Practically, passionarnost` functions within ethnic fields which, according to Gumilev, exist in nature as electromagnetic, gravitational and other fields. “The fact of the presence of ethnic fields can be observed not in individual reactions of particular persons but in the collective psychology which influences people” (Gumilev 1989, 301). The rhythms of these fields create the unconscious feeling of complimentarnost`, which vary with different ethnoses.
The majority of Soviet scholars were critical of the original theory, while post-Soviet scholars of the CIS countries tend to take this theory into account and even use it as a basis for further development (Tishkov 1997, 26). In Russia, this is generally connected with the revival of a popular and politically defined idea of Eurasianism, “Yevrasiystvo,” that later developed into “neo-Eurasianism” and evolved into the pseudo-scientific neo-imperialist semi-official state ideology of Putin’s regime (Putin’s Eurasianism). Considering that neo-Eurasianism is crucial to understanding Russian state ethno-geopolitics it will be analyzed separately in Chapter 4.
In post-Soviet Ukraine, Gumilev was initially considered to be valuable probably because of the pendulum effect: everything which was discouraged in the Soviet time must be worth considering. A celebrity edition of Short Encyclopedia of Ethno-State Science (Nationhood and Statehood), by the National Ukrainian Academy of Science (NUAS) was a good example. A whole set of entries in this Encyclopedia dealing with ethnic and national phenomena reflect to various degrees the conceptualizations of Gumilev. In some cases there is no reference to Gumilev; his terminology is used out of context and employed to illustrate the authors’ own positions. Such approaches were often incoherent, since Gumilev’s terms cannot exist outside his bio-spherical theory (Mala 1996).
Generally speaking, we can state that there is a certain consistency among various approaches and types of terminology when we consider such phenomena as “national” and “ethnic community.” So, for instance, the meaning of the term “nation” (as a group of people which become distinct within industrial society) for most of the English-language literature coincides with the meaning of ESO (within capitalist/socialist/post-communist society) for the Soviet tradition and much of the current Ukrainian and Russian academic literature. The term “ethnic community” is understood as a large group of people with a collective name, self-identity, distinct language, culture and territory. But from a political and international (legal) status, it is often defined as ‘ethnie’ within the English- and French-language literature and ‘ethnicos’ within Soviet and post-Soviet social sciences. Debate more often concerns the content of these terms and their character, such as “natural” or “imagined.” The key concept for such debates is one of “national consciousness” or “national identity.”
2.1.3 National Consciousness as a Complex System of Beliefs
The conceptualization of the terms “national consciousness” and “national identity” is widely used in debates about the nature of national phenomena. As John Shotters points out: “identity” has become the watchword of the time (Shotter 1993a, 188). Michael Billig notes that “the watchword should be watched, for frequently it explains less than it appears to” (Billig 1995, 60).
Social identity theory has been called “the most ambitious contribution to the exploration of social processes” (Eiser 1986, 316). The theory was conceived by Henry Tajfel, later developed into what is called “self-categorization theory” (Abrams and Hogs 1991; Taylor and Moghaddam 1994; Turner 1984; Turner and Giddens 1987). Though Tajfel’s theory was designed to explain national group identity, it was effectively used to explain the fundamental psychological principles of group identity in general.
Social identity theory holds that psychological principles are central to collective behavior, assuming that it is personal identifications that form a group out of free individuals. Tajfel was concerned specifically with national groups or in other words “nations.” According to the theory, this is the main means of categorization into human groups and communities. These categories therefore unavoidably divide people into “we” and “the other.” In answer to the question about what makes people categorize themselves, Tajfel explains that human beings naturally look for a positive self-concept or positive social identity. This search for positive self-identity leads individuals to categorize themselves into groups. Yet, to achieve a positive group identity, groups have to compare themselves (according to certain characteristics) with contrast groups—“the other,” and this leads to the emergence both of positive self-stereotypes and negative stereotypes of :the other.” The building up of positive self-stereotypes creates a positive group identity.
Both “primordialist” and “modernist” traditions adopt the basic assumptions of social identity theory. They differ, however, in respect of the content and ideological, social and political functions of national consciousness or identity. For “primordialists,” national identity is based more on a unity of history and culture rather than, for instance, ideology. That is why national identity, according to Anthony Smith, for instance, consists of a number of interrelated components—ethnic, cultural, territorial, economic and legal-political. We can distinguish two sets of dimensions—the first civic and territorial, the second ethnic and genealogical. In relation to these dimensions, Smith identifies external (territorial, economic, political) and internal functions of national identity. If the former connect the social unit with a concrete location within social space, then the latter work instead on the individual level of consciousness, defining, locating and socializing individual selves in this social unity. In this context, Smith argues that individual identities tend to be more situational or even optional, while collective identities are more pervasive and persistent.
Smith’s view of national identity is determined, first, by his concept of the ethnic origins of nations and, second, by the recognition of national identity as a part of the multiplicity of contemporary social and historical identities. This, again, situates the “primordialist” position on national identity much closer to the Soviet and, more generally, Eastern European tradition than the Western “modernist” one.
“Modernists” recognize the dual nature of the origin of national phenomena. According to Gellner, the appearance of nations was predetermined by socio-economic conditions during the transformation from an agrarian society to an industrial one. However, people’s loyalties and solidarity, which exist in social consciousness, determine the real boundaries of national units. Gellner sees nationalism as appearing first (on the basis of specific development of previous high cultures), and only then, as a result of its existence, are nations created. Gellner also stresses that nationalism as an ideology creates an artificial and false national consciousness (because of mythical inventions). However, according to the author, this pervasive national consciousness plays a functionally determinative role in nation-building. “Modernists” do not agree that national consciousness adopts myths and memories from previous ethnies. It is assumed that nationalist myths only profit from the defense of traditional folk culture, when in fact they are forging a new high culture. In this way, national consciousness is functionally important but “genetically” artificial.
Soviet Ethnography distinguished two meanings of the term “national consciousness,” according to the ethno-social and socio-economic content of the national essence.7 In the narrow meaning, national consciousness was equal to ethnic consciousness (Bromley suggested calling it ethno-national) and includes: ethnic identity, along with some knowledge of national history, national territory