Reflecting on the question of Russia's place in history and in modern world, various philosophers have viewed Russia in one way or another within the framework of the East-West scheme. At the same time, Russia is attributed either to the East or the West, or is recognized as a special country, neither Western nor Eastern.

In the history of Russian thought, for the latter case, several independent concepts of the “East-West” problem are known:

• G. Plekhanov believed that Russia was, as it were, between East and West, leaning first to one side, then to the other.
• N. Berdyaev declared it East-West or West-East.
• The young man predicted a great destiny for her: Russia must unite East and West on the basis of true Christianity.
• According to Eurasians, Russia forms a special world, a “third force”, quite similar to both the West and the East, but not dependent on either of them.

Therefore, in order to navigate all these diverse points of view and understand true position Russia in the world, it is necessary to unambiguously establish the meaning of the original concepts and terms, to draw the boundaries of the concepts “West”, “East” and their correlation with each other.

In the minds of Europeans, the East has always been in a certain opposition to the West. The mysterious and unfamiliar East was woven from contradictions - they spoke, on the one hand, about its constancy and high spirituality and, on the other, about stagnation and slavery. Against the background of the “East,” the uniqueness of the West was more clearly visible; in fact, in the process of comprehending the East, a Western European understanding also took shape.

The East-West paradigm helped Europeans form European identity itself. Therefore, the concepts of “East” and “West” influence our worldview - voluntarily or involuntarily, regardless of our critical or dogmatic attitude towards them.

First theoretical concepts“East” and “West” were used by the philosopher G. Hegel in his works. Under the name “East” it unites three cultural and historical formations:

• Chinese, which includes China,

• Indian, which includes India,

• and the Middle East, which includes the ancient civilizations of Asia, North Africa: Persia, including the people of Zarathustra, Assyria, Media, Iran, Babylon, Syria, Phenicia, Judea, Egypt, as well as the Islamic world.

For Hegel, the “West” consisted of two civilizations that formed in the north of the Mediterranean - Roman and Greek. It is worth noting that there was no place for Russia in Hegel’s system.

Thus, “West” in Hegel’s philosophy had two meanings:

1. broad, including ancient times and Christian culture of European peoples;
2. narrow, including only the Christian world.

These interpretations have their supporters and opponents.

“Localists” (N.Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee), rejecting the “West – East” paradigm, considered only the Western European world as “West”. E. Husserl called Ancient Greece"spiritual homeland" of the West.

K. Jaspers proposed a compromise point of view. He considers Western civilization to be one of many local ones, but notes its special role in world history, especially in the modern era, and points out that Western culture is the spiritual heir of the Greek, Jewish and Roman cultures.

Jaspers introduces the concept of “axial time,” universal for all humanity, criticizing Hegel’s “universal axis” associated exclusively with Christianity. But since Christianity itself was the basis only for Western civilization, it is incorrect to choose it as the boundary of this “axial time” for the whole world. The sought-after universality, and with it the fullness of being, existed before, for example, in eastern cultures. Jaspers calls the “amazing era” the time between the 8th and 2nd centuries BC, when different parts of the world had their own prophets: in China - Confucius and Lao Tzu, in Persia and Iraq - Zarathustra, in India - Buddha, in Palestine is created Old Testament, philosophy is actively developing in Greece. At this time, a person overcomes his local thinking and becomes aware of himself. But people did not unite into a single formation; however, several centers of world religions and political paradigms were formed.

It is worth noting that Jaspers practically does not use the concept “East”. He views China and India as independent cultural worlds along with the West. In the broad concept of “West” he includes not only Western culture of the 2nd millennium, but also the culture begun by the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Cretan-Mycenaean civilizations, continued in antiquity by the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Jews, completed in the Christian era by Byzantium, Russia, Europe, America and Islamic civilizations. In addition, the West in Jaspers’ concept is considered as the cradle of ideas about freedom, democracy, philosophy, and science.

The problem East - West - Russia in the history of philosophical thought

The question of Russia’s place in the East-West-Russia paradigm was first raised in Philosophical Letters.

• Westerners argued that Russia is part of European culture, i.e. West. Slavophiles believed that Russia is a “original spiritual formation.”
• There was a third point of view - the concept of K. Leontyev.

The “pochvennik” gave great support to the ideas of the Slavophiles. Without recognizing the “East-West” paradigm, he developed the idea of ​​the existence of independent cultural and historical types. Russian culture, according to Danilevsky, represented just such a special type of culture.

Almost the entire 19th century in Russian philosophical thought was dominated by the idea of ​​the “specialness” of Russia among other civilizations, which influenced the formation of the national Russian civilizational and historical self-awareness.

This process is embodied in the famous formulas:

• « The history of Russia requires a different thought, a different formula” (A. Pushkin),

• “You can’t understand Russia with your mind” (F. Tyutchev)

• “Rus', where are you going, give me the answer?” (N. Gogol),

• “Why can’t we accommodate His [Christ’s] last word?” (F. Dostoevsky).

Based on the fact that Russian culture is Christian, Westerners placed it on the third world-historical level Slavic peoples along with the German ones. The Slavophiles, pointing to cultures, contrasted Russia with Western Europe.

Chaadaev believed that Russian culture can combine both reason and imagination, so Russia can become a kind of bridge between the West and the East. He calls Russia the “third force” in history.

The introduction of Russia into the Hegelian triad of “China, India, Middle East” allows for two theoretical possibilities:

1) maintaining the triad with Russia placed “inside” one of the elements;

2) reducing the elements to two and introducing Russia into the triad instead of one of them.

The second possibility clearly has theoretical priority. However, in XIX philosophy century, the idea of ​​Russian identity dominated, so in that era Russian thinkers used the first one.

Vl used the second opportunity in his research. Soloviev, proposing the formula “East-West-Russia” in “Philosophical principles of integral knowledge”.

Vl. Soloviev proposed the idea of ​​a tripartite division of history. He identified three stages of world historical development. Two, according to the philosopher, we have already passed. At the first stage, the “face” of humanity was the East. This was followed by the Christian milestone and the second stage, where the West played a dominant role in history. In this scheme, neither antiquity, nor Byzantium, nor Ancient Rus' Vl. Soloviev does not consider cultural and political formations as significant.

