«West ? east» opposition in russian literature and philosophy of 1830?1850s: search for civilizational identity
| Autor | Rinat F. Bekmetov - Ilsever Rami - Ildar Sh. Yunusov - Olga N. Boldyreva |
| Cargo | Kazan Federal University, Tel: +7-919-697-84-59. e-mail: bekmetov@list.ru - Istanbul Okan University - Bashkir State University (Birsk branch) - Kalmyk State University named B.B. Gorodovikov |
| Páginas | 400-410 |
Periódico do Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisas sobre Gênero e Direito
Centro de Ciências Jurídicas - Universidade Federal da Paraíba
V. 8 - Nº 07 - Ano 2019 – Special Edition
ISSN | 2179-7137 | http://periodicos.ufpb.br/ojs2/index.php/ged/index
401
deprived of monolithic, rather
contradictory picture of the perception of
the West and the East as civilizational
landmarks of the “Russian soul” has
developed in the Russian consciousness.
So, the East acted not only as a standard
of high and refined culture, a role model,
but also as a synonym for ignorance and
inertness – all that is recorded in the
capacious word meaning “Asian”. In the
same way, the West was both a model of
enlightenment and technocratic
progress, and a kind of form of spiritual
dependence associated with the decay
and decay of the national. Such
judgments were characteristic not only
of the Russian society of the 1830–
1850ss. In one form or another, they met
in previous periods of Russian history,
and in those countries of the world where
the modernization process was coupled
with the westernization of the cultural
environment.
Keywords: West, East, Russia, Russian
literature, Russian philosophy, cultural
paradigm, civilizational identity.
Introduction
In the 1830–1850s, Russia was
trying to identify itself civilizationally,
that is, to determine the essence and
purpose of its own model of cultural and
civilizational development. A significant
event of this was, in particular, the
famous “Philosophical Writing” of P.Ya.
Chaadaev, published in 1836 in the
journal “Telescope”, which stated the
isolation of Russia from world
civilizations. (Note that implicit love for
Russia, pain for her and faith in her great
future, which were then openly
expressed in his Apology of a Madman)
were implicitly present in this letter.
Chaadaev’s challenge, thereby, helped to
take shape and dissociate itself in three
main areas of Russian social thought: 1)
Westernism, 2) Slavophilism, and 3) So-
called “official nation” (a doctrine that
was popular in government circles).
The main ideologists of the
concept of “official nationality” were
S.S. Uvarov, S.P. Shevyrev, M.P.
Pogodin. The concept of this direction
expressed by S.S. Uvarov, the Minister
of Education, in the formula "Autocracy
– Orthodoxy – Nationality" proved to be
stable. Moreover, it remained in service
with the authorities throughout the
nineteenth century, being especially in
demand during the years of reaction. In
the program article “Russian View on the
Modern Education of Europe” by S.P.
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO