CC BY
24Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 5 (2011 4) 615-632
УДК 397.4
Classical and Contemporary Approaches to Ethno-Cultural Studies. The Kernel of Ethnos
Natalia P. Koptseva, Natalia A. Bakhova* and Nadezhda V. Medyantseva
Siberian Federal University 79 Svobodny, Krasnoyarsk, 660041 Russia 1
Received 4.05.2011, received in revised form 11.05.2011, accepted 18.05.2011
This scientific article is devoted to one of the most urgent problems in modern humanities which is the problem of conceptual and methodological bases of ethno-cultural studies. Basic notions are "ethnos", "ethnicity" and "kernel of ethnos". In modern foreign literature, the notion of ethnos is considered in various aspects, such as "non-ethnic groups", "symbolic ethnicity", "multi-ethnicity", "dual ethnicity" and "quasi-ethnicity" that are new to Russian science.
Under the conditions of globalization the strengthening of the processes of ethnic identification and self-identification is a reaction to the acculturation processes occurring on an incredibly large scale.
Most scientists agree that belonging to a particular ethno-cultural group must include three aspects: language, religion and processes of identification and self-identification. These basic variables can be used in determining so-called "kernels of ethnos" - a relatively stable system of variables, which has increased stability in the process of acculturation.
These approaches are effective for the study of indigenous and small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East living in the united Krasnoyarsk Territory. Siberian Federal University has a number of research programs supported by grants, where indigenous and small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East are studied from the viewpoint of global transformations typical of these peoples in the 21st century.
Keywords: Ethnos, ethnicity, ethnic identification, indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and the Far East, kernel of ethnos, ethno-cultural applied research.
The work was supported by the Federal Target Program "Research and teaching personnel of innovative Russia 2009-2013". Measure 2.1. "Research supervised by a Doctor of Science". Project "Indigenous and small-numbered peoples of the North in the context of global transformations. Foresight study until 2050 by the example of the Yakut ethnic group".
The work was conducted with the support of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Fund for Support of Science and Technology.
* Corresponding author E-mail address: borisovakrs-k@mail.ru
1 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
1. "Ethnos" and "ethnicity"
The study of such notions as "ethnos" and "ethnicity" (Koptseva, 2010; Bromley, 2008; Wiener, 2005; Sadokhin, 2003) as well as of the etymological history of "ethnos" and the modern state is quite relevant in modern Russian science.
The notion "ethnos" (from the Greek word "£0vo<f) means nation, tribe, group of people, foreign tribe, heathens, clan, etc. In the 6th-5th centuries B.C. the dominant meaning of the word "ethnos" is "a tribe, people of non-Greek origin" (later, the term "ethnos" is used to mean a "non-Greek tribe" (Poplinsky, 1970:77-79). Due to the Romanization the term makes an adjective "ethnic" (ethnicos) which is used in the biblical texts in the sense of "heathen", "non-Christian" (Rohan-Csermak, 1965).
In modern times the term "ethnos" is used mainly by the terms "ethnography" (starting from the end of the 18th century) and "ethnology" (starting from the beginning of the 19th century) that were derived from it (Bromley, 2008:10). In each case, it is a description and study of various peoples, their lifestyle, culture, origin, etc. Thus, the term "ethnos" is identified with people and nation.
The term "ethnos" gradually acquires the independent meaning. In the framework of the theory of evolutionism L.G. Morgan used the term "ethnic period" to refer to stages passed by mankind in the course of its development (Morgan, 1934:8). Physical anthropologists of the second half of the 19th century suggested the following definition of "ethnos": "Under ethnic features we understand all the facts arising out of connecting people to each other under the influence of whatever motives: social needs, benefit, personal arbitrariness or warlike propensities" (Topinar, 1879:407). The further rapprochement between the notions "national" and "ethnic" occurs at the end of the 19th century. Thus, the German ethnographer A. Bastian refers to "national"
and "ethnic" as synonyms in his works and the term "ethnic" is defined as a culture-specific look of the people. At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries J. Deniker notes that the term "ethnic groups" usually refers to "peoples", "nations", "tribes", etc., and they differ from each other, first of all, in language, lifestyle and behavior (Deniker, 1900:3,16,13,8). At the beginning of the 20th century the Russian ethnographer N.M. Mogilyansky used the term "ethnic group" to refer to objects of ethnographic research.
In the 1920's, the Russian ethnographer S.M. Shirokogorov (1887-1939) was the first researcher who formulated a scientific definition of the term: ethnos is "a group of people speaking the same language, recognizing their common origin, having certain customs and lifestyle kept and hallowed by the tradition distinguishing it from other such groups" (Shirokogorov, 1923).
Up to the 1960-1970's foreign authors mention several variations of ethnic terms in their works: "ethnic identity", "ethnic relations", "ethnicity" ("nature or quality of an ethnic group", "ethnic unit"), "ethnic" to refer to an individual as a representative of a certain ethnic (cultural) community (Bromley, 2008:11).
Until the mid 1960's the notion "ethnos" was not used in Russian ethnology, since science did not have an independent status and ethnological problems were considered in the structure of ethnography. The term "nation" according to Marxist theory of nations was considered fundamental. In the mid 1960's due to the actualization of ethnic issues a conceptual apparatus of ethnology was developed on the basis of the new methodological positions. Thus, in the article "Problems of types of ethnic communities" S.A. Tokarev tried to formulate some problems of the ethnos theory: "Ethnic community is a community that is based on one or more of the following types of social relations: common origin, language, territory, nationality, economic
P. Dugin. Reindeer herder Bor'ka. The ethnocultural expedition to Evenkia. Team №6
ties, cultural lifestyle, religion (if present)" (Tokarev, 1964). Russian science introduces the term "ethnos" and the term "ethnicity" is borrowed from the English-language scientific literature.
By the end of the 1970's Russian ethnology forms two competing meanings of the term "ethnos":
1) Yu.V. Bromley's theory of ethnos: ethnos is understood as a socio-cultural phenomenon and is defined as "a historical, stable, multigenerational group of people who have not only similarities but also relatively stable features of culture (including language) and psyche, as well as a sense of its
unity and differences from all other similar groups (self-consciousness) that are fixed in self-designation (ethnonym)" (Bromley, 2008:58). In order to designate such historic structures as nations the term "socio-ethnic community" began to be used. To distinguish between the narrow and broad meaning of "ethnos" new terms were offered: "ethnikos" and "ethno-social organism".
2) The interpretation of the notion "ethnos" in the theory of L.N. Gumilev is as follows: ethnos is a geographical and natural phenomenon, but not social one. Ethnos is "a particular group of people (dynamic system) that opposes itself to all other similar groups ("we" and "not we") and
has a particular internal structure and an original behavioral stereotype" (Gumilev, 1993:285). The main features of ethnos are the psychological characteristics: self-consciousness (or identity) and a behavioral stereotype understood as a form of relationship between a group and an individual, as well as the relationships between individuals in the group.
In the modern Russian studies two opposing methodological positions can be regularly found: 1) ethnos is a social group that has developed in the course of historical development of society. Members of this group have a common country of origin and consider themselves as the carriers of the common culture. Different levels of ethnic characteristics are being determined: ethnos-forming factors (a common territory, endogamy), ethnic features that reflect real differences (language, culture), or ethnic self-consciousness when ethnos is considered as a community that is not only disconnected with the state, economy and politics, but also with culture and language, leading to the mankind's need for a collective life.
In world ethnology a similar definition of the term "ethnos" is used in connection with the extension of the study of ethnic communities as social structures emerging and existing as a result of concerted efforts of the politicians and creative intellectuals in order to achieve collective goals, primarily, to ensure social safety and comfort within the culturally homogeneous communities (Barth, 1994:25-44). In this case, an ethnic identity and a sense of solidarity among representatives of the ethnic group are considered quite relevant. The ethno-differentiating characteristics are as follows: language, values and norms, historical memory, religion, images of a small motherland, myths of the common ancestry, national character, folk art, etc. The meaning and role of features vary depending on the particular historical situation, on the stage of
ethnos consolidation and on the characteristics of the ethnic environment.
We can conclude that ethnos is defined as a stable biosocial community of people that is historically established in a certain area and has common characteristics and peculiarities in culture, psychology, language and sense of its unity and self-designation (Sadokhin, 2003). A complex of external ethnic features that are subject to social construction is being determined.
2) An anthropological direction in the meaning of the term "ethnos" (so-called "ontological" approach) (Rybakov, 1998) suggests the existence of an ethnic substance that is present in a person as "something".
Thus, according to the study of S.E. Rybakov the fundamental properties of ethnos are as follows: a) Attributiveness. Ethnicity reveals itself as an attribute of the personality - it can be expressed more or less strongly, but everyone has it. A person cannot live outside the ethnos. Descendants of the ethnic outsiders inevitably determine one ethnic matrix of behavioral norms; b) Stability. Ethnic features are deeply rooted in a person and therefore are very stable, existing to a certain extent regardless of the extra-ethnic social conditions (change of territory, change of some of the external ethnic features, language change). This is something that does not depend on a subject and can be changed only through the process of assimilation; c) Intensity. The existence of a powerful emotional charge associated with ethnicity. The intensity of ethnic determination is usually so high that ethnicity can be explained in terms of irrationality, rather than as "a repertory role which is consciously and interestedly calculated and selected by an individual or a group".
S.E. Rybakov notes, similar properties of the ethnos phenomenon are explained by the representatives of primordialism indicating the presence of some essential, ethnic structures in a
P. Dugin. Taisia Mikhailovna (a respected Evenki-woman) with her husband. Team №6
P. Dugin. The installation of chum in the reindeer team №5
person. S.E. Rybakov formulates a new conceptual series of studies: ethnicity - ethnos - external manifestations of the ethnic. Thus, the center of gravity is transferred from the social level to the individual one. The scientist suggests that the intergenerational transmission of information is carried out by the signal heredity which is based on a closed genetic relationship within the population. This fact brings the problem of the ethnic unconscious.
The notion "Ethnicity" is a derivative (generic) in relation to the concept "ethnos". The concept has been a scientific term since the 1960's as a response to the aspiration of many peoples in developing countries to preserve their originality, to emphasize the uniqueness of their culture and state of mind, a response to the people's awareness of their belonging to a particular ethnos and ethnic identity ("the ethnic paradox of modernity" or "the ethnic revival").
During the second half of the 20th century the term "ethnicity" has been widely disseminated. In 1973 a symposium was held under the umbrella of the Social Science Research Council (Isajiw , 1994:177-178), which served as kind of "a turning point" in the study of ethnic identity. For scientists at the symposium ethnicity included the following characteristics: 1) identification with the group focusing on the past and emphasizing its common origin; 2) a certain image of cultural and social characteristics of an ethnic group; 3) relationship between an ethnic group and a more complex social community in a broader system of social relations; 4) consent with the position that the ethnic groups are more than just kindred or local groups, and the ethnic boundaries extend beyond the personal interactions; 5) assumption that the ethnic categories have different significance both for the individuals within the group and for the social environment outside of it; 6) suggestion that the ethnic categories are symbolic because their names have a certain significance both for
the members of the group and for the scientists studying it" (Royce, 1982:24).
The best-known researchers who laid the theoretical and methodological foundations of the concept of ethnicity were the Norwegian ethnologist Fredrik Barth and the American anthropologist Georges de Vos. According to these researchers the ethnicity cannot be reduced to the sum of the characteristics of a cultural material contained within the ethnic boundaries: physical differences, territory, language, religion or other fixed features. Ethnicity as an ethnic identity includes both rational and irrational components (Sadokhin, 2003). Ethnic groups (or ethnoses) are defined by those characteristics that are considered significant by the group members themselves and are the basis of their self-consciousness. Ethnicity implies the presence of a sensible peculiarity that is a set of ethno-distinctive traits, features, socio-psychological characteristics specific to each particular group.
A brief overview of the most common definitions of the term "ethnicity" in English literature:
1) Ethnicity as belonging to a social minority (H. Stein and R. Hill). Scientists use the term "new ethnicity" to refer to a movement among the white wage-earners which exists along with the political movements of African Americans, Chicanos and American Indians. This approach allows to include the phenomena associated with any social minority into the range of the ethnic and makes it impossible to single out the ethnic proper as a special sphere of human life (Wiener, 1998).
2) Ethnicity is an ethnic group. Ethnic group is a group of people of common descent which has a common culture and is aware of its unity. Then, ethnicity is an "involuntary" group of people who share the same culture. This group may have a status of both an ethnic minority and the majority of the population. For
P. Dugin. The installation of chum in the reindeer team №5.
example, the researcher Wsevold Isajiw (Isajiw, 1994:76-177) made a list of the distinctive features of ethnic groups that were mentioned in 27 definitions. He summarized them in 12 distinctive features. The first five which were the most common included (in decreasing order) the following features: the common origin of the ancestors, the same culture or customs, religion, racial or physical characteristics and language. The presence or absence of these characteristics can be easily examined or noticed. Most of the remaining features include characteristics based on feelings and perceptions of the status, for example, a sense
of community with people of the same group, shared values and ethos. On the basis of the analysis done, Wsevold Isajiw proposes his own definition of ethnicity as a process by which people either identify themselves as different from the others who belong to another group or another group defines them as different, or they identify themselves and at the same time just as well are identified by the others.
3) Ethnicity is an ethnic identity. A number of authors identify ethnicity with ethnic identity or with such psychological constructs as norms, beliefs, values, sense of community, emotional attachment, etc.
4) Ethnicity is a social boundary. The American sociologist S. Olzak defines ethnicity as a social boundary which divides the population according to belonging to a particular group (group members and/or others). In this case, the belonging mentioned above is based on one or more criteria: a) characteristics that are based on common ancestry, b) features of culture, including language, religion, clothing, customs or supposed common history, c) national or religious origin.
The notion of "ethnicity" in Russian ethnology.
In Russian science the problem of ethnicity (ethno-cultural identity) formed in the first half of the 1970's when the first attempts to carry out a socio-psychological analysis of different levels of the ethno-cultural reality of Soviet society were made.
The notion "ethnicity" in the studies of L.M. Drobizheva, A.F. Dashdamirov and M.N. Guboglo. During the process of cultural socialization a person is included in the respective ethnic existence that is a complex system of national traditions, customs, habits, values and ideals. In this specific ethno-cultural environment the formation of his knowledge, habits, skills, value orientations, interests, beliefs, etc. occurs. Together these forms of ethno-cultural consciousness form ethnic orientation of the attitude to the world and the perception of it in accordance with the traditions of national identity. Thus, according to L.M. Drobizheva ethnicity "is not only an ethnic identity, ethnic self-consciousness of people, but also is a real following of the ethno-specific forms of behavior, features in vision and perception of the world as well as in life orientations" (Drobizheva, 1994:9).
In modern Russian ethnology, the notion "ethnicity" is interpreted in accordance with belonging to a particular research orientation. Thus, V.I. Kozlov writes that "...ethnicity in its
primary meaning may be understood as a set of attributes or properties that distinguish one real existing ethnos from another" (Kozlov, 1995:50). V.A. Tishkov considers ethnicity "... as a complex of feelings based on belonging to a cultural community" (Moscow, 1994:65). S.V. Cheshko defines ethnicity as "an image of the inherited group solidarity based on shared (but not really always shared) ideas about the origins, historical destinies, interests and culture... I define ethnicity... as a group identity derived from a social instinct of collectivity that is immanent in human and "legitimized" 'through images of common origin and specificity of his culture" (Cheshko, 1994:39).
On the basis of the facts mentioned above, B.E. Wiener concludes that ethnicity is a special feeling of a person reflected in the experience of an individual in belonging to a particular group or community of people, formed on the basis of genealogical and social unity of the group and appears in the form of comparing "us" and "not us" in the process of interaction with other ethnic groups (Wiener, 1998).
Another Russian researcher S.E. Rybakov thinks that "the ethnic" is a category of philosophical anthropology and in order to disclose the essence of the ethnic the notion "value" should be involved. The essence of the ethnic lies in value orientations, and the individual ethnic as the specificity of values formation lies in the structure of personality. This specificity is a required ethnic substance that paints the humanity with the colorful palette of nations of the world. The role of ethos (from the Greek word - nature, character) is extremely important: "A man moves as if in a shell formed by a special subordination of the simplest values and value attributes that have not been shaped like things and goods yet. He carries this shell everywhere he goes and he cannot get rid of it, no matter how fast he
may run. Through the windows of the shell he perceives the world and himself as no more and no different than what these windows show him in the world and within himself in compliance with their location, size and color" (Rybakov, 1998:13).
Ethnic differences are programmed into the unconscious structures of the ethic kernel in the structure of an individual, and the ethnic specificity of values is manifested in the following features: a) the ethnic style of culture, b) the way of life - two significant external features of ethnos and guidelines to the ethnic identity, c) the language that provides a connection on the conscious level. Thus, S.E. Rybakov concludes that ethnos is a community of people that is based on the unity of value orientations provided with the endogamy and language, and this unity is symbolically expressed in the style of culture and lifestyle.
Some forms of ethnicity (according to B.E. Wiener) (Wiener, 2005).
Classical ethnicity (ethnos): Russian ethnologists and ethnosociologists usually refer to the nations (ethnoses) as the main object of their research. People who are the part of the ethnic kernel have a correlation between the ethnic identity and other ethnic variables ("features" of ethnos): a person is born and lives on the territory where his ancestors lived long ago, speaks the language of his ancestors which is his native language, worships the religion of his ancestors (if only he is a believer), follows many of the customs of his ancestors and etc. The classical form of ethnicity continues to be dominant in the modern world (e.g. formation of the ethnic kernel of the English-speaking population in the USA -the European Americans, studies of R.D. Alba, S. Liberson).
Non-classical forms of ethnicity:
Ethnic continuity. Description of the "ethnic continuity" according to the Australian, New
Guinea material (N.A. Butinov), as well as the Hindustani and Rajasthani material (S.I. Brook).
Non-ethnic groups. St. Petersburg orientalists S.G. Klyashtorny and G.I. Sultanov describe three "non-ethnic" groups in the Kazakh society in 14th-18th centuries. Firstly, it is sultans-descendants of Genghis Khan who did not attribute themselves to any of the Turko-Mongol tribes or any of the Kazakh juz and were not divided into tribes. They only were the representatives of the ruling dynasty and continued to be a closed caste organization at the beginning of the 20th century. Secondly, it is Sayyids, descendants of the Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatima. Thirdly, it is Khwajas who, according to one version, come from the fourth righteous caliphs close to the supporters of Muhammad, and, according to another version, they are descendants of the first Arab conquerors of Central Asia: "Khwajas lived outside the clan and tribal communities and did not attribute themselves to the Kazakhs, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks or any other group".
Symbolic ethnicity. The notion "symbolic ethnicity" is introduced by the American sociologist H. Gans and is primarily intended to sense a particular ethnicity or to identify with it, but without participation in the existing ethnic organizations (formal or informal) or without practice of the current ethnic culture. The researcher associates such type of ethnicity with the third-sixth generation of people living in the USA.
Multi-ethnicity. The American researchers P.R. Spickard and R. Fong on the basis of Hawaiian material describe the phenomenon of multi-ethnicity where over the past few years people of mixed descent began to claim that they had both or all parts of their origin. People have a tendency to consider themselves as belonging to several ethnic groups.
Dual ethnicity. As a result of intensive mixing several ethnic groups the "dual" ethnicity
may occur. For example, formation of Anglo-Celtic identity in modern Australia (studies by C. Johnson).
Quasi-ethnicity (from Latin Quasi - "as if, like, almost, nearly"). B.E. Wiener uses quasi-ethnicity as a tentative definition for the ethnic communities described in the course of study that was carried out in St. Petersburg in 20012003 on the basis of three interviews with "non-typical" informants. This is a situation when a person attributes himself to a nation which at least one of his parents identifies with. Rather often people identify themselves with the ethnic majority of population in the place where they live, although they have different ethnic origins. The formal indication of quasi-ethnicity is an intergenerational gap in the continuity of self-identification: an informant does not identify himself with those ethnic communities that his parents identify themselves with, but with an ethnic community of someone from their more remote ancestors. Thus, Boris E. Wiener concludes that ethnicity is not necessarily manifested through belonging of a person to any particular ethnic group.
Conclusions: Russian scientists come from the ability to find objective grounds of ethnos, whereas in modern Western studies the fact that any knowledge is a construct of the researcher is generally recognized, and therefore the emphasis is on the concrete research that requires well-described methods and techniques, grounded degree of validity of the study which is necessarily subject to falsification and controversial criticism.