According to Solovyov:

• The East symbolizes the "inhuman God"
• The West is a “godless man.”

The confrontation between the West and the East ends at the third stage, characterized by the establishment of true Christianity. Only young people who are not connected with either the West or the East, for example, Russia, can become the bearer of a new mentality.

Did you like it? Don't hide your joy from the world - share it

Traktina Tatyana 07/23/2015 at 17:00

Controversy discussions about where Russia belongs civilizationally (to the East or West) have been going on for so long that they have become rather boring. Moreover, both camps find such arguments in the history of Russia that a feeling is created that everyone is right. And this makes it even more confusing. About it Pravda. Rusaid the famous television commentator and historian Andrei Svetenko.

- Andrey Sergeevich, Rus' has been oriented towards the West since ancient times. What played here main role: adoption of Christianity or political, trade interests?

Of course, the most important, system-forming, mental moment is the adoption of Christianity. This automatically drew the country and people into the orbit of Western civilization. Moreover, Rus' adopted Christianity even before the split into Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

This, naturally, laid the vector of development towards Byzantium and Europe. Naturally, the concept of Moscow as the third Rome confirms this and is built on this. Of course, initially there were also objective economic factors.

The incorporation of ancient Russian principalities is indicative. The moment of linking the economy to European processes is the famous transit route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” This shows the inclusion of Ancient Rus' in global economic processes, speaking in modern language about events thousands of years ago.

But this process gradually faded for a number of reasons: expansion from the East, the defeat of the Crusaders in the Middle East, then the decline and fall of Byzantium. All this strategically changed the situation in the East of Europe, from the point of view of its inclusion in economic trade processes.

You can list the names of ancient Russian princesses who were married to French kings. This is a normal process. Dynastic marriages under Yaroslav the Wise and others Kyiv princes an indicator that Ancient Rus', of course, was organic integral part quite clearly traceable European mosaic.

The most interesting thing is that in the 15th-17th centuries, including during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, Europeanization continued. Then great things happened geographical discoveries, and Russia was also drawn into the orbit of global international relations.

Under the sign of European standards and values, various trade missions and representative offices appeared here, and merchant connections developed. The British began a search for the northern sea route. As a result, they learned about the port of Arkhangelsk.

Serious trade began to be carried out through him under Ivan the Terrible. At the same time, our model of statehood was borrowed at that time mostly from the East. In Russia there is always a turning point and there is a debate going on: the state for society or society and people for the state.

In the root sense, of course, Russia is an organic part of the European world. But borderliness leads to the birth of theories to explain some kind of transit, betweenness: Eurasia, an attempt to connect two opposite vectors of development, revealing in the process an understanding of itself as not just a bridge between them, but something original and unique, and for which there are no common remedies for crises and problems are not suitable. Tyutchev reflected this very accurately:

“You can’t understand Russia with your mind, you can’t measure it with a common yardstick: It has become something special - You can only believe in Russia.”

This is a hindrance, it seems to me, because it is high time to understand Russia with our minds, and this is now taking place. The most interesting thing is that economic processes and the development of Russia from ancient times to modern times took place, economic policy and practice were built according to understandable, sane laws that existed in Europe.

We were no different in this sense. For example, Doctor of Economic Sciences Alexander Bessolitsyn, who conducted very interesting research, speaks about this.

The only thing is that, for the sake of the concept of strong individual power, there was a process of consolidating class differences in society, and not an attempt to combine polyphony, the concept of creating some kind of system that would take into account the interests of different classes, which quite naturally suggests itself.

The line of dominance prevailed with the transfer of the powers of an arbitrator to the sovereign, based on which he, by definition, must be good and correct, and the boyars must be bad, and everyone else can be bad if they rebel. Bulat, Razin and Pugachev, peasants and Cossacks may want something wrong.

And it turns out to be a paradox. Everything that is imbued with unity, artelism, and collectivism, upon closer examination suddenly reveals the personal, private interests of the representative of each class. And in this sense, it is not correct to think that the Russian peasant is a community member, a collective farmer at heart.

He has very strong instincts, private property instincts have always been developed, and this has always manifested itself in his socio-political environment. It was the lack of opportunities to implement it that led to many unrest.

- Asia lagged significantly behind Europe and the USA, but last years a leap has been made there that the West has never even dreamed of. Why didn’t we reorient ourselves to the East in time? We are We can interact very effectively.

The scale of growth is impressive, but we must not forget about the low starting position, and not confuse the concept of the volume and scale of the economy with an indicator of growth rates. You had a ruble, it became two, your growth rate is 100 percent.

I had a million, became a million and two rubles, and I had an insignificant fraction of a percent growth. Now the first serious problems have arisen in the Chinese economy.

It is necessary to consume what the Chinese have produced by the Chinese themselves, to develop internal freedoms. This will, to some extent, lead to the degeneration of this socialist society into some new qualitative state, which the Chinese authorities are trying to prevent.

India is also showing strong growth rates. There, too, there is a huge scale, more than a billion population, vast territories and resources. There are three traditional factors of production: land, labor and capital.

In the East, the labor factor prevails: skill, ability, willingness to work, the availability of a workforce that is ready to make products of acceptable quality for relatively little money.

There are certain resources in the earth, minerals. Now capital has appeared.

But the most important thing in our time is a new factor - know-how, high-tech, innovation, that is, intellectual potential. We need to work more actively in this direction, not to choose between East and West, but to proceed from the realities of economic feasibility.

• Civilization (from the Latin civilis - “civil”) is the level of social development, material and spiritual culture. Sometimes this word is used to describe a characteristic image of a social structure, culture and religion for a certain country, region, or people.
• Sociology (Latin societas - “society” and Greek “logos” - “word”) studies the patterns of development of society, the relationship between the individual and society.
• Latin alphabet, or Latin, developed in the IV-III centuries. before i. e. V Ancient Rome. On its basis, the writing systems of many languages ​​of the world were created.
• I am Cyrillic - Slavic alphabet, created on the basis of Greek writing at the end of the 9th - beginning of the 10th centuries. Formed the basis of the Russian alphabet.
• The largest Russian ethnographer of the second half of the 20th century. Sergei Aleksandrovich Tokarev to the question: “Who do you consider yourself to be - a European or a Eurasian?” - exclaimed: “Of course, a European!”

