Margarita Iosifovna Volovikova (April 12, 1947 – July 12, 2021) was a distinguished Russian psychologist, Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Professor, who worked for more than 40 years at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and left a profound mark on Russian psychological science. Over the years of her active academic career, she authored over 200 publications. Her research interests spanned a wide range of areas, from the psychology of thinking to moral and Orthodox psychology.

Margarita Iosifovna was born on April 12, 1947. Her father, Iosif Aronovich Volovikov (1914–1980), was a civil engineer, and her mother, Sofia Grigorievna Volovikova (1916–1995), worked as an elementary school teacher. The family lived in Moscow. In 1971, M. I. Volovikova graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy of Lomonosov Moscow State University. The following year, in 1972, she began working at the Institute of Psychology of the USSR Academy of Sciences (now the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences), advancing from a referent to the first director of the institute, B.F. Lomov, to the head of a laboratory. M. I. Volovikova was one of the first employees of the Institute, and her professional biography became inextricably linked with the history of the formation of this scientific institution.

1. I. Volovikova’s scientific development took place under the guidance of the outstanding Russian psychologist Andrei Vladimirovich Brushlinsky, of whom she was a student. In 1981, she defended her Candidate’s dissertation on “Cognitive Motivation in the Process of Solving Thinking Tasks”. In a joint article with A.V. Brushlinsky in 1976, she first described the phenomenon of non-instantaneous insight; subsequently, she continued to develop the microsemantic analysis pioneered by Brushlinsky. In 2005, M. I. Volovikova defended her Doctoral dissertation on “Social Representations of the Moral Ideal in the Russian Mentality”, and in 2010 she was awarded the academic title of Professor in the specialty “social psychology”.

For many years, M. I. Volovikova held responsible leadership positions at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. From 1987, she was Deputy Head of the Laboratory of Methodology, Theory and History of Psychology; from 1991 to 2009, Deputy Head of the Laboratory of Personality Psychology; and from 2010 to 2015, she headed this laboratory. She was a member of the editorial board of the Psychological Journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the responsible editor of more than ten collective monographs and collections of scientific works.

1. I. Volovikova’s research interests were exceptionally broad: psychology of thinking, social psychology of personality, ethnopsychology, moral psychology, and Orthodox psychology. She substantiated a new scientific direction – moral psychology. In collaboration with A.L. Zhuravlev and A.B. Kupreychenko, she developed the concept of the moral elite (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2010), and also investigated social representations of conscience in the Russian mentality (Volovikova & Mustafina, 2016).

An important page in M. I. Volovikova’s scientific biography was her participation in international research projects. From 1999 to 2001, she participated in the INTAS project “Development of National, Ethnolinguistic and Religious Identity in Children and Adolescents”. As a scientific editor, she prepared for publication the book by T. A. Florenskaya, Dialogues on Education and Health (Spiritually-Oriented Psychotherapy) (2002).

1. I. Volovikova’s pedagogical activity deserves special attention. She trained a number of students, with whom she generously shared her talent and scientific experience. Among them are L. Sh. Mustafina, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, with whom M. I. Volovikova co-authored the monograph Social Representations of Conscience in the Russian Mentality (2016) (Volovikova & Mustafina, 2016), as well as a number of articles; A. M. Borisova, co-author of the monograph Psychology and Holiday: Holiday in Human Life (2003) (Volovikova, Tikhomirova & Borisova, 2003) and a number of publications; S. V. Tikhomirova – co-author of the monograph on the psychology of holiday (Volovikova, Tikhomirova & Borisova, 2003). Professor Volovikova’s pedagogical activity was associated with the scientific supervision of master’s students, postgraduates, and doctoral candidates.

Among M. I. Volovikova’s key monographic works are Representations of Russians about the Moral Ideal (2004, 2005), Psychology and Holiday: Holiday in Human Life (2003, co-authored with S. V. Tikhomirova and A. M. Borisova), Foundations of Moral Psychology (2005, co-authored with L. L. Dikevich), Everyday Representations about a Decent Person (2012) (Volovikova, 2012), and Social Representations of Conscience in the Russian Mentality (2016, co-authored with L. Sh. Mustafina) (Volovikova & Mustafina, 2016).

2021. I. Volovikova passed away on July 12, 2021. The funeral service was held on July 15 at the Church of Flora and Laurus in the village of Yam, Domodedovo District, Moscow Region. The editorial board of the Psychological Newspaper, the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, colleagues, students, and close ones expressed deep condolences on the passing of Margarita Iosifovna, noting her invaluable contribution to the development of Russian psychological science.

References

1. Volovikova, M. I. (2012). Zhiteyskie predstavleniya o poryadochnom cheloveke[Everyday representations about a decent person]. Kanon+.
2. Volovikova, M. I., & Mustafina, L. Sh. (2016). Sotsial’nye predstavleniya o sovesti v rossiyskom mentalitete[Social representations of conscience in the Russian mentality]. Institute of Psychology RAS.
3. Volovikova, M. I., Tikhomirova, S. V., & Borisova, A. M. (2003). Psikhologiya i prazdnik: Prazdnik v zhizni cheloveka[Psychology and holiday: Holiday in human life]. Per Se.
4. Zhuravlev, A. L., & Kupreychenko, A. B. (2010). Rol’ nravstvennoy elity v rossiyskom obshchestve: postanovka problemy i vozmozhnosti issledovaniya [The role of moral elite in Russian society: Problem statement and research possibilities]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 31(2), 5–19.

Modern Significance of the Study of the Phenomenon of “Moral Elite”

1. I. Volovikova*

Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

This article was originally published in Russian in the journal “Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Social and Economic Psychology” (2018, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 6–29). The present version is a revised and translated English edition prepared for an international audience.

Abstract. Background. In the Russian mentality, moral values and ideals have historically played a system‑forming role, with the intelligentsia traditionally serving as the principal moral regulator of social life. However, the social and political transformations of the 1990s significantly weakened the intelligentsia’s position, creating a need for new moral reference points. The concept of a “moral elite” – a social category of people who embody moral principles through their entire way of life – was theoretically proposed by Zhuravlev and Kupreychenko (2006, 2010). The present study addresses the need for a systematic psychological investigation of this phenomenon in contemporary Russian society. Objective. To compare the constructs of the Russian intelligentsia and the moral elite, to substantiate the relevance of psychological research on the moral elite in modern Russia, and to empirically test the theoretically derived criteria of belonging to the moral elite. Method. The study comprised a theoretical analysis of the intelligentsia concept (drawing on D.S. Likhachev’s 1993 essay) and a comparative conceptual analysis of the two phenomena. Empirically, an author‑constructed questionnaire was administered to an elite sample of 25 high‑status respondents (company directors, heads of research and creative teams, leading physicians, prominent scholars, artists, musicians, and psychotherapists). The questionnaire included a unidimensional scale of moral qualities and a task requiring participants to describe a specific act demonstrating the decency of a personally known individual. Data were processed using factor analysis and qualitative analysis of the action descriptions. Results. The theoretical analysis revealed that, unlike the intelligentsia – which is defined by Western European education, professionalism, and political opposition – the moral elite is not constrained by educational level, professional sphere, or political stance. It encompasses people from all social strata, from sages to ordinary workers. The empirical study confirmed the theoretically derived criteria: 25% of narratives focused on selfless help to others; descriptions emphasised honesty, generosity, rejection of material gain and status, fidelity to one’s word, tolerance, forgiveness, and care for the weak. Frequent formulations with “never” (never steals ideas, never uses official position for personal gain, never conducts secret intrigues) illustrated strict adherence to moral principles. The findings show that the moral elite’s values are traditional, “uncontemporary,” and rooted in the Russian mentality. Conclusions. The moral elite is a broader and more inclusive phenomenon than the intelligentsia. It does not require high education or professional achievement; its core criteria are moral integrity, active defence of ethical standards, and the ability to exert positive moral influence through personal example. In the current context of blurred moral boundaries and pervasive media disinformation, the moral elite fulfils an existential social function – preserving the moral law and providing reliable moral guidelines. The study demonstrates the scientific and practical significance of investigating the moral elite as the new leading force in the spiritual and moral regulation of Russian society, a role previously assigned to the intelligentsia.

