«ПРЕДЪЕВРАЗИЙСТВО» КАК ФЕНОМЕН ПУБЛИЦИСТИКИ Ф.М. ДОСТОЕВСКОГО
Лесевицкий Алексей Владимирович1, Хорошева Екатерина Игоревна2 1ФГОБУ ВПО Финансовый Университет, Пермский филиал, преподаватель кафедры гуманитарно-социальных дисциплин 2ФГОБУ ВПО Финансовый Университет, Пермский филиал, преподаватель кафедры общеобразовательных дисциплин
Аннотация В статье раскрываются причины, по которым мы можем назвать Ф. М. Достоевского идеологом «предъевразийства». По мнению авторов статьи, тождественность позиции писателя и евразийцев проявляется в следующих аспектах: отношение к реформам Петра I, к системе идеократического государства, к вопросу о взаимоотношениях интеллигенции и народа и т.д. Исходя из положений исследования, мы можем назвать писателя предшественником евразийства.
«PRE-EURASIANISM» AS A PHEMENON OF PUBLICISM F.М. DOSTOYEVSKY
Lesevitskiy Aleksey Vladimirivich1, Khorosheva Ekaterina Igorevna2 1Perm branch of Financial University, Lecturer of the Humanities and Social sciences Department 2Perm branch of Financial University, Lecturer of the General and Educational sciences Department
Abstract The article reveals the reasons why we can call F. M. Dostoevsky an ideologist of «Pre-eurasianism». According to the authors of the article, the identity of the writer's position and Eurasians is manifested in the following aspects: attitude to the reforms of Peter the Great, to the system of the ideocratic State, to the question of the mutual relations of intellectuals and people, etc. On the assumption of the research, we can call the writer the predecessor of Eurasianism.
Библиографическая ссылка на статью:
Лесевицкий А.В., Хорошева Е.И. «Pre-eurasianism» as a phemenon of publicism F.М. Dostoyevsky // Современные научные исследования и инновации. 2017. № 3 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://web.snauka.ru/issues/2017/03/79376 (дата обращения: 29.03.2017).
Many disciples of the Eurasian idea called Dostoyevsky as one of the ideologist of the ethnopolitical current, but the disadvantage of this thesis was that Eurasians didn’t justify it properly. There is not a specific work (research) by N.N. Alekseev, N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitskiy, where the matter of impact ideas of the writer on Eurasian movement would be covered.
Firstly, the Russian litterateur long before the main ideologists of Eurasianism was thinking of the reforms of Peter the Great. Dostoevsky was greatly interested in national Russian history, knew almost by heart the course by N. Karamzin, studied the books by S.M. Solovyev. Understanding of the reforms gave the possibility to understand the peculiarity of Russian civilization, its singularity and alterity with others, as the litterateur had rather negative attitude to the reformations of Peter the Great. Eurasians and Dostoevsky were brought together by the idea according to which the monolithic Russian society was dismantled into two unequal micro-social groups. The micro-society of Western-minded sensitized people – the nobility has arose, whereas the bulk of the peasant population remained in the bosom of the national culture and identity. The unity of the elites and the people was lost. The govern part of the bishops was focused on Western Europe, imitating its way of life, morals, world view of representatives of this civilization. The future of their children they did not connect with Russia: “The crowds poured in abroad and young featherbrain, who did not serve anywhere, cared a lot of their estates. There came and native our landowners with all their families and cardboard boxes. <…> Deaf and toothless old women-madams lived out their lives there and they were finally losing the use of Russian language, which, it must be said, they didn’t know before” [5, p. 87].
After Dostoevsky’s death Eurasians also noticed social distance of Western-minded noble elite from the people, and this social distance was generated by the Petrine reform. Rus failed to become a European country, and most importantly – the reformations had anti-popular and pernicious character: “In a word, the process of Europeanization crushed any national unity, pit with the little holes the national body with deep gashes, breed bad blood and unexpressed enmity between all” [11, p. 266].
Secondly, in the opinion of the litterateur, the process of Europeanization of Rus ideologically and theoretically was proved by Western-minded intellectuals, thus destroying the foundations of the original Russian culture. After the death of the writer N.S. Trubetskoy, literally, wrote in the spirit of Dostoyevsky: “So thus far those particular intellectuals were proxies of Europeanization, they were the ones, believed in cosmopolitanism and “blessings of civilization” and expressing regret for “backwardness” and “sluggishness” of their people, tried to involve the people to the European culture, forcibly destroying all the centuries formed foundations of their own original culture. Thus, they were the main agents of the RomanceandGermanics “[11, pp. 89-90].
Many Westerners-intellectuals found the Russian culture despisable and unhued in comparison with the West-European. And only decades of learning from Europe, one might hope for big achievements in the spirit. According to the litterateur, Westerners understood that entire ethnic group cannot tempt by the spirit of the Romance and Germanic civilization and it meant that all “the failed to adapt” of the reforms for the European manners should become means (material) to achieve this “supreme” goal: construction of new Russia as part of Europe. Dostoevsky in Pushkinian speech, as it were on behalf of the Western-minded reformers, said: “Those who will beshrews their past are already ours, – that is our formula, we will entirely apply it, when we set about to praise the people to us. If the people fail education, than the people will be made away…” [4, p. 487]. Westerners set themselves up a significant part of the Russian ethnos as “ethnographic material”, which is not able to accept European mentality. The Russians are incorrigible and conservative.
Thirdly, we can range the litterateur as an ideologist of “Pre-eurasianism” because in his journalism and work he vividly reflected the crisis of the legal system of Europe. Eurasians insisted that the Romance and Germanic civilization was purely a specific legal system, from which the religious elements were removed, whereas in Russia the religious ethics provided a very serious impact on legal rules. According to Dostoevsky, the right is not the only regulator of social (interpersonal) relations in Russia: “For example, the Russians are greatly related with each other by a sense of kinship, behind which stands the idea of the Orthodox religious brotherhood and the thousand-year experience of the peasant community. The British, passed through the fire of the reformation and defarming are related by respect for the rights of another “[6, p. 230]. Representatives of Eurasianism even after the death of Dostoevsky insisted that in countries, not belonging to the European, the juridical law and morality were not so fundamentally divided. Religious axiology had quite a heavy influence upon the system of law. That is why the litterateur in his epoch-making novel “The Brothers Karamazov” insists that the state to evolve into church, because no legal norm can make a person more moral, but is only capable of causing fear of punishment. According to Dostoevsky, you must make the right segment and the religious component, in particular, therefore, he criticized the Institute of legal profession, when the lawyer is forced to protect the person of the offender. Quarterback spends all their talent and diligence to his client escaped punishment: “It seems to me that to avoid hypocrisy and keep integrity and conscience of a lawyer as difficult, generally speaking, as every man achieve paradise status” [4, p. 72]. In the Dostoevsky saw immorality legal system, without solid ethical foundations right loses its regulatory function. The legal system is depersonified, according to the litterateur and Eurasians, requires a synthesis of law and religion within the framework of the general functioning of the legal system: “In General, the peoples Christian culture basic standards underlying criminal law, largely coincide with the moral standards set forth in the ten commandments” [1, p. 506].
Fourthly, the Russian litterateur gives extremely close Eurasian definition system. We remind that representatives of Eurasianism have developed the doctrine of ideocracy, ideology, which must be the Foundation of this social construct. It should be noted that the writer expressed many ideocratical ideas much earlier Eurasians. According to Dostoevsky, economics does not play a decisive role in the life of ethnic groups, is rethinking the theory. Marx on forefront of tangible basis. The life of the people determines the ideology which forms the economic basis, influencing all sides of society. According to the litterateur, it is possible to speak about mental alterity between the Western and Russian. The identity of the Roman-Germanic type fully subordinated economy, ideal mamonizm. The acquisition of wealth largely determines its genesis. Dostoevsky is insisting that the material side of Genesis was not decisive for the Russian people, who increasingly lived noneconomic senses existence. The original project ideocratical State writer suggested that the reading public in the novel the Brothers Karamazov. In his view, the State should turn into a church, religious tenets and norms should guide economic, policy and culture segment. Much earlier Eurasians, the writer noted that the ideocratical State ruling party adheres to one with the common people’s world view. Precisely because of this factor, the power of the State is born to take care about the economy, certainly necessary, but it does not define the historical destiny of one or another ethnic group: “Nations live great feeling and great, all edinjashheju and all osveshhajushheju thought, unity with the people, finally, when people unwittingly recognizes the top people at the same time, from which was born the national strength is what live nation and not merely stock speculation and concern about the price of the ruble [4, p. 411].
Fifthly, is very similar to the Eurasian and critique litterateur liberal ideology that some Westerners thrust upon Russia as a sort of benchmark of civilization. Such ideologues Dostoevsky called “lack of personalities”, i. e. the thinkers, deprived of national soil, but also a kind of “parrots”, because they are only on their own repeated the basic tenets of the teachings of j.-j. Rousseau, A. Smith, J. Lock, etc. Authentic and original theory they cannot submit the collection’s aim of society. We know that A. Smith preached, according to which the State should not interfere with the system of economic relations, it should not deal with pauperizm, because through the operation of the market is “natural selection” of individuals within the social structure of society. On the contrary, an enormous proportion of their creativity of Dostoevsky is devoted to the idea of Christian compassion, which does not depend on the social status of a particular individual in the State. In addition, the writer was a sharp critic of the very foundations of liberal ideology. However, K.p. Pobedonostsev, Dostoevsky literally scoffed at the “blind faith” liberal intellectuals and constitutionalism, parliamentarism in the idea of “equality of opportunity”, “rational egoism”, etc. There the writer and antipatrioticheskij attitude of some representatives of the above ideology, which stated that Russia is not capable of autonomous, independent from the West, but development can only imitate. Writer finds significant alienation of the people of pro-Western liberal elites. In addition, Dostoevsky has tried to counter the liberal concept of “shattered society”-the ideal of unification, fraternal Orthodox cohesion of personalities in a single homogeneous Union. In his criticism of the liberal theory of the litterateur is extremely close to the Eurasian interpretation of this political ideology, in particular, so we can assume the writer of one of the founders of Eurasianism. N. n. Alekseev notice: “Despite this remarkable cultural role, was in the Russian liberalism something artificial, greenhouse, insufficient soil. If Westernism reactionary style was able to make huge actual force, who managed to organize the masses and long guide the destinies of the State, the Russian liberalism has always been something of a ”literature review” and another, unable to enter life and therefore suffered a decisive collapse in the age of revolution “[1, s. 127].
Thus, we can position the Dostoevsky as one of the main predecessors of the Eurasian ideology.
Alexeev n. n. Russian people and State. M.: Agraffe. 2003. 640 р.
N. A. Berdyaev The meaning of creativity. M.: AST. 2002. 688 р.
Dostoevskaya A. G. Memories. M.: Pravda. 1987.544 p.
Dostoevsky, F. M. Diary writer. St. Petersburg.: Azbuka-klassika. 1999.527 p
Dostoevsky, F. M. Pursuits and reflections. M.: Soviet Russia, 1983. 464 p.
Kara-Murza S. G. Disassembly people. M.: The algorithm. 2008. 704 p.
Lesevitskiy A. V. Dostoevsky as a forerunner of Eurasianism. Perm: From before 2012. 171 p.
Lesevitskiy A. V. Eurasian concept F. М. Dostoyevsky//in the collection: Society and ethnopolitics Seventh materials of the international scientifically-practical Conference. Russian Academy of national economy and public administration under the President of the Russian Federation, Siberian Institute of management, under the scientific editorship of l. V. Savinova. 2015. P. 107-110.
Lesevitskiy A. V. “Exodus to the East” as a civilizational development project in journalism s. Dostoevsky//Anthro. 2014 # 2 (15). P. 107-110.
N. S. Trubeckoj Heritage Of Genghis Khan. M.: Agraffe. 2003. 640 р.