1. Ethnos is a system integrity that has such essential components as language, art and customs which constitute the ethnic culture passing from generation to generation. Ethnos is a certain cultural integrity in which the unity of the external features of ethnos is an expression of its specific internal integrity.
2. The unity of the settlement area is very essential for the emergence of ethnos. The unity of the territory may be lost in the future, and ethnos can exist in different countries maintaining its system properties and cultural integrity.
3. Ethnos is infused with the antithesis of "we - they", therefore, ethnos is a group of people that identifies itself as such, distinguishing itself from other similar communities. This awareness of the ethnos members is called ethnic self-consciousness, the external expression of which is ethnonym. Ethnic self-consciousness and ethnonym are the main ethnic markers.
4. In determining the core features of ethnos the international studies put an emphasis on the subjective factors as well as the conditions of their occurrence. Ethnos is a group that adheres to a subjective belief in its common descent because of similarities of physical type, customs, or the memories of colonization and migration.
The problem of ethnos, the ethnic and ethnicity remains a source of the intense debate among Russian and foreign ethnologists. This is natural, since the phenomenon of "ethnos" is complex and multifaceted. Either certain components of ethnicity or aspects of a single foundation underlying in the ethnicity are determined.
2. The kernel of ethnos
The kernel of ethnos is a concept to describe the aggregate of the necessary and sufficient characteristics of ethnos that seem to be relatively constant to the modern researchers. The presence of these characteristics determines the lifetime of the ethnos, while disappearance of these characteristics means the end of existing of this ethnos as a separate social integrity. At present, there are a variety of viewpoints, opinions and approaches regarding to the "real" existence of the kernel of ethnos, as well as to what ethnos characteristics can be defined as the "kernel".
Core "measures" of ethnos cultures
Degree of tolerance to deviations from accepted norms in the culture
The degree of avoidance of uncertainty and the need for formal rules
Evaluation of the nature of human beings ("good" , "bad", "mixed")
The complexity of culture, the degree of its differentiation
The proximity of human contacts (the distance in communication)
High / low context (differences in behavior depending on situations)
Masculinity / Femininity - evaluation in quality culture, considered stereotypical for men and women (the degree of encouragement of gender roles)
Emotional control (emotional expressivity)
The distance between the individual and the "power" (the degree of inequality)
Man / nature dichotomy (the degree of dominance or subjection to nature)
Fig. 1 Core "measures" of ethnos cultures
The ethno-paychododiaal approach arose in Americo m f930. Is is based on sua fact tahat thosr alemenea oo Ihc kemun of the et(Pcol cufture that Oo Song ds iMc paotiautar cuSiura dsuotieflf cS enoughPeaSnres ofh neethnna asaompaiedwith another. For example, different areas inhabited by the same ethnos may have different languages and dialects. Different ethnoses may have one religion, etc.
V.L. Tsvetkov, A.V. Solovyova in the book "Ethnic psychology" (Tsvetkov, 2009) argue that the ethnic character of people sets the kernel of ethnos. The determining factors of this character are climatic environment, lifestyle, occupation, specificity of culture. Besides, the ethnic basis includes features of ethnic mentality, ethnic traditions and habits. Variants of ethnic specificity
marlifgct9tiou may nc different: avcryday culture (donsc iilaerior, clotaing Lfcodatipns, food), austoma, tatuals, treaitions, hd^ gules of couslny, ^^ani^l forms os Lfllonior,foCklnre and art spiitc, musk; nnd daueiniL. Autiiors of
the book determine that the ethnic specificity is usually manifested not only in material or rational sphere, but also in the emotional one.
The authors point out the core "measures" of ethnos cultures, which can be traced in the following scheme (Fig. 1).
According to this approach, the differences between ethnoses occur due to the aspect of communication that manifests different levels of interaction in which ethnoses vary a lot: the degree of ethnic difference in gestures (which is of great importance in the inter-ethnic interaction), facial
expressions, visual interaction (eye contact), conditionality of the spatial organization of communication (proxemic distance), cultural conditionality of touching, differences in causal attribution (attribution of the causes of behavior or results of the activity in perception of each other), national and cultural specificity of the perception and attitude toward color.
Thus, the authors define the kernel of ethnos as a character that is formed under different external influences (ranging from the natural space, ending with the social attitudes of the ethnos).
A strong side of this approach is the allocation of the main distinguishing characteristic of ethnos which is unique (that is differences allocated by other authors - a type of economy, religion, language - can be duplicated in different ethnoses). But this "uniqueness" of the nature of a particular ethnos may become a biased factor because in addition to the "average" or "common" nature of ethnos, each individual has his own unique character, features of which may be unrelated to his belonging to the ethnos. It turns out that as a result of sum "composition" of the ethnos character some "errors" may occur.
In the work "Essays on the theory of ethnos" Yu.V. Bromley examine various approaches of researchers in the study of the ethnos features. Thus, ethnos is considered from the perspective of the biological population which is distinguished by the common area and physical features. None of the components of culture is an indispensable ethno-differentiating indication. In some cases language plays a major role in the differentiation of ethnoses, in others religion, in others characteristic features of behavior, etc.
According to this concept the culture of ethnos is denied as a single denominator of all ethnoses. That is, as it was mentioned above, the same components of culture can be duplicated by different ethnoses. But this
position does not answer the question: Can the ethnos be differentiated according to the unique combination of various components of culture (in which individual components can be replicated in the culture of another ethnos, but it is not a factor of their identity).
Describing ethnos in general, the author notes that the cultural unity of the members of ethnos is inextricably linked to the presence of certain common features in their psyche. Ethnos defines a historically formed, stable intergenerational group of people that have common traits, stable features of culture (including language), and psyche, as well as the awareness of their unity and difference from all other similar entities (self-consciousness), fixed in the self-designation (ethnonym). Also, under the kernel of ethnos we understand an "economic community" that is interpreted not only as a "community of economic ties", but also as a certain set of classes - the ethnic hierarchy.
The factor of unity of the territory is mentioned by many researchers, including Yu.V. Bromley. In this case, the question on the immigrants remains open. For example, resettlement of the Chinese around the world (different territory, but one ethnos). Or another example: young people belonging to small-numbered peoples study in large cities of Russia, and some of them still live here after graduation. Therefore, this feature of unity of the territory is not determinative in the kernel of ethnos.
On the other hand, the study says that the kernel of ethnos can be self-consciousness, despite the external differences (territory, language, deviation from the traditions of the ancestors, etc.).
S.N. Artanovsky allocates the "ethnic function of culture" (Artanovsky, 1967) that performs a set of ethno-differentiating and ethno-integrating properties of culture. In the reproduction of ethnos the main role is
P. Dugin. The Evenki dinner. Degustation of reindeer horns (loc."pants"). Team №5
given to intergenerational, ethnic and cultural diachronic information. In other words, it is the intergenerational ethno-cultural information that is the kernel of ethnos.
S.A. Tokarev (Tokarev, 1999) believes that language is not a compulsory attribute of the kernel of ethnos, since several nations can have one language (e.g. the British, Canadians and English Australians speak English). Or, on the contrary, sometimes parts of one nation speak different languages (language differences of the eastern and western Ukrainians, or northern and southern Chinese). The author says that local differences in some spheres of culture do not exclude the possibility of the unity of different cultures in many other spheres. Nonequivalence of the material and spiritual culture. Basic forms of material culture are often defined by the specificity of economic and cultural types which is also open to doubt since different ethnoses may have identical economic activity. Thus, S.A. Tokarev writes about common traits of different ethnoses. But at the same time he points to local differences. That is, in order to determine the kernel of ethnos an idea of a unique combination of components identifying the kernel of ethos appears.
V.I. Kozlov (Kozlov, 2008) highlights an interethnic culture and an alien ethnic culture. He therefore proves the thesis that the culture of ethnos is not its kernel. Alien culture is a culture that is consumed by the members of the ethnos, but not created by them. Reappearing in one or another ethnic unit the specific cultural phenomena are rapidly becoming the other nations' heritage.
The author defines the community of "socio-normative culture" (moral and legal norms, institutions) as the kernel of ethnos, ensuring the coordination of behavior and activity of the community. The author asserts that ethno-differentiating characteristics of the culture,
except for language and religion, are only external differences of the ethnic community. The components of culture include traditions and stable continuity (myth, folklore, religion, everyday rituals). Traditions are classified as follows: intraformational and interformational, archaeogenetic and neogenetic, regional and epochal. By customs we understand the stereotyped behavior forms that are associated with activities and have practical importance. They are classified as domestic, political, and attitudinal.
Ethnic psyche which includes the nature of ethnos is also attributed to the ethnic features. The nature of ethnos is associated with the motive system that is a range of their needs, interests, value orientations, attitudes, beliefs, ideals, etc. The psyche includes the world outlook, moral principles and interests. Temperament and abilities are associated with the psyche.
It is asserted that the territory as such does not belong to the kernel of ethnos. Any territory has natural qualities. Ethnos, living under relatively similar environmental conditions, develop a certain dynamic stereotype of artistic vision and reproduction of reality, which expresses the individual features of nature, economy, politics and cultural development. But this expression may be similar among different ethnoses.
The kernel of ethnos may include the thinking of people that, according to the author, depends on such conjugated components of culture as language and written language. It is grounded on the fact that different writing systems (hieroglyphic and phonetic) engage different areas of the cerebral cortex. The experiments of T. Tsunoda showed that thinking is formed due to localization of speech activity in the human brain. According to the results of his experiment, he concludes that the native language differentiating human perception of sounds from the environment is closely related to
the formation of a unique culture and mentality in each ethnic group.
Thus, V.I. Kozlov defines the kernel of ethnos as stereotyped behavior forms, mentality, way of thinking. On the one hand, it is the most qualitative differences between ethnoses. But at present, there are no studies that would accurately differentiate ethnoses according to these criteria. Moreover, the problem of individual psyche and thinking of each person arises again. How stable are the structures of one ethnos? How static can be behavior, psyche and thinking of ethnos? And if they are subject to change, then the ethnic kernel will face permanent qualitative changes.
