Russian Identity

II.3.     Main ideologies in  history of Russia

Since the times of Peter the Great in minds of Russian Intelligentsia were two ideas: Russia as a Great European Might, and European Civilization. For the first ones, the most important was Russia as a great European Might. These were the representatives of governmental reaction. For the others, the most important were the ideas of progressive European civilization. They said: at any price let us implement the ideals of European civilization in Russia, and make Russia a progressive European state. These were the representatives of radical- progressive society. The tragedy was in the fact that not the first, neither the second direction judging the Russian conditions of living, couldn’t be completely implemented.  Every of the two sides noticed internal disagreement of the other, but couldn’t see that it also had the same negative sides. Reactioners understood that to let to go half-wild Russian democracy, progressionism at their side will shaken the existence in Russia of European democracy. Progressists, from their side said that to save Russia in the concert of Great European states, Russia has to make it until the level of European states in foreign politics. These ideas were born after  Peter the Great reforms. Russian people were far away from understanding of these ideas. (Savitskiy, 1925: 99) In later times, there appeared an absolute change in before existing ideas. The new ideology of Eurasianism was in big difference with before existing theories, provoking itself many contradictions with political considerations of old directions. (Savitskiy,1925:100) Eurasianism regreted an authority of European culture. Making Russian national culture a main cultural might, Eurasianism goes after the whole Petrovian, Saint- Patersburg, Imperator period of Russian history.( Savitskiy, 1925:101) A negative view  on Imperator Russia and underlined existence of peoples culture was important.( Savitskiy, 1925: 102) Eurasianism comes to national Russian culture without a will to change it with any of Romano-German forms of life. It underlines a real independent national development. (Savitskiy, 1925: 103) Besides, Eurasianism stands on the ground of Orthodoxy, making it the only Christian religion and especially underlines the only true Orthodoxy as Russian artistic stimuli[12].( Savitskiy, 1925:104)

However, Europeanization was not a natural process of forming Russian state, the reforms of Peter the Great were said to change it to the unnatural change towards Europeanization of Russian culture[13].( Novikova, 1995: 11)

Before Revolution, Russia was a country in which the official ruler of all state territory was Russian people. During  the revolution the things have changed. Russia started to fall down into separate parts, if not the Russian people who have saved the situation. That Russia, of which Russian people were the owners, came to a history. Revolution has proposed USSR an ideal entity which united groups of separated republics into socialistic, trying to implement the only social build. It was a great unifying factor. Proletariat of all people of the USSR, headed by the communist party of Russia became the only owner of Russian territory. (Novikova, 1995:194) The dictatorship of one class and multinational country underlined the identity of Russia those days.

II.4.     The Theory of Civilizations

The theory of civilizations was formed in the process of studying the problem. The founders of it were Danilevsky, Veber, Shpengler, Sorokin, Toinbi. Later, in the second half of the 20th century, this problem was studied by many western thinkers. Civilization is a sociocultural entity, which is formed on the basis of universal values, including world religions, systems of morality, arts. This theory has grown into a theory of civilizations. (Shapovalov 2001:13)

Observing Russia as one of the local civilizations, which has peculiar traits was formed on the contradictions of local civilization and the most common definition of “Russian civilization”. One of the contradictions was that the majority of people’s with different civilization orientation made Russia a segmented society. However, this was later developed, and civilization received its value in the majority of peoples who make up the ethnical composition of Russia. Another argumentation which the theory gained, and which didn’t receive a concrete development, was that the history of Russia had breakages, for example, it was a Kievan Rus, Moscow Rus, Russia of Peter the Great, Soviet Russia, etc. It was a significantly different basis for development of Russian civilization. (Shapovalov 2002:18)

One can talk about modern Russian civilization starting from the  Peter’s reforms, in the 18th century, which has put a basis of that civilization in Russia, in which we continue to live nowadays. In Russia’s project, many theorists approve the fact that Russia follows Westernized way, however in the works of theorists from abroad, Russia is given its own way of development, and it is said to have its defined Russian place in the world system. Russia has its positive  important factor in the world system. (Shapovalov 2002:21)  Russia is a super ethnic entity, and is has a cultural Russian soil. It significantly defines the style of life and thoughts, which are typical for civilization. It is very important from the view of civilization. (Shapovalov 2002:23)

