The scientific tradition that has developed in our country considers the concept of "security" mainly in a political or sociological context. To confirm this, it is enough to refer to some general work, for example, V. N. Kuznetsov's textbook "Sociology of Security", published as an appendix to the journal "Security of Eurasia". However, even in this work there are such concepts as" culture of security "and" culture of prevention", which already have a significant humanitarian component.

Although I did not have the opportunity to view all reference publications, there are no references to the concept of "security" in the encyclopedic dictionaries published under the editorship of A.M. Prokhorov (Prokhorov, 1991; Prokhorov, 2000). This concept is also not found in later encyclopedic publications [New Illustrated Encyclopedia, 2007]. It is obvious that for the editors of Russian encyclopedias, the concept of "security" is primarily of everyday significance, i.e. it is not yet fully established in Russian scientific terminology.

In Russian, of course, this word exists, but it is interpreted mainly in a domestic way: "absence of danger, a situation in which someone, something is not in danger" [Dictionary of the Russian language, 1959, vol. 1, p. 81 (given a household example from Leo Tolstoy's book "Anna Karenina")]. It is interesting to note that in V. I. Dahl's" Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language "(first issues were published in 1861), the verb" to fear "meant"to warn, protect, guard, look out, patronize and intercede, and also in the church sense - to fear the flock". The adjective "safe" meant " non-dangerous, harmless, faithful, reliable, etc.", i.e. it corresponded to the modern household context of the concept of "safety". Obviously, these lexemes (danger and security) were not "popular" as scientific terms at that time, and the concept of security itself had a different lexical "design". It seems that in the history of the Russian language, the primary verb was to fear/ graze, and the nouns "danger" and" safety " were its derivatives. Thus, in Russian and some other European languages, the concept of security is historically associated with the shepherd/shepherd/pastor, which has a clear Christian origin.

If we turn to the etymology of the terms "danger-security" in English, which is directly related to the content of the book under review, it becomes obvious that it goes back to the conceptualization of the idea of "security" - primarily as an institution (system of institutions) associated with the analysis and prevention of threats, challenges and risks directed against the state and the company (see correspondences: The Committee for State Security in the USSR and the National Information Security Agency in the United States: National Security Agency). Of course, there are various security services in the lives of people who are not state-owned, but financially well-off. However, the emphasis on "security" in the past and current century is a special topic that could be addressed in a separate project.

In English (unlike Russian and many other languages), the concepts of "danger" and "safety" have different sources and developed completely independently. Two antonyms are used in English: danger (danger, threat) and security (security, including information about threats). The first word is of ancient Germanic origin, the second is Latin. As a result, the heterogeneity of roots gives a good opportunity for the emergence of concepts (you can't build a concept with a negative prefix, for example, without -).

¹ "National" in the English-speaking context means "state".

The English term "security" comes from the Latin word securitas, atis, which means "carelessness, serenity, peace of mind; indifference, carelessness, negligence; security, security; security (debt), guarantee". In turn, the Latin word secures is related to it-axe, axe; axe blow; damage, damage ². It seems that in its original meaning, the English word security goes back to the Latin word meaning the ability to avoid any threat of violent actions. As will be seen later, the concept of "security" has a similar origin in other cultures.

The English word danger has a rather complicated history. According to D. Harner's "Etymological Dictionary of the English Language" ³, it is of Germanic origin, in the XIII century it had the following meanings: difficult, difficult, demanding, touchy, difficult; arrogant, arrogant, arrogant; strict, harsh, cruel, harsh, strong, caustic, sarcastic, and by the XVI century it acquired the meanings: the power of the seigneur, masters; jurisdiction. The general logic of the development of concepts is clear: preventing the threat of violence (security) and avoiding the anger of superiors (danger). In this everyday context, the political science concept was born.

* * *

The book under review is the result of creative efforts of Russian and foreign researchers who gathered in Suzdal in 2011 at a seminar on security issues in the context of different epochs, peoples and cultures. They were faced with a difficult task: to transform a concept that already has a fairly stable political context (for example, state security, energy security, food security, etc.) into a term of cultural (more precisely, interdisciplinary) nature, which can unite specialists from different disciplines. The first section of the book written by S. Panarin and A. Yessimova "Discursive Security Analysis: Definition as an element of culture"is devoted to this issue.

The authors begin the book with the statement that now the state (any, not only Western) it seeks to avoid its direct task of ensuring the safety of citizens (p. 17). At the same time, they refer to the work of the Polish-American philosopher and political scientist 3. Bauman "Fluid Modernity". However, 3. Bauman also expressed a more general position that the modern state generally seeks to withdraw from the sphere of public policy (as far as I remember, Bauman's book deals with the deliberate "desertion" of both the elite and politically active citizens from it).

A sad start to a book about security. And it, of course, addresses essential linguoculturological issues, if the built-up state security system fails. The Yessimovs believe (with reference to foreign authors) that language and discourse play an important role in the security culture, and in essence-a mentality formed linguistically (more precisely, "historically-linguistically", since language forms the historical experience of the people). By the way, this thesis is well commented on by the authors ' reference to the use of vocabulary related to the concept of "security" in European languages.

The following points are important: by the end of the 20th century, the number of threat-related word usage in European fiction and nonfiction literature increased, and this trend was more pronounced in the Russian language (pp. 27-29). This conclusion does not inspire optimism, since the living language is very active in relation to external situations. At the same time, "... there is still a difference in accents, in the emphasis that the language puts each time when pronouncing the word"security". In Europe, this emphasis falls on the position of the subject relative to the environment, which implies some action of the subject himself or some institution, in East Asia - on his inner sense of self, resulting from a certain state" (p.32; highlighted by the authors). The book presents many other linguistic-semantic differences in the concept of "security", but it seems that the action/state dichotomy, i.e. subject-object perception of the world, plays a significant role. However, from the book, for quite objective reasons, it is impossible to understand exactly what threats, challenges and risks are currently relevant for different peoples and cultures. And from this comes awareness/neosness.-

² See: "Large Latin-Russian Dictionary", which exists in virtual form on the Internet. This word is related to the Russian (and Indo-European) word "axe", but the Russian concept of "security" was formed on the basis of a different model.

³ This dictionary can be found on the Internet.

knowledge of real threats facing the whole world. I hope that S. Panarin will also take this perspective into account in his future work.

A peer-reviewed book can be divided into a number of thematic blocks. One of them is related to a real concept that is present in the minds of living people, expressed in lexical form and (possibly) influencing the corresponding behavior (this is not indicated in the text of the book). Materials for such an analysis were obtained as a result of interviewing. Although I myself have a low opinion of modern empirical sociology, it is impossible to ignore it, partly because it gives rise to thoughts about "fluidity" (3. Bauman), i.e. about the actual "conjuncture" of the concept of "security". "Fluidity", in fact, is the practical meaning of the concept: if it were not for the constant variability of the situation, then security could have been achieved "on a global scale" long ago. This area of sociological thought includes the following works: N. Tsoi "Ideas about the safety of Russian and foreign students in Vladivostok (based on surveys conducted at the Far Eastern Federal University)"; Nyamaa Galimaa (Mongolia) "Ideas about the safety of Mongolian students (based on a survey conducted by students of the Mongolian State University of Science and Technology)"; I. Tsoi (Mongolia) " Ideas about the safety of Mongolian students (based on a survey conducted by students of the Mongolian State University of Science and Technology)". Bochkareva, A. Yessimova "Comparative analysis of Russian and Kazakh students 'security perceptions"; I. Budanova "International students' security perceptions (based on the materials of an express study at Ivanovo State University)".

Another block consists of texts written in the classical key: T. Tutnova " Development of the nuclear industry of the PRC: new course - new risks?"; F. Popov "The right to secession as a new element of group and individual security: a critique of basic concepts"; E. Borisova, S. Panarin "Security contradictions on the example of water and energy problems in China". Central Asia"; S. Abashin "Everyday dangers in Uzbekistan". This approach to the phenomenon includes strict certainty of threats, challenges, and risks that must be met with an appropriate verified policy. In this case, it would be possible to talk about "automating" security approval processes, but it is unlikely that this is the case in reality, because even in such seemingly "simple" things, there is always an element of prognostication, i.e. obvious uncertainty. I will try to demonstrate this thesis later.

I would call the next block of materials "hermeneutical". Except for the specified work with. Panarina and A. The following texts belong to this thematic block: S. Dmitriev "Security in China: the term and connotation"; M. Rudakova "On the philosophical and religious content of the term Aman"; R. Sharipova "Security according to the Koran and Sunnah"; D. Mikulsky "The concept of Aman in Arab-Muslim legal culture"; S. Filatov " Security in the social doctrine and practical policy of the Russian Orthodox Church"; G. Kolganova, A. Petrova " The Tsar as a guarantor of security and stability of the state (on the example of Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt)"; A. Kirichenko "Connotations and priorities of security in Burmese culture in historical perspective"; A. Meshcheryakov " Evolution of the Concept of security in Japan: XVII - the first half of the XX century"; Ugo Persi (Italy) "From Seneca to pubblica sicurezza: the evolution of the concept of" security"in Italian culture".

