'Russian ideas' evolution in the 'classical' eurasism philosophy ; 'Rusijos idėjos' evoliucija 'klasikinio' eurazizmo filosofijoje (1920-1929)
33
pages
Documents
2011
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
33
pages
Documents
2011
Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe Tout savoir sur nos offres
VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITYTHE LITHUANIAN INSTITUTE OF CULTURE RESEARCHAndrius Martinkus„RUSSIAN IDEAS“ EVOLUTION IN THE „CLASSICAL“ EURASISM PHILOSOPHY (1920-1929)Summary of Doctoral DissertationHumanities, Philosophy (01 H)Kaunas 2010The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with The Lithuanian Institute of Culture Research on July 15, by the desision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania.The work was performed at Vytautas Magnus University in 2006-2010.Scientific SupervisorProf. Habil. Dr. Bronislovas GENZELIS (Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)Council of Defense of Doctoral Dissertation:Chaiman:Prof. Dr. Dalius JONKUS (Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Members:Prof. Habil. Dr. Antanas ANDRIJAUSKAS (The Lithuanian Institute of Culture Research, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)Prof. Habil. Dr. Bronislavas KUZMICKAS (Mykolas Romeris University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)Prof. Habil. Dr. Tomas SODEIKA (Kaunas University of Technology, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)Doc. Dr. Aldis GEDUTIS (University of Klaipėda, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)Opponents:Prof. Habil. Dr. Jūratė BARANOVA (Vilniaus Pedagogical University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)Prof. Habil. Dr.
Voir
VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY THE LITHUANIAN INSTITUTE OF CULTURE RESEARCH
Andrius Martinkus
„RUSSIAN IDEAS“ EVOLUTION IN THE „CLASSICAL“ EURASISM PHILOSOPHY (1920-1929)
Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, Philosophy (01 H)
Kaunas 2010
The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with The Lithuanian Institute of Culture Research on July 15, by the desision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The work was performed at Vytautas Magnus University in 2006-2010.
Scientific Supervisor Prof. Habil. Dr.Bronislovas GENZELIS(Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Council of Defense of Doctoral Dissertation: Chaiman: Prof. Dr.Dalius JONKUSMagnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)(Vytautas Members: Prof. Habil. Dr.Antanas ANDRIJAUSKAS(The Lithuanian Institute of Culture Research, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Prof. Habil. Dr.Bronislavas KUZMICKAS(Mykolas Romeris University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Prof. Habil. Dr.Tomas SODEIKA(Kaunas University of Technology, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Doc. Dr.Aldis GEDUTIS(University of Klaipėda, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Opponents: Prof. Habil. Dr.Jūratė BARANOVA(Vilniaus Pedagogical University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Prof. Habil. Dr.Gintautas MAŽEIKIS(Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) The official defense of the dissertation will be held at 14 o‘clock on December 17th, 2010, at Vytautas Magnus University, in the Faculty of Humanities, auditorium of Marija Gimbutienė (211 a.) Adress: Donelaičio 52, 44244 Kaunas, Lithuania.