Thesis about the mentality of Russian culture became important nowadays. Some modern authors use it to explain the phenomenon of Russian totalitarism of the 20th century. In their logic, Russian totalitarism has its roots almost in Kievan Russia. Research of Russia as a difficult civilization, we can begin from the social psychology, trying to make a research in Russian soul, and then to bring them in the peculiarities of economical, social and cultural basis. (Shapovalov 2002:27) The most important resource of civilization- its people, and the most important quality  of people is a life power, based on the understanding of historical destiny. Mostly, it concentrates on the character of people, and on its distinctive traits. (Shapovalov 2002:46)

II.5.     My considerations

For every state, in a certain period of time there may be applied a term of civilization. Foundation of civilization is being made in historically defined period of time, and it reflects ideology of this particular state. Ideology of state is formed by social consciousness of people. Russian civilization has defined history and time chronology. Development of Russian civilization has been developed constantly, in conjunction with European civilizations, who had big influence on development of Russian civilization. However, what should be taken into consideration, that Russian civilization has been developed in a gap from European civilizations. I consider, that the main reason of this gap in development was a big territory of state, which was not ruled properly, differences in the development of Eastern as well as Western parts of Russia, separated nature of Russian territory, differences in people’s number in Eastern and Western parts of Russia, in result of which there has been a difference in creating and rule of decrets in different parts of Russia. Western part of Russia was always more progressive. Here, revolutions were made, reforms were accomplished, the level of social  development has been followed. Eastern part was not so developed, however from there came the existing theory of mentality and Russian soul. Russia as state, with certain level of civilization has to gone through  historically defined periods of time, and society had to go through defined historical development for civilization to emerge. Russia from times, has gone very difficult, from one part of formation to another, because of its poor level of development, and not ability of society to go through these formations. Russia didn’t have democratic society  with its values. For one formation to another, there should be a certain influence from the side. But the  society, which was all about avtoritarism, was not able to define itself and reorganize itself. For democratization in Russia, there should be certain time and free people with different consciousness.

Considering all this, I should say that I have asked myself a question: does the identity of Russia exist, is there a specific Russian, original Russian identity. Proving the fact, one might say that it exists. What kind of identity is it? What a current state creates out of this identity.  What is Russia in the international system? Or is the power of Russia in its people? In Orthodoxy? Is Russian state under construction? To which direction does Russia develops? To the East or to the West?

For myself, I define next  things:

First,  a history of Russian state is full of victories, tragedies, and relief. Since the Christianity of Russia till 20th century, with its revolutionary ideas, monarchy, Civil War, Stalin period, Second World War, development of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev Perestroika, with his new ideas of democratization of the society, Period of Eltsin and Putin. Every period of history defined the ideology of the state, its identity, and formed its generation of people, as well as formed internal and external politics of state. The internal politics of state was formed by the governing elite existing in the society. External politics of state was always formed by the perceptance of state as a huge power, and its multinationalities. Especially, it was recognizable in the years of the Soviet Union, in the period of disintegration of the Soviet Union. State has lost its power, received characteristics of a weak state. This, therefore, defined behaviors of people in the society, and considerations from foreign states. Little by little, Russia becomes economically more strong state, which defines economically and politically in the world. In a short period of time, Russia has undergone a historical change in its political development, from monarchy to a democratic state, through anarchy and avtoritarism. This historical period influenced on the international reputation and self-definition of state in a modern world.

Second, culturally, Russia is very rich. Its enough to mention world famous writers: Tolstoi, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov, Solzhenitsin, etc. The role of intelligentsia in Russia was very contradictory in Russia. It formed an ideology of Russia. Many films in the years of Soviet Union were the examples of  formation of the state, and this formed ideology and self-identity of Russia.

Third, Orthodoxy is a defined religion in Russia before the revolution, and then in the 1920s it was separated from the state. New impulse it received nowadays. The accent is made nowadays on manyconfessionality. The Church nowadays is not able to influence the decisions which are taken inside of the state. The Church influences the development of the state, on its formation of mentality and ideology in the state. In Russia, people are unified by common idea. This common idea is formed in the minds of people, through the Church, through Media, through culture.

Fourth, Russian state has a peculiar geographical position. It has its considerations to the East and to the West. Therefore, Russia follows balanced strategy with Europe and Asia. Russia has to follow the well-balanced strategy with the West, and with the East, and find balance between different countries with different levels of state structure (China, Northern Korea, Japan, Arab countries, Europe, with democratic structures of power).

