Ideas and Ideals

The article discusses the problem of the relationship between history and memory as two independent forms of using the past within the framework of P. Ricoeur’s philosophy. The value of Ricoeur’s approach lies in the fact that he analyzes this problem at different levels, starting with the essence and mechanisms of work of both phenomena. The analysis of the interrelation and rivalry between history and memory allows us to take a fresh look at the problem of the referentiality of historical texts, namely, to shift the focus from the gap between the sign and the referent to their necessary connection. On the basis of the phenomenology of memory proposed by Ricoeur, it is possible to organize various forms of reference to the past. As forms of saving experience, history and memory carry a fundamental claim to truth, despite the fact that in both cases the image of the past is produced by the imagination. Imagination can be visualizing (allowing to see) or derealizing (cutting off from reality), therefore both memory and history need ways to verify this claim to truth. For memory, this way is recognizing, which is a subjectively experienced sensation, and for history it is the possibility of a permanent revision of its constructions in a process that Ricoeur calls standing for (représentance (Fr.)). These ways must remain autonomous, allowing both to realize its function. For memory, this is the keeping of the identity, the continuity of the subject, and for history, it is the implementation of a critical assessment and reorganization of experience, which is constantly enriched with new challenges and new data. Recognition of the memory independence restrains some actors usurping access to the past so far as they believe only they have the correct memory. History, on the other hand, through critical procedures, performs a corrective function and treats the past as the claim to truth, despite the subjectivity of memory.

The article considers the problems of historiography of the reception by the Russian cultural space of elements of political ideas that are characteristic of Western European education in the 18^th century. The author analyzes the sources, main stages and ways of forming historiography of reception of the ideas of Western European enlightenment. It is noted that its formation is inextricably linked with the process of formation of the Russian state culture and national ideology.

In this context, the views of prerevolutionary, soviet and post soviet historians are examined: V.O. Klyuchevsky, P.N. Milyukov, S.F. Platonov and others. The author studied the peculiarities of the process of perception by the Russian intellectual space of Enlightenment ideas. It is emphasized that with the collapse of the Marxist research paradigm, a qualitative leap in the development of the historiography of the Russian Enlightenment took place, which, however, did not end with the emergence of an integral concept of the process of reception of elements of the West European Enlightenment in Russia. The author shows the differences in explanatory constructions in prerevolutionary, soviet, post – soviet historiography. There is a marked increase in the current need to create a complete reconstruction of the reception in all areas of humanitarian knowledge.

The author believes that the prevailing approaches among humanities make it impossible to move to a new level of historical description of the problem.

The article considers: discreteness of the problems of reception of the ideologies of Western European education, the absence in their studies of elements of the analysis of cultural prerequisites for the formation of Russian Enlightenment, ignoring the fact that the emergence of a modern ideology on Russian soil should have been preceded by the process of forming terminological tools. It is concluded that the prerevolutionary, soviet, post – soviet historiographic tradition does not contain elements of transformation of elemental space which prepared the perception of the ideas of European enlighteners by Russian culture. In the array of Russian historiography, there were only certain elements that could become the basis of a new historical approach. It is concluded that for the development of historiography of the problem, it is necessary to create an interdisciplinary, comprehensive research paradigm that affects the linguistic, cultural, historical and politico-ideological aspects of the problem.

The article deals with the problem of interrelation of Eurasian and Slavophil teachings on the basis of discursive analysis. In modern Russian scientific literature it is widely believed that the Eurasians developed the philosophical views of the early and late Slavophils. The author of the article believes that this opinion is wrong. Critics of Eurasianism of the 20-30s of the last century, among whom there were many representatives of Russian religious philosophy, decisively denied the Eurasians the right to call themselves successors of the religious and philosophical tradition of the early Slavophils. Foreign researchers also don’t have a unanimous opinion on this issue. This is largely due to the lack of clear criteria by which a particular set of ideas can be included in the Eurasian tradition or excluded from it. The specificity of the Eurasian doctrine is revealed only in the field of the Eurasian discourse itself. And only within this field is the problem of the presence or absence of ideological continuity between the Slavophils and the Eurasians solved. Eurasian discourse is an integral part of the philosophical discourse about Russia, which is structurally formed around the problem of the world-historical meaning of its existence in the coordinates “East – West”. Eurasian discourse is a complex of different in form and scattered in time statements relating to the problem of ethno-cultural and socio-cultural synthesis of the Eastern Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Turkic-Mongolian cultural worlds in the space of Northern Eurasia. The application of discursive analysis to this problem clearly proves that the Slavophils were not the precursors of Eurasianism. Representatives of modern neo-Eurasianism see the traditional relationship between Slavophiles and Eurasians in the concept of L. Karsavin's “symphonic personality”. However, careful analysis proves that the similarity between the Slavophil concept of “conciliarity” and the concept of “symphonic personality” is purely external. For the Slavophils, “conciliarity” was revealed as the mystical property of the Church to achieve unity without formal legal procedures on the basis of free Christian consent and brotherly love. Eurasians also used this concept to justify the political dictatorship of a small group of oligarchs, expressing the opinion of a ruling stratum, united by a common ideology. Thus, the concept of “symphonic personality” was the complete opposite of the Slavophil concept of “conciliarity”.

