Some philosophical bases of civilizational discourse in modern Russia

The author of the article shares, on the whole, the conclusions reached by A.V. Smirnov. First, the West, with its claims to the universality of its own civilizational project and the policy of globalization, is not suitable for Russia. The latter cannot be the West due to the logic of the development of its culture (cultures). Russia expresses the universal in its own form and claims to be a universal project. Secondly, Russian philosophy, according to the speaker, is in many respects «secondary metaphysics» in relation to Western thought, using its methodology and conceptual apparatus. And yet she has a chance to turn towards her own project and formulate her agenda. Thirdly, since Russia cannot be the West, it means that it must be guided by its own reason, correlating it with the minds of other peoples and cultures. To expand the capabilities of the Russian mind, it is neces­sary to gradually overcome the colonial nature of the knowledge system, incl. philosophy, and initiate new projects and discourses. Fourthly, in Russia there are several large cul­tures and religions that arose in it from the very beginning and are united by a common historical destiny. It is possible to unite within the framework of a civilizational project only if there are integrative values, as well as a unifying idea (“all-humanity”) and a spe­cial way of the subject-predicate complex (for example, “all-subjectness”).

“Russian Civilizational Development Project” and anthroposociocultural approach

The article is based on the report at the seminar № 1 of “Russian Civilizational Development Project” dated to 27th October 2020. (This project is a megatheme of the Institute of philosophy RAS, headed by the academician Andrey V. Smirnov). The article reviews key theoretical and methodological problems of civilizational research in the context of the named megatheme. The author uses the results of earlier researches [24; 25], in particular methodology of the anthroposo­ciocultural approach which he elaborated within the framework of the RFBR research project, its general characteristics were published in the “Sociological Research” with the support of the RFBR [26]. The author attempted to take into account the discussion that took place at the semi­nar, without changing the meaning of the text of the report, but clarifying its provisions. The au­thor also shortened the already published part of the text on the uniqueness of civilizations [27] and suggested some supplements in conclusion. A detailed justification of some of thesis and brief texts, which illustrate the positions of the cited authors, are given in the appendices to the main text.

Report on the progress of the Instituteʼs megatheme “Russian Civilizational Development Project”

22th April 2021 the meeting of the Academic board of the Institute of Philosophy RAS took place. Report on the progress of the megatheme “Russian Civilizational Develop­ment Project” was one of the issues to discuss. Andrey V, Smirnov outlined the prelimi­nary results. This articles covers the major points of his report.

“Civilization” and civilizational Evolution of Russia

The report analyzes the problem of the civilizational evolution of Russia on the basis of the use of a set of ideas of F.A. Tolstoy. Brodel, P. Sorokin, S. Eisenstadt, K. Jaspers, and other specialists. The content of the term “civilization” is discussed. “Civilization” is interpreted by the author as a socio-philosophical category to denote the diversity of cultural and his­torical types of development of economically and politically connected large communities of people and/or their aggregates (communities), subjectively and symbolically integrated into a relatively unified whole through historical and social imagination, cultural mean­ings, values and norms that serve as the cause, purpose and basis for the organization and functioning of these communities. This definition is concretized by revealing the dialectics of the relationship of social, cultural, cognitive and institutional components of “civiliza­tion” using the example of Russia in the historical range from Kievan Rus to the modern Russian Federation. The most important institutional factors in the formation and develop­ment of civilizations, their interaction and expansion over long distances were “universal States” – “kingdoms” and “empires”. Studying the formation and development of the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Russian Empire and the USSR, the author comes to the conclusion that historically these political forms had several civilizational embodiments: the “Orthodox civilization” of the Moscow Kingdom (XVI–XVII centuries), the “civiliza­tional pseudo-morphosis” of the Romanov Empire in the XVIII and mid-XIX century, the “hybrid modern civilization” of Russia on the eve of the First World War, and the “Soviet civilization”, which represented an alternative type of modern (industrial and value-seman­tic) development to the West. Modern Russia, of course, inherits it. But it doesnʼt have a meta-ideology that unites peoples, and it doesnʼt have claims, like the United States, to global dominance. Rather, it is a civilizational hybrid, fancifully combining elements of the archaic, Soviet past and Western modernity.

On the development of Russian civilization. Patriotism and liberalism

Some topical issues of the development of the Russian civilization is discussed in the arti­cle. The author emphasizes the inconsistency of the positions of those authors who deny the originality of Russian civilization, argue about the “under-civilization” of Russia and argue that Western civilization should serve as a model for it. This position is shared by a number of our domestic philosophers and cultural figures. Among them a prominent role plays A.V. Rubtsov. In his numerous publications, he sees in the “political infantil­ism” of voters “a regression of Russian public consciousness”, and explains this with the concept of “narcissism” proposed by him. In contrast to Rubtsovʼs destructive posi­tion, the author defends the patriotic position, which presupposes a constructive approach to solving the fundamental problems of the development of Russian civilization. The ideals of service and devotion to the Motherland have always occupied a high place in Russian culture and social activities. The patriotism of the Soviet people was one of the decisive factors in the Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This kind of deep value structure of social consciousness is ineradicable, it still exists in one degree or another in the popular consciousness and serves as an important factor in creative activity. The para­mount importance of the sustainable development of Russia in the context of the growing global crisis of earthly civilization is emphasized. This question should take an important place in the development of the project of Russian civilizational development.