I see that the issue of Russian identity is quite a complicated subject. It involves many things, such as the issue of ethnicities, peoples, cultures, religion, mentalities, as well as it is a broad political question. Being a student of IR, I realized that it is very important to look at the issue from the perspective of constructing identities, as well as their development in time, their change, and common historical and political discourses. I concluded for my self that there is a specific Russian identity which has been developed in time, in Russia. I have given you a brief description of it in my work. I also understood that there is an issue of Russian identity which is evolving now, after the years of communism, which I haven’t mentioned in my research paper. I consider them unnecessary to understand the main discourse in history. I think that these  years didn’t enrich Russian state with values, on the other hand, they made a big hole in the whole Russian history and made the face of Russia not very pleasant for foreign observers, but very weird and scary. I decided not to involve them to my research, and therefore, to escape from many ideological focuses of that time.

III.    Values of Russian Identity

Next, from the point of constructivists, identity formation is a process which brings people together under one state, Russia. It is a process, it is a fundamental value, it’s value shaped in history, it is a change, as well as the value to provide predictability and order in state. I would say that it is the main value how people see and construct ideology of a nation. It is a main value, with which people live and maintain their ideological interests on behalf of the construction of nation. Identity making is a value, through which people see their state, and accepted in the world. It is a value, by which it is judged and given a certain ideological impact on these of that nations, etc.

Next question that I want to answer, is why Russia is historically Russian? The answer that I have found is given by Mark Bassin, who states that “Russia’s geographical existence within a larger zone of Eurasian civilization meant that  Russian culture had been shaped to a not insignificant extent by influences coming from Asia. Referring to a wide historical array of manifestations of Russian culture, including folk music, art, politics, religion, and even language, he repeatedly emphasized the pre-eminent importance of connections to the east as compared to those to the west. “The Russians, the Ugro-Finns, and the Volga Turks,” he wrote, “comprise a cultural zone that has connections with both the Slavs and the ‘Turanian East,’ and it is difficult to say which of these is more important.” Trubetskoi argued moreover that Russia was Eurasian and not European (Slavic) not only by virtue of its cultural patterns, but in terms of anthropological-racial considerations as well. “Turkic blood mingles in Russian veins with that of the Ugro-Finns and the Slavs,” he observed: “[I]t is usually forgotten that our ‘brothers’ (if not in language or faith, then in blood, character, and culture) are not only the Slavs but the Turanians...”1 This dramatic insistence on the Asian sources of the Russian ethos--on what Trubetskoi evocatively called Russia’s “non-European, half-Asiatic face”-- was intended to leave no room whatsoever for any doubt as to the fundamental chasm that set Russia apart in every sense from Europe. As such, it forms without question the most  well-appreciated element of Eurasianism overall”[14].

These are a historically formed issues that are significant for research in the identity of Russia. Every nation is a matter of historical mission, development, and internal life. It is a historically formed basis of every nation to find its own path of development, and it’s a matter of controversies and disputes to find a common way of ideological development and values, which are important for a given society. Russia has a long history of ideological controversies and disputes, however, they have received its own path of development nowadays.

The new Russian identity, which received a discourse analyses in Russian media, and in politics, is the one which significantly describes Russia as a huge national and supranational power. It bring many issues to the discussion, for example the issue of self-identity of Russia, “Russia is with its own original profile”, or that it has several ideological orientations, “Russia is Europe”, or “Russia is Eurasia”, or “Russia is neither West nor East”, etc. Therefore one might say that the processes in Russia which it undergoes, lead to a specific ideological contradiction, which signifies nor Eastern nor either Western specifics of Russia. Preferably, most Russian theoreticians and politics say that there is a common unique Russian way of development, which is the way that politicians involve in their thinking and practice, however, in international space Russia sometimes is seen as the country with no way of development, and the country which borrows certain things from the West trying to improve internal conditions. But there is , of course, a dispute, in which scholars try to distinguish certain values for Russian state, and therefore, they try to see over all possible solutions to the evolving identity of Russia. Some say, that it is a historically evolved issue, some say that it is a matter of politics and social life, however, in my paper I tried to show you all these different views on the question.

In my view, I see all the perspectives as a given fact, or an ideological compounds, which go in contradiction with each other, however, they balance any contradictions, which evolve due to the mentioned disputes. Any of the views I consider valuable and important, however, the most important, which I have presented and argued about, present its own statement, which can be recognized as existing in Russian society. Any of the before mentioned issues can be characterized as making up the societal type of thinking, approve by the politicians, and, on the other hand, being formed throughout the history of Russia, its ideological conflict, which received its result in different views on Russian way, be they Slavofiles, or Westernisers, or, the dispute nowadays, to which direction Russia will go, to the East, or to the West, the dispute Where does Russia belong: to Europe, to Asia, or is it a Eurasia. From my view, Russia has its own path, however, it borrows many of Western traits, which it applies later on to its own life and economical and political development inside of Russia. However, the main priorities are given to the West, where it finds support and interests. Here, I want you to know the viewpoint of Zvonovsky, who says, that “a key component in the process of identity formation is the division of the world into “us” and “them” factions and the development of some perception of how Russians differ from others. From this point of view, the West as a whole, and America as the leader of the Western world, is the mirror in which Russians see themselves—both in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. To a lesser extent this view also contributes to assessments of the West, as well as the actions of Western states. Russians still consider American society to be, if not an example for simple implantation, at least a guide to orient them in many spheres of social life.”

He states, that Russian citizens themselves identify Russia in a provincial sense, and then somehow try to fit it into a global context. Moreover, the United States, as the social “center,” is accepted as the standard against which one measures and weighs the periphery. Second, despite the fact that, for the majority of Russians, American society seems to be a model for a more just set of social arrangements, the United States remains a threat to Russian society. This constitutes a radical difference from Russian public attitudes toward the United States during the Soviet period. At that time the United States seemed to be the key menace and the average Soviet citizen viewed American society as being less just than their own. The two societies opposed one another with equal confidence in the superiority and just nature of their own social arrangements. Now Russians stand opposed (in their mind) to societies that they feel are both more and less just than our own. In this case, isolationism emerges as a reaction against an unattainable ideal—an expression of frustration. What lies at the roots of such attitudes? Obviously, there is no single irrefutable answer to this question During the first phase of reforms in Russia, the United States and the West as a whole were perceived not only as model, but also as a factor spurring the home government to implement more liberal policies toward its citizens. Russians assumed that the activities of the national government were the main obstacles to improving life for the population to transform the government, via election or putsch (followed by the latter’s suppression), and life would naturally change for the better. At the same time, the population’s own activities and attitudes—with regard to work, money, the law, and even God—could remain the same.

At last, Zvonovsky says, that Russian residents consider the West a spatially remote authority within a series of other authorities; in other words, they understand it as a supranational extension of power. Thus, the more critically people estimate those relations, which currently exist between the central government and  regions, the more critically they also estimate present relations between Russia and the West. In other words, they divide global space not into Russia and the outside world, but into the world of various authorities and the world of the individual’s everyday being (Zvonovsky 2005).

However, in our case, we can see Russia as being oriented to the West, and I can prolong my arguments of why is it so. However, it has been a major driving force for Russia throughout the years that it has been following West, and it will continue to follow. In the Washington post, June 9, 2001  Michael A. McFaul has said that “between a continuation of engagement and a return to containment is a third path: realistic engagement. Bush needs to communicate to Putin that he believes in the possibility of Russia's integration into Europe and the Western community of states. But he also needs to clearly articulate the real terms of integration, terms that will require Russia to undergo serious political and economic changes. To help Russia integrate into the West, the American strategy must still be engagement, but with more realistic expectations about when, and with real standards for how this integration might occur”. “Russian society is currently divided as to whether Russia can or should aspire to become part of Europe again. Russian foreign policy elites also articulate two paths -- West and East -- for Russia's strategic orientation.”[15].

Here, all connected to external politics of Russia during the last decade or so. The priorities are given to the West, where Russia finds support and influence. Russian identity is so peculiar , so that it may be said that Russia  rather goes in two dimensions, East and West. Russian national identity is not only a matter of Russian soul, but it may become a  mass-based driving force for action and for change.

