American anthropologist F. Bock in the introduction to the collection "Culture Shock" gives the following definition of culture: "Culture in the broad sense of the word is what makes you a stranger when you leave your home. Culture includes all the beliefs and all the expectations that people express and demonstrate ... When you are in your group, among people with whom you share a common culture, you do not have to think and project your words and actions, because all of you - both you and they - behave in principle anyway, you know what to expect from each other. But being in a strange society, you experience difficulties, a feeling of helplessness and disorientation, which can be called a culture shock. "

essence culture shock- the conflict of old and new cultural norms and orientations: old, characteristic of the individual as a representative of the society that he left, and new, in which he arrived. That is, culture shock is a conflict between two cultures at the level of individual consciousness.

Based on numerous studies of cultural communication by Western scientists (M. Bennett and others), six types of reactions to another culture have been identified. In the behavior of the same person, depending on situations and tasks, various behavioral attitudes are worked out, which change with the accumulation of life experience and knowledge.

Denial of cultural differences- a type of perception based on the belief that all people in the world share (or are required to share) the same beliefs, attitudes, norms of behavior, values. This is a typical position of the layman, convinced that everyone should think and act like him. However, denial as a type of reaction to another culture usually changes over time. In this case, denial can be modified into a defensive reaction.

Protecting your own cultural advantage- a type of perception, which is based on the recognition of the existence of other cultures, but at the same time, a stable idea is formed that the values ​​and customs of a foreign culture are a threat to the usual order of things, worldview foundations, a way of life that has been formed. This is a rather active (sometimes aggressive) position, implemented in the affirmation of the indispensable own cultural superiority and disregard for other cultures.

Intercultural differences in a defensive reaction are clearly recorded as negative stereotypes of another culture. All people are divided on the basis of "we" (good, correct, cultured, etc.) and "they" (the complete opposite). At the same time, a number of negative characteristics, as a rule, are attributed to all members of a foreign cultural group and to each of them individually. Typical situations when the formation of a defensive reaction is almost inevitable: contacts of representatives of different races, outwardly, physically differ from each other; interaction between immigrant and indigenous groups; adaptation of individual "strangers" in the new culture of students and professionals, workers studying and working abroad, employees of international organizations and foreign companies, etc.

It would seem that people of different races, nationalities or confessions will definitely find a common language if they come into direct contact, get to know each other better. However, with a low level of intercultural competence, which characterizes the "defensive" perception of a foreign culture, something opposite happens: negative stereotypes and manifestations of aggressiveness only intensify. The formation of a protective model of behavior and perception occurs both directly, in interpersonal communication, and through social institutions (cultural, educational, educational, political, etc.).

Minimizing cultural differences- a fairly common, by Western standards, way of perceiving other cultures. They are characterized by the recognition of the possibility of the existence of other cultural values, norms, forms of behavior and the search for common unifying features. Such was the typical reaction of a Soviet person to intercultural differences within the country, when the value content of national cultures, ethnic and religious groups was manifested through stereotyped all-Soviet symbols (this is evidenced by the well-known formulation "a new historical community of people - the Soviet people").

Much less often in comparison with the described types of intercultural perception (even in a stable situation, especially in a crisis), there are options positive attitude towards intercultural differences, when a person is able to accept the existence of another original culture, adapt to it or integrate into it.

Cultural conflict is a clash of values ​​between the dominant culture and the subculture. Cultural conflict is the cause of cultural change. Cultural conflict takes on various forms:

- Anomie - the destruction of cultural unity due to the lack of clear social norms. The process of disintegration of the dominant value system is usually associated with the weakening of the influence of religion and politics, which leads to the disintegration of ethical principles;

- "Cultural Lag"- a state in which changes in the material sphere are ahead of the possibilities of non-material culture (customs, traditions, laws, beliefs) to adapt to them;

- The dominance of a foreign culture imposing one's own culture on other societies. The conflict arises because of the incompatibility of the values ​​of such cultures.

According to F. K. Bock, there are five ways to resolve this conflict. First way can be conditionally called ghettoization(from the word ghetto). It is implemented in situations where an individual arrives in another society, but tries or is forced (due to ignorance of the language, natural timidity, religion, or for certain other reasons) to avoid any contact with a foreign culture. In this case, he seeks to create his own cultural environment - the environment of fellow tribesmen, fenced off by this environment from the influence of other cultural environments.

In almost every major Western city, there are isolated and closed areas inhabited by representatives of other cultures. These are Chinatowns or entire Chinatowns, quarters or districts where immigrants from Muslim countries live, Indian quarters, etc. Such examples can be cited in Ukraine. In the Kherson and Donetsk regions, Greeks live compactly in settlements, in the Odessa region - the Bulgarians, in the Crimea - the Crimean Tatars.

Second way solutions to the conflict of cultures - assimilation, essentially the opposite of ghettoization. In the case of assimilation, the individual, on the contrary, completely renounces his own culture and strives to fully assimilate the cultural baggage of a foreign culture, necessary for life. Usually, this is not always possible. The cause of complications is either the lack of plasticity of the individual, or the resistance of the cultural environment, of which he intends to become a member. Such resistance was observed, for example, in some European countries (in France, Germany) in relation to new emigrants from Ukraine, Russia and the CIS countries who wish to assimilate there and become citizens of these countries. Even if they successfully master the language and achieve an acceptable level of everyday competence, the environment does not accept them as their own, they are constantly "pushed out" into that environment, which can be called an invisible ghetto - into the circle of fellow tribesmen and "sleep culturers" who are forced to communicate only with each other outside of work . Of course, for the children of such emigrants, included in a foreign cultural environment from early childhood, assimilation is not a problem.

Third way solution of cultural conflict - intermediate - lies in cultural exchange and interaction. In order for the exchange to be carried out adequately, that is, benefiting and enriching both sides, benevolence and openness are needed on both sides, which unfortunately happens very rarely in practice, especially if the parties are initially unequal: one is autochthonous, the other is refugees or emigrants. The results of such interaction are not always obvious at the very moment of its implementation. They become visible and weighty only after a considerable time has passed.

