Historical Roots of Submissiveness in Russia

The history of the formation of the mentality of submissiveness in Russian society is rich and multifaceted. It is first worth noting how the division between a narrow elite that absorbed elements of Western culture and the broad masses that adhered to traditional customs left an indelible mark on public consciousness. This cultural heterogeneity created the preconditions for the consolidation of a passive, traditional mindset.

Next is the influence of foreign policy trials, such as the Mongol dominion, when the need to coexist with the relentless conquerors required adaptation to foreign standards—cohesion, unconditional obedience, and endurance became the key to survival. It was precisely the forced adoption of the conquerors’ traits that plunged the people into a state where accepting authority became necessary, even if it ran counter to a desire for freedom.

The final brushstroke in the formation of the collective spirit was provided by religious traditions permeated with the idea of humility and spiritual unity. The influence of the Orthodox faith, in which humility and love for one’s neighbor are considered virtues, proved a powerful factor in strengthening the bond between the people and authority. Thus, the combination of historical cultural bifurcation, the forced adaptation to harsh external conditions, and deep religious orientations contributed to the formation of a resilient character prone to subordination—a reflection of the people’s centuries-long experience.

What socio-cultural factors might contribute to the fact that there are many submissive people in the Russian Federation?

Several historically established social and cultural factors could have influenced the formation of a predisposition toward submissiveness among a significant part of the Russian population. Firstly, there historically existed a pronounced internal social boundary between a narrow layer that embraced elements of Western culture and the mass of people who remained adherents to old traditions and instincts. As noted in the source, “A sharp line separated the refined upper layer that lived by Western culture from the popular masses that remained spiritually and socially in Muscovy. Belonging to the people was not only the serf peasantry but all the trade-industrial population of Russia... Two different cultures coexisted in eighteenth-century Russia” (source: 1258_6286.txt, page: 289). This profound cultural polarization could have contributed to the development of a passive, traditional mindset among the majority.

Secondly, significant influence was exerted by adaptation to external political and military circumstances, such as under Mongol rule. In order to coexist with invincible conquerors, Russians were forced to adopt qualities inherent to the invaders—cohesion, absolute obedience to authority, and a particular endurance—even if that came at the expense of striving for freedom. In the words of the source: “Considering the extreme cohesion of forces, the unconditional obedience to one’s elders, the complete silence of the individual, and extreme endurance—these are the qualities that enabled the Mongols to carry out their conquests, qualities completely opposite to those of the Russians at that time... In order to coexist with undefeatable conquerors, it was necessary for them to assimilate these qualities” (source: 146_725.txt, page: 725). This historical necessity of adaptation could have entrenched a cultural predisposition toward subordination and a reduced level of resistance to external pressure.

Finally, the idea of humility, deeply embedded in the spiritual life of the people, played an equally important role. The influence of the Orthodox tradition—with its examples of humble and modest leaders serving as models—contributed to the formation of a mentality oriented toward collective unity and respect for elders. As noted: “To explain the submissiveness typical of the Russian people, it is necessary to point to the influence of Orthodox religion. Reverend Sergius, a humble and modest man, through his example of spirituality, unity, and love for one’s neighbor, managed to bring together a country devastated by internecine conflicts and a godless approach to interpersonal relationships. This spirituality and humility were cultivated over centuries” (source: 9_42.txt). The result was the perception of humility and obedience as moral virtues that reinforced the bond between the people and authority.

Thus, the combination of historical cultural bifurcation, the necessity of adapting to harsh external conditions, and the influence of deep-rooted religious traditions led to the development of a character among a significant portion of the population that is inclined toward submissiveness and deference to authority.

Supporting citation(s):
“A sharp line separated the refined upper layer living by Western culture from the popular masses that remained spiritually and socially in Muscovy. The people included not only the serf peasantry but all the trade-industrial population of Russia, the petty bourgeoisie, merchants, and, with certain reservations, the clergy. Unlike the inevitable cultural gradations between classes in the West, as in any differentiated society, the differences in Russia were qualitative rather than quantitative. Two different cultures coexisted in eighteenth-century Russia.” (source: 1258_6286.txt, page: 289)

“Considering the extreme cohesion of forces, the unconditional obedience to one’s elders, the complete silence of the individual, and extreme endurance—these are the qualities that enabled the Mongols to carry out their conquests, qualities completely opposed to the traits of the Russians of that time, who, ready to defend their freedom and die for it, did not yet know how to consolidate for its defense. In order to coexist with the undefeatable conquerors, it was necessary for them to assimilate those qualities.” (source: 146_725.txt, page: 725)

“To explain the submissiveness typical of the Russian people, it is necessary to point to the influence of Orthodox religion. Reverend Sergius, a humble and modest man, through his example of spirituality, unity, and love for one’s neighbor, managed to bring together a country devastated by internecine conflicts and a godless approach to interpersonal relationships. This spirituality and humility were cultivated over centuries.” (source: 9_42.txt)