When did the concept of nation appear? Unified State Examination in Social Studies, section “Social Relations. Ethnicity and nation. Nations - interpretation by E. Heywood

We easily use the word “nation” in everyday speech, considering it generally accepted and completely understandable to each of us. However, do we know what the definition of the word “nation” is? Where did it come from and in what cases is it appropriate to use it? In this article we will look at these issues.

A little history

The term “nation” is a rather complex definition, because the points of view of scientists and researchers are strikingly different from each other. Ernest Gellner studied the concept of this word from the point of view of modernism. Before the industrialization of mankind, that is, before the need for its education and coordinated work arose, such a concept did not exist. The author wrote that only aristocrats could be united into the concept of “nation” in front of the court, since it was not yet familiar to the lower strata of society. Simply put, ordinary people have not grown up to nationalism. The pre-national state was based on one thing - submission to monarchs. Later, with industrialization, being a citizen came to mean being an equal member of society. That is, a person was not just called a citizen - he felt himself to be part of a single nation.

Definition of what a nation means

Nation - translated from Latin means “tribe”, “people”. This concept was mentioned for the first time in Russian documents at the turn of the 17th-18th centuries as a borrowed concept. It is often used to mean ethnic community or nationality. Only after the Great French Revolution the term “migrated” into Russian-language use. Uvarov in the triad “Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality” mentions the word “nation”, the concept and definition of which echoes “nationality”, in fact, being its synonym. Belinsky wrote in the middle of the 19th century: this word differs from the term “people” in that it covers the entire society, while the latter only covers its lower strata.

What is a nation?

This question, which seems to have a simple answer, is dangerous with many pitfalls, so it should be considered in more detail. In essence, a nation is a social association that is initially not associated with political overtones. That is, first a people arises, and then a nation. For example, Lithuanians initially appeared, and only after that the state of Lithuania arose. In this regard, Soviet politicians were cruelly mistaken when they called Soviet people a nation. They reduced this concept to a political meaning, forgetting that people were not united by culture, biological kinship, or other necessary characteristics. While the idea of a nation is primarily based on the fact that a society of people has a single culture and history. Thus, a full-fledged nation cannot have a single link - there are many of them. Among them are politics, culture, history and other factors.

It is incorrect to call Slavic peoples Russians, since each of them has its own cultural characteristics and its own mentality. Russians are just one of the subgroups of Slavic peoples. With such mistakes, confusion arises, and it becomes unclear where the Russians actually are and where the other Slavic peoples are.

Thus, a nation is a community that arose in the industrial era. In international law, the meaning of the word "nation" is synonymous with the nation state.

Below we consider several definitions of a nation:

A nation is a society that is united by a common culture. The concept of “culture” includes norms of behavior, conventions, connections, etc.
Two people belong to the same nation only if they themselves recognize each other's belonging to it. That is, a nation is a product of people’s beliefs, their willingness to follow generally accepted rules and norms.

What factors unite a group of people into a nation?

The meaning of the word nation is:

Residence in the same territory, where the same legislation applies. Its borders are recognized by other states.
Ethnic community. This concept includes culture, language, history, way of life.
Developed economy.
State. Every people has the right to call itself a nation if it is organized into a state and has its own legislation, management system, etc.
National awareness. It is this that plays an extremely important role, because a person must understand that he is part of his people. He must not only respect its laws, but also love it. A people who actually do not consider themselves a nation, even if they have all the above-mentioned characteristics, are considered a people, but not a nation. For example, after the Second World War, the Germans ceased to consider themselves a nation, therefore they are simply called the “German people,” but patriotic Americans, essentially being a mixture of many ethnic groups, are a nation. Take the last president of America: although he is ethnically Haitian and racially Negro, he is nevertheless an American.

Signs of nationality

The fact that a person has national identity is indicated by such signs as:

knowledge of the history of one’s people, which is called ethnic memory;
knowledge of customs and traditions, a sense of respect for them;
knowledge of native language;
a sense of national pride, which is inherent in almost every resident of the state.

All these signs indicate that in front of you is a worthy representative of a particular nation. They make you feel special, different from others, but at the same time they give you a sense of belonging to something big - a social whole, an ethnic group, a nation. This knowledge can protect a person from feelings of loneliness and defenselessness in the face of global danger.

