KONDAKOV -- III

Page 40

 

… by mind-set we understand the sum total of deep-lying structures of meaning and behavior, which, while inaccessible in principle on the level of reflection to the individual or collective consciousness, are nevertheless always implied. These structures, changing little over a long period of time (in the case of mind-sets characteristic of a particular age or of nations or religious denominations, etc., not infrequently for centuries) are quite amorphous and eroded and constitute a meta-historical foundation for socio-cultural history. They nurture the process of self-identity of a given form or species of culture, in general, of any kind of spiritual community during the course of its growth and development as a unity of value and meaning. This is the sum total of constants which encompass life attitudes, principles, models of behavior, emotions and moods and are based on deep-lying (to a large extent pre-reflective) areas of meaning (characteristic of a given society, its social legacy and cultural tradition), and which, for this reason, promote the systematic development of a national culture and history and its growth and formation as a civilization. A sudden rupture and collapse of a mind-set that has existed for centuries and that has borne in itself the energy and life force (vitality) of this or that culture, of an entire civilization, leads such a culture and civilization, apparently, to a serious and profound crisis, and, in the final analysis, to a breakdown, to national catastrophe, to its death as a civilization. In any case, no great civilization (Sumer, Egypt, Greece or Rome, a host of pre-Columbian civilizations of mid-America, Mongol civilization, Byzantium and others) has met its end merely as a result of external factors, that is, as a result of wars, invasions or the exhaustion of natural resources, and so on. Death in such cases was always accompanied, reinforced, deepened and, not infrequently, begun or concluded by the collapse of its mind-set, that is, its spiritual foundation.

 

The concept of a "mind-set", A. Gurevich correctly asserts, is to a large extent interchangeable with the concept of "world view", with the sole difference that a world view is to a significant extent a conscious notion, set in concrete works of culture, in a specific ideology (compare such widely circulated concepts as a "scientific world view", a "religious world view", an "artistic world view", and so on), while a mind-set is not fixed or defined by the conscious mind. Instead of being formulated discursively, it is to a much larger extent experienced (with one's emotions, with one's feelings) and manifests itself (in behavior, in spontaneous action). As a rule, no ordinary person would know what to say if asked about his/her world view nor could such a person explain his/her conduct or behavior or perception of the world. Meanwhile, it is precisely his mind-set which includes in itself the most general notions, those which change least from generation to generation: notions of time and space and their interrelationships, notions of good and evil, notions of freedom and equality, of law and norm, of work and leisure, of family and sexual relations, of the course of history and of national distinctiveness, of the interrelationship of old and new, of life and death, of immortality and God, of the individual and his relationship to the social body, including the state, society, the authorities, the collective, the nation.

 

A mind-set embodies that which serves as the basis for the conscious and subconscious, for the logical and rational and the emotional and intuitive, for thought and behavior, for faith and for a way of life, for the social and the individual, for the theoretical and the practical, for routine existence and for the unrepeatable, unique work of art, for the historical and for the contemporary, for the changeable and the unchanging -- in a particular era, in an ethnic group, in the nation, in the church, in civil society, in a type of activity, in culture or civilization. It is precisely the extremely generalized nature of the content of a given national culture -- a content that cannot be cast into conceptual or concrete imagistic forms -- which makes it impossible for the bearers of this culture to either comprehend or articulate it. Its abstractness can be expressed only in conventional metaphors or associations or perceived intuitively and providentially (as something sent down from above, as destiny, as a historical mission, as a gift from God or, in the case of a crisis, as historical abandonment, as fate, as moral-spiritual exhaustion, as desertion by God).