Value orientations of modern Russian society. Basic national values. Formation of basic national values ​​Philosophical classification of values

The value system of Russian society

Radical changes in all spheres of life in the modern era also affected the value system of Russian society. The most important factor What influenced these changes was the formation of technogenic civilization, bourgeois social relations, and rationalistic thinking.

Despite the split that occurred in Russian society under Peter I between the higher and lower classes, it retained traditional value ideas and way of life. One of the main values ​​in the life of the upper and lower classes is family and family traditions. The authority of the family in Russian society was unusually high. A person who did not want to start a family in adulthood aroused suspicion.

Only two reasons could justify such a decision - illness and the desire to enter a monastery. Russian proverbs and sayings speak eloquently about the importance of family in a person’s life: “An unmarried person is not a person”, “In a family the porridge is thicker”, “A family in a heap is not afraid of a cloud”, etc. The family was the custodian and transmitter from generation to generation life experience, morality, children were raised and educated here.

Thus, in a noble estate they preserved portraits of grandfathers and great-grandfathers, stories and legends about them, their things - grandfather’s favorite chair, mother’s favorite cup, etc. In Russian novels, this feature of estate life appears as an integral feature of it.

In peasant life, also permeated with the poetry of tradition, the very concept of home had, first of all, the meaning of deep connections, and not just living space: a father’s house, a home. Hence the respect for everything that makes up a home. Tradition even provided for different types of behavior in various parts at home (what is allowed at the stove, what is not allowed in the red corner, etc.), preserving the memory of elders is also a peasant tradition.

From the elderly they passed on to to the younger generation icons, things and books. Such a peasant-noble perception of life could not do without some idealization - after all, memory preserved the best everywhere.

Ritual traditions associated with church and calendar holidays were repeated practically without changes in various social strata of Russian society. The words could be attributed not only to the Larins:

They kept life peaceful

Habits of peaceful old times;

At their Shrovetide

There were Russian pancakes.

The Russian family remained patriarchal, for a long time guided by “Domostroy” - an ancient set of everyday rules and instructions.

Thus, the higher and lower classes, separated from each other in their historical existence, nevertheless had the same moral values.

Meanwhile, the most important socio-economic transformations taking place in Russia, characterized by the establishment of competition in the economy, liberalism in political life, the establishment of the ideas of free thought and enlightenment, contributed to the spread of new European socio-cultural values, which essentially did not take root among the masses - only the elite could master them.

The working masses (the so-called “soil”) adhered to the traditions of pre-Petrine antiquity. They protected the original ideological dogmas associated with Orthodoxy and autocracy, deeply rooted traditions, political and social institutions.

Such values ​​could not contribute to modernization or even intensive sociodynamics of the country. Collectivism remained the defining feature of social consciousness in the “soil” layers. It was the main moral value in the peasant, urban settlement and Cossack communities. Collectivism helped to collectively endure the trials of difficult times and was the main factor of social protection.

Thus, the life of the Cossacks was based on community organization and the principles of military democracy: collective decision-making in the Cossack circle, election of atamans, collective forms of ownership. The harsh and cruel living conditions of the Cossacks contributed to the creation of a certain value system.

The pre-revolutionary historian E. Savelyev, who described the history of the Don Cossacks, drew attention to the fact that “the Cossacks were a straightforward and knightly proud people, unnecessary words they didn’t like it and matters in the Circle were resolved quickly and fairly.” Cunning and intelligence, perseverance and the ability to endure severe hardships, merciless revenge on the enemy, and cheerful disposition distinguished the Cossacks.

They stood firmly for each other - “all for one and one for all,” for their Cossack brotherhood; were incorruptible; betrayal, cowardice, and theft were not forgiven. During campaigns, border towns and cordons, the Cossacks led a single life and strictly observed chastity.

A textbook example is Stepan Razin, who ordered a Cossack and a woman to be thrown into the Volga for violating chastity, and when he himself was reminded of the same, he threw a captive Persian princess into the water. It's the high ones moral qualities contributed to the constantly high combat readiness of the Cossack army.

From the opinions expressed about the value system in the “ground” structure of Russian society, it is clear how the people’s worldview was little affected by the grandiose changes that took place in the state in the New Age. To a much greater extent, the changes affected the literate and active part of the Russian population, which V. Klyuchevsky called “civilization.”

Here new classes of society were formed, entrepreneurship developed and market relations took shape, and a professional intelligentsia appeared. The intelligentsia was represented by the clergy and nobility, commoners and serfs (actors, musicians, architects, etc.).

In the ranks of the intelligentsia, rationalism, an optimistic outlook, and faith in the possibility of improving the world were established as a style of thinking. The worldview was freed from the spiritual power of the church.

Peter I abolished the patriarchate and placed a synod, essentially a college of officials, at the head of the church, thereby subordinating the church to the state. Further weakening of the church occurred in the 60s of the 18th century, when Catherine II, who strengthened the foundations of a secular absolutist state, confiscated most of the land holdings that belonged to the church and monasteries. Of the 954 monasteries that existed at that time, only 385 survived secularization.

The destruction of the closed Orthodox world was largely due to the Russian enlightenment. F. Prokopovich, V. Tatishchev, A. Kantemir, M. Lomonosov, D. Anichkov, S. Desnitsky, A. Radishchev developed ideas about the independence of nature and man from divine predestination, the need to separate the spheres of influence of religion and science, etc. .

In the 19th century The ideas of free thought and sharp criticism of religion were put forward by many Decembrists, as well as revolutionary democrats V. Belinsky, A. Herzen, N. Chernyshevsky, N. Dobrolyubov. They tried to create a general atheistic concept that would illuminate the origins of religion and its social functions, especially Orthodoxy.

In the value system of Russian society, changes in the personal and public life of classes played a large role. According to D.S. Likhachev, under Peter I, “the awareness of the transition forced us to change the system of signs”: put on European dress, new uniforms, “scrape off” beards, reform all state terminology in the European way, recognize the European.

Pages: 1 2

Thus, in the process of transformation of Russia, two value systems collided - the liberal one, which replaced the socialist one, and the traditional one, which had developed over many centuries and generations. Outwardly, the choice seems simple: either individual rights and freedoms, or traditional values, when the idea of ​​communalism and emphasized anti-individualism comes to the fore.

However, such straightforwardness distorts and overly ideologizes the real meaning of this value confrontation and is fraught with a loss of continuity. In a liberal society, its own “community” is formed and functions, just as in a traditional society, bright individuals appear, internal freedom is preserved, initiative and initiative are valued and encouraged in their own way.

Of course, in their ideological and cultural preferences, both types of society differ significantly and noticeably from each other, but in the sphere of everyday values ​​- family, security, justice, well-being, etc. - they have a lot of similarities and things in common. If traditionalism is usually reproached for conservatism, statism and paternalism, then on the same basis liberalism should be charged with destructive anthropocentrism and the replacement of rivalry with soulless competition.

In our opinion, a value split is dangerous in that, by constantly stimulating the growth of a person’s uncomfortable state, it can lead to such social consequences that will practically destroy all the achievements of modernization. Being the core of thoughts, actions, creativity of people, social groups, society as a whole, the conflict of values ​​as a phenomenon of social pathology forces people to maneuver, which leads to internal vacillations, to the struggle of both society and the individual with himself, to the constant reproduction of instability and, in ultimately, to the emergence of a desire to overcome the state of such a split.

The reason for the split in modern Russian society can be associated, first of all, with the unpreparedness of Russian society for innovation. The formation of a new type of society necessarily requires the development of new ideals, models of behavior, rules of communication, different motivation for work, etc. by each member of society. Not all Russians found such a task beyond their capabilities. This became the reason for the split between those who are capable of innovative behavior and those who cannot master it.

Another reason that creates a split is social differentiation. Russians were not prepared for the fact that the former “equality in poverty” was destroyed and gave way to a division into “rich” and “poor.” Social stratification has led to the fact that the previously uniform scale of values ​​for all members of society, illuminated by ideology, no longer appears to be a monolith, and the first positions of numerous “ladders” of social preferences are occupied by unequal values.

The situation of split is also generated by the situation in the field of ideology. After the collapse of communist ideology, which permeated all levels and structures of Soviet society, many group micro-ideologies arose, insufficiently substantiated, internally unbalanced, but thanks to their leaders, quite convincing and shared by part of society. There is a constant clash of some political ideas with others, some social programs with the opposite. To an ordinary person It is quite difficult to understand the nuances of the differences between them.

Another reason contributing to the reproduction of the split is the cultural heterogeneity of the reaction to modernization. Today, the discrepancy between the social changes taking place in Russian society and the assessment at the cultural level of their long-term significance is quite obvious. These discrepancies are due to the sociocultural heterogeneity of society, in which today differences in economic, political, national, and cultural interests are officially recognized at the constitutional level. Accordingly, they speak out different points views on the nature of the current sociocultural situation in Russia. For example, Russia is understood as a “split society” (A. Akhiezer) or a “crisis society” (N. Lapin), in which a stagnant contradiction between culture and the nature of social relations blocks the mechanisms of social development. According to A. Akhiezer, the brake is a split in public consciousness, blocking the transition of society to a state of more efficient reproduction and survival. Thus, the authors agree in diagnosing society, in determining the limits of social transformations, to which they include value restrictions of social consciousness, and the insufficient prevalence of liberal innovative values.

Following the methodology of sociocultural analysis, understanding and overcoming the schism, A. Akhiezer believes, must first of all be achieved in culture, in the growing reflection of history, for a schism is a state of public consciousness that is unable to comprehend the integrity, in this case, the history of Russia.

The conflict of values ​​in Russia was also connected with the fact that there was a destruction of the traditional scheme of socialization, which was always based on three foundations - family, teacher and social ideals. Family like social institution is called upon to play a vital role in the formation personal qualities the child, the foundations of morality, ideas about norms and rules of behavior. But the family in modern Russia can no longer give children full socialization, moral lessons and healthy life, not only because many families are heavily infected with anomie and “deviant” behavior, but also because even cultured and morally healthy parents have lost clear guidelines regarding values and standards to which we should strive.

Mainly for the same reasons, there was a strong degradation of the school as a carrier of positive values, an agent of socialization. The teacher also transformed in society. The nature of his behavior in society and at school has changed. He ceased to combine himself as a teacher and an educator. The teacher has ceased to be a comrade, friend, adviser, he has turned either into an indifferent contemplator, indifferent to his work, or into a cruel tyrant, deliberately using an authoritarian way of controlling his students. A poor teacher is no longer an authority for many schoolchildren. Naturally, such a teacher and the values ​​he instilled met resistance among teenagers; they were learned in a painful way or were not learned at all, which led to conflicts in the “teacher-student” system.

It is also necessary to take into account that next to government educational institutions private ones have also become widespread - gymnasiums, lyceums, colleges, etc., which promise higher social statuses and roles in various fields life of society. The process of socialization cannot fail to take into account this reality of separating children through various educational systems into opposite social poles. Therefore, in general, socialization in childhood and in school age, i.e. during the most important period in the formation of a person’s personality, it contains deep contradictions and dysfunctionality, laying the foundations for the deviant behavior of a huge number of people.

