The Foundations

by Alexander Dugin

  The family and the lineage are connected by a fundamental regularity, which, according to Lévi-Strauss, comprises the unique figure of each concrete society with all its original cultural characteristics — myths, rites, basic attitudes relating to the surrounding environment, taxonomy of things, social institutions, etc.31 Lévi-Strauss asserts that in illiterate societies the institution of marriage makes of the basis of “text” and the paradigm of culture. The concrete way in which the problem of the relationship between the family and the lineage is decided, which kinds of marriages are considered permissible and which not, how which lineage one’s progeny belong to is determined (whether by a matrilineal model or a patrilineal one), where a young couple is placed (in the genus of the father — patriarchal model — or in that of the mother — matriarchal model), what norms exist in the relations between brother-in-law and sister-in-law, etc. — all this is the key to the myths and rituals, the philosophy and culture of the ethnos.

  The ethnos as a koineme in its most minimal version consists of two lineages. This duality of lineages comprises the fundamental feature of the ethnos. For this reason, the majority of ethnoses preserve this duality even in the case that the scope of the ethnos is increased. The ethnos is divided into two halves in order to preserve the conditions for exogamy — one half must be alien for the other half, in order to assure a legitimate marriage.

  It is customary in ethnosociology and anthropology to call the union of a number of lineages a clan. The word “clan” derives from the Celtic clann. Its closest analogue is the Greek φυλή (phylé).

  Clans can be organized in several different ways: as a number of lineages within which marriages are forbidden (in which case a clan is an expanded mode of a genus), or as a number of lineages within which marriages are permitted (in which case the clan represents the ethnos in miniature). Despite the fact that the presence of clans in the ethnos complicates its structure, it does not introduce into it anything substantial. This complication does not bear a decisive ethnosociological load and only increases the scale of the lineage or ethnos. The presence of clans and the structures is necessary must be taken account of, but their significance should not overshadow the identification of the most important elements to which ethnosociological analysis reduces — the detection in the ethnos of the deep organization of the structure of kinship (rodstvo).

  We can propose the following structural formula:

  Exogamous clan = lineage (expanded)

  Endogamous clan = ethnos (minimal)

  For this reason, the category of clan is useful, but it is not fundamental for the structure of ethnosociological knowledge.

  The inner structure of the simplest ethnos can be represented by the following figure:

  Figure 4. The structure of kinship in the simplest ethnos.

  The Ethnos and the Lineage-Identity: Twin-Myths

  We spoke in the first chapter about the differences in the definitions of ethnos and race. On the basis of the analysis of the inner structure of the ethnos, always consisting of two halves, we can introduce yet another additional consideration concerning the problem inherent in the notion of a “common origin.”

  A person born into an ethnos and identifying himself entirely with it at the same time identifies himself necessarily with some single lineage, which is foreign with regards to another lineage. Consequently, inner ethnic identity, presupposing belief in an ancestor common to all, is superimposed on lineage-identity, which presupposes belonging to the posterity of the founder of one lineage and non-participation in the posterity of the founder of another one. If ethnic identity integrates all the members of an ethnos, the lineage-identity differentiates them.

  This is often expressed in the veneration of the figure of twins, but also in diverse figures and signs in which a dual symmetry is traced. Twins resemble one another, and for the archaic consciousness this is the same as their being identical. But, at the same time, they are different as individuals. In the figure of twins, we are dealing with the most universal symbol of a double identity. Half of the tribe are the progeny of one twin; the other half of the other. The primordial twins find themselves in a complicated relationship to one another: they are brothers and for that reason are united in their genus. But in order to give rise to two foreign (non-lineage) lineages, they must be antagonistic. Hence, the variety of plot-lines about twins, one of whom was a god, the other a person (for instance Castor and Pollux in Greek mythology). Many myths tell of a deadly battle of twins with one another and of the murder of one by the other. Herein lies the origin of the rather frequently encountered rite of the murder of one of two twins immediately after birth in archaic tribes and the many legends that give supernatural powers to the twins.

  In totem models this is manifested in the erection of two exogamous halves of the tribe to different mythical ancestors, between whom there was most often enmity, rivalry, or at least a certain degree of imbalance: hierarchy, for instance.

  The paradigm of the dual origin (as a minimum) of all its members is already contained within a tribe. And care concerning the maintenance of exogamy as the guiding paradigm of the ethnos as a whole is constantly shown in the fact that this distance between lineages was preserved and was not erased. Thus, the myth of a common origin at the level of the ethnos was doubled into a myth of different origins at the level of the tribe.

  The ethnos integrated, the genus differentiated, creating on the level of the koineme, i.e., the simplest social form, a dialectic of identity, where commonality and difference were joined with one another.

  But in exactly the same way as it is difficult to prove by strictly scientific means the physiological proximity of the members of an ethnos to one another, it is sometimes difficult also to prove difference of lineage. The problem is that belonging to a lineage is a social, not a biological category. A child is born to a couple, each member of which surely belongs to different lineages. With which of the lineage the child should be associated is a complicated problem, constituting the basis of the cultural paradigm of the ethnos. Different ethnoses have different opinions about this matter. But in being associated with the lineage, for instance, of the father, a person becomes a “stranger” in relation to the lineage of his mother; “stranger” [TN: foreigner, alien] in the sociological sense, whereas biologically he is a relative of both the paternal and maternal lineages. For this reason, for justifications of differences of lineage there is recourse to belief in different ancestors, to myth and rites, called upon to aggravate this difference.

  All of this finds rich expression in twin plot-lines and in the even more extensive domain of dual myths, which most often have a social function in the organization of an exogamous marital structure.

  The all-ethnic myth of kinship, which most likely never factually was, is doubled into lineage-myths of foreignness (which is equally doubtful). And even if it is difficult to prove both one and the other on the physical and genetic (i.e., racial) level, on the level of social fact they remain irrefutable and absolute. The ethnos as the most basic form of society is built on the dialectic of a dual ethno-lineage identity.

  Narod as an Ethnosociological Category

  In ethnosociology the concept of narod differs essentially from the concept “ethnos.” The narod is a social organization of society, qualitatively more complex than the ethnos.

  We shall use the Greek word λαός (laós), since it is the most suitable in its meaning for the description of the narod as an ethnosociological category. For the Greeks, the concept of laos was the notion of a group of people united either by common participation in a military campaign or simply organized for some particular purpose.

  The ethnos is static. The laos is mobile. The laos is a more artificial, goal-oriented, and organized community than the ethnos. The laos can be likened to a militia. That is, to a group of people mobilized for the attainment of some historical and most often military goal. It is the Greek term laos which most of all
corresponds to the German Volk and the Russian narod. It is significant that the Russian word polk (“regiment”) is related to the German in its derivation. The meaning of an organized collective, in the first place a military one (regiment), corresponds exactly to the concept of “narod.”

  Some ethnosociologists, for instance Shirokogoroff, do not use this term, considering it unnecessary, but we will see later that it is so helpful in regularizing various ethnosociological constructs, that it is indispensable and crucial. Moreover, the absence of this concept in ethnosociological theories results in many terminological and conceptual misunderstandings, contradictions, and unjustified semantic shifts. The introduction of the concept of the “narod” (λαός, populus, Volk, etc.) is necessary for the orderliness of the whole ethnosociological theory. Without this key concept there shall inevitably occur the interference of meanings, which creates insurmountable noise on the path of development of a full-fledged and high-quality scientific theory.

  The presence of the concept of “narod” is of principal importance for Ethnosociology. Where this term is introduced in the corresponding way with a strictly defined meaning, we are dealing with Ethnosociology as a full-fledged scientific discipline and independent theory. Where it is absent, however, in the best case we are dealing with a prolegomenon to real Ethnosociology, and in the worst case, with recycled, patchy, fragmented, and disorganized studies and methods at the conjunction of Classical Sociology, Ethnology, and Ethnography. But such syncretism does not yet represent a scientific discipline, possessing a scientific character. The delayed institutionalization of Ethnosociology in Russia and elsewhere is connected to this very fact. Lowering from sight the category of the narod, we deprive ourselves of the possibility of developing a full-fledged theory. We shall see later why this is the case.

  The integrity of the ethnos is disturbed in the narod. The structure of society becomes qualitatively ten times more complex. Social stratification and the separation of distinct social groups arise. In the narod there are classes and differentiated professional and other social gradations. The process of the division of labor begins.

  The narod is the ethnos that has stepped into history. Instead of eternal return, a perpetual cycle supported by myth, other forms of temporality emerge. The most striking of these is linear time.

  In the narod the separation of different social strata, which are isolated from one another, begins. In each stratum, there develops its own sociological idiosyncrasies. Often the strata acquire the form of fixed castes. To move from one caste to another is difficult and almost impossible. The institute of slavery and the practice of wage labor take place.

  The system of myths and rituals changes qualitatively. They are also differentiated according to the caste principle. If tales and myths are characteristic of the ethnos, then the epic is so for the narod.

  The distinctions between the sexes become more distinct, often in the form of a patriarchy that becomes standard.

  In the formation of the narod there necessarily always participate a few ethnoses — two or more. The narod is never formed by way of the quantitative growth of an ethnos. The specific character of the narod consists in the fact that at its basis lies the contact between at least two ethnoses (and most often, many more than two). In the course of complex sociological, political and economic procedures one of the ethnoses or groups of ethnoses forms the higher stratum; another ethnos (or group of ethnoses) forms the lower one. Thus, the basis of the sociological categories elite and masses are formed.

  The Narod Is the First Derivative of the Ethnos

  Though it is not the ethnos in its purest form, the narod yet maintains an organic connection with it. In the narod there is an ethnic slice, an ethnic dimension, but henceforth it is not the sole component. The narod as a specific historical form of society contains in itself the ethnos (as the timeless form of society), but it is not encompassed by it. We can imagine the narod (or the laos) as a two-floored building. The first story is the ethnos as a concept, and most often ethnoses as phenomena (in the plural). The second floor is the narod proper, i.e., that new thing which is contained only in it and not in the ethnos.

  “Narod” is an ethnosociological category, determined by a number of parameters.32

  Identity in the narod is more complicated than identity in the ethnos. If impersonality and the collective, an authority containing everything in itself (for instance Do Kamo in the Melanesian tribes) were dominant in the ethnos, in the narod there is both a collective and an individual identity. The individual identity, however, is not thought of as something common, but as exclusive, as a prerogative of heroes, chiefs, outstanding personalities — generally, of the elite. In the structure of the narod the collective identity is the most widespread and popular,, while the individual identity is rare and elite.

  Thus, the process of self-identification for the society as a whole becomes significantly more complicated. The model of the ethnos as a whole and of the lineage as a part is supplemented by a scale of stratification and division into social groups, which becomes additional instances of identity.

  Now, besides the identity of the ethnos and the lineage, a response to the question “Who am I?” or “Who are we?” (the question “Who am I?” now has validity) needs to make reference to caste, profession, and location.

  From a koineme a socium is formed, as a myth of formed of mythemes. Mythemes, koinemes, or the words of a language are quantitatively limited, but the number of their combinations in myths, societies, or speeches is limitless.

  The Narod’s Three Forms of Creation: The State, Religion, & Civilization

  The ethnosociological category “narod,” when it appears as a historical phenomenon, necessarily produces the following forms:

  • The State

  • Religion

  • Civilization

  These forms can exist in sequence (history provides examples of every sequence), or they can exist all together or in any other combination whatever. The presence of society as a narod allows for the transition from one form to another. Precisely the narod provides these forms with continuity, steadiness and actuality.

  Every time a narod lets its existence be known, it does this by means of the creation of one of these forms or a few of them simultaneously. The narod does not show itself independently, but only through these forms. As a result of this, circumstances are such that many historical and sociological schools lose sight of the narod as an ethnosociological phenomenon, since its essence and its structure are concealed behind other phenomena, more obvious and worthy of study: states, religions, and civilizations. The narod is hidden behind these forms, and in order to uncover it, it is necessary to undertake certain efforts, which are sometimes shattered against the dogmatic devices of one or another scientific or ideological school. Marxists gravitate towards an economic interpretation of the nature of the state. Liberals see individuals, market institutions, and contracts in everything. Political scientists and historians throw themselves into the study of political regimes. Theologians focus on dogmas and institutions. Culturologists immerse themselves in the comparison between civilizational styles. In the course of all these approaches, the unity of the social system (society as narod) standing behind all of these phenomena disappears. If other disciplines also elaborate consistent constructions, ignoring the category of “narod,” then for Ethnosociology this omission is fatal and represents the missing link because of which Ethnosociology as a discipline is destroyed.

  Reversibility of the Relations of Ethnos and Narod

  We see in history that the relations between two forms of society, the ethnos and the narod, are interconvertible. The emergence of the narod out of the ethnos (out of numerous ethnoses) is one direction of the ethnosociological process. But the narod can also disintegrate into ethnoses — as a rule, new ones. This is the reverse direction. Thus, the correlation “ethnos-narod” is reversible.

  The process of the emergence of the na
rod from ethnoses and the disintegration of narods into new ethnoses is a system of historical cycles. The ethnos is a koineme, i.e., the most basic structure of society. The narod is a more complex structure, consisting of a few koinemes arranged in a hierarchical sequence. The disintegration of a narod (state, civilization, and religion) into its elements brings new koinemes to life. At the same time, we should note that in the composition of a narod ethnoses often change to such an extent that after the disintegration of the narod there occurs not a return to the old ethnoses, but the appearance of new ethnoses, although in some cases the old ethnoses are preserved. Concurrently at least one ethnos is changed irreversibly, the one that was the core of the formation of the narod. After existing as the core of the narod the ethnos does not return to its previous historical form, and new ethnoses are formed instead of it.

  We can trace this in the example of the Greek civilization. Ancient Greeks were a narod, consisting of a number of ethnoses and having produced a specific Mediterranean civilization. When the civilization disintegrated, various new ethnoses appeared in its place, but the core of the Greek civilization (the population of the Peloponnesus and Balkans) was transformed into an entirely new ethnos, of whom modern Greeks are the representatives.

  The narod that created the Roman Empire was built around three ethnic groups (Ramnes, Tities, Luceres — tribus, which later became the English word “tribes”) and gradually received the general name “Roman” or “Latin,” i.e., “residents of Latium,” the “core” of the Roman Empire. The history of Rome knew many very complex ethnic transformations, but after its disintegration, entirely new ethnoses appeared in its borders, including Italy. The disintegration of a massive structure, formed by a narod, engendered an entire series of new koinemes, although some ethnoses (as a rule, on the periphery of the empire) were preserved from ancient times unchanged (for instance, the Basque).