And national identity, and strategic decisions of the government come from civilizational perceptions of their own country. In the Middle Ages, these views were expressed in the language of religion in modern times they have been developed for the secular concept — culture and civilization, the nation and the national idea, the state and geopolitics.
By the beginning of the XVIII century, the concept of "Christendom" was infrequent and disappeared from the international agreements. It was replaced almost everywhere came the concept of "Europe". There was acivilizational approach to look at history. From it came the philosophers and politicians, even confessing abstract formational approaches (this is evident in the writings of Marx himself).
These new concepts developed in the West, who saw himself in these terms as a civilization. But the other great cultures are more or less quickly mastered this conceptual language, and the civilizational approach began intensively developed in Russia. The works have been proposed Danilevsky signs and criteria for selecting and discriminating "local" civilizations that introduced concepts of cultural-historical type as carriers of the main features of a civilization. These ideas are then, in the XX century, developed in the writings of Spengler, Toynbee and Sorokin.
Here we will not go into the definition of categories and concepts of civilized approach. The main of them are already included in the everyday consciousness and treated about the same. We shall take civilization a large and stable (long-term), a system built on a common ideological and social matrix of a large number of cultural and ethnic communities. For us it is important that this system may be weakened, compromised or even destroyed, leading to social and cultural disasters or crises of varying severity of all components of the civilization of nations.
At the beginning of XX century Russian Westerners and Slavophiles, liberals and monarchists, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries and anarchists thought in the country and its future in terms of civilization. Most disputes were about the project Modernization Russia, that is, its development in cooperation with the West, but the Bolsheviks in the film world order on the arena there are civilizations of the East. Civilization Construction of the USSR was under the strong influence of the concept of Eurasianism.
The study of the history, development and current state of the countries in the civilized approach has become part of management, including scientific, knowledge. In the XX century, it was impossible to imagine a rational actions of the government of a large country without having to define its identity and civilizational development trajectory. At crucial moments here arises the main contradictions and conflicts, which before the Civil War.
In times of deep crisis of the state, similar to the revolutions of 1917, or liquidation of the USSR, it is not an isolated conflict, political and social, and their connection to one large, private not explainable causes system civilizational crisis. It covers the whole of society, not hide from it to anyone, it puts everyone in front of "eternal" questions.
How is determined in these matters reformers Russia during perestroika and after 1991?
Among the anti-Soviet ideologists of the project existed in three versions. One of them said, that Russia is neither an independent civilization, nor part of a great civilization, she fell out of the world civilization development and remained in a state of barbarism.
This idea was carried out, for example, AN Yakovlev. He wrote: "In Russia never had a normal, free-style private property … Private property — matter and spirit of civilization … In Russia never had a normal private property, so there is always ruled by men, not laws."
AN Yakovlev was represented by the reform as "Reformation Russia" — an attempt by political means to turn it into a civilized society. There was never in Russia "matter and spirit of civilization" — and will now! In this case we are not talking about the loss of Russian civilization in the period of the Soviet system, namely, that "the spirit of civilization" was not here ever. Advocating before the election in June 1996 for Yeltsin, AN Yakovlev said: "For the first time in a millennium took for democratic reforms. Break the age-old habits crept terra firma. "
The second version was the fact that Russia is a civilization, but initially inhumane and totalitarian. Yeltsin adviser philosopher AI Rakitov glad destruction of the USSR: "The biggest, most brutal empire in the history of mankind falls." He had expounded the "special rules and standards underlying the Russian civilization": "Lies, slander, crime, etc. are justified and moral, if they are subject to overarching objective of the state, ie the strengthening of military power and the expansion of the territory."
AI Rakitov emphasizes that pathological cruelty was originally inherent in, primordial the quality of Russia: "We must not speak of the absence of civilization, lack of rights, not a lack of justice, not the illegality of the repressive mechanism in times of Ivan the Terrible, Peter, Nicholas I, or Stalin, but that the laws themselves were repressive, that the constitution was antihuman that the rules, standards, regulations, and performance standards are fundamentally different from their counterparts in other modern European civilization. "
In this version of reform is not seen as a transition from barbarism to civilization, as well as changing the type of civilization, "joining the West." One of the most active "superintendents of perestroika" IM Kliamkin stated: "Russia can survive only by becoming part of Western civilization, only changing the code of civilization" [p. 21].
The third version was the most bland and boiled down to the fact that Russia was and is part of the West, structural element of Western civilization. It is only slightly deviated from the "high road" because of the Soviet experiment, and now she has to study hard from the West to catch up after 70 years.
This version has been formulated already in the 60s, during the Khrushchev "thaw." P. Weill and A. Genis show it in the book "60's. World of the Soviet people ", which describes the mindset of" kitchens "bohemian intellectuals, whose ideologue and became a prophet Ilya Ehrenburg (liken it to the Apostle Paul). They write: "The debate about the relationship to Western influence has become a war for the value of world civilization. Ehrenburg passionately argued that the Russian is no worse and no better than the West — simply because there are Russian and the West. "
At first, the 90-hgodov offered variations on this idea. Thus, VI Mildon, wrote in the journal "Problems of Philosophy": "Russia is not Eurasia, it belongs to Europe and can not serve as a bridge between Europe and Asia, Eurasia was the Russian Empire, and not Russia."
This interpretation is puzzling. How should we understand that the "Russian empire — not Russian?" What does it mean that "Siberia is not a part of Russia, and a part of the Russian Empire"? As it should be understood Yakuts — they are expelled from Russia and the bridge in Europe are denied? This article, and there was a lot of articles, there is a typical ideological artifact of poor quality.
Creating an image of the East as a historical and eternal enemy of Russia — an important motif in the ideology of the destruction of the Soviet Union. In a mild form of this already engaged Ilya Ehrenburg, in the 90s, a group of intellectuals. One of the most frequently published authors of the journal "Problems of Philosophy" became Kantor, specializing in Asian nations denouncing "The Steppe". And it is — in the Journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which was famous in the world for its ethnographic school has accumulated vast knowledge of the nomadic civilizations.
I. Friedberg argues that from the East to Russia "is constantly threat" — while in the West it has received only benefits: "In the western borders of Russia came in all that to this day is the basis of power and national pride of Russia … — all modes of transport, clothing, most food and agricultural production — can you imagine today Russia, deprived of it? '.
Indeed, it is impossible to imagine Russia suddenly devoid of all types of clothing — but can you imagine a grown man, seriously worried at the prospect of Russia? And how, I wonder, the West assumes deprive Russia of all that he so generously passed through its borders?
Not the point of civilizational differences.
After 2000, the Russian government for some time avoided making a declaration on the status of Russian civilization. Gorbachev's concept of an opportunistic move to "universal values" has been abandoned because of its apparent uselessness against the bombing of Yugoslavia and the global international terrorism. Representation of Russia as a barbaric country that does not condescend "spirit of civilization" was too steeped blunt russophobia and not in keeping with the patriotic trends power of the first years of the XXI century.
By the end of the second term of presidency V. Putin's contradictory statements were made, there was a great deal of uncertainty. The brochure 2006 VY Surkov, who was considered the ideologue behind the scenes of the Presidential Administration, said: "The development of European civilization, a part of which is the Russian civilization, shows that people throughout the ages have sought observed, first of all, to the material well-being, but also tried to get such a device of his own life in which they could be free, and that the world relative thereto was fair. " For us it is important to claim that "Russian civilization is part of the European civilization."
But in the eighth Epistle V. Putin to the Federal Assembly (2007) were made an important point: "We must and we will build on the basic moral values, people have forged Russia for more than a thousand years of its history."
"Basic values, people have forged over millennia of history" — this is the ideological matrix, which is going to separate local civilization. This statement was interpreted as a break with the philosophical basis of the neo-liberal reforms, with its aggressive Westernism.
However, it is still a long way to go was to call our "basic moral values" and begin to them "lean", but it was an important step. However, now followed by a correction. June 8, 2007 in the building of the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences with a lecture about Russian culture and the future of Russia made VY Surkov. He began with the declaration: "The new democratic order is from European civilization. But it is of a very specific Russian version of her. "
This complex ideological structure VY Surkov based his concept of sovereign democracy. We will not discuss the claim that the "democratic order" Russia "comes from the European civilization." He is too "specific", that order, and the Europeans who agree to plead his godfather. The word "democracy" in the thesis VU Surkov's no real substance is not. The key to this thesis is the statement, "the Russian version of European civilization." This — the denial provisionsidentity Russian culture and the cultures of other peoples of the Russian civilization.
The reservation of the specificity of the "Russian version" of the case does not change any civilization includes various locales. The structure of all the specific culture of the West, the Spaniards did not like the English, the Germans are, etc. The main thing is that VY Surkov said, and with different variations repeated that he does not consider Russia an independent local civilization, and sees it as a structural element of the West.
Vision of Russia as a peripheral version of Western civilization follows a number of strategic positions of the current Russian government. Image "Russia-as-Europe" generates deep divisions in Russian society (such conflicts about the situation of the people to "map of mankind" is referred to as figurative and geographic drama).
"Do not fall out of Europe, the Western powers — an essential element of the construction of Russia" — Writes VY Surkov, releasing this statement in bold.
This thesis raises the question, when Russia was "adopted" in Europe to worry about today, how would her a "no drop"?
Let us remember the turning point early XX century, when, as mentioned, we "fell out of Europe" — Russian revolution. Then Russia started the world revolution of peasants who tried to avoid being drawn into the periphery of Western capitalism. It was a world-historical event, as it would not apply. This fact can not be ignored.
Agurski Israeli historian, writes in his book "The ideology of National Bolshevism": "Before the revolution, the main enemy of the Bolsheviks was the Russian bourgeoisie, the Russian political system, Russian autocracy, after the revolution, and especially during the Civil War, the main enemy of the Bolsheviks were not quickly defeated by the forces of reaction in Russia and world capitalism. Essentially it was about the fact that Russia opposed the entire West …
Capitalism has turned out to be an authentic expression of Western civilization is, and the struggle against capitalism was the negation of the West. Even more, this increased potency of Leninism with his theory of imperialism. The fight against the aggressive capitalism, wanting to subjugate others, unwittingly turned into a national struggle. As soon as Russia remained the revolution alone with a hostile capitalist world, the social struggle could not grow in the national struggle, for the social conflict was localized immediately. Russia resisted Western civilization. "
Nearly the whole XX century Russia was civilizational war with the West, resisting its expansion, and now the Russian government is going to "design a Russian" as part of the West! Therefore, it is necessary to determine when and how the adoption was formalized in Russia "family" of Western civilization. This is a trivial question.
