V. I. Lenin -- Is a Compulsory Official Language Needed?

 V. I. Lenin - Is a Compulsory Official Language Needed?

Published: Proletarskaya Pravda No. 14 (32), January 18, 1914. Published according to the text in Proletarskaya Pravda.

Source: Lenin Collected Works, 

Progress Publishers, 1972, 

Moscow, Volume 20, pages 71-73.

Translated: Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe Fineberg

Transcription\Markup: R. Cymbala

Public Domain: Lenin Internet Archive (2004). You may freely copy, distribute, display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet Archive” as your source.

The liberals differ from the reactionaries in that they recognise the right to have instruction conducted in the native language, at least in the elementary schools. But they are completely at one with the reactionaries on the point that a compulsory official language is necessary.

What does a compulsory official language mean? In practice, it means that the language of the Great Russians, who are a minority of the population of Russia, is imposed upon all the rest of the population of Russia. In every school the teaching of the official language must be obligatory. All official correspondence must be conducted in the official language, not in the language of the local population. 

On what grounds do the parties who advocate a compulsory official language justify its necessity?

The “arguments” of the Black Hundreds are curt, of course. They say: All non-Russians should be ruled with a rod of iron to keep them from “getting out of hand”. Russia must be indivisible, and all the peoples must submit to Great-Russian rule, for it was the Great Russians who built up and united the land of Russia. Hence, the language of the ruling class must be the compulsory official language. The Purishkeviches would not mind having the “local lingoes” banned altogether; although they are spoken by about 60 per cent of Russia’s total population.

The attitude of the liberals is much more “cultured” and “refined”. They are for permitting the use of the native languages within certain limits (for example, in the elementary schools). At the same time they advocate an obligatory official language, which, they say, is necessary in the interests of “culture”, in the interests of a “united” and “indivisible” Russia, and so forth.

“Statehood is the affirmation of cultural unity.... An official language is an essential constituent of state culture.... Statehood is based on unity of authority, the official language being an instrument of that unity. The official language possesses the same compulsory and universally coercive power as all other forms of statehood....

“If Russia is to remain united and indivisible, we must firmly insist on the political expediency of the Russian literary language.”

This is the typical philosophy of a liberal on the necessity of an official language.

We have quoted the above passage from an article by Mr. S. Patrashkin in the liberal newspaper Dyen[1] (No. 7). For quite understandable reasons, the Black-Hundred Novoye Vremya rewarded the author of these ideas with a resounding kiss. Mr. Patrashkin expresses “very sound ideas”, Menshikov’s newspaper stated (No. 13588). Another paper the Black Hundreds are constantly praising for such very “sound” ideas is the national-liberal Russkaya Mysl.[2] And how can they help praising them when the liberals, with the aid of “cultured” arguments, are advocating things that please the Novoye Vremya people so much?

Russian is a great and mighty language, the liberals tell us. Don’t you want everybody who lives in the border regions of Russia to know this great and mighty language? Don’t you see that the Russian language will enrich the literature of the non-Russians, put great treasures of culture within their reach, and so forth?

That is all true, gentlemen, we say in reply to the liberals. We know better than you do that the language of Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky is a great and mighty one. We desire more than you do that the closest possible intercourse and fraternal unity should be established between the oppressed classes of all the nations that inhabit Russia, without any discrimination. And we, of course, are in favour of every inhabitant of Russia having the opportunity to learn the great Russian language.

What we do not want is the element of coercion. We do not want to have people driven into paradise with a cudgel; for no matter how many fine phrases about “culture” you may utter, a compulsory official language involves coercion, the use of the cudgel. We do not think that the great and mighty Russian language needs anyone having to study it by sheer compulsion. We are convinced that the development   of capitalism in Russia, and the whole course of social life in general, are tending to bring all nations closer together. Hundreds of thousands of people are moving from one end of Russia to another; the different national populations are intermingling; exclusiveness and national conservatism must disappear. People whose conditions of life and work make it necessary for them to know the Russian language will learn it without being forced to do so. But coercion (the cudgel) will have only one result: it will hinder the great and mighty Russian language from spreading to other national groups, and, most important of all, it will sharpen antagonism, cause friction in a million new forms, increase resentment, mutual misunderstanding, and so on.

