Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 75
R esearch Article / Научная статья
УДК 551.324.2+ 551.582
DOI: 10.14258/SSI(2023)3-04
Religious Identity, Religious Practices and Spirituality
ofthePopulation ofRussia’s Asian Borderlands
Svetlana G. Maximova1
Oksana E. Noyanzina2
Daria A. Omelchenko3
Maxim B. Maximov4
1, 3, 4 Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia
2 Main Computing Center ofthe Ministry ofCulture ofthe Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
1svet-maximova@yandex.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4613-4966
2 noe@list.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-6021
3daria.omelchenko@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2839-5070
4 maxbmax69@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4433-9319
Abstract. e religious identity ofRussian citizens inmodern conditions istransformed under
the in uence ofsocio-cultural processes ofa global nature, o en taking individualized forms and
combined with practices ofreviving interest inreligion and its protective, compensatory functions
inconditions ofuncertainty. In2022–2023, with the support ofthe Russian Science Foundation,
a sociological study was conducted to examine religious identity, religious practices and spiritual
security inthe border regions (Altai Territory, Altai Republic, Tyva Republic and Novosibirsk
Region, 1868 people). e population ofthe border regions gravitates towards Orthodoxy (36%),
however, signi cant di erentiations inthe regional refraction ofthe religious mosaic. Orthodoxy
prevails inthe Altai Territory and the Novosibirsk Region, shamanism prevails inTyva (52%),
Burkhanism isrepresented inthe Altai Republic (16%). Moreover, an index ofreligiosity based on
the Huber methodology was calculated inthe study. e index isbuilt on the integration ofthe
ve structural components ofreligiosity: intellectual, ideological, public and personal religious
practices, and religious experience. e average index ofreligiosity was 2.41 points, the most re-
ligious isthe population ofthe Tuva Republic (2.75), followed by the Altai Republic (2.52), index
values below the test norm (2.45) were recorded inthe Altai Territory (2.36) and the Novosibirsk
Region (2.16). Ideas about religiosity and spirituality are changing and acquiring new meanings
inthe light ofchanging social relations between believers and non-believers, emerging new prac-
tices and religious organizations.
Keywords: religious identity, religious practices, religiosity index, Asian borderlands ofRussia
Financing: the article was prepared as part ofRussian Science Foundation project 22-28-
01120, “Models ofConstructing Religious Identity inBorderland Regions ofRussia: Institutional
Mechanisms, Strategies, and Practices” (2022–2023).
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 76
For citation: Maximova, S. G., Noyanzina, O. E., Omelchenko, D. A., Maximov M. B. (2023). Re-
ligious Identity, Religious Practices and Spirituality ofthe Population ofRussia’s Asian Borderlands.
Society and Security Insights, 6(3), 75–95. doi: 10.14258/ssi(2023)3-04.
Религиозная идентичность, религиозные практики
идуховность населения азиатского приграничья России
Светлана Геннадьевна Максимова1
Оксана Евгеньевна Ноянзина2
Дарья Алексеевна Омельченко3
Максим Борисович Максимов4
1, 3, 4Алтайский государственный университет, Барнаул, Россия
2Главный информационно-вычислительный центр
Министерства культуры Российской Федерации, Москва, Россия
1 svet-maximova@yandex.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4613-4966
2 noe@list.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1252-6021
3daria.omelchenko@mail.ru, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2839-5070
4 maxbmax69@gmail.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4433-9319
Аннотация. -
- , -
, -
. 2022–2023 . -
,
( , ,
, 1868 .).
(36%), -
. -
, (52%), — (16%).
,
. :
, , -
. 2,41 ,
(2,75), -
— (2,52), (2,45) -
(2,16) .
-
, .
Ключевые слова: , , -
,
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 77
Финансирование: 22-28-01120
« :
, » (2022–2023 .).
Для цитирования: Максимова С.Г., Ноянзина О.Е., Омельченко Д.А., Максимов М.Б. Рели-
гиозная идентичность, религиозные практики идуховность населения азиатского приграни-
чья России // Society and Security Insights. 2023. Т.6, №3. С.75–95. doi: 10.14258/ssi(2023)3-04.
Introduction
Modern studies ofreligious identity interpret it as a social construct, a product
ofculture and society, which isformed ina particular social context under the in uence
ofexternal and internal factors. Constructivism considers religious identity through the
formation ofsocial representations and the establishment ofthe relationship between
individual action, social activity and the in uence ofsocial structures, as well as through
the opposition between individuality, identity and belonging to a collective community
(Hastings, 1997; Howarth, 22; Dubuisson, 23; Lichterman, 28).
Central to religious identity is religiosity as an individual and social (in the case
ofmass forms) quality that has emotional, evaluative, cognitive and behavioral aspects and
re ects the results ofpossessing religious knowledge and feelings, the internalization ofre-
ligious norms and sacred symbols, and the recognition ofthe legitimacy ofreligious insti-
tutions. e concepts ofreligiosity and religious identity are o en not separated and are
used together as related and di cult to separate (Ryzhova, 216, 217; Ivanov, 22). Just
as ethnicity and ethnic identity correlate with each other, so do religiosity and religious
identity (Noyanzina, Maximova, Omelchenko, 223). And while identity isreserved for
the identi cation function itself, correlation with a certain image, ideal (of a true believer),
and group community (religious group); religiosity implies the possession ofa certain set
ofattributes: religious knowledge, perceptions, feelings, attitudes towards one’s own and
other religions, religious behavior, expressed ina continuum: from the complete absence
ofreligiosity to strong (including manifestations offanaticism) religiosity.
ere are numerous and varied approaches not only to determine the methodology
ofresearch and evaluation ofreligiosity, but also approaches to its typologization and
aggregation ofsociological methods ofanalysis. Such attempts, as well as the grounds
for typology, are presented inthe works ofthe classics ofsociology E. Giddens, G. He-
gel, N. Luhmann, E. Durkheim, M. Weber (the review ispresented inthe work ofHer-
vieu-Leger D. 215) and other modern Russian authors (Fedorova, 216; Khlopkova,
22; Chesnokova, 25; Grishaeva, 218; Lebedev, 22; Sinelina, 211).
S. Lebedev (Lebedev, 22) proceeds from the fact that the conventional “model”
ofa believer for a sociologist isa traditional individual included inthe life ofa religious
community, who correlates his thoughts and behavior with the reference group and its
attitudes. He suggests relying ina sociological study on one ofthe three approaches,
called “classical”, “non-classical” and “post-classical”, inrelation to which the identi -
cation ofthe religiosity ofthe population iscarried out. e rst approach implies relig-
iosity as the direct involvement ofthe individual inthe life ofthe community, external
control, and the presence ofconfessional communities consisting oftraditional believ-
ers. e second assumes distance oran individual’s falling out ofthe system ofsocial ties
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 78
ofthe religious community, internal control based on religious norms, and the believer’s
crisis state. e third describes the state ofthe believer inisolation from the real religious
community (virtualization ofthe religious community), an orientation solely to internal
control, and a group ofextra-confessional (weakly religious, inactive) believers (Glock,
1962, 1973; Faulkner, De Jong, 211; Allport, Ross , 1967; Huber, Huber, 218).
In our research, we believe it isimportant to rely on a comprehensive approach,
inwhich there isroom for both subjective and objective assessments that re ect internal
religious experiences and their external manifestations. Inparticular, we share the posi-
tions ofS. Huber and O. W. Huber (27, 28, 212, 22) about the existence ofmul-
tiple dimensions ofreligiosity and the possibility oftheir universal operationalization
and generalization to di erent population groups. Intheir works, the authors propose
a category ofreligiosity centrality that takes into account general assessments ofthe key
components ofreligiosity that together describe the diversity ofreligious life (namely,
ve dimensions ofreligiosity: public religious practice, personal religious practice, reli-
gious experience, ideological and intellectual dimension ofreligiosity) (see Huber and
Huber, 218; Huber, et al ., 22; Ackert, Prutskova, Zabaev, 22 ).
us, this approach (Huber, et al ., 28, 22) allows us, rst, to study the religious
identity from a comprehensive theoretical perspective that re ects the dynamic nature
ofreligious identity and religiosity and their continuum, and, second, to assess the im-
portance ofreligiosity to the individual and describe the repertoire ofreligious identity,
from internal, spiritual, to external, instrumental. Another strength isan organic attempt
to link together the individual and social aspects ofreligious identity, through which
identity ismanifested inprivate and public spaces, religious communications are built,
and identity isveri ed (con rmation) among other believers and non-believers. We also
propose to take into account the peculiarities ofthe formation ofspiritual security.
Methods ofsociological research and calculation ofthe religiosity index
Based on a sociological study aimed at studying religious identity, religious practic-
es and spiritual security inthe border regions ofRussia, the population offour regions
ofRussia’a Asian borderlands was surveyed (regions: Altai Territory, Altai Republic,
Tyva Republic, Novosibirsk Region; n= 1868 respondents).
In our study, we used the Religiosity Centrality Scale (herea er, CRS), a meth-
odology substantiated and tested in25 countries with more than 1, respondents
(including representatives ofRussia) by Stefan Huber et al., professor ofempirical re-
ligion research and interreligious communication theory at the Institute ofEmpirical
Religious Research (University ofBern, Switzerland) (see Huber and Huber, 218; Hu-
ber, et al ., 22). is technique measures the centrality (severity) of ve dimensions
ofreligiosity: public religious practice, personal religious practice, religious experience,
ideological and intellectual dimension ofreligiosity, which together characterize an in-
dividual’s religious life. It isimportant to note that the author calculated test norms for
Russia of2.45 points, with a standard deviation of.96 points.
e rating scale for the parameters ofeach dimension ofreligiosity has several levels
(from 1 to 5): the rst two levels (answers 1 and 2 points) mark the absence ofcertain
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 79
religious constructs inthe minds ofindividuals, they are not “psychologically relevant”,
and the answers inin the range of4 and 5 divisions ofthe scale indicate the clear presence
ofreligious constructs inthe system ofpersonal identi cations, which allows to identify
the individual as “highly religious”. Intermediate choices (3rd division ofthe scale) mark
an intermediate position between the “presence and absence ofreligious constructs” and
religious individuals who become such from time to time (Huber and Huber, 218).
Research results
A sociological study was conducted to examine religious identity, religious prac-
tices and spiritual security inthe border regions ofRussia, surveying the population
offour regions ofRussia’s Asian borderlands (regions: Altai Territory, Altai Republic,
Tyva Republic, Novosibirsk Oblast).
In the four regions ofRussia’s Asian borderland, 1868 people between the ages of15
and 7 participated, the average age ofthe respondents was 4.1. e sample consists
of498 people from the Altai Territory, 448 people from the Novosibirsk Region, 439
people from the Altai Republic and 246 people from the Tyva Republic. e age struc-
ture was as follows: 32.7% ofthe population aged 15–3, 38.5% aged 31–49, 28.8% ofthe
population aged 5 orolder.
Among the population ofthe four border regions, only a third ofthe respondents
(31% intotal) do not consider themselves believers, while all the rest consider themselves
as followers ofa particular religion, orbelief, orare had a blurred religious identity.
Ingeneral, the population of the border regions tends to be Orthodox (36%), however, a
signi cant di erentiation ofthe religious mosaic isexpressed inthe regional refraction.
For example, inthe Altai Territory and the Novosibirsk Region present a similar reli-
gious picture with a predominance ofthe Orthodox population: inthe Altai Territory,
51%, and inthe Novosibirsk Region, 37% ofthe population consider themselves Ortho-
dox believers. Inthe ethnic republics ofthe borderlands the share ofnon-believers isless,
but inthe Tyva Republic their share isminimal, only 9%, inthis sense, Tuva ismore
di erent from other territories covered by the study because ofits traditionalism and
immersion inthe spiritual space oflife. Whereas inthe Altai Republic, along with the
Orthodox Christians, who also constitute the majority (36%), the so-called “Altai faith”
(Burkhanism) iswidely represented (16%), inTuva, only 5% are Orthodox Christians,
and the dominant religious references are shamanism (52%), orits combination with
Buddhism (16%). e main number ofbelievers inTuva are Buddhists and shamanists
at the same time, resorting to the spiritual assistance ofboth lamas and shamans, which
preserves the already formed and persisting phenomenon ofsyncretism ofshamanism
and Buddhism inTuva.
Cult orreligious behavior: intotal, almost a h ofthe border residents (19.9%)
have experience ofmaking religious pilgrimages, traveling to holy places for religious
purposes, and another 15.2% have a desire for sacred travel. Most residents with such
experience are inthe Republic ofTyva (38.8%), signi cantly less share isinthe Altai
Republic (19.7%), and inthe Altai Territory and Novosibirsk Region shares are about the
same level of14.4% and 13.4%, respectively.
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 80
e intellectual component ofreligiosity
So, following the CRS methodology, we turn to the analysis ofthe rst construct
inthe system ofgeneral religiosity ofthe population, its intellectual dimension. e
intellectual component ofreligiosity isassessed interms ofits consistency with the ex-
pectations ofa well-informed population regarding religion and the ability to re ect on
their views on the transcendent. General indicators ofthe intellectual component are
the frequency ofre ection on religion and the intensity ofthe desire to maintain and
increase the amount ofinformation.
Table 1
1
Average scores on the scales ofthe intellectual component
ofreligiosity, regional comparisons
,
inking about
religious topics
Maintaining
your awareness
ofreligious
matters
It isinteresting to
learn more about
religious topics
Altai Krai
Average 2.47 2.15 2.62
Standard
deviation 1.08 1.08 1.17
Altai Republic
Average 2.71 2.32 2.84
Standard
deviation 1.16 1.15 1.16
Tyva Republic
Average 2.85 2.50 3.15
Standard
deviation 1.01 1.09 1.01
Novosibirsk Oblast
Average 2.72 2.30 2.58
Standard
deviation 1.08 1.08 1.18
Total
Average 2.67 2.30 2.76
Standard
deviation 1.10 1.11 1.16
Overall, for the entire sample, the intellectual component ofreligiosity and its com-
ponents are expressed on an average level, with interest inlearning about religion (m=
2.76, sd= 1.16) and the frequency ofmental reference to religious topics (m= 2.67, sd=
1.1) being the most pronounced, followed to a lesser extent by activities aimed at ex-
panding the scope ofreligious knowledge (m= 2.3, sd= 1.11). e values are distributed
ina similar way on the scales within the regions. e frequency ofre ection on the reli-
gious ismost pronounced inthe Tyva Republic (m= 2.85, sd= 1.1), and, oddly enough,
inthe Novosibirsk Region (m= 2.72, sd= 1.8), and least pronounced inAltai Krai (m=
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 81
2.47, sd= 1.8). Activities to expand the knowledge about religion are also inTyva (m=
2.5, sd= 1.9), and less peculiar to the residents ofAltai Krai (m= 2.15, sd= 1.8), in-
terest ininformation about religion inTyva has the highest average values on the scale
(m= 3.15, sd= 1.1), the lowest isinNovosibirsk Oblast (m= 2.58, sd= 1.18) (Table 1).
e ideological component ofreligiosity
e next component we considered refers to the ideological side ofan individual’s
religiosity and ismeasured inrelation to the attitude that religious people have beliefs,
according to which there issome kind oftranscendent reality, with which religious (and
non-religious) people directly orthrough spiritual persons (e.g., priests), orsacred ob-
jects establish a connection.
Belief inlife a er death isprobably the most doubtful inthe minds ofthe popu-
lation, the strength ofthis belief, incomparison with the other two components ofthe
ideological component ofreligiosity, isnot so pronounced (at the level of2.8 points),
which is also con rmed by the standard deviation (sd = 1.34), unlike belief in God
orconventional higher powers (m= 3.6, sd= 1.35; m= 3.18, sd= 1.39). Belief inGod
(the existence ofdivine power) ischaracteristic ofthe residents ofTuva (m= 3.38, sd=
1.6) and the Altai Republic (m= 3.28, sd= 1.31) to a greater extent, and ofthe Altai
Krai (m= 2.96, sd= 1.34) and Novosibirsk region (m= 2.74, sd= 1.48) to a lesser extent.
Belief inthe real existence ofa higher power isalso high instudied regions: Tuva (m=
3.51, sd= 1.14) and Altai Republic (m= 3.36, sd= 1.37), Altai Krai (m= 3.3, sd= 1.36)
and Novosibirsk region (m= 2.96, sd= 1.52). As for belief inlife a er death, it isless
common across the residents ofAltai Krai (m= 2.46, sd= 1.45) and Novosibirsk Oblast
(m= 2.72, sd= 1.29) (Table 2). It isinteresting to look at these data from the perspective
ofthe fundamental principles ofreligions and beliefs that are most prevalent inthe four
regions ofSiberia. us, belief inthe a erlife (as well as belief inthe one God and the act
ofcreation) isone ofthe religious formulas ofChristianity. e a erlife islife inan ideal
world (the Kingdom ofHeaven), which isruled by God and endowed with maximum
perfection. e basis ofthe religious and philosophical concepts ofBuddhism isthe per-
ception oflife as an almost endless life cycle and a series ofcountless rebirths, the wheel
ofwhich isturned by karma as a universal law, to which all beings doomed to an endless
change ofbirth and death obey. Only the achievement ofnirvana as an inexplicable
state ofdetachment from all desires can mark a chain ofrebirths. Ideas about the soul,
death and the a erlife are also the basis ofthe shamanic worldview. Predetermined by
gods and spirits, Heaven, the death ofa person continues transferring to another world,
where his relatives and friends are. us the dead can in uence the alive, help orharm
them, therefore, with the help ofshamans it ispossible to interact with them, and it
isalso important to make sacri ces to propitiate the dead. e Altai Burkhanism, as a
variety ofBurkhanism ofthe Turkic peoples ofthe Altai-Sayan, isalso characterized not
only by the idea ofthe existence ofthe One God, the appeal to which does not require
intermediaries (shamans), but also by the idea ofHeaven and Hell, the rebirth ofthe
human soul 1. us, infact, the proposed structural elements ofthe ideological compo-
1 See, for example: Gabriel, T., Jeeves, R. Religions ofthe World: A Brief Reference. Moscow : Kladez-
Buks; Lanilyan O. G., Taranenko V. M. (2005). Religious studies: a textbook. Moscow : Eksmo.
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 82
nent mark, among other things, the adherence ofthe respondents to the key principles
offaith and their acceptance.
Table 2
2
Average scores on the scales ofthe ideological component
ofreligiosity, regional comparisons
,
How strongly do
you believe inthe
existence ofGod
orsome divine
power?
How much do
you believe inthe
existence oflife
a er death?
How likely isit
that there really
isa higher power?
Altai Krai
Average 2.96 2.72 3.03
Standard
deviation 1.34 1.29 1.36
Altai Republic
Average 3.28 3.05 3.36
Standard
deviation 1.31 1.30 1.37
Tyva Republic
Average 3.38 3.08 3.51
Standard
deviation 1.06 1.19 1.14
Novosibirsk Oblast
Average 2.74 2.46 2.96
Standard
deviation 1.48 1.45 1.52
Total
Average 3.06 2.80 3.18
Standard
deviation 1.35 1.34 1.39
Public religious practice inthe structure ofreligiosity
e measurement of the manifestation of public religious practices is assessed
inrelation to the social expectation ofan individual’s belonging to a reference religious
community, his orher participation inreligious activities and religious rituals, the pub-
licity ofthis participation, as well as involvement inthe life ofa religious community.
Public religious practices are based on patterns ofaction that are formed under the in u-
ence ofthe intellectual and ideological components, ideas about the transcendent. us,
these can be worship (masses) for Christians, meditation for Buddhists, the performance
ofnamaz for Muslims, a ritual ofsacri ce for Burkhanists, and so on. Recall that the
assessment was based on scores under three questions: “How o en do you participate
inreligious services?”, “How important isit for you to participate inreligious services?”,
“How important isit for you to belong to a religious community?”.
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 83
Compared to the two components ofreligiosity described above, the average scores for
the expression ofpublic religious practices are lower, which probably re ects reality. On the
one hand, not all religious prescriptions require the publicity ofreligious life, relying on the
performance ofthe sacraments, meditation, spirituality and righteous living, etc. On the
other hand, we live ina secular society where social rituals take precedence: the importance
ofbelonging to a religious community as a whole inthe four regions isexpressed at the level
of2.7 points (sd= 1.23), the signi cance ofparticipation inreligious services is2.12 points
(sd= 1.2), the frequency ofparticipation inthem isat a low level of1.98 points (m= .9).
e frequency ofparticipation inservices for religious reasons ishighest inTyva m=
2.33, sd= .92), and lowest inthe Novosibirsk Oblast (m= 1.77, sd= .81). e low range
ofthe standard deviation values for this parameter indicates the homogeneity ofthe esti-
mates, and, ingeneral, a trend for refusal orlow activity ofattending religious services. e
highest importance (according to the average score) ofparticipation inreligious services
was recorded inTyva (m= 2.63, sd= 1.12), the lowest isinthe Novosibirsk region (m= 1.67,
sd= 1.8), the average estimates ofthe signi cance ofbelonging to a religious community
were distributed similarly (max m= 2.63, sd= 1.22; m inm= 1.63, sd= 1.7) (Table 3).
Table 3
3
Average scores on scales ofpublic religious practices as a
component ofreligiosity, regional comparisons
,
How o en do
you take part
inreligious
services?
How important
isit for you
to participate
inreligious
services?
How important
isit for you
to belong to
a religious
community?
Altai Krai
Average 1.90 2.11 2.08
Standard
deviation 0.91 1.16 1.20
Altai Republic
Average 2.06 2.24 2.11
Standard
deviation 0.90 1.23 1.27
Tyva Republic
Average 2.33 2.63 2.63
Standard
deviation 0.92 1.12 1.22
Novosibirsk Oblast
Average 1.77 1.67 1.63
Standard
deviation 0.81 1.08 1.07
Total
Average 1.98 2.12 2.07
Standard
deviation 0.90 1.20 1.23
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 84
Personal religious practice inthe structure ofreligiosity
In contrast to public religious actions, personal religious practices focus on the
private space ofan individual’s life and the inclusion oftranscendental and religious
rituals init, that is, the appreciation ofpersonal religious styles. Such practices include a
commitment to prayer and meditation as acts ofaddressing the “opposite” (Hubert and
Hubert, 218) and a dialogic type ofspirituality.
e sub-scale element re ecting the frequency ofattempts to interact with the divine
has the lowest average values (m= 1.81, sd= 1.8), and the most pronounced element de-
scribes the frequency ofprayer (m= 3.11, sd= 1.55 ). e importance ofprayer was rated
at an average of2.85 points (sd= 1.45), the frequency ofmeditation scored 2.8 (sd= 1.49),
the least frequent was the unplanned recourse to prayer practices (m= 2.36, sd= 1.23), and
the least important was meditation (m= 2.27, sd= 1.26). For all elements that collectively
re ect personal religious practices, the maximum average values were recorded inTyva
Republic, and the minimum values were recorded inthe Novosibirsk Oblast (Table 4).
Table 4
4
Average scores on scales ofpersonal religious practices as a
component ofreligiosity, regional comparisons
,
Prayer
Meditate
How important isper-
sonal prayer to you?
How important
ismeditation to you?
Pray inan unplanned
way about everyday
situations that arise
Unintentionally trying
to make contact with
the divine
Altai Krai
Average 3.04 2.71 2.73 2.26 2.26 1.97
Standard
deviation 1.58 1.54 1.39 1.26 1.21 1.15
Altai Republic
Average 3.29 2.79 3.03 2.19 2.54 1.89
Standard
deviation 1.48 1.45 1.47 1.23 1.24 1.11
Tyva Republic
Average 3.80 3.02 3.47 2.79 2.90 1.96
Standard
deviation 1.17 1.48 1.18 1.23 1.13 1.09
Novosibirsk Oblast
Average 2.55 2.75 2.37 1.99 1.94 1.49
Standard
deviation 1.59 1.47 1.48 1.18 1.15 0.87
Total
Average 3.11 2.80 2.85 2.27 2.36 1.81
Standard
deviation 1.55 1.49 1.45 1.26 1.23 1.08
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 85
Religious experience inthe general structure ofreligiosity
Religious experience ismore subjective, re ecting the experience ofencounters with
the divine (mystical) reality, the sense ofthe divine presence inthe world and the life ofthe
individual (fate, karma, dependence on the divine will, a certain higher (divine) order
ofthings, etc.). is component isclosely related to the emotional assessment and compo-
nent ofthe religiosity ofthe individual, as it isassociated with the experience ofhope (for
example, for rebirth, to be inparadise, forgiveness ofsins, redemption, etc.), inner peace,
trust inthe will ofGod, a sense ofguilt orfear ofa higher judgment. Huber proposes to
distinguish two forms ofexperiencing the transcendent: “one-to-one experience” which
corresponds to the dialogic type ofspirituality and “experience ofbeing as one”, corre-
sponding to the participating type” (Cited from: Huber and Huber, 218: 153).
Table 5
5
Average scores on scales ofreligious experience as a
component ofreligiosity, regional comparisons
,
e feeling that God
orsome divine force
isinterfering inyour
life
e feeling that you
and the world are one
e feeling that God,
orsome divine power,
wants to tell orshow
you something
e feeling that you
were touched by
divine power
A sense ofthe pres-
ence ofGod orsome
divine power
Altai Krai
Average 2.40 2.27 2.31 2.16 2.20
Standard
deviation 1.17 1.21 1.16 1.20 1.15
Altai Republic
Average 2.62 2.32 2.49 2.10 2.31
Standard
deviation 1.20 1.22 1.18 1.16 1.20
Tyva Republic
Average 2.57 2.46 2.53 2.16 2.37
Standard
deviation 1.08 1.15 1.05 1.13 1.10
Novosibirsk Oblast
Average 2.27 2.19 2.01 1.69 1.89
Standard
deviation 1.17 1.14 1.12 0.96 1.06
Total
Average 2.45 2.29 2.31 2.02 2.18
Standard
deviation 1.17 1.19 1.15 1.14 1.14
e expression ofthe religious experience ofthe population ofSiberia isquite high:
a sence ofdivine intervention isat the level of2.45 points (sd= 1.17), unity with the world
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 86
is2.29 points (sd= 1.19), guiding in uence ofdivine power is2.31 points (sd= 1.14), divine
touch is2.2 (sd= 1.14), divine presence is2.18 points (sd= 1.14). e ndings are consist-
ent with the data ofrepresentative polls by Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsI-
OM), according to which in215 more than a quarter ofthe Russian population surveyed
(26%) reported that religion helps them ineveryday life (in 199 this proportion was only
5%), and 29% had encountered divine help intheir lives (18% in199)1.
e experience ofdivine intervention inthe life ofindividuals ismost pronounced
inthe Altai Republic (m= 2.62, sd= 1.2), and isless pronounced inthe Novosibirsk region
(m= 2.27, sd= 1.17), unity with the world ismost clearly manifested inthe Tyva Republic
of(m= 2.46, sd= 1.15), less inthe Novosibirsk region (m= 2.19, sd= 1.14). e direction
oflife by divine will ismaximum inTyva (m= 2.53, sd= 1.5), and minimum inthe Novo-
sibirsk region (m= 2.1, sd= 1.12), the frequency ofthe touch ofdivine power ismaximum
inTyva and the Altai Krai (m= 2.16 / 2.16, sd= 1.13/1.2), the presence ofGod ismore o en
felt by the residents ofTyva and the Altai Republic (m= 2.37/2.31, sd= 1.1/1.2), less o en
by the inhabitants ofthe Novosibirsk region (m= 1.89, sd= 1.6) (Table 5).
Index ofreligiosity centrality
Religions, beliefs and religious ideas can di er signi cantly from each other
interms ofthe complexity ofreligious systems and institutions, content, forms ofrit-
uals, the degree ofregulation ofthe life ofbelievers. However, all religions have a com-
monality, which is, for example, the division ofthe world into earthly and “heavenly” (or
this world and other world). Besides this, the basis ofany religion isfaith inGod orgods,
deities, divine essences, supernatural forces, as well as intheir participation in“earthly”,
“natural” processes, inpeople’s lives.
is belief isre ected inthe concept of“religiosity”, as noted by Danilyan O.G.
and Tarasenko V.M. (Danilyan, Tarasenko, 25), and has, unlike religion, an objective
character, as it acts as a measure ofthe centrality, importance, orexpressiveness ofreli-
gious meanings for a person, that is, it isa character trait. Religiosity marks the world-
view, behavior, way oflife, mediates the evaluation ofsocial processes and phenomena.
Accordingly, the degree ofreligiosity describes the extent to which an individual has
assimilated religious ideas and norms, the values ofreligion.
us, based on the summation offrequency ratings for all 2 component scales
and the calculation ofaverage values for all four regions, the index ofreligiosity ofthe
population was calculated. e overall index ofreligiosity for the entire sample is2.41
(sd= .86), which isslightly lower than the test norm for the Russian Federation, record-
ed inHuber’s study (Huber and Huber, 218). e most religious population isinTuva
Republic, where religiosity isexpressed at the level of2.75 points (sd= .75), the second
position istaken by Altai Republic, where the index value is2.52 points (sd= .87), the
index values below the test norm are recorded inAltai Krai (2.36 points (sd= .87)) and
Novosibirsk Region, where the religiosity ofthe population isexpressed to a lesser ex-
tent: at the level of2.16 points (sd= .82).
1 In 2015, 16,000 people were interviewed in130 settlements of46 regions ofthe Russian Federation,
in1990— 766 people. Source: VTsIOM, Infographics VTsIOM: Religion: for and against (wciom.ru) .
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 87
In the table below, the average values ofthe structural components and the central-
ity index ofreligiosity ofthe population ofthe four border regions are grouped for ease
ofperception (Table 6).
Table 6
6
Distribution ofthe average values ofreligiosity components
and religiosity centrality index inregional samples
What region do
you live in?
Altai Krai Altai Republic Tyva Republic Novosibirsk
Oblast Whole sample
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD mean SD
IC112.41 0.93 2.62 1.02 2.83 0.85 2.53 0.96 2.57 0.96
IdC2 2.90 1.19 3.23 1.19 3.33 0.95 2.72 1.38 3.01 1.23
PRPC3 1.98 0.90 2.06 0.97 2.49 0.89 1.65 0.86 2.00 0.94
LRPC4 2.48 1.01 2.64 0.96 2.98 0.84 2.18 0.91 2.53 0.98
ROC5 2.27 0.98 2.37 1.02 2.40 0.90 2.01 0.89 2.25 0.97
RCI 2.36 0.87 2.52 0.87 2.75 0.75 2.16 0.82 2.41 0.86
Примечание: 1 Here and below, abbreviations are used inthe tables: IC 1— intellectual component
ofreligiosity, IdC 2— ideological component ofreligiosity, PRPC 3— component ofpublic religious practices,
LRPC 4— component ofprivate religious practices, ROC 5— component ofreligious experience, RCI— index
ofcentrality ofreligiosity .
Preliminary assessment ofmodel quality
Psychometric characteristics show good results for a sample ofeach ofthe four
regions (Table 7). Correlations between the ve main changes inreligiosity range
from .515 for PRPC3/IdC2 inthe Altai Republic to .797 for ROC5/LRPC4 inAltai
Krai. It isimportant to note that none ofthe speci c values exceeds the correlation
with the total score, within the cells max= .18 for ROC5/PRPC3 for the Republic
ofTyva (correlations ofreligious experience with public religious practices). Infact,
this isconsistent with the earlier conclusions that both the religious doctrine and
the personal attitudes do not at all determine the high level of public declaration
ofreligiosity, but it may be a re ection ofthe special interweaving ofreligious and
secular culture inthe everyday life ofTuvans.
All correlations ofthe religiosity centrality index with its structural components
are inthe zone ofhigh and very high correlations, which once again convinces us ofthe
correctness ofthe chosen method.
Based on the results ofexploratory factor analysis procedures, we tested the extent
to which the structure ofthe latent model isable to explain the “central role ofreligiosi-
ty” factor constructed on the basis ofreligiosity scales, that is, to see whether some ofthe
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 88
di erences between the indicators are explained by the total variance, and whether it
can be combined by the overall construct ofthe “index the centrality ofreligiosity. We
see that a similar picture ofthe factor structure ofthe index scales (its theoretically con-
structed components) was obtained for all four regions: only one signi cant factor was
identi ed, where all scales have high positive loadings (r > .7), the factor ofpersonal
spiritual practices, that is, the indicator ofpersonal religious practices, has the maxi-
mum loadings inall regions.
Table 7
7
Matrix ofcorrelations ofthe calculated structural components ofthe index,
as well as correlations relative to the index ofreligiosity centrality (data inthe
cells re ect the values ofthe correlation coe cients for AK / RA / RT / NO,
the signi cance levels are identical for all regional correlations, p < ,1)
(
, , , ,
p < ,1)
IC1 IdC2 PRPC3 LRPC4 RCI
IdC2
.696**
/.678**
/.632**
/.544**
PRPC3
.622**
/.669**
/.608**
/.596**
.524**
/.515**
/.567**
/.643**
LRPC4
.705**
/.690**
/.681**
/.578**
.711**
/.740**
/.641**
/.752**
.720**
/.613**
/.642**
/.578**
ROC5
.691**
/.704**
/.681**
/.526**
.697**
/.718**
/.541**
/.725**
.574**
/.643**
/.560**
/.542**
.797**
/.781**
/.705**
/.759**
RCI
.745**
/.831**
/.833**
/.832**
/.723**
.866**
/.841**
/.843**
/.783**
/.883**
.617**
/.791**
/.751**
/.773**
/.756**
.816**
/.933**
/.921**
/.907**
.903**
/.910**
/.897**
/.873**
/.871**
e results offactor analysis allow us to verify the suitability ofthe data obtained
(see the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sample adequacy measure values: [.8; .9], which
indicates high adequacy ofthe factor analysis to this sample) and Bartlett’s sphericity
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 89
test (criterion values indicate the normal distribution ofvariables and their signi cant
correlation, p= .) (Tables 8–9).
Table 8
8
Factor weights inthe structure ofreligiosity centrality scales (the
components with the highest load are highlighted inbold)
(
)
AK AR TR NO
IC1 0.858 0.862 0.858 0.753
IdC2 0.845 0.845 0.803 0.881
PRPC3 0.812 0.779 0.799 0.798
LRPC4 0.911 0.897 0.880 0.879
ROC5 0.896 0.879 0.848 0.851
9
Table 9
Results offactor analysis
KMO Barlett’s test, chi-q (Df ), p Number offactors with
eigenvalue greater than «1» % variance explained
AK 0.875 1643.279 (10), 0.000 1 72.3
AR 0.866 1260.96 (10), 0.000 1 72.8
TR 0.87 721.1 (10), 0.000 1 70.2
NO 0.85 1233.63 (10), 0.000 1 69.5
In addition, correlation residuals matrices were constructed. e analysis helped
to make sure that all correlations ofthe index components are well reproduced by the
factor model with a number offactors determined on the basis ofthe theory, that is, the
calculated factors are correct and unique: the closer the di erence between the repro-
duced and real correlations to zero (i.e., low orinsigni cant ), the more con dent the
researcher inhis choice ofthe number offactors (see Table 1).
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 90
Table 1
1
Residual correlation matrices for AK/AR/TR/NO
(///)
IC1 IdC2 PRPC3 LRPC4
Residuals
IdC2 -.034/-0.076/-
0.075/-0.134
PRPC3 -.070/-0.004/-
0.081/-0.012
-.151/-0.156/-
0.080/-0.055
LRPC4 -.083/-0.092/-
0.086/-0.099
-.058/-0.023/-
0.067/-0.033
-.020/-0.083/-
0.061/-0.125
ROC5 -.072/-0.082/-
0.031/-0.131
-.041/-0.038/-
0.117/-0.028
-.078/-0.110/-
0.012/-0.145
-.019/-0.013/-
0.026/0.005
Conclusion
A comprehensive and di erentiated assessment ofthe state, problems, and develop-
ment ofreligiosity inthe regions ofthe Russia’s Asian borderland. Based on the results
ofthe research, a number ofconclusions can be drawn:
e religious identity ofRussian citizens inmodern conditions isbeing trans-
formed under the in uence ofsocio-cultural processes ofa global nature, o en taking
individualized forms and combined with practices ofreviving interest inreligion and
its protective, compensatory functions inconditions ofuncertainty. Concepts ofreligi-
osity and spirituality are changing and acquiring new meanings inthe light ofchanging
social relations between believers and non-believers, new practices and religious organi-
zations, and the activities oftraditional religions to preserve their values and adherents.
As part ofthe study ofthe level and expression ofreligiosity inthe population offour
border regions ofthe Russian Federation, the centrality index ofreligiosity was calculated.
e approach used isbased on the application ofthe CRS methodology (Sh. Huber’s scale
ofreligiosity centrality) tested on international research data in25 countries. e index
isbased on the integration ofthe ve structural components ofreligiosity: intellectual, ide-
ological, public religious practices, personal religious practices, and religious experience
(the test norm for Russia is2.45 points with a standard deviation of.96 points).
In the overall sample ofregions, the index ofreligiosity ofthe population was 2.41,
the most religious isthe population ofTuva Republic, where religiosity isexpressed at
the level of2.75 points, the second position isoccupied by Altai Republic where the index
value was 2.52 points, the index values below the test norm was recorded inAltai Krai
(2.36 points) and Novosibirsk Oblast, where religiosity ofthe population isexpressed to
a lesser extent (2.16 points).
Based on the index values, groups of the population with di erent expressions
ofreligiosity centrality were identi ed. Overall, 3.9% ofall surveyed residents ofthe bor-
der regions are highly religious people. 38.9% ofthe population offour regions can be
classi ed as non-religious residents, while the majority (57.2%) are religious people, for
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 91
whom religion and belief inthe divine, and spiritual life are important.
e religiousness of the population is manifested di erently in all the regions
covered by the study, with a peculiar refraction not only along the ethnic republics,
multi-ethnic regions with a “Russian core” traditionally drawn towards Orthodoxy,
but also represents a more complex diversity. us, the Republic ofTyva has the largest
share ofthe religious population. It isobvious that faith and religious views are the key
meanings oflife for most ofthe inhabitants ofthe republic, however, the expression
ofthis faith and its activity, the behavioral embodiment rather “even”, i.e., it ispart ofthe
everyday culture and life ofthe Tuvinians, deeply “rooted” into secular practices and
inmany respects already indistinguishable from them. Altai Republic has the highest
share ofhighly religious population (6%). is may be connected with the revival and
strengthening ofthe ethnic self-consciousness ofthe republic’s indigenous population
inrecent years with the demonstrative, declarative nature ofreligious a liation closely
connected with ethnic identity. Altai Krai has a slightly lower proportion ofthe highly
religious population (3.3%), but the proportion ofnon-religious people issigni cantly
higher (41.8%), while more than half (54.9%) can be described as religious. Novosibirsk
Oblast, compared to the ethnic republics and even to Altai Krai, has predominantly
non-religious population, which is52.9% ofthe residents who took part inthe study, the
share ofhighly religious here was 2.4%, religious— 44.7%.
us, we have recorded that the religious outlook and spirituality ingeneral are
ofgreat importance inthe life ofthe population ofthe Russian regions, which undoubt-
edly requires more careful and in-depth study. e results ofthe correlation and factor
analysis convinced us ofthe correctness ofthe chosen methodology and allowed us to
verify the reliability ofthe data obtained.
REFERENCES
Ackert, M., Prutskova, E., & Zabaev, I. (22). Validation ofthe Short Forms ofCentrali-
ty ofReligiosity Scale inRussia. Religions, 11(11), 577. https://doi.org/1.339/rel1111577
Allport, G..W, & Ross, J..M (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal
ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443.
Chesnokova, V. F. (25). Ina Close Way: e Process ofthe Churching ofthe Population
ofRussia at the End ofthe 20th Century. Moscow : Akademicheskij Proekt. (InRuss.).
Dubuisson, D. (23). e western construction ofreligion: Myths, knowledge, and ideol-
ogy. JHU Press.
Faulkner, D., & De Jong, G. (211). Religiosity inFive Dimensions: An Empirical Analy-
sis. Sociological Studies, 12, 69–76.
Fedorova, M. V. (216). Religious identity inthe conceptual space ofthe sciences ofreli-
gion. Manuscript, 4–2(66), 168–171. (InRuss.).
Glock, C. Y. (1962). On the Study ofReligious Commitment. Religious Education, 57(4)
98–11.
Glock, C. Y. (1973). Religion inSociological Perspective: Essays inthe Empirical Study
ofReligion. Belmont, CA : Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 92
Grishaeva, E. I. (218). Religious identity as an un nished project. Prospects for the use
ofdiscursive approaches for the sociological study ofidentity inOrthodox parishes. Re-
search Result. Sociology and management, 4(1), 13–22. (InRuss.).
Hastings, A. et al. (1997). e construction ofnationhood: Ethnicity, religion and nation-
alism. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Hervieu-Léger, D. (215). Insearch ofcertainty: the paradoxes ofreligiosity indeveloped
modern societies. State, religion, church inRussia and abroad, 1(33), 254–268.
Howarth, C. (22). Identity inwhose eyes?: the role ofrepresentations inidentity con-
struction. Journal for the theory ofsocial behavior, 32(2), 145–162.
Huber, S. (27). Are Religious Beliefs Relevant inDaily Life? In: H. Streib (Ed.). Reli-
gion Inside and Outside Traditional Institutions. Lieden : Brill Academic Publishers (pp.
211–23).
Huber, S. (28). Kerndimensionen, Zentralität und Inhalt. Ein interdisziplinäres Mod-
ell der Religiosität. Journal für Psychology, 16(3). URL: https://www.journal-fuer-psy-
chologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/22/15.
Huber, S., & Huber, O. W. (212). e centrality ofreligion scale (CRS). Religions, 3(3),
71–724.
Huber, S., Ackert, M., Scheiblich, H. (22). Religiosität inunterschiedlichen Religion-
skulturen— Vergleiche auf der Basis der Centrality ofReligiosity Scale. Cultura & psy-
che, 1(1–2), 171–185. Springer Nature Switzerland 1.17/s43638-2-7-3.
Huber, Sh., Huber, O. (218). Religiosity Centrality Scale (CRS). Sociology: methodology,
methods, mathematical modeling (Sociology: 4M), 47, 144–171. (InRuss.).
Ivanov, R. V. (22). New religiosity and religious identity among youth. In: Religious
identity and intercultural communications. Astrakhan : Astrahanskij gosudarstvennyj
universitet (pp. 137–143). (InRuss.).
Khlopkova, O. V. (22). Transformation ofapproaches to the study ofreligiosity inthe
social sciences. Chelovek. Socium. Obshchestvo, 2, 122–13. (InRuss.).
Lebedev, S. D. (22). e sociological dimension of religiosity: towards a typology
ofbasic approaches. In: Sociology and society: traditions and innovations inthe social
development ofregions. Moscow : ROS; FNISC RAN (pp. 4962–4979). (InRuss.). doi:
1.19181/kongress.22.584.
Lichterman, P. (28). Religion and the construction ofcivic identity. American Socio-
logical Review, 73(1), 83–14.
Noyanzina, O. E., Maksimova, S. G., & Omelchenko, D. A. (223) Traditional and mod-
ernization inthe construction ofvalue bases for the life prospects ofyoung people (Tuva
and other regions). New studies ofTuva, 1, 154–169. (InRuss.).
Ryzhova, S. V. (216). Features ofthe study ofthe religious identity ofRussians. Social
Research, 10(1), 118–127. (InRuss.).
Ryzhova, S. V. (217). Religiosity inthe context ofa culture oftrust. Sociological journal,
3, 44–63. (InRuss.).
Sinelina, Yu. Yu. (211). Cycles ofsecularization inthe history ofRussia. In: Sociological
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 93
analysis: the end ofthe XVII— the beginning ofthe XXI century. Saarbrücken: LAP Lam-
bert Academia Publishing. (InRuss.).
Taylor, C. (217). e Secular Age. Moscow: BBI.
СПИСОК ИСТОЧНИКОВ
. . . -
-
// . -
. 218. 4 (1). . 13-22. doi: 1.18413/248-9338-218-4-1-13-22
. . //
. : -
, 22. . 137–143.
. . : -
// :
. . : ; , 22. . 4962–4979. DOI 1.19181/
kongress.22.584.
. ., . ., . . -
-
( ) // . 223. 1. . 154–169.
. . // -
. 216. 1(1). . 118–127.
. . //
. 217. 3. . 44–63.
. . .
: XVII— XXI . : LAP LAMBERT Academic
Publishing, 211. 382 .
. .
// . 216. 4–2(66). . 168–711.
. . -
// . . . 22. 2. . 122–13.
., . (CRS) // :
, , (Sociology: 4M). 218. 47.
.144–171.
. . :
XX . . : , 25. 297 .
Ackert M., Prutskova E., Zabaev I. Validation ofthe Short Forms ofCentrality ofRe-
ligiosity Scale inRussia // Religions. 22. No. 11(11). Art. 577. https://doi.org/1.339/
rel1111577
Allport G. W., Ross J. M. Personal religious orientation and prejudice // Journal ofPer-
sonality and Social Psychology. 1967. V. 5, No. 4. P. 432–443.
Dubuisson D. e western construction ofreligion: Myths, knowledge, and ideology.
Society andSecurity Insights № 3 2023 94
JHU Press, 23.
Faulkner D., De Jong G. Religiosity inFive Dimensions: An Empirical Analysis // Socio-
logical Studies. 211. No. 12. P. 69–76.
Glock C. Y. On the Study ofReligious Commitment // Religious Education. 1962. Vol.
57. Sup. 4. P. 98–11.
Glock C. Y. Religion inSociological Perspective: Essays inthe Empirical Study ofReli-
gion. Belmont, CA : Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973.
Hastings A. et al. e construction ofnationhood: Ethnicity, religion and nationalism.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Hervieu-Léger D. Insearch ofcertainty: the paradoxes ofreligiosity indeveloped mod-
ern societies // State, religion, church inRussia and abroad. 215. No. 1 (33). pp. 254–268.
Howarth C. Identity inwhose eyes?: the role ofrepresentations inidentity construction
// Journal for the theory ofsocial behavior. 22. Vol. 32. No. 2. P. 145–162.
Huber S. Are Religious Beliefs Relevant inDaily Life? // Religion Inside and Outside Tra-
ditional Institutions / Ed. H. Streib. Lieden : Brill Academic Publishers, 27. P. 211–23.
Huber S. Kerndimensionen, Zentralität und Inhalt. Ein interdisziplinäres Modell der
Religiosität // Journal für Psychology. 28 Vol. 16. No. 3. URL: https://www.jour-
nal-fuer-psychologie.de/index.php/jfp/article/view/22/15 (Accessed 1 ofAugust 223).
Huber S., Ackert M., Scheiblich H. Religiosität inunterschiedlichen Religionskulturen—
Vergleiche auf der Basis der Centrality ofReligiosity Scale // Cultura & psyche. 22. Vol.
1, No. 1–2. P. 171–185. Springer Nature Switzerland 1.17/s43638-2-7-3.
Huber S., Huber O. W. e centrality ofreligion scale (CRS) // Religions. 212. Vol. 3.
No. 3. P. 71–724.
Lichterman P. Religion and the construction ofcivic identity // American Sociological
Review. 28. Vol. 73, No. 1. P. 83–14
Taylor C. e Secular Age. Moscow: BBI, 217. 967 p.
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AUTHORS / ИНФОРМАЦИЯ ОБАВТОРАХ
Svetlana G. Maximova— Dr. Sci. (Sociology), Professor, head. Department ofSocial and
Youth Policy, Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia.
— - . , , .
, ,
. , .
Oksana E. Noyanzina— Cand. Sci. (Sociology), the Head ofthe Information and Analy-
sis Department ofthe Main Computing Center ofthe Ministry ofCulture ofthe Russian
Federation, Moscow, Russia.
— . . , , -
- , -
, ., .
Государство, гражданское общество истабильность 95
Daria A. Omelchenko— Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Associate Professor at the Department
ofSocial and Youth Policy, Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia.
— . . ,
, , .,
.
Maxim B. Maximov— Cand. Sci. (Medicine), Research O cer at the Research and De-
velopment Department, Altai State University, Barnaul, Russia.
— . . , -
- - , -
, . , .
The article was submitted 01.09.2023
approved after reviewing 15.09.2023;
accepted for publication 15.09.2023.
Статья поступила вредакцию 01.09.2023;
одобрена после рецензирования 15.09.2023;
принята кпубликации 15.09.2023.