The crisis of family and teaching is accompanied by a crisis of former social ideals. It did not come with the beginning of market reforms. Its influence was felt even before the era of glasnost. In order for a social system to continue to exist for some time, it is required that each generation inherits at least part of certain socio-cultural attitudes adopted by the older generation, otherwise the “connection of times” will be broken. In other words, in order to overcome the split, it is necessary that in modern Russian society the sociocultural values ​​and norms shared by the majority of members of society, and first of all, by the younger generation, are reproduced.

The marginalization of the transitional time could not be compensated for. Therefore, in the sphere of moral culture, the role of religion has increased significantly. In spiritual culture, the source of replenishment of values ​​was pre-revolutionary works, creations of foreign compatriots, traditional culture. The put forward liberal-democratic ideologemes did not correspond to real economic and social relations, as well as to the “crisis of consciousness” of the intellectual elite, deprived of the usual ways of social self-affirmation. In fact, in Russian culture the unified field of moral guidelines has been destroyed. Ideas about what is good and bad, what is desirable and undesirable, moral and immoral, fair and unfair, and many others, are extremely fragmented and most often reflect purely group interests. As a result, solidarity, consolidation, unity of goals, mutual trust, and open dialogue found themselves in deep decline. Everywhere and at all levels the principle “everyone survives alone” prevailed. In sociology, such a state of the social system is designated by the concept of “anomie.” Anomie is disintegration moral values, confusion of value orientations, the onset of a value vacuum. Anomie is incompatible with the forward movement of society.

The country experienced a crisis of national spirit and self-awareness: the old one collapsed; communist system of values ​​and, not having time to assert itself, its liberal alternative is called into question. Society found itself in a state of anomie, mismatch and loss of value guidelines, and psychologically - confusion and depression in the face of the failure of two social experiments - communist and liberalist. The twice interrupted and broken connection of times over the course of one century put society and the individual in a bewildered position in relation to their past, present and future. Frustration, existential vacuum, loss of meaning in life have become typical states of mass and individual consciousness. Protagoras said that man is the measure of all things. The world is stable if this measure is strong, the world is shaky if it turns out that this measure is unstable. The loss of value guidelines led to the emergence of a marginal “split” personality, whose thoughts and actions, whose decisions were based on aggression, were characterized by disorganization. The reproduction of the “split man” continues today.

The “divided man” of modern Russia, who, on the one hand, wants to live in a society professing traditional values, and at the same time enjoy the achievements modern science and technology is main problem in the process of reforming Russian society. This person still doubts the value of the individual and relies on the power of the archaic, almost tribal "we", on the power of authority. Existing in a situation of a value split, a cultural breakdown, such a person masters a contradictory culture, forms a tense conflict inner world. Hence, this conflict permeates all levels of Russian society, breaking the emerging positive changes.

The radical economic measures of the 90s to bring Russia out of the crisis had to correspond to a system of values ​​different from the then dominant system, capable of neutralizing anomie and consolidating society.

It is important to note that sociocultural values ​​could not and should not have been introduced by government decree. However, to believe that they could arise exclusively by themselves in the fabric of society - in the family, school, church, means mass media, culture, public opinion, etc. - also wrong. There should have been a counter-movement between government and society, but this did not happen. The moral side of Russian reforms was ignored by both the authorities and leaders social movements, creative intelligentsia. In this case, it is appropriate to once again draw attention to the fact that the Russian intelligentsia, always considered as a conductor of moral consciousness, did not fully fulfill its historical role. As the humanitarian-politicized elite of the intelligentsia lost their monopoly on the development of value systems, entrepreneurs and bankers put forward their values, and they selected from the symbolic values ​​those that corresponded to their worldview and interests. In key areas of ideological discussions of the 90s, there has been a movement towards a synthesis of liberal-democratic and traditionalist values ​​and attitudes, while radical value orientations are gradually being pushed to the periphery of public consciousness.

At the beginning of the new century, a synthesized system began to prevail in Russian society, including elements of various ideas - from liberal to nationalist. Their coexistence does not reflect ideological clashes between irreconcilable opponents or an attempt to synthesize opposing principles, but rather the incompleteness of the processes of developing new value and political-ideological guidelines in mass consciousness, in the perception of the Russian authorities and the elite in general. Successive modernizations carried out over two centuries failed to establish Western values ​​in Russia - individualism, private property, and the Protestant work ethic. The most active resistance to reforms was provided by traditionalist consciousness and such features as collectivism, corporatism, the desire for equalization, condemnation of wealth, etc.

Modernization in Russia has a deep specificity associated with the fact that society has “split” and become polarized; value diversity turned not only into a conflict of values, but into a conflicting clash of civilizational types. The civilizational dualism of Russian society (a split in civilizational preferences between the modernization elite and the rest of the population) gave rise to contradictions that stopped the progress of modernization.

November 5, 2008 at the Institute modern development(INSOR) a round table was held on the topic “Russia: the values ​​of modern society”, which was a continuation of the discussion between the leading Russian experts in the field of economics, politics and culture, as well as representatives of the clergy, which began in the spring of 2000 at the site of the Center for Strategic Research. The focus once again was on the problem of further development of the country in the context of the concept of values, respect for historicism, attention to cultural tradition. The experts invited to the discussion tried to answer the question to what extent respect for traditions, culture, as well as the development of value guidelines helps or, on the contrary, hinders the progress of reforms and further modernization of the country. Opening the discussion, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, member of the Board of Trustees of INSOR Dmitry Mezentsev, noted the particular relevance of the stated topic in connection with the content of the address of the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev with the Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, a significant part of which was devoted to issues of values ​​of modern Russia, which became the leitmotif of the entire discussion.

