Flier Andrey Yakovlevich,
Doctor of Philosophy, Professor,
Chief Researcher
Lykhachev Russian Research Institute
for Cultural and Natural Heritage,
Professor of Moscow State linguistic University
e-mail: andrey.flier@yandex.ru

CULTURAL HISTORY AS A CHANGE
DOMINANT IDENTITY TYPES
(beginning)

Abstract. The article is devoted to the analysis of cultural history and the dominant grounds of solidarity and identity that prevailed among the population at a particular historical stage. The main components of such stadium identities are considered and conclusions are made about some General laws that regulated public consciousness in different epochs.

Keywords: identity, solidarity, typology of identities, social bases of identities, evolution of identities.
 

[1] Morgan L. G. Ancient society or the study of the lines of human progress from savagery through barbarism to civilization. L.: Institute of the peoples of the North of the CEC of the USSR, 1935. 368 p.
[2] Historical studies of the twentieth century have shown that the late primitive, so-called "barbarian" period in the social structure of society was already very different from the previous primitive era proper and the prevailing mode of economic production did not correspond to it at all. A deeper acquaintance with the economic realities of European history has allowed us to question the dominant character of slave labor in the era of Antiquity, as well as its complete absence in the era of feudalism, although the General characteristics of the social structure of the ancient and medieval periods in Europe, of course, markedly different (see: Nikiforov V. N. East and world history, Moscow: Nauka, 1975, 350 p., etc.).
[3] This is unique to Europe. In the cultures of Asia such a division is not actually visible, but that drew the attention of K. Marx.
[4] Flier A. Ya. Phenomenon of Culturology: experience of new interpretation // Observatory of culture. 2011. no. 2. P. 4-19.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Typical examples: Russian farmers called themselves peasants, i.e. Christians; in the old Russian Chronicles, when reporting Tatar raids, it was not the number of people who died, but the number of Christians who died, etc.
[7] In this case, I adhere to the Anglo-French understanding of the nation as a political citizenship (hence the United Nations, i.e. national States; hence such concepts as national income, nationalization, i.e. transition to state ownership, etc.). This should not be confused with the Russian-German understanding of the nation as the highest form of ethnism (hence Nazism as an expressive ethnism or the Stalinist triad "tribe-nation-nation", and the former in the Soviet passport column "nationality" meant the biological origin of a person from certain parents). And today the word "national" in Russia, as a rule, is used in the sense of "ethnic", in contrast to Western countries, where "national" is used in the sense of "state". See: Malakhov V. S. Nationalism as a political ideology. Moscow: Book house "University", 2004. 232 p.
[8] This is admirably described by the constructivist model of national community (see: Anderson B. Imagined community. Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. Moscow: Kanon-Press-C, Kuchkovo pole, 2001. 288 p.). It seems to Me that the well-known contradiction between the ethnological concepts of primordialism and constructivism finds its resolution precisely in the understanding that these concepts consider different objects. Primordialism describes the emergence of ethnic groups of the late primitive and agrarian periods, formed spontaneously, and constructivism – the Nations of the industrial period, constructed politically. Naturally, their functioning is based on different bases and proceeds according to different algorithms.