has a part of a place in the community (a class, a church community, an ethnicity,

a state, etc.). That comes from a friend or foe that shows an ancient dichotomy.

In a national entity, there is always a prevailing stable thing We call it mentality. A

popular individuality cannot be qualied by sole property but by social trait, why.

And today, in the visage of a date of the procedure of globalization integration,

it is signicant to citation this reality.

Language, Mentality, Nations, Tatar, Greek, Character, Community, Culture,

Archetype, Globalization.

desire to identify himself as a part of a social community adequately to form

his identity in modern conditions complicated by processes of globalization and

integration. Any social community, whether ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic

has a complicated structure and complex content dened by the history of its

development and interaction. The nature of one or another social community

(include hundreds of people), others are more numerous (number thousands,

tens of thousands). Now only nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples have features

of tribal organization. Gradually, the communal operation decayed, tribes united

in Eurasia, they replaced blood links and formed a new type of ethno-social

community – peoples (Baykalova et al, 2018; Kheirabadi & Mirzaei, 2019).

The rst peoples were formed in the slave era. There were ancient Egyptians,

ancient Greeks and Romans. Later drevlyane, krivichi, vyatichi formed ancient

Russian people. As ethnic processes taking place during the whole period of

existence of humanity, are quite complicated and varied, there is nothing

is a community united by language and culture. In England the notion of nation

relates to the notion of “Anglican Church”. In the 16th century, the national

consciousness had bright religious overtones when the Pope seemed to be the

enemy of the nation. Another feature of the national consciousness of Britons is

imperialism, formed due to the large number of British colonies. We can agree

here that era of worldwide victory of capitalism over feudalism was associated

with national movements. The formation of national states is the tendency of any

As the history of nations is complex and controversial, the concepts of nation,

thinking. This characteristic is understood from the generality of personality

traits and behavioral traits. Philosophical research in society reveals many ways

to teach and dierentiate between clear principles and analysis, which in our

view is the goal of philosophy in the unied theoretical analysis of the nature

of thinking. We have said before that there is no dierence knowledge and the

nature of national personality from the point of view of scientists, but through

various studies we address the problem of national personality and the cultural

and historical signicance of subjectivity. Due to the dierent approaches in the

historical process we use the following historical and systematic comparative

method. At the same time, the systematic approach helps to analyze the problem

the way of life, personality traits and moral values of dierent nations. In ancient

times, however, knowledge of the individual traits of each nation was studied in a

descriptive, stored fashion, with only a practical focus, but has changed over time.

At that time, the sciences were growing rapidly, leading to a comparative study

of nations (history, geography, anthropology and linguistics), a profound and

complete inference of acquired ethnological information. A modern theoretical

Since then, all these issues have prompted dierences of opinion between dierent

ethnicities to shift the issue of unpleasant interest and scientic analysis to many

scholars. In the course of the twentieth century, educational questions about the

character of a nation, its subjectivity, and the form of their historic substantiation

are transforming into a research linking a national mind set and nature. Gimilf

thinks that a national plural character is no more than a legend.

According to Gimilf in Year 5, while preserving the ethnological phase sequence

for each new era, the personality traits of each nation always change according

to a real situation, so a national character should not be regarded as a sustainable

and liberal learning. A Gimblef illustrator cites the moving forces of a Russian

research studies.

The new scientic literature of the national personality is described as follows:

countrywide art.

countrywide character.

Such explanations imitate two kinds of organizational sets in deance of a state

personality, which are ethno psychological and ethno cultural. Both of types are

constant psychological behaviors of executives for other ethnic clusters, which

regulates their usual routine in attitude to a social medium, external things and

of a prepared group and vice versa (Sorokin, 2010; Hasbullah & Wibawa, 2017;

Sorokin (2010) thought that attitude to a personality and nation is an individual

case of a single and general dialectic, individual and origin. Certainly, a person

has traits, which characterize the nation overall. Of a great number of individuals

have specic national character traits.

Fromm (1989) tried to understand a dynamic nature of a national character, its

relationship with characteristics of a socio-cultural existence in his works. He

explained many changes in a social transformation through discovery of a social

potential of a national character. Particularly, he used the concept of a national

character in a process of understanding the reasons of Nazism coming to a

power in Germany. From his point of view, for German nation is inherent such

qualities as love to a strong and hatred to a weak, limitation, stinginess in feelings

and moneys. These qualities have formed that «social and human foundations»,

which became a favorable condition to an increase position of Nazism. But

national character cannot be only reduced to the ways of behavior; it’s a complex,

common mechanism of a nation adaptation to one or another natural, social

dominant) forms of a worldview, behavior and mentality. A national character

is the most complex socio-cultural phenomenon, which is developed in dierent

kinds of cultural activities. But for the last ten years, the term a “national character

“is substituted for “mentality” (Boas, 1930). Representatives of a historical school

in France have made a signicant contribution to the research of mentality

category. Jacques Le Go distinguishes two kinds of reality as a material reality

and the idea of this reality (mentality). Mentality is an independent and very

important part of a historical process, but it is interpreted ambiguously: as a

group view and manners; as modes of thought and sensation; as ethical codes

and its life aspects which underlie them. The variety of mentality is a national

mentality, original, modern equivalent of the term “soul of nation”. In social

philosophy there is a term «national mentality», as well as the terms “soul of

nation”, “national spirit”, they are synonymic and used for description of cognate

to its own inner world of spiritual and social aspects of ethnos and nations’ life.

mentality is close to its meaning as an archetype and ideology. By comparing

mentality and archetype, it should be pointed out what have in common is that

they represent a group idea of people, an unconscious level of conscience. But

archetypes, inherited by people from their ancestors are all same of individuals

Like ideology, mentality relates to the interests of special social groups and has

an inuence on conceptualization of events of a political, economic and socio-

cultural character. But if in ideology, the social community realizes its interests and

can formulate them as a theoretical contraction, but mentality is an unconscious

level of a spiritual life and cannot be entirely expressed in rationally theoretical

workers and bourgeoisie was completely dierent people. Anthropocentrism

notes that there is a meaning of upbringing in the understanding of a mentality.

E. Erikson calls Russian soul as «a twisted soul». He notices that in Russia a tight

child diapering relates to an unconscious need to convey the feeling of “a tight

groups, in which he is a part of it and who takes part in achievement of his “inner

self ”. Sigmund Freud pointed out several times, that every person is a component

part of some social community. He and some other scientists noted that every

person is a part of a class, church’s community, ethnos, state, etc. (Freuds, 2011).

In the process of socialization, a person forms socio-cultural (including ethno-

national) norms, importance and values, as a result of it he gains a national identity,

allowing him to consider as a bearer of a certain national mentality. Mentality

is a dominant constant of a national existence, and today, against a background

of globalization integration processes, it’s important to dene correctly mental

traits each of nations and determine the reasons, that have caused specic traits