Between natural science and ethnography: On the relationship between the biological, ethnic and social

Correlation between the biological, ethnic and social has been of historical importance to L. N. Gumilev’s passionarity theory of ethnogenesis and remains so today. Modern ethnography, including at Saint Petersburg State University, continues to misunderstand the essence of this part of the Gumilev paradigm while attempting to form a pseudo-loyal attitude to Gumilev’s legacy. This pseudo-loyalty is well demonstrated by ethnographers’ thesis about the equivalence of civilisation and super-ethnos according to Gumilev, whereas civilisation is actually only a temporary social shell of super-ethnos. This paper shows that modern ethnographers and culturologists essentially stay beyond the scientific (naturalistic) approach to ethnogenesis introduced and defended by Gumilev. It therefore discusses the possibility of developing a consistent view of the relationship between the biological, ethnic and social based on the concepts of cooperative human behaviour put forward by synergetics. This perspective taps into Gumilev’s understanding of the nature of the ethnic system as a local case of synergetic adaptation to the environment through cooperative behaviour. We argue for viewing cooperative human behaviour as a strange attractor responsible for the transfer of matter, energy and information between three divergent levels of structural organisation. This view specifically explains the periodic discrepancies between the harsh social conditions of civilisation and the high level of culture it is able to maintain. Given this as a basis, Gumilev’s theory of ethnogenesis should be primarily seen and used as an external tool applied in culturology. As such, it can contribute to the development of a modern synergetic paradigm for culturology.