Abstract History testifies to the following: successful, long-term civilization projects were carried out when it was possible to find a successful combination of three identity levels: a local level (an ethnic language community), a regional level (a group of related cultures and languages that have common roots), and a global level (humanity). The key role is played by the second level, which ensures the organic mutual enrichment of national (local) cultures and through which bearers of the local ethno-linguistic community realize they are part of humanity. The actually unresolved issue of the second identity level for Russia very acutely poses the problem of the lack of formation of a stable national identity. Three variants for answering the question of the second identity level are considered: the Slavic one (Danilevskii), European one (Dostoevsky), and the Russia–Eurasia formula (classical Eurasianism). The author of this report has shown that none of the particular versions of cultural and civilizational identity in modern Russia can serve as an invariant of all-Russian identity, which raises the question of the need for gathering them (rather than bringing them to unity) based on the category of vsechelovecheskoe developed in Russian thought.

中文翻译：

---

俄罗斯社会的自我意识

摘要 历史证明以下内容：当有可能找到三个身份层次的成功组合时，成功的、长期的文明项目就得以实施：地方层次（民族语言社区）、区域层次（一组相关文化）和具有共同根源的语言）和全球层面（人类）。第二层发挥了关键作用，它确保了民族（地方）文化的有机相互丰富，并通过该层，地方民族语言社区的承载者意识到他们是人类的一部分。俄罗斯实际上尚未解决的第二个身份层次问题非常尖锐地提出了缺乏稳定的民族身份形成的问题。考虑了回答第二身份级别问题的三种变体：斯拉夫语（Danilevskii），欧洲一（陀思妥耶夫斯基）和俄罗斯-欧亚公式（古典欧亚主义）。这份报告的作者表明，现代俄罗斯文化和文明身份的任何特定版本都不能作为全俄罗斯身份的不变量，这就提出了是否需要收集它们（而不是使它们统一）的问题基于在俄罗斯思想中发展起来的 vsechelovecheskoe 类别。