Who wants that sort of thing? Not the Russian people, not the Russian democrats. They do not recognise national oppression in any form, even in “the interests of Russian culture and statehood”.

That is why Russian Marxists say that there must be no compulsory official language, that the population must be provided with schools where teaching will be carried on in all the local languages, that a fundamental law must be introduced in the constitution declaring invalid all privileges of any one nation and all violations of the rights of national minorities.

Notes

[1] Dyen (The Day)—a daily newspaper of a liberal-bourgeois trend, published in St. Petersburg from 1912. Among its contributors were Menshevik liquidators, who took over complete control of the paper after February 1917. Closed down by the Revolutionary Military Committee of the Petrograd Soviet on October 26 (November 8), 1917.

[2] Russkaya Mysl (Russian Thought)—a monthly journal of the liberal bourgeoisie, published in Moscow from 1880. After the 1905 Revolution it became the organ of the Right wing of the Cadet Party. During that period Lenin called the Russkaya Mysl “Chernosotennaya Mysl” (Black-Hundred Thought). The journal closed down in the middle of 1918.

Synopsis 

In the article "Is a Compulsory Official Language Needed?" published in Proletarskaya Pravda on January 18, 1914, Vladimir Lenin addresses the debate surrounding the necessity of a compulsory official language. The liberals, he notes, differ from the reactionaries in acknowledging the right to use native languages in elementary schools but concur on the need for a compulsory official language.

Lenin critiques the concept of a compulsory official language, explaining that, in practice, it imposes the language of the Great Russians, a minority in Russia, on the entire population. He dissects the justifications provided by proponents, both reactionaries and liberals, and highlights the coercive nature of imposing a single official language on diverse national populations.

The Black Hundreds argue for ruling non-Russians with an iron rod to maintain Great-Russian dominance, while liberals, in a more refined stance, advocate for an obligatory official language in the interests of culture and a united Russia.

Lenin challenges the liberal argument, emphasizing that while Russian is indeed a great language, the element of coercion in enforcing it as the official language is counterproductive. He argues against using compulsion, stating that the natural development of capitalism in Russia and social interactions will lead to the organic spread of the Russian language without the need for force.

Russian Marxists, according to Lenin, reject the idea of a compulsory official language. They advocate for schools teaching in all local languages, oppose privileges for any one nation, and insist on protecting the rights of national minorities. The article reflects Lenin's commitment to internationalism, opposition to national oppression, and his belief in the organic development of language without coercion.

GNI

 Gross National Income (GNI) is the total amount of money earned by a nation's people and businesses. It is used to measure and track a nation's wealth from year to year. The number includes the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) plus the income it receives from overseas sources.

\mathrm{GNI}=\mathrm{GDP}+(EX_{FS} - IM_{FS})

GNI = gross national income

GDP = gross domestic product

EX_{FS} = money flowing from foreign countries

IM_{FS} = money flowing to foreign countries

Growth and Development terms In economics,

 Growth and Development  terms  In economics

 In economics, the terms "growth" and "development" are often used to describe different aspects of a country's progress, and they have distinct meanings.

Economic Growth:

Definition: Economic growth refers to the increase in a country's output of goods and services over time. It is typically measured by the growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Indicators: Rising GDP, increasing per capita income, and expanding employment opportunities are indicators of economic growth.

Focus: Economic growth is often quantitative and focuses on the expansion of the overall size of the economy. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for broader development.

Economic Development:

Definition: Economic development is a broader concept that encompasses improvements in various aspects of human well-being and societal progress. It includes not only economic factors but also social, political, and cultural dimensions.

Indicators: In addition to economic indicators, development is measured by improvements in education, healthcare, infrastructure, income distribution, poverty reduction, and overall living standards.

Focus: Economic development goes beyond mere output expansion. It aims for a more inclusive and sustainable improvement in the quality of life for all members of society.

Relationship between Growth and Development:

Economic growth is often seen as a means to achieve economic development. A growing economy can provide the resources necessary to invest in social programs, education, healthcare, and infrastructure.

However, growth does not automatically guarantee development. The distribution of wealth, access to resources, and the quality of life for all citizens are critical aspects that need attention for comprehensive development.

Sustainable Development:

Sustainable development emphasizes the importance of meeting current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. It involves balancing economic, social, and environmental considerations for long-term well-being.

Human Development Index (HDI):

The Human Development Index, introduced by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), is a composite index that measures a country's average achievements in three basic dimensions of human development: health (life expectancy at birth), education (mean and expected years of schooling), and standard of living (GNI per capita).

Challenges:

Challenges to both growth and development include issues such as income inequality, environmental degradation, access to education and healthcare, and inclusive economic policies.

In summary, while economic growth is a crucial component of economic development, the latter encompasses a broader set of objectives focused on improving the well-being of individuals and society as a whole. Achieving sustainable development requires attention to both economic and non-economic dimensions, fostering inclusive growth, and addressing social and environmental concerns.

Robert Phillipson - "linguistic imperialism" 1992

 Robert Phillipson - "linguistic imperialism" 1992

Robert Phillipson, a linguist, and researcher is known for his work on linguistic imperialism. In his influential book titled "Linguistic Imperialism" (1992), Phillipson explores the ways in which English, as a global language, is used as a tool of cultural and economic domination by English-speaking countries. Here are some key points from Phillipson's work:

Definition of Linguistic Imperialism:

Phillipson defines linguistic imperialism as "the dominance asserted and retained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages."

English as a Global Language:

Phillipson acknowledges the spread of English as a global language but critically examines the power dynamics associated with its global dominance. He argues that the spread of English is often connected with historical and contemporary processes of imperialism, colonialism, and economic dominance.

Cultural and Economic Impact:

The book explores how the use of English in international communication, business, and education can lead to the marginalization and devaluation of other languages and cultures. This process, according to Phillipson, can perpetuate global inequalities.

Language Teaching and Cultural Subordination:

Phillipson criticizes the ways in which English language teaching, especially in non-English-speaking countries, can reinforce a sense of cultural inferiority and subordination. He argues that language teaching often promotes the cultural values of the native English-speaking countries.

Resistance and Alternatives:

Phillipson encourages language planners and educators to resist linguistic imperialism and promote linguistic and cultural diversity. He advocates for the empowerment of local languages and the development of language policies that reflect the needs and aspirations of the communities they serve.

Educational Policies:

The book discusses how English language teaching, particularly in the context of English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) programs, can unintentionally contribute to linguistic imperialism if it neglects the cultural context and reinforces an Anglo-centric worldview.

It's important to note that while Phillipson's work has been influential in highlighting the challenges associated with linguistic imperialism, it has also faced criticism. Some argue that the spread of English can have positive aspects, such as increased opportunities for communication and access to information, but Phillipson's work serves as a significant contribution to the critical discourse on language, power, and globalization.

The major contribution of V I Lenin to the Marxism

The major contribution of V I Lenin to the Marxism 

Vladimir Lenin, a prominent figure in the history of Marxism, made several significant contributions to Marxist theory and its practical application. Some of his major contributions include:

Vanguard of the Proletariat: Lenin expanded upon Marx's ideas by emphasizing the need for a disciplined and organized revolutionary vanguard party to lead the proletariat (working class) in achieving a socialist revolution. He argued that the working class, without the guidance of a dedicated revolutionary party, could not effectively challenge and overthrow the capitalist system.

Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism: Lenin developed the concept that imperialism was the final stage of capitalism. In his work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism," Lenin analyzed the economic, political, and social characteristics of imperialism, highlighting how powerful capitalist nations exploited and dominated less developed regions for resources and markets. He argued that imperialism heightened the contradictions within capitalism and increased the potential for revolutionary upheavals.

Revolutionary Strategy: April Theses and October Revolution: Lenin's "April Theses" outlined his revolutionary strategy, advocating for an immediate end to Russia's participation in World War I, the transfer of power to the Soviets (worker councils), and the establishment of a socialist government. His leadership in the October Revolution of 1917 led to the Bolsheviks seizing power in Russia, marking the world's first successful socialist revolution.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Lenin expanded upon Marx's concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," advocating for a transitional period where the working class would hold state power to suppress counter-revolutionary forces and establish the foundations for a socialist society.

New Economic Policy (NEP): Lenin introduced the NEP in the early 1920s, a pragmatic policy allowing limited market-oriented reforms to revive the economy after the Russian Civil War. It involved a temporary retreat from full socialism by permitting small-scale private enterprise and market mechanisms while maintaining state control over key industries.

Lenin's interpretations and applications of Marxist theory had a profound impact on the development of revolutionary strategies, Marxist-Leninist thought, and socialist movements worldwide. However, it's important to note that interpretations of Lenin's contributions and their significance vary among scholars and political perspectives.

Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP)

Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) was an economic policy introduced by the Soviet government in the early 1920s, primarily by Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Soviet Union. The NEP represented a temporary retreat from strict socialism and introduced certain market-oriented reforms to address the severe economic challenges faced by the country after the Russian Civil War (1917-1922).

Key features of Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) included:

Mixed Economy: The NEP allowed for a mixed economy by permitting limited elements of private enterprise alongside state-controlled industries. Small-scale private businesses, known as "NEPmen," were allowed to operate in sectors such as agriculture, retail, and light industry.

Market Reforms: Under the NEP, a degree of market mechanisms and pricing based on supply and demand was reintroduced. The state retained control over key industries, banks, and foreign trade, while allowing some market competition for certain goods and services.

Agrarian Reforms: Peasants were allowed to cultivate their land privately and sell surplus agricultural produce in free markets. This departure from forced collectivization aimed to incentivize agricultural productivity.

State Control of Key Industries: Despite allowing elements of private enterprise, the state retained control over heavy industries, banks, transportation, and large-scale enterprises.

Political and Social Stability: The NEP aimed to stabilize the country economically and politically after years of war, revolution, and economic turmoil. It was seen as a way to rebuild the economy while maintaining control over the commanding heights of industry.

Lenin described the New Economic Policy as a strategic retreat from full socialism to prevent the collapse of the economy and address the acute food shortages and economic chaos that followed the Russian Revolution and the Civil War. The NEP succeeded in reviving agricultural production and stabilizing the economy, but it was also met with criticism from some communist factions who saw it as a deviation from Marxist principles.

The NEP was eventually phased out under Joseph Stalin's leadership in the late 1920s in favor of rapid industrialization and collectivization through Five-Year Plans, marking a return to more centralized planning and state control.

Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) represented a shift in economic policy to address the dire circumstances faced by the Soviet Union after the Russian Civil War. Lenin described the NEP as a temporary retreat from strict socialism and a strategic measure to revive the economy. Here are some quotes from Lenin that reflect his views on the NEP:

On the Need for NEP:

"We must be able to organize in Russia the study and teaching of the laws of a market economy. ... We must permit freedom to trade and the development of capitalism to some extent."

On the NEP as a Tactical Retreat:

"It is not a retreat, but a necessary maneuver."

On the Objectives of the NEP:

"We are taking one step backward in order to take two steps forward later."

On the Role of the NEP in Socialist Construction:

"The New Economic Policy is a temporary retreat from socialism to capitalism, but one that is inevitable and indispensable under the circumstances."

On Balancing Socialism and Capitalism under the NEP:

"We must blend socialism with capitalism. We must not destroy all capitalism, but only the remnants of feudalism and medievalism."

On the Importance of NEP for Rebuilding the Economy:

"We need the NEP. We need it in order to heal the wounds inflicted on our economy by the war and the revolution. We need it in order to save the socialist revolution."

Lenin's views expressed through these quotations highlight his acknowledgment of the necessity of allowing some capitalist elements temporarily to stabilize the economy and pave the way for the eventual transition towards socialism in the Soviet Union.

Lenin's article "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" (Subtitled "The Crisis in Our Party") is a pivotal work that addresses the internal struggles and ideological conflicts within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), later known as the Bolshevik Party, during the early 20th century.

Published in 1904, this work by Lenin served as a response to the factional disputes and organizational issues within the RSDLP, particularly between the Bolsheviks (led by Lenin) and the Mensheviks (a faction within the party with differing ideological views).

Key points addressed in "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" include:

Party Organization: Lenin emphasized the need for a highly disciplined and centralized party organization, advocating for a professional revolutionary cadre dedicated to advancing the cause of socialism. He criticized the Mensheviks for their approach, which he deemed less committed to a strong, centralized party structure.

Democratic Centralism: Lenin articulated the principle of democratic centralism, which advocated for democratic decision-making processes within the party but emphasized the need for unified action once decisions were made. He argued for strict discipline and unity of action within the party ranks.

Factionalism and Unity: The article addressed the dangers of factionalism within the party and emphasized the importance of unity among revolutionaries. Lenin called for a break from factional disputes and a focus on achieving common revolutionary goals.

Party Leadership and Strategy: Lenin defended the importance of strong leadership and a clear political strategy for achieving revolutionary aims. He argued for the necessity of a committed, professional leadership that could guide the party through the complexities of revolutionary struggle.

"One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" became a foundational text in understanding Lenin's views on party organization, discipline, and the role of leadership within a revolutionary movement. It highlighted the need for a disciplined, centralized party structure and emphasized the importance of unity of action while advocating for strong leadership to steer the party toward its revolutionary objectives.

Art should serve a social purpose

Lenin was critical of the concept of "Art for the sake of Art" primarily because he believed that art should serve a social purpose, aligning with the ideology of the proletariat and the socialist revolution. He criticized the notion of art as a detached, autonomous sphere divorced from societal concerns. Here are some key points and quotes reflecting Lenin's views:

Art as a Tool for Social Change:

Lenin believed that art should not exist purely for aesthetic enjoyment or as a separate realm untouched by political or social considerations. He argued that art should actively contribute to the ideological and political goals of the working class and the socialist movement.

Purpose of Art in the Service of the Proletariat:

Lenin advocated for art that reflected the struggles, aspirations, and experiences of the working class. He believed that art should inspire, educate, and mobilize the masses toward the revolutionary cause.

Critique of Bourgeois Conceptions of Art:

Lenin criticized bourgeois or elitist conceptions of art that prioritized individual expression or served the interests of the ruling classes. He saw such art as disconnected from the realities and struggles of the working people.

Quotes that reflect Lenin's views on art and its role in society:

"Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it."

"We reject all morality derived from non-human (i.e. heaven) and non-class concepts. We say that it is time to replace all these high-sounding phrases about justice, virtue, etc., with actual laws based on the exigencies of the class struggle."

"The role of a truly revolutionary artist is not to achieve artistic success, not to achieve fame, but to depict the suffering of the people, to expose what is wrong, to expose the evil of the world."

Lenin's stance emphasized the need for art to be aligned with the interests of the working class and the revolutionary struggle, rejecting the idea of art as a detached, apolitical entity existing solely for aesthetic or individualistic purposes.

Vladimir Lenin, a key figure in the Russian Revolution and the early Soviet state, did not extensively address the class nature of language in his writings. His primary focus was on political and economic issues related to the working class, imperialism, and socialism. While he did not specifically delve into the class nature of language, some of his writings indirectly touch upon related topics.

Lenin acknowledged the importance of language 

Lenin acknowledged the importance of language as a tool for communication, education, and culture. In his work, he emphasized the need for the working class to be literate and educated. However, he did not make explicit statements claiming that language itself has no class.

It's important to note that discussions about the class nature of language often involve more in-depth analysis from linguistic and sociological perspectives, and Lenin's writings may not provide a comprehensive exploration of such themes.

If you are interested in the relationship between language and class, you might want to explore the works of linguists, sociolinguists, and theorists who specialize in this area rather than relying solely on Lenin's writings.

మార్క్సేంగిల్స్ తరువాత నాకు ఇష్టమైనవాడు లెనిన్. తను విప్లవానికి నాయకత్వం వహించి విజయవంతం చేశాడు. 

స్టాలిన్, మావోలు ఎక్కువ కాలం దేశాధినేతలుగా వున్నారు. వారు చెప్పిన సిధ్ధాంతాలను జగ్రత్తగా పరిశీలించి స్వీకరించాలి. 

"కళ అనేది వాస్తవికతను ప్రతిబింబించి ఆగిపోయే అద్దం కాకూడదు, సమాజాన్ని మలిచే సుత్తి కావాలి" (కొంచెం స్వేఛానువాదం) 

Karl Marx State - corporate - government bureaucracy - civil society

 Karl Marx State - corporate - government bureaucracy - civil society 

Elaborate the following statement by Karl Marx - while corporate and government bureaucracy seem to operate in opposition, in actuality they mutually rely on one another to exist. "The Corporation is civil society's attempt to become state; but the bureaucracy is the state which has really made itself into civil society."

This statement by Karl Marx emphasizes the intricate relationship between corporations (representing civil society) and government bureaucracy (representing the state). Marx delves into the complex interdependency between these entities:

Corporate and Government Bureaucracy as Interrelated Entities: Marx observes that corporations, which are key components of civil society, aspire to attain a level of power and influence that parallels that of the state. They aim to wield considerable control over various aspects of society, including economic, social, and political domains. Conversely, government bureaucracy constitutes the state apparatus responsible for governance and administration.

Corporation as an Attempt to Attain State Power: According to Marx, corporations function as entities within civil society that endeavour to replicate the functions and powers of the state. They seek to amass economic resources, exert influence, and shape societal structures, akin to the role traditionally held by the state.

Bureaucracy as the State Embedded in Civil Society: On the other hand, Marx contends that government bureaucracy, while seemingly distinct from civil society, is an organ of the state that has intricately woven itself into the fabric of civil society. Bureaucracy operates within society to regulate and administer various aspects of governance, law, and public services. Its extensive presence and influence in civil society make it an integral part of people's daily lives.

Mutual Reliance and Integration: Marx's statement suggests that despite appearing as separate entities with contrasting roles, corporations and government bureaucracy are deeply interconnected and reliant on each other. Corporations seek to influence state policies and regulations in their favour, while government bureaucracy relies on corporate resources, economic stability, and compliance for its functioning.

In essence, Marx highlights how corporations, aspiring to attain state-like powers, and government bureaucracy, deeply embedded within civil society, are interwoven. Their existence and operations are not in opposition but are mutually dependent and often collaborate to maintain the existing social and economic structures. This analysis underscores the complexity of the relationship between economic powers (corporations) and the administrative powers of the state (bureaucracy) within modern societies.

cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery

 Explain - The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate.

ChatGPT

This statement is a part of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto. In this passage, Marx and Engels use metaphorical language to describe the impact of capitalism and the global market on societies and economies worldwide.

The phrase "cheap prices of commodities" refers to the products manufactured under capitalist systems that can be produced at lower costs due to various factors like mass production, technological advancements, and sometimes exploitation of labor. These inexpensive goods flood markets, making them widely available and affordable.

"Chinese walls" metaphorically represents barriers or protectionist measures that certain societies or economies might employ to shield themselves from outside influences or competition. In a historical context, it refers to China's historical isolationist policies, attempting to protect its economy and culture from foreign interference.

The "barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners" signifies the resistance or opposition felt by some societies or groups towards foreign influence, products, or the encroachment of capitalism on their traditional ways of life.

Marx and Engels suggest that the penetration of these cheap commodities into foreign markets serves as a powerful force (the "heavy artillery") that breaks down these protective barriers and forces resistant societies, represented by the metaphorical "barbarians," to surrender or adapt to the capitalist system. They argue that the competitive advantage of capitalist economies in producing cheap goods undermines protectionist measures and influences the global economy, compelling resistant societies to capitulate or adapt to the dominance of capitalist modes of production and trade.

In essence, this statement reflects Marx and Engels' analysis of how the global expansion of capitalism, driven by its ability to produce goods at lower costs and penetrate foreign markets, challenges and eventually erodes barriers set up by societies trying to protect themselves from external influences.