The fourth way is partial assimilation, when an individual sacrifices his culture in favor of a foreign cultural environment partially, that is, in one of the spheres of life: for example, at work he is guided by the norms and requirements of a foreign cultural environment, and in the family, for a decision, in the religious sphere - by the norms of his traditional culture. This practice of overcoming culture shock is perhaps the most common. Emigrants most often assimilate partially, dividing their lives into two unequal halves. As a rule, assimilation turns out to be partial if complete Ghettoization is impossible or when, for various reasons, complete assimilation is impossible. But it can also be a completely intentional positive result of the exchange and interaction of cultures.

Fifth way overcoming the conflict of cultures - colonization. It is very simple to define the mechanism of colonization in the most general form. We can talk about colonization when representatives of a foreign culture, having arrived in a country, actively impose their values, norms and behavior patterns on the population.

In this context, the term colonization does not have a political sound and does not have an evaluative character, but simply a description of the type of interaction between cultural and value systems. Colonization in the political sense is only one of the many forms of cultural colonization, and not the most effective form, since often the transformation of a state or territory into a colony was accompanied NOT so much by cultural colonization as by the ghettoization of arrivals who lived almost without contact with the autochthonous culture, but so it has almost no effect on it. Another form of cultural colonization (much more effective) is the practice of helping underdeveloped countries, widely spread by industrialized states. For example, when a Western firm constructs an irrigation canal in a dry African or Middle Eastern country, it not only introduces new models of technological and organizational culture to which the native workers employed in the construction of the canal are forced to adapt, but also introduces profound changes in the culture. agriculture, which begins to function according to Western models and technologies, and at the same time, the social and cultural organization of society as a whole is radically changing.

Cultural colonization is possible not only in underdeveloped countries. A form of cultural colonization was a certain Americanization of life in Western Europe after World War II, expressed in the widespread dissemination of patterns and behaviors characteristic of American (primarily mass) culture. Western Ukraine has experienced four waves of cultural colonization during the last century alone. The first of them is connected with the Polish and Austrian intervention, the second with the Soviet industrialization, completely changed the way of life both in the countryside and in the city, introduced radically new cultural forms and lifestyles. The third wave of colonization is associated with active introduction and assimilation in all spheres of life: from sex to business, from culinary practice in the state organization of values, norms, behavioral and organizational models that are Western in origin.

In the social and political sciences, such processes are described by the term modernization, having an evaluative character and suggests that the new models that have replaced the old ones have a modern character that corresponds to the highest degree of development. Term cultural colonization value-neutral, it only denotes and describes the process of replacing one's own norms, values, models and patterns of behavior with the corresponding norms, values, models and patterns that came from outside, from a foreign cultural environment.

In modern sociology and anthropology, there are other attempts to typify intercultural interactions. Yes, H. K. Ikonnikova, based on the developments of Western researchers, offers a complicated version of the typology, based on a linear scheme of progressive development of the mutual perception of counterparty cultures:

Ignoring differences between cultures;

Protecting one's own cultural advantage;

Minimizing differences;

Acceptance of the existence of intercultural differences;

Adaptation to another culture;

Integration into native and other cultures.

The strength of this typology lies in the disclosure of the socio-psychological content of the interaction of cultures and in the two-level stepwise differentiation of attitudes of mutual perception, its weak side is a simplified approach to the social and cultural situation of interaction.

(English conflict, cultural; German Konflikt, kultureller)

1. A conflict that arises in the minds of an individual (or a group of individuals) located at the junction of two cultures with conflicting norms, standards, and requirements.

2. The critical stage of contradictions in value-normative attitudes, orientations, positions, judgments between individuals, their groups, individual and group, individual and society, group and society, between different communities or their coalitions.

Explanations:

Unlike most other types of conflicts, which are usually based on contradictions in the more or less pragmatic and utilitarian interests of the parties (economic, political and other power-proprietary, status-role, gender, consanguinity, etc.), A cultural conflict is specific in its ideological conditionality, incompatibility of evaluative positions, worldview and / or religious attitudes, traditional norms and rules for the implementation of one or another socially significant activity, etc., i.e. ultimately, the difference in the social experiences of the conflicting parties, fixed in the parameters of their ideology (individual or group).

The practical forms of the Cultural Conflict can have a different scale and nature: from quarrels in interpersonal relations to interstate and coalition wars. Typical examples of the most large-scale and cruel cultural conflicts are the crusades, religious, civil, revolutionary and partly national liberation wars, acts of the church inquisition, genocide, forced conversion to an imposed faith, that is, a measure of political repression, etc. The elements of the Cultural Conflict, as a conflict of values, occupied a significant place in the causes of the Second World War (unlike the First, which pursued mainly political and economic goals).

Cultural conflicts are particularly bitter, uncompromising, and in the case of the use of force, they pursue the goal of not so much subjugation as the practical destruction of carriers of alien values. Related to this specificity is the particular difficulty of finding a compromise and reconciliation of the conflicting parties seeking to uphold their principles "to the bitter end." Compromises are easier to achieve between competing interests than between incompatible values ​​and ideologies.

The problem of cultural conflicts is inextricably linked with the problems of cultural tolerance and complementarity, with an interest in a different culture (in its group or personified incarnation) and the search for points of value coincidences or intersections.
Since the anthropological and social foundations of interests and needs, and hence the basic values ​​of all people and their communities, due to the unity of the physical and mental nature of mankind, are more or less the same, this opens up great opportunities for the search and manifestation of coinciding value paradigms in the cultures of different communities and their social groups as a prevention of cultural conflicts.
Ultimately, the search for such grounds for reconciling interests and common value orientations between the subjects of contradictions and lowering the level of tension of these contradictions is one of the main tasks of any policy.

A special type of cultural conflict is a creative conflict between trends, schools, groups or individual luminaries of science, philosophy, and artistic culture. Here, first of all, there is a rivalry between different methods of cognition and reflection of reality, a conflict in determining the criteria for the truth of a particular method.
Close to this type is the conflict of interpretations (mainly cultural texts), characteristic of both the listed areas of intellectual and creative activity, and the areas of religion, law, education, etc., in which the question of the criteria for the truth of a particular interpretation of a particular text.
The resolution of this kind of cultural conflicts is associated with the achievement of conventions recognizing the equality and complementarity of various positions, methods, interpretations, etc.
In contrast to the existing theories of social conflict, which consider this phenomenon as basically positive, contributing to the progressive development of society, the analysis of the Cultural Conflict does not reveal any obvious developing potential in it. After all, here there is a contradiction not between more and less effective ways of satisfying the objective interests and needs of people, but between different assessments and interpretations of certain cultural texts, the only objective advantage of which is that they are "ours" or "not ours", those. we are talking about a conflict not so much of interests as the ambitions of individuals, groups, communities. Perhaps that is why the Cultural Conflict is so uncompromising.

The process of intercultural interaction involves a donor culture that transmits its cultural experience, and a recipient culture that receives cultural experience. Forms of interaction of cultures:

acculturation(from English. acculturation – upbringing in a particular culture, fusion of cultures as a result of their long-term interaction, education, development) is a long-term direct interaction of cultures, leading to changes in their spiritual and material spheres. For example, the campaigns of Alexander the Great resulted in close interaction between Western and Eastern cultures, which led, on the one hand, to the Hellenization of the Middle Eastern countries, but, on the other hand, to the rooting of a number of norms of Persian culture in the Hellenic environment. You can also give an example of the impact of Islamic culture on the culture of Zoroastrianism, during which the significance of Zoroastrianism was minimized. Moreover, in this impact, peaceful ideological means of asserting Islam in the traditionally Zoroastrian environment were combined with forceful influence and even such methods as, for example, the abduction of daughters from Zoroastrian families. In this case, acculturation led to a different form of intercultural communication - assimilation.

concept acculturation began to be actively used since the end of the 19th century in the United States. This was due to the increased scientific interest in the life of North American Indians, many of whom had been exterminated by this time. For a while the term acculturation was interchangeable for the term assimilation. However, not in every case acculturation leads to assimilation. Often acculturation is reduced to the adaptation of culture to new conditions. In 1940, the work of the American culturologist Redfield Linton "Acculturation in the Seven Tribes of American Indians" was published, where two types of conditions were identified under which acculturation can occur. First, during acculturation, the free borrowing of elements of each other by interacting cultures is stated, proceeding in the absence of military-political dominance of one group over another. Second, in acculturation, there is a directed cultural change in which a militarily or politically dominant group pursues a policy of forced cultural assimilation of a group that is militarily and politically weaker. Each of these conditions fundamentally affects the nature of acculturation. In the latter case, acculturation may be reduced to forced assimilation, as was the case with the relationship between the US government and the Indians.

However, acculturation under the military-political domination of one of the parties does not always lead to violent methods. So, almost all non-indigenous peoples of Russia accepted Russian citizenship not because of Russia's military superiority, but because of the adoption of Russian Orthodox culture, as the most conducive to the spiritual growth of peoples. So, Ermak Timofeevich conquered the great Siberian expanses not by the force of 540 Cossacks, but, above all, by an example of kindness, nobility and chaste behavior. At the same time, many elements of the indigenous peoples of Siberia were preserved and function as an organic part of everyday life to this day. Here we must not forget that military power itself does not conquer culture - it can only physically destroy its bearers, temporarily suppress the actions of individual people, drown the uprising of peoples in blood. The military, cut off from their culture, comes and goes, leaving behind either a good memory as noble warriors-liberators, or devastation, pain, despair and hatred. The military power of culture does not create, it can either protect culture or destroy it. For example, no matter how much the Muslim and Western European rulers tried to conquer Ethiopia, they failed to do this. Even in the face of the military weakness of Ethiopia, the success of Muslims or Europeans could only be short-lived, because the Ethiopians always retained devotion to their ancient Orthodox culture. Even Napoleon was precisely noted that you can’t sit on a bayonet. Culture is punished only by a greater culture.

Assimilation(from lat. assimilation – fusion, assimilation, assimilation) - the assimilation of a foreign cultural tradition against the background of the loss of one's own cultural tradition due to direct, often violent, interference in the internal life of culture. For example, the Gutian tribes that invaded the lands of the Sumerian cities quickly assimilated, adopting the higher culture of the Sumerians.

Enculturation(by analogy with incorporation, that is, the process of entering, introducing into something) - the process of entering a culture, mastering ethno-cultural experience, during which a person feels part of a culture and identifies himself with its tradition. Here one can turn to examples from the life of private individuals, as well as examples from the life of peoples. Often, an emigrant in the environment of a foreign culture gets used to new conditions and begins to perceive them as normal, thinks in accordance with the settings of the new cultural tradition. Also, peoples, being included in the system of another culture, eventually begin to identify themselves with it.

Integration(from lat. integratio – replenishment, recovery) - the state of a system of several cultures, in which its heterogeneous elements retain their originality and function in a coordinated and harmonious manner. The culture of the USSR can serve as an example of this, where many cultures of such peoples as Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Tajiks, Kazakhs and a number of other peoples, while maintaining their cultural identity, interacted with each other harmoniously and were guided by a single legislative base.

Separation(from lat. separatio – department) is such a person's attitude to culture, in which he remains committed to his cultural tradition, while living in a different culture. For example, after the 1917 revolution, Russian emigrants adapted in foreign countries, as a rule, on the basis of separation.

If separation is a requirement of the dominant group, then it is called segregation(from lat. segregation –department). For example, in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century there was segregated education - separate education of white and colored children.

Intercultural dialogue. The process of intercultural communication, which is peaceful.

Conflict.

Conflict

The problem of conflict is so complex that it is dealt with by a separate branch of knowledge - conflictology. In cultural studies and sociology, it is appropriate to talk about the internal conflict of the personality associated with its “splitting”, about interpersonal conflicts that occur in everyday life both at home and at work, as well as interethnic and international conflicts. In this case, the focus will be on interethnic and international conflicts. The latter need not necessarily be accompanied by bloodshed. There are also non-violent conflicts, such as political, economic, diplomatic. However, conflicts often lead to armed clashes and ethnic cleansing.

There are different types of conflicts:

Interstate conflicts. For example, the Falklands conflict between Great Britain and Argentina in 1982, the conflict between the USA and Grenada in 1983, between the USA and Panama in 1989. The specificity of interstate conflicts is the mutual perception of the territory and its authority as state values.

Regional conflicts between different ethnic groups separated by a common administrative (intra-federal) border within a single state. In these cases, the mediator in resolving such a conflict should be the central government. However, if it is too weak and does not enjoy authority in the regions, then the intervention of an international organization as an arbitrator is allowed.

