2. Dynamics of local human communities in L. N. Gumilev's reflection
In the same context, it is worth turning to the life cycle of local human communities.
This cycle, calling it ethnogenesis, that is, the emergence, development and extinction of individual unified communities, tried to analyze and explain L. N. Gumilev with the help of introducing a new concept "passionarity".
Official science in the person of its representatives such as Yanov A. L, Klein L. S and many others rejected the passionary theory of the ethnogenesis of Gumilev because of its inconsistency with recognized criteria of scientific research, such as, for example, objectivity and verifiability.
On the one hand, it's hard not to agree with this, but on the other hand, not everything that does not meet the criteria of scientific research is pure fantasy, because the field of science is rather limited, and beyond it we may find a lot of interesting and unquestionable in the form of concrete facts and phenomena, which science cannot explain.
It is from this ultraboundary field of cognition that we criticize the concept of L. N. Gumilev, but not only, and we note both its negative and positive features, and try to give a slightly different explanation of the life cycle of local human communities in its basis, which Gumilev gives the name ethnoses, while official science as nations or peoples.
Each local community of people is a temporary, changing integrity, different from neighboring or more distant communities, because people in them are differently connected, that is, their connections, in particular, the organizational hierarchy, interests, values, customs, history of development, the main language communication, the territory of accommodation, religious views necessarily do not converge at least on several specified parameters.
Exact definition to these communities (ethnoses, peoples, nations), without having noted their essence with evidence, it is impossible to give – therefore it at anybody did not turn out – until as there will be clear a basis of development of these human formations, and this basis in any materialistic or idealistic theories is not looked through.
What is offered in this regard by L. N. Gumilev?
His concept, to be brief, boils down to the following.