Global threats and civilizationsʼ solidarity (analytical review of the 18th International Panarinʼs readings held on December 26, 2020, timed to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Panarin)

The article is devoted to a review of the 18th International Panarinʼs readings held on De­cember 26, 2020, timed to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Panarin and dedicated to the theme “Global Threats and Solidarity of Civilizations”. The article consistently describes the course of the conference: prologue, plenary with a brief summary of the reports, summarizing.

Civilization and society as categories of social philosophy

The topical issue of the relationship between civilization and society as basic concepts of social philosophy is discussed in the article. In modern literature, there are great disagree­ments and ambiguities here, due, first of all, to the broad interpretation of civilization by the majority of authors, the interpretation in many cases actually coinciding with the meaning of the concept of society. The article proposes a solution to the issue proceeding from a social-philosophical consideration of four different meanings of the word society: society in general, society as a specific historical type of society, a specific separate soci­ety (socior, in the terminology of Yu.I. Semenov) and humanity as an internally differen­tiated integrity, as a modern human society. One can assume that civilization acts as a characteristic of both the state and the process of development of society in each of its meanings, a characteristic in terms of the correspondence of a particular society to a soci­ological (stage-formation) project. By defining society as an integral social system, a so­ciological theory as a scientific one gives an answer to the question of what exists (what kind of community of people is in structure, functions, subjects and social relations), and with the help of the concept of civilization – how does this society really reproduce itself, how do regulatory mechanisms that determine the actions and deeds of people. Civiliza­tion deals with the present, with the activities of people who change this present, and so­ciety, in the philosophical sense, and not in the sociological one, is the desired future, those distant mountain peaks, that transcendental reality to which the acting person rushes. When it is said today that Russia is returning to itself, that it must make a civiliza­tional choice, it is important to emphasize in every possible way that the choice of a civi­lizational identity, by definition, is unthinkable without a project. A sociological project as a scientific project is directed to the future, outlines the contours of the future, and therefore only project thinking is able to give an opportunity to make the right civiliza­tional choice.

On the civilization and civilizational development of Russia. Historiosophical analysis

Two types of phenomena can be named by the term “civilization”. In accordance with the first one civilization is a socio-economic structure historically developed by the human­ity. This structure replaces barbarism and includes a set of institutions and mechanisms of social life and social consciousness. In accordance with the second meaning civilization is a concrete people community that has changed the clothes of a traditional society and has a “strong culture”. “Universal” civilizational institutions and mechanisms manifest themselves through this culture even in forms specific to a given society, so it is possible to discuss them as a unique “all-hu­man” content. In this case the term means “local civilization”. It reveals itself in different cultural systems in accordance to their own “logic of meaningfulness, which takes origin in the deepest mechanisms of consciousness” and manifests itself in the “universal”. In every society civilizational institutions and mechanisms are the result of revolutionary events or evolutionary processes. They are fixed by the traditional for this society forms of organization and functioning. These forms are presented both in the individual and public consciousness and they are processed in the “civilizing” process. For Russia the forms which have taken on the character of the constants are the imperial way of being, the autocratic form of government, the mechanism for maintaining autocracy “property/propertylessness”, the people accustomed to the autocratic form of government through obedience, the Ortho­dox Church performing the function of government support and neglecting the people.

Current objectives of Russian philosophy

The article is dedicated to the problem of stringing together Russian social reality and genuine theoretical concerns of philosophy. Due to lifting ideological restriction in 1991 the major part of philosophical work was aimed on catching up with Western philosophy widening the gap between society and philosophy in Russia and stating Western value system as universal. The pressing issue for modern Russian philosophy is to formulate and to accept the epis­temological basis for Russian civilization project equal in scale to the Western one. It re­quires the search of a new solution that could be able to gather heterogeneous value sys­tems of Russian society. It should be more universal than “traditional Russian values”, which requires the great efforts on developing individual philosophical consciousness and reaching the deep self-awareness both philosophical and social. The Western-free basis of cogitation in Russian culture could be found in the idea of Vsesubektnostʼ as an utopian idea of the whole world unity, non-losable entirety and non-losable subjectivity. This idea could be used as unobtainable ideal to contemplate how the big culture could manifest itself into civilization system. It specifies the huge field for all-level research from the philosophy of consciousness to the practical cultural and civilization construction.

Models of civilizational development in the contexts of universal discourse

The topic “Russian Civilizational Development Project” is considered as a comprehen­sive and long-term research program. The formation of new models should be preceded by an analysis of the already established general discourse about civilization in all the di­versity of its main subjects and perspectives, methodological approaches and languages of description. To cover the whole in its at least approximate completeness allows the method of “contour mapping”. Long-focus optics for the first time gives an idea of the boundaries and general structure of an object. This allows to choose own perspectives in the project consciously, omitting the rest “sightedly”, not due to ignorance or blind iner­tia. The method allows to cope with a sharply expressed polysemy, including the main categories of the topic: “civilization”, “project”, “Russian”… Related subjects are con­nected: identity, the conflict of civilization and culture, “challenge and response”, the civ­ilizational choice of Russia, postcolonial ethos, attitude to project action in a postmodern situation. The factors of existence, decline and death of historical and modern civiliza­tions (“civilizational eschatology”) are emphasized. Commodity models and derivative resource societies are especially noted. The unique importance of philosophy for under­standing the full depth of the problem of “changing the vector of development”, including “from raw materials to innovative ones”, is shown. Technocratic illusions make it diffi­cult to understand that directives, operational administration, technology and finance transfer are not enough to solve such truly civilizational, historical tasks. The necessity of changes in the economy, institutional environment, politics and psychoideology associ­ated with the age-old archetypes and inertia of consciousness is shown.