A message on the topic of destruction of traditions of state power. Ways and tasks of the spiritual revival of Russia. To be or not to be

One of the traditional non-forceful bonds of statehood is religion. Religious basic foundations are historically found in virtually every modern state. For some - such as non-secular Israel - this connection has more obvious forms, implemented in management practice. In others, like the United States, it is not so obvious. But is it really possible to adequately understand the semantic foundations of American statehood without the legendary stories of the Protestant migration? For Russia, Orthodoxy, of course, acted as a state-forming force.

Religion as a factor of state viability. Worldview-wise, religion endows a person with the highest transcendental meaning of existence: axiologically, it instills in him the values ​​of communal existence; ethically - establishes the coordinates of good and evil; regulatory - sacralizes in the form of traditions the optimal standards for the functioning of the corresponding cultural community. Accordingly, in order to destructure the state, the foundation of religion must be knocked out from under it. There is a correlation between the religiosity of the people and state stability. Appearing at the end of the 18th–19th centuries. France, a country of permanent revolution, occupied at the same time a vanguard position in the world in spreading the ideology of secularism. It was also historically the first state to face the challenge of long-term reproductive decline in modern times. Being a more socially stable organism in the 19th century, Great Britain retained at the same time - unlike France - a more accentuated commitment to traditional religious values.

Russia at that time was a country of absolute popular religiosity. But already from the beginning of the 20th century. It was she who became the main recipient of the spread of atheism. How was it possible for more than seventy years of existence of a state built on the paradigm of an atheistic worldview?

The fact is that, unlike powerful state institutions, religion is much more inertial.

A clear indication of such inertia is the All-Union Census of 1937. The question of religious affiliation was included in the questionnaires on the personal initiative of I.V. Stalin. The results obtained turned out to be so stunning that the authorities did not dare to publish summary statistical materials. Two years later, a repeat census campaign was carried out, no longer containing an item to establish a person’s affiliation with any religion. An important question was missing in all subsequent censuses, including the 2002 census. According to statistics obtained in 1937, the majority of those who agreed to fill out the corresponding item in the questionnaire (56.7%) self-identified as believers. Obviously, they should also include those who, when asked about their attitude to religion, refused to give any answer at all. These amounted to 20% of the total number of participants in the census. This group can be identified as hidden believers. Refusal to fill out the corresponding item on the questionnaire, as well as non-participation in the census in general, was determined by religious motives. On the one hand, there was fear of persecution of all those who confessed their religiosity. On the other hand, entering the questionnaire as an unbeliever meant religious apostasy (the archetype in this case was the New Testament story of Peter’s denial).

Religious figures representing various faiths addressed the people with calls to avoid participation in the census campaign. The census was carried out on the very eve of Christmas (January 5–6), which served as an additional source of increased exaltation tension among the believing part of the population. Thus, at least 76.7% of Soviet citizens remained religiously identified by 1937. Apparently, their share was even higher, since for many believers, considerations of personal safety turned out to be a fairly significant factor when answering the corresponding item in the questionnaire. Thus, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the victory in the Great Patriotic War was won by a people who primarily retained their religious identity. The authorities, we must give them their due, having received the appropriate static materials, were able to effectively use the resource of the people’s religiosity for national purposes. The neo-institutionalization of patriarchy was a direct consequence of this revaluation. A strategy for eroding the traditions of Orthodox religiosity in modern Russia. Modern Russia, it would seem, is much more religiously oriented than Soviet Russia. The media have sung a hymn to Russian religious revival more than once. However, an analysis of the trends that have developed in the ideological sphere allows us to assert that faith itself has undergone significant erosion.

The turn towards a tolerant attitude towards religion, sanctioned by the authorities in 1988, was used in the specific conditions of perestroika destruction as a factor in state disintegration. Through this step, another blow was dealt, which became one of the decisive blows to the integration potential of communist ideology. Religious identity - as an alternative to Soviet unity.

Religion, as one of the traditional statist bonds, being taken outside the framework of the integral Soviet system formation, paradoxically was used as one of the detonators of the collapse of the USSR.

It is no coincidence that especially active support from the West in the spectrum of Soviet dissent was given to the direction of church dissidence. The human rights movement included, in particular, the activities of the Christian Committee for the Protection of the Rights of Believers in the USSR. However, it was not possible to create any broad opposition from the Orthodox flock.

Obviously, the paradigm of the statist orientation of the Russian Orthodox Church had an effect. The operation, successfully implemented in relation to Baptists or Pentecostals, failed in relation to Orthodox Christians. “But,” noted this failure, participant in the human rights movement of the 1970s, emigrant historian L.M. Alekseev, “among the Orthodox intelligentsia, an ironic, disgusting and suspicious attitude towards human rights activities, as well as “Soviet heroism”, “everyday fair” and even “satanic good” has always been widespread and intensified in the 80s.” Not being, by its very nature, a force in opposition to the state.
The Church was used in a great geopolitical game against its own interests. But the fate of the “Moor”, who has done his job, is well known. The nominated religious revival of Russia turned out to be nothing more than a simulacrum. According to sociological surveys conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation, at least 26% of Russians identify themselves as non-believers. These are not doubters, but precisely those for whom the denial of the existence of God is an ideological axiom. Moreover, in the capital the proportion of atheists reaches 43%. Another 5% of Russian respondents found it difficult to give any answer to the question about their attitude towards religion. Representatives of this category of the population cannot be classified as believers associated with a specific religious group. Their worldview, as a rule, is individual, and therefore does not fall under any of the known religions. Thus, the level of religiosity in modern Russia turns out to be even lower than in the atheistic USSR of 1937. The spread of the phenomenon of unbelief among the Russian population is especially significant in its destructive potential.

Such a state, in which the state-forming people in large sections are deprived of religious faith (despite the fact that the national outskirts demonstrate a relatively high level of religiosity), is doomed to collapse. The dichotomy of a non-religious center - religious outskirts was a model of disintegration of many world civilizations. Despite the fact that Russians make up 79.8% of the population in Russia, and the peoples of the Orthodox cultural area as a whole make up 86%, only 59% of Russians identify themselves with Orthodoxy. How does Russia look in terms of religiosity against the global background? Among countries belonging to the same Christian cultural type, the Russian Federation is found to be one of the least religious states. In most other Christian Western countries, the proportion of non-believers and skeptics does not account for even a quarter of the total population. Only Russia, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic exceed But what are Russian believers like? Finding out the specifics of their understanding of religion makes us question the fact of their religious affiliation.

Traditionally, the spread of Catholic proselytism has been nominated as one of the most pressing threats to the Orthodox world. The point here was not only the orthodox rejection of everything alien. Living folk memory reproduced numerous historical precedents of Latin expansion as an edification to descendants. More than once, the Orthodox statehood, due to the direct aggression of the adherents of Catholicism, was on the verge of destruction. The most striking episodes in this series are Constantinople 1204 and Moscow 1612.

The attitude towards Catholics in Tsarist Russia was even worse (and to a significant extent) than towards representatives of non-Christian faiths.

The papal throne was consistently defined as the Antichrist and associated with various kinds of eschatological projections. The transition from a strategy of direct aggression to a focus on missionary activity did not mean a change in the general target orientation of the Vatican towards Russia. Previous generations of adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church understood this well. However, among the new Orthodox flock, the sense of the threat coming from Catholic proselytism turned out to be atrophied. An indicator of this metamorphosis can be the results of public opinion polls regarding the prospects for the Pope's visit to Russia. Only a small part of Russian citizens spoke negatively on this matter. The number of respondents who positively perceived the idea of ​​the visit of the head of the Catholic Church was 8 times greater. But perhaps the personality of the Roman Pontiff crossed out the challenge of Latin proselytism at the level of mass consciousness? The question addressed to Russian society about the attitude towards Catholics in general allows us to state that we are talking specifically about the atrophying of Russians’ sense of the threat of other-confessional expansion.

The indifference of the majority of respondents is fully consistent with the secular paradigm of modern society, but the positive assessment of Catholics by almost a third of all respondents is difficult to explain other than as a result of appropriate propaganda processing.60 The overwhelming majority of nominated believers in Russia actually have a very distant relationship with religion. Most often, by faith they understand their own individual religious-surrogate worldview, not attributable to any of the known confessional practices. This can be confirmed by sociological surveys to identify the degree of churchgoing among Russians. Individuals “professing non-Christian religions” were excluded from the sample. The results obtained are discouraging. Only an extremely small number of Russians regularly attend churches (7%), perform the rite of communion (1%), observe all major church fasts (2%), pray church prayers (5%), read the Gospel and other biblical texts (2%). Thus, 59% of self-identified Orthodox Christians turn out to be nothing more than a fiction. The actual number of the Orthodox flock in Russia does not exceed 7% of the population.

The position of the Church in this regard is much worse than it was under Soviet rule.

Behind the external mass appeal and official respect, Orthodoxy, as the traditional religion of Russia, turned out to be almost destroyed. A person who does not even have an idea of ​​Christian prayer cannot be considered an Orthodox Christian. It is characteristic that in the United States believers are considered to be people who regularly read the Holy Scriptures (daily - 20% of Americans, at least once a week - 30%), as well as those who attend church with weekly intensity and regularly participate in the sacrament of the sacrament (in those religious directions where it exists).

The ideological state of modern Russian society evokes involuntary associations with the Roman Empire during its period of decline. Against the backdrop of a breakdown in the traditional system of understanding the world, inherently destructive occult practices are spreading. By exploiting the religious feelings immanent in the human psyche, various kinds of charlatans gain a wide public platform. Programs on extrasensory perception are regularly given a place in the hourly schedule of federal television channels. Meanwhile, the nature and nature of the extrasensory influence on humans has not been fully studied by science today. The Church categorically rejects such experiences as satanic practices. However, the management of television channels, with the strange connivance of the state authorities, considers it possible to conduct mass experiments on the consciousness and mental health of Russians. Neo-occultism directly destroys the coordinates of traditional religiosity. The neo-occult worldview is a direct competitor to the religious worldview. Suffice it to say that today in Russia the proportion of people who believe in extraterrestrial civilizations is higher than those who believe in the immortality of the soul. Moreover, even among those who identify themselves as Orthodox Christians, many do not share the basic thesis about the afterlife for the Christian religion. Only a third of Russians deny the phenomenological reality of the occult. The vast majority found themselves involved to some degree in the occult atmosphere.

Thus, the place of Soviet atheism was replaced not by religion, but by occultism.

Bearing in mind assistance in its information promotion, it is appropriate to talk about the operational nature of the introduction of a new worldview. Judging by public surveys, the hierarchy of popularity of neo-occult concepts is built in modern Russia as follows:

1. Inducing “damage”, “evil eye” (witchcraft).
2. Omens coming true.
3. Predictions based on hand lines (palmistry).
4. Predictions based on the location of stars and planets (astrology).
5. Diagnosis and treatment of diseases using the biofield (extrasensory perception).
6. Manifestation of otherworldly forces, ghosts, brownies.
7. Activities of aliens on Earth (duology).
8. Transmission of thoughts at a distance (telepathy).
9. Communication with the souls of the dead (spiritism).
10. Moving objects with the power of thought (telekinesis).
11. Spontaneous movement of inanimate objects (poltergeist).
12. Human flight without any devices (levitation).

But the matter is not limited to just a hypothetical statement of the likelihood of paranormal phenomena. Almost a quarter of Russians were directly involved in occult practices. 23% of respondents admitted to visiting magicians, sorcerers, and psychics. This is more than the number of Russians who take part in church sacraments. Organizationally, Orthodoxy is losing to its ideological opponents. Today, about 300 thousand various kinds of magicians, healers, and psychics are registered in the country. According to sectologist A.L. Dvorkin, their actual number reaches 500 thousand people. Ideologically opposing this army of occultists are 15 thousand Orthodox clergy. “Such a number of actually pagan magicians,” writes the prominent researcher of church history D. Pospelovsky, “in a market economy means that the demand for them exceeds the demand for the Orthodox clergy by 30 times!” In Soviet times, of all religious organizations operating in Russia, 62.7% were part of the Russian Orthodox Church. The new religious movement was represented by associations of Hare Krishnas, Baha'is and Mormons, accounting for less than 0.2%68. In 2007, the situation was already fundamentally different. Associations in the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church already accounted for 54.3%. The number of organizations representing new religious movements increased to 3.5% (during the years of reform it increased 17.5 times). This is more than the number of Buddhist (0.9%) or Jewish associations (1.3%) associated with religions traditional to Russia.

Thus, the answer to the question of who won as a result of the transformations that took place seems obvious. In any case, this is not the Russian Orthodox Church. According to data for 2003, in Russia during the post-Soviet period of its history, up to 500 new religious movements have spread, covering 800 thousand adherents. The missionary department of the Moscow Patriarchate provides different statistics: 700 denominations and up to 5 million active adherents. Without the appropriate patronage of government officials, such a rapid spread of neo-occultism and sectarianism in Russia would have been impossible. The extremely lenient rules for registering religious organizations in the Russian Federation led to the legal legitimization of a significant number of totalitarian sects banned in other countries of the world. Before the introduction of relevant legislative changes in 1997, most of these types of organizations had customs benefits and were exempt from paying taxes.

The activities of such public associations in the Russian Federation as the International Association for Religious Freedom and the International Civil Commission on Human Rights (the latter was established with the direct participation of the Church of Scientology) have a “sectarian” orientation in the Russian Federation. In fact, the green light for neo-occult imports into Russia was given by the laws “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” and “On Freedom of Religion” adopted in 1990 in the USSR. Only in 1997, this expansion, due to the recognition of the “dangerous consequences of the influence of some religious organizations on the health of society, families, and citizens of Russia,” was partially limited through the adoption of the Federal Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations.” The leitmotif of the changes made was the deprivation of denominations that had spread in Russia for less than 15 years of previously existing tax preferences and the right to rent premises. This decision was implemented through the differentiation of religious associations into religious organizations and religious groups. The interest in the religious erosion of Russia was not slow to emerge.

As a response, the US Senate decides to reduce financial assistance to the Russian Federation by $200 million. B.N. Yeltsin, under the pretext that the Duma bill contradicted constitutional law, initially vetoed it. But still, in the future, the softened version, despite the external and internal liberal pressure exerted, was signed by him.

However, the previously established fifteen-year period has already lost its relevance. For 1997, the 15-year limit meant cutting off the extension of the status of a religious organization to the numerous neo-occult foreign groups that appeared in Russia in the early 1990s. Now all of them have already received the appropriate rights to legal legitimization. Confessional associations that arose in the Russian Federation in the period 1991–1993 can already be legalized as religious organizations. The topic of new occult expansionism, which has temporarily disappeared from the agenda, should be updated again in the near future. However, the modern Russian government apparently lacks foresight of the upcoming threat. What kind of protection of the interests of traditional Russian confessions can we talk about if such political figures as Anatoly Chubais and Alexander Voloshin appeared at different times as chairman of the Council for Interaction with Religious Organizations under the President of the Russian Federation? The Russian Orthodox Church is also losing in the competition with its ideological opponents for the younger generation. The number of spiritual educational institutions among Russian Muslims is almost one and a half times greater than among Orthodox Christians. Almost as many other religious organizations in Russia have such institutions as the Russian Orthodox Church. Given the relative propaganda passivity of the Moscow Patriarchate, educational institutions of middle and higher levels are actively using organizations representing a new religious movement as a springboard for disseminating their teachings.

Scientologists, Moonies, Hare Krishnas, followers of the Anastasia sect, etc. have direct experience of collaborating with universities and schools in Russia. But someone at the level of management of Russian education opened the gates for them and showed interest in spreading sectarian influence on students!

The Church of Scientology is the most active in the educational field of Russia. It is education that constitutes the main income source for the functioning of Hubbard’s organizational structures. In Russia, according to experts, the income of the Church of Scientology reaches $50 million a year. Considering how many Russian citizens, judging by these means, are affected by the propaganda of the teachings of Dianetics, forces us to formulate the question of Hubbardian activity as a direct challenge to national security. The structure of the Church of Scientology includes several of its own educational institutions - “Hubbard College”, “Center for Applied Education”, “Non-state non-profit educational institution boarding school “Rodnik””. A special program implemented by the Moscow Dianetics Center consists of transmitting Hubbardian concepts through special training of teachers. For some time, the doors of Moscow State University were open to Scientologists. M.V. Lomonosov. Joint programs connected them - in particular during the period of institutionalization of the organization - with the Faculty of Journalism. Moscow State University even acted as a platform for holding the so-called “Hubbard Days.” Meanwhile, in Germany, the Church of Scientology is considered a “criminal commercial organization with elements of psychoterrorism” and is placed under special police supervision. In France and Spain, the activities of the Hubbardians became the subject of judicial investigations.

The scope of activity of Scientologists is not limited, however, to the education system. They made no less successful attempts to introduce their programs into medical institutions. At the level of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, they received, in particular, permission to implement their method of toxin cleansing of the human body. Hubbardians were even given the opportunity to provide treatment to children who suffered as a result of the consequences of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident, which amounted to a video series of Scientology presentation videos. The most resonant connection between the spread of neo-occultism in Russia and the activities of state authorities was illuminated by the example of the “Aum Senrike” phenomenon.

The veil hiding the fact of active cooperation between officials and sectarians was lifted only due to extraordinary circumstances - a terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway.

Having become widespread in Russia since 1991, after several years, under the patronage of representatives of the highest echelon of power, Russian AUM associations counted three times more adherents in their ranks than in Japan itself. The institutional cover for the followers of Shoko Asahara was established on the initiative of M.S. Gorbachev with the financial and organizational assistance of the Russian-Japanese University sect (originally the Russian-Japanese Foundation). Gorbachev’s sympathies for the Aumovites were shared by B.N. Yeltsin, who, by a special Decree of November 13, 1991, equated university employees to “categories of employees of government bodies.” The direct patron of Aum Senrike in the highest Russian government leadership was, as a judicial investigation showed, the head of the Expert Council under the President of the Russian Federation, Oleg Lobov.

It was he who organized the sect’s communication with some Russian defense enterprises, which resulted in the Aumovites receiving the appropriate technological developments for the production of sarin gas used in the Tokyo metro. A combat helicopter and a Russian-made gas analyzer were also later discovered in the sectarians' arsenal. Not only O. Lobov met with the leader of the sect Seko Asahara, but also other prominent representatives of the Russian state establishment - Vice-President A. Rutskoi, Speaker of Parliament R. Khasbulatov, head of Ostankino E. Yakovlev, rectors of leading Moscow universities (MSU, MGIMO , MIREA, MEPhI). For the symphony orchestra created under the auspices of Aum Senrike, the site of the Olimpiysky sports complex was provided. Asahara himself spoke from the stands of the Kremlin Palace of Congresses and the conference hall of Moscow State University. TV channel 2 2 during 1993–1994 provided AUM with weekly broadcasting opportunities. Despite the court injunction, organizations that are successor to Aum Senrika still operate on the territory of the Russian Federation.

According to Japanese law enforcement agencies, it is in Russia that a group of internationally wanted persons involved in the terrorist attack in Tokyo is still hiding.

No less large-scale influence on the Russian establishment at the turn of the 1980–1990s. provided by the Unification Church, better known as the Moon Sect. The head of the organization, Sun Myung Moon, was personally invited to the USSR in 1989 by M.S. Gorbachev in the status of state guest. In the Assumption Cathedral, which was still closed at that time for liturgical practice, he was even given the opportunity to perform the consecration ceremony (“salting”) according to his own Moonite rite. Cooperation between Moon and Gorbachev (in particular, through the Gorbachev Foundation) continued after the latter’s resignation. In addition to the ex-president of the USSR, among the participants in the Moonite forums there are also persons associated with a certain political spectrum, such as A. Yakovlev, G. Popov, S. Shushkevich. Experts claim that in order to attract the “powers that be,” the Moonies actively use the practice of providing extremely large fees. In 1992, the “Unification Church” conference was held mainly at the expense of the organizational resources of the Ministry of Education, which ensured the participation in the conference of delegates from public education departments of 60 Russian cities. What, it would seem, can connect the educational national system of Russia and the religious organization of the Korean missionary?!

How does this kind of cooperation correlate with the declaration on the separation of religion from school, so often mentioned to justify the inadmissibility of the spread of Orthodox educational programs?! Meanwhile, the Moonies conducted hundreds of seven-day seminars for teachers, covering more than 60 thousand representatives of the teaching staff of secondary and higher educational institutions in Russia. A unique point of triumph for the activities of the “Unification Church” was the introduction in 1993 of a course specially developed by the Moonies, “My World - and Me,” into the educational program for high school students. More than 2 thousand schools in Russia were taught this subject in a short time. In the Republic of Kalmykia, the course “My World - and I” was at one time even established as a compulsory discipline. The Moonies’ preparation of a special textbook for military personnel, “The Inner World of a Soldier,” also deserves special attention from the standpoint of national security. The decision to create it was made at a conference held jointly by the “Unification Church” and the Higher Humanitarian Academy of the Russian Armed Forces.

The further munization of Russia was stopped only by a number of scandals that took place abroad related to the exposure of adherents of munism in financial extortion. Harmonization of non-force foundations: both religion and science. Various staples of state life can be combined with each other. The hypertrophied development of one component that is out of touch with the other components leads to disharmony and can lead to the death of the entire system. It was in this way that the Russian Empire was brought to the collapse of the state system in 1917. There is no doubt that religion is one of the most important components of state viability. But when its position in society is asserted to the detriment of other non-forceful foundations of statehood - such as, for example, science or education - this can have the most negative consequences. The Russian Empire acted in the world as a kind of brand of high Christian piety and Orthodox theocracy. In the West, this image was strongly supported.

Your strength, Western “Russophiles” told Russia, is not in science and education (the lot of materialistic Europe), but in religious spirituality.

In general, stay with banners and crosses, but do not claim the path of technical improvement monopolized by the West. Positioned through the image of the defender of Orthodoxy, the tsarist government fell for this trick, which turned out to strengthen the obscurantization paradigm in managerial terms. The disparity between religion, on the one hand, and the sphere, including science, education and secular culture, on the other, had the character of a catastrophic breakdown. The subsequent Bolshevik anti-religious campaign was objectively a reverse modernizing reaction to previous disproportions in development. The analysis allows us to assert that behind the external cover of reports about the religious revival of Russia, religion, as the anchor of Russian statehood, has undergone significant erosion over the past two decades. The design component of destructive processes in this area is traced. The main strategem being implemented is to erode the core of traditional religiosity for Russia, equate traditional religions with a neo-spiritualist surrogate, and replace them with the latter. Violation of the optimal pluralization in religious life resulted in the undermining of one of the most important non-force foundations of statehood.

Introduction

It has already become customary to call the past 20th century the century of revolutions: social, scientific, technical, and space. It can rightfully be called the century of the revolution of family and marriage relations. Since the beginning of the last century, major social changes have begun that have affected all spheres of human life, including culture.

The modern cultural situation causes considerable concern among cultural scientists. There has been a sharp reorientation of Russian cultural consciousness towards the West, which is caused primarily by economic reasons. The majority of members of the country's leadership are in no way concerned about preserving and maintaining the level of Russia as a great world power, solving their own personal interests (struggle for power, for spheres of influence, filling their own wallets, etc.). Despite the increased activity of the church and special attention to it from the government, the Russian Orthodox Church no longer has the same influence on the minds and souls of people that we have seen over many centuries of Russian history. And it is unlikely that the church will be able to restore its previous level.

From time immemorial, Russia lived by idealism and placed spiritual and moral order above all else. A serious negative side of the modern cultural situation is the lack of a positive program for the further development of Russia. There are multidirectional trends in society, dividing Russian culture into several incompatible planes along national, economic, and political lines, which further aggravates the feeling of an impending catastrophe. Of course, culture, or rather cultural institutions, continues to exist, and people still visit theaters, exhibitions, concert halls, and outwardly the situation does not look so tragic, but the internal situation of discord in the minds and souls of the Russian people is undeniable.

An important problem that arises in the relationship between man and culture is that modern man does not feel like a creator of culture, does not see his role in the processes of cultural creation. Culture does not arise on its own; it is created by man. Of course, the processes carried out by a group of people are more noticeable, but a group is nothing without the activity of a specific person.

Cultural creativity restores and develops the human spirit, which is denied by modern civilization. Therefore, cultural creation occurs in a constant struggle with civilizational processes that seek to tame a person, to make him a blind toy in the hands of those forces whose essence is not connected with the goals, objectives and meanings of human life.

The current 21st century is becoming an era in which great hopes are placed for all mankind. The difficult economic and social situation requires serious stress from modern people, which often causes stress and depression, which have already become an integral part of our existence. Today is precisely the time when the need for a “safe haven”, a place of spiritual comfort, is especially acute. A family should be such a place—stability amid widespread variability. Despite such a clear need, the institution of the family is currently experiencing a rather acute crisis, because its very existence, which has been unchanged for thousands of years, is under threat.

In all centuries, regardless of socio-economic conditions and government regimes, the family has been the basis of society. It is the family that is responsible for the formation of a full-fledged, morally rich and socially active personality, which in turn should become the creator of culture.

The development of the family is closely related to the progress of culture and civilization. This determines the relevance of family research in the system of human culture. The fact is that the achievements of culture and civilization are primarily reflected in the family. The family, for its part, acts as one of the main guardians and transmitters of traditions, values, norms, moral and moral guidelines - everything that we call culture, in its spiritual sense.

In other words, love and family constitute the spiritual foundations of civilization. From the moment they arise, they have a sociocultural character and, because of this, have a noticeable impact on the formation of the spiritual image of the individual. This influence is exercised within the framework of marital relations, the relations of parents to children, and vice versa, children to parents, etc.

The object of study in this work is culture. As you know, the concept of culture is as diverse as our life is diverse. In this case, we consider culture (within the framework of family and marital relations) as a spiritual and moral world inherent in human society as a whole and each individual individually.

The subject we chose was the institution of the family, which can fully be called both social and cultural.

Considering the relevance of the problem, this work sets a goal: to substantiate the importance and necessity of preserving the family as one of the factors in preserving culture and national culture in particular.

To achieve this goal, it seems necessary to solve the following tasks: 1) first of all, to clarify the concepts of “family” and “marriage”; 2) trace the development of family relationships in a cultural and historical context; 3) identify the functions of the family, show its meaning and importance in the development of the individual; 4) consider various problems of family and family relationships in modern society.

At the moment, there is a huge number of works devoted to family and marriage, both in domestic and foreign science. The topics present are very diverse - this is the history of family and marriage relations, and ethnographic essays, collections of family and everyday folklore, intrafamily relationships, conflicts, functions, etc. This thesis presents an attempt to combine and analyze various approaches to the study of family within cultural knowledge.

The theoretical analysis of the research problem allowed us to put forward the following hypothesis: the development and state of culture and society directly depends on the functioning of the family institution and the nature of the relationships between its members.

Chapter 1. THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE PROBLEM.

As you know, cultural studies is a relatively young science, located at the intersection of many humanities disciplines, such as history, philosophy, sociology, art history, psychology, political science and others. All of them are united by the object of research - man and his activities. Thus, in cultural research we turn to theories and concepts developed within the framework of these sciences, because culture permeates the entire field of human life, who is at the same time both a subject of culture and an object of cultural influence.

The family is a living organism, a micro-society in which the past, present and future come into contact, in which the formation of the civilizational foundations of human reality is taking place. They thought about the family and its meaning back in ancient times; the origins of these thoughts go back to the philosophical wisdom of Plato (dialogues “State”, “Laws”, “Feast”), Aristotle (“Politics”), Plutarch (“Admonition to Spouses”). Philosophical understanding of the family comes down largely to thinking about the relationships of family members, that is, spouses, parents and children (Michel Montaigne’s “Essays”), about the role of the family in the state, and, of course, about love as an integral part of family life (Hegel “ Philosophy of Law").

Plato's dialogue "The Symposium" is devoted to the development of the idea of ​​love, which, in his opinion, underlies the formation and existence of any thing and the world in general. Eros in the dialogue appears as the primordial world integrity, calling for the unity of lovers who experience an irresistible mutual attraction in search of blissful serenity. "The State" is one of the first works of utopian literature. The state appears in it as a military camp in which the family in the previous sense of the word does not exist. Men and women unite only for the purpose of procreation. Moreover, the choice of men and women is carried out by the state, secretly from them. Mothers and fathers do not know their children, and all female guards are wives of male guards. According to Plato, the community of wives and children is an expression of the highest form of unity and like-mindedness of the citizens of such a state.

Aristotle sharply criticized this idea in his Politics; unification of the state into a single family is a direct road to its destruction. Many children having many fathers will result in all sons equally neglecting their fathers.

Aristotle viewed man primarily as a political being. The family, according to Aristotle, is the first type of communication for a person and, accordingly, the most important element of government. He attaches great importance to marriage legislation, which ensures the birth of healthy children and prescribes ways to educate future citizens.

Family research is widely represented in sociology; As you know, the family is the unit of society. There really is a social need for the family, because if it disappeared, the very existence of humanity would be under threat. And that is precisely why in no society was the family a “private matter,” because any society has the right to expect the family to perform certain functions.

Family sociology as a special branch of sociological knowledge has its origins in large-scale empirical studies of European statisticians Reels and Le Play. In the middle of the 19th century. They independently made an attempt to study the influence of such social factors as industrialization, urbanization, education, religion on the forms of family living, family structure, and economic relations in it. Since then, problems of family and family-marriage relations have been constantly in the focus of sociology, since the family is a specific, in many ways unique entity: a small group and a social institution at the same time. Behind each of these phenomena there is its own reality and a set of concepts that reflect this reality.

Among modern domestic researchers, there is a widespread point of view according to which Russia - as a culture and as a civilization - is experiencing an acute identification crisis: having destroyed its former “Soviet” identity, it finds itself at a crossroads between post-industrial and traditional society. This conclusion is made on the basis of the facts recorded by these researchers related to family and marriage: a drop in the birth rate, an increase in divorces, single-parent families and loneliness, high female employment.

The study of modern sociologist Golod S.I. “Family and marriage: historical and sociological analysis” is devoted to the history of the development of marriage and family relations, the problems of the modern family. The author analyzes the concept of a traditional patriarchal family, child-centric, reveals the essence of conjugal and post-industrial marriages. A separate section in the book is devoted to the problem of divorce and the reasons leading to it. He also cites the opinions of various researchers regarding the future prospects of the family in modern society, at the same time the author himself adheres to the point of view that the institution of the family is not experiencing a crisis, but a natural transformation due to the socio-historical situation.

This work uses evolutionary and functional approaches.

Within the framework of the evolutionary approach, researchers such as I. Ya. Bakhoven, J. F. McLennon, M. M. Kovalevsky, I. Kohler, L. Sternberg, L. Morgan, F. Engels and others worked.

In this work we will turn to the works of the following researchers: American lawyer and ethnologist Lewis Morgan - the monograph “Ancient Society”, and an adherent of historical materialism Friedrich Engels - “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”

The evolutionist approach is based on the theory of primordial promiscuity, followed by exogamous matrilineage. Later, the theory of exogamous clans is supplemented by the idea of ​​a dual-clan organization that arises during the union of two matrilineal tribes. It was assumed that the clan consisted of two halves, phratries, in each of which men and women could not marry each other, but found husbands and wives among the men and women of the other half of the clan.

According to the functional approach, family relationships are derived from the family’s lifestyle and family structure, are determined by the sociocultural functions of the family and are built on a system of sociocultural roles associated with marriage, kinship, and parenthood.

Psychology pays great attention to family and marriage.

Within the framework of psychology, the family received attention from the theory of psychosexual stages of Sigmund Freud, which defines childhood experience as fundamental for the entire subsequent life of the individual, and emphasizes the influence of internal instinctive impulses on the entire formation and development of personality. The sociocultural direction (Karen Horney, Erich Fromm), in addition to natural, biological factors, also emphasizes the social and cultural conditions in which the individual develops.

Domestic and foreign monographs devoted to psychological problems of family and marriage are no longer a rare phenomenon (E. G. Eidemiller, V. V. Yustitskis, B. N. Kochubey, V. Satir, E. Bern, etc.). Most of these studies reflected the motives for marriage, the functions of the family, the causes of family conflicts and divorces, and methods of family therapy. The range of works in which the subject of study would be the evolution of the family, its structure, and the specifics of relationships, both marital and child-parent, is significantly limited. Among the well-known works, we can mention the studies of A. G. Kharchev and V. N. Druzhinin.

The reason, apparently, lies in the fact that in-depth studies of family relationships and the process of raising children in the family began only in the 20th century. In this case, the quantitative and qualitative evolution of the family was studied, on the one hand, on the basis of ethnographic data, information about the life of peoples and tribes preserved at the primitive level of development, and on the other hand, through the analysis of ancient written sources - from the Russian “Domostroi” to the Icelandic saga Interesting attempts are being made to trace the development of family types and models based on a comparison of world religions - V.N. Druzhinin, biblical texts - Larue D.

In recent decades, a new branch of humanities has begun to develop - cross-cultural psychology. Researchers are increasingly paying attention to cultural differences in people's behavior and attitudes towards various phenomena. This is due to extensive international contacts in politics, economics, science, an increase in the number of foreign students in universities in different countries, and the spread of interethnic marriages. “Psychology and Culture” by D. Matsumoto is the only and most complete textbook in Russian devoted to the influence of culture on human behavior. Of interest are the sections devoted to gender differences in cultures and the attitude of representatives of different cultures to love.

Gender psychology is another new direction that studies gender characteristics. Sean Byrne in his work “Gender Psychology” also uses cross-cultural research in the field of gender relations, the roles of men and women in different cultures.

Also of interest is a collection about marriage and family presented in two books under the general title “Family”, which contains various excerpts from classical works of past eras and modern scientific literature. The first part is devoted to the history of the family. It contains some ancient texts that tell about the family in a mythological and edifying sense: the Bible, the Koran, a Chinese treatise of the 2nd century BC. e. “Combination of yin and yang”, Indian “Kama Sutra”, Russian “Domostroy”, etc.

Thus, the thesis uses an integrative approach, an attempt to consider the family from different points of view in order to show its significance for society, people, and culture.

Chapter 2. GENESIS OF FAMILY AND MARRIAGE RELATIONS IN CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

2. 1 The concepts of “family” and “marriage”.

“Family is the most important phenomenon that accompanies a person throughout his life.” One cannot but agree with this statement, since we are all part of a family throughout our life, we grow up, leave it and create a new one. Generations of people change in a family, a person is born into it, and the family continues through it. The family, its forms and functions directly depend on social relations as a whole, as well as on the level of cultural development of society.

The most popular definition of family in Soviet sociology of the 60s - 90s belongs to A. Kharchev: “... a family can be defined as a historically specific system of relationships between spouses, between parents and children, as a small social group whose members are related by marriage or parental relationships, commonality of life and mutual moral responsibility and the social necessity of which is determined by the need of society for the physical and spiritual reproduction of the population.”

Sociologist S.I. Golod considers this definition not entirely satisfactory: “Let us ask: is it possible to find a common denominator of “mutual moral responsibility,” say, “slave - patriarch” in Ancient Rome and “son - father” in a modern family? Or another question: is living together together a family characteristic?” Next, the author gives two examples, “laconic and elegant,” in his opinion, definitions of the essence of the institution of family. The first belongs to Peterim Sorokin, who by family means “a legal union (often lifelong) of spouses, on the one hand, a union of parents and children on the other, a union of relatives and in-laws on the third.” The second statement of the Polish sociologist J. Szczepanski: “A family is a group consisting of persons connected by marital relations and relations between parents and children.” Thus, S.I. Golod considers the family “as a set of individuals consisting of at least one of three types of relationships: consanguinity, generation, property.” . But we cannot limit ourselves only to this definition in understanding such a phenomenon as a family, since it undoubtedly represents a more complex system.

If sociologists, in defining the family, focus on kinship, then economists on the household (and joint budget), psychologists on the relationships between family members, on indicating the functions inherent in it.

Sociologists and demographers emphasize another important point that economists miss - the continuity of generations. By a family that exists over a long period of time, one must understand such integrity that is divided and restored in each generation without disturbing continuity. The ability to restore its unity in each subsequent generation is a very important characteristic of a family. It describes what scientists call the family life cycle.

Family life cycle – This is a sequence of significant, milestone events in the existence of a family, which begins with the moment of marriage and ends with its dissolution, divorce.

Researchers identify a different number of phases of this cycle, but the main ones are the following:

marriage- family education;

beginning of childbearing- birth of the first child;

end of childbearing- birth of the last child;

"empty nest"- marriage and separation of the last child from the family;

cessation of family existence- death of one of the spouses.

At each stage, the family has specific social and economic characteristics.

Researchers currently identify two type families - traditional(or classic), it is also called extended (multi-generation). In such a family there is a husband, wife, their children, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc., and they all live together. That is, the family expands through 3–4 generations of direct relatives.

Second type - nuclear(from Latin nucleus - core) family, modern family, usually including two parents and one child. It is named so because the demographic core of the family, responsible for the reproduction of new generations, are parents and their children. They form the biological, social and economic center of any family. All other relatives belong to the periphery of the family.

The nuclear family is only possible in societies where children have the opportunity to live separately from their parents after marriage.

The initial basis of family relationships is marriage.

“Marriage is a historically changing social form of relationship between a woman and a man, through which society regulates and sanctions their sexual life and establishes their conjugal and kinship rights and obligations.” That is, the traditional “core” of a family is considered to be a married couple with the addition of children, relatives, and spouses’ parents to the “core.”

There is a close relationship between the concepts of “marriage” and “family”. However, in the essence of these concepts there is also a lot that is special and specific. Scientists have convincingly proven that marriage and family arose in different historical periods. In the second paragraph we will look at these concepts.

In the above definition, the key points for the concept of the essence of marriage are ideas about the variability of the forms of marriage, its social representation and the role of society in its ordering and authorization, legal regulation. Thus, in different societies, different ages for marriage are established, and the procedures for registering marriage and its dissolution are regulated.

Marriage in human society is considered the only acceptable, socially approved and legally enshrined form of not only permitted, but also obligatory sexual relations between spouses. From this we can conclude that the institution of marriage as such is more necessary for society and for society: “Look everyone, we are now husband and wife, we are together, we are family!”

In the Christian sense, marriage is enlightenment and at the same time a mystery. In it, a transformation of a person occurs, an expansion of his personality. In marriage, a person can see the world in a special way, through another person. This completeness is further aggravated by the emergence of a third, their child, from the two merged together. A perfect married couple will give birth to a perfect child, and it will continue to develop according to the laws of perfection.

Through the sacrament of Marriage, grace is granted for raising children, which Christian spouses only contribute to. The child receives a Guardian Angel at baptism, who secretly but tangibly assists the parents in raising the child, averting all dangers from them.

In our time, when public opinion has become more liberal and the rigid moral principles of the Soviet period have been replaced by more democratic ones, the understanding of the family has changed. Now the concept of “civil marriage” (legalized by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) has been introduced, when people create a family based only on a sense of responsibility, mutual assistance and, of course, love, without registering their relationship with administrative institutions. Although the majority of society does not consider such “marriages” to be sufficiently full and stable.

Marriage is also a set of customs that regulate the marital relations of a man and a woman. In modern European culture, such customs include dating, betrothal, exchange of rings, throwing rice or money during the wedding ceremony, honeymoon, and the bride and groom stepping over a symbolic obstacle. All this represents a kind of inauguration - a solemn ceremony of concluding marriage bonds.

If marriage extends to the relationship of the spouses, then the family covers marital and parental relationships. Marriage is only a relationship, but the family is also a social organization.

The family grows from two clans: male and female. It carries within itself not only their physical qualities (hair color, eyes, nose shape, body proportions, etc.), but also feeds from their spiritual source. Striving for higher ideals or, on the contrary, grounded aspirations, altruism or selfishness, conscientiousness or spiritual callousness in young people often have ancestral roots. The more fully a family has absorbed the best qualities and properties of clans, their value orientations, traditions, customs, the more deeply they have accepted their spirit and purpose, the richer its inner life, the more sustainable and stable it is.

The essence and meaning of the family, therefore, is not simply the reproduction of the population or childbearing, but the prolongation of the family line in the broadest sense of the word. The family acts as a connecting link between generations of the clan in all planes of existence. Through it, the race develops the mental and spiritual qualities inherent in its nature. Through the family, the clan realizes itself, its purpose, embodies, expresses and develops its physical, psychological, spiritual and moral essence, materializes in its actions and way of life.

With this approach, each specific family ceases to be perceived as a social phenomenon that has both a beginning and an inevitable end. It receives another coordinate system, reflecting vertically the depth and strength of connections with the clan (including at the genetic level) as the bearer of common social experience, wisdom, social guidelines and values, and finally, the spirit of the clan itself. In the memory of the family, in its faith, the family gains immortality. Illuminated by the light of higher spiritual principles, a person in it rises above natural biological instincts and overcomes his egocentrism.

Family is a complex sociocultural phenomenon. Its specificity and uniqueness lies in the fact that it focuses almost all aspects of human life and reaches all levels of social practice: from the individual to the socio-historical, from the material to the spiritual. Following all of the above, in the family structure we can distinguish three interconnected blocks of relationships:

– natural-biological, i.e. sexual and consanguineous;

– economic, i.e. relations based on household, everyday life, family property;

– spiritual-psychological, moral-aesthetic, associated with feelings of marital and parental love, with raising children, with caring for elderly parents, with moral standards of behavior. Only the totality of these connections in their unity creates a family as a special social phenomenon, because the natural closeness of a man and a woman cannot be considered a family, not legally enshrined and not connected by a common life and raising children, since this is nothing more than cohabitation. Economic cooperation and mutual assistance of close people, if they are not based on ties of marriage and kinship, are also not an element of family relations, but only a business partnership. And finally, the spiritual community of a man and a woman is limited to friendship if the relationship between them does not take the form of development characteristic of a family.

Marriage is a necessary element of family organization, which not only legally (or according to church norms) secures the created union of a man and a woman, but also creates in the spouses a sense of moral security, stability and certainty.

2. 2 Concepts of the origin of family and marital relations.

Getting married and starting a family is now such a common occurrence that it seems like it has always been this way. The European type of marriage arose more than 300 years ago, but the history of the emergence of the monogamous family (the modern type of marriage) goes back many, many millennia.

In this paragraph we examine the concepts of the emergence of the family and the development of forms of marriage in a historical context.

Lewis Morgan (1818–1881), an American lawyer and ethnologist, became famous for studying the inside life of the Indian union of the Iroquois tribes. In his major works “Ancient Society” and “Houses and Domestic Life of the American Natives”, using extensive field materials, he developed the idea of ​​​​the progressive development of mankind and its historical path. Having established himself in the idea that primitive society was basically tribal, Morgan sharply contrasted it with political society or, in modern language, class society. Tribal associations, no matter where they are geographically located, turn out to be “identical in structure and principles of action”, at the same time they are transformed from lower to higher forms in accordance with the consistent development of people.

L. Morgan defines a genus as a set of relatives descended from one common ancestor, distinguished by a special totem and connected by blood ties. It is characterized by collective ownership of land and other means of production, primitive communist organization of the economy, absence of exploitation and equality of all members of the tribe.

Kinship ties were determined by maternal descent, the community in question included, simply put, the foremother, with her children, the children of her daughters and the children of her female descendants in the female line ad infinitum. While the children of her sons and the children of her male descendants in the male line belong to the clans of their mothers. Marriage within one's own clan was prohibited.

“With the development of the idea of ​​the clan,” notes the American scientist, “it naturally had to “take the form of pairs of clans, because the children of men were excluded from the clan, and because it was necessary to organize both classes of descendants to the same extent.”

As S.I. Golod asserts in his work “Family and Marriage,” the doctrine of primitive history created by Morgan in principle refuted the patriarchal theory that prevailed in ethnographic science, according to which the main cell of society throughout its existence was monogamous, or at best, patriarchal family.

The ethnologist distinguished five successive forms of family, each of which had its own marriage order. These are the forms:

consanguineous family was based on group marriage between siblings, siblings and collaterals.

Punalual family. It relied on the group marriage of several sisters, natural and collateral, with the husbands of each of them, and the common husbands were not necessarily related to each other, and vice versa. It was this form of group marriage, according to the scientist, that became the foundation of the clan. S.I. Golod notes that at the same time, the reality of the existence of such a family was recognized by few people.

Syndiasmic, or paired, family based on the marriage of individual couples, but without exclusive cohabitation. The duration of the union depended on the goodwill of the parties.

Patriarchal family is based on the marriage of one man with several women, accompanied, as a rule, by the seclusion of the wives. The characteristic of a patriarchal family is the organization, under the authority of the father, of a certain number of free and unfree people to cultivate the land and protect herds of domestic animals.

Monogamous family. Here a separate couple gets married once and for life. The history of monogamy over the course of approximately three thousand years reveals its gradual but steady improvement. A family of this type, insists the social anthropologist, is destined to progressively evolve further until the equality of the sexes and the equality of marriage relations are recognized. The presented series of marriage forms, according to Morgan, are not separated from each other by sharply defined boundaries. On the contrary, the first form passes into the second, the second into the third, the third into the fourth, and the fourth into the fifth, in general, imperceptibly.

The second concept belongs to Friedrich Engels (1820–1895), which was outlined in his work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.” It was created as a continuation of Morgan's work, which, according to Engels, confirmed Marx's materialist understanding of history and the idea of ​​primitive society.

Anticipating a specific analysis of family forms, Engels clarifies the essence of the materialist understanding of history: “The defining moment in history is, in the final analysis, the production and reproduction of life itself.” He further concretizes this position as follows: the production of means of subsistence (food, clothing, housing and the tools necessary for this) - on the one hand; on the other, the production and reproduction of man himself. The social orders under which people of a certain historical era and country live are determined by both types of production - the degree of development of labor and family. The ethnographic evidence collected by the American anthropologist precisely confirmed, according to the author, the correspondence of the three main types of marriage to the three main stages of human development. Savagery is characterized by group marriage, barbarism by couples, civilization by monogamy. Let's follow Engels' historical path of the family. The transformation of the family in the primitive era is seen by the theorist of historical materialism as a continuous narrowing of the circle of persons (of both sexes) who had the right to sexual relations. Initially there was a group marriage, the so-called promiscuity, corresponding to the lowest stage of development of society. It was characterized by promiscuity among members of the tribe, when all women belonged to all men, that is, it was of a factual nature. But already within the framework of group marriage, the creation of permanent couples for a more or less long period took place. The development of the clan and the increase in groups of “sisters” and “brothers” was followed by the prohibition of marriages between blood relatives.

Thanks to the consistent exclusion of first direct, then more distant relatives, and subsequently even in-laws, any type of group marriage becomes impossible. In this way, a paired marriage is gradually formed over the course of centuries. The latter is characterized by the abduction and purchase of women, easy dissolution of the union at the request of both the man and the woman, while both parties retain the possibility of remarriage. The children, which is significant, in both cases remain with the mother. The author attributes the initiative for the transition to pair marriage exclusively to one sex. He attributes this to the development of economic living conditions, accompanied by the disintegration of ancient communism and an increase in population density. Under the influence of these conditions, the previous relations between the sexes lost their naive character and seemed humiliating and painful to women, which in turn pushed them to seek the right to chastity, to temporary or permanent marriage exclusively with one man. Later, under the influence of the same circumstances, men resorted to strict monogamy - of course, only for women.

To transform a paired marriage into monogamy, from the analyst’s point of view, new prerequisites were needed. Engels believes that the domestication of animals and the breeding of herds created previously unheard of sources of wealth and gave rise to radically different social relations. Who owned the herds? he asks. And he answers: at least on the threshold of reliable history - to the heads of families, however, just like works of art of the barbarian era, metal utensils, luxury items and, of course, human livestock - slaves. The rapidly growing wealth, which became the private property of individual families, dealt a severe blow to a society based on paired marriage and matrilineal descent. But we must not forget that already a paired marriage placed a reliable natural father next to the mother, which was a new element. According to the division of labor in the family that existed at that time, it fell to the husband to obtain food and the tools necessary for this, and therefore the right of ownership to the latter; therefore, in the event of divorce, he took them with him. While the woman retained her household utensils. In addition, the man was the owner of the main source of food - livestock, but children could not inherit from their father, since inheritance was carried out through the maternal line. Hence, the theorist of historical materialism insists, the latter should have been abolished, which actually happened. For this, a simple decision was enough: henceforth, the offspring of male members of the clan remain within it, while the offspring of women are excluded from it and go to the clan of their father. Thus, the definition of descent on the female line and the right of inheritance on the maternal line was abolished and, on the contrary, the definition of descent on the male line and the right of inheritance on the paternal line were introduced.

The first result of the established order is found in the emerging intermediate type of family - patriarchal. What is the main difference between the new type of family? Monogamy differs from a couple family in the much greater strength of the marriage bonds; they can no longer be dissolved at the request of either party. Now only the husband can reject his wife - get a divorce.

Monogamy, according to F. Engels, is the first type of family, which was based not on natural, but on economic prerequisites - namely, the victory of private property over the original, spontaneously formed common property. The dominance of the husband in the family and the birth of reliably known children who will inherit his wealth - this was the ultimate goal of lifelong monogamy. In short, monogamy does not originate as a consensual union between a man and a woman, much less as the highest form of this union. Furthermore. It appeared as the enslavement of one sex by the other, as a proclamation of a contradiction between the sexes, hitherto unknown in all previous times.

Lifelong monogamy, as noted by a follower of K. Marx, brings both progress and relative regression. Along with lifelong monogamy, prostitution and adultery went hand in hand, prohibited, strictly punished, but ineradicable.

What are the prospects for the family, according to Engels? Understanding the limits of possible predictions, he follows the motto of K. Marx: “Doubt everything.” But one thing seems unconditional to him: “we are heading towards a social revolution, when the hitherto existing economic foundations of monogamy will just as inevitably disappear as the foundations of its complement - prostitution.” Engels was convinced that, as a result of the social revolution, the transformation of most private property into public property would minimize concerns about transferring wealth to the heir.

With changes in economic conditions, the need for a certain number of women to give themselves to men for money will disappear. Prostitution will disappear, and monogamy will finally become valid for men. And the author concludes optimistically: as soon as economic considerations, as a result of which women put up with men’s infidelity - concern for their existence and even more children - disappear, their equality will contribute to a greater extent to the actual monogamy of men than to the polyandry of women.

The works analyzed above are united by the idea of ​​the existence of group marriage in the early stages of human development. In contrast to them, the Soviet scientist L.A. Fainberg, relying on numerous studies, puts forward a hypothesis about the presence of regulation of marriage relations among ancient people long before the appearance of Homo sapiens, thereby rejecting the theory of promiscuity (promiscuity), allegedly practiced by man at the dawn its history. According to the researcher, biological prerequisites facilitated the development, of course, under the influence of social factors, primarily labor and hunting activities, such institutions and norms of behavior of ancient people as collectivism of production and consumption, regulation of sexual relations in the form of local group (but not yet tribal) exogamy, that is, the prohibition of marriages within a certain social group, the leading role of women as the stable core of the prenatal community.

To summarize, we highlight the main provisions of the evolutionary approach:

1) the calculation of maternal kinship precedes the calculation of paternal kinship;

2) at the primary stage of sexual relations, along with temporary monogamous relations, wide freedom of marital relations prevails;

3) the evolution of marriage consisted of a gradual restriction of this freedom of sexual life;

4) the evolution of marriage consisted of a transition from group marriage to individual marriage.

The theories of Lewis Morgan and Friedrich Engels are classics, and most scientists today adhere to the points of view they proposed.

2. 3 Family and marriage in the process of historical development - the evolution of family and marriage relations.

In the course of cultural and historical development, not only the form of family and marital relations changed, but also the very content of these relations, in particular, between husband and wife. With the advent of monogamy, this change was largely of a qualitative nature.

Marriage in ancient times. The emergence of urban civilization and the development of writing and reading skills led to the first written laws on marriage, which appeared in Ancient Babylon. Marriage in those days was also an economic transaction: the future husband had to buy the girl from her father. In all ancient cultures, contractual marriage and contractual marriage were commonplace.

In ancient Egypt, marriage was also concluded for economic or political reasons. Often brothers and sisters married so as not to divide the ancestral land or government positions inherited by the family.

The first historical form of monogamy, the patriarchal family, is ruled by the father and includes his descendants, their wives and children, and household slaves.

History also knows the era of matriarchy, when in ancient society the dominant position was occupied by a woman, but there were special reasons for this. When a strict taboo was imposed on incest, a clan was formed as a new form of family, which, as already noted, was based on the principle of maternal kinship. Due to the fact that husbands and wives were common, it was virtually impossible to trace the paternal line, and therefore only the mother and her children, who remained with her and constituted her maternal clan, could be recognized as truly blood relatives.

During the period of matriarchy, inheritance always went through the female line, and in marriage agreements the groom's property was often transferred to the possession of the bride. Many pharaohs married their sisters and even daughters in this regard, as this helped preserve the throne, dynasty and inheritance.

So Cleopatra (69 - 30 BC) was first the wife of her older brother, then after his death, the wife of her younger brother. Each marriage gave them the right to own Egypt.

The first laws of Roman law are attributed to Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome. In accordance with these laws, a woman united to a man by sacred bonds of marriage was supposed to become part of his property, and all the rights of her husband were extended to her. The law ordered wives to fully adapt to the character of their spouses, and husbands to manage their wives as their necessary property. The laws of Rome stated that marriage existed solely for the sake of procreation, as well as to ensure that family property remained undivided. Many centuries later, Roman law formed the basis of English law, which continued to give husbands great rights.

During the period of slavery in Ancient Greece, 4 types of women were known: 1) priestesses - servants of various cults, “mystical” women. 2) matrons - respectable, married women, mothers of children (the husband was called “you”; she could pay for treason with her life or be sold into slavery); 3) slaves who were concubines of plebeians; 4) hetaeras – educated and gifted women (the so-called “women for pleasure”);

Morals in Ancient Sparta are illustrated by the following example. The Spartan allowed any man who asked him to have sexual intercourse with his wife. At the same time, the woman remained in her husband’s house, the child she gave birth to from a stranger also remained in the family (if it was a strong, healthy boy). This can be explained from the point of view of the only purpose of the Spartans’ marriage, which was to have children.

Let us quote the words of F. Engels: “The overthrow of maternal right was a world-historical defeat for the female sex. The husband seized the reins of government in the house, and the wife was deprived of her honorable position, enslaved, turned into a slave of his desires, into a simple instrument of childbearing.”

With the advent of private property, a woman becomes a powerless domestic servant with numerous household responsibilities; she cannot even dispose of personal property without the permission of her husband, and in the event of his death, power in the house passed to his son.

According to historians, a woman could share a bed with her husband, but not a meal. In Ancient Greece, a beautiful woman was worth several head of cattle.

European marriage in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Throughout the 4th and 5th centuries, Europe was constantly invaded by northern barbarian tribes, who brought their own ideas about marriage and their own marriage rituals. For example, in accordance with the traditions of the Germanic tribes, marriage was monogamous, and adultery of both husband and wife was strictly punished by morality and law. French tribes, on the contrary, approved of polygamy and allowed the purchase and sale of brides. Moreover, almost all barbarian tribes believed that marriage existed for the sake of the family, for the sake of sexual and economic convenience.

With the transition from a tribal to a national community, as royal power strengthened, feudal leaders gradually lost their absolute power, including the right to decide on the marriages of their vassals and smerds.

The Middle Ages were shrouded in an aura of chivalry. However, in the marriage sphere the situation looked like this: knights had to marry ladies of their circle. Essentially, marriage was a socio-economic transaction: on the one hand, the girl “sold” her virginity and chastity, on the other, the man took upon himself the obligation to support and provide for her and future children. For the aristocracy, marriage was a political act, the best way to increase their influence and power. The same attitude towards marriage existed among the guild masters of medieval cities and among the merchants.

Ideas about serenades require clarification in the sense that they were usually sung under the window of other people's wives. But while a married man was singing under the window of another man's wife, another could be under the window of his own wife. The idea of ​​medieval troubadours fits well with the image of a cuckold.

By the Renaissance and Reformation, marriages based on a voluntary union became possible. At the same time, a more liberal point of view on marriage began to spread, and new spiritual and sexual trends appeared.

The Renaissance, essentially a revolutionary era, became “an absolutely exceptional age of fiery sensuality.” Along with the ideal of physical beauty, and as a consequence of it, productivity and fertility were elevated to the ideal. In other words, “Volcanic passions in both sexes were considered the highest virtues. Having many children brought glory and was a common occurrence; not having them was considered a punishment for some sin and was relatively rare.”

Family in biblical times. Researchers of the ancient Jewish family discovered in it elements of fratriarchy (when the head is the older brother), matriarchy, but in general the way of the ancient Jewish family is patriarchal. The husband was the master of his wife: he slept with her, she bore him children, and he had absolute power over the offspring.

The family was not closed: it included all blood relatives, as well as servants, slaves, hangers-on, widows, and orphans related to the family. All of them were under family protection. If the damage done to the family was so serious that revenge was required, this became the prerogative of the “redeemer,” the “deliverer.” Revenge could be carried out in the form of “vendetta” - blood feud.

The “marriage agreement” was committed by family members or their official representatives. The groom paid the bride's family mohar (ransom, compensation) - partly to somehow compensate for the loss of his daughter, but mainly because all the children she would give birth to in the future would be members of her husband's family.

In most cases, the groom did not see the bride until the marriage was consummated. At the wedding there was an exchange of gifts.

Both men and women married young. Mixed marriages occurred but were not encouraged. The purpose of marriage was to strengthen the family, preferably consisting of male persons. Extramarital affairs were prohibited, and adultery or fornication was punishable.

There was a clear distinction between the importance of men and women. A man had greater freedom and value in the eyes of society. A woman's purpose was to bear and give birth to children for her husband and to help him in all his affairs. She must make him happy, satisfy his sexual needs and follow his orders in everything. Women had practically no social status, and all decisions were made by men. “Of course,” writes J. LaRue, “many women had more power than they seem to have in intrafamily situations. To express her demands, a woman had many means at her disposal - anger, whims, an evil tongue, but the ideal has always been a submissive woman.

Pagan family. An example of a family characteristic of pagan culture is the Russian family of the 12th – 14th centuries. The relationship between husband and wife in this family was not built on relationships of “dominance-subordination”, but “on initial conflict,” as V. N. Druzhinin emphasizes in his work “Psychology of the Family”

A woman had freedom both premarital and within marriage. Not only the power of the father was limited, but also the power of the husband. The woman had the option of divorce and could return to her mother and father. In families, the main role was played by the “big woman” - the eldest most able-bodied and experienced woman, usually the wife of the father or eldest son; all the younger men of the large family were subordinate to her. At the same time, the man was responsible for the external natural and social space, the woman dominated the internal space - home and family.

A similar picture can be seen, according to V.N. Druzhinin, in most other pagan civilizations, for example in ancient Greek. In ancient mythology, gender parity is observed: male and female deities have equal rights, and the relationships between them are complex and ambiguous, including struggle.

In the relationship between parents and children, children occupied a subordinate position.

Christian family model. The victory of the Christian family model over the pagan one is characterized by a change in the types of relationships between father, mother and child.

During the early Christian period, many marriage laws were radically changed. For example, polygamous marriages and levirate were banned - a custom that obliges the brother of the deceased to marry his widow.

During the time of the first Christians, the concept of family differed little from the Jewish one. The man remained the main figure endowed with power. The wife had to obey him.

The patriarch is the head of the clan, the father of the family, and also performs the functions of a leader. The merging of the roles of Father and Leader, as well as Father and Teacher, is a characteristic feature of patriarchal culture.

In a primitive, preliterate society, where there is no strong government authority, the father may (or may not) be the head of the family. The state, be it monarchy or tyranny, makes the head of the family the pillar of power, forming a miniature of social relations in the family. Family members obey their father, as subjects to a monarch or dictator, and, further, like all people, to one God, the Heavenly Father. The triad - Father - Ruler - God is the basis of patriarchal ideology. On the one hand, the father (the real father of the family) is assigned the functions of a miniature monarch, on the other hand, the ruler, and then paternal qualities are attributed to God: a combination of severity and justice, the ability to resolve all conflicts “in a family way.”

In general, as V.N. Druzhinin accurately noted, no world religion assigns such an important place to the family in the system of belief as Christianity. Therefore, it is especially interesting to consider the model, or more precisely, the models of the Christian family. As V.N. Druzhinin notes, Christian doctrine prescribes to the world two models of family: the ideal “divine” and the real, earthly one.

The ideal Christian family includes: Father, Son and Mother (Virgin). The real, earthly family is the “Holy Family”: Jesus Christ, adoptive father Joseph, Virgin Mary. Christianity separates the father-educator, who is responsible for the life, health, and well-being of the family (primarily the child), and the genetic, spiritual father, whose function is realized by God the Father. The earthly model of the Christian family is a classic version of the child-centric family.

It is interesting that in Catholicism the cult of the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, is of particular importance and, on the contrary, almost all Protestant doctrines ignore any of her role. The Protestant family is the relationship of man to man: father to son, master to heir, potentially equal. Protestant leader Martin Luther (1485 - 1546) opposed the traditional sacrament of marriage and believed that the purpose of marriage was the birth of children and the life of spouses together in mutual fidelity. The attitude towards a woman (wife, spouse, daughter) remains outside the sphere of relations sanctified by religion. At the same time, by the 17th century in Germany, Holland and Scotland, the view of family relationships as the spiritual unity of husband and wife began to spread.

Some of the restrictive marriage customs found in Europe were carried over to the New World by early settlers. Interestingly, for example, Calvin's dogmatic condemnation of intimate pleasures dominated the minds of Americans, especially Puritans, for many years. Anti-sexual and moralistic attitudes dominated the colonies for quite a long time. At the beginning of the colonial period, marriages were concluded purely for reasons of convenience. Women occupied a powerless, subordinate position.

As women gained more rights in the United States, attitudes toward marriage changed radically. This was facilitated first by the struggle of women for voting rights, and later by the growing feminist movement.

In Christian scripture, more attention is paid to the relationship between spouses than between parents and children, and even more so to sexual relationships. The latter are accepted as an inevitable reality, although in some verses we can find advice to avoid sexual relations altogether:

“And what you wrote to me about is that it is good for a man not to touch a woman at all. But to avoid fornication, each one have his own wife, and each one have his own husband. ...Do not deviate from each other, except by agreement, for a while, to exercise in fasting and prayer, and then be together again, so that Satan does not tempt you with your intemperance. However, I said this as permission, and not as a command.”

And if possible, it is better to avoid marriage, since “... An unmarried man worries about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but a married man worries about the worldly things, how to please his wife.”

Intrafamily relations according to Domostroi. In the Russian religious worldview, the roots of paganism and “dual faith” are quite strong. Perhaps that is why Orthodox Christianity took the side of the male in the struggle between two pagan principles - feminine and masculine, leading the family to the “moral” dominance of the husband over his wife and children. In housebuilding, a lot of attention is paid to the distribution of roles in the family and how to ensure that the main place in the house belongs not to the wife, but to the husband.

Domostroy does not know the term family in its modern interpretation. He uses the word “house,” denoting it as a kind of unified economic and spiritual whole, the members of which are in a relationship of dominance and subordination, but are necessary for the normal life of the domestic organism.

The responsibility of the head of the family is to take care of the well-being of the home and the upbringing, including spiritual education, of its members. The wife is obliged to do needlework herself and know all the housework in order to teach and supervise the servants. In addition, she is involved in raising and educating her daughters (teaching sons is the responsibility of the father). All decisions related to “house construction” are made jointly by the husband and wife. They should discuss family issues daily and in private.

The role of wife and mother in Domostroy was highly valued. The wife in Domostroy is the regulator of emotional relationships in the family, and she is also responsible for family charity. Domostroy recommends that the wife “comply with her husband,” that is, act in accordance with his desires and ideas. It follows from the text that in family relationships all sorts of “inappropriate deeds are condemned: fornication, foul language and obscene language, and swearing, and rage, and anger, and rancor...”

In Domostroy, love for children is considered a completely natural feeling, as is concern for their physical well-being; concern for the spiritual development of children is considered less common. However, in terms of their position in the family, they are closer to servants than to parents. The main responsibility of children is love for their parents, complete obedience in childhood and youth, and care for them in old age. Anyone who beats parents is subject to excommunication and the death penalty.

To date, families have appeared whose description in the historical context does not correspond to traditional ideas. The American psychotherapist V. Satir calls them non-traditional: single-parent families and mixed ones (according to V. Satir’s definition, these are families that combine parts of previously existing ones).

The genesis of family and marital relations occurs in accordance with the change of cultural and historical eras, social relations and religious ideas.

2. 4 The role of family in society. Its meaning

in the formation and development of personality.

Family is the people we see from the very beginning of our life to the very end, these are the people who raise us, teach us to love or hate, be interested in the world or fear it, trust people or avoid them. And most problems, including those on the scale of an entire country, stem from there. In modern society, no one is surprised when they hear about a “family” where parents drink and children grow up on the streets - thank God, such families are not the majority. But even in the most seemingly decent families, sometimes such wild relationships reign that there is nothing to be surprised about when you see the behavior of a child raised in such a family.

A family can be compared to a cell. The “body” of our society, our nation, our culture consists of millions of such “cells”. In each such “cell” smaller particles – molecules – function. These are people: spouses and their children. Consequently, the quality of the cell-family depends on the correct functioning of the molecules, on the strength or weakness of their connections, the nature of their relationships, and the condition of the entire body-society, its “health,” depends on the quality of the cell. Just as a sick cell creates sick organisms, so a spiritually damaged family reproduces morally unhealthy relationships in society.

Like every cell, the family performs certain functions assigned to it by society throughout history. If we rely on the three most general approaches to the family, that is, consider it as a social institution, as a small group and as a system of relationships, we can notice that more and more functions, roles and values ​​in the family depend on the individuals who make it up. Thus, the function of the family is the sphere of life of the family associated with the satisfaction of certain needs of its members.

It should be noted that there is no single list of basic family functions. Usually, different authors offer one or another set of functions and terms based on their theory. The important thing is that we are talking about the main groups of needs that the family can and should realize.

Different authors, listing the functions of the family, call them differently, but the set of functions they highlight is quite similar. I. V. Grebennikov classifies the functions of the family as reproductive, economic, educational, communicative, and the function of organizing leisure and recreation.

E. G. Eidemiller and V. V. Justitzkis note that the family has educational, household and emotional functions, as well as the functions of spiritual communication, primary social control and sexual-erotic function.

Some authors (A.G. Kharchev, A.I. Antonov) divide the functions of the family into specific, arising from the essence of the family and reflecting its characteristics as a social phenomenon, and nonspecific - those functions to which the family was forced or adapted in certain historical periods. circumstances. The specific functions of the family are preserved with all changes in society - reproductive (birth), existential (maintenance), socializing (upbringing).

Non-specific functions include the accumulation and transfer of property, status, organization of production and consumption, housekeeping, rest and leisure, caring for the health and well-being of family members, creating a microclimate that helps relieve stress and self-preservation of everyone’s “I”, etc. These functions reveal the historically transient picture of family life.

Researchers are unanimous that family functions reflect the historical nature of the connection between family and society, the dynamics of family changes at different historical stages. The modern family has lost many functions that strengthened it in the past: production, security, education, etc. However, some functions remain unchanged, and in this sense they can be called traditional; only the means of their implementation change.

Economic function is associated with feeding the family, acquiring and maintaining household property, clothing, shoes, home improvement, creating home comfort, organizing family life and everyday life, forming and spending a household budget. This function changes its content with the change and development of methods of production of goods.

Regenerative function is associated with the inheritance of the status of the surname, property, and social status. This also includes the transfer of some family “jewels” and relics. This function was most relevant during the periods of feudalism, when continuation of the family line and dynasty was necessary.

Recreational function – This is providing rest, organizing leisure time, caring for the health and well-being of family members.

Researchers call one of the main functions reproductive, existing since ancient times and justifying the existence of the institution of family as such. In other words, the reproduction of the human species, the continuation of the family - this is the main reason for which the family was created and existed and for which it primarily exists today. The need for children is realized through the fulfillment of this function.

For population growth, it is necessary for a family to have at least three children - two reproduce their parents, the third increases the number. Traditionally, peasant families in Russia were distinguished by having many children; this was necessary to perform numerous household chores: caring for livestock, working in the fields, etc. The birth of children was also encouraged by the church - as many as God gave, as many should be born. Naturally, there was no question of terminating the pregnancy. A large number of children also guaranteed the continuation and spread of the family. Chinese emperors, for example, could take nine girls from three different states as wives at once “to increase offspring due to the expansion of the family”

Urbanization and difficult economic conditions do not contribute to an increase in the birth rate, so currently most parents are forced to limit themselves to having one, or maximum two children. Now the birth of a child is consistent with the parents' ability to provide him with a decent life.

Closely related to reproductive educational function. A person acquires value for society only when he becomes an individual, and its formation requires targeted, systematic influence. Namely, the family, with its constant and natural nature of influence, is called upon to shape the character traits, beliefs, views, and worldview of the child.

Upbringing has a close connection with education, training and is realized in the process of creative mastery of all cultural achievements available to humanity, characteristic of a given socio-historical context. Education, according to K. M. Khoruzhenko’s definition, is the development in an individual of certain human qualities and his assimilation of moral, scientific, cognitive and artistic culture, which naturally orients the individual towards certain values: an attitude towards goodness, truth, beauty. The goals, content and organization of education are determined by prevailing social relations and depend on the traditions and norms of the corresponding culture.

Family and public education are interconnected, complement each other and can, within certain limits, even replace each other, but in general they are not equivalent. Family upbringing is more emotional in nature than any other upbringing, because its conductor is parental love for children, which evokes reciprocal feelings in children for their parents, says A.I. Zakharov.

The concept of socialization is associated with education.

Socialization – this is the process of familiarization with the values ​​and norms accepted in society and its subsystems, in other words, it is the entry of an individual into society and culture (the concept of “enculturation” is often applied to the latter). This concept is close to the word “education,” but education implies, first of all, directed actions through which an individual consciously tries to instill the desired traits and properties. Whereas socialization, along with education, includes unintentional, spontaneous influences, thanks to which the individual is introduced to culture and becomes a full-fledged member of society.

In the early stages of social development, socialization was dominated by the direct practical inclusion of the child in the activities of adults; later, systematic training, which may for some time be completely unrelated to productive labor, acquired an increasingly important role. That is, over time, “preparation for life” becomes more and more separated from practical participation in it. And today, family socialization represents, on the one hand, preparation for future family roles and, on the other hand, it influences the formation of a socially competent, mature personality.

What a child acquires in the family during childhood, he retains throughout his entire subsequent life. The importance of the family as an educational institution is due to the fact that the child stays in it for a significant part of his life, and in terms of the duration of its impact on the individual, none of the educational institutions can compare with the family. It lays the foundations of the child’s personality, and by the time he enters school, he is already more than half formed as a person.

The family can act as both a positive and negative factor in education. The positive impact on the child’s personality is that no one, except the people closest to him in the family - mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, brother, sister, treats the child better, loves him and cares so much about him. And at the same time, no other social institution can potentially cause as much harm in raising children as a family can do.

Parents may love a child for no reason, despite the fact that he is ugly, not smart, and neighbors complain about him. The child is accepted for who he is. This kind of love is called unconditional.

It happens that parents love a child when he meets their expectations, when he studies and behaves well. but if the child does not satisfy those needs, then the child is, as it were, rejected, the attitude changes for the worse. This brings significant difficulties, the child is not confident in his parents, he does not feel the emotional security that should be there from infancy. This is conditional love.

The main thing in raising a little person is to achieve spiritual unity, a moral connection between parents and child.

With the advent of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis at the beginning of the 20th century, increased attention was paid to the period of childhood as the basis for personality development. His postulate about childhood experience as a determining factor in the formation of a child was continued in their works by such scientists as Karen Horney, Alfred Adler, Carl Gustav Jung, Erik Erikson and others.

The leading importance in these theories is given to the need to meet the needs of the child.

Physiological needs- food, sleep, physical activity, etc. For example, insufficient feeding of a child in early childhood can lead to such traits as greed or excess in eating.

Security and protection needs Most pronounced in infants and young children, the satisfaction of these needs in the family depends entirely on the parents. Frequent parental quarrels, cases of physical abuse, separation. Divorce makes the child's environment unstable, unpredictable and, therefore, unreliable.

Needs for belonging and love play a significant role in our lives. The child passionately wants to live in an atmosphere of love and care, in which all his needs are met and he receives a lot of affection. It is the love of parents for their child and each other that is the guarantor of positive personal development.

In addition, sufficient satisfaction of the child’s listed needs at an early age gives him the basis for further full development in adulthood and the realization of the highest need for self-realization, which can be achieved through creativity.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of parental care for a child. American biologist Desmond Maurice states: “No other species on earth has such a huge parental task as humans - biologically parental feelings personify our immortality.”

Worldview, character formation, moral foundations, attitude towards spiritual and material values ​​are primarily brought up in children by their parents, writes Polish psychologist M. Zemska.

For the development of a child’s personality, the whole family and all types of family roles are important: mother, father, sisters, brothers. “Each member of the family group creates a special type of communication for the child. Therefore, the absence of any of them upsets the system of interactions and relationships.”

The mother is with the child from the moment of his birth, or rather, from the moment of conception; during this period, the child’s development is influenced by the mother’s attitude to the fact of pregnancy, and the attitude of others towards the mother herself. The mother acts for the child as a symbol of security and reliability, which are so necessary for a newly born little person. According to the observations of researchers, both the process of childbirth and the first contact between mother and child immediately after birth are important. In Russian villages, it was customary to give birth in a bathhouse, which may have helped the child more calmly endure the transition from the warm, moist mother’s womb to new conditions. For the same purpose, so-called alternative water births are now being spread. In this sense, the modern European type of childbirth appears in a more favorable light (the child is given to the mother immediately, perhaps the presence of a husband, the opportunity to give birth at home), rather than births taken “in the Soviet way,” when the child is immediately separated from the mother, tightly swaddled, and the young The mother sees her baby mainly only during feeding.

Breastfeeding is an important intimate moment that helps establish deeper intimate contact, the basis for further loving relationships. “By immaculately fulfilling the role of nurse, not allowing untimely absences and not allowing herself to get carried away by other people, affairs, or personal interests, the mother thereby gives the baby the opportunity to establish and maintain in the future a constant and strong attachment to the mother” - this is the belief of A. Freud. The constancy of this attachment, in her opinion, will serve as a strong basis for the formation and development in the future of similar attachments to father, brothers, sisters and, finally, to other people.

In modern society there is a prejudice that a father is needed only after the child begins to speak, move independently, reason and becomes quite interesting in terms of communication. Therefore, many men in the first years of life prefer to withdraw themselves, waiting for a more “favorable” time. But it has already been proven that it is in early childhood (from birth to about 6 years old) that both boys and girls need a father most of all. Fathers are encouraged to pet their baby as often as possible, hold him in their arms, talk to him, and perform normal care procedures. It was found that the success of a child in society is primarily determined by a man. It is the man who prepares the child for his subsequent entry into society. This is not the easiest task, because as successful as he is socially, his example enables the child to master social interaction skills.

The stability of the family environment is an important factor for the emotional and mental balance of the child. Family breakdown associated with divorce or separation of parents always brings deep shock and leaves a lasting resentment in the child.

According to M. Zemskaya, separation from one of the parents can lead to a child’s feelings of fear, depression, and loss of a sense of security. Many researchers note that the shock that parental divorce is for a child also creates certain conditions for his antisocial behavior.

The very atmosphere of family relationships influences the child, his behavior, his image of himself and the world. Tension and conflict situations have a negative effect. The home ceases to be a support for the child, the sense of security is lost, this can lead the child, especially in adolescence, to seek support outside the home. In this state, children are more susceptible to external influences. In families where parental consent reigns, children rarely go astray.

The mutual relationship of parents influences the child’s assimilation of behavior associated with his gender, and the child can assign to himself types of behavior that are inappropriate for his gender. As M. Zemska notes, in those families where mothers speak of fathers as very warm-hearted people who treat their children with love, boys choose the fatherly role in games. In those cases when the mother critically evaluates her husband, the boys chose the maternal role in the game.

In a complete family, children have the opportunity not only to imitate the parent, but also to differ from the parent of the opposite sex. For a girl, her father’s personal model helps her to believe in herself and, in the future, to understand her husband and son. For a boy, the closeness of his mother gives him the ability to better understand his wife and daughter in the future.

In a traditional Russian family, with the birth of a child, a complex mechanism of gender was involved in his upbringing. Communication in the family, as well as with close relatives, always ultimately carried a spiritual and psychological load. Any nuances in the relationships of parents with each other and with relatives are sensitively captured by children at both conscious and unconscious levels. Openness or isolation, sincerity or pretense, sympathy or indifference, generosity or stinginess, goodwill or coldness - everything falls on the scales of children's perception, is deposited in memory with various emotional shades, accordingly influencing the formation of the child's personality.

Every person has a grateful memory of his childhood impressions of communicating with his grandparents. A child’s world is unthinkable without lullabies, fairy tales, and instructive stories. Grandparents told their grandchildren about their youth, games, service or work, meetings and communication with interesting people, shared their life experiences, while they undoubtedly remembered their parents, grandparents. This veneration of the blessed memory of ancestors preserved the feeling of their presence in the family. And the house itself, the furniture, the things they bought or made with their own hands supported this atmosphere and created a kind of moral nourishment. Thus, three, sometimes four generations participated in living communication, which were connected by living memory with two more generations who had left this world. All these seven generations constituted a kind of root that went deep into the family.

The family is a complex sociocultural organism that has passed through stages in its development from “lower” group marriage, with unregulated sexual relations, to monogamy, which created what we now call the social unit. With the development of social relations, the family structure took on various forms. Depending on the culture and religion, various intra-family relationships were observed. But at all times, the family has been responsible for performing certain functions related to meeting both the personal needs of each family member and the needs of society. Probably the most important role of the family is the education of a full-fledged spiritual and moral personality, capable of creativity and creation. And over the centuries, this is exactly what most families have strived for.

Chapter 3. PROBLEMS OF FAMILY AND MARRIAGE RELATIONS

IN MODERN CONDITIONS.

3. 1 Pair relationships between men and women in the modern world.

The modern family, according to researchers, is taking on a new form, where the interpersonal relationships of spouses come to the fore, hence the name given to this type of family - matrimonial.

A family union is, first of all, a union of a man and a woman; it is from these two principles that a new family is born, and it is in their hands that the happiness of each other and their children is contained, therefore the role of the relationship between a man and a woman has increased repeatedly. Society is changing, and ideas traditionally associated with the role and significance of both sexes are changing.

A modern man, demanding from a woman independence, independence, initiative, strength, at the same time expects from her humility, weakness, and recognition of him (the man) as the head. That is, traditional patriarchal models come into conflict with modern conditions in which women and men become on the same level. As an example, we can cite a fairly typical marriage advertisement published in an Irkutsk newspaper:

“A fair-haired man with an athletic build of 35-180-80, high, an entrepreneur looking to start a family will meet a kind, thrifty girl of 23-30 years old, preferably a bright, spectacular brunette.”

This ad shows a mixture of ideals of the modern woman ( "bright and spectacular") and patriarchal ideas about her role in the family ( "kind, thrifty").

The equality of men and women leads to the fact that the original meanings of the existence of two opposite principles are lost.

“The relationship between a man and a woman is obviously a very complex problem, otherwise many people would not have difficulty resolving it,” writes 20th-century American humanist psychologist Erich Fromm. What are these difficulties? Perhaps they are due to gender differences.

Gender studies occupy an increasingly important place in modern science. In a certain sense, attention to gender issues is generated by feminist ideas spreading throughout the world. Once they achieved recognition of their rights, women turned the whole society upside down.

These studies ask questions about who should babysit children. and who builds a career? How much should a woman earn? How should household responsibilities be divided? etc. These issues and many others are addressed by sociologists and social psychologists. They also separate the concepts of “sex” and “gender”.

­ Floor is a biological characteristic that determines the physiological difference between a man and a woman.

Gender – forms of behavior and actions that are considered generally accepted for men and women in the context of a given society or culture. These forms may or may not be associated with biological sex and sex roles, although, as a rule, such a connection exists.

Sociologist Sinitsyna L.N. defines gender as a unique dimension of social relations rooted in a given culture. “The subject not only assimilates and reproduces gender rules and relations, but also creates them. This is a system of interpersonal interaction, during which the ideas about masculine and feminine as the basic categories of society are affirmed and reproduced.”

Based on this concept, we can talk about the existence of gender stereotypes, which are behavioral characteristics attributed to men and women. To be a man and a woman and to demonstrate this in the practice of social communication, to successfully implement the stereotypes of “male” and “female” in a given culture - this is a guarantor of the preservation of social order, believes L. N. Sinitsyna.

Every culture has its own gender stereotypes. At the same time, Sean Burn in his work “Gender Psychology” cites the results of a study by Western scientists Williams and Best, during which a survey was conducted of representatives of 30 countries. Scientists have found that there is a fairly high degree of commonality in views on male and female characteristics.

In most cultures, a man is considered to be aggressive, active, decisive, authoritative, rational, etc. The woman was described as talkative, receptive, kind, changeable, soft, submissive, weak, sensitive, emotional. It is interesting that in different cultures the same trait can be both positive and negative. For example, in Australia, Brazil, Peru and Italy, male stereotypes were quite negative, while in Japan and Nigeria they were more likely to have a positive connotation. They are more favorable towards women in Italy, Peru, Scotland, and vice versa in South Africa, Japan, Nigeria, and Malaysia.

Such differences in the assessment of stereotypes, according to the results of Williams and Best's analysis, are explained by the different religions practiced in these countries. Women were viewed favorably in countries whose traditions included the worship of female deities and where women were allowed to participate in religious ceremonies. For example, in Catholic countries where there is a cult of the Virgin Mary and monasticism for women. In Pakistan, female stereotypes are more negative than in India. In the Islamic theology of Pakistan, all significant religious figures are men and religious rituals are performed only by men. In contrast, Indians are followers of Hinduism, following a religious tradition that includes the worship of female deities. Both women and men serve in Hindu temples and are responsible for performing religious rites.

As much as a man and a woman are opposites, they are equal. After all, in certain situations, certain behavior is necessary. As Sean Byrne writes: “Most social roles are filled primarily by one sex or the other. Women's roles typically require different behaviors and skills than men's roles. As a result, it seems that both genders are very different from each other.”

As already mentioned, a married family is a union of two equal individuals. But gender stereotypes do not allow such relationships to fully develop in modern conditions. For centuries, a man was the head of the family, the patriarch of his mini-state. The woman was in a subordinate position and financially dependent on the man. Nowadays, women have reached a new level. Now she often does not depend on a man; she earns her own living and the living of her children. The man lost his authority as the breadwinner of the family, and this was his main task for centuries. We can still observe this type of hierarchy in the family in some traditional societies, for example in the Muslim world.

Consequently, since a woman can do without a man in her social life, then the family loses its significance and may even disappear altogether as unnecessary.

But the existence of two sexes and their union in a couple, in a family, contains something more than simple material support. Based on the analysis of different studies and approaches, we ventured to conclude that pair relationships have the following meanings:

Metaphysical

Psychological

Social

Biological.

It is at these four levels that the relationship between a man and a woman acquires meaning that modern humanity needs to understand.

As you know, modernity has once again begun to turn to the teachings and knowledge of antiquity. And it was the ancients who clearly knew why and why men and women live on earth. This was reflected in various mythological and religious ideas of ancient people. The author of the book “Metaphysics of Gender,” Julius Evola, calls the main feature of the traditional world the awareness of the original opposition of the sexes. “Sexual division, before its physical existence, was and is a transcendental principle present in the realm of the sacred, cosmic, spiritual. Among the many mythological figures of gods and goddesses, the nature of the eternally male and eternally female is clearly visible, the product of which is the division of people into two sexes.”

In other words, all divine dyads and dichotomies are not the fruit of a person’s imagination generated by his own sexual experience. On the contrary, it is a “metaphysical existence” and, according to the teachings of the Tantric and Sahaic schools, the division into men and women has strictly ontological principles, expressed as Shiva and Parvati or, in mythology, as Krishna and Radha.

The basic traditional principle is always that creation or manifestation is the result of the duality of the main principles constituting the highest unity.

According to Greek philosophy, masculine is form, feminine is matter. In order for something to appear, matter, as the environment and means of any development, must be excited and awakened to becoming. Form has the power to determine and implement the principles of movement, development, and formation. The Greeks identified nature with the feminine principle, with the masculine - Logos, fertilizing, moving, changing.

Other symbols of the eternally male and eternally female are Heaven and Earth. In the Eastern tradition, heaven is identified with “active perfection,” and earth with “passive perfection.” “Male corresponds to the creator, female to the perceiver” - this is what the Great Treatise says.

In the Eastern tradition, the author notes, the metaphysical dyad is most fully expressed in the form of a yin-yang pair. Yang is heavenly, active, positive, masculine, and yin is earthly, passive, negative, feminine. In the dynamic aspect, yin-yang are opposite and at the same time complementary. In the traditional Chinese worldview, yin and yang are the main forces. Everything in the universe is a result of the confrontation and interaction of these two types of energy.

As the Book of Changes says: “Yin cannot give birth to things by itself, just as yang cannot grow.” Likewise, a woman cannot conceive on her own (except perhaps the Virgin Mary), not to mention men.

It is the continuous interaction of yin and yang that has created a huge universe full of a wide variety of things. It is necessary to clarify that pure forms of yin and yang are exceptions. Everything that exists consists of a combination of these principles, the quality of phenomena is determined by the prevailing energy.

In the Indian tradition we encounter all the same features of the same symbolism. In Hinduism, the creation of the world occurs due to the combination of the masculine principle - Shiva and the feminine principle - Shakti. Through their loving embrace, peace is born.

In this case, Shakti is “force,” creative energy, which represents one of the incarnations of Shiva’s wife Parvati. In Hindu teachings, the feminine principle is seen as an active principle, thanks to which the spouse manifests his potential. In the Hindu concept, Shiva is present in the motionless, conscious, spiritual, homogeneous, and Shakti is present in the changeable, unconscious-vital, natural. It is Shakti that becomes the cause of any change “So, it is said that Shiva without Shakti is incapable of any movement, inactive, and, on the contrary, Shakti without Shiva is unconscious, so to speak, devoid of the light principle.”

In the Buddhist tradition (Mahayana), the image of a bodhisattva in union (that is, the male aspect with the female) is common. Which expresses the unity of creative activity. Contained in a female image, and a method contained in a male image.

Considering Christianity, a religion that has absorbed motifs from different traditions, Evola attributes feminine traits to the Holy Spirit. It is based on the words of Christ: “My Mother, the Holy Spirit.” And he also draws an analogy with the Mediterranean goddesses - the Cretan Potnia, Ishtar, Circe, Mylitta, Aphrodite herself. In those cases when they act as a kind of “trend” and have a dove as their symbol, like the Holy Spirit.

The union of these two divine units, two principles, fundamental principles finds its earthly embodiment in the marriage of a man and a woman. In the traditional world, marriage takes on a sacred meaning.

We will now look at the biological meaning of the pair bond. The biological approach connects the existence of two sexes with the needs of the reproduction process itself. But as L.L. Kupriyanchik believes, “this cannot in any way be the root cause of the emergence of sex.” She builds her proof on examples of the methods of reproduction of primitive organisms, which “reproduce excellently without division by sex, and some dioecious creatures retain the ability to reproduce asexually.”

We list these methods:

Division (amoeba, ciliates)

Budding (yeast, hydra)

Sporulation

Parthogenesis – reproduction by the development of unfertilized “female” eggs (some species of crustaceans, lizards)

An interesting fact is given by the researcher that female germ cells are also capable of partogenetic development. “True, for such development to end in the development of a child, an incredible confluence of happy circumstances is necessary.”

She further suggests that it is possible that with prolonged same-sex reproduction, due to a violation of the genetic code, degeneration of organisms should occur, as in the case of marriages between close relatives. But he immediately refutes this assumption, turning to the experiment conducted by biologists, when for 22 years scientists observed the reproduction of one single ciliate - no degeneration occurred.

Thus, it was not the task of reproduction that caused the emergence of two sexes. L.L. Kupriyanchik identifies two additional goals of nature that this division serves.

“One of these goals is the preservation of the “breed”, maintaining the species at a certain level, that is, what I usually call evolution.” Males are responsible for the quality of the offspring; only the strongest and most adapted to life can give full-fledged offspring. This means that the main reason for bisexuality is “the impossibility of providing the required number of high-quality offspring in any other way.”

The second reason for bisexuality is that it allowed evolution to proceed at a faster pace. When a child is born from two parents, he inherits both the qualities of one and the qualities of the other. The various valuable qualities acquired in this way help the species to develop and expand.

In addition to the process of reproduction itself, the pair bond is due to the fact that the human baby is initially completely unsuited to independent life over a long period of time. Even in the animal world, we can observe that the duration of the existence of a pair bond depends on the time after which the cubs begin to independently take care of their food and survival. In addition, in human society this period drags on for a longer period, since social prerequisites are added to the biological ones (graduation from school, college). It is known that as soon as children leave the family, spouses experience a crisis in their life together.

According to D. Maurice, the mechanism that promotes the creation of a pair bond is love, which here has an important biological function, the formation of a stable pair bond.

The modern family differs in many ways from the families of the past, in particular the ability of young people to freely choose their future spouse. Various sociological and psychological studies of modern youth show that love has become the main motive for marriage. “We love each other and want to be together!” - this is what you can hear now from newlyweds if you ask them why they got married.

Love, researchers say, is a purely human phenomenon. The driving force and inner essence of love is the sexual desire of a man and a woman, the instinct of procreation.

Modern American biologist Desmond Maurice conducted research in the field of human relationships. Comparing human behavior with the behavior of animals, he notes that in the animal world there is no or almost no such process as courtship; this is unnecessary. The instinct of procreation in animals is in no way connected with any love feelings; it is simply a female’s preference for a stronger and more physically capable male. Although a person also makes a lot of effort, uses various techniques, often unconsciously, to attract the attention of the opposite sex and evoke reciprocal feelings. But, what is important, this behavior does not always have as its ultimate goal procreation and the birth of healthy offspring. This rather becomes a subconscious criterion when choosing a partner, since men and women with more pronounced external sexual characteristics still enjoy great success (narrow waist, smooth skin, rounded outlines in women; muscular torso, broad shoulders, narrow pelvis, thick neck , low voice - in men). In this case, the scientist claims, deep natural instincts are at work.

But in human society, biological characteristics do not play the main role; social and psychological criteria are also taken into account: position in society, material capabilities, moral level, etc.

Therefore, the creation of a pair of a man and a woman makes sense not only biologically, but also psychologically. It has been proven that we feel better and are less stressed within the same pair bond. And today 99% of people live in pair bonding and this is the fundamental state of the human species.

It should be added that children raised in a couple, in the process of socialization, internalize cultural patterns of gender behavior. It is known that gender identity is formed in children aged 5–7 years, then, starting from the age of 17, the worldview of the individual, her idea of ​​her own purpose and meaning of life, is formed. Looking at his mother and father, the young man creates for himself an “ideal model” of masculinity and femininity that he will follow. Therefore, parents as men and women are responsible for what this model will be.

Social meaning to some extent unites all the others. It is the family that carries all these meanings and meanings. A family is also a unity of two opposite principles, a place where offspring are provided with care, protection and love; it is a sphere of close relationships where a person can be himself and receive recognition, respect and satisfaction of many of his needs, including the highest need for self-realization.

I would like to end with the words of L.N. Sinitsyna: “Today’s time is characterized by the fact that a qualitative change in consciousness is taking place. We seem to be moving from one way of interpreting reality to another. Our perception, which was part of a polar consciousness, in which such aspects as rational - irrational, scientific - artistic, male - female, were very weakly combined, must rise to the level of understanding and the existence of a single consciousness. We must realize the reality of our body, male or female, in which a special connection is established between the mind and the heart.”

Each representative of one sex contains characteristics of the opposite sex. We can find confirmation of this in ancient philosophy - the yin-yang principle. Carl Gustav Jung gives us the concepts of Anima and Animus - archetypes meaning the feminine principle in a man (Anima) and the masculine principle in a woman (Animus), which must coexist harmoniously without disturbing the overall balance. And even human nature itself confirms this principle, because, as is known, all human embryos at the initial stage of development have one gender - female, and only later does the division into boys and girls occur. Thus, every man has a female hypostasis, and every woman has a male one.

Modern men and women and all of humanity need to remember this. There is a male side of reality - the rational one. Overpowering, purposeful, aggressive. It is necessary for the development of civilization. But there is also a female one, no less strong - spiritual, wise, harmonizing, which is rightfully taken as a basis in Eastern cultures. It is necessary for the internal development of humanity. And in the modern world of general instability, we need not to fight and confront each other, but, on the basis of a conscious perception of ourselves as men and women, learn to live in harmony.

3. 2 Culture of family relations.

In the popular consciousness of ancient Russian people, the clan (family, relatives, tribe), people, and Motherland are connected not just by one morphological root, but reflected the specifics of the worldview, the idea of ​​​​the development of society. It is no coincidence that in Slavic-Russian mythology one of the main deities was Rod - the founder of life, the spirit of ancestors, the patron of the family.

Russian Orthodoxy strengthens the spiritual content of the clan and family. The highest meaning in the light of the Christian concept of life is perceived as serving God and following the Gospel commandments. The family is not only a social community of spouses, parents and children, but also a spiritual unit, a “small church.”

The very process of creating a family combined spiritual and social aspects. According to Russian tradition, the rituals that preceded the creation of a family and that accompanied marriage organically combined secular and church rituals. The church sealed the birth of a new family with a wedding. It meant that not just a civil unit was being created, but a spiritual union was emerging, bearing high responsibilities not only in relation to each other, but also to God. Through the wedding, the newlyweds accepted Christ himself into their family in accordance with the Gospel commandment: “...Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them.” [Matthew 18:20]. The religious and moral significance of the wedding was that in the name of Christ the divine institution of marriage and its indissolubility were affirmed, for “... what God has joined together, let no man separate.” [Matthew 19:6].

Of course, a wedding in itself is not a guarantee of a strong and happy family union. Today, in many churches, young people are forced to sign up for a wedding. It becomes as traditional a ritual as a wedding train visiting the “eternal flame” and other memorable places. At the same time, mass divorces and mutual estrangement of spouses continue to be just as commonplace. The fact is that customs and traditions that have lost their internal content cease to play a regulatory role, just as a wedding for those newlyweds who have not accepted the sacred sacrament of marriage remains nothing more than an exotic ritual. And only when customs and traditions constitute the essence of national self-awareness and include the ancestral experience of the people, do they become spiritual and moral guidelines.

With the desire to live by faith, a young family brings a certain orderliness to their internal relationships, acquires the highest spiritual meaning of their union, and in the Orthodox tradition it consists of love. The purpose of the Orthodox family is the further development of love, its elevation, and the transformation of the soul with its help, for God is love. And in order to get closer to him, to lead a lifestyle worthy of him, you need to become like him in love. The Apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Colossians: “Above all, put on love, which is the sum of perfection” [Col. 3:14]. Only the highest gospel love can bring lasting harmony to family relationships. The husband in Scripture is called the head of the family.

But this dominance is not dominion over subordinates. It presupposes, firstly, high marital responsibility for the material, physical and spiritual-moral state of all household members and allows you to build the entire family hierarchy system according to the principle: more power - more responsibility, and vice versa, that is, we are talking about delimiting areas of responsibility between spouses in a common house. Secondly, the headship of the husband does not exclude, but presupposes a tender attitude towards his wife, love and care for her. “Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies: he who loves his wife loves himself,” said the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians [Eph. 5:28].

The vulgar interpretation of the phrases “let the wife fear her husband” and “the wife must obey her husband” taken out of context as relations of dominance and submission has nothing in common with the Christian tradition. “He will be afraid” is more accurately interpreted as being ashamed; he will be afraid to act, say and do something bad, unworthy, and lower the authority of the family, the head of which is the husband and whose last name she bears. It is in the spiritual sense, and not in the physical sense, that the word “will fear” is used in Scripture. The Christian Church extends these same principles to the relationship between parents and children: mutual respect and love.

Of course, the certainty of the center of power in the family can also have a negative side. Not everyone is able to adequately withstand the test of even the smallest power, especially when it falls to the lot of a self-centered, unspiritual person. And in former times, there were situations of a kind of dictatorship of the head of the patriarchal family, formal or actual. This phenomenon is sufficiently reflected in Russian classical literature. Yet such situations were the exception rather than the rule. Life practice confirms that a family based on respect and love, and not on coercion and fear, can be strong. It is precisely this kind of relationship between spouses that the Orthodox Church blesses.

Particular attention should be paid to such a norm of spiritual and psychological communication in the Russian pre-revolutionary family as the institution of godfathers and mothers. In families of the Russian North, the godmother was called “bozhatka” (mother given by God at baptism). Godparents took responsibility for the moral development of godchildren, helping them in difficult life conflicts. Relatives were more often chosen as godparents, thereby further strengthening family ties. But closest friends and respected neighbors also became godparents, thereby expanding the boundaries of the family.

Thus, the entire system of kinship relations convincingly testifies that the essence of prolongation of the race is evolutionarily aimed at creating conditions for the disclosure of those best qualities and properties of a person that are inherent in his nature from birth, at the development of creativity of the mind and soul.

The saturation of various forms of cooperation between relatives in the family and in the clan created invisible, on a subconscious level, relationships that united all representatives of the clan. It has long been noticed that husbands and wives who live together for a long time even physically become somewhat similar to each other. Moreover, in spiritual and psychological terms, constantly connected relatives were imbued with common faith and hopes, care and plans, the grief of one became common, as well as joy. All this determined some general turns of fate, not striking, but quite noticeable, features and details in the actions and behavior of relatives.

The family, which grew up in such a spiritual unity, found itself cut off from its clan, and painfully experienced this gap. Just as a tree transplanted into a different soil takes a long and difficult time to take root in it, so a family that has lost its organic connection with the clan can, in the end, adapt to new conditions, gain material well-being, a circle of new friends and acquaintances. But the severance of non-material, spiritual ties with the clan affects the psychological state, and sometimes even the physical health, if not of the first generation, then of subsequent ones. It is no coincidence that a number of diseases today (including diseases of the heart, liver, genital organs, lungs, brain) are explained by some researchers for reasons of a spiritual and moral nature: the congestion of a person’s subtle body (soul) with gross negative energy, unrepentance for violating the main principle of the development of the human personality – love for man as the highest work of the Creator.

Thus, family and clan relations in the Russian tradition flowed from the principle of conciliarity - one of the main features of the life of Orthodox Christians. The Church, as it were, projected family relationships onto all fellow believers. All children of one God are brothers and sisters in Christ. The Orthodox family and clan thus provided the ideal of uniting people in their highest spiritual manifestation. This reality does not diverge from the idea, which is increasingly gaining ground in the public consciousness, that one of the main trends of social progress is the development of human society as a single whole, without hostility, without conflicts.

Modernity puts us in different conditions. The Orthodox Church, which was so brutally eradicated during the Soviet period, has ceased to be an authority for many people. The Soviet ideals that replaced the Orthodox ones have also been destroyed, and new ones have not yet been created. The culture of family relationships is built on Western examples, largely taken from feature films. But this is an ideal, a beautiful picture, but almost no one teaches how to achieve this ideal.

3. 3 Sociocultural problems of the modern family.

At all times, people thought of family as their little earthly happiness. In all centuries, regardless of socio-economic conditions and government regimes, the family has been the basis of society. Or better yet, the family is the very original society where the spiritual principles and foundations of morality of each individual person are formed.

In the family a person receives a true and essential education and begins to develop in himself a correct idea of ​​\u200b\u200bmoral life in general. By and large, the moral and physical well-being of the nation and state is directly proportional to and is entirely dependent on the presence and level of moral ideas and their implementation in the family.

“When we examine the state of a nation or an age, our eyes turn first of all to the state of married life. By its condition we judge everything else. If the marriage life of a certain people is shaken, then we know that other areas of the moral life of the people are in a state of decline. Everyone who sought to destroy society began to do so by destroying the family, family foundations, for the family is the most precious foundation and cornerstone of all civil society.”

In primitive society, the family branched off from the clan based primarily on caring for children and ensuring their survival. The period of civilization gives rise to the patriarchal type of family, which can be defined as a family-household, in which general housekeeping dominates while maintaining a variety of other connections. The Middle Ages date back to the emergence in Europe of a modern type of married family, in which, despite the importance of an integral complex of various connections in marital relationships, the role and importance of spiritual, moral and psychological principles significantly increases.

Of course, this change manifests itself only as a trend, because for modern young people, the basis of a family union may be based on different socially significant values, as well as a different understanding of the essence and purpose of the family. It can be created on different value bases: based on calculation, and on romantic motives, and as a spiritual union or a partnership-union, sealed by a unity of views, relations of friendship and mutual respect, etc.

And yet, the majority of young people, as sociologists' research shows, marry for love, giving preference to moral, psychological and spiritual relationships in the family. Loss of feelings of love is considered as sufficient grounds for divorce.

However, the desire to create a family based on love does not guarantee it against the occurrence of conflicts and crises. Moreover, it inevitably puts a person before a spiritual and moral choice: pleasure and carelessness or duty and responsibility, egocentrism or the ability to give up one’s desires, interests, and ultimately the desire to ensure personal independence or the willingness to adjust one’s behavior, habits, and established way of life in interests of family unity. Often this choice is not made in her favor. Statistics show that there are fewer divorces in families created by convenience rather than by love. Here, initially, the relationship between spouses develops on a concrete basis that is acceptable to both, and is devoid of unpredictability and excessive demands.

This does not mean at all that love has ceased to be the most important value of family relationships. Perhaps this is the result of the fact that young people often confuse the feeling of falling in love with true love. Falling in love is most often a “me-centric” feeling. Love strikes a person deeper than falling in love; non-egoism and two-centeredness are, apparently, its foundation, its most human property. Treating your loved one as yourself is perhaps the central core of love. This is what the “expert” in love, Yuri Borisovich Rurikov, thinks so, and it’s hard to disagree with this.

But true love only lays the foundation of a marriage, then the spiritual properties of the spouses come to the fore: kindness or unkindness, warmth or heartlessness, cordiality or indifference.

For almost the entire 20th century, the country constantly lives in conditions of real and mythologized exploits. Revolutions and wars, economic recovery after military devastation, exhausting competition with the West as a way to establish itself as a leading power in the world at any cost - all this, with the appropriate ideological design, left no room for the idea of ​​​​the spiritual transformation of man, not in the political-ideological, but in the Christian understanding as the idea of ​​transformation of the soul and elevation of the spirit based on the Gospel commandments. The ideal of Orthodoxy inherent in the people was practically crowded out of public consciousness. The goal of life was not the transformation of nature, but the transformation of the surrounding material world.

Although this absolutization of man mobilized him for achievements, it also had a downside. She completely “grounded” his purpose and meaning of life. If a person reduces himself, the essence of his being, completely to materiality, physicality, then everything in life becomes subordinate to satisfying the needs of the body, its desires, whims. But, as the prominent Russian philosopher of the 20th century I.A. Ilyin correctly noted, “lust of the flesh” is something unstable and unauthorized. She is drawn to the pursuit of more and more earthly goods: pleasures, honor, wealth, etc.

This fully applies to family relationships. The highest tasks and functions of the family are understood more and more simply, materially, even physiologically, from the standpoint of one’s own convenience.

Thus, there is a change in value orientations. Traditional values ​​are replaced by new, less burdensome ones. Instead of duty and commitment, preference is given to irresponsibility, conscience gives way to practicality, rationalism replaces cordiality and mercy, love turns into partnerships between the sexes. In practice, we are talking about the spiritual crisis of man and society. Lack of spirituality erodes the family to the same extent.

Ill-conceived and unprepared social experiments of the 80s-90s stimulated the growth of destructive trends in family relationships. The collapse of former social and spiritual values ​​was a natural consequence of the abolition of communist ideology at the state level. In the former union republics of the USSR, the communist ideology was replaced by the ideology of nationalism, based on traditional religious values. In Russia, the emerging ideological and spiritual vacuum is, for the most part, felt much more acutely. The ideology of nationalism in it objectively could not become decisive in the process of transformation.

The policy of national nihilism pursued by the totalitarian regime was primarily aimed at destroying the national identity of the Russian people under the banner of the fight against great-power chauvinism. The Orthodox Church suffered especially heavy losses in this struggle. Thousands of churches were closed, believers were persecuted and ridiculed by the authorities. The years of persecution did not pass without a trace. Today this is obvious. Decades of anti-church reaction prevented Orthodoxy from becoming the center of spiritual unity of the nation. At the same time, the activities of various religious sects, groups, schools, foundations, missionaries of Western and Eastern religions impede the consolidation of the Russian people, the revival of traditional national values ​​and the national idea.

Noteworthy is the fact that the aggravation of social, economic, political and other contradictions coincides with Russia's involvement in the system of relations characteristic of Western civilization. Russia and the West were not initially isolated from each other; there were multilateral ties between them. At the same time, they constituted fundamentally different, in some ways even opposite, civilizations.

Western civilization, the ideological basis of which was Protestantism, is based primarily on material progress and the desire for utilitarian life. The race to consume goods and services makes people hostage to things. Work, creativity, leisure, family, love - everything is imbued with market relations, everything has its price.

Since the reservoir of spirituality, the womb of culture, is the family as the primary sociocultural institution, it was primarily subject to the pernicious influence of the modern crisis. The phenomena of its crisis state are becoming more acute and multidimensional. The prestige of the family among social value orientations has dropped to a critical level. As a result, 2/3 of young people at the age of 25 (optimal for childbearing) are not married, 1/3 under the age of 35 do not have their own family, 1/10 are unfamilyd when they reach the age of 60.

But even the fact of marriage does not indicate the intention to create a full-fledged family that will continue the human race. According to sociological surveys, more than 18% of married couples do not want to have children at all. Difficult economic conditions turn the joy of having a child into a struggle for survival.

Family breakdown and divorce have become more commonplace than prosperous families. The number of divorces in our country has increased from 50 thousand after the Patriotic War of 1941-1945. up to 1 million in the early 90s, with half of the divorces occurring in the first year of marriage, and 2/3 in the first 5 years. With the increase in divorces, the number of single-parent families, more often with one mother, is also growing. This leads to many other problems, including the increased employment of the mother, who is forced to provide for herself and the child, and the growing alienation of the child, since the mother cannot pay enough attention to him, and, as already mentioned, defective personality development.

Another problem is the masculinization of women associated with business development in Russia and other countries. Women holding key leadership positions, in the struggle for survival in the cruel world of business, are gradually losing their traditional feminine characteristics and becoming more and more like men. After all, women have to sacrifice such values ​​as personal relationships, family, children. And also pliability, complaisance, carelessness and tenderness. Studies show that a third of women holding senior positions in the most successful companies do not have children, while the majority of their male colleagues are happy fathers and husbands.

The sexual illiteracy of young people seems frightening against the backdrop of the widespread dissemination of information with erotic and sexological content. Sexual relationships among young people, often under the age of majority, become something commonplace. But the basic rules of sexual hygiene and contraception are generally not discussed within the family. Early pregnancy, which has a detrimental effect on physically and mentally unprepared girls, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, is the result of such illiteracy.

Abortion has become a real disaster in the country. The famous Italian lawyer Rafael Ballestrini wrote a hundred years ago: “The surest proof of the complete moral decline of the people will be that abortion will be considered common and absolutely acceptable.” This terrible prediction has become a fact of our daily life. With the silent connivance of society, according to official statistics, 8 million children are killed in the country every year. Abortion has turned into mass terror against one's own children.

Many mothers abandon their children. Basically, as statistics indicate, these are girls from 15 to 19 years old. Often, experts note, parents put pressure on young mothers, and they insist on terminating their pregnancy. That is why the moral standards that are laid down in the family of the expectant mother are of great importance. A child can fully develop and master the world around him only together with a loving mother, and if this most important connection for a baby is interrupted from birth, then the person simply loses his support in life.

Drug addiction, drunkenness, abandonment of their children and elderly parents, and other social vices plunge the family into a truly disastrous state. The persistence of these destructive processes in society and the family calls into question the prospects for the preservation of the Russian people.

In contrast to the West, civilization in Russia is predominantly spiritual in nature. The idea of ​​improving the soul, overcoming the sinful nature of the body, and comprehending the highest meaning of earthly life for Russian people has always been closer than material well-being. Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) quite deeply, in our opinion, noted: “The ideal of Orthodoxy is not progress, but transformation. ...The New Testament does not know progress in the European sense of the word, in the sense of moving forward on the same plane. The New Testament speaks of the transformation of nature and the resulting movement not forward, but upward, towards heaven, towards God.” . Consequently, the contradiction between the two civilizations is not caused by any specific discrepancies in certain aspects of life. It stems from different worldviews, different motives of life, and value systems.

Thus, the problems of modern family and culture, generated primarily by spiritual impoverishment in society, can be solved on the basis of appeal to higher spiritual values.

Conclusion

Like many centuries in a row, modern man is looking for his place and purpose in society and culture. One of these human destiny is to create a family and give birth to the next generation of people. A family is not just a social or cultural institution, it is a complex system with many connections, functions and ways of interaction between its elements.

We can call a certain community of people a family based on several characteristics. Firstly, marital and kinship relationships (husband and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, etc.), the family can be very large depending on the number of relatives and generations represented, and very small, consisting from the so-called core - spouses and children. Secondly, this is a joint economic activity aimed at maintaining the material level and providing family members with what is necessary for their life. Thirdly, this is emotional attachment, mutual responsibility of family members for each other and the entire family as a whole. Only when all these characteristics are present does a community or group become a family.

With the advent of the institution of civil marriage, the exception has recently been the clause on marital relations. But marriage also plays an important role, being throughout history a way of legitimizing sexual relations between a man and a woman, supported by public morality. Therefore, marriage is still the most desirable goal for many people. In addition, free love, unlike marriage, does not imply any responsibility or obligations, but depends only on the moral principles of a particular person.

If the institution of marriage were not needed, would it have arisen? And this happened not today, or ten years ago, or even a hundred, but many thousands! And if you believe scientists, ancient people understood much more about life and relationships between people than we do. From the perspective of historical materialism, monogamy developed under the influence of socio-economic changes, but this is only a look from the present to the past. We didn’t live then and we can’t know anything for sure, but one thing is clear - people came to monogamy for a number of different reasons, including one of the main ones - the development of private property.

Humanity strives to streamline its life activities, normalize interpersonal relationships in order to create order out of chaos and maintain stability. Likewise, family and marriage relations are defined and normalized with the help of religion, morality, and public opinion. Epochs replaced eras, culture changed, worldviews and values ​​changed. Along with them, the relationship between husband and wife, the position of a woman, the attitude of parents towards children (which applies to a greater extent to fathers, because a mother always loves her child), and children towards their parents, also changed. The family hierarchy gradually changed from strictly vertical to horizontal.

Regardless of its form or internal hierarchy, the family has always had social significance due to the performance of certain functions. These functions have changed just as society has changed, but among their diversity, economic, regenerative, recreational, reproductive and educational functions remain unchanged. The last two are of paramount importance for society and humanity. The birth of full-fledged, healthy children and their subsequent upbringing are the tasks that people starting a family should think about first of all. After all, the future of the entire nation depends on their awareness of responsibility for the life of a little man. Conception, pregnancy, childbirth, the feeding period - everything is important, and everything should be coupled with love for yourself, your spouse, and your baby.

A family is a kind of factory, a factory for producing new people capable of living like human beings. And the future of our children and their “human” life depends on what we put into this concept. Therefore, parents, when raising a boy or girl, should first of all think about him or her, and only then about their needs and emotions. A complete family, in which there is both a mother and a father, is even better if grandparents, living according to the concepts of love, honor, dignity and mutual respect, can raise a full-fledged emotionally, culturally, morally rich personality, with a stable worldview. A child from an incomplete family is often forced to make efforts throughout his life to grow to this level. And then only if the parent has laid in him at least some foundations for further development, otherwise a single-parent family leaves a morally, mentally, emotionally unstable, difficult-to-adapt personality.

Such problems in the family lead to subsequent conflicts in personal life. The relationship between a man and a woman depends on a clear awareness of oneself as a man or a woman, the role that is inherent in this gender, and on the moral and value attitudes of communicating with people generally laid down in childhood.

The modern family is increasingly acquiring a personal-psychological nature of relationships. Love becomes the main motive for marriage. Sexual relationships are given more importance than spiritual ones. Religious ideals lost their influence. The concept of a clan, as a kind of integrity of many generations, a spiritual unity with ancestors, has been lost. Now everyone is on their own, individual and lonely! And the feeling of loss and isolation must be filled with the unity and cohesion of family members.

It cannot be said that nothing is being done and there are no positive trends to overcome the crisis and problems of the family institution. For example, to avoid a difficult divorce, young people can test their feelings in a civil marriage. To prevent early marriages and unwanted pregnancies, family planning centers exist today. To overcome conflicts in the family, people can turn to various family psychological services. Recently, a wonderful, in our opinion, tradition of family sports competitions, competitions for the title of the most friendly family, etc., has begun to be revived.

Based on all of the above, the following conclusions were made:

1. Family is a biological necessity, a human need, the only full-fledged educational institution.

2. The transformation of the family is inevitable and historically determined. This transformation is accompanied by an acute crisis, but often a crisis condition precedes a new round of development. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that this development goes in a positive direction.

3. The modern family, like the state, needs an idea that unites it. Perhaps Orthodox Christianity should become like this again, but not as a dogma, but as a spiritual and moral guide.

The attention of cultural scientists to family problems should not be limited to simple analysis and statement of facts. It is necessary to develop recommendations and practical actions aimed at preserving the institution of the family. These could be some kind of clubs for family recreation. It is desirable to reinstate the subject “Ethics and Psychology of Family Life” in the school curriculum, in which cultural scientists, psychologists, sexologists, and perhaps even doctors will teach.

The revival of national culture and the preservation of the nation as a single whole is possible thanks to the preservation of the institution of family and its active support by the state, religion, society and the individual.

Bibliography

Bern S. Gender psychology. – SPb.: Prime-EVROZNAK, 2001. – 320 p.

Bestuzhev-Lada I.V. Steps to family happiness - M.: Mysl, 1988. - 301 p.

Bible. Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. – M.: Publishing house Mosk. Patriarchies, 1988. – 1376 p.

Vasiliev K. Love. – M.: Progress, 1982. – 384 p.

Verb M. S. Love and family in the 20th century. – Sverdlovsk: Progress, 1988. – 165 p.

Gachev G. D. National images of the world. Lecture course. – M.: Publishing house. Center Academy, 1998. – 432 p.

Golod S.I. Family and marriage: historical and sociological analysis. – St. Petersburg: TK Peropolis LLP, 1998. – 272 p.

Gitin V. G. This submissive creature is a woman. – M.: Publishing house AST, 2002. – 544 p.

Druzhinin V.N. Family psychology. – M.: KSP Publishing House, 1996. – 327 p.

Zdravomyslova O. M., Harutyunyan M. Russian family against a European background (based on materials from an international sociological study). – M.: Editorial, 1998. – 176 p.

Zemska M. Family and personality. – M.: Progress, 1986. – 135 p.

Ilyin I.A. The path to obviousness: Essays. – M.: EKSMO-Press Publishing House, 1998. – 912 s.

Kant I., Hegel G.V.F., Schelling F.V.I. German classical philosophy. Volume 1. – M.: Eksmo, 2000. – 784 p.

Kovalev S.V. Psychology of family relationships. – M.: Education, 1987. – 208 p.

Kon I.S. Child and society. – M.: Nauka, 1988. – 271 p.

Kostomarov N. I. Life and customs of the Russian people in the 16th and 17th centuries. – Smolensk: “Rusich”, 2002. – 560 p.

Kravchenko A. I. General sociology: Textbook. manual for universities. – M.: UNITY, 2001. – 479 p.

Kupriyanchik L. L. Psychology of love. – Donetsk: Stalker Publishing House, 1998. – 416 p.

Larue J. Sex in the Bible. – M., 1995.

Lin Henry B. Feng Shui for beginners - M.: FAIR-PRESS, 2001. -

320 pp.

Matsumoto D. Psychology and culture. – SPb.: Prime-EVROZNAK, 2002. –

Mythological Dictionary/ Ch. ed. Meletinsky E. M. – M., 1991. – 618 p.

Morgan L. Ancient society. – M.: Nauka, 1983 – 301 p.

Orlova E. A. Introduction to social and cultural anthropology. – M.: Publishing house MGIK, 1994. – 236 p.

Parkhomenko I.T., Radugin A.A. Culturology in questions and answers. – M.: Center, 2001. – 325 p.

Plato. Phaedo, Pyrus, Phaedrus, Parmenides. – M.: Publishing house “Mysl”, 1999. – 528 p.

Platonov O.A. Russian civilization. – M.: Roman-newspaper, 1995. – 335

Rozin V.M. Introduction to cultural studies. Textbook for higher school. – M.: Publishing house “FORUM”, 1997. – 224 p.

Rurikov Yu. B. Honey and poison of love. – M.: Nauka, 1990. – 446 p.

Rurikov Yu. B. Three attractions: Love, its yesterday, today, tomorrow. – M.: Mol Guard, 1984. – 286 p.

Satir V. You and your family. Guide to personal growth / Trans. from English – M.: Eksmo Publishing House, 2002. – 320 p.

Family and everyday culture. A manual for listeners of Nar. Un-tov/ D. I. Vodzinsky, A I. Kochetov, K. A. Kulinkovich and others; Ed. D. I. Vodzinsky. – Mn., 1987. – 255 p.

Family: A book to read. In 2 books. / Comp. I. S. Andreeva, A. V. Gulyga. – M.: Politizdat, 1991.

Sinitsina L. N. Gender stereotypes in the reality of modern culture. – M.: Nauka, 2002. – 102 p.

Sociology: textbook for universities / V. N. Lavritenko, N. A. Nartov, O. A.

Shabanova, G. S. Lukashova; Ed. Prof. V. N. Lavritenko. – M.: UNITY, 2000. – 407 p.

Stolyarov D.Yu., Kortunov V.V. Culturology: A textbook for distance learning students of all specialties. – M.: State Agrarian University named after. S. Ordzhonikidze, 1998. – 102 p.

Freud A. Theory and practice of child psychoanalysis. – M., 1999.

Fromm E. Man and woman. – M.: Publishing house AST, 1998. – 512 p.

Fuchs E. History of morals / Trans. with him. V. M. Fritsche. – Smolensk: Rusich, 2002. – 624 p.

Kharchev A. G. Marriage and family in the USSR. – M.: Mysl, 1979. – 367 p.

Khoruzhenko K. M. Culturology. Encyclopedic Dictionary. – Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix Publishing House, 1997. – 640 p.

Kjell L., Ziegler D. Theories of personality (Basics, research, application). – St. Petersburg: Peter, 1999. – 608 p.

Person in the family circle: Essays on the history of private life in Europe before the beginning of modern times. – M.: Nauka, 1996. – 586 p.

Schneider L. B. Psychology of family relationships. Lecture course. – M.: EKSMO, 2000. – 512 p.

Evola Yu. Metaphysics of gender. – M.: Belovodye, 1996. – 382 p.

Engels F. Origin of the family, private property and the state. – M.: Progress, 1991. – 112 p.

MauriceD."A Man Called Animal" Popular science film. (duration 1 hour 30 minutes)

Introduction…………………………………………………………

Chapter 1. TERTICO-METHODOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE PROBLEM……………………………………………………………...

Chapter 2. GENESIS OF FAMILY AND MARRIAGE RELATIONS IN A CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT……………………

2. 1 The concepts of “family” and “marriage”……………………………………………………….

12-18

2. 2 Concepts of the origin of family and marital relations………...

18-24

2. 3 Family and marriage in the process of historical development - the evolution of family and marriage relations………………………………………………………...

2. 4 The role of family in society. Its meaning

in the formation and development of personality………………………………..

Chapter 3. PROBLEMS OF FAMILY AND MARRIAGE RELATIONS IN MODERN CONDITIONS…………………………………………

3. 1 Pair relationships between a man and a woman

in modern conditions……………………………………………...

3. 2 Culture of family relations………………………………………………………

55-59

3. 3 Sociocultural problems of the modern family…………………..

59-66

Conclusion………………………………………………………………

67-70

List of used literature…………………………….

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation

Irkutsk State Technical University

International Faculty

Department of Cultural Studies and Linguistic Regional Studies

“The destruction of the family institution is the destruction of national culture”

(graduate work

specialty 020600 “cultural studies”)

Graduate work

5th year students

international faculty

Prokhorova

Sofia Sergeevna

Scientific director

Associate Professor Tarasenko

Oksana Vladimirovna

“I admit to defense”

Head Department of Cultural Studies

and linguistic and regional studies,

Professor Berkovich A.V.

Anti-Russian ideology of the White movement. - White leaders. - Traitors to the Tsar. - “Non-predecision.” – Masonic character of white governments. – Discrediting the idea of ​​popular resistance.

The white movement at its core was the same anti-people force as Bolshevism. Just like Bolshevism, it did not enjoy widespread support, but relied on rather narrow sections of the population.

The ideology of the White movement is a continuation of the liberal-Masonic ideology of the Provisional Government. It was not for nothing that its future leaders enjoyed special confidence from the Provisional Government. And this at a time when hundreds of tsarist generals, by the will of Guchkov and Kerensky, were dismissed from the army! Some of the leaders of the White movement (generals Alekseev, Krymov and Admiral Kolchak) participated in the conspiracy against the Tsar. General Denikin was appointed chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief at the insistence of Kerensky.

The white generals, by their convictions, were supporters of a cosmopolitan republic; not one of them advocated the preservation of the traditional state system of Russia - the Orthodox monarchy, and only this alone could unite the broad masses of Russian people at that time. Even the Bolsheviks subsequently admitted that the White movement could have won only if the Tsar himself had been its leader and banner. The discrediting of the Tsar, his forcible removal from power, imprisonment (and, as a consequence, murder), in fact, were carried out by the same people who later led the White movement.

The battles of the Civil War took place mainly between supporters of the liberal republic and the Bolshevik soviets. Both authorities were equally alien to the Russian people. General Denikin, during the attack on Moscow, receiving delegations from the captured cities, did not advise them to hang portraits of the Sovereign Emperor and royal regalia. “Do you think,” Denikin told his friends, “that I’m going to Moscow to restore the Romanov throne? - never". By his order, the monarchical organization was banned in the army, and supporters of the legitimate Russian government worked underground.

The White movement continued the main ideological motive of the Provisional Government - the denial of the traditional principles of the Russian people: Orthodoxy - Autocracy - Nationality. Having criminally destroyed the traditional foundations of Russia and destroyed its state apparatus, the Provisional Government set as its main goal to prevent the revival of Russian monarchical principles. The idea of ​​“non-predeterminedness” of future forms of government before the convening of the Constituent Assembly, which ran like a red thread through all the acts of the Provisional Government, was in fact aimed at leading the Russian people away from the traditional Orthodox state principles, to kill the idea of ​​​​the Orthodox monarchy in the people's consciousness. For the same purpose, the idea of ​​“non-predecision” was carried through many documents of the White movement from the Ufa Directory and Kolchak to Denikin and Wrangel.

The idea of ​​“non-predecision” and disregard for the Orthodox-monarchical foundations of the Russian state doomed the White movement to failure. If the Bolsheviks offered the people concrete, tangible things, then the whites left everything for later. If the Bolsheviks had a visible (albeit clearly demagogic) program - land, peace, power to the people, then the Whites had only abstract reasoning about “one and indivisible”, which few people trusted, observing the cooperation of the “fighters for a free Russia” with the occupying forces of Germany and the Entente.

General Denikin formulated the brief platform of the White movement as follows:

“We are fighting for the very existence of Russia, we do not pursue any reactionary goals, we do not support the interests of any one political party and we do not patronize any particular class. We do not prejudge either the future state structure or the ways and means by which the Russian people will declare their will.”

Declaring the desire to “save Russia,” Denikin’s ideologists, among whom the Masons occupied a leading place, could not understand that Russia can be saved only through the salvation of its original thousand-year-old principles - Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality. But for them these concepts were reactionary in nature. Ostensibly without predetermining the future of the state structure, the ideologists of the White movement already stated in advance that they did not pursue reactionary goals - the restoration of the monarchy. There was no place for Orthodoxy in the speech of the leader of the Russian army. Of course, among the participants in the White movement there were many pious people who fought for the desecrated faith and against the atheistic authorities. “But the Christian faith was also violated by white officers... Most (of them) were indifferent to the Church.”

According to the memoirs of contemporaries, “after one of the battles in the summer of 1920, Archpriest Andronik Fedorov performed a funeral service for the dead, whose bodies lay in front of him on the bare ground. And at this time, drowning out the funeral service, from the carriage of the Cossack general Babichev came the drunken voices of hawkmoths, roaring obscene ditties, the daring sounds of an orchestra and the clatter of dancing. Another white general - F.F. Abramov, mocked the Holy Scriptures: “For mercy, Father Andronik wants to assure us all of the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ... Well, is it possible to say such things in the headquarters church, where so many educated people are present. I watched the officers, and almost all of them smiled during the priest’s ranting on this spicy topic.”

Of course, Patriarch Tikhon knew about the godlessness of a significant part of the officers of the White Army; he also knew about the Masonic environment (or even personal affiliation with Masonic lodges) of many leaders of the White movement. Apparently, this is why he refused to bless the White movement. As the famous church figure Prince G.I. later wrote. Trubetskoy, “I did not ask the Patriarch’s permission to convey his blessing to the troops of the Volunteer Army, and His Holiness Tikhon did not have to refuse me this, but I asked His Holiness’s permission to convey the blessing on his behalf personally to one of the prominent participants in the White movement, subject to complete secrecy. The Patriarch, however, did not consider this possible for himself either.” But the Saint was not so harsh with everyone. “Patriarch Tikhon,” said Mrs. E.B. in 1967, “sent then (at the end of 1918) through Bishop Nestor of Kamchatka to Count Keller (knight of honor and devotion to the Sovereign) a neck icon of the Sovereign Mother of God and a prosphora when he was supposed to lead the Northern Army..." Count Keller, who retained his loyalty to the Tsar, refused to swear allegiance to the Provisional Government, and later entered into the fight against the Bolsheviks. Having accepted the offer to lead the Northern Army, Keller announced that in two months he would raise the Imperial Standard over the sacred Kremlin. However, on the way to the army he was treacherously killed.

Forgetting about the church and making curtsies towards political parties, white ideologists inherently ignored the most intimate feelings of the Russian people, and above all the Russian peasantry.

Not daring and not being able to rely on the spiritual values ​​and traditions of the Russian people, the White movement put them on the same level as liberal-cosmopolitan ideas brought from the West. As a result, the White movement, despite the participation of truly noble people in it, was doomed to failure, because for the Russian people it was even more alien and incomprehensible than the Red one.

Thus, the White movement under Denikin became one of the currents of Western liberalism.

It is not surprising that representatives of the West, who did not leave Denikin’s government with their attention, insisted on formulating the principles he expressed in terms familiar to liberalism. The British representative to the White government, General Briggs, apparently, together with the French and American representatives, sends Denikin a draft declaration, on the basis of which the Special Meeting prepares a program document no different from the traditional declarations of the liberal parties of Western Europe.

It contained seven points:

1. The destruction of Bolshevik anarchy and the establishment of legal order in the country.

2. Restoration of a powerful, united, indivisible Russia.

3. Convening the People's Assembly on the basis of universal suffrage.

4. Decentralization of power through the establishment of regional autonomy and broad local self-government.

5. Guarantee of complete civil freedom and freedom of religion.

6. The immediate start of land reform to eliminate the land needs of the working population.

7. Immediate implementation of labor legislation protecting the working classes from exploitation by the state and capital.

Under the liberal form of the declaration, clearly anti-Russian tendencies were hidden. First of all, the drafters of this document ignored the will of the absolute majority of the population - the Russian peasantry, who traditionally stood for the Tsar. By postponing the question of the form of government until the People's Assembly, Denikin's liberals actually opposed the monarchy. Point 4 on the establishment of regional autonomy created the conditions for the dismemberment of Russia and actually contradicted point 2 – the restoration of a united and indivisible Russia. Clause 5 infringes on the rights of the Russian Orthodox Church, placing it on an equal footing with other faiths and sects, which, in terms of the number of believers, constituted an insignificant share of all Russian believers. Point 6 was in the nature of a reply to the peasant question, since it did not offer anything concrete to the peasants. Point 7 was also formulated incorrectly, because even in tsarist times, the most advanced labor legislation already existed in Russia. As Denikin admitted, in domestic political circles the declaration “did not satisfy anyone.” Naturally, she could not inspire anyone to fight.

In general, instead of the slogan “For the Tsar, for the Motherland, for the Faith,” which was understandable to the Russian people, the white ideologists offered them a liberal charter, designed, in essence, to deceive the Russian people. Hence the complete indifference of most of the peasants to the White movement and the very problem of the “rear”, which, according to Denikin himself, the Whites were unable to cope with.

The last attempt to somehow rectify the situation is made after a series of catastrophic defeats of the White Army, which forced Denikin to introduce a military dictatorship and reconsider the political platform of his movement. On December 14, 1919, Denikin presented the “Order” of 11 points to the Special Meeting, four of which, in particular, stated:

· United, Great, Indivisible Russia. Defense of faith. Establishing order. Restoration of the productive forces of the country and the national economy. Raising labor productivity.

· Fight against Bolshevism to the end.

· Military dictatorship. To reject any pressure from political parties, to punish any opposition to the authorities - both from the right and from the left.

· The question of the form of government is a matter for the future. The Russian people create the Supreme Power without pressure and without imposition.

· Unity with the people.

· The fastest possible unification with the Cossacks through the creation of the South Russian government, without at all wasting the rights of the all-Russian government.

· Attracting Transcaucasia to Russian statehood.

· Foreign policy is only national Russian.

· Despite the occasional hesitations on the Russian issue among the allies - go with them. Because another combination is morally unacceptable and realistically impossible.

· Slavic unity.

· For help - not an inch of Russian land.

Thus, the new version of the political platform already spoke about the defense of faith, and about unity with the people, and about Russian national politics.

With each new defeat and the appearance of another leader, the White movement “got right”, but nevertheless did not find the strength to move completely to the traditional positions of the Russian people.

“Government” was expressed in attempts to find a common language with the rooted peasant Russia by including provisions in the political documents of the movement that could attract it to its side.

The official “Appeal to the Population” (May 20, 1920) of Baron Wrangel was compiled in the “national spirit”:

“Listen, Russian people, what we are fighting for:

· For the desecrated faith and its insulted shrines.

· For the liberation of the Russian people from the yoke of communists, vagabonds and convicts who completely ruined Holy Rus'.

· For stopping the international strife.

· For the peasant, upon acquiring ownership of the land he cultivates, to engage in peaceful labor.

· For true freedom and law to reign in Rus'.

· For the Russian people to choose their own Master.

Help me, Russian people, to save our Motherland.”

However, this was only the outer form. The internal intentions of the white general practically did not go beyond the liberal-Masonic aspirations of the previous white governments. Moreover, they went even further in this direction. If Denikin’s ideologists were not going to put up with the federal structure of the future Russian state, then General Wrangel accepted it, recognizing new state formations on his territory and, in addition, agreeing to broad autonomy for the regions that remained within Russia. But we were talking about the dismemberment of a single and indivisible state organism.

Having come to power in early April 1920, General Wrangel intended to unite the parts of Russia he controlled under his leadership, counting on political, military and financial support from the Western world. Therefore, he appeals more to the West, from which he expects guarantees of the inviolability of his territory (and they can only be achieved through military means), than to Russia itself. He states that whites are fighting “for the foundations of human happiness, for remote centers of European culture. The cause of the Russian army in Crimea is the great liberation movement - this is a holy war for freedom and right.” In secret correspondence with representatives of the Western powers, he sets out a completely liberal-cosmopolitan model of future actions (it was not without reason that his Minister of Foreign Affairs was the great Masonic ideologist P.B. Struve), in which there is no place for the traditional concepts of Russian civilization.

The republican, mostly cosmopolitan and anti-monarchical White movement, led by Masonic leaders, in its anti-national essence was not much different from the international republic of Lenin and Trotsky, who also worked closely with world Freemasonry. Ultimately, it was about a struggle for power between two anti-Russian forces, the victory of each of which did not promise anything good for the Russian people.

One of the main reasons for the defeat of the White movement was the subordination of its leaders to the secret ideology of Freemasonry, aimed at destroying the national-patriotic movement and opposing the revival of Russia on traditional monarchical principles.

The political center of Russian Freemasonry, created in Paris, represented by the Provisional Committee, coordinated the underground “work” of the Freemasons, trying to give the White movement a republican-cosmopolitan character, making it an obedient tool of the Entente, and in fact, the Masonic circles of France and England.

In 1918-1919, the “Russian Political Conference” created by Russian Freemasons worked in Paris, where the leading anti-Russian forces were represented from direct political bandits and terrorists (B. Savinkov, N.V. Tchaikovsky) to more respectable cadet politicians, old conspirators against Tsar (Prince G.E. Lvov, V.A. Maklakov, B.A. Bakhmetev, M.A. Stakhovich, I.N. Efremov, M.S. Adzhemov, V.V. Vyrubov, K.D. Nabokov , K.N. Gulkevich, M.S. Margulies, A.A. Titov, N.S. Dolgopolov) and Masonic financiers (A.I. Konovalov, S.N. Tretyakov). The decisions made at the meeting outlined the course for the further destruction of historical Russia and the liquidation of its traditional institutions.

This course was manifested in the so-called “Union for the Defense of the Constituent Assembly,” whose leadership consisted mainly of Masons, Socialist Revolutionaries, Popular Socialists and some Cadets. The methods of “defense” he put forward made the fight against the Bolshevik threat fruitless. Moreover, he only contributed to the strengthening of the Bolshevik usurpers of power, because in every possible way he hindered the activities of Russian patriotic monarchists, who at that time were the only force capable of leading Russia out of the impasse.

In the same spirit, another political formation of the Freemasons developed - the “Committee for the Salvation of the Motherland and the Revolution” (created on October 26, 1917), from which the so-called “Union for the Revival of Russia” emerged in March. This “Union” had nothing to do with the real revival of Russia - it was only about returning power to the Masonic Provisional Government. The leadership core of this organization consisted of old masons (N.D. Avksentyev, A.A. Argunov, N.I. Astrov, N.M. Kishkin, D.I. Shakhovsky, N.V. Tchaikovsky, etc.). There were branches of this Masonic “Union” in Moscow, Petrograd, Arkhangelsk, Vologda and a number of provincial cities.

On the basis of this “Union” several Masonic pseudo-state formations arose.

Firstly, with the help of the British who landed in Arkhangelsk, the so-called “Supreme Administration” of the Northern Region (the government of the freemason-terrorist N.V. Tchaikovsky). The “government” was financed by the British and was under their complete control.

Secondly, the Ufa Directory (Provisional All-Russian Government) arose in September 1918, also with subsidies from the Entente. The Directory was headed by a high-ranking mason N.D. Avksentyev, famous masons also became its members: N.I. Astrov, N.V. Tchaikovsky, V.M. Zenzinov, P.V. Vologodsky (at the same time the head of the Provisional Siberian Government).

The Ufa Directory was under the complete control of the Entente countries, for the sake of which it pursued a policy of continuing the war with the German coalition and restoring treaties with the Entente.

However, with its spinelessness, this political brainchild of the Freemasons did not satisfy the most determined anti-Russian forces of the cosmopolitan republicans. In November 1918, Kolchak, relying on representatives of the Entente and some parts of the officers and Cossacks, disbanded the Directory, and one of its members, the freemason P. Vologodsky, became chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Omsk government of the Supreme Ruler Kolchak.

Having given birth to several subversive political organizations, the Masonic “Union for the Revival of Russia” in 1919 merged with the so-called “Tactical Center”, led by the Masons N.N. Shchepkin and D.M. Shchepkin (the latter actually served as Minister of Internal Affairs in the government of G.E. Lvov).

Two more political organizations created by major Freemasons deserve special mention.

This is the so-called “Union for the Defense of the Motherland and Freedom,” an organization of Republican officers, headed by the Freemason-terrorist B. Savinkov. The goal of this organization, which worked with foreign money (it received 3 million rubles from France alone), was to create a cosmopolitan dictatorship in Russia and establish a pro-Western regime. In July 1918, the “Union” organized a series of armed uprisings in Yaroslavl, Rybinsk, Murom, and Yelatma, which were suppressed by the Bolsheviks.

Masonic conspirators also tried to lead the national-patriotic movement. For this purpose, in May-June 1918, they formed a pseudo-“National Center”, first headed by D.N. Shipov, and then, after his arrest, N.N. Shchepkin; The leadership also included Masons N.I. Astrov, M. M. Fedorov, S. A. Kotlyarevsky and others. The “National Center” developed plans for the creation of an All-Russian government headed by the freemason General Alekseev, who played a tragic role in the conspiracy against the Tsar. The center was oriented towards the Entente and was financed by it. The leaders of the “Center” “recognized it as necessary to take control of the Volunteer Army, led by Alekseev, and subordinate it to the will of the allies.” For this purpose, in the second half of the summer of 1918, Masons N.I. were sent to Kuban. Astrov and M.M. Fedorov, who first become political advisers to the leaders of the Volunteer Army, and then head the Denikin government.

In addition to the listed organizations, the decisive role of the Freemasons was manifested in the activities of some other organizations that were considered right-wing and even advocated a constitutional monarchy. However, the leadership of these supposedly “right-wing” organizations left no doubt about their real content.

In the second half of 1917, the “Council of Public Figures” began to work in Moscow, which included a significant part of the Masonic and near-Masonic community of Moscow. Its chairman was the freemason D.M. Shchepkin, and the members of the meetings were freemasons already known to us: V.I. Gurko, V.V. Meller-Zakomelsky, E.N. and G.N. Trubetskoy, S.D. Urusov, N.I. Astrov, V.V. Vyrubov, S.A. Kotlyarevsky and others.

The declaration on the need to establish a constitutional monarchy from the lips of individuals who did everything to destroy its principles was hypocrisy of the highest degree, the real purpose of which was to disorient patriotic circles and create the illusion of a struggle for the monarchy.

Adjacent to the “Council of Public Figures” was the “Commercial and Industrial Committee,” headed by Freemason S.N. Tretyakov. The committee included several groups of Russian entrepreneurs with a cosmopolitan orientation, in particular the freemason P.A. Buryshkin, representing the Union of Wholesale Traders. The "Commercial and Industrial Committee" financed several other political organizations created and led by Freemasons, in particular the "Council of Public Figures", as well as the so-called "Right Center".

This “Center” was “right” only in name; in fact, it was run by the famous Masonic conspirators D.M. Shchepkin, S.D. Urusov, N.I. Astrov, P.A. Buryshkin, M. M. Fedorov, V.I. Gurko, G.N. and E.N. Trubetskoy.

It can be assumed that this “Center” arose on the initiative of French Freemasonry in order to take control of social circles inclined to move closer to Germany. The Entente wanted with all its might to destroy the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and once again draw exhausted Russia into a war with Germany.

Masonic representatives of the Right Center negotiated in Moscow and Petrograd. V.I. spoke with representatives of France on behalf of the “Center”. Gurko and E.N. Trubetskoy. “A representative of the French government proposed to the Right Center through E.N. Trubetskoy a certain amount of money, and the borrowing of this money was associated with the need to coordinate the policies of the Right Center with the policies of the Entente.”

In conditions when the country was exhausted by war and devastation, the underground policy of Masonic circles to again drag Russia into a war with Germany represented a betrayal of the interests of the Russian people.

As we see, many Freemasons were simultaneously members of several political organizations. They often gathered for coordination meetings, for example, in a kind of Masonic club in the apartment of the old “free masons” E.D. Kuskova and S.N. Prokopovich.

During the Civil War, all-Russian political meetings were also held on the initiative of the Freemasons. At meetings of various political groups and diplomatic and military leaders from Great Britain, France, the USA, and Italy, which took place on November 16-23, 1918 in Iasi, and then until January 6, 1919 in Odessa, the Russian delegation consisted mainly of Freemasons.

According to N. Berberova, the meeting in Odessa (1919) was attended by M.V. Braikevich, Rudnev, D.A. Rubinstein, Elpatievsky, V.V. Vyrubov, T.I. Polner, N.V. Makeev et al.

In the same place, writes N. Berberova, at that time the “National Center” met: Yurenev, Volkov, Rodichev, Grigorovich-Barsky, Bernatsky, Teslenko, Stern, P. Thixton, Peshekhonov, Bernshtam, Trubetskoy, Chelnokov. Of the 12 people, 10 were Freemasons; there is no information about Peshekhonov and Bernshtam.

The purpose of the meeting of major Russian and foreign masons in Iasi and Odessa was to initiate and stimulate the Entente intervention in Russia. The meeting was attended by delegates from the Council of State Unification of Russia, the National Center, the Union for the Revival of Russia, as well as the Entente countries. It was prepared by a specially created committee, which included the Russian ambassador to Romania, freemason S.A. Poklevsky-Kozell, General D.G. Shcherbachev, French vice-consul in Kyiv, freemason and career intelligence officer E. Enno. The “Russian delegation” at this meeting was represented by prominent Masonic conspirators V.V. Meller-Zakomelsky, A.V. Krivoshein, P.N. Miliukov, V. Gurko, M. S. Margulies and others. This delegation made an appeal to the Entente countries “On the immediate arrival of the allied armed forces” in the south of Russia.

All-Russian meetings were held within the framework of the “State Association of Russia” created in October 1918 in Kyiv, which included former members of the State Duma and State Council, Church leaders, representatives of commercial, industrial and financial circles. However, the governing body of this organization also consisted of 8 Masons and 7 non-Masons. Representatives of the association were part of the governments of Kolchak and Yudenich, Denikin and Wrangel.

Considering the facts we have presented, it is not surprising that Masonic conspirators headed most of the white governments, or at least had a decisive role in them.

The head of the first serious white government - the Ufa Directory - was the high-ranking freemason N.D. Avksentiev. Of the 13 members of the Ufa government, 11 were Freemasons: in addition to Avksentiev, his deputy E.F. Rogovsky, as well as S.N. Tretyakov, M.A. Krol, A.A. Argunov, M.L. Slonim, N.V. Tchaikovsky, V.I. Lebedev, V.M. Zenzinov, S.L. Maslov, General Alekseev.

The puppet government of the Northern Region in Arkhangelsk during the period of occupation by the British was headed by the freemason N.V. Tchaikovsky, most of the members were also Freemasons.

Kolchak’s government was headed (and then simply minister) by the freemason P. Vologodsky, the minister of trade was the freemason S.N. Tretyakov.

The Northwestern government of General Yudenich was made up mostly of Freemasons, led by “brother” S.G. Lianozov, a puppet of the Entente.

The Denikin government was also under the complete control of the Masonic conspirators, for such major masons as N.I. played a significant role in it. Astrov, M. M. Fedorov, M. V. Bernatsky, N.V. Tchaikovsky, V.F. Seeler.

Wrangel’s government consisted of politicians close to the Freemasons such as A.V. Krivoshey, as well as old Masons P.B. Struve, N.S. Tagantsev, M.V. Bernatsky (formerly in the Denikin government).

By the way, the “governments” of “independent Ukraine”, the so-called Central Rada and the Directory, also had a Masonic character. The center of political intrigue was the “Grand Lodge of Ukraine,” which, with the help of foreign money, wanted to impose an anti-Russian ruling regime on this Russian territory. Since 1919, the old Mason, traitor to the Russian people S.V., became the head of the “Grand Lodge of Ukraine” and at the same time the chairman of the Ukrainian Directory. Petliura. The Minister for Great Russian National Affairs under the Ukrainian Rada was the freemason D. M. Odinets.

Of course, governments headed by Freemasons were doomed to distrust and unpopularity among the population - the Russian people intuitively felt that they were strangers, hostile to the customs, traditions and ideals of the great country. Moreover, in many affairs of these Masonic governments there was a preference for the interests of the Entente over the national interests of Russia, which was strictly required by the Masonic oath.

The main result of the activities of the Provisional Government was that it cleared the way for the Bolsheviks to seize and strengthen power. Likewise, the war between the whites and the reds only played into the hands of the reds. For many years, the White movement discredited the very idea of ​​popular resistance to the Bolsheviks, strengthened their regime, and contributed to the formation of a state apparatus on a military command basis.

1. 1. www.proznanie.ru Class: 7 Topic: The beginning of the destruction of traditional society. "Times of Troubles" in Europe. Goal: 1 Educational: Show the process of destruction of traditional society, the crisis of agrarian civilization. Bring students to the understanding that the destruction of the class-corporate system and the development of commodity-money relations are interconnected processes. 2 Developmental: Improving skills in working with textbook text. 3 Educational: Interest in the course of New History. Lesson type: combined Lesson structure: 1. Checking homework. 2. Explanation of new material. 3. Consolidation of new material. 4. Explanation of homework. Methods: story, conversation, work with a textbook Equipment: blackboard, textbook. Plan: 1. Destruction of traditional society. 2. Changes in the class system. 3. “Times of Troubles in Europe.” 4. Strengthening state power. 5. The birth of European civilization of the New Age. Concepts and terms: “new nobles” – private property – enclosures – the removal of peasants by English nobles from their plots and the transformation of these lands into fenced pastures for sheep. farmers - owner of an agricultural enterprise. marginals - people occupying an intermediate position, outside corporations. Time Teacher's activities Children's activities
2. 2. www.proznanie.ru 1 Checking homework. 1. Survey on terms learned in the previous lesson? 2. How did the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Bruno change man’s ideas about the world? 3 Compare the views of Descartes and Bacon on the methods of studying nature? 4. How the church responded to such a rapid development of scientific knowledge. 5. Is it possible to build a “city of the Sun”? 2 Explanation of new material. 1. Destruction of traditional society. The destruction of traditional society was a natural phenomenon. The great geographical discoveries, the Reformation, and the emergence of a scientific worldview played a fatal role in the destruction of classes and corporations in Western European traditional society. 2. Changes in the class system. Fill in the table with changes in estates. (using the textbook pp. 111 - 115) Chivalry Nobility Peasants Citizens 3. “Times of Troubles in Europe.” There was a life-and-death struggle between the old principles of life and values ​​and the new. She determined the name of the 16th – 17th centuries. in Western Europe as “troubled”. The struggle resulted in religious wars, a “war of all against all.” Some people felt the taste of new values ​​(freedom, money, service not to the church, but to the state ruler), others with all their might adhered to the old way of life (corporatism, class, service to their lord, the church). Still others became marginalized. In conditions of “turmoil,” instability, and the crisis of agrarian and craft civilization, people increasingly wanted strong power. With it they pinned their hopes on restoring order, providing protection, guaranteeing life and personal property. From the 12th century The idea of ​​the need to separate the power of the king and the church became stronger in society. As the authority of the church weakened, the role of kings increased. Strong state power has taken different forms in different countries. Where Calvinism had more influence, the government became either republican (Holland and Switzerland) or monarchical, but with a strong parliament (England). In those countries that remained Catholic or where the Reformation took the form of Lutheranism, the power of the ruler was more rigid. In the countries of continental Europe, as a rule, absolutism was established, i.e. unlimited power of the ruler, relying on the army, court, officials, and bureaucracy. In this form, absolutism was absent in
3. 3. www.proznanie.ru Protestant countries - Great Britain, Holland, Switzerland, USA, Scandinavian countries. The pendulum of history moved from church-religious power in society to state-secular power, which largely determined the birth of modern civilization. 3 Consolidation of the material covered. 1. Survey on terms learned in class. 2. What changes have occurred in the class system? 3. Explain the concept of “corporation”? 4. How do you understand the term “time of troubles”? 4 Homework. Material from paragraph 7-9 Preparation for independent work.

Conversations that Russia could be destroyed as a single state have been going on for a long time. The Dulles Doctrine, Brzezhinski's plans, and Berezovsky's statements have become quite widely known. The destruction of the USSR was only the first stage in the implementation of these sinister plans. Recently, information was released into the media about when and into what parts Russia will disintegrate, apparently with the aim of probing public opinion regarding readiness for such a turn of events.

However, hand on heart, we admit that so far there is little belief that Russia can cease to exist as a single state.

Firstly, the objective prerequisites for this seem clearly insufficient; one would strongly like to think that the worst is already behind us. Secondly, the actions of the current authorities aimed at strengthening statehood and the vertical power structure at first glance look quite convincing. Thirdly, it is unclear who and how can do this. After all, the West, where these plans have been hatched for a long time, prefers to remain in the shadows, and in order to launch processes of self-destruction in Russia (which were successfully tested during the destruction of the USSR), you first need to prepare the appropriate soil for this and cock the trigger mechanisms.

This is what we will try to assess - the political and spiritual state of society, determine the vector of its movement and evaluate its components for consent or even readiness to take part in the destruction of statehood.

And at the same time, we will try to grasp the connection between politics and spirituality, because we often hear about the spiritual roots of the processes taking place in society, but it is not always possible to see this connection, to highlight the main thing, which often leads to serious mistakes in assessing what is happening.

Spiritual and ideological alignment

The political heterogeneity of society directly follows from the fact that different groups of the population are carriers of different worldviews. Political parties represent and at the same time influence a certain part of society that has one or another type of worldview.

There are four main ideological systems: conservative, communist, nationalist and liberal-democratic.

Each ideological system, in turn, is based on one or another spirituality.

The spiritual basis of Russian conservatism is Orthodoxy, including that which is living and, as it were, hidden, due to the well-known circumstances of the 20th century, in folk traditions. Nationalism - paganism and neo-paganism. Communism - atheism (faith in man). Liberal - democracy - ecumenism (synthesis of all religions), which Orthodox theologians tend to consider the religion of the Antichrist.

There is also a very large part of society that has a very specific worldview. Its essence is to always “keep up with the times”, to be afloat, to succeed financially and socially, regardless of what kind of power is in the state. The position of the “pragmatists,” according to Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, to whom we will turn for help, is “ the deliberate rejection of Truth in favor of power, whether that power be represented by the interests of nation, race, class, love of the comforts of life, or anything else".

At first, this part of society supported the “progressive” communists led by Gorbachev, then the even more “progressive” democrats led by Yeltsin, then the completely unprogressive Putin and Unity. It is absolutely clear that if the current government begins to weaken and a new strong contender or contenders emerge, the sympathies of the “pragmatists” will also quickly change. Love and hate will again be separated by only one step, which will be easily taken.

What spirituality is typical for this group? In general, it is difficult to say, but it is quite obvious that this is not Christian spirituality, which is characterized by constancy.

Power and opposition

Every ideological part of society is represented politically.
A significant part of conservatives, along with “pragmatists,” support the current government in the person of Unity and President Putin. The reasons for this support vary somewhat. For some, this is a sincere conviction that this government expresses and defends their interests, the interests of the state. For others, these are considerations like “all power is from God,” “the worst power is better than anarchy,” or “choose the lesser of two evils.” But all these arguments are precisely conservative in nature.

The remaining ideological groups are represented by opposition parties and business structures. The communists are represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and a number of even more radical opposition-minded mini-communist parties. The nationalists are represented by the LDPR, RNE, NDPR, etc. The liberals were recently represented by the SPS and Yabloko, but after their fiasco in the last elections, the main forces of the liberals grouped around YUKOS and other business structures that are increasingly taking on political functions.

But what are these opposition forces trying to achieve, maybe this very government power, to change it in accordance with their programs and goals?
Nothing like this!

The leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has repeatedly shown that it does not want power, and in the last elections quite openly and brutally led its party to defeat, further weakening the influence that the communists had on public life, replacing the previously proclaimed thesis of “growing into power” with a “transition into power” sanctioned by the authorities. irreconcilable opposition." As a natural consequence, there began the withdrawal and expulsion of statists from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, as well as a counter refusal of support from the left-conservative part of society. The “renewed” Communist Party now needs only oppositionists, revolutionaries and other troublemakers.

Maybe liberals are eager to get government power into their hands? So they already had it under Yeltsin.... It turned out that bearing the burden of power is very difficult and responsible. The liberals, having considerably tarnished their already phony image, themselves voluntarily renounced state power, limiting themselves to shadow power, and voluntarily handed it over to Putin, to whom they immediately and with obvious pleasure went into opposition, hoping to both cover their tracks and find the last one.

The main liberal “nationalist” Zhirinovsky incomprehensibly manages to enlist the support of the “protest electorate” time after time, and at the same time act completely in favor of the existing government, against which this very electorate is protesting... There are also a number of small parties that like to use the words in their names “Russian” and “national” do not even have a tendency to strengthen their influence, which is already barely noticeable, and even then only thanks to television. There are nationalist structures in the national regions of the country, but it is obvious that they do not lay claim to state power in Russia, but on the contrary, they want to be away from it, just like regional separatist structures.

But even if we assume that some “Russian” nationalists do come to power for some time (and recently only nationalists have not been there), then this in itself will lead to the destruction of a multinational state. Therefore, such a possible rise of nationalists to power does not initially set state administration as its ultimate goal.

Of course, attentive and thoughtful conservatives could not be satisfied for long with the quality of the current government, which can only be identified as conservative by certain signs. The idea of ​​forming one’s own political movement has been hanging in the air for a long time, and the creation of the Rodina electoral association was an attempt at its practical implementation. However, the founders swung too broadly, trying to attract communists, conservatives, nationalists, and hidden liberals to boot.

The part cannot contain the whole. The left conservative S. Glazyev and the liberal in the mask of a nationalist D. Rogozin, as well as the ideas and people behind them, were initially incompatible with each other. Some simply wanted to raise their political weight at the expense of others. In games with the devil, the last one always wins. The exact and permanent place of “Motherland” in the spiritual and ideological system is still difficult to determine, but after the complete neutralization of Glazyev, this place is somewhere at the junction of conservative and nationalist, with a further probable tilt towards the latter. The strength of this tilt will be shown in the near future.

The attempt to rally statist-communists and healthy forces of national orientation around conservatives failed. Zyuganov led the communists to the left corner, and Rogozin led his communists to the right. However, it is obvious that power cannot be achieved in the corner. But you can prevent all healthy forces from uniting. What else the personalities of these politicians have in common is some kind of inhuman tenacity. The Orthodox know where it comes from...

Political nihilism

So what are all the above-mentioned oppositionists striving for, not in words, but in deeds? Why do they unite, despite the complete incompatibility of the proclaimed ideas and goals: Zyuganov with YUKOS, Rogozin with Zyuganov, forming a kind of political ecumenism? If it is not for taking on the burden of state power, then there is only one thing left - for the destruction of the Russian state as such!

But the most amazing thing is that the main organizational work and coordination of the actions of the motley opposition is carried out... by the top of the government itself! In addition, the central government itself provokes the opposition and the country's population into anti-state sentiments, which sooner or later will turn into actions or inactions, as was the case in 1991. The opposition is preparing for the next revolution, and the authorities are creating a revolutionary situation step by step. One gets the impression that at the appointed hour X the last order will be given from the Kremlin: “I call fire on myself!”

How does all this manifest itself? The government's staffing and reluctance to truly fight ethnic crime is for nationalists. The adoption of anti-social laws is for the communists. In demonstrative persecution of iconic business figures - this is for liberals. In the constant surrender of Russia's position in the international arena, in the unwillingness and inability to protect its citizens and allies - this is for conservatives, etc.

The people and the state, thus, find themselves in a position “between a rock and a hard place.” The hammer itself ends up either in the hands of the authorities, as it is now, or in the hands of the opposition. Citizens in this situation are left with little choice: either become an active participant in destructive processes, or passive observers, which is what the majority, as usual, is inclined to do. Because it is almost impossible to understand how an impersonal state can be protected and from whom. Moreover, it is not clear how to protect the state from anti-state officials, that is, civil servants...

Dialectics of nihilism

Let's approach the problem from the other side - from the spiritual side, for which we will take the work of Seraphim Rose “The Root of the Revolution: Nihilism” to help us.

Nihilism is defined as the denial of Truth, which cannot be comprehended by human means and which is given from above in the form of Divine Revelation. Rose identified the stages of the nihilistic process: liberalism, realism, vitalism and, finally, the nihilism of destruction. A key feature of the nihilistic process is that " each stage of nihilism opposes itself to another, but not in order to fight against it, but in order to include all its mistakes, to lead humanity even further along the path of nihilism, the end of which is the abyss".

Russia has already followed this path once, which led it to the revolutions of 17, the collapse of statehood and civil war. Then there was a process of gradual restoration, and after the Great Patriotic War, the USSR, despite its outward adherence to communist ideas, in reality looked more like the Russian Empire, at least in terms of government structure. Well, since the main cause of nihilism, which was apostasy, was never overcome, everything began to repeat itself again.

Liberalism (not to be confused with the ideological system), which does not have its own value system and manifests itself in the form of a gradual erosion of existing foundations and values, first manifested itself under Khrushchev, and then this “process” actively “went somewhere” under Gorbachev. At that time, it was not a question of changing the existing system, but only of its renewal on the basis of “universal human values”, with the help of which their own, accumulated by centuries of experience, including the bitter experience of the 20th century, were destroyed.

From the denial of socialist liberalism and Gorbachev himself, realism came along with Yeltsin and Chubais. This stage did not correct anything of the negative that appeared under its predecessor; the situation only worsened. With realism, “highest values” are replaced by naked materialism and egoism.” And if Rose, as a symbol of realism, took the image of Bazarov from Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” which represented the type of “new man” that appeared in the sixties of the century before last, then the image of realism the nineties of the last century became the “new Russian.” He does not believe in anything except that everything “higher” in man, that is, relating to the sphere of mind and spirit, can be reduced to the “lowest,” that is, to matter, sensual, physiological." "Bazarov stated that in society there is not a single institution that should not be destroyed“The “New Russians” put this into practice, destroying everything “Soviet” with great passion.

After realism comes the turn of vitalism. " There is no question of vitalism returning to Christian or any other truth, although the vitalists themselves sometimes try to claim this." "Integral elements of many vitalistic systems are pseudo-spirituality and pseudo-traditionalism" (S. Rose). From this, in general, it becomes clear why conservatives both recognize and do not recognize their own in Unity and Putin. From afar they seem similar, many sometimes even go to church, but look closer - and you see one linden tree and emptiness...

Of course, reality cannot be perceived unambiguously. A return even to pseudo, but still traditionalism, was enough for the moral atmosphere in society to improve, outright Russophobia and defamation of the army to stop, and the material well-being of people to somewhat improve. Many note that the country seems to have returned to the times of stagnation, during which it turns out that we weren’t living so badly. But somehow all this is not stable, material things are supported by temporarily high oil prices, capital is still being exported from the country, the privatization of state property continues. And what the stagnation ultimately led to should not be forgotten either.

The worst thing about vitalism is that, while generating the illusion of restoration of spirituality and traditions, it actually contributes to the onset of the final stage that nihilism has to go through - the nihilism of destruction, which will be directed precisely against vitalism and its carriers! And there is much to indicate that this last stage - the nihilism of destruction - will appear in the political guise of nationalism. Outwardly it will look as if it is being directed against Western liberals, but in fact it will inflict and provoke from the outside crushing blows precisely to the conservative part of society and to statehood as such, which, moreover, today are sick and seriously weakened by vitalism!

To be or not to be?

Despite the presence of different spiritual, ideological and political groups, the main confrontation takes place along an axis that was formed many centuries ago. On one side are the statist conservatives. On the other hand, there are Western liberals who do not need an original Russia and do not need statehood as such. Liberals and democrats, who have always, some consciously, some unknowingly, been, are and will be the conductors of the policies and spiritual expansion of the West aimed at the destruction of Russia.

To the left of the main axis of confrontation are the communists, to the right are the nationalists who are unable to conduct an independent policy. One part of both gravitates towards conservatives, the other towards liberals.

Let's not forget the words of Brzezhinski: "After the collapse of communism, we still have one serious enemy - Orthodoxy." And “Orthodoxy” in this case should be understood in a broad sense, namely as a significant part of society that lives in accordance with Orthodox and conservative traditions. It is at this point that the main blows of both external and internal enemies of Russia will be directed. Moreover, these blows are and will be inflicted precisely on the consciousness of the conservative part of society, including by compromising its leaders, including those specially set up for these purposes, as well as the Russian Orthodox Church and the state. For this purpose, a thorough regrouping of political forces is being carried out that influence certain layers of the entire society.

So is our society ready or not for the destruction of a unified statehood?
If some events happen that periodically occur in our country, who will defend the current government? "Pragmatists"? - No. Liberals? - Why? They themselves will take part in these events on the side of opponents of the authorities. Conservative communists? But all the communists, it seems, will be busy with internal squabbles for a long time and now have no time for state problems. Nationalists? They would rather do harm than help. Conservatives? So their ranks are full of doubts. And whether the authorities themselves want to be protected is another question... In 1991, they didn’t want to.
The question remains open...