Conflict between Center and Region, say, a subject of the federation (for example, between Serbs and Albanians in Yugoslavia). Such conflicts occur within the state, but the various parties involved in the conflict are treated differently. In the Center, such a conflict is perceived as internal, while in the region it is defined as external. Thus, from the position of Russian citizens, the conflict in Chechnya in the 90s of the twentieth century is an internal Russian conflict provoked by separatist sentiments and the interests of criminal structures both in Russia and in Chechnya itself. At the same time, from the position of the Chechen separatists, the conflict in Chechnya is a war for the independence of the Chechen people, and it was provoked by Russia's external aggression against the Republic of Ichkeria.

Local conflicts arise between different ethnic entities living within the same state, federal borders, for example, in the same city or region.

In accordance with the causes of conflicts, the latter can be classified into the following types: territorial, economic, political, historical, value, confessional, social. For each of these types, the causes of their occurrence should be identified. Yes, for territorial conflict the reasons may be the fuzzy demarcation of borders; return to the homeland of a previously deported ethnic group; the historical past of peoples, for example, the presence in the disputed territory of a cult or cultural-historical monument of one or another ethnic group; arbitrary change of borders or forcible incorporation of a certain territory into a neighboring state. Often, territorial conflicts occur within the state, when separatist sentiments are developed in the country, when the authorities of the Center cannot ensure law and order in the regions. Sometimes territorial conflicts are due to the fact that any one people ended up on the lands of different countries. For example, the Somalis, as a result of the fact that Europeans - former colonialists - arbitrarily "drawn" the political map of this region, ended up in different countries: in addition to their own state of Somalia, Somalis live in Djibouti, northeastern Kenya, and also in Ethiopia. The Somali-dominated area in Ethiopia is called the Ogaden. In the second half of the 20th century, several tough, bloody wars took place between Ethiopia and Somalia over the Ogaden. Formally, the Ogaden belongs to Ethiopia to this day, but the situation in this region remains explosive. An additional reason for the war between Ethiopia and Somalia may be the fact that Christianity is widespread in Ethiopia in the Monophysite form, and Islam in Somalia.

Economic conflict often motivated by the inequality of ethnic groups in the possession and disposal of material resources; violation of the balance of economic interests between the Center and the regions. At the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, when the problem of raw materials is especially acute, the likelihood of conflicts on economic grounds is quite high. For example, in the modern world, the situation around the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is still explosive. After oil reserves were discovered on the shelf around these islands, interest in this group of islands increased sharply. In 1988, the Chinese Navy launched a military attack on the Vietnamese fleet, sinking one destroyer, resulting in the death of 77 Vietnamese sailors. Despite the fact that the islands were Spanish territory, which in 1898 passed under the Treaty of Paris to the Philippines, now these islands are defended by such countries as the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, since 1951 - Japan, since 1957 - the USA, and since 1971, Taiwan.

In modern world conflicts occur very frequently in political basis. So, during the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, conflicts arose due to the acceptance or rejection by individual countries of the socialist or capitalist way of life of the country. Often the US government criminally organized and armed gangs that acted against the civilian population of the country where the people achieved the adoption of progressive socialist reforms. A vivid example of this is the events in Nicaragua in the 80s of the twentieth century. So, when the people in Nicaragua overthrew the extremely cruel regime of the US protege Samosa, the US government created gangs in neighboring Honduras, which, destroying civilians, were supposed to discredit the socialist people's government. In the end, an American plane with weapons on board was shot down in the sky over Nicaragua. The captured American pilot appeared before an international tribunal, which revealed that the United States illegally sold anti-tank missiles to Iran, a country that was at war with Iraq at that time, and supplied the bandits with weapons for the money received from such trade.

The causes of the conflict may be rooted in the contradiction of the prevailing attitudes and stereotypes. Indeed, among the various types of interethnic conflicts, one can single out stereotype conflict. The latter finds its manifestation in the course of the clash of nations, which is due to the historically established perception of them as opponents by each other. The resolution of such conflicts requires the ethnos to make great efforts of will and to reject the stereotypes and attitudes that cause the clash. Ethnic cleansing in Burundi and Rwanda is a clear example of such a conflict. In these two comparatively small African countries, the Tutsi and Hutu peoples represent the majority of the population. The Tutsis, being nomadic pastoralists, came to the lands of the modern countries of Rwanda and Burundi in the 14th century, subjugating the local inhabitants, the Hutus. In the course of the relationship between them, a rather complicated situation arose: in the minds of the Tutsi, the Hutus were regarded as second-class people who were obliged to serve them; the Hutu began to perceive the Tutsis as cruel conquerors. However, this state of affairs did not cause obvious hatred for each other among the Tutsis and Hutu, they were perceived by them as some kind of proper social structure.

During the era of colonialism, a number of serious problems between the Tutsi and the Hutu were smoothed out on the basis of tribal cultural traditions, as well as on the basis of a single legislation that was represented by Belgium. Until the middle of the 20th century, the authority of the metropolis, as a guarantor of the observance of law, was generally unshakable, and therefore the law, which was distinguished by national neutrality, was relatively effective. When the countries of Burundi and Rwanda became independent in 1962, the power of historical stereotypes and attitudes turned out to be so great that it provoked a surge of hatred between the Tutsi and the Hutus. In newly independent Burundi, where the ratio of Tutsis and Hutus was about the same as in Rwanda, a chain reaction began: here the Tutsis retained a majority in the government and in the army, but this did not prevent the Hutus from creating several rebel armies. The first Hutu uprising took place in 1965; it was brutally suppressed. In November 1966, as a result of a military coup, a republic was proclaimed and a totalitarian military regime was established in the country. A new Hutu uprising in 1970-1971, which took on the character of a civil war, led to the fact that about 150 thousand Hutus were killed and at least one hundred thousand became refugees.

Rwanda gained independence in 1962. The offended Hutus immediately came to power and began to push back the Tutsis. The mass persecution of Tutsis, which began in the late 80s and reached its peak in 1994, was regarded as genocide in Western Europe. In 1994, in a few weeks, 800,000 Tutsis were killed, as well as moderate Hutus. About 1.7 million Hutu became refugees - in their camps at that time, 2,000 people died from cholera and hunger every day.

