Russian civilization is the civilization of Mera. We are stubbornly pulled either to the west or to the east, but we have confidently taken our own place in the world.

And what is the difference between Russian civilization and others? First of all, this is the principle by which countries and peoples united in the process of globalization. The West is showing a rather aggressive policy, expanding its zone of influence by oppressing or even destroying the natives. An example of this is the multimillion-dollar victims during the "conquest of America", and they did not particularly stand on ceremony with the colonies, squeezing resources like juice from an orange.

At the origins of our Motherland there were other moral principles. It is here that the basic characteristics of mentality, moral, ethical, anthropological and moral attitudes have been preserved. Our people are aware of and distinguish between true and imaginary values.

Russia in its entire history has not destroyed any of the indigenous peoples that live on its territory. Many were given writing and education in general. They harmoniously fit into a multi-million, multinational civilization, enriching each other's culture. Infrastructure was being created. The friendship of peoples was cultivated in line with mutual respect. The Russian concept of globalization is distinguished by the goals and meaning of life.

Briefly 10, 11 grade

• Red wolf - a message about a rare animal

  Among the known species of animals in the world of fauna, there are those that have features due to which they can be classified as rare. It may be unusual appearance, warm hide or nutritious animal meat

• Crusades - message report grade 6

  The Crusades are an aggressive expansion of representatives of various knightly orders to the territory of the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean.

• The life and work of Seton-Thompson

  Ernest Seton-Thompson (1860-1946), real name Ernest Evan Thompson, is one of the well-known Canadian writers who gained popularity with their unusual nature essays.

• Earth's magnetic field - message report in physics (grade 6, 8, 9)

  A magnetic field is a field that arises from a current of charged particles. It can act on electric charges, as well as on bodies with magnetic properties.

Everyone cannot imagine planet Earth without the plant world, because plants are an integral part of all living things, thanks to which other living beings on the planet also live.

Stages of development of Russian civilization

Scientists have been arguing about the origin of Russian civilization and the stages of its development for a long time. There are many opinions about the time and place of the origin of civilization, and about the prospects for its development.

Russian civilization originated in the 9th century with the emergence of the Old Russian state. Russian civilization goes through several stages in its development.

Stage I - Kiev-Novgorod Rus (IX to XII centuries). During these years, the Old Russian state was the strongest power in Europe. Our northern neighbors called Rus' - Gardariki, the Country of Cities. These cities carried on a lively trade with East and West, with the entire civilized world of that time. The peak of the power of Rus' at this stage is the middle of the 11th century - the years of the reign of Yaroslav the Wise. Under this prince, Kyiv was one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, and the Kiev prince was one of the most authoritative European sovereigns. The German princes, the Byzantine emperor, the kings of Sweden, Norway, Poland, Hungary, distant France were looking for marriage alliances with the family of Yaroslav. But after the death of Yaroslav, his grandchildren began to fight for power and the power of Rus' was undermined.

The XIII century was marked by a crisis associated with the invasion of the Tatar-Mongols from the East and the Crusaders from the West. In the struggle against the enemies, Rus' revealed new urban centers, new princes - collectors and liberators of the Russian land. Thus began the next stage in the development of our civilization.

Stage II is Moscow Rus. It begins in the 13th century, when almost all of Rus' was under the yoke of the Horde, and ends in the 16th century, when the powerful and united Russian state was reborn on the site of the fragmented principalities, but with its capital in Moscow.

The peak of this stage is the reign of Ivan III at the turn of the 15th - 16th centuries. At this time, Russia is freed from the Horde yoke, accepts the legacy of Byzantium and becomes the dominant Orthodox power in the world. In the XVI century, under Ivan the Terrible, the territory of Russia increased several times due to the conquest of the Kazan, Astrakhan and Siberian khanates. True, the struggle of Ivan the Terrible with the boyars and the unsuccessful war for access to the Baltic Sea with Livonia gave rise to another crisis in Russian civilization.

