In Soviet historiosophy and aesthetics there is such a term as nationality. This is not an unambiguous word, which requires clarification and definition. We will talk about what nationalities are and how the understanding of this term has developed in academic circles below.
First mention
It is believed that the term “nationality” was first used in a letter from P. Vyazemsky, which he wrote while in Warsaw to A. Turgenev. Then it was 1819 in the yard. Since that time, disputes about what ethnic groups have not subsided. First of all, this concerned history, but also strongly affected literature and other areas of human activity and science. In 1832, the famous formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” appeared. This happened with the easy hand of S. Uvarov, who recognized in the word of interest to us one of the main categories of philosophy.
Socialist realism
As an ideological concept endowed with aesthetic functions at the same time, the term entered the formula of socialist realism. It sounded like this: "ideological, partisanship, nationality." But it was already much later, and we will talk about this below. In general, until the mid-nineteenth century, thinkers who tried to answer the question of what a nationality was were most often found in national categories. Thus, the concepts of “nationality” and “nationality” were often perceived as synonymous and interchangeable.
Polish tradition
But, in addition to the above, there were other interpretations both within Russia and beyond its borders. So, the consonant Polish term narodowość was used in two ideological meanings. The first was sustained in the spirit of the Enlightenment and implied the identity of the nation-state. The second was more connected with Romanticism and included the concept of the personality of a people-culture.
Russian alternative
In Russia, too, there were, although rare, alternative answers to the question: "What are nationalities?" For example, the term could be understood as the personification of the common people, as the personality of the people from the lower classes, as opposed to the intelligentsia and the nobility, brought up in line with Western European culture.
Further development before the revolution
Gradually, the definition of what nationalities are is becoming increasingly nationalist and even chauvinistic. If in the mid-nineteenth century and a little later this term could still be understood as a definition of a distinctive culture without reference to nationality, then in the years immediately preceding the 1917 coup, the use of this word was a sign of bad taste and backwardness under the influence of positivism ideas. And in consciousness it was becoming increasingly identified with nationalist ideas.
Soviet period
What is nationality in the history of the USSR, it is definitely impossible to say, because the content of this word has been fundamentally transformed several times in Soviet ideology. Initially, they completely wanted to disown him, as if from a relic of monarchism. The term became relevant again after 1934, when at the XVII Congress of the Bolsheviks the end of the class struggle was declared and the category "class" gave way to the more general - "Soviet people". Accordingly, instead of class, they began to talk about nationality. By the end of the 30s, this word had become firmly entrenched in Soviet everyday life and had such a powerful ideological significance that any attempts to challenge or reject it were perceived as anti-Soviet activity. On the other hand, there was no clear definition that made it possible to unambiguously indicate what a nationality was. In literature, for example, it was indicated, among other things, that such writers as Pushkin and Tolstoy “created the people” and this was a manifestation of the nationality. Someone said that writers express nationality contrary to their class. Still others believed that fundamental democracy is hidden under this word. Definitions with notes of nationalism sounded again. For example, G. Pospelov tried to find out what nations and nationalities are. He wrote that this term should be understood as "an objective nationwide progressive content." Another version of the definition is based on an attempt to identify nationality and partisanship. But the farther after Stalin, the more distinctly became the recognition in the USSR of precisely national identity in its connection with the nationality.
Russia in the post-Soviet period
The category of nationality was also accepted by thinkers in the post-Soviet period of Russia. But, as in Soviet times, there is no unanimity among them. On the one hand, nationality is equated with Orthodoxy, trying to revive the values of the famous formula, wishing to restore the monarchy. On the other hand, nationality is also closely associated with national identity, drawing an equal sign between them. These two trends are similar in one, namely in that they postulate the superiority of society, the collective over the individual, over the individual. This is a relic of both the Soviet and the imperial systems, and to this day it is not survived.
N. Lysenko was suggested that a more objective explanation of what a nationality would be given in the future, since this term would certainly remain as a mental category and an integral part of the future, just beginning to form the ideology of the state. Today, in his opinion, it is possible and necessary to confine oneself only to a very conditional and vague definition of nationality as all-Russian. But nevertheless, the mainstream remains the intuitive correlation of nationality and nationality, in which the collectivist “we” prevails over the individual “I”.