“A people can lose a lot, endure all sorts of disasters and still be able to rise. But everything is lost to him, and he will never rise again if he has lost his soul.” Gustave Le Bon “Psychology of Nations and Masses” Ilyunya is rolling in a stroller along Capitol Hill in Washington. He is 3 years old, he intently surveys the surroundings - emerald green, smooth lawns, beautiful houses, rose bushes, spreading trees. Squirrels running past are often a delight. Some huge dog periodically pokes its nose into the stroller, causing Ilyunya to delight and the parents to sink in heart. Right in front of the Library of Congress, it occurs to Ilyuna to sing a song - and what, the soul asked - and with indescribable expression, no, he doesn’t drag it out - he chops: “There are bullets in the revolver, and we need to have time to fight with the enemies, and finish the song! And we have no peace - burn, but live! Chase, chase, chase, chase in hot blood! A group of quite “American” looking citizens passing by, who previously carried on their faces and bodies a feeling of deep satisfaction, and maybe even happiness, suddenly changes in these very faces and even bodies - I would never have imagined that this was possible - there is so much hostility and, perhaps, irritation in everything - in the looks, in the movements of people towards the three-year-old blond, gray-eyed butt. The eyes were frozen with displeasure, the bodies involuntarily recoiled to the side. Everyone at once! The group, muttering and hissing, passes us, and then it dawns on us - they are muttering and hissing in Russian! Are they Russians?! From that moment on, the reaction of Russians to Russians in the States was, as a rule, predictable, most often - complete indifference, often - hostility, rarely - skimpy contact with a short story about themselves and their happy arrival “here”, and complete lack of interest in you. The nicest compatriots are my colleagues - scientists. And another Russian, met at the Museum of Modern Art - open, friendly, smiling, who immediately met all the family members, who immediately introduced him to his fiancee from Yekaterinburg (frightened, with a forced smile on her stern Russian face), but... turned out to be overseas at the age of four. What's wrong with us? Why do we shy away from our compatriots like hell from incense? Why did one of the significant criteria for choosing a holiday destination abroad become “and so that there are fewer Russians”? Why do we do this to each other? ________________________ Social solidarity is formed by two vectors - from the ruling group to society and back (vertical), and between other groups of society (horizontal) - through those connections and relationships that connect us into primary communities - families, neighborhoods, professional, territorial, and ethnic groups. It is clear that both vectors are important, but their “weight”, however, is not equal. Let us ask ourselves the question: can macrosocial solidarity exist without solidarity at the micro level? The answer obviously must be given in the negative. Neither in society nor in living nature are there examples of how a whole could exist without the consent of its constituent parts. Then, can microsocial solidarity exist without solidarity at the macro level? It looks like the answer in this case should be yes. History provides any number of examples where everyday practices and connections of people not only did not weaken in the absence of solidarity at the macro level, but also grew stronger. These types of incidents may include cases of occupation, or odious dictatorships not supported by the majority of the population, or, in other words, any situations in which the traditional alienation of power and people acquires its most absurd character. In my opinion, the first, after all , the vertical of consolidation always weakens, the horizontal vector demonstrates greater vitality, and the last bastions of solidarity here, according to the general opinion of social psychologists, are those same primary communities. This difference is convincingly explained in terms of elementary physics. WhichDoes the flow require a lot of effort to flow - vertical or horizontal? The answer is obvious - vertical, requiring serious energy consumption to maintain it. But he is also the first to weaken. Measured horizontal flow is more stable. The most dramatic option is, of course, the drying up of both vertical and horizontal flows of consolidation. The vertical flow may weaken due to the extreme indifference of the ruling group to the rest of society (high level of emancipation of the former from the latter), its disinterest in actual political and socio-economic development country, and the absence of other ideas and interests in the ruling community other than those related to the preservation of this community in power. Obsolete regimes (monarchical, autocratic, etc.), and odious dictatorships are content with a weak flow of vertical consolidation (which, however, does not dry up at all, since in society there will always be a certain number of people who feel reverence for even the most a mediocre monarch only because it is a monarch, and respect for the most odious autocracy, only because it is a strong government). The almost complete absence of the vertical consolidation flow is observed only in the case of an occupation regime. We can speak of the impoverishment of the horizontal consolidation flow when interpersonal and intergroup contacts weaken, even to the point of complete disappearance. When the feeling of empathy towards relatives, colleagues, fellow countrymen and fellow citizens weakens or disappears altogether. In this case, we must talk about a society that exists “by inertia,” showing the world only external integrity. This can happen due to the destruction of the core of common culture, the destruction of historical memory, the meaninglessness of professional activities, the erosion of social identities and constructive values ​​and norms, and an extreme degree of individualization. Without vertical consolidation, society can still exist, but without horizontal consolidation it simply ends. At first it becomes inertial - a family may look and exist for some time as a “family”, although it is no longer one, a professional community may look “real” due to its simple presence, but be unable to consolidate the expression and defend its interests, a nation may speak the same language, but its individuals can be absolutely indifferent to each other. When this horizontal flow of consolidation begins to dry up, society itself begins to disappear, it becomes only an appearance of such. Its “appearance” points to the powerful “effects of absence” that destroy it from within. The effects of the lack of a general normative and value consensus, ideas about what should be encouraged and what is condemned. Effects of the absence of high social meanings of professional activity. The effects of the absence of symbolic capacitors - events and phenomena that unite the people (at least their relevant majority). The effects of the absence of ideology, as an acceptable view of the world for the majority of people, on their past, present, and future. From here, the methods of “healing” are clear: “absence” must give way to “presence”, emptiness must be replaced by content, and chaos - by space. There is hope that all is not lost, and it is supported by dry empirics. Constructive norms of social relations are still a fact of consciousness of our fellow citizens, but - paradoxically - do not receive confirmation in the surrounding social reality. In the course of one study, we ask our compatriots: “What kind of relationships between people in society are, from your point of view, normal?” To choose from, we offer a pair: “mutual assistance / every man for himself” (the author’s “method of equally probable truisms”). We get the result - for 86% of respondents, readiness for mutual help is normal in a relationship. We ask the following question: “Based on the answer you gave,Are relations between people in today's Russian society normal? Of the respondents who defined “mutual assistance” as the norm, only 14% consider relations between people in today’s Russia to be normal. That is, mutual assistance is still the norm of relations between people for the majority of our fellow citizens, but, at the same time, people recognize that in real relations the antithesis dominates - the principle of “every man for himself”. We ask: “What relations between the people and the authorities are, from your point of view, normal?” We offer a couple: “mutual responsibility and respect / the authorities must rule, the people must obey.” The first norm was chosen by 87% of respondents. To the subsequent question: “Are the relations between the people and the authorities in today’s Russian society normal?” 88% of our compatriots surveyed gave a negative answer. The same dissonant, broken picture is also true for other systems of social relations surveyed - between nations, between men and women, between employees and employers, between generations, between the state and society. It turns out that the relations that dominate the social factuality of today's Russian society, in general, are not sanctioned by the norms existing in collective ideas! In other words, people know “what is correct,” but do not see this “correctness” around them. Dissonance is also found in the sphere of professional activity, the social meaning of which lies in the significance, status and prestige assigned to a professional group by society. In post-Soviet Russia, the social significance and real status of the profession experienced a monstrous inversion, when truly meaningful work ceased to be prestigious, and entire socio-professional communities were pushed to the periphery of public attention and encouragement - into the social shadow. The lack of social meaning in your activities gives rise to a state of social meaninglessness throughout your life, and this has led to multiple personal dramas. At the same time, a socio-professional group very often refuses to bear Cain’s stamp of “low prestige”, creating its own group pathos of activity - the last refuge of professionals dedicated to their work. Pathos is a kind of theodicy of an outsider group, a justification of its objective position in society through the group’s subjective ideas about itself. We recorded group pathos both in the 2000 study and ten years later. Our country still has this resource of social reproduction. At the same time, self-perception is always determined by the content of public discourse, in which assessments are made and certain meanings are assigned. No social progress will take place without returning to socio-professional groups their existential meaning, the meaning of their activities, their importance for society. It is known that ethnic Russians abroad practically do not create diasporas, but try their best to assimilate. Although the first waves of Russian emigration were characterized precisely by the desire to preserve their “Russianness”, to preserve culture and language. What has happened to us since then? Why did we dislike each other so much? The answers, it seems, are in the area of ​​precisely what is called the “soul”, and the “wounded one”. We, as a person with deep mental trauma, seem to strive to forget about its source, and avoid everything and everyone who reminds us of it. Moreover, it is unlikely that we are “ashamed” of our past Soviet world; rather, its collapse gives rise to emotional experiences in us. And this is not the Weimar syndrome at all, no matter how much some groups of people “professionally engaged in mental work” would like it to be so. It's more difficult here. It’s as if we all took part in something shameful, or even criminal, and now we are doing everything to avoid meeting our accomplices. But the awareness of the crime committed does not disappear anywhere, it continues to be experienced, and is even transmitted genetically. (52% of our respondents called “perestroika” a tragedy and a catastrophe. 4.