The paper analyzes the reasons of violence involving a high level of the risk of life among irregular troops – ethno-social groups possessing means of violence (elites or communities claiming the elite status). Besides, the author examines factors that influence preferring one of the two alternative strategies relating the interaction between irregular troops and the state power – rebellion or loyalty. The analysis is based on comparing two contrastive cases – the Cossacks inhabiting the Southeast Europe (“Wild Fields”) and the Cossacks inhabiting Siberia, in particular, the Amur River basin in the 17^th century. The author considers the interaction of the above mentioned social groups of the Cossacks with the administrations of their states and neighboring countries (Russia, the Crimean Khanate, the Ottoman Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the case of “Wild Fields”, Russia and China in the case of the Amur River). Don Cossacks as well as Zaporozhian Cossacks initiated large scale revolts in the 17^th century whereas Siberian Cossacks showed loyalty to the Czar's Government and even sacrifice and heroism defending the interests of Russian state, as was the case with the siege of the Russian fort Albazin in 1685 and in 1686–87 by the Manchu troops. The macrohistorical approach is used as the main research method. The sources of hypothetical explanations are theories of the impact of the environment on thought and behavior of individuals and their communities, structural-demographic theory and the theory of exchanges. The analysis has shown that violence involving a high level of the risk of life among irregular troops is due to the impact of several factors of geopolitical, institutional and demographic origin. First, the competition between several states for the sustainable control over disputed areas when none of the competing states is able to establish this control creates “frontiers” – territories with undefined borders characterized by the deficit of the monopoly on violence and the lack of state institutions. These regions became attractive for individuals possessing the means of violence. Second, increasing competition on geopolitical markets as well as growing dependence of Cossacks wellbeing on the payments from state treasury motivate them to demonstrate their fight skills, courage, persistence as a kind of bargaining with the government for salary and recognition of their status as state servants. The strategy of rebellion was used when the irregular troops were able to build coalitions with others social groups whereas the strategy of loyalty was chosen in case of lacking potential allies.

The authors of the article set a task to identify the extent to which Eurasian ideology has influenced G. V. Vernadsky scientific research. In the 20 – 30s, Vernadsky acted as a historian trying to scientifically justify the Eurasian view of Russian history and as an innovator, creating a new composition of the historical narrative, a new style of historical writing. Two of his works: “Outlines of the History of Russia” (1927) and “The Experience of the History of Eurasia from the Half of the VI Century to the Present Time” (1934) had the obvious purpose to break with the national tradition of history and develop a new concept of Russian history in the spirit of Eurasianism. But both attempts failed. In “Outlines of the History of Russia” the basis of the periodization of Russian history (which he considered as a part of the Eurasian history) Vernadsky considered as “the fight of forest and steppe” There can be an illusion that he borrowed this concept from the Russian historian S. M. Solovyov. But Vernadsky’s concept is different. For Solovyov the fighting of forest and steppe is important, but it is peripheral to the story of one of the stages of Russian history. Vernadsky also puts this concept in the spotlight, thereby setting clear criteria for the selection of historical material on the degree of importance. As a result, all the huge historical material that characterizes the political, socio-cultural and historical development of Russia moved partially to the periphery of the historical narrative, and most of all fell out of it. The most successful and innovative was the section of the book devoted to the Mongolian period of Russian history. Here, Vernadsky used the technique of shifting the focus of the narrative, which allowed him to cover historical events from two points of view: as they were seen from the center of the Mongolian Empire and as they were perceived from the Russian periphery. Due to this, a “holographic” vision of historical events was created, which allowed to deepen their understanding. In the work “The Experience of the History of Eurasia...” Vernadsky attempted to present the history of internal (Russian) Eurasia as a history of self-sufficient subject of historical development. But he also failed to do that. The story was torn into separate subjects, devoid of internal integrity. In subsequent years, the structure and content of works by Vernadsky indicate that he was released from the fetters of the Eurasian ideology and returned to the historiographical tradition of N. M. Karamzin. At the same time, in the work of “Mongols and Russia” (1953), he perfected his “holographic” method of constructing a historical narrative.

The article deals with investigating into conditions of the solidarity between elites and nonelite groups of post-revolutionary states in the western part of the former Russian empire (1917-1920). A high level of the solidarity is shown through geopolitical successes (efficient defending and/or conquering) and internal stability of a state. The indicators of a low level of the solidarity are large scale civil conflicts (civil wars) leading to the loss of state independence.

The analysis is based on comparing two contrastive cases – the Polish Szlachta and the Baltic-German nobility in their interactions with the Imperial government as well as local population in the period from the 17^th to beginning of the 20^th century. Both elites are similar regarding some important aspects such as an intensive interaction with each other and the historical dynamics of their states (independence – losing territories – the lost of independence). Nevertheless, both elite groups differ in the level of the solidarity with the local nonelit population which was relatively high among the Poles and relatively low between the Baltic-Germans on the one hand and the Estonians as well as the Latvians on the other hand. As theoretical basis are applied such approaches as the theory of cultural similarity, the geopolitical approach and structural-demographic theory. As main research method is used the macro-historical approach that allows to provide an explanation of historical phenomena through the synthesis of different theoretical approaches as well as levels of analysis.

The analysis has shown that the Russian revolution and the overthrow of the monarchy in 1917 in Russia legitimized social groups including elites that had been opposed to the Tsarist government and delegitimized social groups that had remained loyal to the “old regime”.   “Revolutionary” attitude and image of the Polish elite (Szlachta) was a source of a high level of national solidarity among the Polish people. “Revolutionary” attitude and image of the Polish elite as the base of the solidarity among the Poles results from the strategies of elites socialization oriented on local patron-client networks that were established under conditions of a weak state power in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Besides, the opposition character of the Szlachta was conditioned on social deprivation measures of the Imperial government caused by a large number of the Polish elite.

A high loyalty of the Baltic-Germans to the Imperial government was a condition of a low level of the solidarity and was due to the strategies of elites socialization oriented on a career in the military or civil service outside the Baltic provinces

 The work provides insight into the formation and development of the “public opinion” concept in the latter half of 18^th century. A comparative analysis of the articles ‘opinion’ and ‘public opinion’ in the “Encyclopedia” of Diderot & d'Alembert and in the “Encyclopédie Méthodique” provides an opportunity to trace evolution and the distance between the perceptions of two notions during the various periods of time. The article considers ‘opinion’ as “doubtful and uncertain judgment” and ‘opinions’ as points of view of judges underlying the judgement, which the French Encyclopaedists referred to legal and logical spheres, and their impact on the formation of the “public opinion” concept. The work provides an analysis of ideas of public opinion as a mechanism of public control of social and political realm, which peculiarity is independence from the sphere of state regulation and the lack of institutionalized means of influencing the institutions.

The problem of the reliability of history, assessments of events and facts puts the researcher before the necessity of analyzing the very concept of history and its understanding as a bearer of the metaphysical. In the course of the analysis, a figure of the historian (Histor) - an elected arbitrator or an authoritative person, necessary for the initial court-judgment in a certain case was identified. Analysis of the Platonic dialogue "Sophist" allows us to discover the metaphysics of history through pairs of concepts such as: being and nothingness, movement and rest, identical and different, treating it as the art of creating images and as a myth caught and realized at the time of its appearance. Change of the image of history is facilitated by a speech that can change meanings. Historian (Histor) and sophist are two terms that have shown the limits of our understanding of being, which is atomic and which constantly forces us to make choices.

Hobsbawm’s modern world originated in the big bang of the eighteenth century, and it was extinguished in an implosion almost exactly two centuries later. To him these two hundred years were defined by the project of the Enlightenment which imagined a world that was equally good for all of humanity and not for just some part of it. More than revolution, the Enlightenment drove this world onward until it seems to have exhausted itself by the end of the twentieth century: the Marxist Hobsbawm is inspired more by the Enlightenment than by one of its consequences, the millenarian dream of revolution. Deriving from the Enlightenment, the conjoined industrial and French revolutions, known as the dual revolution in his work, generated all subsequent events. The industrial revolution assumed both capitalist and socialist forms, and the political revolution inaugurated by the French species spawned a series of bourgeois and socialist revolutions, attempts at revolution of both types, and revolutions against revolution, or counter-revolutions. They permeated not only the politics and the economy of the continent, but as much its social and cultural processes and the sciences and the arts. His magnificent oeuvre celebrates this universe bounded by the two revolutionary waves of the late eighteenth and the late twentieth centuries; but it is a celebration that broods on its dark side as much as on its stupendous achievements. His grand theme is the hope held out by the Enlightenment, the revolutions that sustained it, and the counter-revolutions that negated it. As this modern world drew to its close in the 1990s, a gloomy uncertainty hangs over the world, and his musings on the post-Cold War world reflect this unease.