- Racial theory, racology, scientific racism (eng. Scientific racism) - a set of hypotheses and ideas about the decisive influence of racial differences on history, culture, social and political system people, about the existence of superiority of some human races over others. Sometimes (for example, as with Ludwig Ferdinand Clauss) racial theory is not reducible to purely biological factors. Racial theory is the basis of racial discrimination and is currently considered pseudoscientific. Sometimes racial theory is directly identified with racism.
As a theory, scientific racism uses anthropology (especially physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniology, and others scientific disciplines to compile anthropological typologies that support classifications of the human population to divide human races into “higher” and “lower”. Scientific racism was prevalent during the period of neo-imperialism (1880s to 1914), where it was used to justify white European imperialism, and reached its greatest rise from the 1920s and was finally abandoned with the end of World War II. Since the last years of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as an outdated phenomenon, which is used to justify racist views based on the belief in the alleged existence of categories and hierarchies of “superior” and “inferior” human races.
After the end of the Second World War and the Holocaust, scientific racism as a theory and activity was condemned, in particular in the UNESCO anti-racist statement “The Race Question” (1950): “We must distinguish biological race and the myth of “race”. In all cases of social use, “race” is not so much a biological phenomenon, but a social myth. The myth of “race” gave rise to huge number human and social harm. IN last years he took upon himself a heavy burden of human lives and incalculable suffering.”
The term "scientific racism" is a slur for modern theories, such as the 1994 book "The Bell Curve," which examined the fundamental difference in IQ and concluded that genetics explained at least part of the difference. in intelligence between races. Critics argued that similar works based on a racist assumption not backed up by meaningful evidence. Publications such as Science Magazine Mankind Quarterly, founded as a decidedly "out-of-touch" group, has been accused of scientific racism for publishing articles on controversial interpretations of anthropogenesis, intelligence, ethnography, archaeology, mythology, and language. The derogatory label "scientific racism" is applied to those studies that attempt to establish a connection between, for example, race and intelligence, and claim that this promotes the idea that there are "superior" and "inferior" races.
Racial theory.
Racial theory dates back to the era of slavery, when, in order to justify the existing system, the ideas of a natural division of the population due to innate qualities into two breeds of people - slave owners and slaves - were developed. The racial theory of state and law received its greatest development and distribution at the end of the 19th - first half of the 20th century. It formed the basis of fascist politics and ideology. One of the founders of the racial theory of the origin of the state was the German philosopher and writer F. Nietzsche (1884-1900), who in his work “The Will to Power” formulated those provisions that later became the racial doctrine . Nietzsche divided all individuals into three types. In every healthy society, he believed, there are three different, but mutually gravitating physiological types: first, brilliant people, there are few of them; the second is the executors of the ideas of geniuses, their right hand and the best students, guardians of law, order and security (kings, warriors, judges and other guardians of the law); the third is the mass of mediocre people. He reduces the entire world socio-political history to the struggle of two wills - the will of the strong and the will of the weak. Nietzsche rejected all concepts of the origin of states without exception and believed that the state is a means of the emergence and continuation of that violent social process during which the birth of the privileged occurs cultured person, dominating over the rest of the mass. The state, in accordance with Nietzsche’s concept, serves as one of the service tools; it is a manifestation of the struggle of forces and wills. Another representative of racial theory is the French philosopher J.-A. de Gobineau (1816-1882). In his work “An Essay on the Inequality of Human Races,” Gobineau gave a racist model of the origin of the state. The main subject of research in his work is the differences between human races. The dominant idea of the racial theory of the origin of the state is that human races are by no means equal and differ in physical, psychological, mental and other respects. That is, they can be structured into higher and lower races, and it is the state that is called upon to ensure the constant dominance of higher races over lower ones, Gobineau believed. J. Gobineau declared the Aryans to be the “superior race”, designed to dominate other races. Racial theory entailed the monstrous practice of “legalized” destruction of entire peoples, national minorities, and national strata who were irreconcilably opposed to fascism. “Hitler,” it was noted in the press, “began the business of unleashing war by proclaiming a racial theory, declaring that only people who spoke German, represent a full-fledged nation. German racial theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only full-fledged nation, should dominate other nations.
Modern science believes that there is no reason to divide races into higher and lower. However, it is necessary to explain the deep historical reasons for the emergence of the theories of Nietzsche and Gobineau. Throughout the history of mankind, races have differed in their simultaneous development. Anthropological research has shown that there is no connection between the racial differences of people and their moral and intellectual characteristics. The conditions for the formation of a particular race vary: differences in the historical path traveled are explained by climatic, geographical, historical, political, economic and sociocultural factors. Various levels development does not imply unconditional submission of the lagging behind to the more advanced, but the help and support of the latter. That is, we can say that this theory made incorrect, and radical, conclusions from real historical practice. Historically, racial theory has outlived its usefulness and was completely discredited several decades ago. It is no longer used as an official or even semi-official ideology. But as a “scientific”, academic doctrine, it is still in circulation in Western countries today.