In my view, to see Russian identity as an issue nowadays is to realize, how it was formed in history, and on the basis of this knowledge, to establish a necessary framework to better understand the whole political discourse about the issue. I see it as a big multinational power. It gathers in itself the ethnicities and brings them together in one state, Russia. People are a constant value, a subject of history, an internal value, which during the centuries formed its culture, logic and made up future perspectives. Russian people in history have gone through many developments and changes. From Slavic Tribes to Kiev Rus, to a centralized system with Moscow in the centre of state. The most interesting is that there is a unique complex of national identification, and its in the history of Russian people. Religion, which is important nowadays, and was also a matter of Russian life in history, is a significant trait, which signifies Russian religious heritage. Orthodoxy, which I am going to talk about, is one of the most important characteristics, and a mater of life in Russian state.

Another important issue is a search for common national idea. Flourishing the nation, preservation and development of the national way of life and national interests are the core principles of Russian nation. These principles are reflected by every step of Russian people. They are vividly multiple and interesting to know and to follow, for example, Russian holidays and traditions. They are very important for Russian people and they in combination to a free nation, make up the cultural life of state. Throughout the history of Russia, there was a constant search of ideas. Some were taken from Western thinkers, some were created in Russia, to make up the spirit of Russian people more significant, and to draw a historical line in conjunction to which, a basis of Russian history and thinking were created. They were the Slavofiles and Westernisers, nowadays, they are politicians, who make up the most important steps to significantly make the Russian way of life more solid, strong, and oriented to the West. They are the Western values, which the state takes into account, and makes further steps to improve Russian way of life. On the other hand, these are Russian people, who choose the path to follow, and they are the ones who create the history of Russia from the inside, and they are politicians, who make up the identity of Russia, in time, taking into consideration, the basic values of international states and following their rules and order.

Mark Bassin says, “As for the Russian nation, it always was a center of ethnic and cultural attraction of not only the Slavs, but also the adjoining peoples. In fact, Russians are defined more by their geographic location than by blood. They have never constituted a nation in the Western understanding of this term. Unlike the nations of Western Europe, the Russians have never been obsessed with the idea of creating a national state, and never equated the nation and the state. Russia’s national idea always has been separate from the idea of Russian nationalism”[16].

Another view, “Today Russian society is undergoing a period of dramatic change. Russian history was not smooth either. Since middle ages it has been developing in different way from the European West. Steady evolution of civil society in Europe after Enlightenment gave a stable framework for development of identity there. The whole history of Russia is connected with changes between different ends. Now the picture remains basically the same: There are many different nonlinear processes which are taking place simultaneously in Russian society in the meantime”[17].

Before-mentioned disputes are significant for the development of ideological thinking inside of Russia. But what are the other values which create Russian identity, in Russia. I consider Orthodoxy, a religious compound of Russian nation, to prevail in life of people in Russia. Orthodoxy is a significant value, which Russia has. It has been established hundreds of years before, and now, it is a value, which is now a compound in the country’s identity.

Why Orthodoxy, my next question? The idea of Russia as an “Orthodox nation” has a long history; it ties in with both official definitions and popular perceptions; it is also at the core of the historical and philosophical debates that have aimed to delimit geopolitical place of Russia and to understand the essence of “Russianness”. Russia is by no means unique in this respect. The religious dimension has always played an important role in the self-determination of peoples and nations. The conflicts of ancient and medieval states were conflicts of gods. Religious traditions frequently determined, in one way or another, how cultures and States were divided and united. In Europe, contemporary nation-states developed on the basis of communities that defined themselves partly in terms of their religious affiliation: Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox. Later, in the twentieth century, Islam, Buddhism and Catholicism have played a key role in the formation and legitimation of the new nations of Asia and Latin America. (Agadjanian 2000)

Russian Orthodox identity was a consolidating factor that united Russians of all social strata. At the same time the similar role was played by the imperial identity. The Russians historically have been a nation, that kept forming an empire. Russians in a very high degree identified themselves with the empire. This fact explains to a large degree the inherent particular features of Russian national consciousness. The Russian national consciousness in this respect for a long time has been tempted by a suspicion of being a God chosen people, that it had a special purpose in the world. This role imposed from outside with a passage of time became quite organic self perception[18].

The idea of an “Orthodox nation” reappeared in Russia during the 1990s; the prerevolutionary past was then brought into play, even though the contemporary  situation in Russia differs fundamentally from the situation in the nineteenth century. The Orthodox “nature” of society and of the State was then a reality; Orthodoxy formed part of the popular consciousness, of daily behavior and of State practice; contemporary “Orthodox identity”, on the other hand, is rather a mythological idiom that appeared in response to a need for a new identity. Prerevolutionary society had gradually evolved towards a secularized and pluralist “formula of identity”; contemporary society already seems to be secularized and pluralist (as a legacy of the post-Communist period) and is seeking ways of gradually including the elements of Orthodoxy within its “formula of identity”. “Orthodoxy” in pre-revolutionary Russia was a religious reality permeating the whole of society, while “Orthodoxy” in present-day Russia is only a reality within the religious “field” and is essentially a kind of a cultural symbol, used as an important ideological construct.