Moving from point "A" to point "A"

Speaking with a report “Russian political tradition and modernity”, the director of the Institute of Information for Social Sciences Russian Academy Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Pivovarov tried to answer the question of what the Russian political tradition is, to determine the nature of Russian political culture, which is consistently reproduced, despite the repeated breakdown of the political system (twice only in the 20th century). According to Academician Pivovarov, “despite all the fundamental changes that occurred at the end of the 20th and early 21st centuries, Russia has retained its main features, retained its socio-cultural identity.”

If we talk about the political dimension of Russian culture, then it was and remains autocratic and power-centric. “Power has become a mono-subject of Russian history,” which “over all recent centuries has predominantly been of a violent nature, rather than contractual,” as in countries Western Europe. At the same time, the predominant type of sociality has also been preserved - redistribution, the roots of which should be sought in the Russian community. “This type of sociality has survived to this day, despite the death of the community itself, and therefore, I think, the topic of corruption is, first of all, the topic of the redistribution of Russian society.” In addition, power and property in Russia remain undivided.

The power-centric nature of Russian political culture was reproduced in all the Basic Laws of the country, starting with the Constitution of 1906 and ending with the “Yeltsin” Constitution of 1993. Moreover, at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, Russia managed to combine presidential power with the traditions of heirship or succession. The so-called dual structure of government of the country, the non-institutional nature of Russian political culture, have also been preserved (a huge role in government is still played by bodies that are either not spelled out in laws at all, or are only mentioned in some basic laws such as the Constitution: the sovereign’s court, the imperial court’s own office, the Central Committee of the CPSU and now the presidential administration). In Russia, both at the beginning of the 20th century and at the end of the 20th century, the formation of a normal party system by Western European standards did not occur, but two directly opposite party projects arose - the project of the Leninist party and what is now commonly called the “party of power” ", which has its own historical analogues.

Summing up his speech, Yuri Pivovarov drew attention to the fact that “ traditional Russia exists, although externally the changes are enormous,” however, the question of how much the Russian political tradition will contribute to further development remains open.

Russia “real” and “virtual”

In his report “Reforming Russia and Sociocultural Paradoxes,” Director of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Mikhail Gorshkov, emphasized the existing and increasingly widening gap between “Real Russia” and “Virtual Russia,” the image of which is being formed not least representatives of the expert community, as well as the media broadcasting relevant points of view and mythologies. In particular, it was noted that in reality the values ​​shared by representatives of both Russian and “Western” society are generally similar, but the difference is rooted in their understanding. Thus, for 66% of Russians, freedom is one of the basic values, but it is understood as free will, the freedom to be your own master. “We also do not interpret democracy in the same way as it is interpreted in classical political science textbooks in the West. There is a set of political rights and freedoms. For 75% of Russians, democracy rests on “three pillars”: for us today, only everything that meets, firstly, the principle of increasing the standard of living of the Russian citizen, is democratic, secondly, the level of social order, thirdly, it gives a sense of social perspective, growth in life,” noted Gorshkov. The conclusion follows from this: in Russia the concept of democracy (originally political) is imbued not with political, but with socio-economic content. “Only when we solve the primary problems in the life of modern Russian society will we define politics with the concept of politics, freedom with the concept of freedom (in the classical version), and democracy with democracy.”

Comparison of sociological research data on identifying value orientations in Russia, the USA and the countries of the Old World, according to Gorshkov, allows us to say that there are no significant differences in the definition of essential values. Thus, for the average Russian, the most valuable things are family, work and friends, the importance of free time is increasing, and there is a consistently decreased attention to politics, as on average in other countries.

Meanwhile, when it comes to assessing the importance of qualities that need to be cultivated in children, Russians have a noticeable difference from citizens of other countries. Thus, for all countries with old democratic traditions, the two most significant qualities include tolerance and respect for other people. For the majority of Russians, which is almost two-thirds, they are also important, but still occupy only fourth place in the ranking of character traits desired for their children. But in the first place for our fellow citizens is hard work, which is relatively unimportant for the countries of old Europe. “I think that this figure has risen to the first place, to a very important place, precisely because hard work is a problematic situation for modern Russia. The fact that this is on the list of main values ​​does not mean that we are the most hardworking today,” the speaker explained.

Regarding the prospects for successful modernization in Russia, Mikhail Gorshkov, based on social research data, noted a negative trend, the essence of which boils down to the fact that “even among the youth group itself (under 26 years old), those who admit the impossibility of independent determining your destiny. And these are the youth of today’s world, of today’s Russia! Only in seniors age groups the role of one’s own choice becomes dominant: a person comes to the conclusion that my voice should be heard, and I am ready to be the master of my destiny. In my opinion, the pyramid is completely upside down - from the point of view of the development of the civilized world. It should not be like this in modern Russia. Otherwise, we will not carry out this modernization in our country with any reforms.”

At the end of his speech, Mikhail Gorshkov emphasized the special value for Russian society (both for the traditionalist and modernist parts of it) of such a concept as social equality, understood as equality of opportunities and chances for life, which in itself is a qualitative change in the mass consciousness .

Paternalism or liberalism?

Ruslan Grinberg, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the Board of INSOR, director of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in his speech expressed disagreement with the thesis that communal identity continues to be reproduced in Russia. “I think that the Russian people, the Russians, are not conciliarists at all. It seems to me that they are individualists, the likes of which the world has never seen. Observations show that we have no desire to realize corporate interests. In my opinion, solidarity operates in our modern society only along the lines of “friend or foe.”

In addition, Greenberg pointed out the falsity of the dilemma that is being seriously discussed in Russian society: paternalism or liberalism. “In fact, there is no paternalism. If you look at the statistics, you will see that Russia is the most libertarian state of all the normal ones. If there is any kind of paternalism, then it is present only in the elite of Russian society. I sometimes half-jokingly call our society anarcho-feudal. In the sense that 80% are guided by the principle “save yourself who can.” There simply cannot be any talk of any kind of paternalism, and that someone sits and waits for the state to do something for them.”

Regarding the relationship between the problem of modernization facing Russia and traditional values, Greenberg noted that “all more or less successful modernizations in Russia were carried out by tough and cruel tsars. As soon as some kind of democratic emancipation began, as soon as a person more or less became a person, i.e. received the right to freedom, the country lost territory and degraded.” In the meantime, according to the expert, judging by opinion polls, the population is concerned about traditional problems of a socio-economic nature, while political values are of no tangible significance.

Freedom and responsibility

Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad began his speech by identifying the problems that Russia now faces and that hinder successful modernization. First of all, this is a demographic crisis, which is now not so much a material problem as a historical one. Secondly, it's quality human capital– “spreads type modern man“who is not inclined to work, not inclined to responsibility and not inclined to creativity, but is often distinguished by cynicism, resourcefulness, and selfishness.” v“There are many other problems facing modern Russian society, which are based, of course, on one or another understanding of values. Therefore, Russian political and social forces today face an urgent task of rehabilitating the value discourse itself. This is possible only when values ​​are not only declared, but appropriate institutions are built, laws are adopted, and programs are developed for their implementation. Values ​​must be combined with real politics and the legislative process,” the Bishop noted.

According to Bishop Kirill, without a strong spiritual basis in society, any economic, political, social transformations of its system are impossible. This is the reason for our Russian failures. And this is the reason why modernization was carried out with a heavy hand. “Because modernization without a heavy hand can only be carried out if it does not destroy the civilizational code of the people, if it is based on the civilizational matrix. Therefore, the combination of tradition and modernization is the key to the success of our society moving forward.”

Among the most obvious values ​​that are worth cultivating in Russian society, Vladyka noted, firstly, maintaining the value of religious life in the public sphere, which is a vital part of strengthening the spiritual health of Russian society. Secondly, patriotism, which is universal in nature, because it touches on such a concept as love: “Experience shows that love for the Fatherland, love for the country is a huge force that unites people and, undoubtedly, our national value.” Thirdly, creativity and work, which are becoming extremely important in the context of the tasks for the comprehensive development of Russian society. Fourthly, the value of freedom, which is not possible without an understanding of responsibility. And, fifthly, this is the surrounding world, understood as a home, and not as a raw material base.

“The values ​​listed above, which the church supports today, are an example of how the spiritual can be correlated with the material, and what results this relationship can give. The current economic crisis shows what happens when all the efforts of society are aimed only at economic development and do not have a limiter in the form of spiritual and moral guidelines. But, if modern society were guided in its activities by spiritual and moral principles, then many problems, of course, could be avoided. At the same time, it should be understood that simply declaring spiritual values ​​is not enough,” concluded Bishop Kirill.

In subsequent speeches, representatives of various religious denominations outlined their vision of the problem of values ​​in modern Russia. Tadzhuddin Talgat, Chairman of the Central Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Russia and European CIS countries, emphasized the commonality of spiritual and moral principles in Orthodoxy and Islam, and also noted the need to pay close attention to the issues of youth education. The head of the Buddhist traditional Sangha of Russia, Pandito Khambo Lama, identified as a priority value - human life, explaining this by saying that “that state is rich, which has many people,” and, in addition, called for a return to and respect for traditions. The Chief Rabbi of Russia, Berl Lazar, stated the need to create conditions for unlocking the potential of every person, and saw the task of religious leaders as “to unite peoples and do everything possible to make people feel that they are important, that their potential is needed for the country.” In turn, the General Secretary of the Conference of Catholic Bishops in Russia, Igor Kovalevsky, noting the multicultural nature of the modern world with different hierarchies of values, reduced the key task for all religions to upholding their own values, which are largely common to all faiths. At the same time, he explained that to achieve this goal it is necessary to adhere to the “golden mean”, without leading a person into “some kind of apocalyptic future,” but also without tying him exclusively to the material world.

During the discussion, the problem of the gap in the perception of values ​​by society as a whole and the elite strata resonated. In particular, the director of the Institute general history RAS, member of the INSOR Board of Trustees, academician Alexander Chubaryan dared to suggest that “for the majority of the population, value issues are not particularly relevant. Unfortunately, in our discussions the issue of values ​​often turns into an abstract conversation within the elite. This is very useful and very important for the development of the elite, but it does not become a national asset for the entire population. When we talk about the values ​​of modern Russia, a lot depends on political power and its signal. It’s enough to give a signal from above and the population will perceive it more adequately and agree for their part.”

At the same time, Elena Shestopal, head of the department of political psychology at Moscow State University, trying to answer the question of what values ​​are, what needs and can be done with them, at least for people who make political decisions, emphasized the underlying problem, the essence of which is in that “the government has its own values, it lives in its own autonomous world, and society is mainly engaged in the search for its daily bread.” Consequently, the problem arises of finding one language that can be spoken by both government officials and society. “Today we must first of all talk about the consolidation of society and government. Because without this we will not get out of the crisis. In general, the crisis is not so much an economic crisis as a spiritual crisis. Therefore, the main question is how to bring to the surface the values ​​on which we will emerge from this crisis - and this is one of the key issues in developing a political course for the new management team. And the larger the thinking, the more effective it will be. But at the same time, if these are simply economic and technological reforms, then we will never achieve our goals. Because without the population and without citizens, it is impossible to make these reforms. Values ​​and goals are the instrument for carrying out these reforms,” Shestopal explained.

Summing up round table, scientific director of the Institute of Civil Society Alexey Podberezkin emphasized that now there is a change of eras, which we have not yet fully appreciated: “We had a period of seven years of stabilization. Then a period of advanced development began, when it is possible to develop if you have certain value characteristics and guidelines.” “We can talk about the Concept of socio-economic development until 2020, but the concept must, in turn, flow from the strategy. And if you read the forecast and concept of socio-economic development, it is easy to see that there is no strategy. Meanwhile, strategy stems from ideology, from a system of priorities and values, first of all.”

Answering the question of what value system Russian society needs now, Alexey Podberezkin identified a number of priority principles that should be adhered to. Firstly, the preservation of traditional cultural and spiritual values, as well as their careful combination with innovation, which in itself can give a phenomenal result. Secondly, it is very important that the value system be pragmatic: people are forced to be pragmatists, and if the value system does not reflect reality, but is simply declarative, then they simply will not believe in it. Thirdly, the value system must be realistic and understandable.

At the end of the discussion, all round table participants expressed their opinion on the need for regular holding of such events and their wide coverage.

The development of a branch of philosophy called axiology (the study of values) has made it possible to characterize the place and role of law in the life of society more clearly and thoroughly. Law in society in the conditions of civilization, from an axiological point of view, is not only a necessity, a means of social regulation, but also a social value, a social good. The starting points for understanding law in this capacity are its features as an institutional entity. Due to its institutional nature, law has a number of special properties: generally binding normativity, formal certainty, high security and others, revealing its mission as a carrier of significant social energy.

Before characterizing legal axiology (or the value of law), we believe it is advisable to refer to the meaning of the concept of “value”, “values”, etc. in modern scientific literature. The etymological meaning of the term “value” is quite simple and corresponds to the term itself - this is what people value, i.e. objects, things, natural and social phenomena, human actions, manifestations of culture. Values ​​are the foundation of society's culture and social life. According to T. Parsons, values ​​also form the foundation of society, and the latter remains stable, despite its inherent conflicts, if it has value agreement, a certain set of values ​​shared by everyone. Values ​​in history human race appeared as some kind of spiritual support, helping a person to withstand life’s trials. They organize reality, bring understanding and evaluative moments into it, and allow one to compare one’s behavior with a norm, ideal, goal, which acts as a model, a standard. Such values ​​can be the concepts of good and evil, and the views and beliefs of people associated with them - value ideas.

From antiquity to the present day, there have been debates in philosophy between representatives of various philosophical schools and directions on the question of whether value is an attribute of a certain thing or whether it is the result of an assessment dictated by the needs of the individual and society. In the first case, value is interpreted as something objective, existing independently of a person. In the second, the concept of value is reduced to subjective value judgments of an arbitrary nature. Values ​​were identified with being itself, and value characteristics were included in its concept. Values, thus, were not separated from existence, as noted by V.N. Lavrinenko and V.P. Ratnikov, but were considered as being in being itself. The essence of values ​​is derived not from objects, but from human needs. Both of these extreme points of view reflect some features of the concept of value, but do not adequately define it. If we agree that value is only a property of reality, i.e. phenomena of nature, society or culture, then the identification of truth and value is inevitable. However, Socrates, who was the first to formulate the basic questions of axiology: “What is good?”, “What is justice?”, demonstrated significant differences between them. Knowledge is important, but not the only condition for achieving good. This is explained by the fact that objects and phenomena of nature and society have properties, the awareness of which can be realized either in the form of knowledge of what is, really exists, or in the form of an idea of ​​what this reality should be like, how a person should behave in attitude towards nature and other people. In the first case, knowledge about an object is characterized from the point of view of its truth or falsity, in the second - from the point of view of the value of the object, i.e. its significance for a person. Such concepts as “value” and “good” are also quite close in meaning, since both of them have a positive meaning and are sometimes even used as synonyms. The concept of “good” emphasizes that it is something good and necessary, and the concept of “value” has the meaning of what people value “good”. The concept of “good” has more of an objective side, while the concept of “value” has a more subjective side. For example, when we mean material objects(things), the concept of “good” practically coincides with consumer value, the usefulness of a thing intended to satisfy certain needs; The “value” of a thing characterizes its essential properties, thanks to which they are included in the system of social relations.

In addition to the above, it is also necessary to keep in mind that the relativity of values ​​has its own certain limits, which, on the one hand, depend on the objective properties of the objects being valued, and on the other, on the specific needs of society and its citizens. If a phenomenon lacks qualities that are objectively necessary to meet the needs of citizens, it is difficult to consider it a value, at least socially significant. But also objectively inherent in the phenomenon useful qualities its interaction with a citizen, compliance with his interests, goals and needs do not yet make the object valuable. Only in human activity does the potential value of a phenomenon receive its actual existence.

Values ​​in the broad sense of the word are the ultimate foundations of acts of consciousness and behavior of people in situations requiring choice. These values ​​begin to develop in a person almost from birth, when he is encouraged for some actions and punished for others, when he receives pleasure in some situations, and in others he feels pain, fear and resentment.

