The New National Idea of Russia - to stand for everything Good against everything bad. Fresh and smart?

Sergey Baimukhametov, publicist

In her new book, simply titled "On Russia," she also paid attention to this topic:

“The national idea of Russia is to defend the principles of Goodness and justice in all areas of human activity. Russians are people who follow the national idea of Russia".

Nice to read. But, since the "principles of Good and justice" arose along with the emergence of a conscious human community, they were written about, for example, by Heraclitus (535-475 BC) and Democritus (460-370 BC), should logically, that all good people on Earth are Russians?

However, let's not quibble. Definitions of "national idea" from T.N. Mikushina was not noticed in Russia. But then passions raged when three years ago the actor Alexey Serebryakov said in an interview on YouTube: "The national idea is strength, arrogance and rudeness".

The reaction to his words was deafening. A storm of indignation swept the information space of the Internet, both old and young rose up, stigmatizing and cursing: "To deprive of citizenship and send to Honduras for speaking about Russia!" It got to the point that the Kremlin press secretary was asked how the Kremlin views the "position of the artist". Who, by the way, and without any deprivation of citizenship, moved to live in Canada with his whole family.

We have long ago established an almost national tradition of getting hurt on every occasion and for no reason, and demanding immediate punishment for “insulting the senses”. In my opinion, here is the very case when "what is the question - this is the answer." The curved configuration produces a curved shadow and a curved reflection in the mirror. For a start, would it be good to define what we are talking about? Serebryakov mentioned the "national idea" in general neither to the village nor to the city: he negatively assessed the modern social and everyday atmosphere, and he dragged the words "national idea" for greater "cleverness", heard the ringing. Like some others, including his critics.

President Yeltsin was the first to throw the idea of searching for a national idea into modern society, at the suggestion of his ideological advisers. By the end of his reign, these conversations subsided, but then they quickly picked up the baton.

Believe it or not, serious publications published this in 2006, sorry:

"Author's song as the base of the Russian national idea".

"Mortgage as a national idea".

"Psychologists must play a decisive role in the actualization of the national idea." (Do not confuse psychologists with psychiatrists, they have different clientele. - S. B.)

"The national idea is a sovereign state, democracy, quality of life." (This triad was discussed as a national idea put forward by the United Russia party. - S. B.)

None other than the Chairman of the State Duma (!) Boris Gryzlov once announced: "Sport, its development and revival is a national idea".

Scientists, political scientists, church hierarchs no, no, yes, they recalled and suggested taking as a basis the famous triad of the tsarist minister Uvarov: Orthodoxy - autocracy - nationality ... (A good national idea, seventy years after the invention of which the people overthrew the autocracy and destroyed the churches.)

It would seem that President Putin put an end to this research in his 2007 Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation:

“You and I, in Russia, still have such an “old Russian fun”, - the search for a national idea. It's like looking for the meaning of life. The occupation as a whole is not useless and interesting. This can be done always and endlessly. "

But, as subsequent years showed, the idea of an idea, released into the wild, lives on by itself. And in the Kremlin ten years later, they changed their opinion on this matter: “We have no and cannot have any other unifying idea, except for patriotism. This is the national idea”, - President Putin, as it were, summed up the line.

However, with all due respect to the Kremlin intellectual headquarters, I cannot fail to note a deep philosophical, conceptual contradiction. Because “idea” is from the area of “rationality”, and patriotism is from the area of emotions and feelings. As defined from time immemorial: "Patriotism - love for the Fatherland." This is exactly the case when harmony is not verified by algebra.

If we consider the great poets to be the exponents of national thoughts and feelings, then let us recall Pushkin:

Two feelings are wonderfully close to us

In them, the heart finds food:

Love for the native ashes,

Love for fatherly coffins.

And Lermontov:

I love my homeland, but with a strange love!

My mind will not conquer her.

Neither the glory, bought with blood,

nor the peace full of proud confidence,

Nor the cherished traditions of the dark antiquity

Do not stir in me a joyful dream.

But I love - for what, I don't know myself -

Her cold silence of the steppes,

Her boundless swaying forests,

The floods of her rivers, like seas.

I love to ride on a country road in a cart

And, with a slow gaze piercing the night shadow,

To meet on the sides,

sighing for a lodging for the night,

Trembling lights of sad villages.

Both of our geniuses talk about "feeling", about "love", and Lermontov so directly opposes "love" to "reason."

Does nature have such a category as "national idea"? Who has it? What nation, starting with the most ancient? Indians, Chinese, Arabs?.. Nor do young people - for example, Americans.

In the modern philosophical dictionary, the concept of "national idea" is formulated as follows: "A systematized generalization of national self-awareness in its supratemporal existence... It can have both a rationalized and a figuratively typified way of expressing itself".

Understood, huh? Because there are not and cannot be clear, human words for something that does not exist in nature. In the midst of the discussion of the "national idea" one of the articles in an authoritative newspaper was called "Russia in search of spiritual bonds." Since then, this expression has been entrenched in propaganda use. In Ozhegov's dictionary, "brace" is "A device that holds parts of something together. Copper clamps".

The concept of "national idea" is perceived by the authorities and is used as an ideology. For rallying the masses. So that everyone has one, a single spiritual "adaptation", so that they think what they command, and march in formation where they are told.

Everything is clear with the dreams and plans of the bosses. But why did we fall for it and get actively involved in the process?

The reason, probably, is that we confuse a generalized or personified national IDEAL that has been established for centuries with someone invented a national idea. Reflecting on the deep roots and the formation of personified national ideals, Lev Nikolayevich Gumilev said: among the Turkic-Mongols, the national ideal is a batyr-bagatur-hero, among the Chinese - a philosopher, among the British - a gentleman...

And the Russians? They asked him. In the text of the interview, his answer is indicated by one sign:

"-?"

And there is nothing special in this, all the more so - shameful. Most of the peoples like this: "?" It is another matter when it is not about a personified, but about a common national ideal. It is simple: the dream of a perfectly beautiful life for everyone - always, everywhere and in everything. Some call it a utopia for some reason.