Government officials, being part of the people, call for ethnic cleansing, and sometimes directly participate in them. For example, a number of state ministers of the Rwandan government directly called on the people to exterminate the Tutsi people. Thus, in Rwanda, Prime Minister Janu Kambande, Minister of Information Eliezera Niyitegeka and other politicians directly called on the people for ethnic cleansing against the Tutsis. The most horrific thing in such cases is that people, as a rule, follow such inhuman appeals and laws, thereby maintaining law-abidingness, but, in fact, ceasing to be human. Such a legislative system authorizes the right to dishonor and releases all animal instincts, which, in synthesis with imagination as a mental function, and with speculative reason, lead to wild, terrible deeds. The fact that people follow the letter of the law indicates the absence of a developed idea of ​​personal responsibility for what they have done, the dominance of tribal attitudes. The weakness of natural law in front of the emasculated letter of the law indicates a clear lack of development of ideas about personal honor. The absence of a clear idea of ​​the honor of the individual makes the individual dependent on the authorities, who issue immoral decrees and, to put it mildly, strange proclamations. For example, in 1990, the Hutu publication Kangura (Wake Up) published 10 Hutu decrees:

Every Hutu should know that a Tutsi woman, wherever she may be, pursues the interests of her ethnic group. Therefore, a Hutu who marries a Tutsi woman, befriends a Tutsi woman, or keeps a Tutsi as a secretary or concubine will be considered a traitor.

Every Hutu should remember that the daughters of our tribe are more conscious of their role as wives and mothers. They are more beautiful, honest and efficient as secretaries.

Hutu women, be vigilant, try to reason with your husbands, brothers and sons.

Every Hutu should know that Tutsis are liars in transactions. His only goal is the superiority of his ethnic group. Therefore, every Hutu who

– is a Tutsi business partner;

– who invests in the Tutsi project;

– who lends or lends money to Tutsis;

- who helps the Tutsis in business through the issuance of a license and so on.

Hutu should occupy all strategic positions in politics, economy, law enforcement agencies.

In education, the majority of teachers and students must be Hutus.

The armed forces of Rwanda will be staffed exclusively by representatives of the Hutus.

The Hutus should stop feeling sorry for the Tutsis.

The Hutu must be united in the fight against the Tutsis.

Every Hutu must spread the Hutu ideology. A Hutu who tries to stop his brothers from spreading Hutu ideology is considered a traitor.

Of course, such sentiments dominate not only among the Hutus, but also among the Tutsis, which does not inspire optimism in the successful resolution of this problem. The above instructions from the Kangur publication indicate that the principles of interethnic hatred are deeply rooted not only in the socio-political, but also in the tribal consciousness of both ethnic groups, therefore, even at the level of an individual family, the conflict will remain open. The conflict between the Tutsi and the Hutus continues at the beginning of the 21st century, and not only in the lands of Rwanda and Burundi. Four states are directly involved in this war today: Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (former Zaire), however, Angola, Zimbabwe, and Namibia are also actively participating in it.

Since 1999, on the basis of the conflict in Rwanda, an inter-ethnic Iturian conflict began in the DRC between the Hema peoples, who supported the Hutus, and the Lendu, who supported the Tutsis. Over 50,000 people died in the first four years of this conflict. In addition, this clash was accompanied by cannibalism, and cannibalism not on the basis of pagan cults and not because of hunger, but because of bestial cruelty. The pygmies suffered greatly, who, although they did not take part in the conflict, but, as the most defenseless, were subjected to bullying by armed bandits. The conflict ended only in 2005.

The conflict can also be provoked by different ideas about things and phenomena, for example, about private property. In this case, it is appropriate to turn to the Bushmen issue in Botswana and South Africa. Bushmen have no concept of private property. All things that are in nature, the Bushman considers it possible to take away for himself. However, he never uses them alone. For example, if a Bushman finds, for example, a banana, he will not eat it himself, but will bring it to his family, where the elders will divide the banana among all members of the family. Bushmen are very good-natured and if they see that a person is using a thing, they will never steal it. Their good nature often causes enthusiastic surprise. A case was recorded when a passenger threw a Coca-Cola can from a light private jet during landing. Bushman picked up the jar and ran after the plane to give it to the passenger. It is amazing that a bushman can approach an antelope or other wild herbivore to drink their milk. Moreover, the animals are not afraid of them and let them close, which people do not allow when they are hunting. To the question: how does it work? - Bushmen answer that they tell animals that they want to drink milk, and not hunt.

Yet the problem of the Bushman issue is that a cow grazing in a field cannot be perceived by a Bushman as the property of another person, so it becomes an object of hunting. Bushmen don't understand what private property is. On this basis, a serious conflict arose between the Bushmen and the Bechuan tribes (Bamangwato, Bangwaketse, Batawana, Batwana). Bechuans are pastoralists, therefore they protect their livestock, which they consider as private property. In the event that a Bushman kills a cow while hunting, the Buchuans destroy not only the most unlucky hunter, but also his entire family and all the Bushmen who accidentally met. Moreover, the struggle against the Bushmen is carried out in an even more cruel way: they poison the wells. In the Kalahari Desert, which in Bechuan is called Kari-kari (thirsty earth), there is no open water, so the poisoning of one well can lead to the death of dozens of people.

Religious attitudes and beliefs can also serve as an impetus for the escalation of the conflict. For example, the Muslims of Palestine and Syria are convinced that the lands inhabited by Jews were given to Muslims by Allah, so for the Islamic world the cession of territories to Jews is a crime against Allah.

A serious conflict on religious grounds arose in Sudan. Since 1983, 1.2 million people have been killed. Hostilities are causing deep damage to the country's economy, as the conduct of hostilities costs 1.5 million dollars a day. At the heart of the conflict lie the contradictions between the Muslims of the north (majority in the government) and the southerners, who profess Christianity, as well as various pagan beliefs.

The origins of the conflict can be traced back to British colonial rule. For decades, the colonial authorities divided Sudan into north and south, both in the economic sphere (the south is less developed) and in the social sphere. In the southern provinces, where Christianity had been practiced since ancient times, the activities of Western educational organizations and Christian missions were more widespread. Christian schools were opened here, temples were built. Sudan's independence in 1955 did not help equalize the rights of the north and south. And the proclamation of Sudan as a unitary parliamentary republic and ignoring the demands of the southerners for autonomy greatly contributed to the aggravation of the conflict. In addition, from the first days of independence, the government pursued a discriminatory policy against the population of the south. With the beginning of the process of Arabization of Sudan in 1983 and the introduction of Muslim legislation mandatory throughout Sudan, hostilities resumed with renewed vigor. Essentially, the question is whether Sudan should be secular or Islamic. In this war, the government Muslim troops used the most savage methods. For example, in Khartoum, a plan was developed to destroy the intrinsic value of the cultures of the peoples of southern Sudan. In accordance with one of the points of this plan, a Muslim soldier for abuse of four Christian women in the south of the country in the presence of witnesses has the right to receive money from the government. In the course of committing such a crime, a person is essentially likened to Satan. A broken woman does not have her own opinion, she quickly submits to the demands of the most criminal nature, she turns into a means for the implementation of evil. In this regard, the words of the Gospel of Matthew are true: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body…” (Matthew 10:28). Finally, against the backdrop of such events, the rapid spread of AIDS looks quite natural. The escalation of conflict in southern Sudan, especially in the southwest (Darfur) in early 2003, followed the emergence of two rebel groups in the region: the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). Mounted pro-government militias known as the Janjaweed have been authorized by the Sudanese government to destroy villages and massacre their inhabitants. The militias that devastated a large part of Darfur received weapons, money and support from the Sudanese authorities. Often they were accompanied by units of government forces; they were supported by bombers and attack helicopters. During the course of the conflict, approximately 1,400,000 people (mostly from rural areas) were displaced. Their villages were burned, their livestock stolen, and the rest of their property was looted.

The list of states that allowed - intentionally or accidentally - the supply of military weapons and equipment to Sudan takes up several pages.

Despite the fact that the war in Sudan officially ended in the fall of 2005, in fact it continues at the present time. In May 2006, the heads of a number of conflicting parties signed the Darfur Peace Treaty. However, since the signing of the treaty, instability in the region has only increased; killings, abuses, the number of internally displaced people in Darfur has increased.

The conflict can also occur due to the erroneous, incorrect perception of people of one culture by people of another culture (for example, in the Caribbean, the natives, perceiving the Spaniards as gods, drowned several of them in order to make sure that their bodies were incorruptible).

Often the conflict is caused by the fact that in society the ways of self-affirmation are associated with aggressive behavior. For example, the United States as an independent state was formed during the war of 1775-1782. During this war, a warrior was in demand in society as an ideal, and his behavior was an example for the majority. However, with the end of the war, the need for such an image of a warrior disappeared, but the image of a warrior itself remained in the national consciousness, so men, wanting to establish themselves both in society and in their own eyes, as a rule, supported any aggressive wars that the United States waged against the Indians, Mexico, Spain... In this case, the American public was held hostage to its own agenda.

Paradoxical as it may seem, but often conflicts occur by the sole decision of a head of state who feels the support of the governments of large countries. Thus, in August 2008, Georgian President M. Saakashvili issued a decree on the start of hostilities against the South Ossetian people. This people, who lived in the territory of South Ossetia since the period of the Middle Bronze Age, in the XXI century was subjected to genocide, ethnic cleansing. Only the timely intervention of Russia made it possible to save the lives of tens of thousands of peaceful South Ossetians. Once again, Russian peacekeepers prevented the escalation of the conflict in the Caucasus, thus showing the whole world that Russia continues to defend justice, honor and life of people, guided by exclusively noble tasks.

Nevertheless, it must be understood that the will of only one politician is not enough to incite war if there are no essential prerequisites for this in a certain part of society. When considering international crimes, one should always take into account the fact that not only politicians who gave immoral orders are under jurisdiction, but also, for example, those ordinary soldiers who, guided by a sense of hatred, base instincts, shot, crushed innocent little children under the caterpillars of tanks, burned peaceful families alive .

In general, conflicts are provoked by people who are not alien to aggressive plans and immoral actions, who do not want to reckon with the laws, with the principles of justice, who are morally unscrupulous, but at the same time most often have real power and strength. Indeed, a spiritually full-fledged person will always strive to avoid bloodshed, trampling on the honor of people, even if he does not have extensive information about the cultures of different peoples. For example, Captain La Perouse did not know anything about the peculiarities of the worldview of the natives of Easter Island. However, when they, having no idea of ​​private property, stole various things from French sailors, La Perouse, being a kind, noble person, tried in every possible way to prevent armed clashes, because no objects, even all the treasures of the Universe, should not become a reason for killing people and humiliation of their human dignity.

Interethnic conflicts are one of the forms of intergroup relations, a confrontation between two or more ethnic groups (or their individual representatives). Such relations are characterized, as a rule, by a state of mutual claims and tend to increase in confrontation up to armed clashes and open wars.

Researchers offer a variety of classifications of ethnic conflicts. The most general classification is the division of ethnic conflicts into two types according to the characteristics of the opposing sides:

1) conflicts between an ethnic group (groups) and the state;

2) conflicts between ethnic groups.

These two types of conflicts are often generically called international conflicts by scientists, understanding them as any confrontation between states and sub-state territorial entities, the cause of which is the need to protect the interests and rights of the respective nations, peoples or ethnic groups. But most often, interethnic conflicts are classified according to the goals that the parties involved in the conflict set themselves in the struggle against any restrictions for one of them:

Socio-economic, in which demands for civil equality are put forward (from citizenship rights to equal economic status);

Cultural and linguistic, in which the requirements put forward affect the problems of preserving or reviving the functions of the language and culture of the ethnic community;

Political, if the participating ethnic minorities seek political rights (from local autonomy to full-blown confederalism);

Territorial - based on the requirements of changing borders, joining another - related from a cultural and historical point of view - state or creating a new independent state.

It is also possible to classify interethnic conflicts according to the forms of manifestation and duration. In the first case, it is assumed that conflicts can be violent (deportation, genocide, terror, pogroms and riots) and non-violent (national movements, mass marches, rallies, emigration). In the second case, conflicts are considered as short-term and long-term.

The nature of interethnic conflicts can be viewed from the point of view of structural changes in society as the basis of contradictions leading to conflicts. Scientists believe that the basis of interethnic tension is the processes associated with the modernization and intellectualization of peoples. This approach focuses on the fact that at a certain historical stage there are changes in the potential of ethnic groups, their value ideas change. This situation can persist for quite a long time after claims for changes are made, as long as the central power (the power of the titular ethnic group) is strong. But if it loses its legitimacy, as was the case in the USSR in the late 80s and early 90s of the last century, then there is a real chance not only to make claims, but also to realize them.

