Which of the Russian philosophers did not adhere to Westernism? Westernism and Slavophilism in Russian philosophy

They advocated the abolition of serfdom and recognition of the need for Russia's development along the Western European path. Most of the Westerners by origin and position belonged to the noble landowners, among them were commoners and people from the wealthy merchant class, who later became mainly scientists and writers. As Yu. M. Lotman wrote,

“Europeanism” was based on the idea that the “Russian path” is the path already traversed by the “more advanced” European culture. True, at the very beginning it included a characteristic addition: having assimilated European civilization and embarked on a common European path, Russia, as representatives of different shades of this direction have repeatedly repeated, will go along it faster and further than the West. From Peter to the Russian Marxists, the idea of ​​the need to “catch up and surpass...” was persistently pursued. Having mastered all the achievements of Western culture, Russia, as the adherents of these concepts believed, would retain a deep difference from its “defeated teacher” and would explosively overcome the path that the West made gradually and, from the point of view of Russian maximalism, inconsistently

The terms “Westernism”, “Westerners” (sometimes “Europeans”), as well as “Slavophilism”, “Slavophiles”, were born in the ideological polemics of the 1840s. Already contemporaries and the participants in this controversy themselves pointed out the conventionality and inaccuracy of these terms.

Russian philosopher of the second half of the 19th century V. S. Solovyov (himself an adherent of the ideas of Westernism) defined Westernism as “a direction in our social thought and literature that recognizes the spiritual solidarity of Russia and Western Europe as inseparable parts of one cultural and historical whole, which includes all of humanity.” ... Questions about the relationship between faith and reason, authority and freedom, about the connection of religion with philosophy and both with positive science, questions about the boundaries between the personal and the collective principles, as well as about the relationship of heterogeneous collective wholes with each other, questions about the attitude of the people to humanity, the church to the state, the state to economic society - all these and other similar questions are equally significant and urgent for both the West and the East.”

The ideas of Westernism were expressed and propagated by publicists and writers - Pyotr Chaadaev, V. S. Pecherin, I. A. Gagarin (representatives of the so-called religious Westernism), V. S. Solovyov and B. N. Chicherin (liberal Westerners), Ivan Turgenev, V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, later N. G. Chernyshevsky, Vasily Botkin, P. V. Annenkov (Western socialists), M. N. Katkov, E. F. Korsh , A. V. Nikitenko and others; professors of history, law and political economy - T. N. Granovsky, P. N. Kudryavtsev, S. M. Solovyov, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, P. G. Redky, I. K. Babst, I.V. Vernadsky and others. The ideas of Westerners were shared to one degree or another by writers, poets, publicists - N.A. Melgunov, D.V. Grigorovich, I.A. Goncharov, A.V. Druzhinin, A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, V.N. Maikov, V.A. Milyutin, N.A. Nekrasov, I.I. Panaev, A.F. Pisemsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, but they often tried to reconcile Westerners and Slavophiles , although over the years the pro-Western direction prevailed in their views and creativity.

Predecessors of Westernism

A kind of predecessors of the Westernized worldview in pre-Petrine Russia were such political and state figures of the 17th century as the Moscow boyars - the educator and favorite of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich B. I. Morozov, the heads of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, who actually headed the Russian governments - A. S. Matveev and V. V. Golitsyn.

The emergence of Westernism

The formation of Westernism and Slavophilism began with the intensification of ideological disputes after the publication of Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter” in 1836. By 1839, the views of the Slavophiles had developed, and around 1841, the views of the Westerners. The socio-political, philosophical and historical views of Westerners, having numerous shades and features among individual Westerners, were generally characterized by certain common features. Westerners criticized serfdom and drew up projects for its abolition, showing the advantages of wage labor. The abolition of serfdom seemed to Westerners possible and desirable only in the form of a reform carried out by the government together with the nobles. Westerners criticized the feudal-absolutist system of tsarist Russia, contrasting it with the bourgeois-parliamentary, constitutional order of Western European monarchies, primarily England and France. Advocating for the modernization of Russia on the model of the bourgeois countries of Western Europe, Westerners called for the rapid development of industry, trade and new means of transport, especially railways; advocated the free development of industry and trade. They hoped to achieve their goals peacefully, influencing public opinion on the tsarist government, disseminating their views in society through education and science. Many Westerners considered the paths of revolution and the ideas of socialism unacceptable. Supporters of bourgeois progress and defenders of education and reform, Westerners highly valued Peter I and his efforts to Europeanize Russia. In Peter I they saw an example of a brave monarch-reformer who opened new paths for the historical development of Russia as one of the European powers.

Dispute over the fate of the peasant community

On a practical level in the economic sphere, the main difference between Westerners and Slavophiles lay in different views on the fate of the peasant community. If Slavophiles, Pochvenniks and Westernizers-socialists considered the redistribution community as the basis of the original historical path of Russia, then Westerners - not socialists - saw in the community a relic of the past, and believed that the community (and communal land ownership) should disappear, just as happened with the peasants communities in Western Europe. Accordingly, the Slavophiles, like Westernizers-socialists and pochvenniks, considered it necessary to provide all possible support for the peasant land community with its communal ownership of land and equalizing redistributions, while Westernizers-non-socialists advocated for the transition to household land ownership (in which the peasant disposes of the land he has alone).

V. S. Solovyov about Westernism and Westerners

Three phases

As V.S. Solovyov pointed out, the “great pan-European movements” of 1815 led Russian intellectuals to a more complete understanding of the principles of “Western” development.

Solovyov identifies “three main phases”, which “in the general course of Western European development consistently came to the fore, although they did not cancel each other out”:

1. Theocratic, represented predominantly by Roman Catholicism
2. Humanitarian, defined theoretically as rationalism and practically as liberalism
3. Naturalistic, expressed in a positive natural scientific direction of thought, on the one hand, and in the predominance of socio-economic interests, on the other (these three phases are more or less similar to the relationship between religion, philosophy and positive science, as well as between church, state and society ).

The sequence of these phases, which, in Solovyov’s opinion, have undoubtedly universal significance, was repeated in miniature during the development of Russian social thought in the 19th century.

According to him, the first, Catholic aspect was reflected in the views of P. Ya. Chaadaev, the second, humanitarian, in V. G. Belinsky and the so-called people of the 1840s, and the third, positive social, in N. G. Chernyshevsky and people of the 1860s. This process of development of Russian social thought was so rapid that some of its participants came to a change of views already in adulthood.

Westerners and Slavophiles

Solovyov pointed out that Russia has not yet given a satisfactory solution to the universal human issues he formulated either in the West or in the East and, therefore, all active forces of humanity must work on them together and in solidarity with each other, without distinction between the countries of the world; and then in the results of the work, in the application of universal human principles to the particular conditions of the local environment, all the positive features of tribal and national characters would themselves be reflected. Such a “Western” point of view not only does not exclude national identity, but, on the contrary, requires that this originality be manifested in practice as fully as possible. Opponents of “Westernism,” he said, escaped from the obligation of joint cultural work with other peoples with arbitrary statements about the “rotting of the West” and meaningless prophecies about the exceptionally great destinies of Russia. According to Solovyov, it is common for every person to desire greatness and true superiority for his people (for the benefit of all), and in this regard there was no difference between Slavophiles and Westerners. Westerners insisted only that great advantages are not given for nothing and that when it comes not only to external, but also to internal, spiritual and cultural superiority, then it can only be achieved through intensive cultural work, in which it is impossible to bypass the general, basic conditions of any human culture already developed by Western development.

According to Solovyov, after the idealized ideas and prophecies of the original Slavophilism evaporated without a trace, giving way to unprincipled and base nationalism, the mutual relationship of the two main directions of Russian thought was significantly simplified, returning (at a different level of consciousness and under a different situation) to the same general opposition, which characterized the era of Peter the Great: the struggle between savagery and education, between obscurantism and enlightenment.

Links

• The meaning of the word “Westerners” in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation.

Synonyms

See what “Westernism” is in other dictionaries: Westernism is a movement of Russian socio-political thought that finally took shape in the 40s. 19th century in polemics with Slavophilism. Advocates for overcoming Russia’s historical backwardness from Western European countries, supporters of Westernism...

Philosophical Encyclopedia One of the main ideological and socio-political movements in Russia in the 19th century. There is an assumption that the term Westerners was introduced by N.V. Gogol, and it quickly spread in the public sphere. Westernism is part of a broader phenomenon... ...

Political science. Dictionary.

WESTERNIST, Occidentalism. Among such words, which clearly reflected the ideological trends and disagreements of the era of the 40s of the 19th century, are the words Westerner, Westernism. The dictionary of 1847 does not yet know these words. Only in V. I. Dahl’s dictionary... ... History of words

The word “Slavophile” was first used in an ironic sense to designate a certain social type by the poet Konstantin Batyushkov. The term "Westernism" first appeared in Russian culture in the 40s. XIX century, in particular, in “Memoirs” of Ivan Panaev. It began to be used frequently after Aksakov’s break with Belinsky in 1840.

Archimandrite Gabriel (Vasily Voskresensky) stood at the origins of Slavophilism. His “Russian Philosophy,” published in 1840 in Kazan, became a kind of barometer of the emerging Slavophilism.

The views of the Slavophiles were formed in ideological disputes, which intensified after the publication of Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter”. Slavophiles came out with a justification for the original path of historical development of Russia, fundamentally different from the path of Western Europe. The uniqueness of Russia, according to Slavophiles, lies in the absence of class struggle in its history, in the Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy as the only true Christianity.

The main role in developing the views of the Slavophiles was played by writers, poets and scientists Khomyakov, Kirievsky, Aksakov, Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were Koshelev, Valuev, Chizhov, Belyaev, Hilferding, Lamansky, Cherkassky. Writers Dal, Ostrovsky, Grigoriev, Tyutchev, Yazykov were close to the Slavophiles in their social and ideological positions. Historians and linguists Buslaev, Bodyansky, Grigorovich paid great tribute to the views of the Slavophiles.

The center of the Slavophiles in the 1840s. there was Moscow, the literary salons of the Elagins, Sverbeevs, Pavlovs, where Slavophiles communicated and debated with Westerners. The works of Slavophiles were subjected to censorship, some of the Slavophiles were under police surveillance and were arrested. Due to censorship obstacles, the Slavophiles for a long time did not have a permanent press; they published mainly in the magazine “Moskvityanin”. After some easing of censorship in the late 1850s. they published the magazine "Russian Conversation", "Rural Improvement" and the newspapers "Molva" and "Parus".

On the question of the path of historical development of Russia, the Slavophiles spoke out, in contrast to the Westerners, against Russia’s assimilation of the forms of Western European political life. At the same time, they considered it necessary to develop trade and industry, joint stock and banking, the construction of railways and the use of machinery in agriculture. Slavophiles advocated the abolition of serfdom “from above” with the provision of land plots to peasant communities.

The philosophical views of the Slavophiles were developed mainly by Khomyakov, Kireevsky, and later Samarin and represented a unique religious and philosophical teaching. The true faith, which came to Rus' from the Eastern Church, determines, according to the Slavophiles, a special historical mission of the Russian people. The beginning of “sobornost” (free community), which characterizes the life of the Eastern Church, was seen by the Slavophiles in Russian society. Orthodoxy and the tradition of communal life have formed the deep foundations of the Russian soul.

Idealizing patriarchy and the principles of traditionalism, the Slavophiles understood the people in the spirit of conservative romanticism. At the same time, the Slavophiles called on the intelligentsia to get closer to the people, to study their life and way of life, culture and language.
The ideas of the Slavophiles were uniquely refracted in the religious and philosophical concepts of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Soloviev, Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Karsavin, Florensky, etc.).