V.I. Kozlov and G.V. Shelepov (Kozlov, 1973) put self-consciousness in the first place among the features of the ethnic kernel. Self-consciousness of an ethnic community exists not just at the individual level, but also at the transpersonal one, including the mass objectified forms of social consciousness, such as language, folklore, professional art, scientific literature, morality and laws, etc. But self-consciousness of an ethnic community as the functioning reality manifests itself in the actualized thinking of individuals. That is, the authors set the notions of self-consciousness of an ethnic community and ethnic self-consciousness of an individual.
Transpersonal self-consciousness is a powerful identifying factor. But an internal conflict can occur between the transpersonal and personal self-consciousness in an individual of ethnos. For example, when a person guided by transpersonal consciousness is fully identified by the standards of behavior, morality, etc. But at the same time, personal self-consciousness has no factors of belonging to this certain ethnos.
Ch.M. Taksami says that the main feature of small-numbered ethnoses is their neuro-psychic activity (domination of emotional factors). According to their mental orientation, the most acceptable areas of their activities are "man/
nature", "man/artistic image", and such areas as "man/technology" and "man/sign system" are virtually excluded.
A scientific article of S.I. Lozhnikov "Problems of the North" (2008) is of great interest to modeling the concept "kernel of ethnos" (Lozhnikova, 2008). In the intensive exploitation of natural resources in the North, the culture becomes an important tool for sustainable development, formation of social environment that strengthens self-consciousness and self-awareness of each person. It determines the quality of life, including the availability of cultural resources, preservation of cultural identity and preservation of ethnic and cultural diversity in the region. Culture in its broadest sense is an important factor for sustainable development. Development of culture and cultural potential is associated with the extension of protection of the future of the North and its peoples in the form in which it is most appropriate and positive.
The author of the article claims that it is culture that becomes a factor in determining the kernel of ethnos. Moreover, the author understands culture as a special world outlook of people of the North who are closely connected to nature.
In respect to the indigenous peoples and small-numbered nations of the North the problem of the kernel of culture is also discussed in a scientific article of A.M. Ablazhey "The elite of the North on current tendencies and perspectives of nature management and self-government" (Ablazhey, 2004).
The author of the article holds with the view that the peoples of the North have a special mentality. The mentality is the ideological basis of traditional nature management for them. It is followed by the "traditional way of life" that is associated with a national (ethnic, group) identity. The problem of socio-economic and socio-cultural development of these peoples
lies in the development of traditional forms of self-government, or, to be more precise, in their inability to develop which is hampered by many factors. (e.g. inability to develop traditional economic activities in connection with the downsizing of natural areas).
Conclusions:
1. At present, various researchers studying ethnoses point out several types of the kernel of ethnos that are ethno-differentiating. These include: territory, nature, culture, thinking, psyche, mentality and self-consciousness.
2. Under the culture some researchers understand an aggregation of such categories as the type of economy, religion, language, traditions, customs, art, world-view, determining that culture is an ethno-differentiating aspect in the case of a unique combination of its individual components. Other researchers prefer a selective approach which compares the individual
components of the culture of different ethnoses. In this case, an individual component of culture cannot identify ethnos.
3. Most researchers agree that ethnoses qualitatively vary in the neuropsychological and emotional characteristics which include the character, temperament, behavioral features and psyche. With this approach the difficulty with correlating the "average" ("common") indicators according to the above characteristics of a particular ethnos and the individual characteristics of the person arises.
4. Most of the researchers deny that a territorial factor fastens ethnos together.
5. A number of researchers (V.I. Kozlov, G.V. Shelepov) determine self-consciousness as a strong identifying factor. Moreover, the kernel of ethnos is precisely the transpersonal kind of self-consciousness, even when the personal self-consciousness can have a zero degree of identity.
References
A.M. Ablazhey. Elite of the North on current tendencies and perspectives of nature management and self-government / A.M. Ablazhey // Ethno-social processes in Siberia. Issue 6. - 2004. - P. 145150.
S.N. Artanovsky. Historical unity of humankind and mutual influence of cultures. Philosophical and methodological analysis of modern foreign concepts. - Leningrad, 1967.
F. Barth. Enduring and Emerging Issues in the Analysis of Ethnicity // The Anthropology of Ethnicity. Beyond «Ethnic Groups and Boundaries». - Amsterdam, 1994.
Yu.V. Bromley. Essays on the theory of ethnos / 2nd edition, supplemented. - Moscow, 2008. -P. 440.
S.V. Cheshko. Man and ethnicity // Ethnographic Review. - 1994. - No. 6.
J. Deniker. Les races et les peuples de la terre. Elements d'anthropologic et d'ethnographie. Paris, 1900.
J. Deniker. The races of man. An outline of anthropology and ethnography. London, 1900.
L.M. Drobizheva. Ethnic factor in the life of Russian society by the mid-90's // Conflict ethnicity and ethnic conflicts: Collection of Articles / Ed. Drobizheva L.M. - M., 1994.
L.N. Gumilev. Ethnosphere: History of people and the history of nature. - M., 1993. 285 pp.
N.P. Koptseva, Cultural and anthropological project of social engineering (the problem of the methodology of modern applied cultural studies) / Koptseva, N.P., Journal of Siberian Federal University "Humanities and social sciences". - Vol.3 (No. 1). - P. 22-34.
N.P. Koptseva, Indigenous peoples of the Krasnoyarsk Territory: the question of the methodology of cultural studies / Koptseva, N.P., Journal of Siberian Federal University "Humanities and social sciences". - 2010. - Vol.3 (No. 4), - P. 554-562.