According to many psychologists, the causes of interethnic conflicts should be considered within the framework of existing social theories. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that almost all psychological concepts in one way or another take into account the social causes of intergroup conflicts and the causes of social competition and hostility, manifested in actions or ideas. Thus, the search for the purpose and causes of interethnic conflicts makes us pay attention to one of the first socio-psychological concepts created by W. McDougall, who attributes the manifestations of collective struggle to the so-called "pugnacious instinct". Such an approach is often called the hydraulic model, since, according to W. McDougall, aggressiveness is not a reaction to irritation, but in the form of a certain impulse, due to the nature of a person, is always present in his body. It was the hydraulic model of the psyche that became the basis for the development by Z. Freud of the idea of ​​the causes of wars in human history. 3 Freud believed that hostility between groups is inevitable, since the conflict of interests between people is resolved only through violence. Man has a destructive drive which is initially directed inward (death drive) and then directed to the outside world and is therefore beneficial to man. Hostility is also beneficial for the groups involved in it, as it contributes to stability, the establishment of a sense of community among these groups. It is the beneficialness of hostility for a person, a group or even associations of groups, according to Z. Freud, that leads to the inevitability of violence.

Modern sociologists, ethnologists and political scientists, being unanimous in their opinion, consider the conflict, and in particular the interethnic conflict, as a real struggle between groups, as a clash of incompatible interests. But in their approach to explaining the causes of conflicts, sociologists and ethnologists analyze the relationship between the social stratification of society and the ethnicity of the population. For political scientists, one of the most common interpretations is one that highlights the role of elites (primarily intellectual and political) in mobilizing ethnic feelings and escalating them to the level of open conflict.

Most often, tension arises between the dominant ethnic community (the titular ethnic group) and the ethnic minority. Such tension can be both open, i.e. manifested in the form of conflict actions, and hidden. The latent form is most often expressed in social competition based on an evaluative comparison of one's own and another's groups in favor of one's own. In the course of conflict, the importance of two important conditions of social competition increases:

1. Members of their ethnic group are perceived as more similar to each other than they actually are. The emphasis on intragroup similarity leads to deindividualization, which is expressed in a sense of one's own anonymity and an undifferentiated attitude towards individual representatives of a foreign group. Deindividualization facilitates the implementation of aggressive actions in relation to "opponents".

2. Members of other ethnic groups are perceived as more different from each other than they really are. Often the cultural and even linguistic boundaries between ethnic communities are indefinite and difficult to discern. But in a conflict situation, subjectively, they are perceived as bright and clear.

Thus, in the course of an interethnic conflict, intergroup differentiation exists in the form of opposition of one's own and another's groups: the majority is opposed to a minority, Christians are opposed to Muslims, and the indigenous population is opposed to “newcomers”. Although such social contradictions play a decisive role among the causes of conflict actions, these actions themselves can arise if the warring parties realize the incompatibility of their interests and have the appropriate motivation. At the same time, the stage of awareness and emotional maturation of the conflict acquires great importance. Often, before the beginning of the conflict actions themselves, a certain time passes, even years and decades, during which an ethnic group or community unites, accumulating energy around the idea of ​​revenge or revenge.

From a psychological point of view, the conflict not only does not begin with the beginning of conflict actions, but also does not end with their end. After the end of direct opposition, the conflict can persist in the form of social competition and manifest itself in the creation of the image of the enemy and all kinds of prejudices.

When explaining the nature of interethnic conflicts, behavioral concepts occupy a special place. The authors do not deny the importance of socio-structural factors, but focus on the socio-psychological mechanisms that stimulate conflict. Within the framework of these concepts, the well-known theory of frustration-aggression deserves special attention (in this case, frustration is a state of danger that leads to aggression). Studying real socio-cultural and political situations, sociologists and psychologists filled this theory with concrete content, experimentally highlighting the phenomenon of relative deprivation in interethnic conflicts. At the same time, researchers not only emphasize the danger of deprivation due to life conditions that do not suit the group, but they also consider deprivation itself as a gap between people's expectations and their needs.

Thus, an interethnic conflict in the broad sense of the word should be understood as any competition between ethnic groups (or ethnic groups) - from a real confrontation for the possession of the necessary resources to social competition - in cases where, in the perception of at least one of the parties to the confrontation, the party is defined with in terms of the ethnicity of its members.

In addition to searching for the causes of conflicts, the psychology of intergroup relations tries to answer several more questions, and first of all, the question of how the conflict proceeds and how the conflicting parties change in its course. But before answering this question, it is necessary to pay attention to interethnic tension as a phenomenon that gives an idea of ​​the modality of interethnic conflicts. Russian ethnopsychologist G.U. Soldatova distinguishes four phases of interethnic tension: latent, frustration, conflict and crisis.

The latent phase of tension is, on the whole, a normal psychological background not only for ethno-contact situations, but also for any other situations, usually associated with elements of novelty or surprise. The latent phase of interethnic tension exists in any multinational society. By itself, the situation of latent interethnic tension presupposes positive relations. This means that if there are any problems in society, then their causes are not associated with interethnic relations. The meaning of ethnicity is determined exclusively by the specific situation of interpersonal communication and is characterized by relative adequacy.

In interethnic interaction, as in any other positive interpersonal relations, both cooperative and competitive processes are combined. But even at this level there is no emotional neutrality. The transition of the social situation to a different plane of intergroup relations can set a new level of emotional tension. A vivid example of this is the fact of the collapse of the USSR, where latent tension, with all the former decency of interethnic relations, suddenly revealed its powerful explosive potential.

The frustration phase of tension is based on a feeling of oppressive anxiety, despair, anger, irritation, disappointment. Negative experiences increase the degree of emotional arousal of people. At this stage, tension becomes visible and manifests itself in the forms of everyday nationalism (“blacks”, “googly eyes”, “chocks”, etc.). Frustration tension from the intra-group space gradually penetrates into inter-group relations. The main sign of frustration tension is the growth of emotional arousal. An increase in the number of frustrated individuals increases the level of affective charge in society. As a result, it becomes possible to "launch" the processes of emotional infection and imitation. The increase in the intensity of frustration tension is directly related to the level of social tension in society and its transformation into interethnic tension. This means that other ethnic groups are beginning to be perceived as a source of frustration. And although the real conflict of interest has not yet been concretized, group positions have already been identified. Ethnic boundaries become tangible, their permeability decreases. The importance of linguistic, cultural and psychological factors in interethnic communication is increasing. At this stage, the main psychological parameters of interethnic tension are laid in the mass ethnic self-consciousness: dependence, infringement, injustice, hostility, guilt, incompatibility, rivalry, distrust, fear.