Westerners - a direction of Russian anti-feudal social thought of the 40s of the 19th century, opposing the Slavophiles. The initial organizational base of Westerners was the Moscow literary salons. Ideological disputes in Moscow salons are depicted by Herzen in Past and Thoughts. The Moscow circle of Westerners included Herzen, Granovsky, Ogarev, Botkin, Ketcher, Korsh, Kavelin and others. Belinsky, who lived in St. Petersburg, had a close connection with the circle; Turgenev was also a Westerner.

The general features of the ideology of Westerners include rejection of the feudal-serf system in economics, politics and culture; demand for socio-economic reforms along Western lines. Representatives of the Westerners considered it possible to establish a bourgeois-democratic system peacefully - through education and propaganda to form public opinion and force the monarchy to bourgeois reforms; they highly appreciated the transformations of Peter I.

Westerners advocated overcoming the social and economic backwardness of Russia not on the basis of the development of original cultural elements (as suggested by the Slavophiles), but through the experience of Europe that had gone ahead. They focused attention not on the differences between Russia and the West, but on the commonality in their historical and cultural destinies.

In the mid-1840s. A fundamental split occurred among the Westerners - after the dispute between Herzen and Granovsky, the Westerners were divided into the liberal (Annenkov, Granovsky, Kavelin, etc.) and the revolutionary-democratic wing (Herzen, Ogarev, Belinsky). The disagreements concerned the attitude towards religion (Granovsky and Korsh defended the dogma of the immortality of the soul, the democrats and Botkin spoke from the positions of atheism and materialism) and the issue of methods of reform and post-reform development of Russia (the democrats put forward the ideas of revolutionary struggle and building socialism). These disagreements were carried over into the sphere of aesthetics and philosophy.

The philosophical research of Westerners was influenced by: in the early stages - Schiller, Hegel, Schelling; later Feuerbach, Comte and Saint-Simon.

In post-reform times, under the conditions of capitalist development, Westernism as a special direction in social thought ceased to exist.

The views of Westerners were developed in Russian liberal thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources

From Masterweb

In Russia in the middle of the 19th century, two philosophical trends clashed - Westernism and Slavophilism. The so-called Westerners firmly believed that the country should adopt the European model of development, basing it on liberal democratic values. The Slavophiles, in turn, believed that Russia should have its own path, different from the Western one. In this article we will focus our attention on the Westernization movement. What were their views and ideas? And who can be counted among the main representatives of this direction of Russian philosophical thought?

Russia in the first half of the 19th century

So, Westerners – who are they? Before answering this question, it is worth getting at least a little familiar with the social, economic and cultural situation in which Russia found itself in the first half of the century before last.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Russia faced a difficult test - the Patriotic War with the French army of Napoleon Bonaparte. It had a liberation character and provoked an unprecedented rise in patriotic feelings among the broad masses of the population. In this war, the Russian people not only defended their independence, but also significantly strengthened the position of their state in the political arena. At the same time, the Patriotic War claimed thousands of lives and caused serious damage to the Russian economy.

Speaking about this period of Russian history, one cannot fail to mention the Decembrist movement. These were mainly officers and wealthy nobles who demanded reforms, fair trials and, of course, the abolition of serfdom. However, the Decembrist uprising, which took place in December 1825, failed.

Agriculture in the first half of the 19th century in Russia was still extensive. At the same time, active development of new lands begins - in the Volga region and in the south of Ukraine. As a result of technological progress, machines have been introduced into many industries. As a result, productivity increased two to three times. The pace of urbanization accelerated significantly: the number of cities in the Russian Empire almost doubled between 1801 and 1850.

Social movements in Russia in the 1840-1850s

Social and political movements in Russia in the second quarter of the 19th century revived noticeably, despite the reactionary policies of Nicholas I. And this revival was largely due to the ideological legacy of the Decembrists. They tried to find answers to the questions they posed throughout the nineteenth century.

The main dilemma that was hotly discussed in those days was the choice of development path for the country. And everyone saw this path in their own way. As a result, many directions of philosophical thought were born, both liberal and radical revolutionary.