The purpose of these authors ' works is to use cultural texts and special linguistic dictionaries to identify a certain diversity (and possibly even similarity) in the understanding of the concept of "security" among different peoples and in different epochs. In my opinion, this is a promising research area that will allow us to transfer the topic of "security" from intuitive knowledge to fundamental knowledge, which means, for example, the emergence of appropriate university departments and scientific disciplines in which it will be possible to defend dissertations. But this is a matter for the future.

A few words about the form of the book under review. It cannot be called either a collection or a collective monograph. Due to the publication of the results of the discussion on each listened report, the reader gets a sense of involvement in the creative process, i.e., involvement in this particular temporarily existing research team. Such a sense of belonging does not arise in those cases when you simply read a collection of articles based on the conference materials or even a monograph. This form introduces the reader to a discussion, even remotely.

I was interested in several topics in the book under review, which I would like to take part in discussing, for example, the speech of G. Kolganova and A. Petrova about the tsar as a guarantor

security and stability. Their article is very professional, and I have no objections to its content. But I was surprised that neither the authors ' speeches nor the discussion contained references to the well-known book "The Golden Bough"by the English anthropologist J. Fraser, ⁴ written specifically on this topic, i.e. related to such a specific idea of security among different peoples and in different epochs. ⁵ This is not a reproach to the authors and participants of the discussion, but, on the contrary, gratitude for the fact that the reader is given the opportunity to "refresh" his erudition and "integrate" the materials read into the current work.

Now about the speech by E. Borisova and S. Panarin on water and energy security in Central Asia. Of course, I do not dispute the facts and conclusions given by the authors. But I was struck by one detail - about the possibility of replenishing the water and energy balance of Central Asian countries at the expense of Russia's northern rivers.⁶ The text of the speech did not mention this, but this issue was eventually discussed. Here are excerpts from this discussion.

"Panarin: It seems to me that no one will implement this project. It is simply unprofitable for the current Russian government. Who works in shifts in Western Siberia, who pumps oil, who creates the national income, the stabilization fund and all our investment capital? Who! Half of the employees there are from Central Asia. So let them work better for us than we will conduct water, so that they can live better at home. Borisova: In fact, there would be enough water in the region if it wasn't lost in land reclamation systems. European Union projects are aimed at improving the state of these systems. If the problem of water loss is solved, the problem of water scarcity may be pushed back for a while. Abashin: Yes, Europe offers a different model. It offers a model of savings, and through this model, it increases its influence with grants. This is another way of being present in the region" (p. 278).

As you can see, the positions of the main debaters on this issue are not very defined and do not coincide very much. But that's what I'd like to be more specific about.

First, the redistribution of water resources is part of government policy (not" river rotation", but redistribution). Thus, such a redistribution in 1985 was 140,000 cubic meters in Canada. By 2020, it is expected to reach 300,000 cubic meters. m. The corresponding figures for the United States are 30 000/200 000, and for India 50 000/300 000. Further, in Central Asia, with the oasis mode of settlement and a growing population, the water problem (even with improved water use) has already reached its natural limits. Thus, in 2000, the water reserves of the Aral Sea were used up by 83%, the Amu Darya runoff - by 85%, and the Syr Darya runoff - by 94%. At the same time, in the same year, the water reserves of the Kara Sea were used by 1.9%, and the runoff of the Ob River - by 3% [Balandin, 2004, pp. 51-52]. It should be noted once again that we are not talking about "turning the rivers", but about transferring several percent of the runoff of Siberian rivers to the arid region.

Secondly, as can be seen from the content of the speech, the water and energy balance in Central Asia is a strong conflict-causing factor. Does Russia need conflicts in the immediate border region? The answer to this question is obvious.

Third, Russia's geopolitical interests (including problematic integration processes) they demand to reduce the influence of foreign players (China, Turkey, the USA and the EU) in the region. And the spread of political/extremist Islam here is highly undesirable. In this global "game", supporting the water and energy balance of the Central Asian region is a trump card in the hands of Russian politicians.

Fourth, I am not particularly sure about the desirability of mass Central Asian migration "now" to Russian territory. Migration, of course, is a special topic, but all surveys show that it is unacceptable for the "average Russian". The emergence of new labor opportunities in the region will probably reduce the migration influx: after all, it is not migration itself that is dangerous,

⁴ In the Russian translation, the most well-known one-volume abridged version, although the original version (translated into Russian) is 4 volumes.