Ethnicity and nation - concepts and differences

An ethnic group is a people that has the same culture and lives in the same territory, but is not considered a state due to its absence. Ethnicity is often put on the same level as a nation, balancing these concepts. Others believe that the nation stands a level higher, but at the same time is practically no different from it. However, in reality these terms are completely different. An ethnos is not a state and is considered, rather, a tribe that has its own culture, but is not burdened with national identity. Ethnic groups that have developed historically do not set themselves any political goals, do not have economic ties with neighboring states and are not recognized by them at the official level. But a nation is also a political term consisting of the work of masses of people who set certain goals for themselves and achieve them. Most often they are political in nature. A nation is a social force to be reckoned with.

Instead of a conclusion...

What is a nation, from the point of view of some experts? In fact, if we start from versions of the origin of man (in particular, remember the story of Adam and Eve), each of us has one ethnic group, one people. Each of us is an inhabitant of the Earth, and it is not so important what part of the world you live in, what eye shape and skin color you have - all these nuances have developed historically under the influence of climate.

2.1 History of origin and formation of the nation

Nation (from Latin natio - tribe, people) is a socio-economic, cultural, political and spiritual community of the industrial era.

The emergence of nations is historically associated with the development of production relations, overcoming national isolation and fragmentation, with the formation of a common economic system, in particular a common market, the creation and dissemination of a common literary language, common elements of culture, etc. But the formation of nations is not a universal stage in the development of all peoples of the world. Many small peoples (tribes, linguistic and territorial groups) often merge with large nations.

The processes of nation formation are objectively related to the formation of states. Therefore, K. Kautsky considered the national state to be the classic form of state. However, the fate of not every nation is connected with statehood; rather, it is an ideal coincidence. According to the concept of K. Kautsky, the most important factors in the consolidation of people into a nation were commodity production and trade. Most modern nations were born in the process of the formation of bourgeois relations (from the 9th to 15th centuries), but they were formed and developed before capitalism. In countries where development was hampered by colonialism for centuries, this process continues to this day.

The formation of a nation is a complex and lengthy process, in which socio-economic factors play a decisive role. At the same time, the identification of a nation is possible on the basis of its own ethnic properties. The economic and political consolidation of the nation is facilitated by the formation of a single national language and national culture.

On this basis, features of the national character are formed, national self-awareness arises, which presupposes commitment to the national language, territory, culture, a sense of national pride, as well as certain ethnic stereotypes that accumulate the collective experience of attitudes towards one’s nation and other ethnic groups.

The national question in Russia

The concepts used when considering the national question are too ambiguous to be used without additional explanation. The key concept is the nation. There are at least three options for understanding it...

The national question in Russia

In demography, a special place is occupied by the issues of studying the level of social and cultural development of nations, their consolidation, assimilation, integration, interethnic marriages, bilingualism, development of national identity...

Typology of social communities according to the degree of stability and according to size and other criteria

“A clear understanding of observing your duty to people is your true freedom. The more humanely and consciously you observe your duty to people, the more you draw from the inexhaustible source of true human happiness - freedom."

Characteristics of ethnic processes. The problem of the relationship between ethnicity and nation

Often an equal sign is placed between the concept of “nation” and the concepts of “people” and “ethnic group”. In fact, the French are a people, an ethnic group, and they are also a nation. This naturally suggests the conclusion: an ethnic community (people) and a nation are one and the same thing...

Ethnic communities. Nations and national relations. Types and forms of state

A nation is the highest form of ethnic community of people, the most developed, historically stable, united by economic, territorial-state, cultural, psychological and religious characteristics. Some scientists believe...

Ethnocultural conditions as mesofactors of socialization

Ethnicity (or nation) is a historically established, stable collection of people with a common mentality, national identity and character, stable cultural characteristics...

from lat. natio - people) is a stable socio-ethnic community of people, formed historically on the foundation of common anthropological characteristics and a common ethnic destiny, common language, mental traits and cultural characteristics, most often connected by a common territory and economic life. Nationalism is an ideology that puts its nation (nationality) and its problems at the center of attention, giving national priority over the social.