Russian national consciousness was strongly cemented by Orthodoxy. Therefore  it was much easier for it to acclaim, as its own member,  a representative of another ethnos,  and not of another religion. In the framework of the imperial identity both Poles, Germans, and Jews were undoubtedly considered “our own”. In this way one nation combined an imperial identity and Russian Orthodox identity. The first one dictated to recognize all peoples of the Empire as “our own”. The second refused to accept the peoples, different in a religious way,  as “our own”. They were considered alien. This dichotomy produced a very painful dual  self perception. It considered proper and alien halves as part of one organism. This unity was extremely contradictory. We think,  that this very dichotomy, constantly present in the Russian national consciousness,  has and continues to determine the chronic crises of its self identification. Ethnic hatred is just one of the factors and,  to this respect,  a negative one in a very complex and long process of crystallization of ethnic identity of Russians[19].

There is a close connection in modern Russian mind between Orthodoxy and national identity. Orthodoxy is a symbol of Russian origins and spiritual worth, something that can be opposed to others. It is not a concept of a “believer”, and it does not contradict to any normal logic. The number of Orthodox in Russia is much greater than the number of believers, around 40 percent. It makes it clear that such “ideological” Orthodoxy has only very indirect relation to religious faith. Ethnos, peoples and religion have been bringing Russia together. The new cultural traditions formed its inter-culture from inside, and a constant dialogue between these cultures has made Russia’s cohesion close and culturally stable. From the outside, there were influences throughout the history of Russia, which made it possible still, to find its big position in the world and among states. Russian Church has played a significant role throughout the history of Russia unifying Russian people and bringing them culturally and spiritually together.

Therefore, any ideological dispute, which has been a result of complicated historical events, is a matter of Russian self-identification. However, a religious value, is a significant trait of Russian consciousness, as well as Russian identity.

Conclusion

Construction of state is very important process which involves formations on the state level. It is important from the view of constructivism, which sees identity as the main discourse in the theories of IR. Identity of state shows how state is recognized by other states, on the international level, and it constructs an idea of state on the national level. To make these together, I may see it as it serves as a fundamental value of the state. What kind of Russian state identity is, and what values are making this identity were discussed in my paper.

State is undergoing a process of construction constantly, under certain conditions. It changes its identities and values. However, identity of state can be defined as a constant value which evolves in time as a result of some processes inside of the state, and the identity formation can be recognized as a value, which recognizes state in its external affairs. But in my work, I saw it also as a process, in which state is able to change its identity in time, and because of internal influences, it changes its identity. Also, I aimed to show that identity has its core in ethnos of the state, which is in people who compose this state. I tried to recognize it as a value in identity formation. All the other defined issues, such as Orthodoxy, or ideologies, etc. can be seen as theoretically approved values, which create an identity of Russian state. From my view, Russian state as a constant value brings in itself these mentioned in my work values, and as process, it can be seen as a state formation process, in which Russian state is seen in the system of states, and it is being ruled by international laws. Therefore, state identity is being shaped by international structures, and Russian state identity receives its already different value in international order. Then, I wanted to mention the importance of theory of constructivism which can be applied to external part of Russian state. Here, Russian values are seen as given, and a new Russian identity of state is its policies and behavior in the international system. The view on the identity of Russia is different from the one which is developed inside of the state. National politics is seen as a rule inside of the country, but external policies of state are being recognized as a result of state rule in time, and the identity which is being developed, is recognized as Russian state identity. In my work, I tried to highlight two of the existing identities, however, I didn’t separate them but showed them altogether making an accent on the significance of both. Therefore, I see these values as additional to each other, and their common aim, to open up the state identity of the state, as an entity, and as state as such, as an important value in identity formation.

Next, I tried to see more deeply on the constituting values in each of the visions. State identity from the perspective of nationals, who give their own vision on the problem, and also, I tried to make it clear that internationally, Russian state can be foreseen as a state which undergoes certain change in time, and with respect to policies of the state, Russia generates its state identity and is accepted  in the world system. I gathered material which I considered important to open up the question more deeply. I touched all the issues that I consider important for reflecting my ideas about Russian state identity, and I applied to my research question all the necessary theoretical material to highlight the problem.

International vision on the problem is quite different from the one being developed inside of Russia. National policies which create internal state identity are quite different from the ones being developed in other countries. Therefore, I see Russia as a unique state with certain important values and own national identity.

Russia during the last ten years was experiencing a crisis of identity. It was connected to previous crises inside of the country, democratic and social problems and so on. It was hard to return to traditional path of nation-state development, which was signified by the inability to find common identity of Russian state, and it characterized state as lost in international political and economic systems. It was a significant development in Russia which had a fundamental character. Finally, Russia has found its place in international world system and developed a new Russian identity.

Russia has integrated into the world economy. After a long negotiations, Russia has been included onto the G-8 as a full member. Now, Russia expects a full assistance and support from the West and the United States.

Probably, geopolitical question was in general selected as the most important, and Russia has gained more than it has expected, for example, Russia has selected the US as a major power. In respect, the US has introduced the concept of its global leadership, equal to monopolar world. On the other hand, there were some misperceptions, especially connected to NATO, and its expansion. It is still a confrontation and a matter of mutual suspicions and misperceptions between the US and Russia.

In result, Russia has decided about its position in the world to rely on its own potential and capabilities in restructuring its economy. Integration into the world economy was left as a matter of future considerations, such values as democracy, market economy and civil society were decided to be strengthened, and in foreign policy Russia has had to be identified and sticked to its national interests. For the coming years, Russia will keep this identity matters.

However,  during the time of crisis of economics and politics in Russia, the crisis of identity appeared. The notion of national idea has appeared as a state’s historical idea, and a search of historical mission as well as national historical tasks has appeared more significantly.

Russia stands on the two ends of foreign policy. It balances between East and West, preferably choosing the West as a path to follow and to negotiate with. It grants the West a significant task of strengthening Russia in the spheres such as economy, politics, including International Politics. It gives an example to Russia how to build up the country. It provides significant ties in politics, as well as economical ties, which strengthen and unify Russia.

Russia is an ethnical community, which brings in itself specificities. It is a historically build-up nation, which has its significant traits, and which prolongs its existence. It is a strong nation, which has survived through the years of history and change, and it´s a nation, which strongly holds its position in the World and in Eurasia.

Russia is constructing its nation. Russia is building up the nation on micro and macro levels. Russia has its behavior in the World Politics and provides a strong ties within the economy and politics in the World and the International system. Russia brings in itself a special nation in the World, and characterizes by a continuity in its political life and behavior.

Bibliography:

Alexander Agadjanian “Religious Pluralism and National Identity in Russia “

International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS), Vol. 2, No. 2, 2000: 97 - 124 #"#">#"#">#"#" title=Demokratizatsiya>Demokratizatsiya; Winter 2005, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p101-114, 14p, 11 charts

[1] #"#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Nicholas Onuf “Constructivism: A User´s Manual” in  “International  Relations in a constructed world” ed. Vendulka Kubalkova, Nicholas Onuf, Paul Kowert, New York , London,1998.

[3]#"#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title="">[4] Wendt Alexander, “Social theory of international politics”, Cambridge University Press, 1999, in Maja Zehfuss “Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison”, European Journal of International Relations, UK, 2001,Vol. 7(3): 315–348

[5] #"#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title="">[6] #"#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title="">[7]  #"#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title="">[8] #"#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title="">[9] #"#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" title="">[10] #"#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" title="">[11] #"#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" title="">[12] Savitskiy P.N. Eurasianism (1925 ) in Mir Rossii-Evrazija, by Novikova L.I. an Sizemskaja I.N., Moscow

[13] Novikova L.I., Sizemskaja I.N.(1995) in Mir Rossii- Evrazija, Moscow

[14] Mark Bassin “Classical Eurasianism and the Geopolitics of Russian Identity”

#"#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" title="">[15] Michael A. McFaul , West or East for Russia? The Washington Post, June 9, 2001 #"#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" title="">[16] #"#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" title="">[17] #"#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" title="">[18] #"#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" title="">[19] http://www.acls.org/crn/network/ebook_gatagova_paper1.doc

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5