⁵ It is interesting to take revenge on the political trends of the last twenty years: they destroy "inconvenient" leaders, for example, Milosevic, Hussein, bin Laden, Gaddafi. Not the same fate awaits B. Assad? (see [Psrepelkin, 2011, p. 21]). Perhaps this is a modern implementation of the specific idea of security that the authors of the report brilliantly presented. As in the text of J. Fraser, the security of the people, the country, and the ruler becomes closely interrelated.

⁶ I remember a seminar in Tashkent under the auspices of the magazine "Friendship of Peoples" in 1995, in which I participated, where it was the main topic.

and the migration is massive and fast. Perhaps in this case, Russian politicians and migration services would not have to worry about what to do with newcomers in the current difficult situation. There are no ready-made recipes here, but I suggest that we take a look at the problem posed by the authors of this book with all possible scientific equipment. Most of all, I am interested in the technical side of the issue, since political and cultural issues have often been considered in the literature.

Concluding the review, I would like to refer to the articles devoted to the concept of Aman in Arabic vocabulary and culture (M. Rudakova and D. Mikulsky). They hint that the concept of "security" is initially contained in any natural language, regardless of the political science concept of security.

M. Rudakova believes that for many ancient peoples, the concept of "security "" is a guide to the practice of achieving happiness and harmony with the world." The term aman is also associated with this worldview as an idea of calmness, confidence, and faith (pp. 83-84). According to D. Mikulsky, according to Muslim law, the term aman means "the act of providing Muslims during a war to a non-Muslim enemy with guarantees for the safety of his life and property" (p.99). The author gives many concrete examples, from which it is possible to understand which linguistic model in natural Russian best corresponds to the concept of "security" (if we take into account the above statement by M. Rudakova).

As I have already said, the linguistic design of the concept of danger/safety that exists in Russian is most likely a tracing paper from English. After reading both articles, I realized that in Russian the concept of "security" corresponds to a part of verbs and verbal nouns with the prefix po -. The verbal prefix (prefix) po -, which probably goes back to the preposition "po", has a very significant functional load. With her participation, for example, verb forms and verbal nouns arise that are directly related to the topic of this work. In particular, the formation of concepts related to the concept of security in the Russian language includes such functional features of the po-prefix as the acquisition of any quality, property, including to a greater extent; bringing an action to a result; performing an action in one step; performing an action for some time, and some others meanings [Dictionary of the Russian Language, 1959, vol. 3, p. 208]. In some cases, the prefix " po " has completely merged with the root.

You can name the following words: win (overcome adversity), congratulate (wish health), pardon (bestow mercy), make peace (make peace), give (give something without compensation), patronize (provide shelter), make friends (become a friend), sacrifice (sacrifice something, appease), as well as many others. Even the word "suffer" has the same meaning (survive, overcome suffering). I am not a linguist, so what is written in this section is just a hypothesis. But it is in good agreement with the speeches of M. Rudakova and D. Mikulsky.

* * *

Rarely does a book evoke such a system of associations, pull out any information from the depths of memory, or give a flight of fancy, which is probably due to the closeness of the topic raised for me personally, and to the successful "construction" of the book, which encourages the reader to dialogue. I hope that this is not the end, but only the beginning and continuation of the work of this creative team.

list of literature

Balandin R. K. Civilizatsiya vs prirody [Civilization against nature]. What happens to the weather and climate. Moscow: Vschs, 2004.

Kuznetsov V. N. Sotsiologiya bezopasnosti: Uchebnik [Sociology of Security: Textbook]. Moscow: Kniga i biznes, 2003.

New illustrated encyclopedia. Book 1 10. Moscow: Bolshaya Rossiiskaya entsiklopediya, OOO " TD "Publishing House Mir knigi"", 2007.

Psrspslkin L. S. Posle arabnykh revolyutsii [After the Arab revolutions]. Domestic and international political aspects. Moscow, N. Novgorod: Medina Publ., 2011.

Prokhorov A.M. (ed.) Bolshoy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar ' [Big Encyclopedia], Moscow: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, 1991.

Prokhorov A.M. (ed.) Bolshoy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar ' [Big Encyclopedia], St. Petersburg: Bolshaya Rossiiskaya entsiklopediya, Normit Publ., 2000.

Dictionary of the Russian Language, vol. 1-4, Moscow: State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries, 1959.

Permanent link to this publication: