Psychological features of Ukrainians at the end of the 19th and in the first quarter of the 20th centuries

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF UKRAINIANS AT THE END OF THE 19TH AND IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 20TH CENTURIES

Hromik Oleksandr, seeker of Department of Modern

and Contemporary History of Foreign Countries

Abstract

psychology social group ukrainian

The purpose of the article is to reveal the causal relationships of the processes of development of the psychology of the main social groups of Ukrainians at the end of the 19th -- in the first quarter of the 20th centuries. The research methodology is primarily based on general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as the historical-genetic method. The work consistently uses the psychohistorical approach described by Lloyd DeMause. The scientific novelty consists in introducing information about the factors of transformation of the psychology of social groups of Ukrainians in the specified period, its main features, as well as their role in the interaction of these social groups during the Ukrainian revolution. The Conclusion. The causal relationship between the characteristic features of the psychology of social groups and the low consolidation of Ukrainian society during the national liberation movement of the first quarter of the 20th century is proven. It is shown that a significant role in the processes of psychological changes was played by the social environments which individuals encountered, and the correspondent experiences they acquired. It was found out that the main features of the psychology of Ukrainians in the specified period were lack of initiative, introversion, inferiority complex. The reason for their emergence was primarily the traumatic experience of contacts with representatives of the state apparatus, the church, and teachers.

Key words: psychology of Ukrainians, socio-psychological features, peasantry, intelligentsia, military, First World War, Ukrainian revolution.

Àíîòàö³ÿ

Ãðîì³ê Î. ÏÑÈÕÎËÎò×Ͳ ÎÑÎÁËÈÂÎÑÒ² ÓÊÐÀ¯Íֲ ÍÀÏÐÈʲÍÖ² Õ²Õ - Ó ÏÅÐØ²É ×ÂÅÐÒ² ÕÕ ÑÒ.

Ìåòîþ ñòàòò³ º ðîçêðèòòÿ êàóçàëüíèõ çâ'ÿçê³â ïðîöåñ³â ðîçâèòêó ïñèõîëî㳿 îñíîâíèõ ñîö³àëüíèõ ãðóï óêðà¿íö³â íàïðèê³íö³ Õ²Õ -- ó ïåðø³é ÷âåðò³ ÕÕ ñò. Ìåòîäîëîã³ÿ äîñë³äæåííÿ ´ðóíòóºòüñÿ íàñàìïåðåä íà çàãàëüíî-íàóêîâèõ ìåòîäàõ àíàë³çó òà ñèíòåçó, à òàêîæ ³ñòîðèêîãåíåòè÷íîìó ìåòîä³. Ó ðîáîò³ ïîñë³äîâíî âèêîðèñòàíî ïñèõî³ñòîðè÷íèé ï³äõ³ä, îïèñàíèé Ëëîéäîì ÄåÌîñîì. Íàóêîâà íîâèçíà ïîëÿãຠó ââåäåíí³ äî íàóêîâîãî îá³ãó â³äîìîñòåé ùîäî ôàêòîð³â òðàíñôîðìàö³¿ ïñèõîëî㳿 ñîö³àëüíèõ ãðóï óêðà¿íö³â â îçíà÷åíèé ïåð³îä, ¿¿ îñíîâíèõ ðèñ, à òàêîæ ¿õíüî¿ ðîë³ ó âçàºìî䳿 öèõ ñîö³àëüíèõ ãðóï ó ÷àñ Óêðà¿íñüêî¿ ðåâîëþö³¿. Âèñíîâêè. Çàñâ³ä÷åíî êàóçàëüíèé çâ'ÿçîê ì³æ õàðàêòåðíèìè ðèñàìè ïñèõîëî㳿 ñîö³àëüíèõ ãðóï òà íèçüêîþ êîíñîë³äîâàí³ñòþ óêðà¿íñüêîãî ñóñï³ëüñòâà ï³ä ÷àñ íàö³îíàëüíî-âèçâîëüíèõ çìàãàíü ïåðøî¿ ÷âåðò³ ÕÕ ñòîë³òòÿ. Ïîêàçàíî, ùî ñóòòºâó ðîëü ó ïðîöåñàõ ïñèõîëîã³÷íèõ çì³í ç³ãðàëè ñîö³àëüí³ ñåðåäîâèùà, äî ÿêèõ ïîòðàïëÿëè ³íäèâ³äè, ³ â³äïîâ³äí³ äîñâ³äè, ÿêèõ âîíè íàáóâàëè. Âèçíà÷åíî, ùî ãîëîâíèìè ðèñàìè ïñèõîëî㳿 óêðà¿íö³â â îçíà÷åíèé ïåð³îä áóëè ñêîâàí³ñòü âîë³ òà áåç³í³ö³àòèâí³ñòü, ³íòðîâåðòí³ñòü, êîìïëåêñ ìåíøîâàðòîñò³.

Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà: ïñèõîëîã³ÿ óêðà¿íö³â, ñîö³àëüíî-ïñèõîëîã³÷í³ ðèñè, ñåëÿíñòâî, ³íòåë³ãåíö³ÿ, â³éñüêîâèêè, Ïåðøà ñâ³òîâà â³éíà, Óêðà¿íñüêà ðåâîëþö³ÿ.

Introduction

Problems of national identity remain relevant for Ukrainian science, at least for the reason that in Soviet times, the differences between national communities were regarded as mostly linguistic and cultural. Ignoring the psychological and mental features of collectives automatically meant neglecting the peculiarities of their historical development, since these features are the consequences of specific historical circumstances of the life of a particular collective. This fact enables the following judgments. First, collective psychology should be recognized as a historical phenomenon, and therefore, the applicability of historical methods in its study. Secondly, the psychological features of modern Ukrainians, in particular those that are perceived ambiguously by society, can be shaped both by the realities of the recent past (the period of independence) and be traces of older eras. The choice of the topic of the work is due to this fact: the study of the psychology of Ukrainians at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century will make it possible to accumulate certain material for the further comparison of the psychology of Ukrainians of the past and the present, to identify psychological features with a long history, and to establish the sources of their formation.

Already at the beginning of the 20th century, many Ukrainian researchers of the socio-economic situation of the peasantry, taking into account the relevance of this topic in those revolutionary times, put forward hypotheses about its influence on the psychology of this social group. Mykyta Shapoval (Shapoval, 1931) was one of the prominent initiators of some researches. Later, due to the Marxist doctrine in Ukrainian science, priority was also given to the study of socioeconomic relations, and therefore significant historical studies of the psychological side of social development were not conducted.

In independent Ukraine, more historians began to show interest in the study of historical phenomena that Soviet science did not consider relevant. Many researchers were forced to oppose the still numerous supporters of positivist and classical Marxist approaches. A special revitalization of the study of socio-psychological phenomena in the historical plane has been recorded since the mid-2000s. The social and moral-psychological aspects of the peasantry of the South of Ukraine in the late 20s of the 20th century were investigated by O. Akunin (Akunin, 2006). V. I. Dudka, within the framework of the study of the influence of the mentality of the Ukrainian peasants of the Left Bank of the Dnipro region on the events of the Ukrainian Revolution, singled out the peculiarities of the psychological imperatives of the Ukrainian peasants, in particular the idea of «psychological, spiritual unity, which always comes to the fore in the case of the penetration of foreigners» (Dudka, 2007, p. 151) All responsibility for the English translation here and hereafter lies with the author of the current work.. We can't fail to note the thorough research of Y. Prysiazhniuk, which paid attention to the characteristic features of the national psychology of Ukrainians at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, in particular the phenomenon of double identity (Prysiazhniuk, 2011).

Considering the above, further research in the field of studying the psychology of social groups of Ukrainians in the 20th century seems to be a completely logical and necessary step, and there is an obvious need to deepen scientific knowledge about those periods that have not been given due attention so far.

The purpose of the article is to reveal the causal relationships of the processes of the development of the psychology of the main social groups of Ukrainians at the end of the 19th - in the first quarter of the 19th century. To achieve the specified goal, we set the following tasks: to establish the key features of the psychology of the Ukrainian peasantry, intelligentsia, and military personnel in the specified period, to identify the factors of their formation, as well as to formulate hypotheses regarding the influence of the specified features on the events of the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917-1921.

The Results of the Research

According to Yakiminska (Yakiminska, 2012), who cited M. Hrymych (Hrymych, 1991), the entire Ukrainian culture grew on the formation of the culture of the land, with the Ukrainian mentality having the peasant orientation as an integral characteristic. Understanding the psychology of the Ukrainian peasant in the period to which the current study is devoted means understanding the psychology of the majority of Ukrainians of that time.

It is appropriate to start the study of the factors of the formation of peasant psychology with those influences that the individual encountered the earliest after his appearance in the world. Lloyd deMause in his «Psychohistory» (DeMause, 2000) demonstrated that parenting plays an important role in shaping the psychology of an entire generation. Since the features of the mentality of a certain social group are closely related to the psychological characteristics of individuals, let's find out how upbringing in a Ukrainian village at the end of the 19th century could influence their formation.

The prominent Ukrainian sociologist Mykyta Shapoval claimed that fear played a big role in the psychology of a peasant: «A peasant family raises a child in this way: it binds whole practice of life to the emotion of fear... The child is primarily frightened by God, the priest, the gendarme, the father, the lord, the wolf, the mavka, the witch, the spirit, the teacher, the inspector, the pope, the metropolitan, the Pole, the guard, the gypsy, the Jew, the landowner, etc., etc.» (Shapoval , 1931, p. 59). This passage eloquently illustrates the probable influence of upbringing on the child's psychology and worldview, not to mention the fact that parents scared their children with priests, gendarmes, and Poles for a reason: the latter scared the parents themselves, who were already adult peasants.