The conflict phase of tension has a rational basis, since a real conflict of incompatible goals, interests, values, etc. arises between the warring parties at this stage. The increase in interethnic tension forms intergroup interaction mainly in the form of rivalry, which provokes the growth of antagonism between ethnic groups. Mass psychosis on the basis of the process of mental inflation generates a group reaction of the so-called "militant enthusiasm" as a form of social protection, involving active entry into the struggle for significant social values, and primarily for those associated with cultural tradition. At this stage, the processes of ethnic mobilization of groups accelerate sharply and reach the greatest certainty. Single cases of manifestation of everyday negativism are replaced by mass ones, and, in addition, the distance between negative images and corresponding actions is significantly reduced. The more people are infected with the process of psychic inflation, the more "militant enthusiasts" - nationals - appear.

The crisis phase of tension appears when inter-ethnic conflicts can no longer be resolved by civilized methods, and at the same time, these conflicts in this phase require immediate resolution. The main distinguishing features of the crisis phase are fear, hatred and violence. Hatred and fear closely bind ethnic groups and become the leading drivers of people's behavior, and violence turns into the main form of control of the parties over each other. That is why this phase of interethnic tension can be described as violent. In the crisis phase, mental inflation reaches its extreme limits both in intensity and in breadth of distribution. The general level of emotional arousal rises to such an extent that emotions become a powerful stimulus to action and an irrational basis for increased activity, called social paranoia. One of the most important signs of social paranoia is the loss of feedback. In turn, an important reason for the loss of feedback, i.e. connection with reality, is uncontrollable fear as the most important motivator of action.

In a crisis situation of interethnic tension, the irrationality of behavior is especially characteristic of psychopathic personalities of a paranoid warehouse, who act as the central subjects of emotional infection.

Psychology distinguishes several stages of ethnic conflict:

1. The stage of a conflict situation, at which contradictions arise between ethnic groups that have incompatible goals.

2. The stage of understanding the conflict situation, i.e. the stage at which the opposing sides realize the incompatibility of their interests and have the appropriate motivation for behavior.

3. The stage of conflict interaction is the most acute, emotionally intense, characterized by the predominance of irrationality.

In ethnopsychology, there are different approaches to identifying ways (scenarios) to resolve interethnic conflicts. Summarizing the experience of foreign approaches to solving this problem (M. Sherif, K. Lorenz, Z. Freud, T. Adorno, etc.), we can identify several main scenarios for resolving interethnic conflicts.

The first scenario can be conditionally called ghettoization (from the word ghetto). It manifests itself in situations where a person finds himself in another society, but tries or is forced (due to ignorance of the language, natural timidity, a different religion, or for any other reason) to avoid conflicts with a new culture and its representatives. In this case, a person tries to create his own cultural environment, surrounding himself with fellow countrymen and thereby isolating himself from the influence of a foreign cultural environment.

The second scenario for resolving interethnic conflicts, assimilation, is essentially the exact opposite of ghettoization, since in this case a person completely abandons his culture and seeks to immerse himself in a new environment in order to acquire all the baggage necessary for life in other conditions. This scenario is by no means always successful, and the main reason for this is either the lack of plasticity of the personality of the assimilated person, or the resistance of the cultural environment, of which he intends to become a part.

The third scenario is an intermediate one, consisting in cultural exchange and interaction. The full implementation of this scenario requires a benevolent and open position on both sides, which, unfortunately, is extremely rare in practice, especially if the parties are initially unequal: one side is the titular group, the other is emigrants or refugees.

The fourth scenario is associated with partial assimilation, when a person sacrifices his culture in favor of a foreign cultural environment in any one of the aspects of his life (for example, at work - the norms of a foreign culture, in the family, at leisure, in a religious environment - the norms of his traditional culture) . This scenario is considered the most common. It is typical for the majority of emigrants, who, as a rule, divide their life abroad into two parts. In this case, assimilation turns out to be partial, either when ghettoization is impossible, or when, for some reason, complete assimilation is impossible. But partial assimilation can also be a completely intentional positive result of interethnic interaction.

And finally, the last of the proposed scenarios for resolving interethnic conflicts is cultural colonization.

It makes sense to talk about this scenario when representatives of a foreign ethnic group, having got to another country, actively impose their own values, norms, and behavior patterns on the titular ethnic group. At the same time, colonization in this case does not mean colonization in the political sense, which is only one of the forms of cultural colonization.

The possibilities and ways of resolving interethnic conflicts depend on the type and form of the conflict itself. One of the well-known methods of mitigating conflicts in the social sciences is the deconsolidation of the forces involved in the conflict. In the process of such conflict resolution, it is important to exclude the influence of factors that can consolidate one or another conflicting party. An example of such influence may well be the use of force or the threat of its use.

There are informational ways to resolve conflicts. In this case, we mean the mutual exchange of information between groups under conditions that contribute to changing the situation. At the same time, the content of information is extremely important when covering particularly acute conflicts, since even neutral messages can lead to an outburst of emotions and an escalation of tension between the conflicting parties. In using the informational way of resolving the conflict, one should abandon the approach according to which it is better not to discuss the interethnic conflict at all in the media.

Most modern conflictologists are unanimous in their opinion

that the most effective way to resolve a conflict situation is to interrupt the conflict, which allows you to expand the effect of pragmatic approaches to its settlement. One of the positive aspects of this method is that as a result of its application, changes occur in the emotional background of the conflict - the "intensity of passions" actually decreases, psychoses subside, and, in addition, the consolidation of conflicting groups weakens.

Nevertheless, none of the psychological methods of resolving interethnic conflicts is ideal, since not a single psychological mechanism is capable of resolving such complex ethno-social problems as interethnic conflicts are. That is why all possible efforts of specialists dealing with these problems should be primarily focused on the prevention of interethnic conflicts.