Folk, nation, ethnicity, ethnic group. These and similar terms denote groups of people identifying themselves based on various common characteristics, such as language, customs, ideology, or religion. In any case, as Lev Gumilyov noted, the unchanging unifying message for them is: “we are such-and-such, while everyone else is different.”
According to Vakhtang Parcwanidze, the formation and existence of different nations is an objective consequence of the socialization process. In other words, for a human, as a “social being,” it is necessary for survival to feel belonging to a group, which a person will create, even out of nothing, in its absence.
Thus, finding in oneself and in one’s environment signs of distinction from “others” and then elevating these signs to the level of national identity is a constructive process that contributes to the survival of the individual.
However, a logical consequence of the formation of a people and a nation is nationalism - the “measles of humanity,” in the words of Albert Einstein. The meaning of this characterization is that it is a childhood illness that humanity, like a child, must overcome in the early stages of its development, when the success of a tribe, city, or state relies on the timely physical destruction or enslavement of surrounding tribes, cities, and states. In these conditions, nationalism, or even overt chauvinism and xenophobia, unite the population and help it survive.
Nationalism is necessary and very useful in the presence of an external threat. For example, Ivan Ilyin equated nationalism with the “instinct of national self-preservation,” considering this instinct to be “a true and justified state.” This is a kind of immunity of a social group that protects it from destruction or absorption by another larger and more stable group. In simpler terms, it is important for us to instill in ourselves and our children a hatred for strangers if we want our children to survive.
There are other opinions, for example, Andrey Konchalovsky believes that “nationalism in its constructive forms is, above all, serving one’s own people, not destroying other peoples in the name of one’s own.” This is a view through rose-colored glasses. As shown above, the very concept of dividing the population into nations and ethnicities was born with exclusively military purposes: for identification of one’s own and the development of animosity towards others. Everywhere the rhetoric of “us versus them” is used, war is at hand. When the second part of this pair is removed and only a call to “serve one’s own people” is made, as Konchalovsky did, it smells of nothing but hypocrisy.
Now let’s pay attention to an interesting situation regarding the assessment of the total number of peoples and nations on the planet. According to various opinions, there are currently between 800 and 2000 of them in the world. Wikipedia lists only a few hundred. In other sources, I found even more indefinite numbers: from a few hundred to several thousand. Why is there no exact list of them, when we are talking about groups consisting of tens of thousands of people or more? Where does such inaccuracy come from?
It’s all simple, mostly thanks to technological progress, the borders between nations blur and disappear: we no longer know who is who.
The defining trends on the ethnic map of our planet at the moment are consolidation and assimilation. In simpler terms, it is becoming increasingly difficult to say who among us is Russian, Ukrainian, Jewish, Tatar, or Negro. Surprisingly, many scientists even consider the term “race” in relation to humans to have lost its scientific relevance. In other words, it is becoming more and more complex to objectively determine the nationality of a specific inhabitant of our planet, and there is less and less real necessity in doing so.
We are born in the USSR to a Ukrainian mother and a Belarusian father; we live in Berlin; we speak English at the office, Russian with our wife, German with our children, and Turkish at the supermarket; we believe in Jesus Christ, do not celebrate Easter, but celebrate the Day of the Soviet Army; we wear Chinese jeans; we love Italian cuisine and French comedies. What nationality are we? What nationality will our children be, who will speak Russian with a strong German accent and only when asked about it? None?
It is absolutely obvious that traditional divisions of nations such as birthplace, language, cultural traditions, religious beliefs, as well as skull shape and eye shape, are losing their relevance. Moreover, the use of these outdated criteria, according to Parzvani, can only indicate the “narrow-mindedness and backwardness” of those who use them.
However, the desire to gather in groups and identify oneself through belonging to them has not disappeared. As we have seen above, it is innate and vital. In simpler terms, nationalism, chauvinism, and xenophobia are ineradicable because they are natural. The question is only how those who are not “backward and narrow-minded” will identify the “other”.
The nationalism of the future, if civilization continues to develop rather than degrade, will divide people into groups and communities based on criteria such as professional interests (for example, artists, programmers, writers, designers), beliefs (for example, vegetarians, childfree, downshifters), sports (for example, bodybuilders, snowboarders, cyclists), music, and others. These groups and communities are the “nations of the future.”
These new nations are already forming, if one observes the development of communities, for example on Facebook. Alongside politicized groups dedicated to hating “vatniki” or “ukrams,” groups of vegetarians or movie enthusiasts are no less, and often significantly more popular.
The more developed a person is, the more educated and focused on self-development, the less significant the outdated categories of national division are for them. However, the desire to identify oneself through group belonging and opposition to the “other” does not disappear. It is realized through the formation of new nations and peoples that have nothing in common with Ukrainians, Russians, Chinese, or Jews. They are now called “coffee lovers,” “theater actors,” “tourist bloggers,” and “rebirthing adepts.”
Sooner or later, the Ukrainian nation will cease to exist, as will the Georgian, Tatar, Spanish, or Russian. Ukrainian language, literature, music, cuisine, rituals, and traditions will remain, but there will be no “Ukrainian people.” This concept will simply outlive itself.
Translated by ChatGPT gpt-3.5-turbo/42 on 2024-04-20 at 14:39
