Psychomental complex of the Tungus / S.M. Shirokogoroff.

  • Shirokogorov, S. M. (Sergeĭ Mikhaĭlovich), 1887-1939.
Date:
1935
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Psychomental complex of the Tungus / S.M. Shirokogoroff. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    34/496 (page 14)
    Evidently the unit must be given a different character if it is intended to be used as a scientific tool. All the above indicated units result from a similar pro¬ cess, in so far as we can see from its final manifestations: more or less similar cultural complexes, speaking the same language, believing into a common origin, possessing group consciousness, and practising endogamy. This is a de¬ finition which corresponds to our definition of ethnical unit. However, not all of them are “ethnical units.” In fact, we have seen that such a crystallization may occur in any group: groups implied by the environment, economic ac¬ tivity, psychomental complex, and especially peculiar con¬ ditions of interethnical milieu about which I shall speak later. Yet, such a crystallized state is not always observed and in some groups it rarely occurs, as for instance, in groups based upon religious and economic differentiation. This is a PROCESS ivhich only may result in the formation of ethnical units, and this process I have called ETHNOS. This process may be recognized in its different aspects, namely, 1. Ethnographical aspect,—as seen in similarity of cultural adaptation (secondary milieu), discovered by the ethnographers. 2. Psychomental aspect,—as seen e.g. in the similarity ot language, disclosed by the linguists, and ethnographers. 3. Continuity aspect,—in so far as it is reflected in the existing conviction and tradition discovered by the his¬ torians. 4. Psychological aspect,—as seen in the fact of self-cogni¬ tion as unit. 5. Biological (in a narrow sense) aspect,—as seen in the fact of confinement of the process of transmission of hereditary conditions and further physical changes dis¬ covered by the biologists. I do not need to enumerate other signs of the process, but I want to point out that since we treat the unit from the dynamic point of view the process may be understood with certainty only being observed in time, i.e. whether at two moments there is the same situation or not. If different as¬ pects of units are preserved during this period we may assert that they do exist as characters which are at least correlated with the process of crystallization of units and their opposition to other units. If there is noticed inten¬ sification of characters studied we may suspect that there is a process of further crystallization and thus this process may be characterized by its centripetal movement in the population affected by it, resulting in a gradual consolida¬ tion of the units. However, such a process may be also established by a combined analysis of social, psychological, economic, ecological, biological and other conditions of the units. If there is disclosed a parallelism of differentiation in several aspects there may be suspected a deep centripetal movement which may result in a complete differentiation of groups into new ethnical units. The difficulty of diagnosis here consists in the fact that the causa prima may lay far from these conditions and their similarity may be due to a single but very “powerful” condition e.g. specific ecological ing supplied with a sufficient amount of facts and which relied upon philosophical premises more than might be admitted. As a matter of fact, there is nothing new in this situation. It has happened before, and, it may be supposed, will again happen with the phenomena im¬ perfectly investigated. condition, special biological condition, or even their simil¬ arity may be due to the effect of interethnical pressure. In observing these processes in a great number of in¬ stances, and in their various aspects, we soon come to the discovery of a general fact, namely, that the similarity of elements of adaptation, conditions of environment, and biological adaptation are not always correlated and even one of them may result in a strong centripetal movement, however, without producing a final effect of ethnical dif¬ ferentiation. Yet, they may have a quite opposite effect upon the existing group formed on the basis of centripetal movement. In fact, let us suppose a group with very strong internal centripetal movement conditioned by the similarity of language and established as a fact by historic and analy¬ tical methods. Within this group there may appear cen¬ tripetal movement, as an effect of further cultural adapta¬ tion, in its turn conditioned by the discovery of local ways of adaptation, among smaller groups differentiated on the basis of difference of primary milieu. In reference to the former group the new groups will act as a desintegrating factor. So these forms of cultural adaptation (“progress”) will result in an opposite, centrifugal movement. If we take any form of differentiation, be it individual, family, clan, professional, economic, or any other form of adaptive differentiation implied by the need of new forms of general adaptation, they would appear within the groups, where they exist, as elements of centripetal movement, and thus in reference to the larger units they would act as cen¬ trifugal force. The change of adaptation is a permanent condition of all living organisms and groups, for the en¬ vironment does not remain invariable. There are seasonal variations, solar periodicity, and still longer periods of fluctuations, and perhaps gradual changes which require continuous re-adaptation. The living organisms by their morphological and functional adaptations (including cul¬ tural) create special conditions of centrifugal movements. If we have a very strong centripetal movement an¬ nihilating centrifugal movement, there will be loss of power of local adaptation to the changing conditions of environ¬ ment and thus a loss of vitality especially under the condi¬ tions of interethnical equilibria; on the other hand if the centrifugal movement is too strong there will be no more cohesion between the newly formed units and thus the larger one will also lose its vitality*. If we now return to our definition of the unit we may express it as a dynamic effect of equilibrium which exists between the centripetal and centrifugal movements within the units. The unit may safely exist only on one condition, namely, equality of tension of these movements which may be symbolized as n m rt TLa=Tlb- Butif It 11 there will be loss of adaptive elasticity (e.g. physical and cultural), if Ha<Hb 1 i * Vide some more details as to centripetal and centrifugal move¬ ment in “Aspects”, sections 5 (pp. 19-26) and 15 (pp. 56-60).