Abstract

History testifies to the following: successful, long-term civilization projects were carried out when it was possible to find a successful combination of three identity levels: a local level (an ethnic language community), a regional level (a group of related cultures and languages that have common roots), and a global level (humanity). The key role is played by the second level, which ensures the organic mutual enrichment of national (local) cultures and through which bearers of the local ethno-linguistic community realize they are part of humanity. The actually unresolved issue of the second identity level for Russia very acutely poses the problem of the lack of formation of a stable national identity. Three variants for answering the question of the second identity level are considered: the Slavic one (Danilevskii), European one (Dostoevsky), and the Russia–Eurasia formula (classical Eurasianism). The author of this report has shown that none of the particular versions of cultural and civilizational identity in modern Russia can serve as an invariant of all-Russian identity, which raises the question of the need for gathering them (rather than bringing them to unity) based on the category of vsechelovecheskoe developed in Russian thought.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.