The crisis began at the beginning of the XVII century, in connection with the suppression of the ruling dynasty of Rurik. He gave rise to Troubles in the country and wars with Sweden and Poland. The result was the coming to power of a new dynasty - the Romanovs. After a period of its strengthening, a new stage of Russian civilization began.

Stage III - Russian Empire XVIII - XX centuries. With the coming to power of Peter the Great and thanks to his reforms, Russia again becomes as powerful a state as Great Britain and France, which at that time were the leading powers of Europe.

The real peak of this stage is the end of the 18th century, when, after the wise reign of Peter I, Catherine I, Elizabeth Petrovna, under Catherine II, Russia, which won the wars with Turkey, divided Poland with Austria and Prussia, completely opened its way to Europe.

The crisis of the Russian Empire began in the middle of the 19th century, when, first because of the preservation of serfdom, then because of the preservation of autocracy, Russia was shaken by uprisings, protests, acts of terror.

The peak of these uprisings is the beginning of the 20th century, when 2 revolutions of 1905 and 1917 destroy the Russian Empire, transforming it later into the USSR. Thus begins the next stage in the development of Russian civilization.

Stage IV begins at the beginning of the 20th century, in the 1920s. It continues to this day. This is the stage of dynamism, that is, the rapid development of the state and society.

Considering that, on average, each stage of the development of Russian civilization lasts 400 years, and the stage in which we now live began 80 years ago, we can say that now Russian civilization is at initial stage fourth stage of its development.

The whole history of Russia is a continuous process of expansion of geographical space that has dragged on for many centuries. Such a path can be called extensive: Russia constantly faced the problem of developing new lands as it moved east. Given the difficult geographical and climatic conditions, low population density compared to Western Europe, it was a very difficult task to make this "scattering" space civilized.

The most fertile in Russia is the steppe, where the predominant type of soil is fertile chernozem, the thickness of which reaches three meters. Chernozem covers an area of ​​about 100 million hectares; this is the core of the agricultural regions of Russia. However, the steppe lands began to be developed relatively late - only at the end of the 15th-16th centuries. The Russians completely took control of the steppe at the end of the 18th century, after a decisive defeat inflicted on the Turks. Areas where only cattle breeding has long been developed, turned into agricultural areas under the hands of the Russian plowman.

At the end of the XVI century. The campaign of the Cossack chieftain Yermak (1581-1582) marked the beginning of the development of Siberia. The advance across Siberia was incredibly fast: during the first half of the 15th century. the colonists covered the distance from the Ural Mountains to the shores of the Pacific Ocean.

At the beginning of their history, the Eastern Slavs had a territory that was not very favorable for the development of agriculture. The yield was low (as a rule, "sam-three", i.e. one sown grain brought only 3 grains at harvest). Moreover, this situation in Russia persisted until the 19th century. In Europe, by the XVI-XVII centuries. the yield reached “self-five”, “self-six”, and in England, a country with highly developed agriculture, “self-ten”. In addition, the harsh continental climate extremely shortened the period of agricultural work. In the north, in the regions of Novgorod and Pskov, it lasted only four months, in the central regions, near Moscow, five and a half months. In a more favorable position were the areas around Kyiv. (For the Western European peasant, this period covered 8-9 months, that is, he had much more time to cultivate the land.)

Low productivity was partly compensated by crafts (hunting, fishing, beekeeping). This source of well-being has not dried up for a long time due to the development of more and more new regions with practically untouched nature.

With such harvests, the peasant could, of course, feed himself, but the land provided little surplus. And this, in turn, affected the development of animal husbandry, and trade, and ultimately the slow growth of cities, since their population, mostly freed from rural labor, needed products supplied by the villages.