The dissertation is available at the M.Mažvydas Library, and also at the Libraries of Vytautas Magnus University and the Lithuanian Institute of Culture Research
VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS LIETUVOS KULTŪROS TYRIMŲ INSTITUTAS
Andrius Martinkus
„RUSIJOS IDĖJOS“ EVOLIUCIJA „KLASIKINIO“ EURAZIZMO FILOSOFIJOJE
Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija (01 H)
Kaunas 2010
Doktorantūros ir daktaro laipsnių teikimo teisė suteikta Vytauto Didžiojo universitetui kartu su Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutu 2003 m. liepos 15 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimu Nr. 926. Disertacija parašyta Vytauto Didžiojo universitete 2006-2010 metais. Mokslinis vadovas Prof. Habil. Dr.Bronislovas GENZELIS(Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Disertacijos gynimo taryba: Pirmininkas: Prof. Dr.Dalius JONKUS(Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Nariai: Prof. Habil. Dr.Antanas ANDRIJAUSKAS(Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Prof. Habil. Dr.Bronislavas KUZMICKAS(Mykolo Romerio universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Prof. Habil. Dr.Tomas SODEIKA(Kauno Technologijos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Doc. Dr.Aldis GEDUTIS(Klaipėdos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H)
Oponentai: Prof. Habil. Dr.Jūratė BARANOVA(Vilniaus Pedagoginis universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Prof. Habil. Dr.Gintautas MAŽEIKIS(Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H)
Disertacija bus ginama viešame gynimo tarybos posėdyje, kuris įvyks 2010 metų gruodžio 17 dieną, 14 valandą Vytauto Didžiojo universitete, Humanitarinių mokslų fakultete, Marijos Gimbutienės auditorijoje (211 a.) Adresas: Donelaičio 52, 44244 Kaunas, Lietuva. Disertacijos santrauka išsiųsta 2010 m. lapkričio ...... d. Su disertacija galima susipažinti Lietuvos nacionalinėje M.Mažvydo, Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto bei Lietuvos kultūros tyrimų instituto bibliotekose.
Substantiation of the dissertation’s problem One of the results of the Russian Revolution in 1917 was a huge emigration wave to the West (firstly to Middle and Western Europe) which threw away about two millions citizens of the former empire. There were the members of so called „White Movement“ and also those who could not accept Bolsheviks who won the civil war and usurped the government in the country. A big part of Russian cultural elite has emigrated or was banished by Soviet government: they were famous scientists, philosophers, artists, public figures. Russian Revolution was an unprecedented social experiment. We can say without exaggeration that Russian „cultural exile“ in its massiveness was one of the biggest in the world’s history. The bigger part of Russian culture of the XX century, its „Silver Age moved to the West. “ As for all emigrants the communist regime with all its crimes was not pleasant but the emigrants could not decide upon the price, which might be paid for the collapse of the communist government. The most part of the emigrants tended not to make any compromises with the communist regime. „Destruction of the Bolshevik regime justify any means“, – its the way to describe its position. But there were other opinion. They were represented by so called „post-revolutionary movements“. Despite Smenovehovcy (сменовеховцы), Eurasians (евразийцы), Young Russia (младороссы) and other differences of post-revolutionary movements, they all had firm conviction that the restitution ofancien régimein Russia was unacceptable and impossible. By refusing to thoughts of external intervention or internal counter-revolution, post-revolutionary movements affirmed that the future in Russia must be created not on the backgrounds of emigrants’ illusions and nostalgia but on the basics of actual Russian present, its real condition which may be adjusted but it may not be canceled. If the main news sent to the emigrants by Smenovehovcy (according to the collection of articles„Смена вех“ – „Change of directions“) was simply the invitation stoically resign with defeat and go to the Soviet government „to Canossa“ (it was the title of one of the articles) not to lose any opportunity to take part in the creation of the real future of Russia (because the future of Russia is created in Russia but not in Paris cafes). These texts of four Russian authors of the articles collection issued in 1921 in Sophia „Ixodus to the East“ („Исход к Востоку“) by linguist Duke Nikolai Trubetzkoy (1890-1938), art critic and publicist Petr Suvchinsky (1892-1985), theologian and philosopher Georges Frolovsky (1893-
1979) and economist and geographer Petr Savicky (1893-1979) were the beginning of distinctive intellectual and political flow in Russian emigration so called the movement of Eurasians and according to American historian M. Raeff „the only innovative (not taking into consideration its syncretism) historical-philosophical doctrine which appeared in Russian emigration“. Russia was facing a huge disaster. It needed „nonstandard“ intellectual response. Eurasians response was the drastic transcription of Russian history according to which the beginning of Russian self-dependence tradition was denoted not the period of Kiev Russia but so called Tatar-Mongol yoke – Russia was treated as the descendant of a huge Tatar-Mongol empire „inheritor of Genghis Khan“, consolidator of Eurasia. The „Mongol philosophy“ of Eurasians and the radical devaluation of the role of Peter I (Eurasians considered Russian westernization which was started by Peter I the ruinous choice of civilization which ended in revolution in 1917) provoked a lively discussion among emigrants and such famous philosophers and historians as N. Berdyaev, I. Ilyin, F.Stepun, S.Gessen, V.Zenkovsky, P.Bicilli (firstly collaborated with Eurasians) P.Miliukov, A.Kizevetter, L.Karsavin (he became one of the leaders of this movement in 1925 and played a fateful role in the intellectual history of the movement). The most part of Russian emigration was unfavorable to Eurasians (saw the sympathy to Bolsheviks). However there was also many who saw a productive rethink opportunity of „Russian idea“ in Eurasians Project. The second decade of the XX century was the prosperity period of the movement. In 1929 a foreseen split in the movement took place into „Orthodox” („right”) and „left” („pro-soviet”) flank. The fourth decade of the previous century was the period of gradual decay of Eurasians movement. On the eve of the Second World War the movement ceased to exist. The short and dramatic history of Eurasians movement the former member of it (V. Ilyin) described as „degeneration of ‘Russian idea’ to the Kremlin mafia universal ideal of hegemony”. Eurasians idea got into Russian history of historiosophy as the attempt of “Russian idea” radicalization, dangerously balancing between reality and ideal, fact and value, existence and obligation. This dissertation is an attempt to touch the intellectual tension which was the driving force of Eurasians mind and which at last “blew” that idea from inside.
The object of dissertation „Russian idea” in Eurasians philosophy was developed as various more or less interdependent topics complex – historiosophic, religious, political, social and national. Various circumstances determined that „Russian idea” in Eurasians philosophy (especially in the period of 1920 – 1929) suffered huge transformation. The research object is „Russian idea” evolution in the texts of „classic” eurasism.
The aim, goals and method of the dissertation The aimis to analyze the evolution of „Russian idea” inof this dissertation the philosophy of „classical” (1920 – 1929) Eurasians philosophy. To meet this aim it is necessary to perform thesegoals: ·To assign basic transformation stages of „Russian idea” in Eurasians philosophy and to define their chronological boundaries. ·To exclude main components of „Russian idea” in Eurasians philosophy, to analyze their philosophical content and localize them in the idea transformation stages. ·To analyze the separate Eurasians authors input into the different components of „Russian idea” development and also relationship between their active action in the Eurasians movement and „Russian idea” transformation stages. The methodological basisthis dissertation consists of scientific literatureof analysis lead by critical philosophical reflection, historic reconstruction, comparative analysis of Eurasians sources and interdisciplinary (philosophy, history, culturology, theory of politics) access enabling to reconstruct complex and contradictory „Russian idea” transformation. The interdisciplinary nature of the object determined that the work is balancing at the boundaries of several humanitarian fields (firstly philosophy, history, culture studies and theory of politics).
Dissertation’s novelty and actuality In post-soviet Russia the interest in „classic” Eurasians ideas live their renaissance. The „eurasian“ works of N. Trubetzkoy, P. Savicky, N. Alekseev are issued newly in special books. Even some anthologies of „classic” Eurasians texts are issued. Many reports have been written in scientific (and also philosophical) periodic. There are
appearing monographes analyzing the works of Eurasians. More than thirty dissertations are on the topics of „eurasism” are kept in Russian state library. It is discussed on the topic of „neoeurasism” for some years which is firstly connected with the personality of Aleksandr Dugin. But the simplifying view should be avoided. Modern neoeurasism is very colorful phenomenon. The researcher encounters even several its trends which relationship with „classic” eurasism (1920-1930) heritage is very different. But nevertheless we have to admit that A. Dugin figure in the contexts of modern neoeurasism takes a very special place. Precisely to his feather belongs the introductory and final word in the selection of N. Trubetzkoy, P. Savicky and N. Alekseev. Generally though „Dugin doctrine” exploited the classical eurasian heritage very much (to be precise, some of the segments suitable to Dugin) but also it moves far apart from him. Some of the researchers emphasizes „recoverable function” which Eurasians doctrine fulfils in the consciousness of the part of Russian society (firstly those who revitalizes Eurasians ideology). As in 1920ths, eurasism today has to recover this loss. While reinterpreting Russian history classical eurasism aspired to explain (and vindicate) „Silver Age” and all collapse of Peter I founded „Petersburg Russia“. The fact which has to be recovered by nowadays eurasism is the collapse of the Soviet Union. „Who does not pity because of the collapse of the Soviet Union has not got a heart”, -neourasism could sign after these Vladimir Putin words. Even one of the „academic” (the most moderate) leaders of neoeurasism (A. Panarin) says that „the main question of eurasian topic is (...) the question of the perspective of the restitution of post-soviet space unity“. I believe that there is enough these remarks that the elevation of „eurasian topic” in the „post-soviet space” which is called „Lithuania” will be accepted as actual. But not only geopolitical neoeurasism intentions determine the actuality of this dissertation. Recently we mentioned the millennium of Lithuania name. It is written in Kvedlinburg annals that St. Bruno was killed on the boarder of Russia and Lithuania. Since its stepping into historic stage, into so called „historic nations” family Lithuania looking for its identity could never ignore Russian factor. The definition of Lithuanian identity to cap it all always required some forms or other response to its question what is Lithuania in Russia aspect. Obviously the search of Russian national self-awareness begins with the question what is Russia in the context of the world. In this context
eurasism is a part of tradition of search of Russian national identity and Russian state identity. Vladimir Solovjov wrote that „nations idea is not what the nation thinks about itself in time but that what God thinks about it in eternity“. However it is important to the neighbours to know what they think about theirselves in time. In this sense historical studies of „Russian idea” may serve for the better understanding of Lithuanian national identity. On the other hand the history of „classic“ eurasism through V. Sezeman and L. Karsavin is connected with interwar period Lithuania. Especially bright the figure of L. Karsavin, who played more than significant role in the transformation of eurasism. It can be affirmed that Kaunas was one of the main (aside with Paris and London where P. Suvchinsky and D. Sviatopolk-Mirsky lived) centers of generation the „left“ eurasism ideas in 1928-1929. Karsavin was the most productive author of the weekly newspaper „Eurasia” issued in Paris. So the beginning of „Lithuanian” period of this philosopher is marked by his participation in Eurasian movement – this „European culture history” author’s activity aspect (deepening into which sometimes shows not very attractive features of Karsavin’s intellectual portrait who has a definite merit to the young Lithuanian state in general and philosophical intellectual culture) was very little researched in Lithuania. We may analyze various aspects of Eurasians philosophical heritage. Modern scholars attracts attention to Eurasians social, political, economic philosophy, teaching about personality (personology), historiosophy and even geosophy. But the philosophical mindhistoryby itself is relatively little studied. As the editors of N. Trubetzkoy’s letters to P. Suvchinsky note, „despite the abundance of publications the detailed history of the movement is not written and even the chronology of Eurasians movement is not made“. The Eurasians thought transformation by itself is not described in detail. The holistic point of view to Eurasians world outlook dominates in eurasism research. It is interpreted as entire set as a finished spiritual phenomena. O.Bӧss’, M.Laruelle, V. Paschenko studies are written in such way. Such opinion obviously is quite rightful and has its inner logics. The aim of Eurasians indeed was to complete entire and finished ideology, cohesive system of ideas which may be opposed to Bolshevik-Marxist ideology. Such entity is seen in collective work in 1926 and in the program document „Eurasism: attempt of systematic exposition“ but eurasism as
finished and bright ideas set as the real meaning of this word „system“ always was left as an aspiration which never was (and never could be) realized in practice. Mentioned authors recognize to be the contradiction in eurasism. But Eurasian thoughtdinamics, tension between different conceptions, inner conflict in the movement’s interior which reason was the different personalities of the movement‘s members in different stages of movement evolution playing different role generating „eurasian thought“ are not fully reflected. This dissertation is the attempt „personally“ to read eurasism , to deepen into the life of eurasian thought and to disclose the dinamics of this thought.
The structure of dissertation Dissertation consists of three parts: 1)Ideological context of eurasism, Eurasians movement periodisation and the problem of eurasism sources; 2)„Russian idea“ in „pre-systematic” Eurasians philosophy (1920-1924); 3)„Russian idea in “ „systematic“ Eurasians philosophy (1925-1929). The first part consists of three chapters: 1.1Ideological context of eurasism; 1.2The problem of eurasism sources; 1.3The problem of periodisation of Eurasians movement history. In the first chapter the Eurasians movement is localized in European and Russian contexts. In the second the concepts „eurasian text” content is analyzed. In the third it is presented periodisation of ideological history of Eurasians movement determining the future structure of the dissertation. The second part is divided into five chapters: 2.1The critics of Eurocentrism and the birth of Russia – Eurasia idea; 2.2Reflections on the Russian Revolution(with the sections: 2.2.1 Genesis of the Revolution; 2.2.2 Evaluation of the Revolution; 2.2.3 The belief in the future of Russia); 2.3The unity of Russia – Eurasia the sections: 2.3.1 Geographical (with unity; 2.3.2 Political unity; 2.3.3 The unity of economical space; 2.3.4 The unity of Russian Eurasian culture); –
2.4Orthodoxy as the background of Russia – Eurasia. (with the sections: 2.4.1 The critics of Catholicism and the problem of Christian universalism; 2.4.2 The „Household confession“ idea); 2.5Personality and freedom. One of the main „eurasian thought“ sources – anti-western – character is analyzed in the first chapter but also there showed how the beginning of Eurasians movement history was complex and contradictory and also marked with tension and competition between different „power lines“ in „eurasian thought” represented by Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Petr Savicky and Georges Frolovsky. The fundamental topic of Eurasians contemplation – Russian Revolution topics – spread in eurasian discourse is analyzed in the second chapter; competition between different „power lines” there had fatal influence for the evolution of „Russian idea” in Eurasians philosophy. Various aspects of Russia – Eurasia (as between interconnected systems) conception in Eurasians contemplation are analyzed in the third chapter. Orthodoxy as one of the main components of „Russian idea” in Eurasians philosophy problematic is analyzed in the fourth chapter. One of the main „Russian idea” transformations in Eurasians philosophy determining the spread of topics in the first ideological historical stage of the movement is analyzed in the fifth chapter. The second part of the dissertation is finished with the generalization of „Russian idea” in the first Eurasians movement ideological development stage“. The third part of the dissertation also divided into five chapters: 3.1The personal composition change of the movement; 3.2„Russian idea” as the idea of Russian statehood(with the sections: 3.2.1 The heritage of Genghis Khan: reinterpretation of Russian history; 3.2.2 Russia – Eurasia as „development place“: geopolitical aspect of eurasism;; 3.2.3 Ideocracy and „Pravda“ state; 3.2.4 The philosophy of „subordinate economy“); 3.3The contribution of Lev Karsavin into „Russian idea” transformation in Eurasians philosophy the sections: 3.3.1 The world as theophany; 3.3.2 The (with theory of symphonic personality; 3.3.3 Russia and Europe: culture confrontation or dialogue?);
3.4Towards the reconciliation with communist reality; 3.5The newspaper „Eurasia” and split of Clamart.
