The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Evolution of the Russian mentality. TWO SUBETHNIC GROUPS





At Peter I the addition of core values of the Russian civilization came to the end. They turned into extramental in a complete look, but imperatively operating kernel of the civilization cultural project, that standard which from those and still is not realized tries to realize the Russian society. At the same time unprecedented reforms did not create conditions for development of all society, did not change the meaning of the traditional social contract, and only concretized it so that he was equitable to the interests of all population groups in specific conditions of that time - total, in fact, patriotic war.

In Russia at Peter I the process of formation of a civilization kernel which began with Ivan III - the system of core values of the Russian society came to the end. Having this basis, a peculiar analog of DNA, the "organism" called the Russian civilization had to live, reproducing itself according to the put program. Without pressing in consideration how public organism differs from biological, we will try to find out as far as it was capable to reproduce itself(himself).

At Peter I above-mentioned "organism" received form and content, got the purposes and tasks, instruments of their achievement - social structure of estates with their rights and duties and a control system. The main issue here - whether could this organism

History and present, No. 2, September, 2008 34-54

to keep the organization in peace time? The criterion of "healthy viability" can be considered achievement of social consent, balance of the rights and duties of separate social groups, consent them on the developed distribution of the rights and duties that in general demonstrates consolidation of society. Whether it is possible to speak about achievement of social consent and consolidation of society during Peter's era? If consent was reached at that time whether then mechanisms of its further preservation are created? In other words, whether natural diseases of growth or destructive diseases expected a social organism?

The answer to the first question is not indisputable. The most accurate is answered to B.N. by Mironovym1 in the negative. According to him, not directly, but indirectly following from its analysis, general serfdom of the population from the state (state serfdom) and social consent - the phenomena not joint. The serfdom which captured all population groups is postulated by the scientist, is a set of the legal norms setting personal dependence of the person on his mister, deprivation of the person of the most part of the personal rights and also the rights to own property and to make on its own behalf civil transactions, in other words, to be a subject of civil law. The discrepancy between the rights and duties of the nobility was the key moment of lack of social consent in the Russian society, according to him, during that era. This discrepancy objectively made the leading force of society - the nobility - the most restrained social stratum. The scientist claims that at the beginning of the 18th century the nobility had all signs of the state bondage (Mironov 1999, t. 1: 361-362).

Life of the nobleman was life of the military, and not officer, and soldier on eternal service. B.N. Mironov in detail describes the main burdens of life of the nobleman: "All noblemen were obliged not -

1 B.N. Mironov is the author of a basic research of evolution of Russia of XVSh-XX of centuries. This research conducted in recent years, being in most cases exhausting in terms of attraction to the analysis of the actual material, allows to refer to its analysis and source study base, without resorting to the independent analysis of primary material and carrying out that only in some cases. However not it is possible to agree with all conclusions of the scientist.

st public service, military or civil, since 15 years and by all means from the lowest rank, in army - from the soldier. The service was termless - to a disease or death. Two thirds of members of each surname had to be in the military service, one third - on civil... Each nobleman was attributed to a regiment or public institution where he served. Weight of service generated mass concealment of noblemen from an appearance on service and reviews, a so-called netstvo with which the government fought against the help of cruel carats, since penalties and corporal punishments and finishing confiscation of property and "defamation" -deprivation of all rights of a state. For example,

in 1711 53 officers who did not be later holidays in a regiment in the Kiev province were deprived of estates, and their wives with children were moved from manors. Under the decree of 1720 the noblemen evading from service were threatened punishment with a whip, by a vyryvaniye of nostrils and eternal penal servitude. The military service was so heavy that some noblemen preferred to register in merchants or even in peasants that to get rid only of it. At will of the sovereign any nobleman was obliged to change the residence, and this right Peter I at need used, for example, when settling St. Petersburg when dozens of noble surnames were forced to move from native places on the grounds allocated for them with the obligation in the specified time to build the estate. Noblemen were not exempted also from corporal punishment and suffered birches, sticks and lashes on an equal basis with "mean people". Peter I tortured and executed conspirators in thousands, bribe takers - dozens, despite of ranks, titles and wealth, is frequent without court, at a personal discretion" (Mironov 1999, t. 1: 362). Since 1722, obligatory passports (passable diplomas, pokormezhny, or throughput, letters) for any person leaving from the permanent address were entered. As noblemen moved generally, it meant that each step of the nobleman, that is the public servant, was controlled by the authorities.