N.P. Koptseva, N.N. Pimenova, K.V. Reznikova. Preservation and development of indigenous peoples in circumpolar areas: cultural and anthropological analysis / Koptseva, N.P., Pimenova, N.N., Reznikova, K.V. // Journal of Siberian Federal University "Humanities and social sciences". - 2010. -Vol.3 (No. 5). - P. 649-666.
V.I. Kozlov, G.V. Shelepov, "National Character" and problems of its study, "Soviet Ethnography", 1973, No. 2.
V.I. Kozlov. Problems of ethnicity // Ethnographic Review. - 1995. - No. 4.
V.I. Kozlov. The classification of ethnic communities (state-of-the-art). Access mode: http:// historia-site.narod.ru/library/ethnology/kozlov.htm.
G. de Rohan-Csermak,. Le probleme de l'«ethnie» et la notion de «complexe ethnique europeen» (mimeographed. Ms., 1965).
S.I. Lozhnikova. Problems of the North // S.I. Lozhnikova // Problems of Cultural Science. -2008. - No. 2. - P. 59-62.
L.G. Morgan. Ancient Society. L., 1934.
Yu.K. Poplinsky. The term "ethnos" in ancient Greek literature of the classical period - in the book: Summary of reports from the annual scientific session of the Institute of Ethnography, USSR Academy of Sciences. L., 1970. P. 77-79.
A. P. Royce. Ethnic Identity: Strategies of Diversity. Bloomington, 1982.
S.E. Rybakov. On the concept of "ethos": the philosophical and anthropological aspect / Ethnographic Review, 1998, No. 6, p. 3-15.
A.P. Sadokhin. Ethnology. - M., 2003. - P. 320.
S.M. Shirokogorov. Study of the basic principles of the ethnic and ethnographic phenomena changes. - Shanghai, 1923.
The interaction of political and national and ethnic conflicts: Proceedings of the International Symposium held on April 18-20, 1994 - Moscow, 1994. - Part 1.
S.A. Tokarev. Problems of types of ethnic communities (on the methodological problems of ethnography) // Problems of Philosophy. - 1964. - No. 11.
S.A. Tokarev. Selected works. Theoretical and historiographical articles on ethnography and religions of the peoples of the world. - Moscow: Science, 1999.
P. Topinar. Anthropology. SPb., 1879.
V.L. Tsvetkov. Ethnopsychology / V.L. Tsvetkov, A.V. Solovyova. - M.: "Shield-M", 2009. -128 pp.
B.E. Wiener. Ethnicity: In search of a paradigm of research // Ethnic Review, 1998, No. 4, P. 3-26.
B.E. Wiener. Forms of ethnicity, whether the ethnicity has the essence and what the supporters of the academic Bromley can obtain from the new theories // Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. - 2005. Vol.8. No. 2, P.142-164.
Wsevold Isajiw. Definitions of Ethnicity. Ethnicity, 1994. - P. 124.
Классические и современные подходы к этнокультурным исследованиям. Ядро этноса
Н.П. Копцева, Н.А. Бахова, Н.В. Медянцева
Сибирский федеральный университет Россия 660041, Красноярск, пр. Свободный, 79
Научная статья посвящена одной из самых актуальных проблем современной гуманитарной науки - проблеме концептуальных иметодологических оснований этнокультурных исследований. Базовыми понятиями выступают «этнос», «этничность», «ядро этноса». В современной зарубежной литературе понятие этноса рассматривается в различных аспектах, в том числе в таких новых для отечественной науки, как «безэтничные группы», «символическая этничность», «мультиэтничность», «сдвоенная этничность», «квазиэтничность». В условиях глобализации активизация процессов этнической идентификации и самоиндентификации является реакцией на процессы аккультурации, протекающие в невероятных до недавнего времени масштабах.
Ученые большинства направлений согласны в том, что принадлежность к той или иной этнокультурной группе обязательно включает три аспекта: язык, религию и процессы идентификации и самоидентификации. Эти базовые переменные можно использовать при определении т.н. «ядра этноса» - относительно устойчивой системы переменных величин, которая обладает повышенной устойчивостью в процессах аккультурации. Данные подходы являются эффективными для исследования коренных и малочисленных народов Севера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока, компактно проживающих в объединенном Красноярском крае. В Сибирском федеральном университете с помощью грантовых поддержек существует ряд исследовательских программ, где коренные и малочисленные народы Севера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока изучаются с точки зрения глобальных трансформаций, характерных для этих народов в 21 веке.
Ключевые слова: Этнос, этничность, этническая идентификация, коренные народы Севера, Сибири и Дальнего Востока, ядро этноса, этнокультурные прикладные исследования.
Работа выполнена при грантовой поддержке федеральной целевой программы "Научные и научно-педагогические кадры инновационной России 2009-2012 гг.". Мероприятие 1.2.1. Исследования под руководством доктора наук. Тема проекта "Культура коренных и малочисленных народов Севера в условиях глобальных трансформаций. Форсайт-исследование до 2050 г. На материале якутского этноса".
Работа выполнена при грантовой поддержке Красноярского краевого фонда поддержки научной и научно-технической деятельности.
