Items that can take every European in relation to the national question are quite numerous, but they are all located between two extreme limits: on the one chauvinism and cosmopolitanism on the other. Every nationalism is like a synthesis of the elements of chauvinism and cosmopolitanism, the experience of reconciling these two opposites.
There is no doubt that Europeans chauvinism and cosmopolitanism represented just such opposites, fundamentally, radically different from each other points of view.
Meanwhile, with this approach is impossible to accept. It is necessary to closely scrutinize chauvinism and cosmopolitanism to note that in principle, the fundamental difference between the two is that this is nothing more than a two-stage, two different aspects of the same phenomenon.
Chauvinist assumes a priori position that the best people in the world is precisely its people. Culture created by its people better, more perfect than any other crop. His people one has the right to excel and dominate other peoples, who must submit to him, taking his faith, language and culture, and to merge with it. All that stands in the way to this end the triumph of a great nation, should be swept away by force. Thinks chauvinist, and according to this, he goes.
Cosmopolitan denies the differences between nationalities. If such a distinction is, they must be destroyed. Civilized humanity must be united and have a common culture. Uncivilized nations should adopt this culture, to join her and went into the family of civilized nations, to go along with them on the same path of world progress. Civilization is the supreme good, the name of which it is necessary to sacrifice the national characteristics.
In this formulation, chauvinism and cosmopolitanism, indeed, seemed to be sharply distinguished from each other. In the first postulated for the culture of domination of one ethnographic and anthropological specimens, the second — for the culture of excess ethnographic humanity.
But let's see what is the content in terms of cosmopolitan European "civilization" and "civilized world"? By "civilization" they understand the culture that developed in collaboration Roman and Germanic peoples of Europe. By civilized nations — especially, again, the same Romancev and the Germans, and then those other nations that have adopted the European culture.
Thus we see that the culture that in the opinion of the cosmopolitan should rule the world by abolishing all other cultures, there is a certain culture of ethnographic and anthropological one, as that unit, which dreams of domination chauvinist. There is no difference in principle not. In fact, national, ethnographic and anthropological and linguistic unity of each of the peoples of Europe is only relative. Each of these people represents a connection of different smaller ethnic groups with their dialectical, cultural and anthropological features, but related to each other by ties of kinship and shared history, which created a total for all of them stock of cultural values. Thus, chauvinist, proclaiming his people the crown of creation and the sole bearer of all possible perfections, in fact, is the champion of the whole group of ethnic units. Moreover, because the chauvinist wants other nations have merged with his people, having lost their national face. All the representatives of other nations that have done so already, have lost their national identity and learned the language, faith and culture of its people, chauvinist be treated as his men would praise the contributions to the culture of his people, to be made by these people, of course only if they are truly learned the spirit that it is cute, and managed to completely abandon their former national psychology. These aliens are assimilated to the dominant nation, chauvinists are always a bit suspicious, especially if their initiation is done not so long ago, but fundamentally they no chauvinist does not deny, we know even that among the European chauvinists, there are many people who have their own names and anthropological signs clearly indicate that they originally did not belong to the people, the rule of which they so ardently preach.
If we take now the European cosmopolitan, we will see that, in fact, it is no different from a chauvinist. That "civilization", the culture, which he considers the highest and before that, in his opinion, should efface all other crops, too represents a known reserve of cultural values, common to several people connected to each other by ties of kinship and shared history. As a chauvinist distracted from particular features of certain ethnic groups that make up its people and cosmopolitan cast features some cultures Romano-Germanic peoples and takes only what is in their common cultural reserve. It also recognizes the cultural value of the activities of the non-romanogermantsev that it is perceived civilization romanogermantsev, throwing away all that is contrary to the spirit of that civilization, and having exchanged their national face on obscheromanogermanskuyu. Exactly in exactly as chauvinist who thinks "their" those natives and foreigners who have managed to completely assimilate to the dominant people! Even the hostility felt by cosmopolitans against the chauvinists and generally to those principles that separate the culture of individual peoples romanogermanskih even this hostility has a parallel in the world view chauvinists. Namely, chauvinists always hostile to any attempt of separatism that comes from the parts of the people. They are trying to erase all those obscure local features that may break the unity of the people.
Thus, the parallelism between cosmopolitans and chauvinists is complete. This is essentially the same attitude in the culture of the ethnographic and anthropological unit to which this person belongs. The only difference is that the chauvinist takes a closer ethnic group than the cosmopolitan, but it still takes a chauvinist group is not completely homogeneous and cosmopolitan, for its part, still takes a certain ethnic group.
Hence, the only difference in the extent but not in principle.
In assessing the European cosmopolitanism must always remember that the word "humanity", "human civilization" and other expressions are highly inaccurate and that they mask very specific ethnographic concepts. European culture is not the culture of humanity. It is a product of the history of a particular ethnic group. Germanic and Celtic tribes, subjected to the effects of different proportions of Roman culture and strongly mixed together to create a famous general way of life of the elements of its national and Roman culture. By general ethnographic and geographic conditions they lived long odnoyu common life, in their way of life and history, through constant communication with each other, the common elements were so significant that the feeling of unity romanogermanskogo unconsciously always lived in them. Over time, as in so many other nations, they woke up craving to learn the source of their culture. The clash with the monuments of Roman and Greek culture, washed up on the surface of the idea of a trans-national, world civilization, the idea of inherent grekorimskomu world. We know that this idea was again based on ethnographic and geographic reasons. Under the "whole world" in Rome, of course, only razumeli Orbis terrarum, that is, the people who inhabited the Mediterranean basin, or trying to catch this sea, to work out because of constant communication with each other a number of common cultural values and, finally, united through the impact of a leveling Greek and Roman colonization and the Roman military domination. Be that as it may, the ancient cosmopolitan ideas became the foundation of education in Europe. After falling on fertile ground romanogermanskogo unconscious sense of unity, and they gave rise to the theoretical basis of so-called European "cosmopolitanism", which should have been called откровеннообщероманогерманским chauvinism.
That's a real historical basis of European cosmopolitan theories. The psychological basis of cosmopolitanism — the same as the base of chauvinism. It is a kind of unconscious prejudice that particular psychology, which can best be described egocentrism. A man with a strong self-centered psychology unknowingly finds himself the center of the universe, the crown of creation, the best, the most perfect of all beings. Of the two other creatures, it is closer to him, more like him — it is better, but the fact is further removed from it — is worse. Therefore, any natural group of beings to which that person belongs, recognizes them the most perfect. His family, his estate, his people, his tribe, his race — better than all the others like them. Similarly, the one breed to which it belongs, namely, the human race — perfect all the other species of mammals, mammals themselves — to commit other vertebrates, animals in turn — perfect plants, and organic world — perfect inorganic. From this psychology in a given volume, no one is free. Science itself is not quite free from it, and every gain of science for the benefit of the release of the egocentric bias is given with the greatest difficulties.
Egocentric worldview psychology penetrates very many people. It is free of it few who can. But its extreme manifestations are easily noticeable, the absurdity of their obvious, and because they usually cause condemnation, protest or ridicule. Man, confident in the fact that he is wise, all the better, and that all his good subjected to ridicule others, and if in doing so he is aggressive, and gets the deserved clicks. Families, naively convinced that all their members are brilliant, smart and beautiful, usually serve as the laughing stock of my friends, telling them about the funny jokes. Such extremes of self-centeredness are rare and usually meet resistance. The situation is different when the self-absorption extends to a wider group of people. There is also resistance to commonly available, but harder to break this self-centeredness. Most often the case is allowed struggle between two egocentric minded groups than in the winner remains in his belief. This occurs, for example, class or social struggle. The bourgeoisie overthrew the aristocracy, just as sure of his superiority over all other estates, as overthrown by it aristocracy. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie fighting, too considers himself "the salt of the earth," the best of all classes of people. However, there is still self-centeredness is clear, and people are more conscious with a head, a "wide", commonly know how to rise above these prejudices. Harder to get rid of the same prejudices when it comes to ethnic groups. Here, people are sensitive to understanding the true nature of the egocentric bias is not in equal measure. Many Prussians-pangermantsy sharply condemn their own countrymen Prussians extolling the Prussian people in front of all other Germans, and consider them to be "jingoistic patriotism" ridiculous and narrow. However, the position that the German tribe as a whole has the highest achievement, the color of humanity — is not in their mind, and no doubt to romanogermanskogo chauvinism, the so-called cosmopolitanism, they can not rise. But the Prussian cosmopolitan equally outraged his compatriot-pangermantsem, denounces his direction as a narrow chauvinism, and he does not notice that he is a chauvinist, not German, and obscheromanogermansky. So here it is only a degree of sensitivity, one feels a little stronger egocentric basis of chauvinism, the other a little less. In any case, the sensitivity of Europeans on this issue is very relative. Further so-called cosmopolitanism, ie romanogermanskogo chauvinism, rarely rises. Europeans have that recognize cultural so-called "savages" as equivalent to the culture romanogermanskoy — such Europeans we do not know at all. I think they just do not.
From the foregoing it is clear, as it should be treated conscientious romanogermanets to chauvinism and cosmopolitanism. He has to realize, that as the one or the other based on an egocentric psychology. I must confess that this is the beginning of psychology illogical, and therefore can not serve as the basis for a theory. Not only is it easy to understand that self-absorption is essentially anti-culture and anti-social, that it prevents the hostel in the broad sense of the word, ie free communication of all sorts of creatures. Should be clear to everyone that a certain kind of self-centeredness can be justified only by force, that, as stated above, it is always a lot of the winner. Why, and do not go further than their Europeans obscheromanogermanskogo chauvinism, that the power of the people can win at all, but romanogermanskoe tribe in its totality is so physically strong that it does not force anybody to win.
But as soon as it all comes to mind expected us sensitive and conscientious romanogermantsa, as in his mind now will clash. All his spiritual culture, his world view is based on the belief that the unconscious mental life and all the prejudices based on this spiritual life must give way to the instructions of reason, logic, which is only logical scientific grounds can build any theory. His sense of justice is based on the rejection of those principles which prevent free communication between people. All of his ethics issues rejects brute force. And it turns out that cosmopolitanism is based on self-centeredness! Cosmopolitanism, this top romanogermanskoy civilization rests on such grounds, which radically contradict all the major slogans of this civilization. At the heart of cosmopolitanism, this universal religion, is anticultural beginning — self-centeredness. The situation tragic, but way out of it is only one. Conscientious romanogermanets be forever abandoned as chauvinism, and from the so-called cosmopolitanism, and therefore all the views on the national question, which occupy an intermediate position between these two extremes.
But what is the position in relation to the European chauvinism and cosmopolitanism must take a non-romanogermantsy, representatives of the peoples who were not involved from the beginning in the creation of the so-called. European civilization?
Self-centeredness is reprehensible, not only from the point of view of a European romanogermanskoy culture, but also from the point of view of every culture, for it is the beginning of anti-social, destructive of all cultural communication between people. Therefore, if some of the non-romanogermanskogo people are chauvinists who preach that their people — the people elected that his culture all other nations must comply, then such chauvinists must be fought with all their kins. But what if such people will be people who will preach the supremacy in the world of his people, and some other, foreign people, by his own countrymen will be offered throughout assimilate with the "world's people." After all, in this sermon is no self-centeredness will not — on the contrary, will be the highest eccentricity. Therefore, to condemn it in exactly the same way as condemned chauvinism — is impossible. But, on the other hand, is the essence of the doctrine is more important than the individual preacher? If the rule of the people over B preached A representative of the people, it would be a chauvinist, a manifestation of self-centered psychology, and such a sermon would have to meet the legitimate resistance among both in and among A. But really the thing completely changed, but only to the voice of A representative of the people representative of the people join in? — Of course not; chauvinism remains chauvinism. The main actor in this whole episode is expected, of course, a representative of the people of A. His mouth says will result in slavery, the true meaning of chauvinistic theories. On the contrary, the representative voice of the people in, perhaps louder, but, in fact, is less significant. As a representative of a trusted representative of the argument A, believed in the power of the people A, gave inspire themselves and, perhaps, just was bribed. A representative of the advocates for themselves, the representative in — for the other: In the mouth, in essence, says A, and so we are always entitled to consider such a sermon as the same disguised chauvinism.
All these arguments are, in general, quite pointless. Such things should not be long and logically prove. Anyone can see how he would have reacted to his fellow tribesman, if he had preached that his people should renounce their native religion, language, culture, and try to assimilate to the neighboring nation — say, the people of H. Each, of course, would have reacted to such person, or as a lunatic, or as to the type of X duping people, who lost their national pride, or, finally, as an emissary to the people of X, had been sent to conduct propaganda for the corresponding reward. Anyway, the gentleman behind, every, of course, would have suspected chauvinist of people X, consciously or unconsciously guiding his words. Our attitude to such preaching would be determined is not the fact that it comes from a fellow countryman: we would certainly look at it, both on the outbound from the people, the rule which in this case is preached. What is our attitude to such preaching can not be the most negative, this no doubt. No sane people in the world, especially the people organized themselves into a state can not voluntarily prevent the destruction of their national face in the name of assimilation, even with more advanced people. On chauvinistic harassment of foreigners every self-respecting people will respond with Leonid Spartan: "come and take" and will defend its national existence by force of arms, if the defeat was inevitable.
All this may seem obvious, and yet the world has a mass of facts which contradict it all. European cosmopolitanism, which, as we saw above, there is nothing but obscheromanogermansky chauvinism is distributed among non-romanogermanskih people with great rapidity and with very little difficulty. Among the Slavs, Arabs, Turks, Indians, Chinese and Japanese have such a cosmopolitan lot. Many of them even more orthodox than their European counterparts, in the rejection of national characteristics, in contempt for not romanogermanskoy every culture and so on.
What explains this contradiction? Why obscheromanogermansky chauvinism has indisputable success of the Slavs, while quite a hint of Germanophile propaganda to make the Slav guard? Why Russian intellectual indignantly rejects the idea that it can serve as an instrument of German Junkers-nationalists, while the submission of the same chauvinist obscheromanogermanskim Russian intelligentsia are not afraid?
The answer lies, of course, in the words of hypnosis.
As mentioned above, romanogermantsy were always so naive to believe that only they — the people that call themselves "humanity", their culture — "universal civilization", and finally, their chauvinism — "cosmopolitanism." This terminology, they were able to mask all that real ethnographic content, which, in fact, is all of these concepts. Thus, all of these concepts have become acceptable to other ethnic groups. By submitting aliens nations are the product of their material culture, which can be called the most universal (war materials and mechanical devices for movement) — romanogermantsy slip with them and their "universal" ideas and bring to them in this form, with careful blur the essence of ethnographic these ideas.
Thus, the spread of the so-called. European cosmopolitanism among non-romanogermanskih peoples a pure misunderstanding. Those who succumb to propaganda romanogermanskih chauvinists have been misled by the words "humanity", "common human", "civilization", "global progress" and so on. All these words were understood literally, while behind them, in fact, hiding very specific and very narrow ethnographic concepts.
Fooled romanogermantsami "intellectuals" non-romanogermanskih people must understand their mistake. They need to realize that the culture that they brought the guise of human civilization, in fact, have a culture of a particular ethnic group in Romance and Germanic peoples. This insight, of course, should significantly change their attitude to the culture of his people and get them to think over if they're right, trying, in the name of some "universal" (and, in fact, romanogermanskih, ie, foreign) ideals, to impose a foreign culture to the people and eradicate it features a national identity. To solve this issue, they can only after mature and logical examination romanogermantsev claims to be the "civilized world." To take or not to take romanogermanskuyu culture can only be a whole number of issues, namely:
1) Is it possible to objectively prove that culture romanogermantsev perfect than all other crops, now existing or ever existed on earth?
2) Is the full communion of the people of the culture generated by other people, with the initiation of the anthropological without mixing the two nations together?
3) Is the introduction to European culture (such as communion possible) good or evil?
These questions must, and, anyway, to allow anyone who is aware of the nature of European cosmopolitanism as obscheromanogermanskogo chauvinism. And only with an affirmative answer to all these questions can be general Europeanization considered necessary and desirable. At the same negative response to this Europeanization must be rejected and there should already be assigned new questions:
4) Is the general Europeanization inevitable?
5) How to deal with its negative consequences?
In the following, we will try to solve all the questions we raised. In order, however, that the decision was correct them and, most importantly, productive, we have to invite our readers to take time off from a completely egocentric bias, from idols "universal civilization" and all of the characteristic romanogermanskoy science way of thinking. This refusal — no easy matter, for the prejudices of the question are deeply rooted in the minds of all Europeans "educated" person. But this refusal is necessary in order to objectivity.
Read the book