If to take Mironov's argument into account and to pass into other system of coordinates, then it is necessary to state the following. The duty osushchestvle-was assigned to the nobility

a niya accelerated modernizatsii2. And this duty, according to the scientist, was not so much privilege, how many punishment. In other words, the social contract in relation to the nobility was not fair. In terms of the labor relations, and they though, naturally, not only they, are the cornerstone of the social contract, in relation to the nobility the principle of an equivalent was broken: compensation did not correspond to its quantity and quality.

It is known that compensation of noblemen consisted of class privileges and two economic components: direct payment from the state depending on a post and income from estates and the ancestral lands. At existence of differences between the estate and the ancestral lands they were united that they were not the property of owners (Mironov uses the term "incomplete property"). Noblemen had not the property rights, and had the right of possession. To the middle of the 18th century in the Russian legislation in general there was no concept property. Mironov writes: "Speaking strictly legally, landowners sold, descended, changed, etc. only the right of use of the property" (Mironov 1999, t. 1: 362). To Peter I the earth and peasants could be transferred to all successors of the owner. Peter I "The decree on a male entail" limited a possibility of transfer of inheritance by one male successor, having put the others before need to get the "daily bread" almost only way - at the expense of service to the state. In general, as follows from the argument of the scientist, compensation of noblemen was lower than the cost of his quantity and quality.

In the conditions of the free market the elimination of distortions in compensation is solved "vote by legs". People leave to other employer in the same country or beyond its limits that in general leads to compensation alignment. In the conditions of Russia of that time with its limited opportunities of emigration, enslaving

2 The orientalist should not note surprising similarity, up to coincidence of details, Petrovsky and Japanese reforms at formation of the Japanese statehood from the middle of the 7th century AD (see: History of Japan 1999: 86-137). At the same time reforms in Japan brought closer it not to Europe, and to traditional China.

all population, distribution of work on estates "vote by legs" is freedom of transition from one estate to another. The nobility at Peter I was open on an entrance and an exit. As it was mentioned, took place as exits from estate though they were single, and occurrence which was mass. From freedom of an entrance and an exit and from the fact that nobility number at Peter doubled it is possible to draw a certain conclusion: the nobility, especially if to consider its class privileges, was not the social stratum of society restrained in compensation.

However not only in fair compensation it is possible to see the reason of doubling of the nobility and also in the importance, ponderability of that public function which was performed by the nobility, - the management in modernization that did natural, lawful its power over other estates, the power over people. This power delegated by the state to estate was carried out in specific military conditions when each military leader at the same time "the servant - I reign, the father - to soldiers". You will not be a servant to the tsar - you will not become a commander, you will not be a father to soldiers - you will get in fight a bullet in a back. In general during the war the relation of the state to society is controlled not only (and sometimes not so much) by institutes of the society, how many need of the state to look for decisions, acceptable for society, in the face of external threat. In other words, the system of values of the Russian civilization in the form it remains still, it developed in the conditions of war when the state which is in eternal opposition with society had over itself not only internal control of society, but also external - from the enemy. If society turns away from the state in the conditions of war, the state perishes. Violence in that limit which society considers acceptable for itself, not excessive forces the state to exercise external control. During Peter it was the total militarized submission of all society to the state. A submission form - the general serfdom. It contributed to the accelerated development in the conditions of war, but not in peace time. In peace time the state has to become the servant of society, otherwise development ostanav-

livatsya or addresses vspyat3. What occurred in post-Petrovsky Russia?

After Peter I's death the nobility seeks for expansion of the rights, reduction of duties, elimination of the orders humiliating human dignity. This aspiration could be carried out or by revolutionary democratic changes for all - elimination of serfdom of all population from the state what noblemen also did not think of, or by assignment by estate political, economic, legal and powers of authority of the state, state executive and judicial authority.

According to spirit of the social contract before the first audit in 1719 the rights of noblemen for peasants and their work were limited. Landowners sought to expand the legal capacity and to limit legal capacity of peasants and other population groups. The main milestones of process are that.

From 1679 to 1731 the state directly collected taxes on all population by household taxation. In 1731 the landowners acquired the right for collecting a subear tax from the peasants, that is eliminated direct fiscal link of the state with the main part of the population.

In 1741 the symbolical direct political link of peasants and the authorities was broken: the oath of landowner peasants on fidelity to the sovereign coming to the throne is cancelled.

Since 1746 the privilege to buy serfs is set to noblemen, purchase of serfs was forbidden other estates.

In 1760 it was authorized to landowners to banish peasants to Siberia on the settlement including them for recruits. In other words, the state transferred a part of the functions on the system of punishments.