Russia is a country of two parts of the world: it occupies the east of Europe and the north of Asia. 78% of its population lives in the European part, and 22% in the Asian part, with 25% of the territory in Europe and 75% in Asia. Culturally, Russia is a unique state. More than 85% of the Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, etc.) are close in culture to the Christian European world, and about 10% of the population (approximately 15 million people - Tatars, Bashkirs, Buryats, Kalmyks, etc.) are associated with Islamic and Buddhist civilization of the East. Therefore, Russia can be called equally both European and Asian countries.

Russian coat of arms - double headed eagle, which looks in both directions. Where will the two-headed bird direct its flight? Will Russia cooperate with the countries of the East, without breaking with Europe, but also without making itself overly dependent on it? Or will it strive to join the community of European countries, while maintaining special relationship with eastern and southern neighbors? Or maybe our country will choose a special path - neither Western nor Eastern? To answer these questions, you must first understand what the West and the East are and “how much” of both there are in Russia.

WEST AND EAST

Most often, the West is understood as the economically developed states of Western Europe and North America(USA and Canada). Sometimes they include Japan, which culturally belongs more to the East, and economically and technologically it is closer to the West. There is no doubt that Catholic Ireland and Italy, Orthodox Greece and Protestant Scandinavia are very different; but there is also no doubt that they belong to the same type of development (both economic and cultural). Their unity is sealed by major political and military alliances: NATO, the EEC, the G7, etc. (see the article “Russia and International Organizations”).

Unlike the West, there is no single East. A simple geographical division (East is Asia, and West is Europe) does not give anything. Muslim East (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, etc.), India, China, Buddhist countries South-East Asia(Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, etc.), the Catholic Philippines differ from each other no less, and sometimes even more, than from European countries. The East is a bizarre mixture of different economic systems, religions and cultures. A special place is occupied by Buddhist Japan, which, based on the type of economic and technological development, is classified as a Western country.

So how does the West differ from the East? Firstly, the West has a higher level of economic and technological development. Secondly, the culture of the West is based mainly on Christian values ​​(although this does not mean that all Westerners profess Christianity), and the culture of the East was formed on the basis of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. In addition, according to sociologists, In the West, the character of people is dominated by such traits as individualism, personal responsibility and initiative, while in the East - communalism, and therefore collective responsibility. Thus, “West” and “East are not so much geographical as economic and, first of all, cultural concepts.

How do East and West relate in Russia itself? There are two points of view. According to one, the East is a non-Slavic, predominantly non-Christian population of both the European (Tatars, Kalmyks, Bashkirs) and Asian parts of the country (Buryats, etc.). In this sense, the Slavic peoples, no matter where they live, appear to be part of the West, that is, of European Christian civilization. Supporters of this point of view believe that East and West have united in Russia, and since more than 85% of its inhabitants can be attributed to the West, the country’s development should follow the Western path. Another point of view denies the existence of a pan-European civilization. According to this theory, there are two Christian civilizations: one is actually Western, Western European (it is also called Atlantic, Romano-Germanic, Catholic Protestant), and the other, opposing it, is Eastern Christian (mostly Orthodox and mainly Slavic). According to adherents of this view, in our country the East coexists with a special, Slavic world, therefore Russia is destined for its own path of development, unlike any other. In the 19th century The defenders of these theories were called Westerners and Slavophiles, respectively. The word "Slavophiles" can be translated as "lovers of the Slavs", since the Greek verb "philo" means "to love." So which of the two points of view is correct? There is no answer to this question yet, and disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles still do not cease.

WESTERNS AND SLAVOPHILES - AN UNFINISHED DISPUTE

The beginning of the dispute can be dated back to the 17th century. Why not earlier? Apparently, because before the Mongol-Tatar invasion this question did not arise at all. Ancient Rus' was included in the system of European political and economic relations. The princes either fought with the nomads or entered into close alliances, but in general relations with them were stable. Later, during the era of the Golden Horde yoke, everything changed. We had to equally defend ourselves from the danger that came from the eastern borders, and from attacks by the Germans, Swedes, Poles, and Danes. And only after the Time of Troubles (beginning of the 17th century) the question arose with all its urgency: with whom should Russia be? With Europe, and should we consider Asian Russia only as a source of resources? Or with Asia, bringing the “light of Orthodoxy” to it and fencing off from the “heretical and pernicious” influence of the West?

Peter I was a pronounced “Westernizer.” All his activities were aimed at introducing Russia to European values ​​and took place in a fierce struggle with the old aristocracy, who did not want to part with their usual way of life. All subsequent Russian monarchs can also be called “Westerners”: none of them tried to restore the pre-Petrine order, and by blood, by culture, by upbringing they were much more Western European than Russian.

However, can the Russian tsars, and above all Peter I, be called genuine Westerners, without quotation marks? They willingly adopted the external features of Western civilization (costumes, wigs, etiquette, military regulations), but the socio-political foundations (personal freedom of citizens, free labor, independent judiciary, etc.) most often remained alien to them. The development of the country was based on the forced labor of serfs and serf workers, on a rigid bureaucratic administrative apparatus. Genuine Westerners at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. there were only writers and public figures N.I. Novikov, A.N. Radishchev, M.M. Speransky and some others. Their fate most often became disgrace or exile.

However, it is hardly legitimate to unequivocally divide historical characters into Westerners and Slavophiles. Broad-minded personalities, such as A. S. Pushkin and A. S. Griboyedov, could easily combine respect for the achievements of Europe with love for best features Russian cultural heritage.

The very concepts of “Westerner” and “Slavophile” appeared quite late, in mid-19th V. The Slavophiles of that time (A. S. Khomyakov, I. S. Aksakov and K. S. Aksakov, I. V. Kireevsky, Yu. F. Samarin) advocated a special path of development for Russia, fundamentally different from the Western one. They believed that it was necessary to develop their own - Russian or "common Slavic" - culture, to a certain extent fencing off from the West. Other, non-European peoples of the country, according to the Slavophiles, need to be introduced to Slavic, and in religious terms - to Orthodox values.

Westerners (P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, T.N. Granovsky, K. D. Kavelin, V.G. Belinsky, I.S. Turgenev) saw the path of development of Russia completely different. In their opinion, the Slavic peoples of Russia should adopt Western culture and political ideals, and then spread these ideals among other peoples of the country.

Both Westerners and Slavophiles alike had no particular sympathy for Islam, and Buddhist and Hindu values ​​either did not interest them at all or represented them purely cognitive interest. Only a few Slavophile thinkers, for example the writer and artist Nicholas Roerich, saw the possibility of moral improvement of humanity precisely in the combination of Christian and Hindu-Buddhist spirituality.

It would seem that, October Revolution 1917 resolved the age-old dispute - Russia chose the path of development based on communist ideas that came from Europe. However, even with Soviet power Westernist and Slavophile points of view on the development of the country continued to compete.

The pre-revolutionary and post-revolutionary activities of the Bolshevik Party and its leader V.I. Lenin were mainly Westernizing. Marxism itself ideological basis politics of the USSR, was entirely the product of Western political economic thought. However, as was the case in the era of Peter I, while accepting some ideas, the Bolsheviks did not try to transfer the main achievements of the West to Russian soil - freedom and personal independence of citizens, etc. On the contrary, lawlessness and terror reigned in the country, and the whole world was separated from Russia "Iron Curtain". It is natural that in the late 40s. Stalin began an open campaign against “adulation to the West.” Such a position can be considered an external manifestation of Slavophilism.

EURASIANITY - THE THIRD WAY?

After the revolution, hundreds of thousands of emigrants from Russia ended up in Western Europe. The years spent abroad were difficult for many. The West was not very hospitable to the newcomers, and it was not easy to integrate into its life. In the new environment, many emigrants became especially acutely aware of their “Russian peculiarity”, their difference from Europeans.

This is probably partly why ideological, political and philosophical movement, called "Eurasianism". Its most prominent ideologists were the outstanding linguist N. S. Trubetskoy, geographer and economist P. N. Savitsky.

Eurasians sharply criticized Western European civilization and its values. They considered the fact that Russia adopted them for a long time to be a sin, and the communist revolution as retribution for it. Like the Slavophiles, the Eurasians saw the future of the country in the revival of “Russian originality,” but they understood it in their own way. The uniqueness of Russia, in their opinion, lies in the unity of all the peoples inhabiting it, in the mixing of their blood, in the synthesis (from the Greek “synthesis” - “union”) of Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Turkic-Mongolian cultures. These processes took place over centuries. Eurasians, unlike the Slavophiles, viewed the East as one of the most important factors in the formation of Russian identity; they considered Russia an Orthodox-Muslim-Buddhist country.

Here is what Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy wrote about this: “It is essential for Eurasianism that it loves a narrow-eyed, eyebrowless and high-cheekbone face real Russia“Eurasia, and not that fantastic Slavic beauty in a pearl kokoshnik, which the Slavophile Russian patriots of the pre-revolutionary period created in their imagination.”

Being staunch anti-communists, the Eurasians were nevertheless sympathetic to the USSR. They believed that over time the Russian people would free themselves from the obsession of Soviet ideology and, using the sovereign power of the state, would fulfill their historical mission: to unite and ensure the development of all - both Slavic and non-Slavic - peoples of Eurasia. Therefore, Eurasians welcomed, in particular, the creation of a new writing system for the peoples of the Soviet Union based on the Russian alphabet. Such writing, they believed, would more closely connect these peoples with Russian culture and at the same time tear them away from the West with its Latin alphabet, and from the writing of Muslim peoples, developed before the revolution on an Arabic basis. Such expectations were, however, not fully realized. The Cyrillic alphabet turned out to be much less convenient for the languages ​​of the peoples of the North and the Caucasus than the alphabets created on a Latin basis in the 20s. and canceled in 1938

Many leaders of the non-Slavic peoples of Russia were and are very wary of Eurasianism, fearing that under the guise of equality of peoples, Eurasians are seeking to recreate a state with Russians in the role of the dominant majority.

AT THE CROSSROADS AGAIN

In the 20th century, and especially after the collapse of the USSR, the relationship between West and East in Russia changed, although not very much. Countries of a purely Western type, once part of the Russian Empire and the USSR, have today completely separated - politically, economically, culturally. After October 1917, these were Poland and Finland, and then, in 1991, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. These countries have become an organic part of Europe. Other republics located in the west of the Soviet Union - Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova - also gained independence. They cannot be unambiguously called “Western”, but none is completely “Eastern”. The typical eastern republics also separated from Russia Central Asia. And yet, at the end of the 20th century. Russia remains a Western-Eastern power.

At the turn of the millennium, the question of which path to choose again became one of the main ones in public life countries. Is it possible to copy the Western type of state and economy, or will these innovations not take root and Russia must look for its own unique path? The centuries-old dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles, which began several centuries ago, is still not over.

In 1991, supporters of market reforms and the development of democracy took the helm of the Russian economy. Most of them believed that the country should develop along the Western path, without forgetting, of course, its own characteristics. They argued that the laws of economics and sociology, like the laws of physics and chemistry, know no boundaries; and only by adopting the rules by which the prosperous West lives can the revival of Russia be achieved. However, the reforms they carried out were accompanied by a series of failures and crises, and therefore many residents of the country cooled down to the idea of ​​arranging society according to the Western model.

At the same time, both Slavophile and Eurasian ideas are popular in Russia. However, the all-Russian centuries-old dispute about the choice between the West and the East by the end of the 20th century, apparently, is gradually being resolved in favor of the West. Russia will probably become more and more European country, while maintaining a unique multinational identity.

Russian culture in the “East - West” system

Features of Russian culture were largely determined by her geopolitical situation: middle position between West and East; spatial characteristics of “distance” and “open space” as attributes of the Russian mentality; the problem of “cultural lag” of Russia in the Middle Ages.

The famous Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev noted that in Russia two streams of world history collide - the West and the East. Russian culture cannot be considered purely European or purely Asian: two principles have always fought in it - eastern and western. At different periods of its development, Russian culture borrowed the customs and traditions of different peoples: pagan deities of the Scandinavian peoples; Byzantine Christianity (Orthodoxy); French and ideas of enlightenment; language and customs of the English nobility.

One of the significant historical and cultural problems of Russia is the problem of cultural lag in the Middle Ages. TO early XVIII V. secular literature, architecture, music, philosophy and science did not exist in Russia, while Europe by this time had already created a huge body of scientific and philosophical knowledge, had experience in all areas of culture and a more progressive government structure. Young Peter I, during a trip to Europe, was struck by the difference in the way of life of Europeans and Russians.

The culture of Russia is the culture of the Russian people, which initially developed on an East Slavic basis in the form of the culture of the Old Russian people (approximately in the 8th - 13th centuries), and from the 14th century. and to the present day represented by Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian cultures proper. In this initial and most characteristic comprehension of Russian cultural self-awareness, the decisive idea is the idea of ​​temporary, local and essential unity Russian culture and about its certain originality among the cultures of other European peoples.

There are two approaches to defining the very concept of “Russian culture”. The first insists on a sharp contrast between “Rus-Ukraine” and the much later mixed cultural formation that developed in Russia proper. The second, especially gaining momentum at the present time, represents the culture of Russia as a combination of many different national cultures, one way or another connected with Russian culture itself. Both of these aspirations are to a certain extent explained by the specifics of Russian culture itself and the paths of its historical development; originality natural conditions and sociocultural environment, as well as the general flavor of the historical era.

In the Christian world, Russian culture is one of the three (along with Byzantine and Western Christian) most significant cultures.

Considering the issue about Russia's place in world history , the specifics of its own history and culture, about the uniqueness of its statehood, trying to understand and explain fancy patterns political history countries and people, very often turn to the old philosophical and historical scheme “East-West”. No matter how the initial concepts - the elements of this classical scheme. Russia is considered to belong either to the West or the East, or to have its own specifics, and therefore does not coincide with either the West or the East.

In the latter case, several independent positions are possible. For example, we can consider that Russia seems to be fluctuating between the West and the East (G.V. Plekhanov); you can declare it the great East-West or West-East (N. A. Berdyaev); one can predict her great role in the unification of the West and the East on the basis of true Christianity (young V.S. Solovyov); it can be considered as such a “third force” (the term of V.S. Solovyov), which does not directly depend on either the East or the West, forming a special world, quite comparable with the first two, although original and unique (Eurasians).

The problem “East - West - Russia” was first stated in "Philosophical letters" P. Ya. Chaadaeva, which gave rise to a debate between “Westerners” and “Slavophiles”. Considering the history of Russia, P. Ya. Chaadaev believes that it turned out to be torn out of the global historical process. Russia relies on both Europe and the East, but must combine these two principles. This “isolation” is a consequence of Russia’s adoption of Orthodoxy. The philosopher thinks. That if Catholicism in its essence is a deeply social phenomenon, then Orthodoxy cultivates in a person such qualities as obedience, humility and asceticism. Having expressed the idea that Russia could become a bridge between the West and the East, since it has the opportunity to combine in its culture both great principles of spiritual nature - reason and imagination, P. Ya. Chaadaev thereby raises the question of a “third force” in the world stories.

Like P. Ya. Chaadaev, his ideal sociocultural development seen in Western Europe Westerners, who were absolutely convinced that Russia should learn from the West and go through the same path of development. They wanted Russia to assimilate European science, culture and the fruits of centuries-old enlightenment. Westerners had little interest in religion, and if there were religious people among them, they did not see the merits of Orthodoxy and tended to exaggerate the shortcomings of the Russian Church. The optimism of the Westerners lay in the confidence that Russia would go the way of Europe, since it was already on its threshold and all the movements of European life found a response in it.

In contrast to Westerners, efforts Slavophiles were aimed at developing a Christian worldview based on the teachings of the fathers of the Eastern Church and Orthodoxy in the original form that the Russian people gave it. They idealize the historical and cultural past of Russia and the Russian national character. Slavophiles highly valued the original features of Russian culture and argued that the history and culture of Russia have developed and will develop in their own way own path, completely different from the path of Western peoples. In their opinion, Russia is called upon to heal Western Europe with the spirit of Orthodoxy and Russian social ideals, to help Europe resolve its internal and external problems in accordance with general Christian principles.

Throughout almost the entire 19th century. V research literature dominated by the idea of ​​deep and fundamental difference Russian history from the history of Western European peoples. Relying on the Hegelian triad - China, India, the Middle East - and simultaneously introducing world history Russia as its new necessary link allowed two, purely theoretical possibilities: preserving the three elements, but placing Russia as an additional link in one of them (most likely in the third, Christian - according to its main characteristic); or reducing the previous scheme to two elements and introducing a new element into the triad - Russia.

Of the theoretical possibilities presented, the second has clear theoretical priority. However, the idea of ​​Russian identity, which dominated Russian socio-philosophical thought of the 19th century, used the former, since for Russian thinkers Russia was represented, first of all, as a country of Christianity and Christian culture.

Thus, the question of Russia, its culture and place in history in relation to East - West is resolved as follows. Firstly, by indicating the Christian nature of its spiritual and cultural tradition and the European identity of the ethnic group, society and statehood (this distinguishes it from the civilizations of the East). Secondly, an indication of Orthodoxy and the coincidence of statehood and civilization due to geopolitical specifics, which distinguishes Russia from the countries of Western Europe. Purely historically Russia(together with Byzantium and Western Europe) -This is the secondary and youngest Christian civilization of the Western world.

A comparative examination of Russian culture with others, as a rule, has the goal of establishing a fundamental interaction between them, as well as overcoming, in the words of O. Spengler, the “mutual impenetrability” of closed cultures-civilizations. Such a comparison is possible at three levels: 1) national(Russian and French, Russian and Japanese culture, etc.); 2) civilizational(comparison of Russia with the civilizations of the East and Western European “Faustian” or Western European civilization); 3) typological(Russia in the context of the West and East in general).

Nationally Russian culture is one of the national European cultures, having its own special “face”, along with everyone else, starting with the ancient Hellenes, from whom the European civilizational and historical tradition comes. This specificity - its huge territory and single state Russian people, and hence the coincidence of nation and civilization.

What distinguishes Russian from eastern civilizations is Christianity and its connection with the Hellenic pan-European foundation (through Greek Byzantium); from the civilization of Western European peoples - the Orthodox character of Russian culture and the points mentioned above.

Finally, in the broadest cultural context Russia together with Western Europe is the West as opposed to the East. This determines Russia's place in the dialogue of cultures. As a geopolitical force, it has already saved European civilization twice: from the Tatar-Mongols in the Middle Ages and from its own European “plague” (fascism) in the 20th century.

But can Russia, as a spiritual force, become a “bridge” between Europe and Asia, or, moreover, between original Christianity and future spirituality on our planet, this is a big and complex issue. When considering the place and role of Russia in modern culture, two options for reasoning are acceptable: from world culture to Russian culture, and vice versa.

For modern culture characterized by two important features: cultural expansion of the West- in a situation of extreme secularization and at the same time universalization of one’s own culture; And struggle for cultural autonomy and identity in non-Western civilizations in the face of "modernization" and "Westernization".

Russian culture in modern times, and especially in the Soviet and post-Soviet era, has experienced a similar impact. Having discovered a significant desire to accept the standards of “Westernism” and “modernism”, which has twice already led to the collapse of the existing statehood and to a historical gap between Orthodoxy and culture.

To what extent does a culture oriented toward the scientistic-materialistic ideal of universality, which is internally contradictory at its core, have prospects and a future, is a question that is increasingly worrying the most serious Western thinkers. Their search - in the direction of reviving the basic values ​​of Christian culture - coincides with the efforts of those Orthodox thinkers and scientists, people of art, public figures and politicians who defend not the “originality” of Russia for its own sake, but the traditional idea for Russian culture of its fundamental spirituality.

Veronica Bode: Today our topic is East and West through the eyes of Russians. Which world do Russians consider their homeland to belong to - Eastern or Western? With which civilization is the image of an enemy most associated today? Where do the current anti-Western sentiments originate? And what trends in the development of society do the answers to these questions indicate?

Today Radio Liberty's guest is Igor Yakovenko, professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities, sociologist, cultural scientist, doctor of philosophical sciences.

I would like to start with the messages that came to our website on the Internet, to the forum. Listeners answered the question: which world, in your opinion, does Russia belong to - Western or Eastern?

Valentin from Ivanovo writes: “Towards the Western. Russia is a classic representative of Hellenic culture. Despotism is a consequence of Byzantine influence. And the nonsense - like Lenin-Stalin - is superficial, and now it’s also feigned.”

Alex from city “T”: “Which world does Russia belong to? To the world of dreams and phantoms."

Levko: “Russia, of course, belongs to the Western world. None eastern traditions impossible to find in Russian culture. To clarify, the world to which Russia belongs is the world of Marx, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Chavez and others like them. By the way, we gave birth to all of them (except Marx).

Leonid writes: “Russia will endlessly rise from its knees, holding on to the pants of Western managers. Therefore, she will go her own way, as one famous dead man said.”

Zaira from Moscow: “In spirit - to the East. Territorially – 50 to 50.”

Yuri from Mytishchi: “Vasily Ivanovich, are you for the Beatles or for the Rolling Stones?” Why is there only two options to choose from?

Philip from city N: “To Iran, North Korea, to Hugo Chavez, to the “axis of evil” against which the world is making missile defense.”

Nikolai from Moscow: “The inadmissibility of self-organization of society from below, the absolutization and lack of control of the supreme power, the strict dependence of everyone on the will of the authorities, the doomed obedience of the people, which are characteristic of eastern despotism, have always been the basis of the structure of Russia.”

Igor Grigorievich, your comment, please.

Igor Yakovenko: Well, what do we see? That there are arguments in favor of the belief that Russia is part of the West. Equally, our listeners find arguments in favor of the fact that Russia is part of the East. In general, this problem can be solved formally, say. We know that the Western world is a world of Christian civilization. Russia is predominantly a Christian country. But Christian and Ethiopia, which certainly cannot be attributed to the West. Or you can take another parameter. Most of The population of Russia is Indo-Europeans. But Indo-Europeans are the inhabitants of Iran, Pakistan, India, who also do not belong to Europe. Most of the Russian population lives in Europe. Despite the vastness of Siberia and the Trans-Urals, a minority of the population lives there. But this is a formal criterion. We are faced with a situation in which Russian citizens, not just now, but over the centuries, respond differently, and this in itself is very interesting.

Veronica Bode: Indeed, why choose only from two options? After all, there is also the idea of, say, special way Russia, about it, so to speak, special thing. And in this sense, perhaps it cannot be classified as either Western or eastern world. According to your observations, Igor Grigorievich, how popular is this opinion today?

Igor Yakovenko: You see, cultural historians have some experience, and so, all countries that are undergoing modernization go through a certain stage - they are sick with the idea of ​​​​a special path. Here “Sonderweg”, that is, “special path”, was the ideology of Germany. This is not England, not France, but it is following a special path. There was a special path, as an idea, in Zaire. And many, many countries moving towards modernization, opposing the leaders of world dynamics, copy these leaders, but at the same time try to maintain their independence, relying on a special path. I think that talking about a special path is rather an expression of a certain stage - the stage of catching up development.

Veronica Bode: Igor Grigorievich, but for Russians today the image of an enemy is still more associated with which civilization – Western or Eastern?

Igor Yakovenko: This is very interest Ask, since it is difficult to give an unambiguous answer. I think that in this regard, Russians are divided into some approximately equal groups. And here it would be useful to turn to history. Let's take the 20th century. He is before our eyes. In the 20th century, the population of Russia, at least twice as a whole, accepted the West, and there were pro-Western sentiments in Russia. The first time is the era of the First World War. In the context of the war with Austria-Hungary and Germany, Russia saw itself as part of the Western world - France, England, America, “we are all fighting these barbarians together.” And in general, there were very strongly expressed pro-Western sentiments in the country. Bolshevik revolution. And what’s curious is that after this revolution this idea of ​​unity with the West does not disappear immediately, it is revived in new form world revolution and so on. But somewhere around the 1930s, Comrade Stalin’s idea of ​​building socialism in a single country wins, and honest, powerful isolationism wins.

Go ahead. Second World War. And again, a certain pro-Western idea is emerging in the country as a whole. Our allies are the British. I remember Soviet records With English songs and lots and lots of funny stuff. But Russia sees itself as part of this world, opposing German fascism. It ended very quickly, quickly ended, this line was broken.

Then in the same twentieth century, at the end Soviet period, at the beginning of perestroika one could notice very powerfully expressed pro-Western sentiments: “we are returning to Europe,” “we are returning to ourselves, to the free world.” Let us note that 5-7-8 years passed – and these pro-Western sentiments began to give way to a completely different attitude towards the West. There have always been Westerners in Russia - narrow circle, narrower, less narrow, English Club. But in general, the attitude towards the West cannot be positive for long, as history shows us.

Veronica Bode: Why do you think?

Igor Yakovenko: Well, that's a tough question. But if you try to answer as briefly as possible, the situation is as follows. Russia inherits ideologically such Byzantium. Byzantium or the Orthodox, Eastern Roman Empire, thought of itself as another Europe. This is not Catholic Europe, not Rome, but it is Byzantium. And this is another Christian project. As we know, this project collapsed in the middle of the 15th century. It was simply conquered, this very Byzantium. And Russia intercepted the ideas of the Third Rome and took over this project. Somewhere in the 19th century, Slavophiles actively supported the idea of ​​​​another Europe. It is curious that in the communist edition this idea of ​​“another Europe”, another alternative to the West, was revived. But by the end of the twentieth century, as we know, it too failed. But, apparently, the idea that we, if the West, in the sense, are the Christian world, then we are something else relative to the present, the West itself, is very strongly rooted in the Russian consciousness.

Veronica Bode: Speaking about the 20th century and the surges of pro-Western sentiment, for some reason you did not mention the 1960s, with their hipsters, passion for jazz, and Western culture. Why?

Igor Yakovenko: Quite deliberately. After all, within these periods there were separate groups that included, yes, indeed, the “sixties” of the twentieth century. Vasily Aksenov, dudes - all this was completely Western. But let's put our hand on our hearts: was it a national, so to speak, general phenomenon or was it one of the subcultures? This, of course, was one of the intelligentsia, urban subcultures, and not only did the authorities suppress it, but the broad masses did not accept it either.

Veronica Bode: Messages about listeners. Olga from Moscow: “If you could just live in peace with the West and the East, with strangers, without putting racial labels on them, and finally, in peace with yourself, then you wouldn’t have to rack your brains, answering your question, the answer to which is, in fact, it cannot be.”

Yana writes: “The Moscow public dresses outwardly brightly, expensively, with oriental sophistication - cannot be compared with European simplicity. At the same time, Europeans and Americans are polite, they give up their seats on the subway, do not pile on top of each other, and do not create “heaps and cramps.” Moscow is the East, definitely.”

Elena from Europe: “The Moscow public is much more reminiscent, for example, of Istanbul than of Stockholm. Of course, Russia is the Eastern world.”

Unsigned message: “The word “Slavs” itself contains the root “slave” - “slaves.” In Europe, official slavery ended with Ancient Rome. He remained in the East for a long time. Slaves cannot dream of freedom, they do not know it, slaves can only dream of becoming slave owners.”

Nikolai Kuznetsov from Moscow: “Russia is multinational and multi-structured, but the order established by the Mongols found fertile soil in it and settled firmly. No wonder in medieval Europe all Muscovites were called Tatars. The Tatar essence of the Russian soul was also noticed by Napoleon, who was distinguished by his extraordinary sharpness of mind.”

Igor Yakovenko: Indeed, the Moscow public is rather closer to the Istanbul audience. I imagine an Istanbul street and the public that walks along it. This observation is certainly true. What does this mean? Russia is a complex phenomenon. It has pronounced oriental features. How they got here, how they gained a foothold is the next, very interesting question. But let us note that at the beginning of the 17th century in Russia, five people knew Latin, and it was the language of international communication. Of these, in my opinion, there were three Poles, two Lithuanians - and all that is typical. And the Tatar language was the language of the Russian elite in the 13th century - XIV centuries, in the 15th century. Well, one foreign language which they owned. And we must remember this.

Veronica Bode: And now I propose to listen to the voices of Russians. “Should Russia prevent the rapprochement of Ukraine and Georgia with NATO?” residents of Pskov answer a question from Radio Liberty.

Definitely. Because, firstly, it is directly near our border, and secondly, it is still a real threat to our country.

What does it mean to obstruct?.. Ukraine is a sovereign state, and this is their right.

I think so. Because our borders are close. All the same, we all depend on the fact that our country and Ukraine are nearby. And if they join, then somehow it will affect us.

Of course not. Let them join. It's their business.

I have a personal opinion - I am against joining NATO, because this is a bloc that is our enemy. The word is so powerful... We don't need it.

I think yes. Why do we need these enemies nearby?.. Cut off their gas, make some kind of embargo, break off all relations with them, and then set our own conditions.

She must strengthen her boundaries and try to have friends, not enemies, around her boundaries.

There is no need to hinder them, let them go. I think they will try, get enough of NATO and understand from their own experience what NATO is. Ukrainian people- these are the Slavs, these are their own people, the Orthodox, who are not inclined to become a face of the West, of this civilization that brings destruction with it.

Igor Grigorievich, in this survey, anti-Western sentiments are very clearly manifested. What exactly caught your attention?

Igor Yakovenko: First of all, if we remember, it was mainly older people who were against it. And, judging by the voice, traditional culture and a certain level of education are enough. And the arguments “for” were expressed by young people. This is the first thing that is interesting.

Second. Here the following considerations were voiced: Ukraine is Slavic. But the Bulgarians are also Slavic, Orthodox. And Romanians are Orthodox. This doesn't work today. For some reason we are not surprised that the Czechs are in NATO and other countries. But with Ukraine it’s different. And this is already a conversation about imperial consciousness. These are deeper things, of a different order.

Veronica Bode: But the last statement “this world that brings destruction with it” means the Western world...

Igor Yakovenko: Well, this is a very stable ideologeme, and it has existed for a long time: East - creation, West - destruction. Why have we been catching up with this West for centuries? I don’t understand, since it is being destroyed!

Veronica Bode: I will continue to read messages from listeners. Georgy from St. Petersburg: “The answer is absolutely clear: we are Europeans! For someone who has traveled our Russia from West to East and visited China, there can be no other opinion.”

Nikolai from Ulyanovsk: “Our rulers are frightened to flirt with the East, but look to the West with hope.”

Tanya from Moscow: “Russians want to live like in the West, enjoying all the benefits of Western civilization, but at the same time behave like “wild Asians.” But that doesn't happen. That’s why there is no normal life.”

And Ilya from Kazan: “While we think about which world we belong to, we will be overtaken both from the West and from the East. Which, in general, has already happened.”

Igor Yakovenko: Here I was attracted by two opinions. What Tanya wrote is very important, in my opinion: that we want to live according to Western standards, leaving behind some Eastern habits - optionality and much more, to live the way we are used to. It doesn't happen that way. If we want Western standards, then we need to change ourselves. This is a true and indisputable judgment.

But the conversation that (this has already been said in previous statements) while we think about whether we are West or East, someone will overtake us is not entirely the right position. In order to respond to the challenges of the era, it is important to understand who we are. This does not interfere with modernization, does not interfere with the complexity of the world, the construction of a new one, but helps. We need to know who we are, and then it will be easier for us to solve the problems of today and tomorrow.

Veronica Bode: And what is the West in general in the understanding of Russians, according to your observations? How closely are myths and reality intertwined here? And what are the myths?

Igor Yakovenko: Well, Russians are not united, and you and I can see this now, how the audience is scattered into more or less equal halves. For some, the West is a place where there is a tidy life, guarantees of individual rights, dynamics, and progress. And for others, the West is an entity that brings danger and destruction. The simplest thing is to blame it on Soviet propaganda. We know that NATO and imperialism Soviet people scared for 70 years. I think the problem is deeper, because attitudes towards the West were complex in both the 19th and 18th centuries. And the point here is not only about confessional confrontations between Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but these are some even deeper things related to the fact that the West has chosen a historical strategy, a strategy of life that is different from what Russia chose. Note that Russia itself has never changed. It changes under the influence of external circumstances. Our ideal is a calm stay in an unchanging world. And the West is dynamic, and this is its nature. The rejection of the West is the rejection of a dynamic society by a stable, statically oriented society.

Veronica Bode: Well, now let's turn to the East. The same question: what is included in this concept?

Igor Yakovenko: Well, strictly speaking, the East is terribly heterogeneous, because the Islamic East, India or China are completely different things. The West is much more holistic and united.

Veronica Bode: I mean - from the point of view of the Russian, let’s say, the average, not the elite.

Igor Yakovenko: The fact is that, starting with Peter I, Russia is always trying to catch up with the West, so the West is significant. But they know little about the East. This is something generalized that we laugh at: we easily fought with them, easily defeated them, ousted Turkey, say, from the Black Sea coast, and looked down on the East in general. It is not differentiated, it is incomprehensible as a whole, well, something like the Turks, something like the Chinese. Moreover, we easily confuse Turkey with China, Persia with Pakistan.

Veronica Bode: Igor Grigorievich, what information about Russians, about their social consciousness, does this attitude towards the West and the East, or the assignment of Russia in one direction or another, give us?

Igor Yakovenko: This suggests that Russia has not decided as a whole, as a society, on some fundamental issue: is it choosing a European development strategy and a strategy of existence, or is it ready to follow the East. But she doesn’t really imagine the East either. Russia simply has not decided on its future. And she hasn’t decided because she doesn’t understand her present.

Veronica Bode: But which world does today's Russian prefer - Eastern or Western? Let's just say, which world does he accept more and why? Religion, social system - to what extent are they criteria here?

Igor Yakovenko: The fact is that formally Orthodoxy is part of the Christian world, of course. But this is a special part, and we have already talked about it. As for the social system, the West declares the values ​​of parliamentary democracy, which, as we know, are very difficult to take root in Russia and very painful to establish. So this is where problems arise. Economic freedom in Russia, too, as we see, is included in a complex way in the situation of a market economy. Therefore, for now we are witnessing the difficult and painful experience of incorporating Western models and Western values ​​into the world.

Veronica Bode: And now we bring to your attention the section “System of Concepts”. Today’s guest of the column is Boris Dubin, head of the department of socio-political research at the Levada Center. He will talk about such a concept as “culture” in sociology.

Boris Dubin: Firstly, for a sociologist, culture is a certain resource for understanding social action. A sociologist deals with social actions and interactions, with their stable forms, and he is interested in the extent to which specific meanings are involved in these forms of action. That is, for a sociologist, culture is a resource for interpreting social actions and social forms. But at the same time, the sociologist cannot forget that, after all, the word “culture” in the European tradition from the end of approximately the 18th century and throughout the 19th century was an extremely loaded term, and, above all, in Germany, in German philosophy and in the German social sciences , but also more widely – in European ones. Because culture was some kind of program in its new meaning, not reducible to the ancient, to the Latin, in the new meaning - a program for building modern society. And the sphere of culture included meanings that worked for this modernization program, which, firstly, raised a person, that is, helped him to be an independent being, helped, as Kant said, to walk the earth without the help of authority. Secondly, they directed him to increasingly complex, increasingly high-quality behavior, thinking, action, that is, they were such a mechanism for self-improvement within the person himself. Thirdly, these are meanings that were directed beyond any specific groups of people. Culture belongs to no one, it unites everyone. And fourth and last. Culture is what is embodied in practical action, with all its ideality. Therefore, people of enlightenment, therefore romantics, with all their dreaminess, armchairism, idealization of life, and so on, they were great practitioners, great administrators. And they gave birth new type schools, a new type of university, a new type of mental clinic, a new type of literature, if you like, because they constantly brought these meanings of culture into real, practical, collective action.

Therefore, today I would talk about “culture-1” - this is a kind of objectivist understanding: culture as meanings involved in collective action and interaction. And the second, so to speak, “culture-2” is some increased quality these meanings, their special focus on uniting people, directing them to higher goals and helping them in practical action.