Современное значение исследования феномена «нравственная элита»

М. И. Воловикова

Институт психологии Российской академии наук, Москва, Россия

Резюме. Актуальность и проблема. В российском менталитете нравственные ценности и идеалы исторически выполняли системообразующую роль, а интеллигенция традиционно выступала главным моральным регулятором общественной жизни. Однако социально‑политические трансформации 1990‑х годов существенно ослабили позиции интеллигенции, что создало потребность в новых нравственных ориентирах. Концепция «нравственной элиты» – социальной категории людей, воплощающих нравственные принципы всей своей жизнью – была теоретически предложена Журавлевым и Купрейченко (2006, 2010). Настоящее исследование отвечает на необходимость систематического психологического изучения данного феномена в современной России. Цель. Сопоставить конструкты русской интеллигенции и нравственной элиты, обосновать актуальность психологического исследования нравственной элиты в современных условиях и эмпирически проверить теоретически выделенные критерии принадлежности к нравственной элите. Методы. Исследование включало теоретический анализ понятия интеллигенции (с опорой на статью Д.С. Лихачёва 1993 года) и сравнительный концептуальный анализ двух феноменов. В эмпирической части использовалась авторская анкета, которая была применена на элитарной выборке из 25 респондентов высокого статуса (директора компаний, руководители научных и творческих коллективов, главные врачи, видные учёные, художники, музыканты, психотерапевты). Анкета содержала одномодальную шкалу нравственных качеств и задание описать конкретный поступок, демонстрирующий порядочность лично знакомого человека. Обработка данных проводилась с помощью факторного анализа и качественного анализа описаний поступков. Результаты. Теоретический анализ показал, что, в отличие от интеллигенции, которая определяется западноевропейской образованностью, профессионализмом и политической оппозиционностью, нравственная элита не ограничена ни уровнем образования, ни профессиональной сферой, ни политической позицией. Она охватывает людей из всех социальных слоёв – от мудрецов до простых тружеников. Эмпирическое исследование подтвердило теоретически выделенные критерии: 25% рассказов были посвящены бескорыстной помощи другим; в описаниях акцентировались честность, щедрость, отказ от материальной выгоды и статуса, верность слову, терпимость, прощение и забота о слабых. Частотные формулировки с «никогда» (никогда не присваивает чужие идеи, не использует служебное положение в личных целях, не ведёт тайных интриг) иллюстрировали неуклонное следование нравственным принципам. Полученные данные свидетельствуют о том, что ценности нравственной элиты являются традиционными, «несовременными» и укоренёнными в российском менталитете. Заключение. Нравственная элита представляет собой более широкий и инклюзивный феномен, чем интеллигенция. Она не требует высокого образования или профессиональных достижений; её ключевыми критериями являются нравственная целостность, активная защита этических норм и способность оказывать положительное моральное влияние личным примером. В современных условиях размывания моральных границ и повсеместного медийного обмана нравственная элита выполняет экзистенциальную социальную функцию – сохранение нравственного закона и предоставление надёжных моральных ориентиров. Исследование демонстрирует научную и практическую значимость изучения нравственной элиты как новой ведущей силы духовно‑нравственной регуляции российского общества, роль которой ранее принадлежала интеллигенции.

Ключевые слова: нравственная элита, русская интеллигенция, Д.С. Лихачев, российский

менталитет, имплицитные представления, нравственный закон, личность, общество, человек, качественный анализ

Introduction

In the Russian mentality, moral values and ideals have historically played a system-forming role. This was facilitated by the special place in social life traditionally accorded to the Russian intelligentsia (Gaida, 2011; Historiogenesis, 2016; Koltsova & Zhuravlev, 2017; Likhachev, 1993; Volovikova, 2005, 2012, 2018; Volovikova & Zhuravlev, 2017).

The idea of the moral elite was formulated and first published in 2006 (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2006), receiving substantive development and specification in 2010–11 (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2011), as well as in subsequent years (Volovikova & Zhuravlev, 2015, 2016, 2018; Volovikova & Zhuravlyov, 2016; Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2006, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c, 2011). The idea proved to be promising and in demand in the first and second decades of the 2000s, and it has its own prehistory rooted in the peculiarities of the Russian mentality (Abulkhanova-Slavskaya et al., 1996; Abulkhanova et al., 1997; Semenov, 2001).

The objective of this article is to compare two phenomena – the Russian intelligentsia and the moral elite – and to substantiate the relevance of the psychological study of the latter in the context of contemporary reality (for more detail, see: Belobrykina, 2017; Zhuravlev & Kitova, 2018; Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2009).

Method

An empirical verification of the theoretically derived criteria for belonging to the moral elite was conducted in 2016 (Volovikova & Zhuravlev, 2016).

Sample. The study investigated implicit perceptions of a moral (“decent”) person among respondents who had achieved high professional and social status (company directors, heads of research and creative teams, heads of medical institutions, prominent scholars, artists, musicians, psychotherapists). The total sample size was 25.

Instrument. The author’s questionnaire (Volovikova, 2005; 2012) was used, consisting of a unidimensional scale listing the qualities of a moral (“decent”) person, and a task to describe an act demonstrating the decency of the person in question.

Data Analysis. Factor analysis and qualitative analysis of descriptions of the “act” were applied.

Results

Overall, the results of the factor analysis did not contradict the descriptions of acts; however, the latter appeared more vivid and allowed for more precise expression of those perceptions of a moral person that characterize this “elite” group of respondents.

The largest proportion (25%) of narratives turned out to be about “help” that the person in question provides to many people. In student samples, the focus is usually on help to the respondent (see: Volovikova, 2012), whereas here the emphasis is predominantly on help to other people. The respondents remembered manifestations of generosity and generally non‑attachment to money, status, honors, manifestations of honesty in relationships, and fidelity to one’s word.

The enumeration (though brief and systematized as much as possible) of “acts” of a specific and “personally known” moral (“decent”) person constitutes the image of an uncontemporary person whose values are traditional for the Russian mentality. He (or she):

• “does not boast”;
• “refused a lucrative invitation…”;
• “refused material gain…”;
• “never extorts money…”;
• “paid salaries from personal funds…”;
• “did not demand repayment of a debt…”;
• “found the owner and returned a wallet with money found on the street…”;
• “returned home from the store to pay for a forgotten purchase”;
• “never used official position to the detriment of others”;
• “chose the worst garden plot for himself, although he was chairman of the cooperative”;
• “gratuitously paid for treatment…”;
• “cares for the weak…”;
• “protects nature…”;
• “feeds stray dogs”;
• “did not utter a word about her help…”;
• “tolerant of the shortcomings of loved ones…”;
• “does not take revenge”;
• “will not do something mean to a person he doesn’t trust…”;
• “does not conduct secret intrigues behind others’ backs…”;
• “does not steal others’ ideas…”;
• “necessarily includes colleagues in his projects…”;
• “selflessly shares information…”;
• “does not reveal others’ secrets…”;
• “knows how to forgive.”

Particular significance in our time of blurring the boundaries between moral and immoral behavior is acquired by the description of acts of a “moral model,” indicating strict adherence to moral principles, norms, and rules, as evidenced by each of the narratives on the theme “never….” For example: “she never places herself above or more important than others”; “does not conduct any secret intrigues behind others’ backs”; “honestly fulfills her obligations in business, although circumstances develop in such a way that she could well have violated them due to objective reasons beyond her control”; “having great authoritative powers, he never used them for personal purposes, including for profit.”

These examples, collected from an elite sample of respondents, fully correspond to the theoretically identified characteristics of the moral elite (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2010a).

Discussion

Comparison with the Russian Intelligentsia. In 1985, the officially declared “perestroika” replaced the era of “developed socialism” (later called “stagnation”), culminating merely 6.5 years later in the collapse of the USSR, and by 1999, the threat to the very existence of the Russian state had become real. The principal danger of this period consisted in the abrupt shift of social ideals and the disruption of cultural continuity with Russia’s history. In 1993, the journal Novy Mir published a desperate open letter by Academician D.S. Likhachev, “On the Russian Intelligentsia” (Likhachev, 1993). Likhachev emphasized that he was referring to the “Russian” intelligentsia, understanding this designation in a broad sense – not as an ethnic characteristic, but as belonging to Russian culture (Likhachev, 1984).

Likhachev identified the following characteristics of the authentic Russian intellectual: professionalism, education (predominantly “Western European”), and the ability to resist external pressure, including pressure from authorities. He named Maximus the Greek (late 15th – early 16th century) as the first intellectual in Rus’ – a man of Italian and Greek education who was persecuted, imprisoned, but did not break. Likhachev dates the emergence of the first “typically Russian intellectuals” to the end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th centuries and cites the names of Sumarokov, Novikov, Radishchev, Karamzin, Pushkin, and the Decembrists.