Since 1761 the landowners deprived of peasants of economic legal capacity: landowner peasants were forbidden to issue bills and to enter the guarantee.

3 In background of Russia the transition precedent from orders of the totalitarian military state to not totalitarian, providing development, is investigated by me on the example of the Golden Horde (see: Kulpin 2008).

Since 1765 the landowners acquired the right to banish peasants for offenses on a hard labor.

The appointed diploma to the nobility of 1785 reserved for it monopoly to own the earth and serfs.

Conditions of service of noblemen to the state were gradually facilitated, punishments for unfair service were softened. In 1730 the decree of 1714 on a male entail was repealed. In 1737 the term of noble service was reduced from lifelong to 25 years, and noble greenhorns are exempted from compulsory school education. The system of punishments was gradually humanized. As an important milestone it is possible to allocate prohibition since 1757 of a vyryvaniye of nostrils and branding of women here.

In general transformations were directed to privatization of the rights of the state by one social group obshchestva4. The Charter of liberties of the nobility of 1762 - release of noblemen from obligatory service to the state became a logical conclusion of process.

"The charter of liberties of the nobility" meant 1762 release of noblemen from obligatory service to the state at preservation and even toughening of serfdom of peasants from landowners. If landowners are not obliged to serve the state any more, but the people are not exempted from service to landowners, then there is a destruction of point of general service - principles of the secret social contract. Klyuchevsky writes that next day after publication "Charters of liberties..." there had to be a release of the peasantry from the serfdom. Release of the peasantry would mean liquidation of the old secret social contract and need of the conclusion new in which not society has to serve the state, but the state - to society. Release as the historian writes, happened next day, but actually only in hundred years did not mean basic change of the social contract and change of a system of values at all. It will be a question of it further. Now we will stop on a phenomenon of public unconscious.

4 The state system formed at the same time has the analog in the European history at all differences, perhaps, only Sparta in Ancient Greece.

Despite release from service to the state, landowners at the level of own individual consciousness continued to serve not so much by economic need, but first of all on a moral imperative. Unlike noblemen, natives of all population groups of Russia, for landowners, except become impoverished, the service was not an economic basis of existence. In other words, not service, and service was their meaning of life. Catherine the Great waged continuous wars. And the Russian officer unlike European always went ahead of soldiers. Always, up to World War I on which practically all Russian personnel officers died. The heaviest and terrible tax - a tax "blood" as the French, the Russian nobility both to, and after "The charter of liberties spoke." paid strictly. Despite enormous death of officers, it was also not farther than any lack of the Russian officers at Catherine II.

For understanding of an essence of liberation of the nobility it is necessary to pay attention that "The charter of liberties of the nobility" released each individual nobleman from service to the state, but did not release estate. Moreover, made service to the state an existence condition not so much of the state how many himself as privileged estate in this state. Thus, de facto, as the state was privatized by estate, that is at the level of subconsciousness, and for some and consciousnesses, the nobility served the state for the sake of preservation of own corporate interests. His belief that social function of estate consists not in service, namely in service to the state, fatherland was moral justification of class privileges for the nobility.

After Peter I for the term of change of three demographic generations noblemen - public servants become not only professionally, but also culturally focused on Europe. The nobility seeks to Europeanize the way of life, to apprehend the European culture, that is the cumulative system of the standard values, beliefs and rules limiting area of admissible behavior in any given society. This process is intensified during Catherine the Great's era. The empress herself was

the representative of the European culture, and its activity in many respects was educational. As S.G. Pushkarev with deep arguments writes, Catherine's time was time of origin of Russian intelligentsia. For all the 18th century in Russia about 9500 books were published, from them 85% are the share of Catherine's reign. It entered female education for noblewomen: created women's schools, entered informal, but obligatory need of knowledge, and not technical, as for men, and and humanitarian.

But, perhaps, the most important change in nobility life in our country resulted from the French revolution. Here it is necessary to address specifics of education of greenhorns. Parents, except the poorest noblemen, as a rule, were not engaged in education of own children. Up to 5 years they were sponsored, and nurses, then uncles from own serfs, then - tutors-inostrantsy5 practically brought up. The fashion for tutors foreigners developed before the French revolution, but then the level of their knowledge was not always high. The French aristocrats who were expelled by revolution from France were settled across the whole Europe, a considerable part settled them in Russia. In Europe the free vacant positions in public service were limited. In their Russia there was a little too. But in Russia the French aristocrats were admitted to families as members of families. At the same time it was impossible to be spongers for them on consciousness of the person of the European culture, the European mentality. In noble families, rich and average on prosperity, they became tutors and governesses that in very specific process of education of young Russian noblemen became decisive faktorom6.

