The article is devoted to analysis of such a new direction in modern social sciences as «spiritual security». On the basis of a number of factors, the author shows the impossibility to define an object and a subject of the research. Among the arguments, it is called the inability to give a definition to such a concept as «spiritual» and the lack of an agreed definition of «culture», which counts more than a thousand different interpretations. Another complication of the formation of this direction, the author considers the absence of a clear methodological framework that would allow to analyze objectively the problem and frame it. Basing on the approaches of such notable anthropologists like L. White and M. Sahlins, who insisted on the dynamic nature of culture, its constant development, the author believes that this property of culture is incompatible with any conservation or its reference to the traditionalism, as it leads to stagnation of culture. Another important factor preventing the construction of the concept of spiritual security in Russia is a special phenomenon of the Russian cultural landscape, defined through the concepts of ambivalence, heterotopia and hybridity. All these factors show that the attempt to put the problem of spiritual security in the context of a return to old traditions, whether religious, whether it be cultural, not productive and even dangerous, as Russia's population in cultural, social and political aspects is very diverse, and any note of tradition to the level of homogeneity will lead to serious contradictions within our society.

The article is devoted to analysis of such a new direction in modern social sciences as «spiritual security». On the basis of a number of factors, the author shows the impossibility to define an object and a subject of the research. Among the arguments, it is called the inability to give a definition to such a concept as «spiritual» and the lack of an agreed definition of «culture», which counts more than a thousand different interpretations. Another complication of the formation of this direction, the author considers the absence of a clear methodological framework that would allow to analyze objectively the problem and frame it. Basing on the approaches of such notable anthropologists like L. White and M. Sahlins, who insisted on the dynamic nature of culture, its constant development, the author believes that this property of culture is incompatible with any conservation or its reference to the traditionalism, as it leads to stagnation of culture. Another important factor preventing the construction of the concept of spiritual security in Russia is a special phenomenon of the Russian cultural landscape, defined through the concepts of ambivalence, heterotopia and hybridity. All these factors show that the attempt to put the problem of spiritual security in the context of a return to old traditions, whether religious, whether it be cultural, not productive and even dangerous, as Russia's population in cultural, social and political aspects is very diverse, and any note of tradition to the level of homogeneity will lead to serious contradictions within our society.