Introduction
Focusing on the 1830s, my study deals with origin and development
of intelligentsia in the history of Russia and its impact on upcoming
socio-political ideologies. It throws light on emerging philosophical thought with
a view to establish and reinforce uniqueness of the Russian society in the world.
Moreover, it highlights issues including: importance of peter Chaadaev’s
scathing critique of Russia’s predicament for providing a viable solution in
terms of westernizing Russia, counterarguments of the Slavophiles bringing
revival to a distinct set of communal traditions and freedom. This study
attempts to describe the juxtaposition of the debate between the Slovophiles
and Westerners about the importance of individual rights for analyzing serfdom,
autocracy, and social discriminations through logical arguments. Finally, a
comparison is drawn between thoughts of Westernizes and Slavophil.
Justification
This study highlights
importance of debate between Slavophils and Westerners and its impact on the
formation of the future worldview of the Russian society. The study is
important for understanding the role of intelligentsia in bringing social change
in a particular society at a certain period. The study will be helpful for the students
of political science and history to understand the evolution of thought in
Russia.
Methodology
The study is descriptive analytical and it uses
secondary data sources consisting of books, Journals, Research articles and
internet sources.
Literature
Review
Mark D.
Steinberg, Ph.D in “A History of Russia: From
Peter the Great to Gorbachev” gives an account of the history of Russia with
special focus on human experience, ideas, and values
and especially on the lives and thoughts of individuals, both notable and
ordinary. Chapter 11 and 12 from page 30 to 33 deals with the birth of intelligentsia
in the 1830s designated as Slavophil and Westerners and its impact on the
philosophical and political developments in the history of Russia.
An important article
“Slovophile” by the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica throws light on the
origin of the Slavophil intellectual movement and their
arguments against the westernized reforms introduced by Peter the Great
(reigned 1682–1725) and modeling the uncorrupted Russian peasant commune system for the development of Russia.
A succinct account of the two intellectual movements
of the 1830 and 1840s presented in the article published in RIA Novost (Electronic Newspaper) by the
title “The history of Slavophiles and Westernizers in Russia”. It describes
that Slavophiles advocated Russia’s peculiar way of progress, whereas the
Westernizers emphasized on the need to follow Western way of life and Western
social and political system.
Discussion
The Slovophiles and Westerners philosophical thoughts surfaced
in the 1840s and the 1850s. The Slavophiles promoted Russia’s peculiar way of
progress, whereas the Westernizers emphasized to follow Western modes of life.
The word “Slovophile” was used in ironical sense by
the Poet Konstantin Batyushkov to refer
to a certain perfect idea, and the term “Westernization” came to Russian
language and culture in the 1840s and
was appeared in the writings of famous
literary critic Ivan Panayev, and came
into fashion after a divide between Konstantin Aksakov and Vissarion Belinsky in 1840.[1]
Archimandrite Gavriil (Vasily Voskresensky), laid the
foundation of the Slavophile movement, his book Russian Philosophy in 1840 made it possible to evaluate the new
movement.
Slovophiles and
westernizers shared some ideological outlooks, they were both strongly
convinced by German Romantic philosophers (especially Friedrich Schelling and
Georg Wilhem Friedrich Hegel) and the belief that the reality is “organic” and
“whole.”[2]
Thus, the search of truth is not only possible through pure reasoning but also
through intuition and senses. These ideas had a profound effect on
determining the place of Russian society in the whole scheme of universe. The
Westernizers and Slavophiles were romantic in their attitude in dealing with
ideas and the meaning of life. They highly valued poetry, nature, friendship
and romantic love.[3]
In 1836, Petr Chaadaev’s “first philosophical letter” was published which
increased the differences between both the intellectual groups.[4] He boldly argued that the culture of Russia
has become empty and meaningless. He
further argued that Russian civilization was not evolving normally like other
civilizations of the world. He also claimed that the existence of Russia
is unique because it lies between the boarders of Europe and Asia, but it
failed to be either West or East and it also lost its originality as well.
Chaadaev’s argument aggravated the differences and the government also took
notice his ideas and put him under house arrest and dubbed him as mad person.[5]
Slovophil were very critical about his view and
criticized him and established that Russia’s distinct way of historical
development was completely different from the Western European model. They
believed that Russia’s uniqueness lied in the communal spirit which preserved
popular tradition.
Writers, poets and academics Alexei Khomyakov, Ivan
Kireyevsky, Konstantin Aksakov and Yury Samarin played the lead in elaborating
the Slavophile doctrine. Other notable Slavophiles included Alexander Koshelev,
Dmitry Valuyev, Fyodor Chizhov, Ivan Belyayev, Alexander Gilferding, Vladimir
Lamansky and Vladimir Cherkassky. Writers Vladimir Dahl, Alexander Ostrovsky,
Apollon Grigoryev, Fyodor Tyutchev and Nikolai Yazykov supported
socio-ideological aspects of the Slavophile doctrine. Historians and linguists
Fyodor Buslayev, Osip Bodyansky and Dmitry Grigorovich also were supportive of
the Slavophile concepts.[6]
Moscow was the stronghold of Slavophile movement in
the 1840s. The Slavophiles and Westernizers engaged in debates at the Yelagin,
Sverbeyev and Pavlov literary salons. Slavophile writers faced heavy censorship
in the press, and some of their members were closely monitored by the police
and some of them were sent to jails. This censorship policy on behalf of the
government, Slavophiles did not have their own publications and mostly
published their works in the Moskvityanin magazine. It was in the 1850s, they
got the opportunity of publishing the Russkaya Beseda (Russian Conversation)
and Selskoye Blagoustroistvo (Rural Improvement) magazines and the Molva
(Common Talk) and Parus (Sail) newspapers.
On the question of the progress of Russia, the
Slavophiles rejected the Westernizers view and strongly opposed the
transporting of Western European ideals to Russian society. However, they were
in favour of the development of industries and commerce, the establishment of
new financial institutions, construction of railroads and modernization of
farming. The Slavophiles were against serfdom
and advocated for land reforms in Russia. [7]
Khomyakov, Kireyevsky and Samarin, the main Slavophile
philosophers were of the view that communal spirit which they called
“sobornost” and orthodoxy were the core of the Russian popular traditions. But
they also invoked the intellectuals to go to the people observe their life,
customs and traditions and their language.
Vladimir
Solovyov, Nikolai Berdyayev, Sergei Bulgakov, Lev Karsavin and Pavel Florensky explored
Slovophile ideas in their works in late 19th century and the early 20th
century. In several respects, the Slavophiles did not wholly adhered to
traditional notions but idealistic utopians and even radicals and revivalists.
The competing discourse against the
Slovophile was that of the Westernizers. They were relatively larger but
dispersed and loosely connect as compared to the Slovophil who were less in
number but were a coherent body. Alexander Herzen recorded the debate between
the two groups in his book My Past and
Thoughts. Moscow Westernizers group consisted of Alexander Herzen, Timofei
Granovsky, Nikolai Ogaryov, Vasily Botkin, Nikolai Ketcher, Yevgeny Korsh,
Konstantin Kavelin. One of the prominent figures among them was Belinsky from
St. Petersburg. Ivan Turgenev a
proponent of the movement refused to accept feudalism and serfdom based system
of economy, social life and culture, and asked for socio-economic reforms on
western patterns. Dostoyevsky’s well known The Idiot and his memoirs of Europe, Winter
Notes on Summer Impressions, influenced the literary circles. Winter
Notes on Summer Impressions enhanced his understanding of European way of
life in the cities.[8] His travels revealed
on him the Western hypocrisy and a degenerated culture pervaded with
corruption.
The Idiot signified that people cannot live in evil environments, comparing traditional
Russian values and corrupted Europe. Simultaneously, Turgenev’s Fathers and
Sons and, later, Virgin Soil came
out. Like Dostoyevsky, Turgenev philosophical beliefs intermingled
into his writings. He sticks to the nihilist ideology. His fiction Fathers
and Sons was the start of the radicalists outlook. He juxtaposed the old
generation and the new generation. Along with philosophical
debates, the Westernizers thought it possible to establish a middle class
democracy by peaceful means. They were of the view that education and promotion
of the reforms agenda could create a pressure on the Tsar to initiate reforms.
Also, they also gave much value to Peter the Great’s reforms.[9]
They emphasized on the commonalities between the West
and Russia rather than disagreements between them. In the mid-1840s, the
Westernizers movement divided into the liberal and radical groups after a disagreement between Herzen and historian Timofei
Granovsky. Annenkov, Granovsky, Kavelin and some others joined the liberal camp,
whereas the revolutionary included Herzen, Ogaryov and Belinsky. The two groups
had diametrically opposite views about religion. Granovsky and Korsh had faith
in immortality of the soul, while the democrats and Botkin promoted
materialistic view of the world. They were also pole apart on the strategy on
pre-reform and post-reform development in Russia. The radicals were in favour
of revolutionary struggle and the establishment of socialism. Esthetic and philosophical circles of Russia
also reflected these currents of ideas.[10]
Johann von Schiller, Georg Hegel and Friedrich
Schelling, and later by Ludwig von Feuerbach, Auguste Comte and Henri de Saint
Simon had a profound influence on the early Westernizers. The Westernizers were
vanished as a distinct feature of Russian public thought after the reforms of
Alexander II. His reforms were in favour of
capitalist style of development.
The Westernizers’ philosophy was taken up by the Russian liberal intellectual
of the late 19th century and the early 20th century.[11]
Conclusion
Slavophilism and Westernism had a
substantially great impact on Russian history. The increasing Westernization
that had been started by Peter the Great proved in the next century Europeanization
irreversible. On the question of where Russia’s stands between the East and
West, these groups of intellectuals endeavored to search the final answers.
Many professed religion, such as Khomiakov and his orthodox approach to
Slavophilism. On the contrary, many argued in favour of agnosticism and
secularism in order to understand the evolving Russian socio-political
trajectories. From this, the two groups grown and start to impact the Russian
Intelligentsia, Russian culture, life and their way of thinking.[12]
Bibiliography
James Edie, James Scanlan, and
Mary-Barbara Zeldin, Russian Philosophy (Chicago, 1965), vol. 1
http://www.britannica.com
Steinberg. D.
Mark, A History of Russia: From
Peter the Great to Gorbachev. (2003). The Teaching Company Limited
Partnership.
http://www.en.ria.ru.com
[2] Steinberg. D. Mark, A History of Russia: From Peter the
Great to Gorbachev. The Teaching Company Limited Partnership. 2003, p.30
[5] Steinberg. D. Mark, A History of Russia: From Peter the
Great to Gorbachev. The Teaching Company Limited Partnership. 2003, pp.30-31
[7] James Edie, James Scanlan, and Mary-Barbara Zeldin, Russian
Philosophy (Chicago, 1965), vol. 1, pp. 101–269.
[11]
ibid
[12]
ibid