One of the characteristic features of Stalin's Marxism-Leninism is the belittling of the role of the national in public life, the subordination of the national as secondary to the general social or international. Vulgar political science, trying to overcome Stalinism and give the national its due place, generally abandoned any subordination of the national and the social.

The starting point for a correct understanding of the essence of the national and its role in public life is the recognition that man is a biosocial being. This means that human nature cannot be reduced to a “set of social relations,” as vulgar Marxism and Stalinism did, which ignored the role of the biological aspects of human essence (anthropological, ethnic, age-gender, emotional-volitional, mental and other characteristics), nor to the “complex of biological qualities”, which is characteristic of social Darwinism, racism and other teachings that underestimate the social side of human essence (general civilizational, socio-productive, socio-political and other qualities).

However, the recognition of man as a biosocial being, which focuses on taking into account both the biological and social aspects of human essence, does not mean at all that at different stages of anthropogenesis, at various historical turning points and for any ethnic communities, these aspects of human essence have always appeared and appear in static rather than dynamic relationships and interactions, that one can at least to some extent ignore the exceptional complexity, mobility and still poor knowledge of the processes taking place here (for example, the influence of the characteristics of the development of an ethnic group, its age on the social behavior of nations, on explosions of interethnic, racial and interethnic conflicts, etc. .d.).

Nations and national relations, which have developed in modern times, still do not have a theory adequate to their importance. Despite all the claims, Marxism has not solved this problem. Emphasizing the social essence of man to the detriment of his biological side, characteristic of both Marx and Lenin, led not only to a constant emphasis on internationalism to the detriment of the national, but also to constant criticism of any defense of the national, to the identification of such defense with nationalism alien to progress. In fact, the ideology of nationalism, understood as the ideology of protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens of their nation, as the protection of language, national culture, customs and habits (traditions), in itself does not contain anything reactionary. It’s another matter if nationalism turns into chauvinism, into the division of all nations into higher and lower, into the identification of one’s nation with a community that is destined for a special mission, which justifies disrespect for other nations and peoples, aggressiveness and other unjust actions.

Having identified nationalism with chauvinism, some Marxists often contrasted their democratic slogans, overshadowed by the banner of internationalism, with the completely natural defense of national interests. Stalinism took this one-sidedness to extremes; any defense of one’s nation, national language and culture was condemned; it was believed that the nation itself already belonged to the past, that a worldwide process of merging nations was already underway. The Soviet Union, conceived and proclaimed as a federal union of sovereign peoples and nations, was gradually rebuilt into a despotic centralized unitary state with many of the features of an empire with countless national inequalities and injustices. This approach, passed off as Marxist-Leninist, was repeated in all multinational countries of “real socialism”. Under the pressure of repression and ideological demagogy, which hid the real state of affairs, national contradictions and grievances accumulated and multiplied.

The national question, proclaimed in the “socialist world” as a subordinate part of the social class question and declared in all multinational countries almost resolved once and for all, immediately revealed its unresolved nature and extreme urgency as soon as democratization and democratization began with the beginning of perestroika in the USSR (1985). Freedom of the press has arrived.

Despite all the peculiarities of interethnic relations in the USSR, the SFRY, Czechoslovakia and other European countries, what was common to all was the explosion of nationalism and the complete inability of both the party-state bureaucracy and the democrats who replaced it to find a reasonable theoretical and practical solution to the national question: the destruction of previous relations began , structures and multinational states. The actual undemocraticism of the previous and new authorities excluded the possibility of a real solution to the national question. The Soviet Union was the first to consciously restructure previous relations and took the path of preparing a new Union Treaty, the signing of which was disrupted by the August 1991 coup, and then by the abolition of the USSR as a result of the second, December coup (Belovezhskaya agreement). The sovereignization of the republics that overwhelmed the disintegrating USSR began to threaten the integrity of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Georgia. Where is the way out?

At present, there is reason to assert that the social and the national are in such a complex interaction that this complexity does not allow either the primacy of the social (the expression of which was the erroneous formula of “limited sovereignty” or “delegation of the rights of the republics to the center”), nor the primacy of the national over the social ( the expression of which was the erroneous formula “take as much sovereignty as you can stomach”). Life has revealed an obvious incompatibility between the principle of sovereignty and the principle of inviolability of borders, growth of productive forces, internationalization and integration of economies with sovereignization, etc.

Taking into account the current situation, the solution seems to be the following: wherever there are developed nations and nationalities, the absolute and inalienable sovereignty of each nation or nationality must be proclaimed and ensured. If such a nation is part of a broader, multinational association (federation, confederation, commonwealth, union), permanent joint bodies should be established in this broader association, which are not delegated any rights and powers of nations (republics), and where their Representatives jointly resolve issues of individual and common interest to them. Moreover, each nation has the inalienable right to take or not to take part in a particular act, agreement, or action. Moreover, the republic representing the nation, as an independent state, will participate in solving common problems either in federal or confederal forms, or as an associated member. At the same time, no decisions of joint state (political) bodies, as well as national republican ones, affecting the interests of a given nation (people), can take place without the legally provided consent of the nation (people) and their authorized representatives.

Throughout human history, any organized human society has been considered a nation. A nation meant a people with its own history, culture and language, which did not always even have an official government or a clearly defined place of residence. Many nations were essentially tribes, such as the Cherokees of Oklahoma. In the 17th century the definition of a nation has changed because political values shifted towards the concept of "nation-state". With the advent of the modern concept of nationalism, which refers to a strong sense of cultural, historical and territorial unity, people became aware of their right to reside in their own nation-states. Today, the concept of a nation or nation-state is defined as a minimum number of people with a clear sense of cultural unity who live in an area with officially recognized boundaries and have an independent national government.

The rapid development of the modern concept of nation has caused major changes in the world over the past centuries. Loyalty to monarchs, the church, or one's overlords gave way to devotion to the cause of the nation. In the twentieth century, the world's political structure continued to change fundamentally, driven by the development of modern means of communication and transportation, causing nationalism to become an even more prominent political force. Vast empires, like Austria-Hungary or the British Empire, splintered as conquered peoples began to fight for the rights of their nations to self-determination. This caused the emergence of many new states, especially in America, Asia and Africa. There are now 160 separate nations in the world, and the process of their formation has not yet ended, although this is not happening so quickly.

What is a nation? Various nations of the world community exemplify different stages of social, economic and cultural development. Some of them, for example, the Americans and the Japanese, are highly technologically developed countries with a high standard of living. Others, like India and Zaire, are trying to overcome their poverty. But despite all their differences, all nations have a number of common characteristics that make them nation-states.

Each nation occupies and controls an independent geographical territory with recognition (if not approval) of the world community. For example, the whole world recognizes that Wales is part of Great Britain, and Ukraine is part of the Soviet Union, although both Wales and Ukraine have their own cultural traditions and speak national languages. Sometimes one nation may refuse to recognize the diplomatic status of another nation for political or ideological reasons. For nearly 25 years, the United States refused to recognize the People's Republic of China as the legitimate political regime within China. But the PRC was recognized as an independent state by the majority of nations in the world community.

Territorial claims of nations sometimes lead to border disputes because both states believe they have the right to control the territory. Disagreements over the territory of Texas led to war between Mexico and the United States in 1846; and an armed conflict arose between India and Pakistan over the territory of Kashmir and Bangladesh. Such conflicts are usually not resolved until war breaks out and the victorious nation has the right to have its claims recognized as legitimate.

The ability of people to unite; nationalism. Nationalism is the main pillar of the existence of a nation. In times of political change and unrest, a sense of national unity acts as a unifying force that allows the people to feel like a nation, which makes it easier for the government to deal with the situation. Nationalism helps justify the actions of government authorities, because people with a sense of national unity are unlikely to consider their government an alien political superstructure. Nationalism thus helps justify the use of force by authorities against their own people or against other states.

An important aspect of nationalism is the emotional commitment of people to a geographic region. Every nation has its own feelings towards its homeland. The English colonialists also tried to capture a piece of their homeland in America, so they gave their settlements such names as Georgia, Virginia and New York. Now Russians talk about “Mother Russia,” and the Japanese consider Mount Fuji a symbol of their nation.