Modern historian Fyodor Gaida notes that during the Soviet period, the “intelligentsia” was constitutionally prohibited from being oppositional. For them, this meant the prospect of destruction or “complete degeneration” (Gaida, 2011). The relatively prosperous 2000s returned to the intelligentsia a tendency toward opposition, and currently its role in the country’s future development is ambiguous (for more detail, see: Volovikova & Zhuravlev, 2017 et al.).

In the examples of the actions of “authentic intellectuals” provided by Likhachev (Likhachev, 1993), there is much ideal heroism and evidence of the manifestation of the best human qualities: selflessness, kindness, fearlessness, self‑esteem, and respect for the human person. Dmitry Sergeevich himself, who in his youth endured the ordeal of the GULAG, remained for many in the 1990s a model of the authentic intellectual. But overall, the intelligentsia as the vanguard of society was precisely in the 1990s withdrawing from the political stage. The time of “elites” was arriving: political, financial, managerial, etc. The nascent dominance of the power of money (rather than status and “connections,” as in Soviet times) required from society the actualization of a more powerful counterbalance than the dependent and suddenly impoverished Russian intelligentsia. Such a counterbalance became the “moral elite” – an empirically observable, theoretically formulated, and sufficiently clearly described phenomenon.

The Essence of the Moral Elite. Zhuravlev and Kupreychenko (2010a) speak of a special role inherent in a rather small social category of people who affirm moral values and ideals not so much in words as in their lives and actions. “They belong to the most diverse strata, spheres of activity, and demographic groups; their influence on other people is exercised through various paths, methods, and means” (p. 5). It was precisely this category of people that was proposed to be called the “moral elite.”

In contrast to the intelligentsia, the moral elite is not limited by either educational level or sphere of activity. “These include, above all, sages and elders, talented mentors and educators, clergy and spiritual teachers, scholars and writers, artists and poets, as well as other public figures who are authoritative precisely in moral terms… the moral elite, naturally, may include the most ordinary people (by occupation)” (ibid., p. 7).

Zhuravlev and Kupreychenko identified the main characteristics of the moral elite:

• participation in socially useful activities that benefit society;
• strict adherence in one’s behavior to moral principles, norms, and rules of human activity;
• ability to exert moral influence on other people (including through action);
• ability to sacrifice one’s own interests for the sake of others, provision of gratuitous assistance, manifestation of various forms of helping behavior.

Such qualities as the ability to actively defend the moral foundations of society and a beneficial influence on the moral climate of one’s immediate environment are emphasized. The positive role of suffering in the history of the formation of highly moral people is noted. The addition of this unusual characteristic is natural in Russian conditions, where morality has always been a value that a decent person had to demonstrate not only in word but also in deed and action (Volovikova, 2012).

At the basis of the phenomenon called the “effect of reproduction by the subject of the value system of another historical epoch” (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2010a, p. 6) lie observations of that small social group that managed to preserve personal freedom and relative independence from the ongoing changes in the system of values and priorities. A healthy attitude toward oneself and others, life optimism of such people not linked to the level of material well‑being, even a certain maladaptiveness are noted, as if these people continue to live in another historical time and orient themselves toward different values and ideals.

The word “elite” (or “elites”) came into widespread everyday use after the lifting of the unspoken ban on the topic of money in the post‑perestroika period. It so happened in our recent history that belonging to the elite was initially associated with political status and financial well‑being, and only later did it come to extend to other groups of successful and influential people. “By ‘elite’ is understood a social category of people characterized by the highest level of development of certain qualities, properties, abilities, and successfully manifesting their totality in specific spheres of societal life. In this sense, it is entirely appropriate to speak of different types of elites, which is indeed encountered in contemporary publications: political and managerial, economic and business elite, intellectual and scientific, creative and artistic, cultural and spiritual, etc.” (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2010a, p. 8). Although creative, scientific, and other types of elites are named, the possibility of classifying as elite persons not burdened by financial well‑being is specifically stipulated. The expediency of “considering the moral elite as well, including among it those people who have achieved a high level of development of moral qualities and successfully manifest them in the sphere of human relations, in the life of real social groups, in human communities, significantly influencing their moral atmosphere, at a minimum raising its overall level” is discussed (ibid.).

Since the need for moral guidelines in Russian society has not disappeared, the place of the authentic intelligentsia could not remain vacant for too long. Hence the natural emergence of the idea of the moral elite, not only not tied to material well‑being and high status, but often very far from these external attributes of life success.

In difficult moments of its history, society itself finds these “moral beacons” that help it stand firm in conditions of sharp changes in value priorities. Such people, whose opinions were heeded and whose perspectives were relied upon, included Academicians D.S. Likhachev, A.D. Sakharov, writer V.G. Rasputin, and others. It is important to note that there has always been (and is) a person whose value orientations were trusted by the majority of Russian citizens. In the 1990s, Patriarch Alexy II became such a moral authority for many, and the attitude toward his personality did not directly depend on people’s religious views. The veracity of his judgments and his selfless actions were convincing. Thus, during the social confrontation in the autumn of 1993, which threatened civil war, Alexy II took upon himself the organization and conduct of negotiations between the warring parties, culminating in reconciliation (what this cost the Patriarch became clear after his hospitalization with a heart attack). Such a common moral authority is not always found, but the need for it among our people is very great (on this, see also: Koltsova & Zhuravlev, 2017 et al.).

The status of the persons described in the empirical study indicates their active participation in socially useful activities. “Strict adherence in one’s behavior to moral principles, norms, and rules of human activity” is revealed in the narratives “never….” “Ability to exert moral influence on other people (including through action)” is illustrated by vivid descriptions of “very uncontemporary” actions: could have stolen but did not; could have left the country but refused the invitation out of love for the Motherland; could have taken all the money but included other employees in the project, etc. The main thing in such actions is the manifestation of authentic freedom from external circumstances, about which Likhachev spoke in connection with the theme of the “Russian intelligentsia.”

The descriptions contain many examples confirming another criterion identified in the works of Zhuravlev and Kupreychenko – namely, “the ability to sacrifice one’s own interests for the sake of others, provision of gratuitous assistance, manifestation of various forms of helping behavior” (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2010a, p. 9).

In general, between the phenomena of the authentic intelligentsia and the moral elite there is no contradiction, but there are differences. The moral elite is broader in terms of the strata of the population represented within it – from the “sage” to the “simpleton” – stricter in selection criteria and “more humble”; it stands above politics. If the Russian intelligentsia, having barely taken shape as a recognized social stratum at the beginning of the 20th century, served the destruction of the Russian state, then in the “perestroika” of the second half of the 1980s its intellectual contribution to the destruction of the country was also significant. True, the material benefits and “fruits” of revolutionary changes were each time reaped by others. The intelligentsia received persecution and trials. The independence and authentic freedom of the moral elite have their source in higher, spiritual values. Therefore, these people are approached for advice in solving moral problems and ethical tasks that arise in life. Such a criterion is mentioned in the works of Zhuravlev and Kupreychenko, but no such cases were noted in this empirical sample. It can be assumed that the ability to give such advice is a rare gift characterizing few representatives of the moral elite.

The article cites a proverb that best reveals the meaning of the phenomenon under analysis: “A village does not stand without a righteous person.” The history of this saying goes back to the Old Testament account of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, where Abraham begs God to spare these cities for the sake of the righteous living there. First, it is said that for the sake of fifty righteous persons, the rest could be spared. But Abraham suspects that in this place (the mention of which is still preserved in the name of “sodomite” sins) fifty righteous persons are unlikely to be found, and he speaks of forty‑five, then thirty, and so on, until he reaches ten righteous persons, for whose sake God agreed to spare the city. The conversation ends there. But in Sodom and Gomorrah, even ten righteous persons were not found. The city was destroyed, and now only the depression of the Dead Sea reminds us of it. And “sodomite inclinations” are beginning to seem quite “innocent” and are quietly entering our information space. Western European education alone is no longer sufficient to resist this real threat. Righteous persons are needed, ready to stand firm to the end in the affirmation and observance of the moral law, so that both the “village” and the country may stand.