In large families, not everyone could be given the necessary attention. Children were often beaten. It is obvious that the psyche of a child subjected to physical violence was traumatized. They had to live in constant fear because of the possibility of using force by their elders (Kedryn, 1976, p. 14). However, from the point of view of adults, the neglect of children was forced. Worries actually absorbed all the attention of the peasants: «time for rest, fun and entertainment» was hard to find (Kozub, 1996, p. 74). The memoirist Plaskonis asked a rhetorical question: «...how could a simple farmer think about any other matters, when his thoughts inextricably revolved around the issue of providing daily bread for his children?». (Plaskonis, 1975, p. 74) These features of the socio-economic situation of the peasants were affecting their outlook, changing their value systems and producing new behavioral patterns.

For example, one of the main places in a peasant's value system was occupied by land. When a woman's husband died, those who wanted to marry a widow courted «...not so much her, but her land» (Kozub, 1996, p. 87). Although a peasant was taught to work from childhood, it was extremely difficult for them to get rich. Therefore, material goods were an absolute value for them. The son-in-law's wealth was an excuse for the parents to give their daughter in marriage, even if she did not love him: «Why are you crying? You know very well who you are marrying. This is not just anyone for you, but a good person and a wealthy Cossack» (Dudko, 1965, p. 25).

Undoubtedly, obtaining an education had a considerable influence on the formation of the psychology of Ukrainians. Teaching in both the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires was accompanied by violence. Kost Turkalo wrote that a student could be hit on the forehead with a pocket knife if he could not answer the teacher's question (Turkalo, 1968). Vasyl Plaskonis mentioned the case when, for failure to complete the task, the teacher hit the student on the arm with a ruler in such a way that he ruptured a vein (Plaskonis, 1975, p. 59). M. Shapoval also mentioned this phenomenon: «Even now in our schools, children are beaten to cause real emotions of fear and to instill in them a number of reflexes necessary for «teachers» (Shapoval, 1931, p. 60), Everything described affirmed such a trait as lack of initiative in the peasant psychology. Deliberate restraint of a person's will due to fear gained great strength even at a young age, during the education of a peasant. A peculiarity of the psychology of a person who was in these conditions could be the expectation of permission for some action, stress connected to uncertainty about its correctness.

However, it is known that not all peasants received an education: there were still «dark» ones (Kozub, 1996; Turkalo, 1968), that is, uneducated. The main reason why peasants did not send their children to school was often the fact that, «as it was then on the agenda, the father preferred to have his children not in school, but as servants on his farm» (Vishnivskyi, 1973, p. 96). Ivan Franko also described these unfortunate circumstances of the underestimation of education by the peasants in his works: for example, in the story «Little Myron» he raised the problem of the complexities of the life of a person with a bright individuality and extraordinary thinking in the Ukrainian village, and as a conclusion noted: «Such amazing apparitions often occur in our villages. Everything about them is slightly different from that of people: their gait, their face, their hair, their words, and their actions. And when such a child has the age to live under a narrow village roof, without broader experience, without clearer knowledge, when from an early age, ignorant relatives begin to force everything into him in such a way, «as is usual for people», then they will succeed in suppressing the innate inclination to a peculiar... ». (Franko) This maintenance of children's ignorance could be aimed at suppressing individuality. The peasant community did not like those who wanted to "rise" above it, punished them for contempt and tried to isolate them. One of the ways of such oppression was the spreading of gossip: «... sometimes the rumor about a girl was unfair. It's just that, as they say, she had a «long» tongue and a bold character and stood out too much from the others. And from time immemorial, such people were considered white crows, and they received almost no more than real slickers» (Kozub, 1996, p. 37). All of the above could lead to the establishment of such a psychological trait as introversion, as well as contribute to the strengthening of the role of public opinion as a regulator of individual activity. The latter significantly constrained his initiative.

Going to school did not mean acquiring thorough knowledge. And the thing was not that not all students showed enough diligence. The problem was the unclear language of instruction. Ivan Kozub wrote about the zemstvo school where he studied: «...it's a pity that education was conducted in a foreign language. It was not easy for many students. Several of my friends were even forced to drop out of school without overcoming the language barrier...\» (Kozub, 1996, p. 40). The experience of being in an educational institution contributed to the emergence of an inferiority complex: Kost Turkalo wrote: «...the peasants were completely nationally unconscious. They called themselves «Russian», completely unaware of their true nationality. They only knew that it was Russia, and there was a Russian tsar, that somewhere further north there lived «katsaps», and they themselves were «khokhol», in school they taught in Russian, and it was the language of the lord, but they spoke the «peasants' language » (Turkalo, 1968, p. 11).

At the same time, the transformations of mentality that occurred during higher education stemmed from the acquisition of new opportunities, a new field of activity: «When, having transferred from the Theological School to the Seminary in 1907, I felt more freedom in it, now, having become a student, felt, like all new students who had just left the bench of the high school, complete freedom. I was like a bird that after a long stay in a cage was released into the wild. In the first minutes, he does not really know what to do and flies at random, where his wings take him, without a certain goal, without yet clarified intentions» (Turkalo, 1968, pp. 91-92). The freedom of action described by Turkalo could neutralize such a feature of the peasant mentality as lack of initiative. Studentship, in addition, produced the ability for selforganization. The process of transition to another social group resembled natural selection, so the time of obtaining higher education in the city was a transitional stage, a test for peasants. For example, settling in a city depended on the ability to make social connections. Here, for example, are Turkalo's memories: «In 1912, I had an acquaintance that introduced me to a wider circle of Ukrainian citizenship» (Turkalo, 1968, p. 97).

Villagers often had a suspicious attitude towards their surroundings, were cautious and introverted. Kozub wondered why the peasants did not repair the roads in their villages: «... they took care of the entrance to their yard, but then nothing else got around them». Basically, it was a manifestation of individualism (as Plaskonis noted, peasants «like to be self-sufficient in everything» (Plaskonis, 1975, p. 37)), an attempt to organize their space, in which one could hide from what frightened the peasant. Some customs demonstrate the closedness of the peasant community: for example, a young man had to «give a «mohorych» to the squires of the village to which he went in order to court some local girl (Kozub, 1996, p. 33). If the ranks of the rural intelligentsia were replenished by someone from outside the city, for example a new teacher or a representative of the clergy, he could well expect beatings, robberies, etc.: in the village, as Y. Prysiazhniuk notes, the «nouveau riche» were disliked and met with suspicion (Shamara, 2006). Boys married mostly girls from their village. (Kozub, 1996). The closedness of the community was also manifested in the fact that «youth did not tolerate strangers in their company» (Kozub, 1996, p. 31). Peasants felt «outsiders» in foreign villages (Plaskonis, 1975). Even on a trip to a neighboring village, everything could seem «alien, hostile and unfriendly» to a peasant (Kozub, 1996, p. 116).

The contacts of the peasantry with other social groups were at the end of the 19th century weak, which indicates a certain social isolation. This isolation was not something natural for the position of the peasant, - it was caused, among other things, by the policy of the state government, which sought to limit the «harmful» initiative of the peasants: On the peasantry of Ukraine at that time, the «instructions» of the Russian Empire with its notorious slogan «Keep and don't let out!». Unfortunately, not only the apparatchiks held and did not let go, but also the reactionary officers, landlords, obscurantists-popes of the Russian Orthodox Church» (Kozub, 1996, p. 38). The authority of the government and fear of it also forced the peasants to be very careful in their actions: they were afraid of punishment, reprisals, because for years the state controlled them and limited their initiative in every way. This led to the problem that Osyp Nazaruk called the «swampy inertia» (Nazaruk, 1917, p. 77) of Ukrainian society. Ivan Kozub also testified that the residents of his village «always lived as if by the inertia of general events in the country»... (Kozub, 1996, p. 41). In addition, many life situations, which for the peasants were to a large extent unexpected, unusual, as if they caught them off guard. Vasyl Plaskonis described the case when a village teacher beat a student so badly that she had a nervous breakdown, and her parents «were timid and submissive people, and therefore did not stand up for their daughter <...>. Maybe, after all, they thought that it should be like this and that teachers had the right to do this» (Plaskonis, 1975, p. 60). So, the state policy of the empires of the late 19th - early 20th century might have contributed to the establishment in the mentality of the peasantry of such traits as stubbornness of will, lack of initiative, and introversion. Some of the modern researchers pay special attention to the specifics of Ukrainian black soil, claiming that their extraordinary fertility did not create additional incentives for activity (Yakiminska, 2012).

Hugh Hessel Tiltman, a British writer, wrote in 1934 that Ukrainians only want an undisturbed life on their own land (Derhachov, 1996). He considered the peace-loving and democratic nature of Ukrainians to be the reason for this, but these traits themselves may have reasons. The danger of thinking and speaking led to lack of initiative among the peasantry, suspiciousness, «closedness» of their own microcosm. In such conditions, the peasants were forced to be satisfied with the search for «local» meanings - they wanted orderliness and the establishment of the rhythm of life. Therefore, the peasant's priorities were peace, not dynamism. Peasants «looked at their existence as a heavy duty that must somehow be taken care of in this world until eternal rest comes» (Plaskonis, 1975, pp. 17-18).

Among all the defining features of the mentality of Ukrainians at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, the inferiority complex is undoubtedly the most prominent. It manifested itself in relations with those who belonged to a «more prestigious» social group or a different nationality. The peasant perceived the entire structure of society in a simplified way: if necessary, it could be divided into those who are ruled and those who ruled themselves - actually «lords»: «In the peasant's mind, the lord was either the one who had an education or the one who had estates and did not physically work himself. The «lord» was also the one who wore a tie. As for the Jews, the peasant, not knowing the name, addressed himself: «Mr. Jew». In return, no one called the peasant «mister», and he did not want it, because it would have seemed very strange to him» (Plaskonis, 1975, p. 47).

Peasants were sometimes ashamed of the environment from which they came. Kozub wrote that those who came from the Cossack nobility, when getting an education in universities, became nobles and «were separated from the common people» (Kozub, 1996, p. 39). The peasants were the bearers, in essence, of self-limiting stereotypes: «People were kind to Andrukh, pitied him, but still did not forget that he was a hired hand - something less valuable than a person» (Kozub, 1996, p. 34). Kozub claimed that peasants could aspire to reach the «heights of urban culture» (Kozub, 1996, p. 41). Some of them «kept their house not in a peasant way» and were «dressed in a city-like way». The inferiority complex in the described cases sometimes contributed to social selfsegregation: «Peasants in those days believed that only gentlemen should ride passenger trains» (Kozub, 1996, p. 119).

Being in the army also contributed to the development of the inferiority complex: I. Kozub, who volunteered for the Russian army at the beginning of the First World War, wrote: «About two-thirds of the soldiers were Khokhols (there was no other name for us in the army), the rest - Muscovites, Uzbeks, Georgians and others. They spoke and gave commands only in Russian. The Khokhols said «shto» [«what» in Russian] diligently, but their language was an unsophisticated jumble. They were embarrassed in front of the Muscovites and considered themselves people of the second, or even lower class. I was different from the general public not much» (Kozub, 1996, p. 137).

In all forms of the inferiority complex, its basis was the low evaluation of one's national group. A. Nazaruk recalled: «when our soldier standing on guard hears that the officers passing by him speak «our way», he does not salute. When asked why he does this, he answers: «Because you, gentlemen, are our people» (Nazaruk, 1917, p. 40). It is worth noting that the inferiority complex became the basis for the spread of provincialist views on the future of Ukraine during the Ukrainian revolution. Many intellectuals, being from the peasantry, turned out to be carriers of such views, and therefore did not see the possibility that Ukraine could exist in isolation from the metropolises.

It is impossible to ignore the fact that the village, both in Western Ukrainian lands and in Dnieper Ukraine, was informationally isolated for a long period of time. This can explain the flourishing of gossip in the villages, which Ivan Kozub mentions in particular, as well as the tendency to communicate in general, despite the prevailing introversion among the peasantry: «Then people wanted and knew how to communicate, willingly and easily entered into conversations. And what about Sundays or other holidays, of which there were quite a lot then, nothing even needs to be said» (Kozub, 1996, p. 26).

Researchers note that the peasants did not use the opportunities provided by a series of «great» reforms of the 1860s and 1870s to acquire education to the extent that some of them would have liked. Prysiazhniuk believes that «the average Ukrainian farmer met the «era of capitalism», having preserved in their psychology the stereotype established over the centuries - the priority of a person's physical labor over his intellect and the ability to think economically effectively» (Shamara, 2006). Indeed, the peasant mind was pragmatic, subject to practice. Public opinion in the village could easily condemn someone's irrational approaches to life: «...they mocked the arrogant village fashionistas: they said, look, he is a poor man, but what boots he has! He won't be successful! Won't become the owner!» (Kozub, 1996, p. 37).

Peculiarities of the peasant's thinking and their fear of stigma caused a comprehensive skepticism about innovations and changes. Serhii Efremov wrote: «It is well known that at the first hearing or reading of a Ukrainian book, our peasant often looked at it as a lord's fiction and even as an attempt to laugh at him» (Shamara, 2006) (It is interesting that the cliche «lord's fiction» was also used by Ivan Kozub (Kozub, 1996) and Mykyta Shapoval (Shapoval, 1923)). This way of thinking had ambiguous consequences: «...due to their ignorance, a large part of the peasants was not only indifferent to good initiatives, but even had a hostile attitude towards them, opposed the opening of a school, believing that the peasants did not need literace. Therefore, they did not let theit children go to school» (Kozub, 1996, p. 40). T. Osadchii noted that «at the core of the Ukrainian worldview was a desire for the simple real truth that is accessible to the peasant» (Yakiminska, 2012). An example can be that peasants who signed up for the Bolshevik regiments, being captured, when asked about the reasons for cooperation with the «reds» they answered: «the Ukrainian army fights for the interests of the bourgeoisie, and our villages stand for the people» (Udovichenko, 1971, p. 62). So, the peasant's mindset was characterized by the desire for extreme simplification.

The peasants evaluated any changes after the fact and were inclined to negate everything that was felt unpleasant in experience. To confirm this statement, let's turn to the opinion of Shapoval: «The peasantry, as the least cultured and educated group, does not so clearly imagine the social ideals of its own and other groups, but it resolutely opposes the landlord and the authorities, who only extort it» (Shapoval, 1923, p. 10). In another source we find the following: «All those peasant armed units that showed themselves during the anti-hetman uprising, joined and numerically replenished the personnel of the army, when it was necessary to defend Ukraine from the Bolsheviks, went home» (Fedorko, 1973, p. 13). The peasants gladly fought against what they had already encountered and felt the unacceptability of, but their suspicion and conservatism prevented them from fighting for something: here a certain paralysis of the will, stiffness in actions, lack of creative energy was revealed.

Researchers note that during the First World War, such negative features of the Ukrainian mentality as passivity, anarchism, nihilism and inferiority complex were gradually neutralized (Semerhey, 2019). A peasant's reflection on the beginning of the war deserves attention: «Millions of young men and men, who were in no way involved in the maddened monstrous bunch of politicians, had to abandon everything: the household, parents, wives, children, native homes, - and carry their lives to other people's fields in that bloody slaughter» (Kozub, 1996, p. 130). As we can see, the peasants acutely felt the injustice of their position, the senselessness of participating in it, since they did not have the opportunity to defend their real interests: «...both the local population and the front-line soldiers did not show the slightest enthusiasm, let alone patriotism, for that war» (Kozub, 1996, p. 134).

Indeed, the Ukrainians did not have any motivation to participate in the battles: «We only knew one thing: - «that's what the superiors ordered». They also knew that without us, our poor families would die of hunger and cold, and the rulers and lords would look indifferently at this, because it is in their interest» (Polubotok, 1916, p. 3). The peasants, since they perfectly understood that they were not fighting for their interests, felt cheated, and this eventually managed to «stir up» the inert peasant worldview. It is not surprising that many memoirists (Kedrin, 1976; Brik, 1972) noted cases of «fraternization» of Ukrainians from both sides of the front. Some of the authors of memoirs described the scenes of the first contact between Western and Eastern Ukrainians during the Ukrainian Revolution (after the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - that is, already under the rights of allies) as moments of great spiritual elevation (Fedorko, 1973, p. 12).

The First World War caused an existential crisis for the peasantry, which was aggravated by certain circumstances of being in the army. Army life was full of things in which the peasants simply did not see the meaning: some military «rituals» seemed to the peasants, whose actions were always subject to practice, useless: Kozub, for example, spoke of the army drill as follows: «I was surprised and amused that normal people, like wind-up dolls, endlessly go here and there» (Kozub, 1996, p. 138). Going to the front, some Ukrainian soldiers felt a sense of «bitter indifference and sadness» (Kozub, 1996, p. 139). Together with the perceived need to protect their value system, the above-mentioned circumstances motivated Ukrainians to look for a way out of the existential crisis and rethink the meaning of existence. The Ukrainian revolution can be considered a proof of certain success of this search.

The first volunteer soldiers of The Ukrainian People's Army were united by the common idea of protecting the Motherland. When memoirists portrayed a certain soldier positively, they often used the word «energetic» to characterize him. For example, Oleksandr Nazaruk wrote about a military commander: «This man is energetic and determined. And I especially appreciate these signs in view of our sloppy fishlessness» (Nazaruk, 1917, p. 21). Presumably, this is how Nazaruk noted the problem of lack of initiative among Ukrainians at that time. He also called them «observers» (Nazaruk, 1917, p. 91). In another place, he noted: «in general, I terribly do not tolerate calm Ukrainians, whom even the strongest blow on the face cannot «provoke» (Nazaruk, 1917, p. 63). Taking into account that the majority of some units of the armies of the Ukrainian People's Republic and the

Ukrainian state were often made up of volunteers, it must be concluded that the people who agreed to defend Ukraine with weapons in their hands had certain qualities that made their conscious choice possible. It was these qualities that reflected the difference in worldviews and psychological traits between the military and the intelligentsia, the peasantry, etc. Soldiers as a social group, therefore, were formed through a kind of natural selection: their «vigor», which the memoirists write about, most likely consisted in a developed strong will, a lower tendency to individualism, introversion and, accordingly, a greater ability to interact with the collective.

During the national liberation struggle, Ukrainian soldiers faced many demoralizing circumstances (Brik, 1972; Monkevich, 1956). The population did not always treat the Ukrainian army favorably, at least until the first acquaintance with the «reds», which somewhat sobered the villagers. Having felt the brutality of the communists in their experience, they rejected the possibility of cooperation with them: as it was noted when considering the features of the psychology of the peasants, their tendency to negation was rarely manifested towards the hypothetical, more often - already after the feeling. This was the reason that the peasants, to put it simply, mostly learned from their mistakes.

In the context of relations between social groups, it worth mentioning that most often they turned out to be tense. Kedrin, like many other memoirists - former soldiers, accuses the intelligentsia of «distrust and indifference to the native regular armed forces, which should be replaced only by the «militia» (Kedrin, 1976, p. 56). Boris Monkevych spoke out more radically on this matter: «The majority of the intelligentsia of that time was inspired by someone else's ideal, the helm was in their hands, and they did not appreciate the weight of the Armed Forces, built on national Cossack traditions within the framework of the generally accepted requirements of regular armies. The Ukrainian Army in Dnipro region was born in pain and suffering: when it was strong, when it was weak - it was equally beaten and destroyed by ignorance or malice» (Monkevich, 1956, p. 4).

Other things also annoyed the military. The memoirist Fedorko spoke ironically of the big celebrations organized in the army during the visit of Khortytsia: «After another deeply patriotic speech, rest came» (Fedorko, 1973, p. 11). The phraseology of the soldiers, whose memoirs were studied, suggests that they were skeptical about the need for such a pastime. For example, Boris Monkevich, describing Bolbochan, noted: «He was the first commander since the beginning of the revolution, who, instead of the rallies that his predecessors held, began with a firm hand and deed, not words, to create order and a peaceful life» (Monkevich, 1956, p. 20). This characteristic is presented in the memoirs in the context of criticism of the inactivity of the intelligentsia.

Petro Bolbochan, perhaps the most outstanding military man of the time of the Ukrainian revolution, often (and justifiably) appears in Ukrainian historiography as a martyr who was executed due to political intrigues. The intelligentsia was particularly suspicious of him. In the letter that Bolbochan wrote to the Ukrainian command shortly before his death, his desperate misunderstanding of the actions of the Ukrainian intelligentsia at that time was reflected: «you are all to blame, because you cannot understand the simplest questions of life, you climb into ministers, chieftains, you climb into the heads of a big state, you climb in the legislature instead of being ordinary government officials and clerks» (Vishnivskyi, 1973, p. 109).

The intelligentsia accused the military of being counterrevolutionary, Bonapartism, and striving for «firm hand» power. And the military really wanted it, but they understood it somewhat differently. Oleksandr Udovichenko recalled a meeting with the commanding staff of one of the detachments, at which the following thoughts were expressed: «We are fed up with the party's disarray, listlessness, despair and patriarchy. We want firm authority, determination and experienced management in battle, and not as it was until now, as a result of which the Detachment suffered, unnecessarily, heavy, irreparable losses» (Udovichenko, 1971, p. 13). It seems that the military wanted to extend the model of military discipline to the entire system of state power. This is confirmed by Monkevich's reflections at the beginning of his work on the role of «power and energy» of the «ruling person» in the life of the nation, the frequency of positivecontext use of the cliches «firm hand», «firm power», phraseology («who has power, those have rights»), and during the Ukrainian revolution, this made the members of the Central Council and the General Secretariat worry. «The spirit of pacifism and social slogans inseparably reigned throughout the government. And when someone «matured», he tried to build an army, neglecting the apoliticalness, qualifications and authority of the military leaders. The party jealously guarded its influence, and hence came the «otamanship» and the awarding of titles to people who never held weapons in their hands, but had pretensions and great ambitions to command the army» (Monkevich, 1956, p. 4).

The Ukrainian intelligentsia in those days, of course, did not constitute an ideological monolith, and differences in views depended not only on belonging to a certain party, but also on territorial origin. Kedrin wrote that one of the main reasons for the failure of the Ukrainian revolution was «two states in one, dual powers, two armies, two commands, two psyches» (Kedrin, 1976). Gradually, deep ideological, cultural, psychological and political differences, which had been accumulating between Easterners and Galician Ukrainians for centuries, came to the fore in the relations between the Ukrainian People's Republic and the The West Ukrainian People's Republic (Polishchuk, 2017). What were the characteristics of the psycology of the intelligentsia of Western Ukraine? Kedrin, for example, described an interesting phenomenon, which he called Galician separatism. He saw its manifestations in the signing of the Ukrainian Galician Army - Denikin agreement and in the activities of Yevhen Petrushevich (Kedrin, 1976, p. 46), asserting that «All-Ukrainian patriotism did not permeate the worldview of prominent Galician figures in the most responsible positions at that time: they remained Galicians , looking at Galicia and Lviv with its St. George's Mountain and the High Castle, and not at the state, which could only be Ukrainian, not Galician» (Kedrin, 1976, p. 56). The same memoirist even noted that «Yevhen Petrushevich was definitely a Ukrainian patriot - but to an even greater extent - a Galician patriot» (Kedrin, 1976, p. 58). Therefore, Galician separatism for Kedrin was also Galician provincialism.

Vyshnivskyi, considering the subject of the peasant insurgent movement, quoted the following passage from the work of Isaac Mazepa: «It was basically a social movement. National motives, especially at the end of 1918 and at the beginning of 1919, played a secondary role in the rebels. As a manifestation of the unorganized will of the masses, the insurgent movement had a spontaneous character and was never characterized by the stability of its ideology. Each ataman in a village, district or region acted independently, without a joint program, plan, or tactics. Therefore, with the low political level of local rebel leaders, the chaos of ideological swings was a typical feature of peasant uprisings in Ukraine» (Vishnivskyi, 1973, p. 13). It was the local uprisings of the peasants, which eventually led to the atamanship, that were the most notable manifestations of the above-described spontaneous peasant negation of what was known as unacceptable.

It was mentioned above that the peasants could stay in one village for many years, being, in addition, informationally isolated, so they had a rather limited outlook. The traumatic experience of relations with the state authorities led them to introversion, and the specific circumstances of the revolutionary process in 1917-1921 focused their attention on the abstract «land and will», especially after the Skoropadsky coup. Some researchers testify that the exit of certain military formations outside the territory of their small homeland had a negative impact on their combat capability (Kalakura et al., 2017, p. 362). Udovychenko, writing angrily about the phenomenon of atamanship, singled out atamans of a «local nature» from the total number of rebel leaders, who «limited their activities to the defense of their village or their parish. These chieftains «did not see the forest beyond the trees» and therefore their contribution to the liberation of Ukraine was small» (Udovichenko, 1971, p. 125). It is interesting that the memoirists noticed the described trait of behaviour not only in the people of Dnipro Ukraine: «... just as in Dnipro Ukraine, in Galicia, mobilization failed and here and there there was desertion, here and there the peasants signed up for the army in order to get their shoes and rifle and disappear to the house, and one can only argue whether it was a mass phenomenon or a single, exceptional one. It is a fact that local «republics» were created in Galicia and that disciplinary military units had to be sent to restore order in the rebellious district» (Kedrin, 1976, p. 57).

The conclusion

The defining features of the psychology of Ukrainian peasants were the stiffness of the will and lack of initiative, introversion, and an inferiority complex. The reason for their emergence was primarily the traumatic experience of contacts with representatives of the state apparatus, the church, and teachers. The peasant perceived the external environment as hostile, felt emotions of fear and shame in relation to it - this led to self-absorption, fixation on one's own microcosm, a certain self-isolation. The praxeological component dominated the philosophy of the activities of the peasants, which, together with lack of initiative, contributed to the emergence of a sceptical attitude to innovations, the inertia of the worldview, which, moreover, was quite limited because of the informational isolation of the peasantry and the lack of education. The process of transition of peasants to other social groups in many aspects resembled natural selection, in which certain features of an individual's psychology were the parameters of this selection. Over time, differences in the psychological characteristics of the emerging social groups became apparent. Thus, a peasant could gain a foothold in the city if he was more proactive and less suspicious of his surroundings. People with the same characteristics could volunteer for the army. Obviously, the psychology of the intelligentsia, although it possessed features that enabled more active interaction with other individuals, also retained those «peasant» properties that significantly inhibited such interaction when it concerned members of another social group. It is about suspicion, the effect of which, it seems, has been significantly increased by the influence of the dominant social ideology, as well as a tendency towards corporatism.

The study provides grounds for assuming a direct connection between the features of the psychology of Ukrainians of the late 19th and the first quarter of the 20th centuries and the low consolidation of Ukrainian society, which eventually became one of the main reasons for the defeat of the national liberation movement: first of all, some features of the peasant's way of thinking as a consequence of their psychology created obstacles in the way of interaction with the rest of social groups, such as the intelligentsia and the military. This actualizes the need for further research on the issue involving interdisciplinary approaches. In addition, it seems necessary to involve a wider range of diverse sources for a more detailed study of the ways in which an individual's psychological characteristics influenced their actions.

References

1. Brik, M. (1972). Z mynulykh dniv [From days gone by]. Yorkton. 138 s. [in Ukrainian]. 52

2. DeMause, L. (1982). Foundations of Psychohistory. New York: Creative Roots Pub. 336 s.

3. Derhachov, O. (1996). Ukrainska derzhavnist u 20 stolitti. Istorykopolitolohichnyi analiz. URL: http://litopys.org.ua/ukrxx/r07.htm [in Ukrainian].