German historian Walter Schubart in the widely acclaimed book "Europe and the soul of the East" (1938) writes: "The most momentous result of the war in 1914 is not the defeat of Germany, the collapse of the Habsburg monarchy is not without growing colonial power Britain and France, and the birth of Bolshevism, with which the struggle between Asia and Europe is entering a new phase … And the question is not in the form of: the Third Reich or the Third International and Fascism or Bolshevism? It is a question of world historical clash between the continent of Europe and the continent of Russia … What happened in 1917 was not to create a mood, hostile Europe, it is their only revealed and strengthened. "
All parties to this conflict to understand that we are talking about the worldview conflict, the two types of living arrangement. It is not reduced to an ideological conflict or formational ("capitalism-socialism"). During the restructuring L. Batkin warned: "West" at the end of the XX century. — Not a geographical concept, or even the concept of Capitalism (Although genetically course, connected with it). This general definition of economic, scientific, technological, structural and democratic level, without which the existence of any truly modern, refined from the archaic society. " The concept of a "truly modern, refined from the archaic society" — civilization, it is the West. Other societies, including the "capitalist" in terms of the formation approach (such as Japan) are not "truly modern, free of archaic." These companies do not belong to Western civilization, they work much differently than Western society.
People belonging to a particular civilization, as well as the identity of the individual to a particular people, expressed in a variety of objective evidence. However, the second necessary (though not sufficient) is set self-awareness the people (and the individual). On belonging to the nation anthropologists write: "Two men belong to the same nation if and only if they recognize each other's identity to this nation." That is not to be considered Russian man if he considers himself a Frenchman (we are not talking about cases of arbitrary administrative or disguise their motives). Similarly, a civilizational identity. It makes no sense to consider Japan a part of Western civilization, if the Japanese themselves do not think so.
At the beginning and in the middle of the XX century, the vast majority of Russian did not consider themselves as belonging to Western civilization in their identity Holy Russia (or "Mother Russia") was in itself, was a very special part of humanity. Just thought in the West, including those thinkers who have respect for Russia as a civilization. They recognized its fundamental difference from the West.
Spengler wrote: "I am still reticent about Russia, deliberately, because there is no distinction between the two peoples, but of two worlds … The difference between Russian and Western spirit, emphasize in the strongest terms. No matter how deep it may peace and, therefore, the religious, political and economic conflict between the British, the Germans, the Americans and the French, but before the beginning of the Russian they immediately meet in a closed world. Deceives us the impression of some that have adopted western painting, the inhabitants of Russian cities. This Russian us internally as a stranger, as the Roman era of the kings and the Chinese long before the time of Confucius, if they suddenly appeared among us. He is always conscious of holding the line of demarcation between the "Mother Russia" and "Europe".
For our Russian soul — for the mud, music, vodka, and a kind of sad resignation — remains something incomprehensible … However, some people, perhaps, is available almost unspeakable impression of the soul. It is, at least, does not make one doubt the immeasurable gap that lies between us and them "[p. 147-148].
Let's say, the middle of the XX century — this is history, and world citizens of Russia has changed so dramatically that the majority is aware of himself as belonging to Western culture. But it would be very unusual phenomenon, and one who now says that Russia belongs to the West, would be to give some arguments in support of his thesis, or at least be said that, in his opinion, the Russian people, such a transformation has occurred.
But we will both theoretically possible assumption that in the 80 years the citizens of the Russian Federation reached out to democracy and began to consider themselves as people of western culture (though the specific version). What say the empirical data?
They say that in the last twenty years did not happen scrapping of the main pillars of Russian culture, which has been the touchstone of Western civilization as different as to which people are aware of their cultural identity. In December 2006, Yuri Levada Analytical Center conducted a large survey on the topic "Russia and the West." To the question "Is Russia part of Western civilization?" Responded positively to 15%. The majority, 70% of respondents chose the answer "Russia has a special (" Eurasian "or" Orthodox Slavic ") civilization, and therefore the Western path of development it is not appropriate." 15% were undecided.
Pushkin said that Russia is the only European — this government. We ought to listen to Pushkin and probably feel the gratitude to the current government. But because the government and Russia — this is not the same thing. We now conduct speech about Russia.
Thus, to ascribe to the Russian western civilization throughout the XX century, and until now it was not possible, because the vast majority of the population considers itself to be a special civilization and did not apply to "join the West." At the moment, the problem of "how much we do not fall out of Europe" agenda is not necessary.
And there was ever in the history of this problem? It must be said that by raising it today, ladies and gentlemen, and colleagues are in conflict with themselves. Presentation of a considerable part of the Russian elite of the nation and the culture imbued essentialism. It is the belief that the "national character" lies some unchanging essence that gives culture a permanent identity. Committed to this view, and VY Surkov. He writes: "The will to freedom and justice is developed and enshrined as a natural feature of the national character … Culture — it is fate. God told us to be Russian, Russians … In order to understand how to develop democracy in Russia, which is a modification of it is applicable in practice, it is necessary to define the archetypal, irrevocable properties of Russian political culture … ".
Thus, the concept civilizational identity "Russian, Russians" is exactly "archetypal, irrevocable properties." It was originally given to "natural feature of the national character." So what about the worldview corner of the question, the Russians from the outset — People of "European culture" ("God told us to be" such). This means that there are no necessary subjective conditions (self-consciousness of the peoples of Russia) in order to consider Russia "specific version of European culture."
We now turn to the other side of the case. To be a member of the "European family", it is necessary to this is the family You recognized her. There can not pay the money and sit on my chair, "the tickets already purchased." This is not the theater.
The West does not want and never wanted the appearance of the this "relative" — and therefore broke with such hatred from the Byzantine Empire and became what we know as West. So, even if the refusal of the Russian themselves would have been a deliberate good, it is simply unfeasible because of the Iron Curtain that separated from us West — much more iron than Stalin.
At the time of liquidation of the USSR (1991) in the West, clear Soviet Russia was not considered part of Western civilization. Besancon wrote: "All the seventy years of Communist rule, Soviet Russia was obsessed with the desire to" catch up and overtake "the West, was over the fact that she built a" non-capitalist "state, which means, among other things, — the state" non-European "and" ultrarusskoe. " Thus, the Soviet Union is considered a state "non-European" and "ultrarusskim." Is there any reason to believe that the reforms led by Yeltsin and then Vladimir Putin, gave the Russian civilization such features that convinced the West that it has undergone a mutation and has become a fundamental part of the West? That would be absolutely incredible phenomenon, and it had to be to prove and prove it.
Let us fix a fact well-known in the West, between the West and Russia, there have long been tensions inevitable in a relationship between two different civilizations, one of which is very dynamic. West is unthinkable without expansion — hence the achievements of the West: the conquest of Charlemagne, who "cleansed" from the Slavic Europe east of the Elbe, the great geographical discoveries and colonial conquests in Asia, Africa, America and Australia, the occurrence of an unusual type of economy, the purpose of which was rampant profit (capitalism ), creating a new way of knowledge, whose goal was unrestrained accumulation of knowledge (science).
The occurrence of this soil geopolitical tensions with Russia calmly explained in the "World History", written by 80 "best" historians of the world. In the West, this is a basic book that is on the shelves in each school office history. Volume 31 — "Russia" — written by German historians.
Russia increased the West as an alternative Christian civilization. It is on the main issues being constantly offered solutions to mankind other than the West, and it was not just a competitor, but also existential, existentially opponent — no matter how hard the government and the elite of Russia to avoid such a situation. Political Declaration and the Russian state, and Western governments should not be taken for the recognition of the real civilizational large complex country.
Trying to "embed" Russia in the West through the reforms begun twenty years ago, can not succeed. And it's not economic mistakes or lack of funds — this attempt to counteract the weight, no one has organized self-consciousness of the majority of Russian citizens and, on the other hand, organized and conscious resistance states and the population of the West.
Russia and the West: a structural comparison
Comparison of Russia and the West as a civilization encounters significant methodological and psychological difficulties generated by the inherent consciousness of the intelligentsia Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism emerged as the ideology of the Enlightenment, in the epoch of modern Western civilization. He suggests a view of history in which the path traversed by the West, is recognized only correct ("high road of civilization"), and all other development options there are deviations, leading to delays and "underdevelopment". But sooner or later the country will be all the way, but with the unnecessary suffering and loss.
If accepted, in the XVIII century, the European educational system and generally "open a window to Europe", Russia could not let a certain spiritual viruses of the West, including the Euro-centrism. Imbued with Eurocentrism person lacks the ability to properly weigh historical events. He is sure, for example, that the technique in the world where he lives, created mainly in the New Age civilization of the West. He sees only the electricity, television, airplane. A bread for it is part of nature. He does not realize is that the fate of humanity taming horses or removal of cultivated wheat and potatoes were much more important invention of the automobile and the atomic bomb.
XX century, the most prominent anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss writes: "All scientific and industrial revolution in the West fits a period equal to half of a thousandth of a life lived by mankind. It should be remembered, not to say that the revolution is completely turned our lives. "
Eurocentric virus embedded in the consciousness of the cultural layer of Russia, can be likened to the latent virus — it is always in the body, but in special circumstances is activated and causes terrible epidemic. The more people who passed through the school, the more the virus Eurocentric thronged the structure of our national identity, and in general a broad view of the world. The whole history of mankind is seen by us mainly through the spectacles of the West. We taught the vicissitudes of the political struggle in ancient Rome and fights between Danton and Robespierre, but know virtually nothing about the great civilizations of the Aztecs and Mayans, China and India, not to mention Africa. Has been imposed on us by this installation Eurocentrism: "East is a frozen mask." East (that is, everything that is not "West") has no history.
If you recall the school course, we have to marvel at how we did not notice the obvious things: even the ancient course of the war, the stories covered, as if fighting on the side of the West. Here's Greco-Persian Wars — we, of course, on the side of the Greeks, noble heroes. The Spartans, Alexander the Great seem so close, is not that the Persians or Scythians. Even sneaking plundering of Constantinople by the Crusaders Orthodox shrines somehow managed to hide and gloss over the course of history taught in Russian.
The main result of this for us was that to make sense of our own history and our social life, we used Eurocentric ideological apparatus, with all its concepts, values and myths. This marked the whole XIX century, about the same it was showed at the stage when our social dominated by historical materialism, with its notions of "correct" the process of changing socio-economic formations.
As a result, we have come to a situation where the top leaders of the country were forced to admit: "We do not know the society in which we live." It's extremely difficult recognition mark brewing trouble. I'm afraid that "ignorance of society" was common to all of our cultural layer. In other words, this ignorance was not due to defects in the formation of individuals, it was a phenomenon social. Gorbachev's team, there were many "good" reformers who mutilate the body of the USSR began with the best intentions — just not knowing its very core.
Eurocentrism has no scientific basis and consists of a collection of myths, which varies depending on the situation (for example, after the collapse of the fascist myth of racial inferiority "savages" was put in the shade). The trajectory of the development of Western civilization as unique. Throughout history, there was no case when the invasion of the West in a different civilization and culture has led to the emergence of "native" liberal society. It has always been the death of the local culture, if it is not hid somewhere in the catacombs. The causes of the failure of the West to the "hybridization" with other cultures for over a hundred years conceptualized by philosophers and historians, and now more clearly. It sounds like a paradox, but it is known: in order to move closer to the West, it is necessary to close. Only in this way was able to master the many features of Western Japan (and Russia).
As an ideology that meets the interests of the ruling classes, Eurocentrism has tremendous vitality and at times even takes possession of the mass consciousness. However, in contrast to Eurocentrism in the West and in Russia by many scientists and philosophers developed the idea of humanity as a complex system of many cultures and civilizations. Their variety is not only necessary for healthy development, but even for the existence of mankind. A critical attitude to the pressure Eurocentric dogma would benefit us all, including our "Westerners", and most West.
How do we look at the system of cultures and civilizations impartially, "breaking away" from gravity — Eurocentric intellectual apparatus? How to see the "top" Russia and the West on the map of the world civilization as essentially different integrity (when there are many similarities)? The easiest way — through a comparison of their structures, identifying the fundamental dissimilarity of the key elements and relationships. Much has been done here by the Western thinkers and scientists, including those in their estimates remained in position — Eurocentrism. For us, it does not matter here, "respect they Russian" or not. As they see it unlike the West — this is important.
Taking issue in the early 70's with Jean Sartre on the causes of the collapse of the Soviet future, Claude Levi-Strauss gave a classification of approaches to the vision of non-Western civilizations and cultures "of the West." The most common, he thought "imperialist " approach (without investing in an abusive word meaning) — squeezing the reality of non-Western societies in the familiar Western concepts and terms. In this reality rudely deformed beyond recognition. A classic example of this approach was, in my view, the reasoning TE Gaidar or AB Chubais on the Soviet economy.
The second approach is typical of the conventional Marxists — "dialectic" in which society is seen through the struggle of opposites, after a major controversy. For example, a non-Western society is seen through the prism of the concept modernization. In that view of this society is the scene of the collision agents of modernization (as the engine of progress) with the forces of traditionalism as bearers of conservative or even reactionary attitudes. This — also the reduction of any culture to an analogue of modern Western society, and the axis of the equilibrium condition which is dualism of "unity and struggle of opposites."
Levi-Strauss himself was trying to develop a third, "anthropological" approach — the creation of a broad set of concepts allowing to "translate" a complex, poorly represented in terms of the western obschg stvovedeniya the validity of the traditional (non-Western) society on the language that is thinking of Western man. This approach is important for us, because we ourselves should just "translate" Russian reality (historical and current) in the language that is thinking intellectual who trained in the Soviet historical materialism or the current anti-Soviet liberalism. Over the past twenty years, we have progressed in this, although it is not enough.
Works on systematic comparative structural analysis of Russia and the West yet. But the individual "strokes" in this literature can be collected much. Here, for example, A. Besancon wrote: "Europe" as a whole — is gradually ripened fruit of a unique historical experience. But is it possible in this case to say that Russia — part of Europe? Lets go through the list of the main features of "Europeanness": the medieval church and the empire? No, nothing like that Russia did not know. Feudalism and chivalry? no. Revival and Reformation? no. Thus, there is no reason to consider Russia a part of Europe. "
I think he gives the poor a list of items for comparison. But the essence of the approach is important. After reading this list, people will think. Is it in Russia was not "a medieval church and empire"? Yes, in the Western sense was not, because the church and the Russian Empire were so other, than in the West, that the entire civilization structure provided different. We recall the role played in the fate of Europe's religious orders — the Templars and Hospitallers, the Franciscans and the Jesuits. They created the financial system of the West, the Inquisition pervasive, worldwide network of secret political elite and the education system.
Did not have that in Russia, as there was no long-term vnutriimperskih wars of the European type. The Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years' War, the Wars of the Roses — you can imagine is in Russia? There was hiking Charlemagne, which turned Europe into a "graveyard of nations" was not and the Crusades.
There was a Russian feudalism and chivalry, and quickly established autocracy. In Russia it was unthinkable that a knighthood like Livonia owned, say, half of Siberia as an independent state. Therefore, Russia did not need to "Revival" from the dark Middle Ages, did not have to look for patterns in Greek antiquity. And such a "national disaster", as the Reformation, we did not happen — not Orthodoxy in Russia led to the wars of religion, which carry up to two-thirds of the population. In this sense, our division is not any comparison. There was no fires, which in Europe during the Reformation burned about a million "witches."
There was St. Bartholomew's night, there was alchemy and Freemasonry (except for a passing fancy Westernising elite). There was no "enclosures", which turned most of the population into proletarians and vagrants. There was no cleaning of entire continents from the local population. There was the slave trade, which devastated the western Africa. There was the Opium Wars, have put China on the brink of extinction. There was not a Russian Napoleon, there was no Russian fascism — colossal power of "seizure" of the West.
But all of this — the constitutive elements of the development of the modern West. A lot of things was in Russia, and the totality of all this is so weighty that the reluctance to see its fundamental differences from the West, it is difficult to accept for sincere myopia. System description of which was not still ahead, and it is a great and important work. Here we will talk about those essential elements that have both in the West and in Russia, but are arranged in substantially different ways.
Would not it be a blessing in disguise — the neo-liberal reforms in Russia, begun in the late 80-ies of XX century. It was a huge experiment on Russia, which has generated a large amount of knowledge in the hard-to quiet time — at the turn of the structure can be seen to break things.
Reforms in Russia have become a huge program imitation of the West. This is a replacement program of the institutions and systems that have been created and built their own culture on the institutions and systems of alien civilization, in this case the West. This "change" often turns into destruction.
Claude Levi-Strauss, who studied the contacts with other cultures of the West, said: "It is hard to imagine how one civilization could have used a different way of life, but to give up to be the interpretation. In fact, attempts at such conversions may only lead to two results: either the disorganization and the collapse of a system — or the original synthesis, which leads, however, to the emergence of the third system, can not be reduced to two other "[p. 335]. Such synthesis we have seen in Russia (USSR), and in Japan, and China. Such disorganization and collapse we see today in the Russian Federation.
If you run through all the mental side of living arrangement, we can see that in 90 years, reformers sought to remake all of the systems that have been established in Russia and the Soviet Union, according to Western standards.
There was, for example, the Russian original school. It was formed in lengthy searches and lapped to the social and cultural conditions of the country, with careful study and foreign experience. Its results were not just good, but brilliant, as was confirmed by objective indicators and noted a number of investigators and the West and the East. No, the school decided to radically change and rebuild it on a specific pattern of the western school, constructed during the French Revolution.
Developed in Russia, half a century before the Revolution, public pension system, excellent and the German and the French. Then, in the USSR, it was extended to all citizens, including farmers. This system is in flux, everything was clear and properly fulfilled its explicit and implicit functions — no, it immediately began to rework on the Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal scheme to each his own, individually, saving up for retirement, charging private firms "grow" its accumulation.
Emerged in Russia, for about 300 years, a kind of military type, different from Western armies with their tradition of mercenaries (the word "soldier" comes from the Latin «soldado», which means "hired for a fee"). No military advantage contract army has no domestic war always wins at the call of the army, which performs its sacred duty. This army of the country and the people need now — but it soon began to break down and rebuild the type of Western mercenary army.
Our higher education system took shape almost 300 years. This is one of the most complex and expensive products of Russian culture, and this is a matrix in which our culture has produced. Our way of higher education, the organization of the educational process and curriculum-building tools is a special type of specialists with higher education, intellectuals. Replace all the tools developed by the national culture on those provided by the Bologna convention — hence distort the mechanism of reproduction of Russian culture.
Imitation of the West has become a fundamental goal. In the economic sphere the most large-scale simulation was an attempt to remake the Soviet economy on patterns of Anglo-Saxon market system. L. Piyasheva wrote in 1990: "When I reflect on how the revival of the country, I do not think of how to transfer the experience of the German" economic miracle "in our territory … My glimmer of hope on the fact that released on the freedom of" the spirit of business "in the country and revive the will to live, and the Protestant ethic."
Credo simulator — to find a "clean sample" and copy it to its own terms. This is completely false setting, and contrary to science and reason. It is known that copying is impossible in principle, it leads to the suppression and destruction of a culture that is trying to "take over" someone else's pattern. With the development of others' achievements needed synthesis the creation of a new structure grown on their own cultural soil. So, for example, has been grown in the Russian science, born in Western Europe, was created "Confucian capitalism" in Japan.
Trying to replace the system of autochthonous Russia to Western simulacra told us a lot about Russia and the West. All of the features that distinguish Russia from the West, as a civilization, we are here to consider, and we can not even list. We will try to draw two images of large strokes, not hoping to get portraits in an academic manner. Our goal — to identify the main core features, showing a fundamental dissimilarity between our two civilizations.
Russia and the West: The fundamental philosophical differences
The source of major civilizational differences is, as they say, the dissimilarity of the central ideological matrix ("Way of truth"). This dissimilarity is designated or described in different ways.
First of all, a number of leading thinkers of the West agree that the combination of the Reformation and the scientific revolution led to enormous cultural mutation that led to the emergence of a new, "modern" civilization of modernity. The essence of this mutation — "disenchantment of the world", it desanctification.
New time generated by a succession of religious, scientific, and social revolution meant a profound change in the central ideological matrix, which was carried out "assembly" of the nations of the West in modern times. In the words of the German theologian R. Guardini, one of the major changes was fading religious susceptibilities.
He explains: "Under her, we do not mean the belief in the Christian revelation or determination to commensurate his life, and direct contact with the religious content of affairs when a person picks up a secret world within — the ability that existed in all times and among all peoples. But it does mean that the person is not just a new time losing faith in the Christian revelation, it begins to atrophy natural religious body, and the world appears to him as a profane reality. "
Max Weber in his "Theory of steps and direction of religious rejection of the world," he wrote, "If a rational empirical research has consistently disenchanted world and turned him into a mechanism based on causality, it was acutely confronted ethical postulate, according to which the world is ordered by God and, therefore, ethically meaningful oriented. For empirically, and the more mathematically oriented view of the world fundamentally rejects any point of view, which is based in his understanding of the world from the problem of "meaning."
Loss meaning of life — A large and complex problem of the West (Russian philosophers of the early XX century, considered it his tragedy). This is not a social problem, namely civilization, it shapes the lives of all who are steeped in the "spirit of capitalism."
Weber said: "The people, full of" spirit of capitalism ", now if not hostile, it is quite indifferent to the church … If you ask these people about the" meaning "of their unbridled pursuit of profit, the fruits of which they never use and that it is in worldly life orientation must seem completely meaningless, in some cases, they probably would have answered (if they even wanted to answer this question), what makes them tick, "taking care of her children and grandchildren", or rather, they would just say (for the first motivation is not something specific to this type of business, and equally peculiar and "traditionalist" tuned figures) that the case itself, with its relentless demands for them was "a necessary condition of existence." I must say that this is really the only proper motivation, to identify all the same irrationality such a way of life in terms of personal happiness, lifestyle, in which a person exists for the case, not the case for the person "[p. 89].
Here's the first fundamental difference: the non-Western civilization, and, above all, the closest to the West Christian Russia has not undergone such a mutation and preserved as a "culture with symbols" (Hegel). They vividly cosmic feeling and a sense of sacredness of the world, the presence of a sense. In Russia not atrophied natural religious body, and the world appears asprofane reality.
This is equally true with respect to the culture and the old Russian and Soviet, which recognize both Russian and Western observers. German historian W. Schubart in the book "Europe and the soul of the East" (1938) wrote: "Lack of religiosity, even in religious systems, a sign of modern Europe. Religiosity in the materialistic system — a sign of Soviet Russia. "
This "denominational" religiosity inherent in the Soviet period, all the peoples of the USSR, there was a backbone force of civilization. Now, when the tuning slightly subsided passion in "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" read this type of recognition, "In the first two or three decades after the October Revolution (at least until 1937), the country see themselves as Citadel absolute good, and in the religious sense — has become a major force opposing the godless capitalism and the creative vision of the future. "
Why then come to the West for four centuries, beginning with the break-up of the Reformation? For emptiness and nihilism. In anthology on the philosophy of history we read: "If the company disappears," meaning, "that there are favorable conditions for the emergence of nihilism and anarchy, which reject any obligations and duties to the community, as well as destroying the dependence on all the rules. After all obligations and standards can only bind to anything, it is recognized their meaning. "
This topic was raised to Nietzsche, the spokesman of longing West. He said the average Westerner, "God is dead! You are his murderers, but the fact that you are not even aware of this report. " Heidegger wrote: "For Nietzsche, nihilism is not just a phenomenon of decline — nihilism as a fundamental process in Western history at the same time and above all have a pattern of this story. Therefore, in thinking about the nihilism of Nietzsche is important is not so much a description of how the process takes place historically impairment of higher values, which would then being able to calculate the decline of Europe — no, Nietzsche thinks nihilism as the "inner logic" of the historical achievements of the West. "
Nietzsche believed that after the murder of God will find a way out West, giving rise out of their depths superman. And such were to be the fascists. But Heidegger, having learned it from the inside (he wanted to be a philosopher of the Führer), came to the conclusion that much more severe, "superman" of Nietzsche — is average Western citizen who votes "for those for whom they should vote." This is an individual who has overcome any need for meaning and well settled in full obessmyslivanii who calmly accepts any disruption, who lives happy in the jungle of monstrous machines and technology and dancing in the cemetery of machines that always sensible and pragmatic justification.
Heidegger adds the concept of nihilism: this is not just a constant of the West, it is an active principle which is continuously attacks West ("falls" on it). This is the message of the West. Heidegger does not indicate a way out, and his pessimistic conclusion: the West — Mousetrap, in which there was a loss of the sense of being. And it is this type of trap that because it is impossible to escape, she thus turned inside out, and you find yourself once again inside. She — things of the West and was laid in his genes with the advent of technology, for which there was the will to power. The atomic bomb detonated as Descartes said, "I think …" — Heidegger wrote in 1951,
The Enlightenment sought the meaning of life in progress. R. Nisbet wrote: "For nearly three millennia no idea been more important or as important as the idea of progress in Western civilization" [p. 127]. This idea has gained by virtue of natural law and became the ideological basis of the social order of Western civilization. It legitimized and break the traditional human relations, including the "love of the graves of our fathers," and repression of feelings of solidarity and compassion. Nietzsche even raised the question of replacing the ethics of "love of neighbor" ethic of "love for the future."
Researcher Russian philosopher Nietzsche SL Frank writes: "Love to back, striving to embody a" distant "in life has its precondition break with others. Ethics of love to the far … is the ethics of progress, and in this sense, Nietzsche's moral view of the world is a typical view of the world as a progressive … Every desire for progress based on the rejection of the status quo and to the fullness of moral alienation from it. "Strange and despicable people I present to which so recently attracted me my heart, I banished from the country of the fathers and mothers of my" … "[p. 18].
Currently, the concept of progress extremely vague and blurred, apply to either side of life, but it has been unable to make sense of being, which gives love, painted religious perception of the world. As a key element of the ideology of the West, the idea of progress in terms of neo-liberalism was quite loses humanistic content and is an expression of the nihilism of the Western worldview, which Heidegger wrote. John Gray observes in this regard: "By linking their fate with the cult of the free market, the Western conservatism solidarizovalsya with the spirit of his time, so accurately expressed in the saying openly nihilistic Hayek's" progress, there is a movement for the sake of motion "[p. 178].
Understanding that humanity has "The duty of the future"Which is not related to the direct exchange" you give me — I'm "is part of the traditional knowledge of non-Western cultures. This powerful motivation has now been in the form of conceptually formulated Christianity almost two thousand years. In his treatise "Teacher," Clement of Alexandria (II-III c.) Said: "One handles the field, keeping in mind the transient get food, the other — meaning wholeness of the universe. One implants for themselves, other implants and sows out of obedience to God … ".
But this setting is lost, perhaps, only in the modern West. Here's the output of sociologists who analyze the philosophical foundation consumer society: "The future does not vote, it will not have any effect on the market, it is not visible. Therefore, the present was to steal from children. " A Native American proverb says: "We do not get the good nature of a legacy, we take them into debt in the future." WR Catton brings this story: "In 1921, the community of starvation in the Volga visited American newspaper reporter who was gathering material about Russia. Almost half of the community had already died of hunger. Mortality has continued to increase, and the survivors had no chance to survive. The nearby golf soldiers guarding the huge bags of grain. An American reporter asked an elderly community leader, why not disarm his men watch and not take away the grain to satisfy his hunger. The old man replied with dignity that are in bags of grain for sowing the following year. "We do not steal from the future", — he said. "
Of course, the development of skills in the Russian rational scientific thinking, scientific type of mass education, the modernization of the economy and way of life led to a weakening of traditional religiosity, increased skepticism and nihilism appearance in the intelligentsia (though different than in the West, such as — nihilism, "the St. Petersburg sample", " belief in unbelief "until ready to go to the cross for the faith).
But Russia has never been a systematic cultural and political efforts aimed at the eradication of the "natural religious body." The very Russian Revolution was a movement, which was based on a profound religious sense (we can talk about heresy Soviet chiliasm). Therefore, the state and the conflict with the church in the 20s, a direct consequence of the Civil War, had signs of religious conflict. Ideocratic Soviet state and began to weaken in the 70-80s as a result of the crisis of religious components of its ideological base (crisis the peasant community of communism).
In the West, on the contrary, the Enlightenment marked the beginning of a long-term program of suppression religious susceptibilities, mentioned by R. Guardini. PB Uvarov wrote: "Vividly aggressive rejection of traditional religion and the Church was manifested within Freemasonry, the only autonomous movement of intellectuals, known stories. French historian P. Chevalier in his work about the Masons wrote the following: "Freedom of thought for the majority of Masons of the late XIX and early XX century. meant freedom from any religious faith, and the most resolute minority of Masons never hidden its desire to just break the traditional religion. " Good confirmation of the thesis of P. Chevalier are the words of a leader of the French Freemasonry beginning of XX century. Lafer: "We are not just an anti-clerical, we are opposed to all dogma and all religions … The real goal that we are pursuing, the collapse of all dogmas and all the churches" [p. 171-172].
Structural differences of ideological matrix of Russia and the West in modern times was determined not only to differences in their civilizational trajectory. They led also to the needs of each other. Despite russophobia West., Which has been mentioned above, was strong in the West and desire for Russia. She is often expressed in an explicit form. J. Keynes, who worked in the 20s in Russia, wrote (1925): "Leninism-a strange combination of the two things that the Europeans for centuries are placed in different parts of the soul — religion and business … You feel that here — Laboratory of life. "
And Walter Schubart wrote in 1938: "Never has Europe, even in the days of the Caesars of Rome, was not so far from the East, and his soul is now in the era of Promethean. The contrast between the East and the West reached its highest tension, but so is the desire for its eradication … As it may seem bold, but very definitely should say, Russia — the only country that can liberate Europe and its release as well as on to all the problems of life, it takes a position opposite to the one that took all the European nations. "
Sergei G. Kara-Murza Russia is not the West, or what awaits us
See also language picture of the world