Huge distances and lack of roads hindered the development of trade. The rivers provided great assistance here, many of which had not only local, but also major international significance. The most important was the famous waterway "from the Varangians to the Greeks", i.e. from Scandinavia (from the Gulf of Finland to Lake Ladoga and further to the upper reaches of the Dnieper) to Byzantium, to the Black Sea. Another route went along the Volga and further to the Caspian Sea. However, the rivers, of course, could not provide a strong economic connection between all regions (especially as the geographical scope of the country grew). The weak development of sales markets did not contribute to the economic specialization of various regions, and also did not create incentives for the intensification of agriculture.

Together with Christianity Ancient Rus' received from Byzantium the idea of ​​monarchical power, which quickly entered the political consciousness. The era of the baptism of Rus' coincided with the very period of the formation of its statehood, when centralization and the establishment of a strong one-man power of the Grand Duke became a vital necessity. Historians believe that Vladimir's choice fell precisely on Orthodoxy - among many other reasons - and because, unlike Catholicism, it transferred all power to the emperor.

Compiler of one of the first works ancient Russian literature- "Izbornik" (1076), who called himself John the Sinful, wrote that "neglect about the authorities is neglect about God himself"; experiencing fear of the prince, a person learns to fear God. Moreover, worldly power was presented to John the Sinful as an instrument of the Divine will, with its help the highest justice on earth is carried out, for "sinners are punished by the prince."

The ideal of strong power in the era of fragmentation (XIII century) was put forward by Daniil Zatochnik, who wrote the “Prayer” addressed to a certain prince: “the head of the puddles for the wives, and the prince for the husband, and God for the prince.”

But the idea of ​​sole power was inseparably connected with the demands that this power be humane and wise. Interesting in this regard is the "Instruction" of Vladimir Monomakh, a famous political figure and a brilliant writer. Monomakh created in his "Instruction", dedicated, obviously, to the heir, the image of an ideal prince. He sought to ensure that the power was moral and based on the observance of the gospel commandments. Therefore, it must protect the weak, carry out justice. It is known that Monomakh himself refused to execute even the worst criminals, arguing that only God determines the life span of a person. In addition, the prince, from his point of view, must constantly learn: “what you know how, don’t forget that good, and what you don’t know how to learn.” It was considered important that the prince surround himself with wise advisers, regardless of their social status. So, Daniil the Sharpener wrote: “Do not deprive a wise beggar of bread, do not elevate a rich fool to the clouds.”

Of course, between these recommendations and real life there was a huge difference. In a fierce struggle for power, the princes committed both perjury and murder, but the very existence of this kind of ideal made it possible to evaluate and criticize the actions of the authorities.

The idea of ​​power underwent changes during the formation of a centralized autocratic state - Muscovite Rus'. This era coincided with the capture of Constantinople (1453) and the fall of Byzantium. Rus' remained the only Orthodox state that defended its political independence (the kingdoms of Serbia and Bulgaria lost it even before the fall of Byzantium). Ivan III married the daughter of the brother of the last Byzantine emperor, Sophia Palaiologos, becoming, as it were, the successor of the Byzantine monarchs. The Grand Duke of Moscow was now called, after the Byzantine model, tsar and auto-krator (autocrat).

The process of religious and political elevation of power was completed by the theory “Moscow is the third Rome”, which at the beginning of the 16th century. was formulated by a monk of one of the Pskov monasteries - Philotheus. He argued that the Muscovite tsar is now the only custodian of the true faith on the whole earth and the lord of all Orthodox, for the two Romes (i.e. Ancient Rome and Constantinople) fell, the third - Moscow - stands, and the fourth will not happen. Rus' was declared the last and eternal kingdom of the Orthodox world, the heir to the greatness of the ancient illustrious powers. In this era, the idea of ​​strong, unrestricted power became especially popular.

The autocratic power was supported by a church group headed by hegumen Joseph Volotsky (1439-1515), who proclaimed the divine essence of the tsar’s power: only by “nature” is he like a man, “the power of dignity is like from God.” Joseph Volotsky urged to submit to the Grand Duke and to fulfill his will, "as if they were working for the Lord, and not for a man."

It is characteristic that in that era, the representatives of power themselves did not even think that their capabilities should be limited in some way.

In Russia, as the historian of the XIX century wrote. V. O. Klyuchevsky, the tsar was a kind of patrimony: the whole country for him is property in which he acts as a sovereign master.

This consciousness of the votchinnik manifested itself especially clearly in Ivan the Terrible (reigned: 1533-1584). Ivan the Terrible believed that the actions of the tsar were actually beyond the jurisdiction: one could not accuse him of crimes and dishonor him. The king, in his opinion, is not obliged to obey religious and moral norms - they are good for monks, and not for an autocrat who is free in his actions. Of course, due to many personal characteristics of Ivan the Terrible, the features of despotism in his theory acquired such a defiant sharpness. However, the essence of those ideas about the role of power and its relation to society, which for a long time dominated the minds of the ruling elite, Ivan IV expressed quite accurately.

How did society react to these manifestations of authoritarianism? In that era, several political theories appeared, the authors of which raised the question of the humanity of power and the degree of its responsibility to society in different ways.

The emerging Russian nobility put forward its own ideologist - Ivan Peresvetov, who, in petitions addressed to Ivan the Terrible, outlined a program of transformations in the country. From his point of view, the king should rule together with his advisers, the thought, and not start a single business without a preliminary discussion with them. However, Peresvetov believed that power should be "formidable." If the king is meek and humble, then his kingdom is impoverished, but if he is formidable and wise, then the country prospers. Peresvetov describes the troubles brought to Rus' by the arbitrariness of the boyars, the extortion of governors, laziness and mutual enmity of the royal servants. But he considered the only way out of this situation to be the strengthening of despotism, focusing (which is very characteristic) on the East, on the orders that reigned in Turkey. True, at the same time, Peresvetov emphasized that in a truly strong state, subjects should feel not like slaves, but free people.

Another position, oriented towards the West, was occupied by Prince Andrei Kurbsky. In his treatise The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow, he acted as a defender of the estate monarchy: the tsar must rule not only with the participation of his advisers, but also "all the people." Autocratic power, in his opinion, contradicts the very principles of Christianity: he compares the king-despot with Satan, who imagines himself equal to God.

It is with Kurbsky that the development of Russian liberal political thought begins, which in its ideals is close to the political theories of Western European society. Unfortunately, the implementation of these theories in Russia turned out to be a centuries-old painful process, on the way of which there were serious obstacles.

Fedor Karpov, a prominent diplomat and bright thinker of the 16th century, attached great importance to justice and legality in society. The public good for him was the main basis of the power of the country. "Long-suffering", the obedience of society, combined with lawlessness, ultimately destroy the state.

Unlike Western Europe, Russia has not established such relations between the state and society in which society influences the state and corrects its actions. The situation in Russia was different: here society was under the strong overwhelming influence of the state, which, of course, weakened it (remember the basic principle of Eastern despotism: a strong state - a weak society), directed its development from above - most often by the most severe methods, although often important goals for the country were pursued.

Ancient Rus' gave a variant of the non-synthetic and therefore slow development of feudalism. Like some countries of Western Europe (East Germany and Scandinavia), the Eastern Slavs went over to feudalism directly from the primitive communal system. A definitely negative role in the socio-economic life of the country was played by an external factor - the Mongol-Tatar invasion, which threw Rus' back in many respects.

Given the small population and the extensive nature of the development of Russia, the desire of the feudal lords to prevent the peasants from leaving the land was inevitable. However, the ruling class was not able to solve this problem on its own - the feudal lords resorted mainly to personal agreements not to accept the fugitives.

Under these conditions, having assumed the task of non-economic coercion of the peasantry, the authorities created a system of state serfdom, playing an active role in establishing feudal relations.

As a result, enslavement was carried out from above, by gradually depriving the peasants of the opportunity to move from one feudal lord to another (1497 - the law on St. George's Day, 1550 - an increase in the "elderly", 1581 - the introduction of "reserved years"). Finally, the Code of 1649 finally established serfdom, giving the feudal lord complete freedom to dispose not only of property, but also of the personality of the peasant. Serfdom as a form of feudal dependence was a very difficult variant of it (compared to Western Europe, where the peasant retained the right to private property). As a result, a special situation developed in Russia: the peak in the increase in the personal dependence of the peasantry fell precisely at the time when the country was already on the way to the new era. Serfdom, which persisted until 1861, gave a peculiar form to the development of trade and money relations in the countryside: entrepreneurship, in which not only the nobility, but also the peasantry took an active part, was based on the labor of serfs, and not civilian workers. Peasant entrepreneurs, who for the most part did not receive legal rights, did not have strong guarantees protecting their activities.

However, the reasons for the slow development of capitalism, especially in the countryside, were rooted not only in this. The specifics of the Russian community also played an important role here. The Russian community, being the main cell of the social organism, determined the dynamics of economic and social life for many centuries. The collective beginnings were very strongly expressed in it. Having survived under the conditions of feudal property as a production cell, the community lost its self-government, being under the administration of the feudal lord.

More pronounced elements of self-government were among the black-haired (i.e. state) peasantry: here the local elected administration was preserved - zemstvo elders, which received state support in the era of Ivan the Terrible. A special type of community was given by the Cossacks. Here, the opportunities for the development of the individual principle were wider, but the Cossack community was not of decisive importance in Russia.

The community itself was not a feature of Russian society - it existed in the era of feudalism and in Western Europe. However, the Western community, which was based on its German version, was more dynamic than the Russian one. In it, the individual principle developed much faster, which ultimately decomposed the community. Quite early in the European community, the annual redistribution of land was eliminated, individual mowings stood out, etc.

In Russia, in the patrimonial and black-moss communities, redistributions were maintained until the 19th century, supporting the principle of equalization in the life of the village. Even after the reform, when the community was drawn into commodity-money relations, it continued its traditional existence - partly due to the support of the government, and mainly due to the powerful support that it had among the peasantry. The history of agrarian reforms clearly shows how viable and at the same time conservative this social unit was. The peasantry in Russia made up the bulk of the population, and this mass was dominated by models of communal consciousness covering a variety of aspects (attitude to work, close connection between the individual and the “world”, specific ideas about the state and the social role of the tsar, etc.). But most importantly, by supporting traditionalism and equalization in the economic life of the village, the community put up fairly strong barriers to the penetration and establishment of bourgeois relations.

The dynamics of the development of the ruling class, the feudal lords, was also largely determined by the policy of the state. Quite early in Russia, two forms of land tenure developed: the boyar estate, the owner of which had the right to inherit and complete freedom to dispose of the land, and the estate, which (without the right to sell or donate) complained about serving the nobility (service people).

From the second half of the XV century. the active growth of the nobility began, and the support of the government, primarily Ivan the Terrible, played a significant role in this process. Being the main pillar of the central government, it also carried certain obligations (payment of taxes, compulsory military service). During the reign of Peter I, the entire class of feudal lords was turned into a service estate, and only under Catherine II, in an era that was not accidentally called the “golden age” of the nobility, did it become a privileged class in the true sense.

The church was not a truly independent political force either. The government was interested in its support primarily because of the powerful ideological impact on society. Therefore, it is no coincidence that already in the first centuries after the adoption of Christianity, the grand dukes made attempts to free themselves from Byzantine interference in church affairs and installed Russian metropolitans. Since 1589, an independent patriarchal throne was established in Russia, but the church became more dependent on the state. Several attempts to change the subordinate position of the church, undertaken first by nonpossessors (XVI century), and later, in the XVII century, by Patriarch Nikon, failed. In the era of Peter I, the final nationalization of the church took place; "kingdom" defeated "priesthood". The patriarchate was replaced by the Synod (the Spiritual College), that is, it became one of the state departments. The income of the church came under the control of the state, and the management of monastic and diocesan estates began to be carried out by secular officials.

The urban population in Russia also had its own specifics and differed in many respects from the Western European urban class. Inside Russian cities, as a rule, there were patrimonial lands of feudal lords (white settlements), in which patrimonial craft developed, which was a very serious competition for the settlement - personally free artisans. (The exception was the city-republics of Novgorod and Pskov, where the situation was reversed: the feudal lords were forced to submit to the city.)

Posad never became any significant socio-political force in Russia. Moreover, the general increase in non-economic coercion also affected the settlement: like serfs, the townspeople were forbidden to move from one settlement to another. The underdeveloped social activity of cities was also expressed in the fact that only separate elements of elected government were formed in them (city elders, elected from the so-called "favorite", i.e., wealthy strata). However, this happened relatively late, in the era of Ivan IV, and, which is very characteristic, with the assistance of the central government.

This nature of relations between the state and society, it would seem, is very reminiscent of the eastern version. The state plays a decisive role in the life of civilization, interferes in many of its processes, including economic ones, hinders some and encourages the development of others. The society, which is under the excessive tutelage of the state power, is weakened, not consolidated, and therefore is not able to correct the actions of the government.

But in fact, other features appeared in the political life of medieval Russia, sharply distinguishing it from the Eastern model. This is confirmed by the Zemsky Sobors, the central representative body that appeared in Russia in the middle of the 16th century. True, in this case, the Russian "parliament" was not a conquest of society: it was created "from above", by decree of Ivan the Terrible, and was highly dependent on the royal power. However, this does not mean that the Cathedral was some kind of "artificial", non-viable phenomenon. During the Time of Troubles, he showed great activity and independence. During the years of the Polish-Swedish intervention, when the monarchy was in deep crisis, it was the Zemsky Sobor that became the main organizing force in the struggle for state and national revival. True, as soon as the monarchy was strengthened again, the role of cathedrals began to decrease, and then completely disappeared.

The cathedral was never able to become a permanent body of power, with a legally fixed status and powers. In this case, society did not show the necessary perseverance and cohesion, and the state preferred to return to the usual version of relations with subjects for a long time.

At the end of the XX century. civilizational processes in Russia were aggravated by the painful entry of Russian society into the sphere of market relations. Under these conditions, an important place is occupied by the processes of self-identification of society, awareness of its essence, "self" and place in the modern world. Russia is looking for new ways of rebirth and upsurge in the conditions of a certain socio-cultural revival that has emerged in the first years of the new century.

The collapse of the USSR and the liquidation of socialism with all its ideological and social attitudes in the last decade of the 20th century. led to the deepest not only economic, but also spiritual, value and moral crisis. Russian civilization found itself without unifying ideas and values, in a spiritual vacuum. Attempts were made to find a way out in Russia in the violent “religious revival” of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, primarily through Orthodoxy. But it was not possible to completely close the spiritual gap with religious beliefs. For many, especially representatives of power structures, Orthodoxy became just a new “ideological fashion” to which they had to adapt. But the religious "boom" did not make the majority of the Russian population more moral, humane, noble.

On the contrary, the powerful scientific and rational potential of the Russian civilization was significantly weakened and undermined. Having discarded all past social and spiritual ideas, ideals and values, in Russia over the past two decades they have not been able to “find” and acquire a “national idea” that unites the masses of people and people, because such ideas are born only in the most united people, and not presented from above.

21st century posed before Russia and Russian civilization the most important problem of the future, development prospects. Orthodoxy proceeds from the fact that only religion and faith in God, "enlightened patriotism" will ensure the salvation of Russia and its future. But in reality, the successful development of Russian civilization in the XXI century. requires

firstly, the whole complex, system of measures and directions,

secondly, a new course and qualitatively new strategic lines of progress.

The movement towards a progressive future must include three main and interrelated components.

The first is the complex and systemic development of Russian civilization: a powerful upsurge in the economy and culture, a strong democratic state, an inspiring idea, high spiritual and moral values, in the dissemination of which religion will also take its place; social values ​​that unite and direct the actions of the masses of people - unbelievers and believers - to common purpose prosperity of the country; strengthening the principle of social justice and social well-being, overcoming the gap between wealth and poverty; ensuring the unity of the people in the name of carrying out the common cause of the rise of civilization; strengthening cooperation and friendship between the peoples of Russia.

The second component is the promotion of new priorities and new principles for the rise of civilization: man and humanism.

The third component is new progressive goals, new guidelines, new ideas and ideals for bringing Russian civilization to a qualitatively higher level of progress. In addition to the well-known development alternatives in the form of capitalism, socialism, a mixed society, scientists and practitioners have proposed other possible left-wing options, left-wing scenarios for a breakthrough of civilization into the future: new socialism, free association of free people, civilism.

The progressive future of Russian civilization can be ensured by an organic combination of a comprehensive-systemic breakthrough forward with new humane priorities and principles of development, with a new noble goal, idea and ideal of progress, which together can give Russian civilization a qualitatively new, attractive and attractive image. The new future of Russia should be aimed at the priorities and goals of man, justice, freedom and humanism.

In addition to the moral and spiritual revival, social revival, the orientation of people towards lofty social goals, complemented at the same time by a strong economy based on the achievements of the modern scientific and technological revolution, and a developed culture have a huge role for the future of Russian civilization. In sum, these are indispensable conditions for the prosperous future of Russian civilization. At the same time, one should not lose sight of the external situation that has developed within the framework of world civilization and is marked by the features of a systemic crisis, especially in the countries of the capitalist world: raw materials, social, environmental, spiritual, human, humanitarian.

Modern Russia, in fact, continues to exist due to the remnants of the former economic, scientific and educational potential, as well as the sale of natural resources. However, they are not endless and will not be able to ensure the life of the nation for a long time.

Today, civilization in Russia, as well as modern world civilization, is in need of significant renewal and substantial restructuring. It is necessary to move towards a qualitatively different civilization, new in nature and essence.

Features of Russian civilization.
When they talk about Russia in the world, they mean a civilization that is not like Western and Eastern, into which the ways of life of the peoples inhabiting the Eurasian continent are conditionally divided. It is impossible to say for sure that Russia is developing according to any particular type. Various scientists at one time - the so-called "Westerners" and "Slavophiles" - proved the legitimacy of Russia's attraction to one or another pole, but such a specific merger with any civilization did not happen.
Two main differential aspects are distinguished, according to which the concept of Russia as a special civilization is formed.
First, the geographical factor plays an important role. The fact is that from the moment of its inception and development, the Russian state, no matter how it is called, no matter what formation it belongs to, has always balanced between East and West. That is, at first this state originated in the western part of Eurasia, then the territory gradually spread to the east. It is customary to divide Russia territorially in relation to East and West along the Ural Mountains. Hence the notions about the coat of arms of the state: the creators of the emblem were forced to depict an eagle with two heads, so that each looked to the western and eastern sides, respectively.
Secondly, historically it turned out that in different eras Russia experienced the influence of both Eastern and Western civilizations. For example, the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars on our land marked a long stage of life "under the East." In troubled times, Russian land was full of foreign invaders who tried to undermine its strength and self-determination. Under Peter the Great, there is a significant bias towards choosing the Western path of development. And so on until now.
However, even with such visible “throws”, Russian statehood has established itself as a special civilization, absorbing, like a sponge, the features of all civilizations that influenced it at different times. The Russian way of life is fully consistent with one of the definitions of the concept of "civilization" - a society frozen in a certain locus of space and time. The economic, material, spiritual subsystems of this society are unique in their own way. That is why modern Russian society remains one of the most special. It is considered one of the most tolerant in the world, which is why hundreds of nationalities get along within the same state, respecting the traditions and customs of each other. Perhaps, the term "multinational" is suitable only for Russia, which has formed over its centuries-old history into a unique social civilizational complex.