centralization of power functions.
Second, the idealization of the goals of political struggle.
Third, the personification of political institutions [3].
The third feature, the personification of political institutions, is especially significant.
Russian political practice shows that political parties are firmly attached to the person of
their leaders. So "United Russia" is unthinkable without VV Putin, the LDPR without VV
Zhirinovsky, Communist Party without GA Zyuganov.
However, there are some difficult to explain oddities. In the opinion polls, the results
showed that the level of public trust in political institutions directly determined by the degree of
personalization and blizos minute to the Supreme center. So directly to this center, the President, to
a greater extent than other authorities, 55% of respondents trusted. Preferred to rely on the head of
the region, the region, the republic - 20%. And only 8% of their hopes for the best with the head of
the city, village. Supreme and Constitutional courts trusted 10-11%, five times more than the
district and regional with their 2%. Least trusted in comparison with other authorities has
representative power, whose image is blurred. But here, the Federal Assembly (4%) was
significantly more popular than local parliaments (2%) [4].
VY Surkov is not alone in its assessments, it echoes the FA Kazin, who in his analytical
article "voice, and well .... The problem of trust in the authorities in Russia, "wrote the following:"
Many peer reviews of recent years agree that the Russian people generally do not trust the
government. However, he voted for the government. We all know the results of the recent
parliamentary and presidential elections. I wonder why society feels constant social stress (poverty,
crime, corruption, poor health) nevertheless believes that the current social and economic policy
should be continued? Particular support he enjoys in the most disadvantaged regions of Russia
(rural areas, small towns, etc. ). If people do not trust the government, why vote for her? "[5].
It is in this case visible feature of Russia's political mentality, which is associated with the
traditional model of perception system Topics Russian authorities: "The king is good, the boyars are
bad." That is why Putin's popularity in Russia is based not only on the promotion, but also on the
mental perception of Russian (and not to) the public authority. Another NA Berdyaev wrote that
"the Russian people at the same time is a public-despotic and anarchic freedom-loving," [6].
Summarizing the views of scientists on the issue of Russia's political mentality (political
mentality), we note the following:
1) In the Russian political mentality dominates a certain image of the government, the
structure of which play a crucial role mustache SETTING paternalism.
2) the specifics of the Russian political mentality is a cult of the government, in adoration in
front of her as the embodiment of strength and domination.
3) In the Russian political mentality state is identified with a large family.
4) In the Russian political mentality exclusive place is "a passion for order."
At the end of the consideration of the features of formation of the political mentality in
terms of its present two Russian historical evidence . One belongs to our compatriot AD Gradovsky
second Frenchman de Custine.
AD Gradovsky, describing the Russian system of government, and the role of the masses,
said: "The rights of state udarstvennoy authorities, in their entirety, belong to the Emperor. None of
the areas of administration, which had not been subordinated to his autocracy. But it does not follow
that the emperor to exercise their rights directly. Proper organization presupposes the existence of
intermediate authorities, acting in the name of the emperor, but independently among cases
submitted to them. This idea is expressed in the Mandate of Empress Catherine: the basic laws of
the state of necessity involve the average ducts ie Government, through which the actions of the
authorities of the State "[7]. Note, in this model of organization of power is not a word about the
Russian people.
Similar in meaning, but more vivid form statement belongs to the Frenchman de Custine,
who in the first half of the XIX century, wrote: "There is today a man on earth who would enjoy
such unlimited power. You will not find any of this in Turkey, not even in China. Imagine all tested
for centuries the art of our governments surrendered still young and semi-natural society; all the
administrative experience of the West, used oriental despotism; European discipline, supported by
the Asian tyranny; police set out to conceal the barbarity, not fight it; tactics of European armies,
serving for the eastern methods of policy; Imagine a half-civilized people, which militarized and
vymushtrovali, but not civilized - and you'll see what position is the Russian people.
Take advantage of all the administrative achievements of European countries in order to run
on purely oriental way shes tidesyatimillionnym people - this is the task of the resolution which
since the days of Peter I excel all the monarchs of Russia "[8 ].
For the most part this is why the government of the Russian civilization is the limit of relatedness of
individuals with each other and society and attitudes towards it differs duality. Along with awe and
reverence present its rejection, sometimes poured into large-scale revolutionary action as a social
"bottom" and social "top". The explanation of this phenomenon is hidden in the sacred notions of
social order from which no escape. [9] And as proof of this statistic. For example, in March 2012,
there were 54% of the population that is indifferent to politics (versus 42% interest uyuschihsya
policy issues). The characteristic features of today's political life in Russia - a persistently low
legitimacy of political institutions with equally stable populyarnos ti president. For example, 75%
of the state believe that Russian society is important election authorities but 77% believe that
anything from them or not depends depends very little. The result is a logical inconsistency when
citizens believe that in Russia as a whole formed a democratic Kie political institutions, but in fact
continue to negatively relate to participate in the elections.
1. Argunova V.N. Mental foundation Russian notions of social justice // Modern Problems of
the Russian mentality. All-Russian Scientific-Practical Conference 24-25 November 2005. /
Editor. Ed. V.E. Semenov. St. Petersburg, 2005.
2. Berdyaev N.A. Origin of Russian Communism. M., 1990.
3. Glossary of Political Psychology. M.: People's Friendship University, 2003.
4. Gradovsky A.D. Beginning of the Russian state law. T. 1. SPb 1875.
5. The history of mentalities, historical anthropology. Foreign studies in reviews and abstracts.
M .: in IWH RAS, Russian State Humanitarian University, 1996.
6. Kazin F.A. "Voice, and well ...". The problem of trust in the authorities in Rossii.Sm.: Http:
// doveriya k vlasti v rossii
2008-6-9-54-14.htm .
7. Custine de Astolf. Russia in 1839 // Russia first half of the XIX century through the eyes of
foreigners / Comp. Y.A. Lemons. L .: Lenizdat, 1991.
8. Surkov
9. Cherkasova M.A., Khamov V.L. Motives mentality in search of a model of modernization
of Russia // Humanities and social and economic sciences. 2009. № 3.
10. Cherkasova M.A., Khamov V.L. Macro-control and the transformation of society //
economic and humanitarian research areas. 2011. № 3.
1. Аргунова В.Н. Ментальные основания российских представлений о социальной
справедливости // Современные проблемы российской ментальности. Материалы
Всероссийской научно-практической конференции 24-25 ноября 2005 года. /Отв. Ред.
В.Е. Семенов. СПб, 2005.
2. Бердяев Н.А. Истоки и смысл русского коммунизма. М.,1990.
3. Глоссарий по политической психологии. М.: РУДН, 2003.
4. Градовский А.Д. Начало русского государственного права. Т. 1. СПб, 1875.
5. История ментальностей, историческая антропология. Зарубежные исследования в
обзорах и рефератах. М.: Изд-во ИВИ РАН, РГГУ, 1996.
6. Казин Ф.А. «Голосуют, и хорошо…». Проблема доверия к власти в
России.См.: doveriya
k vlasti v rossii 2008-6-9-54-14.htm.
7. Кюстин Астольф де. Россия в 1839 году // Россия первой половины XIX века глазами
иностранцев /Сост. Ю.А. Лимонов. Л.: Лениздат, 1991.
8. Сурков В.Ю. Русская политическая культура. Взгляд из утопии //
9. Черкасова М.А., Хамов В.Л. Мотивы ментальности в поисках модели модернизации
России // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. 2009. № 3.
10. Черкасова М.А., Хамов В.Л. Макроструктурный контроль и трансформация общества
// Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. 2011. № 3.
November, 30, 2014
Размер файла
85 Кб
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа