Каталог статей из сборников научных конференций и научных журналов- Ethnic Russian identity in the context of interethnic tolerance

V. N. Goncharov, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, assistant professor

North Caucasus Federal University,

Stavropol, Russia

Modern society in general and education as its component are characterized by the expressed integrative processes [3, p. 80–85]. It forms a basis of association of representatives of different ethnoses and cultures and, at the same time, quite often is a reason of interethnic and inter-confessional  intensity [14, p. 39–44].

At the same time it is important to notice that positive ethnic identity gives optimum balance of tolerance in relation to its own and other ethnic groups [13, p. 73–78]. On the one hand, this type of ethnic identity performs as a condition of independence and stable existence of ethnic group, on the other hand – as a condition of peaceful cross-cultural interaction in the multiethnic world, in this case  in the polycultural environment of higher education institution [4, p. 118–124].

Destructive tendencies in the interethnic relations are caused by transformations of ethnic consciousness which are shown as hyper identity [6, p. 18–22]. Whereas the hyper identity is of ethnoegoism, ethnoisolationism, ethnofanaticism nature.

Theoretical and methodological basis of the research of ethnic identity offer new conceptual approaches to the analysis of ethnic and ethnoconfessional identity [2, p. 142–145]. Forming national and civil identity of the Russians substantially relies on the ethnic identity which serves as the mobilizing and inspiring beginning for national and civil Russian consolidation [5, p. 139–144]. K. Kalkhun position that the ethnic identity is transmission medium of culture and a basis of action is confirmed by empirical researches which find out that the staticized ethnic identity substantially connects activist social installations.

Common denominator between processes of strengthening of ethnic identity and formation of national and civil and state identity is an installation of interethnic tolerance understood as adoption (in a varying degree) of cultural diversity of social space, refusal of use of violence in settlement of the interethnic and interfaith conflicts and disagreements as interaction on the basis of consent or compromise [16, p. 241].

The ideology of the Russian civic consciousness, effort of elite on formation of making Russian identity shouldn't level ethnocultural distinctions existing in social space of the Russian state and ignore the fact that Russia is a country with the prevailing Russian population. All-Russian representative researches show that the most part of the Russians perceives cultural diversity of Russia doubly, seeing in it both an advantage to its development, and a problem. These researches demonstrate that there is a problem of formation of interethnic tolerance. It should be noted that the tolerance to cultural diversity doesn't mean ethnic indifference. Positive perception of ethnocultural distinctions as a basis of tolerance and national and civil identity happens in the context of awareness of the person his own ethnicity. [11, p. 396–402]. Basis of ethnic identification will be involved in the context of formation of national and civil and state identity, such as language, general historical past, religion, elements of material and spiritual culture [7, p. 123–128] and also patriotic feelings of love to the small homeland and Russia and to faith.  

Results of empirical researches allow to be convinced that the staticized ethnic identity and solidarity interfaced to it connected with tolerant installation and public confidence in the government participate in the formation of national and civil identity [15, p. 82–89]. Risks of transformation of ethnic identity on scale of tolerance-intolerance are caused by the fact that social categories such as knowledge elements, thanks to which participation there is a formation and maintenance of ethnic identity, become peculiar for the person, so they actualize ethnic identity and operate its transformations [12, p. 282–284].

The tolerant model of the actualized ethnic identity is characterized by positive sensitivity to social multiculturalism and intra ethnic solidarity, it assumes ability to exist consistently in the pluralistic system of outlooks, to find balance between group (cultural, religious) and the personal rights [9, p. 29-31]. Such ethnic identity doesn't contradict formation of national and civil identity. Under favorable social and economic conditions and equal access for the population to resources it can become a basis for national and civil integration [1, p. 83–86].

Ethnic consciousness of the Russians which is formed on the basis of the actualized ethnic identity and solidarity is broader, than among title people, relies on political categories and is connected with requirements of ethnocultural development in a less degree [8, p. 37–40]. As Russian ethnic consciousness is substantially focused on the state initiatives, orientation of consciousness of the ethnic majority - towards tolerance or intolerance, multicultural orientations or ethnic domination in many respects depends on state policy and the ideology sounded by the leaders. The Russians as ethnic majority of the Russian state have the necessary potential of positive interethnic and national and civil integration. Practice of formation of the integrating national and civil identity taking into account ethnic together with equal access to resources are effective when ensuring trust of the population to government institution [10, p. 17–20]. Restoration of orthodox identity and growth of influence of church represent the need for restoration of valuable bases of the Russian consciousness and finding the positive consolidating symbols.

Bibliography

1. Бакланов И.С. Социокультурное и коммуникативное наполнение понятия рациональности в современной социальной философии // Вестник Северо-Кавказского федерального университета. - 2011. - № 5. - С. 83-86.

2. Бакланова О.А Методологические измерения социальности в современной социально-теоретической рефлексии // Вестник Северо-Осетинского государственного университета имени Коста Левановича Хетагурова. -  2013. - № 2. - С. 142-145.

3. Болховской А. Л., Говердовская Е. В., Ивченко А. В. Образование в глобализирующемся мире: философский взгляд // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2013. - № 5. - С. 80-85.

4. Говердовская Е. В., Добычина Н. В. Взаимные референции между реальным и виртуальным пространством: новая коммуникационная среда // Социально-гуманитарные знания. - 2014. - № 7. - С. 118-124.

5. Деркачев Г.И., Бакланов И.С. Проблемы и истоки легитимации власти в современной России // Социально-гуманитарные знания. - 2009. - № 9. - С. 139-144.

6. Ерохин А. М. Религиозное сознание в контексте общественных отношений // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2015. - № 2 (81). - С. 18-22.

7. Ерохин А. М. Научно-информационный аспект исследования социокультурного развития общества в области культуры и искусства // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2015. - № 2. - С. 123-128.

8. Камалова О.Н., Джиоева Д.А. Перспективы развития сенсорных технологий и проблема расширения чувственных возможностей человека // Северо-Восточный научный журнал. - 2011. - № 1. - С. 37-40.

9. Камалова О. Н. «Созерцание» в философско-культурологических построениях И. Ильина // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2012. - № 6. - С. 29-31. 

10. Колосова О. Ю. Синергетические аспекты развития современного общества // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки.  - 2012.  - № 4. - С. 17-20.

11. Колосова О. Ю. Информация в системе управления: социальный аспект // European Social Science Journal. - 2013. - № 12-2 (39). - С. 396-402.

12. Лобейко Ю. А. Социальная активность личности в обществе: социально-педагогические аспекты формирования // European Social Science Journal.  - 2014. - №7-2 (46). - С. 282-284.

13. Лобейко Ю. А. Социально-психологические проблемы общения в контексте межличностных общественных отношений // Экономические и гуманитарные исследования регионов. - 2015. - № 4. - С. 73-78.

14. Матяш Т.П., Несмеянов Е. Е. Православный тип культуры: идея и реальность // Гуманитарные и социально-экономические науки. - 2015. - № 3 (82). - С. 39-44.

15. Месхи Б.Ч., Несмеянов Е.Е. Теология или лженаука: что на самом деле разрушает отечественное образование // Гуманитарные и социальные науки. - 2014. - № 4. - С. 82-89.

16. Микеева О. А.  Анализ методологии и направлений исследований современной социальной реальности // Социально-гуманитарные знания. -2009. - №9. - С. 241.