Abstract. National character as an object of cultural studies is one of the most important problems of modern science. He is a phenomenon and a key determinant of which is defining the future of civilization, its ability or failure of civilized education that ensures a high level of development, as well as to predict the likelihood of the collapse of its fundamental socio-cultural grounds in the future. People, ethnic group and nation are the subject and the object of culture. Creating a culture of peace, which is surrounded by man, the latter makes them public and individual character, where the individuality of cultural objects is features of human nature. The culture of each ethnic group has the imprint of the individually-psychological stereotypes of individuals of this ethnic group, cultural archetype. Creating cultural areas, they make themselves felt in all spheres of human activity, but is most evident in his everyday life. 

The term "ethnos" is understood and widely regarded in modern science as a social, biological and socio-cultural concept. In the early and mid XX century ethnic problems presented considerable features of interest to Russian scientists such as S.M. Shirokogorov, L.N Gumilyev, Y. Bromley, A.G. Zdravomyslov. It is a well-known fact that the word "ethnos" was used to describe not only small nations, but also the so-called super-ethnos. The modern understanding of the word "ethnicity" is identical to the concept "world nations" and is perceived as a synonym for "people" or "nation." All research work in this scientific area lies within two predominant branches of modern ethnology. Thus, the first branch of the research on this phenomenon was represented by the concept "biological units", suggested by L.N. Gumileyv; in the second one ethnos was treated in a doctrine by Y. Bromley as a "socio-cultural phenomenon."

Currently, ethnic group formation can be divided into two types: 1) anthropometric biogenetic reality, which represents ethnic groups as "a certain set of people united by common origin, history, language, culture, mentality" and 2) the socio-cultural affinity, in which ethnic groups are certain sets of people, which are characterized by common language, culture, tradition and ethnonym" regardless of where they live [1, p. 3].

The “Ethnos” Theory by Gumileyv is, in fact, an extension of the doctrine of ethnic groups by S. Shirokogorov. Gumileyv treats ethnos as "a biological unit ", " a natural community" , "ethnos is a stable , a naturally formed group of people as opposed to all other similar communities, determined by a sense of complementarity , and a different kind of behaviour stereotype , which changes regularly over time"[2, s.570] . Scientist attaches great importance to human interaction with nature, emphasizing the influence of landscape on human organisms. He is firmly convinced that the environment shapes the character of human behavior and contributes to the organization of a linguistic community. Ethnos due to the connection between the life of a community and the natural landscape and social relations is defined as a phenomenon related to geography, although its culture is regarded as a social phenomenon. In ethnos the scientist notes the psychological nature, insofar as people in the community are formed on the basis of categories such as " the spirit of nation ", " the call of the wild ", relating to the mental health of man. The main feature that determines the essence of the ethnic group, is the opposition of the members of one ethnic group to all other existing communities. As soon as the community identifies itself from the rest of society, this particular community becomes immediately aware of itself as a single ethnic group. The antithesis of "us – not us" is an indicator of separating one from another language community; it also promotes itself as an independent representation of society with a certain internal structure. The presence of the internal structure of the ethnic group " defines the norms of relations between the collective and the individual among themselves ", hence the stereotypical behaviour, which is the basis of the concept of " ethnos" [2, s.570 ]

It should be noted that V. Bromley’s vision of ethnicity as " a historically developed group of people inhabiting a certain area, united by common features of culture (language), psychology and awareness of their unity and differences from all other similar entities ( self-awareness ) , fixed in an ethnonym. " [3, p.6 ] . Bromley comes up with an idea about the common origin of the members of the ethnic group as one of the system-forming components of ethnos. The presence of a specific territory inhabited by the same speech community, should be regarded as the basic condition of an ethnic group formation. The scientist perceives ethnos as a sociocultural phenomenon, as an integral system related to socio-economic factors . Thus, culture, identity, self-awareness and language are defined as the actual ethnic characteristics; common territory , economic ties and statehood as social factors of ethnicity . Ethnos functioning is made possible by the presence of a diachronic type of information links which facilitate ethnic continuity and intergenerational communication.

It is believed that the word “ethnos” itself can be regarded as one of the factors of its unification. All the hypotheses concerning the origin of the Russian word "Русь" may be divided into two groups: 1) the ethnonym emerged among the Slavs on their ancestral territory, or 2) the ethnonym was borrowed from other languages. B.A Rybakov, the proponent of the former version, believes that the etymology of «Русь» and the hydronym “Ros”(Рос) (a tributary of the Dnieper river) are in a way connected with each other. Moreover, the scientist is unshakably convinced that the Russian proper name “Русь” is of Slavic origin, mentioning how this word changed phonetically over time (from the sixth to the eleventh century) . In ancient times, this word sounded like "Ros" («рос») and served as the name of one of the tribes of Slavs living on the banks of the Ross River . As stated in the chronicles , in the sixth century historians mention the "Ros" people (народ Рось); in the ninth century "Russian tribes " (российские племена); in the eleventh century " Roskaya truth." (Роськая правда). Formed from different Slavic tribes, Slavic nation received the name "Ros tribe" [4, p.156 ] . As can be seen above, the origin of the word is closely linked with the idea of the statehood of Slavic tribes.

According to a Russian expert on the history, V. Kluchevsky, the ethnonym “Russ” passed the following way : first, it served to denote a particular territory , then the name of the people who lived on the territory of the same name. Initially, it was realized as a geographical factor ,

i.e. as a well-defined territory inhabited by Slavs , then the name acquired a political significance

Russia was perceived as a certain community , which has its ruler and territory. Only then did the name acquire an ethnic meaning, because that was the name of the whole land, inhabited by Slavs, who had been formed as an ethnic group.

Y.Stepanov in his research on the etymology of the word “Русь”, adheres to V. Kliuchevsky’s point of view, considering the latter’s evidence most convincing and coinciding with the results of his own research work. The word "Русь " as the name of the Russian state was used as an ethnographic name : Russ is a tribe ; a social one : Russ is a class; a geographical one: Russ is a certain part of the state; a political one: Russ is the State. According to him, this word was borrowed from the Finnish language and means "the people from Scandinavia." In Finnish, it meant " squad ", whereby the scientist sees links between the words «Русь», «друг», «дружина» found in the Russian language [5, p . 7].

The word " Russian " is a substantivised adjective which means "belonging or related to Russ." According to the findings by A. Melnikova , in each language a particular way of perceiving the world is put into its grammatical categories. Originally, " Russian" meant " Russian citizenship ", then the adjective acquired the meaning "one who belongs to Russ." Such a unique case of fixing the term in the language enables the scientist to explain the uniqueness of the Russian ethnic group. A.Melnikova goes on to say that the Russian nation is fundamentally different from all other nations, because if others are a separate, specific kind, the "Russians” are a specific feature rather than a national sign " [6 . 6] . "Russian” is, rather, a definition of personality itself; "Russian" is not an ethnicity, but rather certain features of the mentality. In order to understand the specific features of language interpretation of reality, it is necessary to know cultural attitudes of a particular ethnic group . The history of the Russian ethnos confirms a non-standard way of the development of living space within the boundaries of an area, which is home to several communities assimilated into one linguistic community. Certain features of the mentality inherent in the vast majority of members of the given community, have a number of similar specific features, combined in the word " Russian " [6] .

The term " ethnos " is a point of considerable interest for modern Kazakh scientists insofar as an adequate assessment of ethnic and inter-ethnic processes of modern society hinges largely on the understanding of the term. In contrast to such widely known concepts as those of "nation" , "people", "ethnicity", each of which have their definite explanations, the term " ethnos " makes scientists' opinions vary greatly. The problems of ethnicity and ethnos in Kazakhstan’s science were considered by Argynbaev H. , D. Kshibekov , A. Nysanbaev , N. Massanov , M. Kozybaev , N. Alimbai , M. Muhanov , Seidimbek A. , A. Kodar , N. Baitenova , O.Aytmagambetova .

The concept of " ethnos " in research by D. Kshibekov has been treated as a form of collective existence , which is formed naturally; selfsustainability mechanism ensuring its stability , which is understood by him as the process of transferring social norms of their community , language and traditions to the new generation as a result of marriage consummation and family making. An important condition of self-sustainability is the presence of a common language and territory. Ethnos, as a specific community of people, has elements of a single culture religion, traditions, customs, art etc. According to the scientist , ethnic identity is a basic feature of the community , " ethnos is not only the integrity of the objective components , but also only that set of people , which is aware of itself as such and which distinguishes itself from other similar communities " [7 , p. 228] .

According to N. Baitenova , " ethnos” is a complex dynamic system , as opposed to other similar communities , having a common origin myth, and which is based on different stereotypes of behaviour, self-awareness" [8 , p.39 ] . The complexity of the term "ethnos " can be explained by the intricate interweaving of sociological , biological, geographical and psychological factors in the concept. Each ethnic group is a dynamic phenomenon, i.e. undergoes certain stages of development. Ethnos is naturally a community of people who are connected with each other and society on the whole. The researcher, in the wake of other scientists, calls the principle of division between "ours" and "theirs" a defining feature. Another marker of ethnos is the presence of the myth of their common origin . Thus, the structure of an ethos consists of the following signs : the opposition “theirs” "ours" , the presence of a certain myth of common ancestry , behaviour stereotypes of the members in a given community and self-identity.

The psychologist O.Kh. Aymagambetova from Kazakhstan treats the concept of ethnos as follows: " ethnos is a biological phenomenon and not a social and marginal one, i.e. lying on the boundary of the biosphere and sociosphere "[9 , p.15 ] . According to the researcher, the term " ethnos " in ethnopsychology should be explained taking into account the peculiarities of psychology of an ethnic community . This social psychology can be accounted for by the presence of individual and group consciousness, "determined by their ethnos." Ethnos, as a social organism, emerges on the basis of common territory, language and psychology.

According to A. Seydimbek in Kazakhstan’s science ethnos is mainly understood as "... a large number of people who have grown up in a certain locality, which is their historical homeland , and who have a common language, culture, psychology; who are aware of their community , unity, with its ethnonym " [ 10 , p. 93]. It is known that not each separate community grows into an ethnos . According to the theory of ethnicization, lifestyles and an economic-cultural type of production should be taken into consideration for the formation of an ethnic group. These factors possess an ethnos-differentiating property. During the development of a community a specific dominant emerges, which makes the group similar to others, thus lending it this undeniable property of ethnos. Thus, the ethnicization is the separation of a social group from the conglomerate for some special features politically, culturally and economically determined" [10, p.122 ] . The pivotal feature of ethnicization is the "we" and "they" opposition ,which ensures that the company incorporates significant ethnic features characteristic of a particular group of people.

Among many definitions of the term "ethnos" in the modern world and Kazakkstan’s science we believe the following definition to be the most appropriate: "Ethnos is a naturally and historically constituted, stable community of people. The main conditions of the formation of an ethnos are the presence of a common language, territory, history, economics, spiritual and material culture, identity, mentality, religion, psychology, demography. Ethnic core, periphery and diaspora should be pointed out in the structure of ethnos. "[11, s.389]. This definition is characterized by the presence of all the main components of the concept of "ethnos." This understanding of the ethnic group as a socio-cultural education and a structural phenomenon corresponds to modern ideas about this concept of ethnology. The concept of "Kazakh ethnos" is synonymous with "Kazakh people" and has two meanings: Ethnikos and ethno-social organism. By Kazakh Ethnikos we mean an ethnic community of Kazakh living abroad; by ethno-social organism all the Kazakhs living in territory of their home state. We believe that the most precise definition in Kazakhstan’s science has been suggested by M. Absattarov: "Kazakh ethnos is a historically constituted, mainly on the territory of Kazakhstan, a stable group of people who have common basic and special features in culture, psychology; who are conscious of their integrity and distinction from other ethnic entities "[12, p.11-23].

The Ethnonym "Kazakh" has a rich and complex history. However, there is still no universal version of its origin and meaning. According to the classification of ethnonyms proposed by V. Nikonov, ethnonyms can be divided into several subgroups. Thus, the oldest semantic type is self-ethnonym (этноним-самоназвание), which served to denote the ancestral representatives of a given ethnic group («свои» in Russian , as opposed to strangers; Under this particular category we can also include ethnonyms, which basically described all others as dumb, having no distinct language; ethnonyms whose concept was similar to that of "friend." («свой»). Then we deal with ethnonyms meaning the totem of a tribe: ancestor’s name; a particular area 

inhabited by the representatives of a given ethnos; topographic ethnonyms, i.e. areas, where a particular community lives. The next group of ethnonyms indicates signs characteristic of the community itself (external signs, character traits, customs); ideological assessment. According to the scientist, ethnonyms are words that obey the laws of language. History manifests itself in ethnonyms by means of linguistic regularities [13, p.112]. Kazakhstan’s scientists’ works on ethnology present certain features of interest. Modern ethnologists argue that the ethnonym is the outward expression of the identity a particular ethnic group. R. Amrenova adheres to the opinion that ethnonyms play a prominent role as the intensifiers of ethnic identity. Ethnonymy presents itself as a centre of ideas of an ethnic group, surrounded by a halo of fairly real connotations, in which linguistic and ethnic identities manifest themselves" [14, p.9].

The endoethnonym of Kazakh ethnic group from Russian sources has been recorded as Kirghiz kaysak (киргиз, каисак, киргиз-кайсак), foreigners, i.e. we can observe here the entire range of "administrative fabrications" on the part of the officials of Tsarist Russia (G.Blagova). The term "Kyrgyz" in relation to the Kazakhs was deliberately introduced in order to separate the name of the Russian Cossacks from the endoenthonym of the colonized people. The need to differentiate between the ethnonym "Kazakh" in relation to this particular nation, and the word "Cossack" as a symbol of the military class of the Russian people, in our opinion, is beyond doubt. A. Levshin repeatedly lamented that Kazakhs were attributed someone else's name (Kyrgyz), which neither they themselves nor their neighbours ever mention to refer to Kazakh people. The fact that the word "Cossack" in the Russian language is, in fact, a borrowing from some of the Turkic languages is quite obvious. Consequently, it is necessary to be able to differ the meaning of the word "Kazakh" as an endoethnonym from the word "Cossack", which is treated in its own way in the Russian language world picture.

The dictionary by V.Radlov offers readers the meaning of "Kazakh as " an independent person", "adventurer", "wanderer" [15, p.21]. G.Blagova, in her studies notes that the word "Cossack" can be found in the dictionary by I.Sreznevsky meaning "a civilian laborer." This name later became known in the Russian language to refer to each and every "homeless wanderer of Russian origin." Until the XVII century the word Cossacks could refer to "freemen from the outskirts of the Russian state." The scientist points out another meaning of the word "Cossack" "lightly armed free riders". Cossacks were such people. The "unnatural gap" (as G.Blagova calls the annoying phenomenon in her research) between the endoethnonym and its designation found in the Russian sources, was the result of an attempt at the separation of the names of Russian Cossacks and the ethnonym denoting Kazakh people, as well as the erroneous identification of two peoples Kazakhs and Kirghiz as one. Many officials of the tsarist government wrongly believed Kazakhs and Kirghiz to be members of the same tribe, which is reflected in the written sources. Not until 1925 did Kazakh people receive their individual ethnonym and become known as such. This ethnonym has been fixed in the name of the Republic: the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, now the Republic of Kazakhstan. According to V.Yudin [16], sources from where most information on the history of the Kazakh people is taken, have been written in different languages Arabic, Mongolian, Turkish, Persian and Slavonic. This fact certainly complicates the problem of reading and processing them.

Moral values, attitudes and ideals that distinguish the members of one ethnic group from another changed repeatedly in the process of the historical development of ethnic groups. But a certain ethnic property, in our opinion, remains unique, specific at all points of its development and evolution, which is what helps to separate and recognize the members of a particular community.

National character is a symbiosis of specific and common traits; its uniqueness is "the result of the totality of its inherent specific forms of human mental properties" [4, p.149]. Manifestation of national character can be seen in the system of intentions in value orientations, needs and interests of community. This manifestation is reflected in the mentality of an ethnos and world picture belonging to the representatives of a given ethnic group. 

National character is formed on the basis of the main psychological features of the historical development of an ethnic community at some stage. M.Mnatsakyan defines national character as "a well-established set of features of the psychological make-up, inherent to most members of this community, as a defining way of thinking and behavior" [4, p.192]. National character is understood as the sameness of the conscious and unconscious, cultural and psychological phenomena. Noting the common concepts of "national character" and "mentality" the scientist at the same time separates them. So, in the national character mental components are predominant, unlike mentality; national character contains an element of consciousness; the latter also includes cultural and spiritual phenomena. Particular attention is drawn to the nature of the relationship of history and culture, which is due to the interaction of national character as a separate category with historical events, "national character contains history, functioning in the present and serving existing structures" [4, s.198]. But on par with this property, national character is defined as a well-established system of relations, encouraging members of the public to act according to the main provisions of their culture.

According to S.Lurie, modern ethnologists see national character in the process of the dynamic development of an ethnic group, because the constancy of features of national character can only be determined in the course of the historical development. Unification of people in a common cultural-mediated action can be brought about through "cultural scenarios multilevel and multifactor behavioral schemes" [17, p.86]. According to the scientist, the main criterion in determining national character is the concept of "ethnic constants." Based on the layout of "ethnic constants", at the attempt to reveal a national character ("self image" or "we", "idea of goodness", "idea of evil", etc.) in the analysis of Russian ethnos the scientist suggests the following description: self-image in Russian presents itself as a bearer of good; field of action all the space surrounding the Russians, presents itself as an area that needs to be colonized, and the people who lived and live there to this day should be protected; the condition of the action makes the Russians recognize themselves as fair strength; mode of action – paying moral duty to the supreme good and, finally, the idea of the enemy a) the one to defend themselves from, and b) the one from whom you must protect someone; the idea of patronage God. [17)

Some scientists believe that the Orthodox religion, nature, cultural exchanges and their mutual influence are among the most important factors that have shaped the Russian national character. What has made the Russian people so unique, according to Z. Sikevich, was such a number of peculiarities as land and state structure; state of Russian culture, the polemic character of Russian mindset, truth seeking; radical character. The marginal position of Russian culture brought to life such a property in the Russians as “a habit of doing all their own way – “having something their own way”. The latter is considered the property of the Russian character, "mastering something one’s own way." Another factor which contributes to the uniqueness of the Russian national character is the polemic character of Russian mindset. In contrast to Western model of thinking, the Russians like to argue on any occasion. In this connection “The Special Way of Russia” comes to the fore: "Russia is not Europe or Asia, nor anything else" [18, p.46]. The Russians are never willing to accept compromises, because in their minds a compromise would mean going against conscience. Another factor is truth-seeking, endowing the Russians with a special moral attitude. Morality is defined as an intrinsic part of national identity, the formation of which was influenced by religion. Church, being practically a public institution, and the State constituted some kind of symbiosis, preaching the public interest. The core of the national psychology of the Russian people, according to the scientist, is represented by such factors as the radical character. "Marginal", i,e radicalism is a moral quality of a free-willed man, but not a free man. As it was justly noted by Z.Sikevich, freedom and will vary. Freedom, as it is perceived in modern Russia, is not cooperation and dialogue, and "a wilful imposition of his understanding of freedom for the sake of destruction of that of another person" [18, p.48]. Thus, the Russian national character in the description of the scientist looks dualistic, it involves both the images of Europe and Asia, "a fight between two images of the Russian people, relatively speaking," Asian ", with the features of inert conservatism and rebellious spirit, and" European ", which recognizes and respects the rights of each individual, when “my freedom is impossible without the freedom of my housemate or a neighbour in multinational Russia."[18, p.49].

Kasyanova defines the national character as "a people’s idea about themselves, as an important element of its identity, its ethnic totality" [19]. Describing the Russian national character with the help of the term “accented epileptic personality type," the researcher hypothesizes that there are certain features of an epileptic genotype of the Russian character. Accordingly, this would be a person who has a number of contradictory traits of character: stubborn, not very flexible, doing the job well, if undisturbed; quick-tempered, but sometimes calm and patient. A distinctive trait of this type is, firstly, their ability to do everything their own way and at their own time and not when their employer requests anything; and, secondly, the ability to organize themselves and the group, and realize an idea that he takes as his own. According to K. Kasyanova, much in the Russian national character depends on epileptoid eg "slowness and the ability to delay the reaction, the desire to work at their own pace and according to their plan, some "viscosity" of thinking and acting (задний ум); difficulty in switching from one type to another.

The national character of the Kazakh ethnos has been studied in the works by Elikbaeva , Zhukesha K. , A. Ghali , K.Zharikbaeva , F. Zharmakinoy , J. Kadin. Elikbaev was one of the first researchers of national psychology. According to him, the national character is an indicator of people's living conditions and the environment. The human nature is influenced not by climatic conditions, not heredity, but by a combination of certain traits of the people. Diversity of characters as a psychological category is due to a combination of some human traits , which influence their actions. The scientist refers to national character, which has been formed over centuries, as "a reflection of peculiar socio-historical conditions of a nation’s existence, the aggregate of some features of the spiritual image of the people , which is, in its turn, reflected in their characteristic representatives of the traditional forms of behavior , perception of the environment in the psychology of this particular of nation [20 , p.89 ] . The individual way of an ethnos to perceive the world, is reflected in the national character and in the way of perceiving reality , some kind of looking at world events and facts in a particular light. This specificity is reflected in the behaviour of members of a given society. According to the scientist , the national character is subject to the will of the members of the community , which is manifested not only in the mind , but also in the actions of people , mood, which is described by researchers as a certain force. This force (mood) , according to N. Elikbaev, firstly, provides incitement to commit an action, and secondly, " contributes to the unity of the nation, the development and affirmation of her character " [20 , p.89 ] . Among positive features the Kazakh researcher points out the following: the presence of mind, the knowledge that a person makes good use of to help live in harmony with society. Among the negative ones the scientist mentions betrayal, greed and talkativeness. What is deemed tragic in the life of the ethnic group is loneliness and misunderstanding, i.e. a situation when what has been said remained misunderstood or ignored. Loneliness can be caused by objective reasons, be it the result of natural disasters or war. Loneliness, however, is an especially terrible phenomenon when a person deliberately moves away from the people, the misery of which is evidenced by the Kazakh saying " Жалғыздың үні шықпас " (a voice of a lonely one is not heard.) For the collective consciousness, this phenomenon is comparable only to a natural disaster. As tragically, like blasphemy, human unwillingness to be guided by common sense is perceived in the minds of Kazakh, accustomed to live by the axiom " Қазақ сөзге тоқтаған " ( Kazakh always listened to words).

The researcher K.Zhukesh has made a significant contribution in the description of the nature of the Kazakh ethnic group. The value of his work on the national psychology of Kazakh ethnic group, which became a handbook for many scientists, is impossible to overestimate. The researcher believes the following traits, found in this book on the psychology of the Kazakh people, inherent only to them: warlike character ; penchant for art , hospitality and love for children; mimic . Thus, the author notes that our warlike ancestors who inhabited the territory of present-day Kazakhstan, had a very hot and passionate character жауынгерлік мінез ( warlike character). The famous cry of nomads could serve as possible evidence" ереуіл ат пен егеулі найза " ( a saddled horse and a sharpened arrow ) , which reflects a constant readiness to defend their land. According to the scientist, this particular trait helped nomads to save a vast territory . [21, p.63 ] . Secondly, K.Zhukesh includes into a number of psychological features the aptitude for the arts ( өнeршілдік ): " тұрмыс пен табиғат қазақты өнерге бейін етсе, дәстүр қазаққа өнерді міндет етті (if life and nature attached humans to the art , the customs DEMANDED it ) " [21 , p.64 ] . Thirdly, the Kazakhs are hospitable (қонақжайлық) . Moreover, the researcher justifies his conclusion : every nation is undoubtedly hospitable , but if the ideas of humanism underlie of the hospitality on the part of the representatives of other cultures, then the Kazakh hospitality is a particular philosophy. It is based on such socio-economic and demographic reasons as: great distances between migrations spawned hunger for information , and the appearance of any person in the yurt was seen as the emergence of a messenger from the outside world . Fourthly , the Kazakhs have cherished a special love for children (қазақ – балажан халық): Relatively few in number, for many centuries of its uneasy historical path the Kazakhs were to become victims to many ordeals and, thus, have come to know the value of children , to upbring whom was considered a heavenly bliss under the severe conditions of nomadic life. Hence the Kazakh people have a reverent attitude to posterity, the desire to have more children. No wonder they say «Шөп болсаң да көп бол» (even if it is grass, let there a lot of it) ," proclaiming the idea of multiplicity , a large number of young seedlings for the time to come. Fifthly, the researcher noted such a trait of the Kazakh character, as susceptibility , openness to something new (еліктегіш, жұқтырғыш халық) , implying the ability to quickly adopt from other peoples certain qualities and skills . This trait can be treated in two ways: both positive and negative. Ability to learn from other peoples properties that help in everyday life produces a positive effect on the existence of the community. But not to lose yourself, keep those traits that define this admirable uniqueness, the specialness of the latter as a representative of the Kazakh ethnic group.

A renowned historian, A. Ghali Kazakh considers the idea of "re-creating the Kazakhs" a Kazakh dream To this end , according to the scientist , you need to accelerate the process of decolonization, undertaken in society, to effect the speedy rehabilitation of ethnic and religious consciousness. This should help to re-create the lost quality of national character, and keep those positive traits that modern Kazakhs now can be proud of. A.Ghali points out the following characteristic features of the Kazakh people: 1) The Kazakhs are an ethnic group , who have managed to preserve their state : it is a well-known fact that the entire history of the Kazakhs is a struggle to preserve its independence, and 2) the Kazakhs have their national elite , which has won their own place in international politics; 3) the Kazakhs are people, who are guided by peaceful principles based on their mentality; 4) at the same time Kazakhs are warlike people capable of defending their lands (as we have seen above, this is a character trait noted by many researchers dealing with the national character) 5 ) Kazakhs have always been satisfied with oral communication , because the power of speech was much stronger than any written documents ;

The Kazakh people considered power sacred, but it was not an absolute power; 7) Kazakh statehood has always been democratic and open, which is the reflection or, rather, is a consequence of the same name as the national character, as we believe 8) Self-sacrifice has its own characteristics , " he is more free and unique; he is quite self-sufficient and even condescending to power" [22, p.99 ] , 9) complementarity of the Kazakh nation manifests itself in the unity and cohesion of the whole

The following specific features of the Kazakh national character were suggested by Professor S. Kaskabasov: determination, hospitality , simplicity, tolerance . The Kazakhs, according to the professor, are hardly susceptible to an emotional impact. So many processes occurring in the life of Kazakhs are ignored by them. “To provoke the Kazakh’s belligerence, one needs to try really hard”, says the scientist who studies the Kazakh folklore ( as is known, the national character of the Kazakh is often embodied in a hero in folklore or mythology) . The allegation that the Kazakh have always followed the principle of " бас кеспек бар, тіл кеспек жоқ " ( you can remove somebody’s head, but you have no right to deprive somebody of speech)

, is resonant with the admirable democratic and open character of the nation, which was mentioned by Ghali. The most pleasant character trait in the Kazakh people, as S.Kaskabasov notes is the ability to be content with what they have (қанағатшылық). The most unbearable one, noted by the scientist, is idleness (жалқаулық).

Thus , the notion of "national character" of the Kazakh ethnic group has its own history of development. It is undeniable that the nature of an ethnic group is subject to change in the course of historical development , adapting itself to existing conditions , and is transformed . The modern idea of the Kazakh national character should conform to the principles of the development of an independent and sovereign state. The Kazakh have a number of positive qualities of character, and a few negative ones as a counterbalance. This phenomenon is universal , as is common to all people of the world , and objective, as it does not depend on the will and desires of individual personalities. The modern Kazakh, if they want to survive under the harsh conditions of the market, should not lose their best qualities, but they have to acquire such character traits that will contribute to its dynamic development in the modern world.

In general, the concept of "ethnos" and "national character" are correlated: the conditions of the formation of an ethnic group as the historical community of people, a united territory, culture in its broadest sense possible , language. The above-mentioned dictates its specific psychological traits that show up as typical of this or that community in each and every representative in question.

References

1. Ješić MB On the Concept of "Ethnicity" / / Date of Ethnic C|ultures in the Mirror: ( a comparativelinguistic-cultural aspect ) / Scientific Council on the History of World Culture. Moscow: Nauka, 2002 . 478 .
2. . Gumilev LN Ethnosphere : History and the History of Nature. St. Petersburg. LLC house "Crystal" in 2002 . 576 .
3. . Bromley YV Essays on the Theory of Ethnos . Moscow: "Nauka" , 1983 . 404 .
4. . Mnatsakyan MO Nations and Nationalism . Sociology and Psychology of National Life : A Manual for Schools . Moscow: UNITY -DANA . 2004 . 367 p.
5. . Stepanov YS Constants: Dictionary of Russian Culture : Izd.2 th , rev. and add. M.: Academic Project , 2001 . 990 .
6. Melnikov AA Language and National Character. Interconnection Structure of the Language and Mentality . St. Petersburg. : Ros , 2003 . 320 .
7. Kshibekov D. Mental Nature of Kazakhs. Almaty: SIC " Gylym ", 2005 . -256 With .
8. Baitenova N. Ethnic Integration ( socio-economic analysis ) . Textbook. Almaty " Sanat ", 1998 . 208 .
9. Aymagambetova Kh. Basics of ethnopsychology : Textbook. Almaty : Litera , 2003 . 178 .
10. 10 . Seidimbek A. Kazakhs. Ethnoculturological rethinking : Textbook. Translated from the Kazakh language . Almaty Rauan 2001 . 576 .
11. AN Nysanbaev Philosophy Understanding. Almaty Glav.red . "Kazak entsiklopediyasy ." 2001 . 544 .
12. Absattarov M. Kazakh Ethnicity : at the Crossroads of History / / Eurasian Community . Economy . Policy . Security. The Concept of " Russian " : the gender dimension . № 11-12, 1995 . S. 11-23 .
13. VA Nikonov Ethnonyms . Moscow: Publishing House "Science" , 1970 . 269 with .
14. Amrenova RS Connotative Cultural Dominant of Ethnonyms Kazakh and Russian : Dissertation for the degree of candidate of sciences. Almaty, 2004 . 287 .
15. Radlov Experience Dictionary of Turkic Dialects . In 4 volumes St. Petersburg , 1888-1909 . 
16. VG Yudin Central Asia in the 11-18 Century Orientalist eyes . Almaty : Dyke Press , 2001 . 384 .
17. Lurie SV Historical Ethnology : A Manual for Schools . : Aspect Press , 1997 . -448 .
18. Sikevich ZV Russian : "Image" of the People (the sociological survey) .Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University , 1996 . 152 .
19. Kasyanov Features of National Character / / http.www.Hrono. Ru. | Libris | lib.K. | kasyanO.Html.
20. Elikbaev NE On the National Psychology of the Kazakh Nation . AlmaAta , 1991 . -184 .
21. Жүкеш Қ. Ұлттық психологияның сипаты: көмекші құрал. – Алматы,Республикалық баспа кабинеті, 1978. – 112 б.
22. Ghali Contours of the Kazakh National Idea. Almaty : " Ush қiyan ", 2004. 152b.
23. Kaskabasov S. Features of national character / / Bayterek , May 7, 2009 .