And the point here is not only and not so much about “non‑traditional orientation” (as sodomite inclinations are now delicately called), but that in the 1990s, together with everything “Soviet,” the simple rules of moral behavior were discarded (or confused) from the information field: preserve honor from youth, respect parents, have high goals, do not steal, do not lie, do not betray your spouse, do not envy, do not kill. And now on some central television channels they show such things that have led to a witty remark in a small district newspaper: “In Soviet times, there was only one program about animals – it was called ‘In the Animal World.’ Now it’s gone, but there is ‘Dom‑2,’ … ‘Live with Andrei Malakhov,’ ‘Let Them Talk’ … I liked the old program better.” How can simple rules be confused, for example, as can be seen from that murky information cloud that has enveloped the commandment “do not kill”? It was first expanded to include a prohibition on killing animals (something Leo Tolstoy did with his characteristic literary gift), then unborn human children were excluded from it, and at the same time the screen was filled with such a quantity of diverse depictions of human‑on‑human murder that it became mundane, habitual, and seemingly justified by “circumstances.”

The 1990s of the last century represent a complex and insufficiently studied period of contemporary Russian history, in which the spirit of authentic freedom of the higher creative powers of humanity was sometimes indistinguishably intertwined with the denial of all prohibitions, above all moral ones. Now all the “seeds” sown in those years are yielding their “shoots,” and the mass media are disseminating the incomparable – both acts of heroism and examples of moral decay, presented as “models” of behavior. The existence of the moral elite impedes the degradation of the human being. Its primary function is the preservation of the moral law in contemporary conditions of “information noise,” or, simply put, deception, when white is presented as black and vice versa.

Conclusions

In the Russian mentality, a special role in the moral regulation of social life throughout the 20th century was historically assigned to such a large and heterogeneous social group as the intelligentsia. However, in contemporary conditions, the leading role in moral regulation is passing to the moral elite.

The “moral elite” is a theoretically identified phenomenon, sufficiently clearly described in the publications of Zhuravlev and Kupreychenko (2006 and 2010) and having received successful empirical verification in 2016‑18.

The processes of blurring criteria of moral behavior, the negative influence of plots demonstrated by the mass media, and the not‑always‑positive impact of Western “models” pose a serious danger to Russian consciousness. The moral elite – the best representatives of various strata of our society – are capable of making a significant contribution to affirming the value of observance of the moral law.

The need to know that there are people who will never compromise the moral law in favor of momentary interests helps preserve correct moral guidelines among the people. This need is existential, and it is precisely this that determines the relevance of research on the moral elite as a specific phenomenon characterizing the distinctive features of the Russian mentality.

The concept of “moral elite” (Zhuravlev & Kupreychenko, 2006; 2010a; 2010b; 2010c) is promising for contemporary social psychology, as it is precisely these moral models that are beginning to play the leading role in the spiritual and moral regulation of the life of Russian society, a role previously assigned to the intelligentsia.

Funding: The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR) within the framework of scientific project No. 18‑013‑00259.

References

1. Abulkhanova, K. A., Brushlinsky, A. V., & Volovikova, M. I. (Eds.). (1997). Rossiyskiy mentalitet: Voprosy psikhologicheskoy teorii i praktiki[Russian mentality: Issues of psychological theory and practice]. Institute of Psychology RAS.
2. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, K. A., Brushlinsky, A. V., & Volovikova, M. I. (Eds.). (1996). Rossiyskiy mentalitet: Psikhologiya lichnosti, soznanie, sotsial’nye predstavleniya[Russian mentality: Personality psychology, consciousness, social representations]. Institute of Psychology RAS.
3. Belobrykina, O. A. (Ed.). (2017). Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskaya otsenka riskov sovremennoy real’nosti: ochevidnoe i veroyatnoe[Socio-psychological assessment of risks of modern reality: Obvious and probable]. NGPU.
4. Gaida, F. (2011, June 23). “Intelligentsiya”: chem gordit’sya? [“Intelligentsia”: What to be proud of?]. ru. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/jurnal/47186.htm
5. Koltsova, V. A., & Zhuravlev, A. L. (2017). Sushchnostnye kharakteristiki i faktory formirovaniya rossiyskogo mentaliteta [Essential characteristics and factors of Russian mentality formation]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 38(3), 5–17.
6. Likhachev, D. S. (1984). Zametki o russkom[Notes on the Russian]. Sovetskaya Rossiya.
7. Likhachev, D. S. (1993). O russkoy intelligentsii [On the Russian intelligentsia]. Novy mir, (2), 3–9.
8. Semenov, V. E. (2001). Polimental’naya spetsifika Rossii i rossiyskaya politika [Polymental specifics of Russia and Russian politics]. Vestnik politicheskoy psikhologii, (1), 20–23.
9. Volovikova, M. I. (2005). Predstavleniya russkikh o nravstvennom ideale[Representations of Russians about the moral ideal]. Institute of Psychology RAS.
10. Volovikova, M. I. (2012). Zhiteyskie predstavleniya o poryadochnom cheloveke[Everyday representations about a decent person]. Kanon+.
11. Volovikova, M. I. (2018). Nravstvennaya psikhologiya: sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy issledovaniy [Moral psychology: Current state and research perspectives]. Institut psikhologii Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Sotsial’naya i ekonomicheskaya psikhologiya, 3(2), 6–29. http://soc-econom-psychology.ru/engine/documents/document609.pdf
12. Volovikova, M. I., & Zhuravlev, A. L. (2015). Rol’ nravstvennoy elity v vospitanii molodezhi [The role of moral elite in youth education]. In Resursy razvitiya sotsial’no-professional’noy traektorii uchashcheysya molodezhi: vyzovy XXI veka(pp. 25–29). Kursk.
13. Volovikova, M. I., & Zhuravlev, A. L. (2016). Implitsitnye predstavleniya o priznakakh nravstvennoy elity [Implicit representations of the features of moral elite]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 37(3), 40–49.
14. Volovikova, M. I., & Zhuravlev, A. L. (2017). Nravstvennye orientiry sovremennoy rossiyskoy intelligentsii [Moral guidelines of the modern Russian intelligentsia]. In Effektivnost’ lichnosti, gruppy i organizatsii: problemy, dostizheniya i perspektivy(pp. 236–238). Rostov-on-Don/Kursk.
15. Volovikova, M. I., & Zhuravlev, A. L. (2018). Kharakteristiki nravstvennoy elity i sovremennye predstavleniya o poryadochnom cheloveke [Characteristics of moral elite and modern views of a decent person]. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Akmeologiya obrazovaniya. Psikhologiya razvitiya, 7(1), 44–48.
16. Volovikova, M., & Zhuravlyov, A. (2016). Implicit notions of the moral elites features. Social Sciences, 47(4), 74–88.
17. Zhuravlev, A. L., & Kitova, D. A. (Eds.). (2018). Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya global’nykh protsessov: predposylki, tendentsii, perspektivy[Psychological studies of global processes: Prerequisites, trends, prospects]. Institute of Psychology RAS.
18. Zhuravlev, A. L., & Kupreychenko, A. B. (2006). Rol’ tsennostey nravstvennoy elity v perekhodnye periody zhizni obshchestva [The role of moral elite values in transitional periods of society]. In Pravoslavie i nravstvennost’(pp. 111–112). SPbGUTD.
19. Zhuravlev, A. L., & Kupreychenko, A. B. (2010a). Rol’ nravstvennoy elity v rossiyskom obshchestve: postanovka problemy i vozmozhnosti issledovaniya [The role of moral elite in Russian society: Problem statement and research possibilities]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 31(2), 5–19.
20. Zhuravlev, A. L., & Kupreychenko, A. B. (2010b). Nravstvennaya elita v rossiyskom obshchestve: osnovnye priznaki i funktsii [Moral elite in Russian society: Basic features and functions].  Kul’tura. Obshchestvo, (2), 42–49.
21. Zhuravlev, A. L., & Kupreychenko, A. B. (2010c). Nravstvennaya elita v rossiyskom obshchestve: kontseptual’nye osnovy psikhologicheskogo issledovaniya [Moral elite in Russian society: Conceptual foundations of psychological research]. Vestnik prakticheskoy psikhologii obrazovaniya, (2), 28–34.
22. Zhuravlev, A. L., & Kupreychenko, A. B. (2011). Problemy formirovaniya i vyyavleniya nravstvennoy elity: itogi diskussii [Problems of formation and identification of moral elite: Results of the discussion]. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 32(5), 97–99.
23. Zhuravlev, A. L., & Kupreychenko, A. B. (Eds.). (2009). Makropsikhologiya sovremennogo rossiyskogo obshchestva[Macropsychology of modern Russian society]. Institute of Psychology RAS.
24. Zhuravlev, A. L., Koltsova, V. A., & Kholondovich, E. N. (Eds.). (2016). Istoriogenez i sovremennoe sostoyanie rossiyskogo mentaliteta[Historiogenesis and current state of Russian mentality] (Issue 2). Institute of Psychology RAS.