But a sense of national unity cannot be built on attachment to a geographical territory alone. Common historical and cultural roots are also necessary for its emergence. The consciousness of a common past, a common history greatly unites people, just as it unites the citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are proud of the centuries-old struggle of their state with England. Likewise, awareness of a common cultural heritage, such as religion, national literature, artistic or musical traditions, can help foster a sense of national unity. The Roman Catholic Church and monuments of architecture and art of the Renaissance in Italy, the Russian literary heritage of such writers as Leo Tolstoy - all this greatly contributed to the formation of a sense of national unity between Italians and Russians. The lack of common traditions is one of the sources of instability in the political regimes of many African and Asian states. These countries had to rely on propaganda through the media, on "indoctrination" in schools, on education through the example of new national heroes, most often military ones, in order to develop in people a sense of national unity, which in fact could not fill the historical and cultural vacuum .

Like historical and cultural community, linguistic community is also an important part of nationalism. It is through language that historical, cultural and social traditions are transmitted from generation to generation; In addition, language is the main characteristic by which ethnic groups differ. In some countries, such as India and Switzerland, two languages are used. But in principle, the existence and functioning of several languages in a country only leads to a split in society, while the national language acts as its unifying force. The division of Canada into an English-speaking population and a French-speaking population is perhaps one of the most difficult moments in the history of the nation. In some Asian and African states, consisting of many tribes, English or French became widespread along with the national language, since these states were previously English or French colonies.

What keeps a state from disintegrating, in which there seem to be no common traditions and whose peoples constitute ethnically diverse groups with their own religion, history and traditions? The United States lacks many of the features of a nation state: the country does not have a single national religion, and the US culture is a “synthesis” of the cultural traditions of other countries. Dennis Brogan, an English political commentator, noted that American nationalism rests primarily on certain symbolic concepts: the ideals of the nation, expressed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, act as a unifying force. In fact, Mormon religious doctrine holds that the Constitution was divinely inspired and written by the hand of God.

Independence and legitimacy. An important component of nationalism is historical and cultural community, but another, no less important, is the desire of nations for independence. The independence of a nation means governing the country without outside interference. As already mentioned..., the stronghold of national independence is the rule of law, which can be defined as the ability of the government to maintain the people's trust in itself. How do nations develop? What comes first - states or nations? A nation is a community of people who have self-awareness, a sense of unity, similar positions and ideals, and most often (but not always) speak the same language. A state is a government structure, most often independent and with sufficient power to enforce its orders (it should be noted that here the word “state” is used in its literal meaning; in this sense, the 50 US states are not states). Many would argue that nations came into being long before the state. States, after all, are rather artificial entities: they are born, die and undergo changes. Naturally, it is nations that underlie states, and not vice versa; people with their common national feelings are more important than government structures.

Historical research, however, refutes this common sense view. In almost all cases, states - governmental structures - emerged first and only then nations formed around them.

Crowds of rioters, shouting anti-government slogans, spill through the streets of the capital of a third world country. They are tired of constant hunger, while the president's friends and relatives live in luxury. Even privileged business circles are aware of how corrupt the government is and are calling for the president's resignation. The President, fearing for his life and well-being, gives the army the order to shoot the rebels. Instead, the army sides with the rebels, and the president flees, taking with him suitcases filled with money, jewelry and works of art. And although he proclaimed himself the father and savior of his country, it turned out that few people supported him.

On another continent, members of a radical underground group meet in a small apartment to plan a terrorist attack. They are irritated and outraged by what they perceive as a violation of their national rights. Every person has a homeland, why can't they have one? The government they hate refuses to recognize them; Moreover, it defines them as enemies of the state, their peaceful political protest was met with police batons and arrests, so the terrorists decide to achieve their goal by more effective means. They stuff a car with explosives and park it near a government building; The clock mechanism triggers an explosive device, killing passers-by. Terrorists believe that they have done an important job and are proud of their work.

At this time, the American president is trying to carefully renege on his promises on a number of political issues. His simple slogan won the elections, propelling him far ahead of his rivals on one of the events of the current moment. However, once he assumed the presidency, he realized how difficult it would be to keep his promises on this issue and how difficult it would be to move the issue through Congress, the bureaucracy, and through layers of different interests. The President is trying to weaken his policies, expresses a desire for compromise and tries to appear confident in this political issue. Critics say he is becoming weak and indecisive. Ironically, it was in these terms that the president spoke about his predecessor, whom he defeated in the election. Being president, he silently reflects, is much more difficult than he imagined.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

A nation is a cultural-political, historically determined community of people. is quite vague, so there are clarifying and corrective formulations. They are necessary so that this concept can be used in popular science literature and not depend on the context.

How to understand the term “nation”

Thus, the constructivist approach argues that the concept of “nation” is entirely artificial. The intellectual and cultural elite creates an ideology that the rest of the people follow. To do this, they do not necessarily need to shout political slogans or write manifestos. It is enough to direct people in the right direction with your creativity. After all, the most lasting thought is the one that penetrates the head gradually, without direct pressure.

The boundaries of influence remain quite tangible political and geographical cordons. Constructivist theorist Benedict Anderson defines a nation as: an imagined political community that is sovereign in nature and limited from the rest of the world. Adherents of such thinking deny the participation of the experience and culture of previous generations in the formation of the nation. They are confident that after the period of industrialization a new society has emerged.

Ethnicity

Primordialists decipher the concept of “nation” as a kind of evolution of an ethnos to a new level and its transformation into a nation. This is also a type of nationalism, but it is associated with the concept of the spirit of the people and emphasizes its connection to the “roots”.

Adherents of this theory believe that what makes a nation unified is a certain ephemeral spirit that is invisibly present in every citizen. And a common language and culture helps unite people. Based on the doctrine of language families, one can draw conclusions about which peoples are related to each other and which are not. But besides this, not only the cultural, but also the biological origin of peoples is tied to this theory.

Nationality

People and nation are not identical concepts, just like nationality and nation. It all depends on point of view and cultural ideology. In countries this word is expressed, but it does not cover everyone who falls under the definition of a nation. In Europe, nationality is belonging to a nation by right of citizenship, birth, and upbringing in a closed environment.

At one time there was an opinion that the nations of the world are formed according to genetic characteristics, but in practice one can find such combinations as Russian German, Ukrainian Pole and many others. In this case, heredity plays no role at all in a person’s self-identification as a citizen of the country; something stronger than the instincts inherent in every cell of the body prevails here.

Types of nations

Conventionally, the nations of the world can be divided into two types:

Multi-ethnic.
Monoethnic.

Moreover, the latter can be found only in those corners of the world where it is difficult to reach: high in the mountains, on remote islands, in harsh climates. Most nations on the planet are multiethnic. This can be logically deduced if you know world history. During the existence of mankind, empires were born and died, containing the entire world known at that time. Fleeing from natural disasters and war, peoples moved from one end of the continent to another, in addition, there are many other examples.

Language

The definition of a nation is not related to language as such. There is no direct relationship between the means of communication and the ethnicity of the people. Currently there are common languages:

English;
French;
German;
Chinese;
Arabic, etc.

They are accepted as state ones in more than one country. There are also examples where the majority of members of a nation do not speak the language that should reflect their ethnicity.

Psychology of the Nation

According to economic theory, a person is born, lives and dies without leaving his usual habitat. But with the advent of industrialization, this pastoral picture begins to crack. Nations of people mix, penetrate each other and bring their own cultural heritage.

Since family and neighborhood ties are easily destroyed, the nation creates a more global community for people without restricting their movements. In this case, community is formed not through personal involvement, blood relationship or acquaintance, but through the power of popular culture, which conjures an image of unity.

Formation

In order for a nation to be formed, it is necessary to combine economic, political and ethnic characteristics in place and time. The process of formation of a nation and the conditions of its existence develop simultaneously, so the formation proceeds harmoniously. Sometimes, in order for the formation of a nation to occur, it is necessary to give a push from the outside. For example, a war for independence or against enemy occupation brings people very close together. They fight for one idea, without sparing their own lives. This is a strong incentive for unification.

Erasing national differences

It is interesting that the health of the nation begins with the head and ends with it. In order for representatives of a people or a state to recognize themselves as a nation, it is necessary to give people common interests, aspirations, a way of life and a language. But to make things special in relation to other peoples, we need something more than cultural propaganda. The health of a nation is manifested in its homogeneous thinking. All its representatives are ready to defend their ideals, they do not doubt the correctness of the decisions made and feel like a single organism consisting of a large number of cells. Such a phenomenon could be observed in the Soviet Union, when the ideological component influenced a person’s self-identification so strongly that from childhood he felt like a citizen of a huge country in which everyone thinks at the same time.

A nation is a broad concept that makes it possible to outline its borders. At the moment, neither ethnicity nor political boundaries or military threat can influence its formation. This concept, by the way, appeared during the French Revolution as a contrast to the power of the king. After all, it was believed that he and all his orders were considered the highest good, and not a political whim. New and modern times have made their own adjustments to the definition of a nation, but the emergence of a unified way of governing the state, the export and import market, the spread of education even in third world countries, increased the cultural level of the population, and, as a result, self-identification. Consequently, it has become more difficult to influence the formation of a cultural and political community.

Under the influence of wars and revolutions, all the major nations of Europe and colonial countries, Asia, and Africa were formed. They remain multi-ethnic, but in order to feel belonging to any nation, it is not necessary to have the same nationality. After all, this is rather a state of soul and mind, rather than physical presence. Much depends on the culture and upbringing of an individual, on his desire to become part of the whole, and not to be separated from it with the help of moral principles and philosophical ideas.

And, to a lesser extent, other complementary ethnic groups. See discussion of the issue.

Definitions of a nation

Bauer

“A nation is a collection of people bound together in a community of character based on a community of destiny. Community of destiny does not mean submission to one lot, but a common experience of the same destiny with constant exchange and interaction.”

VladiMir

“A nation is a community united by transethnic culture, a creative search for coexistence in the form of sovereign statehood.”

Theodor Herzl

“A nation is a community of people in the past, united in the present against a common enemy.”

Pavel Krupkin

“A nation is the political hypostasis of the people of a country. These are people united by the state and loyal to their state. Loyalty to the state is demonstrated through the people’s exercise of their political rights and the bearing of political responsibilities, the main of which is the duty to defend their country, their society, their state.

Do not confuse a nation with a nationality, or an ethnic group: one ethnic group can be a component of several nations, a nation can be formed by several ethnic groups. Read more. Examples of confusion are above, except for this VladiMir. Historically, the concept of a nation appeared in the heat of anti-monarchical struggle as a solution to the problem of supreme sovereignty. The idea of monarchy was based on the basic idea of feudalism, according to which every person must necessarily be a vassal of some sovereign. At the same time, the social pyramid was cleverly closed at the top with the position that the Monarch, being the supreme sovereign for all his subjects, receives this sovereignty from God through the ritual of anointing... With a strong desire to remove the figure of the Monarch from the social structure, the problem of “suspension” of the source of supreme sovereignty arises. And this problem was solved by the provision that the supreme sovereignty in a given territory comes from the nation, that is, a community of people with political rights. In parallel with this, on the same basis, the concept of the Social Contract was built, which became the main instrument for eliminating “feudal remnants” and clearing the way for social progress... This understanding of the nation was fully tested within the framework of the American and French revolutions, within which the nation again, this meant the community of political actors of the people (let me remind you that at that time only a small part of the population of the respective countries had political rights). Subsequently, the battle between the idea of national sovereignty and the idea of the sacred monarchical principle (sovereignty from God) became the essence of the anti-feudal struggle in Europe. At the same time, the spread of this struggle to the multinational monarchies of Eastern Europe opened up opportunities for filling the concept of a nation with ethnic content. This revision of the concept was supported in the West, because it weakened the European monarchies as actors in European politics. As a result, the concept of “the right of nations to self-determination” emerged, which was significantly used to eliminate the Eastern European empires, and subsequently the colonial empires.”

Pavel Vyacheslavovich Svyatenkov

“A nation is a self-organizing system that arises as a result of the refusal to exploit its own, which occurs within the framework of the evolution of a people (or peoples). The refusal formula is the external boundary that distinguishes the participants of the nation from others, and is also the subject of constant consistent clarification in the process of development of the nation.”