In the work of A.A. Cherepanov and A.G. Litvinenko points out that the structure of values ​​of each person continues to be formed in the process social interaction throughout life, but most intensely in the period up to 15-20 years. This structure, the work notes, like fingerprints, is specific to each individual person, but by comparing the value system of many people, it is possible to identify groups of people who have similarities in certain value subsystems. Based on this similarity in value structures, we can identify relevant groups of people in society and record their differences from each other. Moreover, we can set the grouping parameters arbitrarily, depending on what specific question interests us. For example, you can notice that a mathematician has a certain value structure that allows him to work with mathematical objects, that is, to compare which method of proving a theorem is correct and which is not, etc. For example, a lawyer who does not have the appropriate knowledge of mathematics does not have such a structure. However, a lawyer, on the contrary, can compare legislation different countries or different periods time, and a mathematician who has not studied law will not be able to do this. It is this difference in value structures that allows us to distinguish a lawyer from a mathematician.

Since a person’s value orientation is not rigidly specified once and for all, different groups of values ​​can dominate at different points in time, and each person, thus, can potentially be a representative of different structures and social groups.

A change in the dominant can occur both under the influence of random circumstances, random changes in the external situation, and as a result of targeted external influence.

The concept of value is multifaceted, and therefore, in understanding the essence of this phenomenon, L.G. Pochebut identifies two aspects. The first aspect is the consideration of value as the meaning of an object or phenomenon for a person. Value characterizes the quality of a given item. The second aspect is the understanding of the value of the phenomenon itself (material or ideal) that has meaning for a person.

The meaningfulness of values, according to V. Frankl, gives them an objective universal character. He understood personal values ​​as “universals of meaning,” i.e. meanings inherent in the majority of community members, all of humanity throughout its historical development. A person gains meaning in life by experiencing certain values.

Thus, values, according to scientists, are everything that is endowed general meaning. The values ​​of law are the most important and deep principles that determine a person’s relationship to law. An analysis of the values ​​of law can reliably determine the changes occurring in legal science as a result of historical, political, economic, social and other transformations. In the consciousness of an individual, the values ​​of law are presented in the form of concepts that can stimulate the manifestation of various feelings, assessments and attitudes, and motivations for activity.

In the legal literature, values ​​of law and values ​​in law are distinguished. Values ​​in law are understood as those values ​​that are integrated by law. Law in this case connects ethical, political, economic, ideological and other elements of social culture.

Values ​​of law are values ​​“personified by law in whole or in part”

Such values ​​include freedom, justice, equality, and mutual assistance. These values ​​orient human behavior towards achieving certain goals, standards, and patterns of behavior. These values ​​were not originally “legal”, inherent only in law as a social regulator, but rather the values ​​of the culture in which law arose. "Lawyers do not invent models of behavior, but borrow them from practical life and value orientations social environment, characteristic of a certain culture in which they themselves exist." These values ​​"permeate" the legal consciousness of a given society, play the role of high ideals and thus become the basic values ​​of law.

Legal values ​​and assessments in the sphere of legal consciousness have regulatory significance. Legal norms, in turn, acquire the meaning of values ​​and become the object of evaluation. Moreover, “the conscious-volitional behavior of an individual always proceeds, to one degree or another, from the actions of the learned and assessed by him social norms". However, he points out that "legal norms may not acquire the meaning of values ​​during their gradual historical maturation in the depths of their own legal and value culture, but borrowed as valuable in itself, desirable for achieving the results of social transformations in society. The presence of other (we can call them organic) norms does not affect the overall negative or positive assessment legal system and systems of law, since law is assessed in its integrity."

The assessment itself, notes A.V. Belinkov, predetermines the vitality of a legal norm, sanctions its action or inaction, connects or separates the reality of life, the existing and the prescription of the norm, the due. It is necessary to constantly remember that among all the social values ​​​​reproduced by society, the highest is the human personality.

Law refers to the achievements of culture only to the extent that it ensures, first of all, human dignity and conditions of existence worthy of a person, human rights. This approach to assessing legal phenomena and elucidating their social value, in our opinion, is associated with the individual’s idea of ​​their usefulness and ability to satisfy various types of needs.

As we found out above, in a general sociological sense, the concept of social value characterizes those phenomena of objective reality that are capable of satisfying certain needs of a social subject that are necessary and useful for its existence and development. The concept of the value of law, therefore, is intended to reveal it positive role for society and the individual. Hence, the value of law is the ability of law to serve as a goal and a means to satisfy the socially just, progressive needs and interests of citizens and society as a whole.

The following main manifestations of the social value of law can be noted:

• 1) Law has, first of all, instrumental value. It gives organization, stability, consistency to people’s actions, ensures their control and thereby brings elements of order into social relations, making them civilized. A state-organized society cannot, without the right, organize the production of material goods and organize their more or less fair distribution. Law consolidates and develops those forms of property that are immanent in the nature of a given system. It acts as a powerful means of public administration.
• 2) The value of law lies in the fact that it, embodying the general will of the participants in social relations, contributes to the development of those relations in which both individuals and society as a whole are interested. The highest social value of law is that it influences the behavior and activities of people through the coordination of their specific interests. Law does not level out private interest, does not suppress it, but conforms it with the general interest. The value of law will be higher the more fully it reflects these specific or private interests in its content.
• 3) The value of law is also determined by the fact that it is an exponent and determinant (scale) of individual freedom in society. Moreover, the value of law lies in the fact that it does not mean freedom in general, but defines the boundaries and measure of this freedom. Law most fully manifests itself as the personification and bearer of social freedom, social activity, united with social responsibility, and at the same time, such an order in public relations, which is aimed at eliminating arbitrariness, self-will, and lack of control of individuals and groups from people’s lives. Law and freedom are inseparable from each other. Therefore, it is true to say that law in its essence and, therefore, in its concept is a historically determined and objectively determined form of freedom in real relations, a measure of this freedom, a form of existence of freedom, formal freedom.
• 4) The value of law also lies in its ability to express the idea of ​​justice. Law acts as a criterion for the correct (fair) distribution of material wealth; it affirms the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of their origin, financial situation, social status, etc. The significance of law for the establishment of justice is so obvious that this gave rise to the conclusion that law is normatively established and realized justice.

In passing, we note that justice in people’s ideas has always been linked to law. Translated from Latin, “right” (jus) and “justice” (justitia) are close in meaning. The deep connection between law and justice is determined by the legal nature of the latter. Law, by its purpose, opposes injustice, it protects the agreed interest and thereby affirms a fair decision. By affirming the ideas of freedom and justice, law acquires a deep personal meaning and becomes a real value for the individual and human society as a whole.

• 5) The value of law lies in the fact that it acts as a powerful factor of progress, a source of renewal of society in accordance with the historical course of social development. Its role especially increases in conditions of the collapse of totalitarian regimes and the establishment of new market mechanisms. In such situations, law plays a significant role in the creation of a qualitatively new sphere in which only new forms of communication and activity can establish themselves.
• 6) There is no doubt that in current conditions law is acquiring truly planetary significance.

Legal approaches are the basis and the only possible civilized means of solving problems of an international and interethnic nature. Possessing the qualities of a general social regulator, law is an effective tool for achieving social peace and harmony and relieving tension in society. Law is an effective lever for solving environmental problems both within a single state and within the world community.

Russian national values ​​lie at the heart of Russian culture. To understand what Russian culture is, you must first understand the historically established, traditional values ​​of the Russian people, and understand the mental system of values ​​of the Russian person. After all, Russian culture is created by Russian people with their own worldview and spiritual way of life: Without being a bearer of Russian values ​​and without possessing the Russian mentality, it is impossible to create or reproduce it in your own, and any attempts along this path will be fake.

Russian national values ​​lie at the heart of Russian culture.

The most important role in the development of the Russian people, the Russian state and the Russian world was played by agricultural peasant community, that is, the origins of the generation of Russian culture were embedded in the value system of the Russian community. The prerequisite for the existence of the Russian individual is this very community, or as they used to say, “the world.” It should be noted that a significant part of its history Russian society and the state were formed in conditions of military confrontation, which always forced the interests of individual people to be neglected for the sake of preserving the Russian people as a whole, as an independent ethnic group.

For Russians, the goals and interests of the team are always higher than personal interests and the goals of an individual person - everything individual is easily sacrificed to the general. In response, Russian people are accustomed to counting and hoping for the support of their world, their community. This feature leads to the fact that a Russian person easily puts aside his personal affairs and completely devotes himself to the common cause. That's why are the state people, that is, such a people who know how to form something common, large and extensive. Personal benefit always comes after public benefit.

Russians are a state people because they know how to create something common for everyone.

A truly Russian person is categorically confident that first it is necessary to organize common socially significant affairs, and only then this single whole will begin to work for all members of the community. Collectivism, the need to exist together with one’s society is one of the brightest features of the Russian people. .

Another basic Russian national value is justice, because without it clear understanding and incarnation, life in a collective is not possible. The essence of the Russian understanding of justice lies in the social equality of the people who make up the Russian community. The roots of this approach lie in the ancient Russian economic equality of men in relation to the land: initially, members of the Russian community were allocated equal agricultural shares from what the “world” owned. This is why, internally, Russians strive for such a realization concepts of justice.

Among the Russian people, justice will always win a dispute in the categories of truth-truth and truth-justice. It is not as important for Russians as it once was and as it is in at the moment, much more important is what and how it should be in the future. The actions and thoughts of individual people have always been assessed through the prism of eternal truths that support the postulate of justice. The internal desire for them is much more important than the benefit of a specific result.

The actions and thoughts of individuals have always been assessed through the prism of justice.

Individualism among Russians is very difficult to implement. This is due to the fact that from time immemorial, in agricultural communities, people were allocated equal plots, land was periodically redistributed, that is, a person was not the owner of the land, did not have the right to sell his piece of land or change the culture of cultivation on it. In such a situation it was it is impossible to demonstrate individual skill, which in Rus' was not valued too highly.

The almost complete absence of personal freedom has formed among Russians the habit of rush jobs as an effective way collective activity during the agricultural harvest. During such periods work and holiday were combined in a phenomenal way, which made it possible, to a certain extent, to compensate for great physical and emotional stress, as well as to give up excellent freedom in economic activity.

A society based on the ideas of equality and justice was unable to establish wealth as a value: to an unlimited increase in wealth. At the same time live prosperously to a certain extent was quite revered - in the Russian village, especially in the northern regions, ordinary people respected traders who artificially slowed down their trade turnover.

Just by becoming rich you cannot earn the respect of the Russian community.

For Russians, a feat is not personal heroism - it should always be aimed “outside of a person”: death for one’s Fatherland and Motherland, feat for one’s friends, for the world and death is good. Immortal glory was gained by people who sacrificed themselves for the sake of others and in front of their community. The basis of the Russian feat of arms, the dedication of the Russian soldier, has always been contempt for death and only then - hatred of the enemy. This contempt for the possibility of dying for the sake of something very important is rooted in the willingness to endure and suffer.

At the heart of the Russian feat of arms, the dedication of the Russian soldier, lies contempt for death.

Wide known habit For Russians to suffer is not masochism. Through personal suffering, a Russian person self-actualizes and wins personal inner freedom. In the Russian sense- the world exists steadily and continuously moves forward only through sacrifice, patience and self-restraint. This is the reason for Russian long-suffering: if the real one knows why this is necessary...

• List of Russian valuables
• statehood
• conciliarity
• justice
• patience
• non-aggressiveness
• willingness to suffer
• pliability
• non-covetousness
• dedication
• unpretentiousness