Organic theory.
We can find the first mentions of the similarities between the state and the human body in ancient Greek thinkers. The organic theory is primarily associated with the name of Plato (427-347 BC) and his work “The State”, in which the latter is compared with a person, but taken in a different, larger dimension. The internal structure of the state is likened to the structure of the human body with the same components that are most important in function and with the same subordinate relations of the particular to the whole. The state, according to Plato, is formed due to the fact that none of the people is able to satisfy their needs on their own and therefore they seek help from others. Due to the complexity of the education being created, very different needs arise, which leads to the emergence of separate groups of the population, fulfilling purposes unique to them. Thus, peasants, artisans, traders and the like, who provide the material needs of society, are classified as the lower class. Warriors who guard the state perform a more significant function of its body. And above all those who are able to manage it, because they have learned the secrets of the “royal art”, built on the ideals of goodness, justice and other virtues. Aristotle argued his views with the following comparison: just as arms and legs taken away from the human body cannot function independently, so a person cannot exist without a state.
In the second half of the 19th century, one of the founders of positivism and the founder of the organic school in philosophy, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), in his “Essays on Scientific, Political and Philosophical”, argued that the unification of tribes and their unions into state entities is the fruit of social evolution. Spencer viewed society as a unique organism developing according to the general law of evolution, arguing that evolution is a transition from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent homogeneity that accompanies integration. grace of matter. The emergence of society, and then the state, in accordance with Spencer’s views, is the result of such evolution. He compared biological organisms and the state, transferring to the latter the laws of development inherent in such organisms: growth and accumulation, natural selection, transition from simple to complex, from homogeneity (homogeneity) to heterogeneity (heterogeneity). “Reasons leading to an increase in the volume of any part of the individual body.” 1 In society, such processes, according to the English thinker, become the reason for the stage-by-stage grouping of primary unions of people into more complex ones, which gradually leads them to the final result - a state where people are differentiated -arranged depending on the areas of activity. At the same time, the state, as a living organism, is capable of aging and dying, which becomes the reverse side of any development.
In those days, this theory was in demand in connection with the revolutionary development natural sciences in the 19th century Spencer was one of the first to make full use of the analogy between living organisms and society. At the same time, Spencer believed that the theory of state and law would become scientific only if it adopted the methodology and concepts of the natural sciences. This statement is not without objective meaning:
-Firstly, laws social life are predetermined by natural laws. A person becomes a social being, already being a biologically formed individual with will and consciousness. First, he was the creator of nature, then a member of society, and then a citizen of the state. It is clear that the disappearance of man as a biological species will simultaneously mean the death of both society and the state. Consequently, in social life there is a need for harmony of natural and social laws of human development.
-Vo secondly, organic theory quite clearly introduces a systemic feature into the concept of society and state. The overwhelming majority of its supporters believe that society and its state organization are a complex system consisting of interacting and interdependent elements.
-Thirdly, organic theory substantiates (Spencer) differentiation and integration of social life. One of its important provisions is that the division of labor leads to the differentiation of society. On the other hand, integration unites people into a state, through which they can satisfy and protect their interests.
The origin of the state for S.M. Solovyov, as a representative of the state school, is a turning point in history. Solovyov saw the ideal of state development in European Christian states, when “states at their very birth, due to tribal and predominantly geographical conditions, are already within almost the same borders in which they are destined to act subsequently; then a long, difficult, painful process of internal growth and strengthening begins for all states, at the beginning of which these states appear in visible division, then this division little by little disappears, giving way to unity: the state is formed. We have the right to call such education higher, organic.” 1
It cannot be said that the organic theory is purely speculative. If we abstract from the method of analogy used by Spencer, we can say that the process of state formation he describes is based on a certain historical practice of state building
Marxist (class-materialistic) theory.
The class-materialist theory explains the origin of the state from a class perspective, seeing its emergence in the processes of economic decomposition of society into the haves and have-nots. The essence of the theory is that the state replaced the tribal organization, and law replaced customs. In materialist theory, the state is not imposed on society from the outside, but arises on the basis of the natural development of society itself, associated with decay tribal system, the emergence of private property and the social stratification of society along property lines (with the advent of the rich and the poor), the interests of various social groups began to contradict each other. American historian and ethnographer Lewis Henry Morgan's concept of primitive society and the patterns of its development (“Ancient Society”) was the basis for the work of Friedrich Engels “The Origin of the Family, private property and the state,” written taking into account the historical and political material that he had at his time. It is well known that the state did not always exist; its formation was preceded by a primitive communal system - ancient type collective production, writes Engels. The peculiarity of the primitive communal system was that there was no private property, there was no domination and subordination, there were no exploiters and exploited. However, as Engels wrote, this rosy “childhood of the human race” was not destined to exist forever. At a certain stage social development The improvement of agriculture and cattle breeding leads to the fact that these two related and closely related types of primitive occupations are separated from each other. The first major division of labor begins: the shepherd tribes are separated from each other. There is a relative overproduction, for example, of meat by pastoral tribes, and bread by agricultural tribes. At the same time, one tribe lacks bread, and another has no meat. There is a need to exchange products. Exchange requires a large number of products suitable for exchange. Now captured people from a hostile tribe are forced to work and produce food. This, in turn, leads to the accumulation of wealth in one hand, to the emergence of property, and the need to protect wealth appears.
The development of production is not only in the field of agriculture and cattle breeding. With the beginning of the use of bronze, iron, and metal smelting, crafts developed and artisans appeared: blacksmiths, potters, etc.
The emergence of craft means the second major division of labor. The presence of separate shepherding, agricultural and handicraft activities leads to the emergence of a new group of people - traders, i.e. persons involved in the exchange of manufactured products. This indicates a new, third division of labor. Thus, the development of human society inevitably leads to the formation of private property, since the surplus of produced products is not consumed immediately, but remains, most likely in the hands of elders, leaders, and military commanders.
The clan organization of social life is no longer suitable. Now the property does not come to the disposal of the entire clan, but mainly becomes the property of leaders, elders, and property nobility. Property is inherited by the sons and relatives of the owners. Property appears - and classes appear, i.e. groups of people, haves and have-nots, from which one group can appropriate the labor of another. In such conditions, the clan organization does not meet the interests of those in whose hands wealth, slaves, livestock, and land are concentrated. There is a need for a new structure of society, which would more effectively ensure the protection of the interests of the rich layer of people, would provide firm conditions for the protection of property and exploitation of people. And as a result, “the tribal system has become obsolete. It was blown up by the division of labor and its consequence - the split of society into classes. It was replaced by the state.” 1
Thus, according to the theory of Marxism, the state is a consequence of the following three main reasons: the division of labor, the emergence of private ownership of the means of production, and the division of society into antagonistic classes. The immediate cause is the irreconcilability of class contradictions between the exploiters and the exploited. The state is a product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of class contradictions.
V.I. Lenin emphasized that “the state arises there, then and because, where, when and because a split of society into classes occurs.”
The emergence of the state is the adaptation of society to new conditions, serving to ensure that economic relations of private property are preserved, supported, and developed.
According to V.I. Lenin, “the state is a machine for oppressing one class over another, a machine for keeping other subordinate classes in obedience to one class.” 1 The economically dominant classes need to protect their privileges and consolidate the system of exploitation in a special power mechanism of political domination, which is the state and its apparatus. The existence of the state is ultimately determined by the nature of production relations and the method of production as a whole: it becomes a superstructure over the economic base.
Materialist theory identifies three main forms of the emergence of the state: Athenian, Roman and Germanic.
The Athenian form is classical. The state arises directly and primarily from class contradictions that form within society. The Roman form is distinguished by the fact that the clan society turns into a closed aristocracy, isolated from the numerous and powerless plebeian masses. The victory of the latter explodes the tribal system, on the ruins of which a state arises.
The German form - the state arises as a result of the conquest of vast territories for the state over which the tribal system does not provide any means.
For the Marxist understanding of the origin of the state, it is not enough to say that it arises as a result of the emergence of private property and the division of society into hostile classes. From this provision the conclusion is drawn that the state does not eliminate class struggle. The state is a “product” “manifestation” of class irreconcilability.
From the position of the class theory of the origin and essence of the state, the latter does not reflect the objectively existing interests of people and protects the interests only ruling class. The activities of state power are essentially violent activities that suppress the interests of one or another social group of society. Thus, in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels wrote: “Political power in the proper sense of the word is the organized violence of one class to suppress another.” 1
In their other work, they argued that the state is the form in which individuals belonging to the ruling class realize their common interests. 2
The class-materialist concept, which was formed in conditions of intensified class struggle, did not accurately reflect the genesis of the state, concentrating attention only on its class essence. Modern archaeological and ethnographic research indicates that the state was initially created not only as an organization to maintain dominance, but also in order to satisfy the general needs and interests that objectively arise in society. The merit of Marxism is the postulates that law is a necessary tool for ensuring the economic freedom of the individual, which is an “impartial” regulator of the relationship between production and consumption. Its moral foundations in the civilized world take into account and implement the objective needs of social development within the framework of permitted and prohibited behavior of participants in social relations.
Representatives of other concepts and theories of the origin of the state consider the provisions of the materialist theory to be one-sided and incorrect, since they do not take into account the psychological, biological, moral, ethnic and other factors that determined the formation of society and the emergence of the state. Nevertheless, Shershenevich believes, the enormous merit of economic materialism lies in proving the outstanding importance of the economic factor, thanks to which “ultimately” it is possible to link “even the high and noble feelings of a person with the material side of his existence.” “In any case,” continues Shershenevich, “economic materialism represents one of the largest hypotheses in the doctrine of society, capable of best explaining a mass of social phenomena.”
At present, the question of whether it is possible to strictly depend on two processes such as the formation of the class structure of society and the emergence of state forms of government in modern science is not in doubt only among supporters of classical Marxism. But in the works of many modern researchers such a strict connection has not been established. (E.V. Pchelov in the article “On the question of the time of the emergence of the Old Russian state” 1)
Conclusion.
In conclusion, it should be noted that for thousands of years people have been living in the conditions of state-legal reality: they are citizens (or subjects) of a certain state, subject to state authority, conform their actions with legal regulations and regulations. bowa-niyami.
It seems quite understandable that even in ancient times they began to think about questions about the causes and ways of the emergence of the state. Many different theories have been created that answer such questions in different ways. The multiplicity of these theories is explained by the variety of historical and social conditions in which their authors lived, the variety of ideological and philosophical positions that they occupied. In this course work there was no point in considering those points of view that proceed from the unknowable ways of the emergence and essence of the state and law, as well as concepts identifying the state and society, which believe that the state and law is an eternal phenomenon inherent in any society, since it arises along with it. The theories discussed in the course work distinguish between the state and society and highlight the origin of the state as a specific area of study.
In conclusion, we note that not all theories of the origin of the state are considered in this work. Among them we can name such equally well-known ones as irrigation(this theory refers to the specifics of the formation of the state in territories with a predominance of irrigated agriculture, which determined the involvement in the processes associated with its organization and practical support of huge masses of people and, accordingly, the importance of management functions in the division of labor), demographic(in its interpretation of the emergence of state power, it was the main driving force population growth, which led to the complication of the organization of socially regulated mechanisms and their subordination to unified power structures), crisis(deduces the emergence of the state as a consequence of severe environmental shocks experienced by people and necessitating their organization in a higher-order community in order to survive in global crises), patrimonial(explained the origin of the state from the concentration of ownership of land in the hands of leaders and the gradual transformation of power over land into power over people) and others. Many views on the process of the origin of a state depend on the historically determined level of knowledge about the past of human society, on the general ideological positions of their authors, on the tasks that they set for themselves , on the chosen methodology for constructing a particular concept and other reasons. However, supporters of almost all of these doctrines admit that the state did not always exist, that these social institutions appeared at a certain stage in the development of society under the influence of certain objective preconditions. It would be wrong to consider some concepts and theories as completely erroneous, and others (and especially just one) as completely correct and true. Of course, not all such concepts and theories are of equal value, but on the path to the desired truth, they all represent a certain cognitive value. Various concepts of the origin and purpose of the state complement each other and contribute to the mental reconstruction of a more complete and correct picture, semantic image and meaning of the complex and multifaceted process under consideration. The provisions of these different concepts intersect and combine with each other in a number of relationships. Thus, theological ideas are also found in many patriarchal, organic, contractual or psychological concepts of the origin and purpose of the state. There are also various options for combining patriarchal and organic concepts, etc. Modern science, as noted, undoubtedly has great opportunities for expanding its ideas about the surrounding world and its history, and thus has various grounds for either to refute clearly outdated teachings, or to draw attention to the fallacy or one-sidedness of certain approaches to the problem. However, the accumulation in the arsenal of the theory of state and law of the entire sum of approaches and directions that explain the processes of state formation helps to enrich general theoretical legal science and impart its provisions truly universal character.
Racial theories, broadly understood, are anthropological, sociological, or cultural systems based on the assumption that phenotypic ( appearance), psychological, physiological and other biological features people pointing at their common origin(race) directly and significantly influence the structure of the societies that these people create. Racial theories are thus based on the assertion of a direct connection between biological and sociological factors in the understanding of society and ethnicity. They are trying to describe and justify this connection racial theories.
CM. Shirokogorov characterizes the varieties of racial theories as follows: “In modern times, the naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) divided all people into three types: “ wild man" - "homo ferns", which mainly included cases of savagery and transformation into an animal state of children left without human upbringing; “ugly man” - “homo monstruosus”, which included microcephalics and other pathological cases and “upright man” - “homo diurnus”, which includes four races, namely: American, European, Asian and African, distinguished by a number of physical features. Linnaeus also points to ethnographic features. In his opinion, Americans are governed by customs, Europeans by laws, Asians by opinions, and Africans by arbitrariness. (...)
IN late XVIII century, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840) built a completely independent classification, basing it on hair color, skin color and skull shape. Blumenbach counts five races, namely: Caucasian race - white, with a round head, lives in North America, Europe and Asia to the Gobi Desert; Mongolian race - has square shape heads, black hair, yellow complexion, slanted eyes and lives in Asia, except the Malay Archipelago; The Ethiopian race is black, with a flattened head, and inhabits Africa; The American race - with copper-colored skin and a deformed head, and finally; Malay race - has brown hair and a moderately round head. This classification should be considered as purely anthropological, somatic.
Fr. Miller introduced language into his classification as a feature. He believes that hair color and language are the most stable characteristics that can serve as the basis for dividing people into races, and establishes that there are: Tufted - Hottentots, Bushmen, Papuans; Fleece-haired - Africans, blacks, kaffirs; Straight-haired - Australians, Americans, Mongols and Curly-haired - Mediterranean.
These races are total give 12 more groups.
Omitting other classifications, such as those of Schiller, Waitia, Haeckel, who recognized 4 genera and 34 races, Kohlmann, who recognized 6 races and 18 varieties, and others, I will also point out, as the most original attempt, the classification of Deniker, who established 13 races and 29 groups, based, like a botanist, as he himself says about his method, on all anthropological characteristics. Finally, Professor Ivanovsky has already established 41 groups.”
Racism
Racial theories do not always, but quite often, result in racism, which is their extreme expression.
Racism is a theory that states that a person’s individual properties and specificity social structure to a significant (sometimes decisive) extent determined by the fact of their racial affiliation. The hierarchy of races built on this basis divides them into higher and lower. The thesis about racial inequality is the main feature of racism.
For the first time, the French sociologist Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816 - 1882) tried to formalize racial theory theoretically in the book “Essay on the Inequality of Human Races.” In four volumes of this voluminous work, Gobineau summarizes a huge amount of data, which includes his own observations and research. Based on this, he hypothesizes that the three races - white, black and yellow - display pronounced (innate, according to Gobino) inclinations, skills, priorities and social attitudes, structured in various ways. Whites are distinguished by rationality, a tendency to organize systems, and an interest in technology. Yellows are contemplative and leisurely. Blacks are chaotic and anarchic, but talented in music, dancing, and plastic arts.
Contrary to generally accepted opinion, Gobineau does not hierarchize races, and understands inequality as the difference in the sociological patterns prevailing in each of them. Claude Lévi-Strauss, one of the most authoritative and thorough opponents of racism, in his book “Race and History” clarifies that one should not confuse the ideas of Gobineau himself with the conclusions that racists drew from him.
Inequality in psychology various peoples notes sociologist and founder social psychology Gustav Le Bon (1841 - 1931). In his book " Psychological laws evolution of peoples,” he, in the spirit of Gobineau, notes that various ethnic groups, peoples and races gravitate primarily towards various areas activities and carry in their psychology some attitudes and inclinations to the detriment of others. Le Bon notes that, left to their own devices, the Anglo-Saxons, for example, would quickly build a political organization of self-government, while representatives of the Romance peoples (Spaniards, Portuguese or Italians) would rather create anarchy and chaos.
The semantic transition from the statement of “inequality”, understood as difference, to the hierarchization of races occurs in the English sociologist Houston Stuart Chamberlain (1855 - 1927), who is key figure in the making
racism. In his main work, The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Chamberlain describes his version of world history, where positive force representatives of the “white race” (Aryans) act, and they are opposed by the “inferior” (“colored”) races. According to Chamberlain, the greatest harm is brought to the “Aryans” by the Semitic peoples, and first of all, by the “Jews.” The struggle of the “higher” races (Aryans) with the “lower” is the essence of history - both ancient and modern. Chamberlain's theory is not only racial, but also racist, because it is based on the recognition of “inferior” and “superior” races. This theory was the basis of German National Socialism and practically became official version presentation of world history in the Third Reich.
The French sociologist Georges Vaucher de Ayapuz (1854-1936) builds his racial theories on the contrast between “dolichocephalic people” (people with an elongated, oblong skull) and brachycephalic people (people with a round skull structure): he considers the former to be “higher” people (“Aryans”). , and secondly - “inferior”. In Europe, Vaucher de Ayapuz distinguishes three races: “Homo Europeus” (this type is characteristic of northern European countries, primarily German origin); "Homo Alpinus" (lived in Central Europe); "Homo Mideteraneus" (type most common in the Mediterranean).
V. de Lapouge builds a hierarchy between them, I believe that Homo Europeus is a “pure” racial type, and Homo Mideteraneus is mixed with other non-European races and, therefore, inferior. Homo Alpinus represents the "intermediate authority".
In the USA, anthropologist Madison Grant (1865 - 1937), a close friend of the two, tried to give racism a “scientific” character. American presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. In the 1920s, Grant managed to pass several legislative initiatives limiting immigration to the United States, and even helped to pass the Racial Purity Act in Virginia in 1924, formally prohibiting interracial marriage.
In his book "The Disappearance great race“Grant glorifies the “Nordic race” (by which he means the population of Northern Europe), to which, in his opinion, the United States owes its world power, and demands the introduction of “eugenics” - special rules marriage legislation aimed at the purification and improvement of the race. He preaches the principle of “racial purity” and proposes forcibly placing representatives of “inferior races” in ghettos, beyond which they will be prohibited from leaving.
One of the prominent theorists of racism, along with Vaucher de Lapouge and Madison Grant in the 20th century, was the German H. F. Günter (1891 - 1968), who identified the following taxonomy of races in Europe: Nordic race; Dinaric race;
alpine race; Mediterranean race; Western race; the Eastern Baltic race (sometimes he added the Phalian race to them).
Gunther considered the representatives of the Nordic civilization to be the creators of civilization.
race - tall, blue-eyed dolichocephals. He considered Africans and Asians inferior. Most of all fell to the lot of the Jews, whom Gunther classified as “representatives of Asia in Europe” and, accordingly, considered the main “racial enemy.”
A political-dogmatic version of these ideas, aimed at their practical use, outlined in his works (in particular, “The Myth of the 20th Century”) by one of the ideologists of the Third Reich, Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946), executed by decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Racism has become integral part National Socialist ideology, and the implementation of racial principles led to the death of millions of innocent people.
The founder of this theory is considered to be J. Gobineau (French, 19th century. Op. “An Essay on the Inequality of Human Races”). A great contribution was made to it by Nietzsche (German 19th century Works “The Will to Power”), who is considered the forerunner of the ideology of fascism.
The essence of the theory. The theory is based on the postulate that human races are by no means equal and differ in physical, psychological, mental and other respects. They can be divided into higher and lower. The superior races have superiority over the inferior ones for the reason that they differ favorably from others in the above-mentioned respects. Therefore, they Moiyr claim the role of arbiters of the destinies of people all over the world, are called upon to dominate, to impose the will of other groups of people who do not belong to representatives of the superior race. The state, in their opinion, is necessary to ensure the constant dominance of some races over others. The authors of this theory recalled that representatives of the white race made a great contribution to the creation of civilization and its role in the development of civilization cannot be overestimated.
Representatives of the inferior race are people incapable of creating civilization, which is why they can be the object of domination. Nietzsche divided everyone into three types: 1) brilliant people- few; 2) executors of the ideas of geniuses, their right hand and best students - guardians of order, law and security (tsar, warriors, judges and other guardians of the law); 3) other mass of mediocre people. True, Nietzsche, using the concept of race, understood it primarily as a socio-political rather than a national-ethnic characteristic; the strong race is, in essence, a special breed of rulers, aristocratic gentlemen, the weak race is the vitally weak, oppressed slaves. He characterizes the entire socio-political history as a struggle between two wills to power - the will of the strong ( higher species, aristocratic masters) and the will of the weak (the masses, slaves, crowds, herds). The goal of humanity is its most perfect specimens, the emergence of which is possible in an environment of high culture. Rejecting various concepts of the origin of the state, Nietzsche believed that the state is a means of the emergence and continuation of that violent social process, during which the birth of a privileged, cultured person takes place, dominating the rest of the masses.
Racial theory has long history. It faithfully served its adherents in the Middle Ages, when the colonial system was being formed; it was again raised to the bayonet, modernized and acquired even greater argumentation in the first half of the 20th century, during the emergence of fascism. Recurrences of racist views and actions still occur today, but the state theory of racism is no longer included in any country: humanity as a whole has already grown to realize that people are born equal and free.
Evaluating Theory. From the standpoint of values today There is no reason to divide races into higher and lower. Changes in modern world, which has accepted such values as human rights, acquired from birth by each of those living on Earth, give grounds, it seems, from the very beginning to stigmatize any division of races and racial theory, although it does not find practical implementation. However, there is no need to rush here and try to find out the reason for the appearance of this theory.
Nietzsche rightly noted that people differ from each other and this difference is biological in nature. We cannot eliminate biological laws, and it is hardly necessary, because if people were all the same, then our needs could be satisfied to a lesser extent (this is about the same as if we had several dozen ties in our wardrobe, but not a single shirt). However, this is by no means capable of diminishing the importance of every person born on Earth, since each person occupies his own niche in society and does “his own thing,” i.e. doing something within his power, thereby benefiting other people.
Indeed - and that different countries develop unevenly, i.e. various squads human population V different time pass through historical stages. If in Europe and North America there are states that are developed not only industrially, but also in political, scientific and other respects, then this level of development in most Asian countries has not yet been achieved. In the center of the African continent, there are still tribal relations that allow us to say that statehood has not yet fully developed there. And this is correctly noted by supporters of racial theory.
Further. It is also rightly pointed out that people differ from the point of view of psychology. If northern peoples characterized by a calm, balanced disposition, a rational attitude to life and a seemingly detached view of the world, then southern peoples are more likely to be impulsive, emotional, hot-tempered, etc. It appears that this is also a result of the above process. Just as people can be divided by age, so nations can be divided into young, middle-aged and old. Moreover, what is decisive here is not time, but the social experience that one or another race or nationality had to “survive,” and the experience experienced can literally “compress” time.
However, does this give grounds to raise the question that there are superior and inferior races? This question can be rephrased: who is higher (lower) not in the literal sense, of course - a child or a wise person? It is impossible to give an unambiguous answer here, since a child, when he grows up, can, as they say, outshine the sage with whom he is compared, intellectually, not to mention physically.
Modern biological, anthropological and genetic science they do not see any connection between the racial differences of people (skin color, shape of the skull and nose, etc.) and their moral and intellectual characteristics. What about differences in achievement? different nations, then they are explained solely by geographical, historical, political, economic and socio-cultural factors. But with the development of contacts between countries and peoples, as a result of borrowing experience from the peoples of developed countries and mutual enrichment, the process of the emergence and development of states among less developed peoples is accelerating. We must not forget that developed nations were once themselves at a lower stage of development. Therefore, the question should not be who is higher and who is lower, but otherwise: who has gone further along the path of historical progress. Difference in historical development- this is the basis not for peremptory command of less developed peoples, but for helping them and supporting them.
Racism and racial theories
Introduction
Racial theories as the basis of fascism
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
Racism, a set of anti-scientific concepts, the basis of which are the provisions about the physical and mental inequality of human races and the decisive influence of racial differences on the history and culture of human society. All varieties of racism are characterized by false misanthropic ideas about the original division of people into higher and lower races, of which the former are supposedly the only creators of civilization, called to dominate, and the latter, on the contrary, are not capable of creating and even assimilating a high culture and are doomed to be objects of exploitation .
Ideas about the natural inequality of races arose in a slave-owning society, where they served to justify social differences between slave owners and slaves. In the Middle Ages, statements about “blood” differences between the “nobility” and the “rabble” were intended to justify class inequality. In the era of primitive accumulation of capital (16-18 centuries), when European states first captured the colonies, racism served the purposes of inhumane exploitation, and often justification for the extermination of American Indians, Africans, and many peoples of South Asia, Australia and Oceania. In the middle of the 19th century. The first generalizing works on racism appeared. The main trends in sociology of that period were social Darwinism and racial theories, which later became the ideological justification for the fascist dictatorship. All these teachings do not recognize the specific differences between society and nature; for them human society - special case biology. Classes for such theories are groups of people with naturally determined differences arising from the struggle for existence. The whole story is a struggle for survival, where the strongest wins. In Germany, racial theories played special role. The ruling classes have always been inciting national and racial hatred. In general, theories about unequal class groups can be traced throughout almost the entire history of mankind, thus justifying, for example, slavery.
A common feature of such concepts is the interpretation of the essence of man primarily from the standpoint of biology. Thus, Social Darwinists believe that the main engine of social development is the struggle for existence and natural selection. Only the strongest survive (sometimes the concept of “superman” is used); all the weak and not adapted to the environment die, or should die, supposedly according to Darwin. Racist theories reduce the essence of a person to their racial, dividing all races into “higher” and “lower”; the aristocratic races are supposed to dominate and control the inferior ones.
Racial-anthropological school
The racial-anthropological school (or anthroposociology) is one of the influential schools in sociology and anthropology of the second half of the 19th century. 20 centuries, the main idea of which is the decisive influence of the racial factor on the historical and cultural development peoples The racial-anthropological school was formed in the context of the growing popularity of Darwin's teaching about the struggle for existence and natural selection, the dominance of the biological approach in sociology, the widespread use of all kinds of anthropometric measurements and attempts biological classification race
The racial-anthropological school was oriented towards the positivist ideal of science (the construction of social knowledge on the model of the natural sciences), bore a distinct imprint of mechanism and biologism, was closely connected with social Darwinism and, in the absence of the necessary factual information, often resorted to conjecture and speculation, replacing scientific conclusions with scientific-like speculative constructions.
The main representatives this direction are:
J.-A. de Gobineau (1816-82), French. diplomat and writer, one of the first to systematically present ideas about the role of the racial factor in history. His views ( Experience on the inequality of human races , 1853-55) had a great influence on the development of the concept race in the 19th century and formed the basis for almost all subsequent theoretical constructions of anthroposociology. Gobineau the most important factor historical process considered race. He distinguished three clean races (white, yellow and black) and numerous mixed types that arose as a result of their historical contacts. Each race itself is immutable and has specific cultural abilities. Civilizations created by different races are by their nature non-communicative, because natural racial talents different races fundamentally different. The fate of every historical civilization is determined by its racial composition. When a race is pure, the way of thinking of all its members remains the same due to the community of blood, and national institutions meet the aspirations and aspirations of everyone. Mixing blood creates disharmony in the views of society, leads to moral and social chaos; the more mixed marriages dilute the racial character of a civilization, the more it loses vitalityAnd creative spirit , inexorably carried away towards degradation and death. Gobineau named India and China as examples of civilizations that survived due to racial purity. Races are not equal. The white (Aryan) race has greater cultural talent and is the only creative cultural force in history; it was it that created all the great civilizations (Indian, Chinese, Egyptian, Semitic, ancient and modern European); European history began with the invasion of the Germans. Gobineau considered the Germans to be the elite of the Aryan race, by which he meant the French aristocracy. Inferior races are unable to rise to the heights of civilization on their own. Gobineau's ideas did not receive recognition in France, but were accepted in Germany (R. Wagner, H.S. Chamberlain, etc.).
H.S. Chamberlain (1855-1927), politician, Germanophile English origin, was Gobineau's most famous follower in Germany. Chamberlain, without defining race, actively used this concept. The differences between races, from his point of view, are biological and intellectual. Highest position in Chamberlain's racial hierarchy he ranks Aryan race, or Nordic type: tall blond dolichocephals . Most clean The Germans were proclaimed representatives of the Aryan race. The flourishing of all civilizations was determined by the influence of Germanic tribes, and their decline was determined by their mixing with other races. Chamberlain described European culture as a result joint action five factors:
) art, literature and philosophy Ancient Greece;
) law, state and civil society Ancient Rome;
) Christian revelation, revived by the Reformation;
) the organizing creative spirit of the Germans;
) alien and destructive influences of Judaism and Jews.
He considered the primary task of the German peoples to be liberation from enslaving foreign ideas, namely from Semitic ideas about the world And Mosaic cosmogony , proposed returning to the original Aryan worldview, the main principle of which he considered harmonious fusion with nature. If Chamberlain mainly operated with mythologems, which later found wide use in the ideology of Nazism, then Ammon and Lyapuzh tried to prove the inequality of races and the superiority of the white race with the help of scientific justifications.
O. Ammon (1842-1916), a German anthropometer and one of the founders of anthroposociology, carried out a number of anthropometric measurements in Baden, Karlsruhe and Freiberg. Based on these studies, he came to the conclusion that among townspeople and the upper class there is a higher proportion of dolichocephals (long-headed), and among peasants and lower classes brachycephals (short-headed) predominate; dolichocephals by nature are destined to occupy a dominant position in society; there is a direct connection between dolichocephaly and the level intellectual abilities; Each society progresses until the proportion of dolichocephals in it falls, i.e. the most talented and gifted.
J. Lyapouge (1854-1936), French sociologist, follower of the theory social Darwinism <#"justify">The theory about the Germanic Aryan race inspired by the theory of Count Gobineau.
As mentioned above, he was the founder of the anthropological direction in sociology. Racial, or northern the theory was then supplemented by Vache de Lapouge. According to Lyapuzh, the carriers of culture are only representatives of the fair-haired, long-headed and blue-eyed Aryans. This supposedly explains that the largest cultural centers located mainly where the long-headed population is most common (law of urban distribution). And in the villages people with short heads predominate.
Lyapuzh not only connected the degree of cultural development with the shape of the skull, but also argued that the class division of society is directly related to the degree of head length. In his basic law, Lyapuzh states that in countries with mixed population Those with long heads have the greatest wealth, and as for the intelligentsia, their skulls, according to Lyapuzh, are always more developed in all directions, but especially in width. Therefore, intellectual strength is related to the width of the brain. Lyapuzh attributed to the elite all the virtues of humanity, and to the lower classes, i.e. mob, in his opinion ...they look for new masters as soon as they lose the old ones: this is a common instinct inherent in the nature of brachycephalics and dogs . But Lyapuzh didn’t stop there. He even divided the intelligentsia into people from the ruling class (full-fledged fabricators of ideas) and brachycephalic intellectuals who borrowed ideas from outside.
But Lyapuzh was well aware that slaves could sooner or later rebel against their masters, and therefore he rebels against enlightenment and the growth of culture, declaring that education is an accomplice to crime.
However, due to the discrepancy between the appearance of most Nazis (starting with Hitler) and the Nordic racial type, ideologists German fascism more and more often they began to talk not about long-headed, tall blonds, but about the “northern racial soul” or simply the “superior race,” which also included Italian fascists and Japanese militarists.
Theorists of racism sought to establish the racial purity of peoples in whom, as a result of the expansion of the world economy, mixed marriages had gone so far that racial purity no longer had any meaning.
Conclusion
Racial theory was the theoretical axis of German fascism. During the years of Hitler's dictatorship in Germany, racism, which became official ideology fascism, was used to justify the seizure of foreign lands, the physical extermination of many millions of civilians (primarily in the USSR and Slavic countries), imprisonment in concentration camps, torture and execution of anti-fascists in Germany itself.
All available means were used to put this theory into practice in the form of persecution of the Jews.
Similar “racist practices” were carried out by Japanese militarists in China and others. Asian countries, Italian fascists in Ethiopia, Albania, Greece.
Historically, racial theory has outlived its usefulness and was completely discredited several decades ago. It is no longer used as an official or even semi-official ideology. But as a “scientific”, academic doctrine, it is in circulation in Western countries and currently.
Literature
racism racial theory
1.Woltman L. Political anthropology: A study of influence evolutionary theory on the doctrine of political development peoples St. Petersburg, 2000
.Gobineau de, J.-A. Experience on the inequality of human races. - M., 2002
3.Race problem and society. Collection of translations from French. - M., 1957.