All these directions can be combined into two large movements:

1. Westernism.
2. Slavophilism.

Westernism: definition and essence of the term

It is believed that Emperor Peter the Great introduced a split into Russian society into so-called Westerners and Slavophiles. After all, it was he who began to actively adopt the ways and norms of life of European society.

Westerners are representatives of one of the most important trends in Russian social thought, which was formed at the turn of the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. They were also often called “Europeans.” Russian Westerners argued that there was no need to invent anything. For Russia, it is necessary to choose the advanced path that has already been successfully traversed by Europe. Moreover, Westerners were confident that Russia would be able to go much further along it than the West did.

Among the origins of Westernism in Russia, three main factors can be distinguished:

• Ideas of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century.
• Economic reforms of Peter the Great.
• Establishing close socio-economic ties with Western European countries.

By origin, the Westerners were predominantly wealthy merchants and noble landowners. There were also scientists, publicists and writers among them. Let us list the most prominent representatives of Westernism in Russian philosophy:

• Peter Chaadaev.
• Vladimir Solovyov.
• Boris Chicherin.
• Ivan Turgenev.
• Alexander Herzen.
• Pavel Annenkov.
• Nikolai Chernyshevsky.
• Vissarion Belinsky.

Basic ideas and views of Westerners

It is important to note that Westerners did not at all deny Russian identity and originality. They insisted only that Russia should develop in the wake of European civilization. And the foundation of this development should be based on universal human values ​​and personal freedoms. At the same time, they considered society as a tool for the realization of an individual.

The main ideas of the Westernization movement include the following:

• Adopting the main values ​​of the West.
• Reducing the gap between Russia and Europe.
• Development and deepening of market relations.
• Establishment of a constitutional monarchy in Russia.
• Abolition of serfdom.
• Development of universal education.
• Popularization of scientific knowledge.

V. S. Soloviev and his phases

Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900) is a prominent representative of the so-called religious Westernism. He identifies three main phases in the course of general Western European development:

1. Theocratic (represented by Roman Catholicism).
2. Humanitarian (expressed in rationalism and liberalism).
3. Naturalistic (expressed in the natural scientific direction of thought).

According to Solovyov, all these phases can be traced in the same sequence in the development of Russian social thought in the 19th century. At the same time, the theocratic aspect was most clearly reflected in the views of Pyotr Chaadaev, the humanitarian aspect in the works of Vissarion Belinsky, and the naturalistic aspect in Nikolai Chernyshevsky.

Vladimir Solovyov was convinced that the key feature of Russia was that it was a deeply Christian state. Accordingly, the Russian idea must be an integral part of the Christian idea.

P. Ya. Chaadaev and his views

Far from the last place in the social movement of Russian Westerners was occupied by the philosopher and publicist Pyotr Chaadaev (1794-1856). His main work, Philosophical Letters, was published in Telescope magazine in 1836. This work seriously stirred the public. The magazine was closed after this publication, and Chaadaev himself was declared crazy.

In his “Philosophical Letters” Pyotr Chaadaev contrasts Russia and Europe. And he calls religion the foundation of this opposition. He characterizes Catholic Europe as a progressive region with strong-willed and active people. But Russia, on the contrary, is a kind of symbol of inertia, immobility, which is explained by the excessive asceticism of the Orthodox faith. Chaadaev also saw the reason for the stagnation in the development of the state in the fact that the country was not sufficiently covered by the Enlightenment.

Westerners and Slavophiles: comparative characteristics

Both Slavophiles and Westerners sought to turn Russia into one of the leading countries in the world. However, they saw the methods and tools of this transformation differently. The following table will help you understand the key differences between these two movements.

Finally

So, Westerners are representatives of one of the branches of Russian social thought of the first half of the 19th century. They were confident that Russia in its further development should be guided by the experience of Western countries. It should be noted that the ideas of Westerners were subsequently transformed to some extent into the postulates of liberals and socialists.

Russian Westernism became a noticeable step forward in the development of dialectics and materialism. However, it was never able to provide any specific and scientifically based answers to pressing questions for the public.

Kievyan Street, 16 0016 Armenia, Yerevan +374 11 233 255

(representatives of the so-called religious Westernism), I. S. Turgenev and B. N. Chicherin (liberal Westerners), V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, later N. G. Chernyshevsky, V P. Botkin, P. V. Annenkov (Western socialists), M. N. Katkov, E. F. Korsh, A. V. Nikitenko and others; professors of history, law and political economy - T. N. Granovsky, P. N. Kudryavtsev, S. M. Solovyov, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin, P. G. Redkin, I. K. Babst, I.V. Vernadsky and others. The ideas of Westerners were shared to one degree or another by writers, poets, publicists - N.A. Melgunov, D.V. Grigorovich, I.A. Goncharov, A.V. Druzhinin, A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, V.N. Maikov, V.A. Milyutin, N.A. Nekrasov, I.I. Panaev, A.F. Pisemsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, but they often tried to reconcile Westerners and Slavophiles , although over the years the pro-Western direction prevailed in their views and creativity.

Predecessors of Westernism

A kind of predecessors of the Westernized worldview in pre-Petrine Russia were such political and state figures of the 17th century as the Moscow boyars - the educator and favorite of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich B. I. Morozov, the heads of the Ambassadorial Prikaz, who actually headed the Russian governments - A. S. Matveev and V. V. Golitsyn.

V.S. Solovyov wrote that “ the complexity of the composition and gradual development of European culture, which gave rise to many diverse and conflicting interests, ideas and aspirations in the West, were inevitably reflected in the Russian consciousness when they assimilated Western education" If for the “beginners of Russian culture,” to whom Solovyov included Peter I and M.V. Lomonosov, all differences were closed by the general opposition between “Western” education and domestic savagery, between “science” and “ignorance,” then already during the reign of Catherine II Among the adherents of “Western” education, a sharp division emerged between two directions: mystical and free-thinking - “Martinists” and “Voltaireans”. The best representatives of both directions, such as N. I. Novikov and A. N. Radishchev, agreed, however, in their love for education and interest in the public good. Although he argued with the extreme first Westerner Chaadaev, since he was an opponent of Catholic theology and defended Orthodox theology, the predecessor and like-minded person of the mature Westerners of the 40s was A. S. Pushkin.

The emergence of Westernism

The formation of Westernism and Slavophilism began with the aggravation of ideological disputes after the publication of Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter” in 1836. By 1839, the views of the Slavophiles had developed, and around 1841, the views of the Westerners. The socio-political, philosophical and historical views of Westerners, having numerous shades and features among individual Westerners, were generally characterized by certain common features. Westerners criticized serfdom and drew up projects for its abolition, showing the advantages of wage labor. The abolition of serfdom seemed to Westerners possible and desirable only in the form of a reform carried out by the government together with the nobles. Westerners criticized the feudal system of Tsarist Russia, contrasting it with the bourgeois-parliamentary, constitutional order of Western European monarchies, primarily England and France. Advocating for the modernization of Russia on the model of the bourgeois countries of Western Europe, Westerners called for the rapid development of industry, trade and new means of transport, especially railways; advocated the free development of industry and trade. They hoped to achieve their goals peacefully, influencing public opinion on the tsarist government, disseminating their views in society through education and science. Many Westerners considered the paths of revolution and the ideas of socialism unacceptable. Supporters of bourgeois progress and defenders of education and reform, Westerners highly valued Peter I and his efforts to Europeanize Russia. In Peter I they saw an example of a brave monarch-reformer who opened new paths for the historical development of Russia as one of the European powers.

Dispute over the fate of the peasant community

On a practical level in the economic sphere, the main difference between Westerners and Slavophiles lay in different views on the fate of the peasant community. If the Slavophiles, Pochvenniks and Westernizers-socialists considered the redistribution community as the basis of the unique historical path of Russia, then Westerners - not socialists - saw in the community a relic of the past, and believed that the community (and communal land ownership) should face extinction, just as it happened with peasant communities in Western Europe. Accordingly, the Slavophiles, like Westernizers-socialists and pochvenniks, considered it necessary to provide all possible support for the peasant land community with its communal ownership of land and equalization of redistributions, while Westernizers - not socialists - advocated for the transition to household land ownership (in which the peasant disposes of what he has). land alone).

V. S. Solovyov about Westernism and Westerners

Three phases

As V.S. Solovyov pointed out, the “great pan-European movements” of 1815 led Russian intellectuals to a more complete understanding of the principles of “Western” development.

Solovyov identifies “three main phases”, which “in the general course of Western European development consistently came to the fore, although they did not cancel each other out”:

1. Theocratic, represented predominantly by Roman Catholicism
2. Humanitarian, defined theoretically as rationalism and practically as liberalism
3. Naturalistic, expressed in a positive natural scientific direction of thought, on the one hand, and in the predominance of socio-economic interests, on the other (these three phases are more or less similar to the relationship between religion, philosophy and positive science, as well as between church, state and society ).

The sequence of these phases, which, in Solovyov’s opinion, have undoubtedly universal significance, was repeated in miniature during the development of Russian social thought in the 19th century.

According to him, the first, Catholic aspect was reflected in the views of P. Ya. Chaadaev, the second, humanitarian, in V. G. Belinsky and the so-called people of the 1840s, and the third, positive social, in N. G. Chernyshevsky and people of the 1860s. This process of development of Russian social thought was so rapid that some of its participants came to a change of views already in adulthood.

Westerners and Slavophiles

Solovyov pointed out that a satisfactory solution to the universal human issues he formulated has not yet been given either in the West or in the East and, therefore, all the active forces of humanity must work on it together and in solidarity with each other, without distinction between the countries of the world; and then in the results of the work, in the application of universal human principles to the particular conditions of the local environment, all the positive features of tribal and national characters would themselves be reflected. Such a “Western” point of view not only does not exclude national identity, but, on the contrary, requires that this originality be manifested in practice as fully as possible. Opponents of “Westernism,” he said, escaped from the obligation of joint cultural work with other peoples with arbitrary statements about the “rotting of the West” and meaningless prophecies about the exceptionally great destinies of Russia. According to Solovyov, it is common for every person to desire greatness and true superiority for his people (for the benefit of all), and in this regard there was no difference between Slavophiles and Westerners. Westerners insisted only that great advantages are not given for nothing and that when it comes not only to external, but also to internal, spiritual and cultural superiority, then it can only be achieved through intensive cultural work, in which it is impossible to bypass the general, basic conditions of any human culture already developed by Western development.

According to Solovyov, after the idealized ideas and prophecies of the original Slavophilism evaporated without a trace, giving way to unprincipled and base nationalism, the mutual relationship of the two main directions of Russian thought was significantly simplified, returning (at a different level of consciousness and under a different situation) to the same general opposition, which characterized the era of Peter the Great: the struggle between savagery and education, between obscurantism and enlightenment.

Ratings

The terms “Westernism”, “Westerners” (sometimes “Europeans”), as well as “Slavophilism”, “Slavophiles”, were born in the ideological polemics of the 1840s. Already contemporaries and the participants in this controversy themselves pointed out the conventionality and inaccuracy of these terms.

Russian philosopher of the second half of the 19th century V. S. Solovyov (himself an adherent of the ideas of Westernism) defined Westernism as “a direction in our social thought and literature that recognizes the spiritual solidarity of Russia and Western Europe as inseparable parts of one cultural and historical whole, which includes all of humanity.” ... Questions about the relationship between faith and reason, authority and freedom, about the connection of religion with philosophy and both with positive science, questions about the boundaries between the personal and the collective principles, as well as about the relationship of heterogeneous collective wholes with each other, questions about the attitude of the people to humanity, the church to the state, the state to economic society - all these and other similar questions are equally significant and urgent for both the West and the East.”

“Europeanism” was based on the idea that the “Russian path” is the path already traversed by the “more advanced” European culture. True, at the very beginning it included a characteristic addition: having assimilated European civilization and embarked on a common European path, Russia, as representatives of different shades of this direction have repeatedly repeated, will go along it faster and further than the West. From Peter to the Russian Marxists, the idea of ​​the need to “catch up and surpass...” was persistently pursued. Having mastered all the achievements of Western culture, Russia, as the adherents of these concepts believed, would retain a deep difference from its “defeated teacher” and would explosively overcome the path that the West had made gradually and, from the point of view of Russian maximalism, inconsistently.

When studying the social thought of Russia, it is impossible to ignore the 40s of the 19th century, when the ideas of the Slavophiles and Westerners were formed. Their disputes did not end last century and still have political significance, especially in light of recent events.

19th century setting

At the beginning of the 19th century, Russia remained a serf country with a feudal mode of production, in contrast to Europe, where the process of establishing capitalist bourgeois relations began. Thus, the economic backwardness of the Russian Empire increased, which gave reason to think about the need for reforms. By and large, they were started by Peter the Great, but the results were insufficient. At the same time, bourgeois relations made their way in Europe with the help of revolutions, blood and violence. Competition developed and exploitation intensified. The latest facts did not inspire many representatives of Russian social thought. A completely understandable dispute arose about the further development of the state, especially since in domestic politics the emperors rushed from one extreme to another. Slavophiles and Westerners are two opposite paths for Russia, but each should have led it to prosperity.

In response to the Slavophile movement

For almost two centuries, among the upper classes of the Russian state, a worshipful attitude towards Europe and its achievements was formed. Russia was increasingly transformed, trying to resemble Western countries. A. S. Khomyakov for the first time brought to the attention of the general public thoughts about a special path of development of our state - based on collectivism, manifested in the rural community. This eliminated the need to emphasize the backwardness of the state and look up to Europe. Thinkers, primarily writers, united around the theses expressed. They began to be called Slavophiles. Westerners are a kind of response to the movement described above. Representatives of Westernism, based on ideas, saw common trends in the development of all countries of the world.

Philosophical foundations of Westernism

Throughout the history of human thought, a question has been formulated: “Who are we? Where do we come from? Where to?” Regarding the last part, three points of view stood out. Some said that humanity was deteriorating. Others - what moves in a circle, that is, develops cyclically. Still others claimed that it was progressing. Westerners are thinkers who take the latter view. They believed that history was progressive, had one vector of development, while Europe overtook other regions of the world and determined the path that all other nations would follow. Therefore, all countries, just like Russia, must focus on the achievements of European civilization in all spheres of social life, without exception.

Westerners against Slavophiles

So, in the 40s of the 19th century, an ideological confrontation between “Slavophiles and Westerners” arose. A table comparing the main postulates will best demonstrate their views on the past and future of the Russian state.

Representatives of Westernism

Westerners played an important role in the great bourgeois reforms of the 60s and 70s. Representatives of this social thought not only acted as ideological inspirers of state reforms, but also took part in their development. Thus, Konstantin Kavelin, who wrote the “Note on the Liberation of Peasants,” took an active public position. Timofey Granovsky, a professor of history, advocated the continuation of the reforms laid down at the beginning of the eighteenth century, and for an active enlightenment state policy. Like-minded people united around him, including I. Turgenev, V. Botkin, M. Katkov, I. Vernadsky, B. Chicherin. The ideas of Westerners underlie the most progressive reform of the 19th century - the judicial reform, which laid the foundations of the rule of law and civil society.

The fate of the Westerners

It often happens that in the process of development it further fragments, that is, splits. The Westerners were no exception. This concerns, first of all, the identification of a radical group proclaiming a revolutionary way of introducing change. It included V. Belinsky, N. Ogarev and, of course, At a certain stage, there was a rapprochement between Slavophiles and revolutionary Westerners, who believed that the peasant community could become the basis for the future structure of society. But it was not decisive.

In general, the opposition between the ideas of Russia’s original path of development, up to the special role of our civilization in the world, and the need for a Westernized orientation remained. Currently, the divide is taking place mainly in the political sphere, in which Westerners stand out. Representatives of this movement advocate integration into the European Union, seeing this as a way out of the civilizational impasse that they entered during the construction of socialism.