5 We will remember A.S. Pushkin's nurse and Petrusha Hryniv's uncle in "The captain's daughter": "We were at that time brought up not in a present way. From five-year age I on hands was given to the stremyanny Savelyich for sober behavior granted to me in the uncle. Under its supervision on the twelfth year I was taught to the Russian diploma and could judge properties of a fleet dog very sensibly. At this time the father employed for me the Frenchman, to monsieur Bopra who was written out to me from Moscow with an annual stock of wine and salad oil. To Bopra in the fatherland was a hairdresser." (Pushkin 1899: 91-92).
6 As F. Capra writes, referring to work of two leading representatives of cognitive linguistics of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson "Philosophy in the flesh" (Akoy, _opvop 1999), we seize the majority of primary metaphors automatically and unconsciously in the early childhood, further our thinking, accumulating our latent knowledge

Tutors replaced or replaced uncles and brought up greenhorns before receipt in educational institutions. On the education system created in 1803 "parish school - district school - provincial school - a gymnasium - the university" it was possible to go to the university at once that was done by the children who received good house preparation. Since not so much Catherine the Great how many Alexander I there was a new generation of the Russian noblemen for whom French became the family. The Russian nobility did not become simple to be spoken and read, it began to think, think in French. It became ready, open for perception of all European culture. In the course of education, they wanted that or not, understood or not, French tutors "imparted" to the pupils the culture of European civilization. And as "inoculation" was carried out since early childhood, the European culture was perceived not so much by consciousness, how many subconsciousness.

If culturally Russian nobility was more and more Europeanized whether then the system of core values underwent at the same time changes?

In the European system of values the free personality is main, in Russian where the main value is the state and service to it, there is a place to inequality of people up to full - in the form of slavery. All noblemen understood that the serfdom - the shame of Russia in front of the educated Europe, but quietly this shame was transferred, without trying to liquidate it. As Yu.M. Lot-man formed "the person of an era of Pushkin noted and Vyazma in the household behavior easily moved from the field of prose to the sphere of poetry and back. At the same time just as in literature only the poetry "was considered", the prosaic form of behavior was kind of subtracted at assessment of the person, it kind of did not exist" (Lotman 1994: 384, 109, 189). Only certain representatives of the Russian nobility perceived the European system of values as the complete system of attitudes. In the majority noblemen even personal liberty as B.N. Mironov emphasizes,

and beliefs, mostly unconsciously operates with them at the level inaccessible to usual conscious judgment (Capra 2004: 46, 84).

apprehended not in an European way, and it is traditional as liberty (Mironov 1999, t. 1: 378), that is as class privilege.

It should be noted specially the fact of fixing of the earth to landowners as a private property. To "The charter of liberties." the concept of a private property of life of society was not, it was replaced by a concept of possession. The concept property which was published in the middle of the 18th century in the Russian legislation arose not by the self-birth and self-development, and noneconomic assignment of state ownership. In 1762 under "The charter of liberties." landowners receive in a private property the earth and peasants. The first mass privatization in Russia by the same principle was carried out that at the end of the 20th century: who of what disposes on behalf of the state, receives in a private property. But as no traditions of a private property existed, and possession of state ownership was temporary and conditional before, the procedure of privatization of a front view of property met not only mental, but also technical obstacles. On the one hand, it had no moral reasons, and with another - developed into a difficult and long action - the General land surveying designed to define precisely borders of land possession of individuals, communities, institutions. The General land surveying begun in 1765 lasts for half-century and comes to the end at the beginning of the 19th century

If to speak about property as the integral element of a system of core values, then first of all it is necessary to tell that it in the Russian system the values of the place were not: the imperative of general service and a private property are incompatible. Something had to if not to eliminate, then to suppress another.

It would seem, introduction to everyday life of a concept of property had to become the trigger of change of mentality towards its europeanization, a private property as the powerful locomotive, had to pull for itself other European values: freedom - political and economic independence of the personality, a right imperative, when the law "above the king", a concept of an equivalent, first of all in an economic form of the market. Has to, but could only in the absence of blocking from the traditional system of values.

The Russian nobleman was ready to serve, but not freely to sell the work. It in this sense was similar to the ancient Greek for whom in the nature of things there was a work for itself, implementation of the state order is highly prestigious, but to work for other citizen of the city - shamefully. At the ancient Greek the slave or the alien could work not for themselves. In an European way the cultural Russian nobleman was not ready to perceive all system of values of European civilization, could not consider not only work as worthiness as a natural condition zhizni7, but also the market relations as natural, and a private property - as a result of sale of own work in the market. More precisely, could when it was as the fates decree doomed to live in Europe, but could not in Russia. In the traditional Russian system of values the activity in a sheaf production - the market was considered if not as immoral, then not too worthy the person educated. And further, as the landowner could not have funds for a status cultural state at the expense of service (at the expense of service it was possible to have Acacius Akakiyevich's overcoat) and was not able to afford due to sale of the work in the market, there was only one: to have means only due to noneconomic exploitation of peasants, having imprisoned them political and economic. Such is there was a humdrum of life.

How the Russian landowner in these conditions perceive the property granted to him could? Not as worthiness, and as an award for service, no more than as one of many privileges of estate for service to the state.

Though the nobility did not pass to the European system of core values, it did not prevent it to become Europeans culturally at all. On the example of the Russian post-Petrovsky nobility it is visible that culture and mentality - not synonyms. The person can be polikulturen, for example, on culture the Russian and the Frenchman, but as cannot be at the same time both the Muslim, and the Christian, so cannot act on the basis of directly or indirectly mutually exclusive core values and remain at the same time sincerely healthy. In preservation of the system of values which finished the addition at Peter and discrepancy of this system

7 The most striking literary example - Fiascos from the novel by I.A. Goncharov.

the system of values of European civilization to me the traditional Russian feature seems - to think one, to tell another, and to do the third. It is possible only at a discrepancy of culture and mentality, substitution of one concept by another.

In post-Petrovsky Russia the society was divided, at the same time division happened not by social or confessional ethnic criterion, but on belonging to two different cultural systems. In one system there is a state and noblemen, in another - all other population rendering tribute to the state and living independently.

The peasant deprived of an opportunity to serve the state, deprived of property not only did not wish to work, respect someone else's property, he in principle could not agree to such change of national life. Pugachev's revolt (1773-1775) - the national answer to a unilateral gap the nobility of the social contract. At the head of a revolt not accidentally there were Cossacks. The Cossacks - the only social stratum of society for which not the state, service, an order, hierarchy, state regulation, and the personality, freedom, equality and solidarity were the main values. But Pugachev not fought for these values, and for values of Petrovsky Russia. He is surrounded by "officers", "generals" and "field marshal" - new "correct" servants monarchic. To become the officer at Pugachev, it is necessary to kill ten noblemen - the "wrong" servants monarchic.

At first sight, it is paradoxical that the answer of the people goes on behalf of the pseudo-tsar. But recovery of the social contract according to the logic of mutual service - function of the tsar. Pugachev - allegedly wonderfully escaped Peter III who out of suspicions of breach of contract, and its task is to punish landowners. At the level of consciousness of risen - to liquidate not noblemen as the social group which is carrying out the role according to the social contract, but that nobility, that is those servants monarchic which exceeded the functions illegally privatized the state. The revolt purpose - on the place of usurpers to create a new state machinery. At the level of public unconscious the revolt aimed at recovery of the public contract, unity of a public organism, his viability, potency to development.

If the social organism was similar to

biological, that is such system which, being created, cannot live differently than as a unit any more, then we would have to draw the following conclusions which in general would correspond to a traditional historiography. Defeat of a popular uprising did not lead to social consent. "Disease" of a social organism was not cured. And how it can be cured? The secret social contract - one of elements of a system of core values where all elements are organically connected among themselves. Therefore, deformations had to undergo also the others. Let's remind that at Peter I the noblemen were called to bear a burden of the main responsibility for transformations, that is for performance of value of development, that value for the sake of which society voluntarily lost a possibility of self-organization, that is the rights of decision-making "from below", that right which promotes the eminence of value of the personality. For this purpose to the state (I reign) and carte blanche on management, on the right of decision-making "from above" and on ruthless suppression of dissent was given that Peter also carried out, without doing an exception even for own son.

The high efficiency of government in Peter's time was caused by its openness for all population groups and was expressed in openness of the nobility as social group for an entrance and an exit. At Peter (more than ever before and later) the nobleman was a native of all social strata. It was one of the most important reasons of success of Petrovsky transformations, transformations of all society in specific conditions of war. All society in peace time had to develop differently, than in military. The nobility - the modernizing estate - had to correspond to a historical mission as it is qualitative (to aim to transform the system of values), and quantitatively. Compliance quantitative for performance of value vector of development demands preservation of open access to the nobility and its growth, compliance qualitative - transition of the noblemen who are not passing tests by a responsibility burden to other social groups. After Pyotr the transition of noblemen to other social groups became a rare phenomenon, and quantitative gain of the Far Eastern Military District -

ryanstvo - ogranichennym8. In total changes step by step promoted transformation of noblemen into exclusive and (in comparison with Peter's time) closed sosloviye9. Both was violation of the secret social contract on general and direct service to the state and withdrawal from the social consensus reached at Peter - the system of core values. Nothing but access to education for all population groups, created a possibility of service for all estates. The officials and in post-Peter's time were formed of all population groups and were at the same time the most loyal to the state a social group (Mironov 1999, t. 2: 208), but unlike Peter's time the difficulty of education for lower the population interfered with effective rotation of a state machinery on the basis of a meritocracy.

So, maintaining access to education for all population groups and openness of nobility on an entrance and an exit were a key to maintaining unity of society on the basis of the consent of rather core values. However during lifetime of Peter I not Uda -

8 The exception was observed only once. "Increase in number of noblemen in 1782-1795 on 508 thousand, - B.N. Mironov notes, - occurred owing to incorporation in structure of Russia of the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands after the partition of Poland where it was more noblemen, than in all Great Russian provinces combined" (Mironov 1999, t. 1: 130).
9 For quarter of the century of Petrovsky reforms the number of the nobility increased twice. The following doubling happened in hundred years (In the same place, t. 2: 208). Despite slow proliferation, the nobility within a century he was able to govern the state due to continuous high-quality updating. As B.N. Mironov writes, "it was replenished with the most capable and vigorous representatives of clergy, merchants, narrow-mindedness and the peasantry who, besides, were extremely loyal to the existing mode as it gave them the chance to be a part of the most privileged estate. The nobility intensively received fresh blood and through marriages with representatives of other estates that enhanced its intellectual and, so to speak, energy potential. Only those representatives of other estates who during the period of the life preceding transition to the nobility got an education, a profession passed into the nobility, did career in public service, gained the outlook and habits peculiar to the nobility. It meant that they "odvoryanivatsya" before received the status of the nobleman. This circumstance together with growth of requirements to the official position granting the right for the nobility led to the fact that moving to the nobility from other estates did not break, and, on the contrary, promoted formation of noble subculture, class traditions, concepts of honor, a manner of behavior, mentality. Because nobody was so scrupulous concerning respect for purity of noble subculture as new noblemen" (In the same place, t. 1: 146).

an elk to create protective mechanisms of self-preservation, self-reproduction created by it sistemy10. The lack of protective mechanisms caused the processes promoting degradation of a system in general. The nobility became not just the violator of the social contract, the fight for the class rights and privileges it separated itself from the people, having sharply limited for it a possibility of professional mobility that in class society meant restriction social mobilnosti11.

If to assume that the social organism is similar biological, then the designated situation can be classified as a disease which passed into a phase of a chronic indisposition fraught with structural and functional changes what occur in a sick organism unlike healthy. A way of treatment "prompted" continuous after Pugachev's revolt and up to release from the serfdom local disorders of peasants and continuously growing rumors among them about the royal decree on release from the serfdom, the decree which is allegedly hidden from peasants by landowners. But the social organism as we see, is not similar to biological. And if to recognize that "DNA" of a social organism is a complete system of core values, then it is necessary to recognize that there was a rupture of uniform social fabric, and on the place of one two social organisms were formed: one - noble, another - serfs. Both are in liquid "broth" of the marginal social groups gravitating to one of two "organisms". In this gap it is important to establish whether there was DNA change and if occurred, then what it consisted in.

Now any more the fact that in post-Petrovsky Russia two worlds, two systems were formed is not debatable

10 Here we see manifestation of fundamental differences between social and biological organisms that means more significant role of the fact that by analogy with biological organisms it is possible to call RNA, and need of a research of an analog of RNA for public organisms.
11 In China where the social mobility was a consequence of professional growth of the official, in any village the fellows villager sought to educate, necessary for getting a position of the official, at least to one of the peasants, and on it there was a social contract of traditional Chinese society.

two social structures with different rules of conduct which replicated and became tougher in this self-reproduction, two social networks generating various socialized case of knowledge and representations, two different communication systems forming different tenor of life. All this can be united one generalization: two-emergence

Richard Ramos
Other scientific works: