Russian Eurasianism: Historiosophy and Ideology Author(s): Sawomir Mazurek and Guy R.

Torr Source: Studies in East European Thought, Vol. 54, No. 1/2, Polish Studies on Russian Thought (Mar., 2002), pp. 105-123 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099785 . Accessed: 23/10/2011 07:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in East European Thought.

http://www.jstor.org

SLAWOMIR MAZUREK

AND RUSSIAN EURASIANISM- HISTORIOSOPHY IDEOLOGY

I attempt to answer the question about the place of Eurasianism ABSTRACT. in the Russian intellectual tradition. I reconstruct its historiosophical assumptions as well the political ideology following from them. I share the opinion of certain historians that Eurasianism is interesting for a variety of reasons, but I disagree with those who see in it nothing more than a synthesis of standard ideas often in the history of Russian thought. Eurasianism's originality includes to the history of of the positive contribution of theMongols acknowledgment Russian state, the radicalism of its critique of theWest, the innovativeness of theory of revolution, as well as the absence, unusual for Russian thinkers of period, of an eschatological sensitivity. found its the its the

KEY WORDS: anti-Westernism, historiosophy, political ideology, polycentrism, Russian Eurasianism, Russian intellectual tradition, Tartar roots of the Russian State

THE LAST LINK There is no absence inRussia today of circles and publications with various degrees of influence defining themselves quite simply as Eurasian. In the ideological void that resulted from the collapse
of communism, has proved considered whenever the perspective for many tempting that they were the was of Eurasian concepts reanimating the Eurasians themselves because of ideology should take an which over -

creators to arise

the possibility

from

Bolshevik communism. They did not want to smash the totalitarian and monolithic colossus that had been created by the Bolsheviks,
but simply to breathe a new Eurasian soul into it. Their concep

tion constituting the last link in the history of Russian nation alist ideologies sanctioned by historiosophies (or equally in the
history ally ?M wV of Russian all impresses historiosophies those nowadays sanctioning who desire nationalism) to maintain natur Russia's

Studies inEast European Thought 54: 105-123,2002. ? 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.

106
an 'otherness' 'otherness'; influences. up' to western so distanced by I'll the

SLAWOMIR MAZUREK threatened as if as a result of 'the opening

It is worth noting here that for various reasons

phenomenon proposed as (here in time, of so removed classicists the Russian

this is not a
as such or the our

'historically', renaissance catastrophism from among virtually

choose

Merezhkovskii's founding fathers

at random) Berdyaev's Some of those millenarianism. of Eurasianism were to live

to see

contemporary period: Petr Savitskii died in 1968, while Petr Suvch inskii in 1985. Although they were active as thinkers and ideologists
only several correctly in the inter-war period, active this is not, I feel, an unimportant

detail. Of more
decades considered

significance
there were to be

is the fact that after the war

two eminent of Eurasianism historians, who in emigration

for

were

the heirs

Grigorii Vernadskii (1887-1993), one of the leading representatives of this current in the 1920s and 1930s; and in the Soviet Union Lev Gumil?v who spoke of himself as the last Eurasian. Note this
as it appears to be extremely last phrase, characteristic: Gumil?v a past which to has still not become the past. Eurasianism, belongs a historical in remaining does not allow itself to be phenomenon,

totally placed within

It becomes as a result

the boundaries
doubly attractive

of a historical
for those

'yesterday'.
and

politicians small, less

ideologists
desire

quoting

it; the risk that they will

an anachronism is relatively

be suspected of a
than

to reactivate

in the case of quoting other historiosophies

post-revolutionary ?migr? A closer of the Eurasians' inspection a practical its popularity significance circles.

that developed within

can therefore have

position is not

without

influence

on the existing political views prevalent in Russia. The historian of ideas who is not guided by motives of this type may be inter
ested in Eurasianism for other reasons. We have already said that

this was the last of Russian historiosophies that sanctioned nation alism. We shall add that it is also a historiosophy whose position
within Its continuances head appears most history singular. our day yet its roots are located in the nine towards temporally was Lev Gumil?v, If the last Eurasian teenth century. then the title of the first in accordance with the consensus of researchers is Russian by Konstantin Leont'ev. In adhering to the past Eurasian

merited

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM ism did not isolate itself, with

107

philosophical

thought of various the creators of Eurasianism, scholars amongst special Russian ities naturalists, historians, intelligents typical linguists a over There was, the fate of their country. however, speculating certain time when at least one eminent representative of the Russian

from the Russian however, religious which it was contemporary. There were,

renaissance felt himself closely tied to their circles. This concerned Lev Karsavin who at one time claimed the role of philosophical
for Eurasianism.1 legislator and varied, fore numerous current's Russian The sources of Eurasianism were there styles involving a variety of personages,

of thought, inspirations. Given

relationship historiosophical the background against with it, to be a typical

this situation the question of this

to the concepts and ideas characteristic of the Does tradition it appear, is unavoidable. of earlier concepts and those contemporary creation or, contrariwise, something highly

original? And what modifications

do commonly

held views and

the convic

ideas undergo upon their acceptance by Eurasians? Within the literature on the subject one can encounter the most Eurasians traditional writes current.2 one of "The ideas that were the

tion that against the background of ?migr? thought Eurasianism was

the authorities on elaborated by such as subject likewise the prophetism, related to the traditions held view. a universally

anti-Westernism, nationalism, Orthodoxy, of an apocalyptic tone, are closely presence This of Russian is not, however, thought."3 a completely Certain researchers express that Eurasianism was "... the only

view, opposite claiming new examination fundamentally of these is closer viewpoints of the views of the what their depend will naturally is not to

of Russian history and culture that appeared within Russian ?migr?

circles."4 We will soon article with discover is meant which to the truth. This Eurasians, ence was concentrate as a presentation to determine

coupled on the Russian in our

an attempt

tradition. We historiosophical on historiosophy, considerations which

say that the ideology, to which

be ignored.

itwas at one moment

subjected, will

108

SLAWOMIR MAZUREK

THE TRAP OF EUROPEANIZATION The foundation of Eurasian historiosophy was the conviction that Russia was historically different, that it lay between Europe and Asia and belonged to neither of these worlds. This theory was
to Leont'ev's it was connected ideas new; on the contrary, nothing to the Eurasians. to In wanting and to Spengler who was well known to conceive have their say on the matter they had as a consequence

this historical difference

source via two and essence. On routes.

in a novel way,
say hand, that they

to look elsewhere

for its

I would the one

to achieve this they aimed Western criticized civiliza

tion (in their terminology

the other hand, reinterpretation advocate Many

the Romano-Germanic

civilization);
iconoclastic,

on

a fundamental, they undertook of national history. the view that working

or even

out an original

concept

for

Russia-Eurasia would not have been impossible had these thinkers limited themselves to the second of the points just mentioned.
However, was to a great the psychological basis for Eurasianism a deep as experienced resentment for Western civilization degree at that time the creators of the movement, by twenty-year-old, - someone was to from Russia. 'Eurasianism unknown, ?migr?s - was a Parisian born in the course of an argument with conci say a some truth. Criticism is much malice here though also erge'. There of the West was of culture not the consequence of certainly most would the Eurasian continent; of Eurasia anti-Westernism. by. It is difficult, This the affirming have already

original advocated product I want

that the affirmation of radical to abide

as the by appears initially is not an interpretation that not to notice that the however,

history of Russian Eurasianism begins with Nikolai Trubetskoi's Evropa i chelovechestvo5 a book devoted in its entirety to criti
cism of the West. It was only thereafter that the famous almanacs

appeared: Iskhod k Vostokw,6 Na putyakh',1 Rossiya

Trubetskoi's book, written though simple ingenious on contemporaries. The author's the regularity of and paradoxes in an extremely made argumentation, chief the process of peoples

i latinstvo?

on lucid way, based a strong impression was to describe intention of Europeanization, the technological and culture.

i.e. the adoption by non-European of Romano-Germanic intellectual achievements

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM

109

to Trubetskoi, Romano-Germanic had Europe to implant in the world the idea of the pre-eminence of managed no reasons why own culture. its In essence, there were its however, universal and higher values should be considered than others. What According

is interesting is that not only does Trubetskoi - in the spirit of Leon tievian polycentrism - defend the rights of all historical cultures that lie beyond Europe, but he argues with the view concerning the cultural inferiority of primitive people; the very term 'primitive' appears for him highly unsuitable. The fact that we do not perceive the richness and complexity of primitive cultures is no proof thatwe
are superior to them. Hence the pre-eminence and openness cosmopolitanism and universalism, culture, and also

the to be

of Western

turn out

ideological fictions manipulated by the latter with great skill. The West's exceptional perfidy lies in its imposition of its system of
values ization, upon partners the domination of Romano-Germanic and strengthening expanding at Europeanization nations. Attempts lead to backwardness: nations are condemned to remain this process which backward undergo to the strength of the dialectics and paradoxes since they are subject of the process of Europeanization itself. Let us start from the fact that successful would Europeanization others, out creating in this way pushing of them unconscious them toward for European the sake of

have to be based on the adoption of alien values and subsequently

their Western creative culture transformation, that is their a transformation According in source. the spirit of to Trubetskoi, to be false

this is impossible without

people with Romano-Germans.

the ethnic
Even

'mixing'of
theory there were

the indigenous
were

if this

had no doubts that it would), other circum (Trubetskoi stances hindering the very adoption creativity. independent Already an effort of foreign values constitutes that absorbs huge provisions not all social strata Europeanize of social energy. Besides which,

equally quickly, which

from the people,

leads to the separation of the intelligentsia

conflicts intensify and, obviously, the

internal

creative potential of the Europeanizing collectivity is all the more diminished. Equally significant is its low self-esteem, which is a consequence of the fact that its works are perceived by Europe, as the highest authority, as the deformation of prototypes. Finally,

110
a nation for in the course the economic

MAZUREK SLAWOMIR of Europeanization and military expansion remains easy plunder the Romano-Germans.

of

In the desire to make up for backwardness in various fields there takes place periodically a mobilizing of forces for a subsequent Europeanizing effort; in the long run this simply results in increased
backwardness. How does one escape from the trap of Europeanization? An

uprising on the part of all peoples exploited by theWest is (unfor tunately Trubetskoi seems to say) impossible. All that is left is
to adopt adopting the achievements its endemic of Romano-Germanic Europeanizing culture nations without will not 'egocentrism'.

fall then into psychological dependence on theWest and will avoid the complexes paralysing their abilities; a selective reception of the works of Western culture is also possible. The initial condition is,
however, the mental transformation of the a factor of 'bad' Europeanization. always civilization faults of Romano-Germanic neutralize Europe's and foremost make absolute it known intelligentsia, This is possible are spelt out. which when In order is the to first

and cunning hegemony, that it is not a benefactor.

one must

The view held by certain historians of ideas9 - including the author of this article - that the history of Eurasianism begins
with Nikolai Trubetskoi's certain, without seemingly explanation. Evropa well-founded Trubetskoi i chelovechestvo misgivings not use does that the could cannot term call be forth left

'Eurasia';

what

is more he writes in one place that not only forms of nationalism, but equally proposals in the form of Panslavism and
"merely obscure the essence opposition of the world, appear one true only the rest of the nations Assertions such the problem,"10 between Romano between to be very Europe distant of

Panmongolianism for "there exists Germans and

and humanity."11 mistaken anti-Western historiosophy. The

as these

from the Eurasian position.

to overestimate rhetoric In other their reinforcing

I believe,
significance;

though, that it would

they belong not rather though as we have

be
to

anti-Western, of the work,

dualist, already instead i chel

fragments

suggested, Trubetskoi clearly speaks out for cultural polycentrism.

non-European a multiplicity of world various is not here wholes. but uniform, something The of Evropa author

ovechestvo

is here fully conscious

of the cultural independence

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM of Russia, which he in, among other passages,

111
frag

expresses

ments
shall

devoted
add also

to Peter the Great and his designs for Russia. We

that only does on the basis of of such an interpretation the authors of the his participation among a year after Evropa i which k vostoku, appeared to be incomprehensible. not appear criticism of the West is concerned, it was

Trubetskoi's almanac

views Iskhod

chelovechestvo, As far as Trubetskoi's

taken on board by Eurasians and incorporated in their historiosophy. The only modifications are to be found in the addition of certain
themes which in no way diminish its radicalism. There appears

amongst Eurasians a criticism of Catholicism which is lacking in Trubetskoi. Iwill withhold from summarizing it as it does not differ
from the typical Russian arguments against 'Romists'.12 Another

element missing in Trubetskoi is the criticism of theWestern idea of human rights devised by Karsavin and which is undoubtedly
more interesting than routine anti-Catholicism. The dissemination

of nationalist ideologies leading to a tribal war of all against all was in his opinion the result of the struggle for the rights of the individual so important in the history of Europe. At a given moment the prerogatives of the individual are transferred to the people, this bringing about a quasi-person mercilessly fighting for position and
influence.13

THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL MYTH AND THE INTERPRETATIONOF REVOLUTION

Radical important anti-Westernism impulse; was, for original the Eurasians, creation, an however, extremely was the

their most

concept of Eurasia. The defense of the theory that in the historical and cultural plane of things Russia is a distinct Eurasian continent
demanded the overcoming of a new of numerous difficulties. A reinterpre

tation of national history would have been incomplete without

creation the treatment concept of Eurasianism of the Russian nation. It followed as a distinct not arrived quality, - or even a synthesis

the
from at of

inadvertently European

and Asian

of in the guise elements.

a hybrid

The innovative aspect of the Eurasian

history was closely connected with

interpretation of Russian
reassessment of

a complete

112 opinion
country's

MAZUREK SLAWOMIR

concerning
history. As

the role which

opposed

the Tatars had played

the Great's reforms

in the
the

to Peter

period of the so-called 'Tatar yoke' had not been the subject of fundamental arguments during the ideological and historiosophical
that had disputes the Eurasians only the existence taken who place raised in pre-Revolutionary the matter, advancing between Russia. It was as to and a theory Russia pre-Petrine all of Eurasia

of historical

continuity

the empire of Genghis Khan.

Empire Tatar was the first state within

It was
whose

their belief
borders

that the Mongol

was

contained,

stretching from the Ukraine and Belarus

was for Rus a period of

to Siberia. The
political

occupation

characteristic

education, while the Tatar khans played such an significant part state that they deserve to be in the construction of the Muscovite as its joint creators.14 In taking into consideration these recognized
circumstances was a conscious This historians new was had the Eurasians continuation maintained of the Mongol that the Muscovite state idea.15 political new a completely theory; Western obviously, It was, claims earlier. similar broached however,

not,

soil. And here the Eurasians' theory for Russian was revealed roots for in arguing for Mongolian anti-Westernism boasted its Tatar past they ostentatiously in mythologizing Russia, iconoclastic about to see what many as Russia's European blemish. historians They writers wanted and political a topos willingly transformed national myth. into a Russian

exploited for the

by anti-Russian views

propaganda

This would
original

probably not have been possible

concerning the genesis

had it not been

of the Russian

people with which

According specificities. nor Turanians. They

they explained

the latter's ethnic and cultural

are neither to the Eurasians, Slavs Russians over a long process as a people had formed

in the course of which various ethnic groupings, inhabiting Eurasia from time immemorial, mixed, joined together, and mutually influ
enced role one another. The Greater Russian element in this process; this nationality [narodnost'] played became a significant the 'centre'

of cultural and ethnic synthesis, incorporating the culture of other groups and conveying their own to them. It is not surprising then that
within richer the limits than the Great of the people Russian so evolved, ethnic as something there substratum, broader exist and infinite

regional differences.16 Although

it is difficult

to miss

them, they

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM as do not be overemphasized, determination. The latter programme should to the disintegration of the Russian the adherents of national

113
self

is threatening because it leads as but it is also Utopian nation,

it is impossible
centuries.

to remove the historical processes of the Russian

of interest Ignoring by great is the case was

spread over the itself -

The Eurasianism
according and lasting characterized although in character, and as catastrophe. Nemesis, Peter The irreducible.

people
fact, - were

and Russia
- was 'Russian' in essence

to the authors

to us here this

something actions

force with

utopia

rooted

Utopian utopias they had to lead to in the reforms of Peter the

Great (regardless of his intentions); the catastrophe,

in the Bolshevik the Great's Revolution. from above meant revolution

the historical

the renunciation reformer was to

of the by Russia a process started

tsar Idea'. The 'Mongolian Imperial of Europeanizing the country which

last for the whole

the phenomena the all, know and

of the nineteenth
which for

century. We

already know
it as we, after constructed

paradoxes model general

accompanied such a process Let's

by Trubetskoi
had considered that amongst disintegration

(undoubtedly
to be the phenomena of traditional

on

the basis
experience).

of what

he himself
note simply the stratum

the Russian

accompanying Europeanization, into an alienated upper society threat that for from the creators the moment

living by its own ideas and the people who preserve their Eurasian
constituted the greatest identity ism. Some of them considered division political borders an end existed reform, between to it. The Russia no was of Eurasian the said no of

condemned was

as Florovskii and

to revolution, because to say - "movement

the authorities figure of Peter

would be able to put society"17 a certain contro aroused, however,

versy. While
others Russia's maintained

some saw literally nothing positive

that Peter distinctive had been character: a leader his

in what he did,
to maintain was only to

culturally

desiring intention

transfer from Europe everything thatmight turn out useful in order to then 'turn one's back on it' (this intention failed because the tsar died leaving no heirs worthy of him).18 A tragic turn in the history of
Russia was therefore either the succession of an arbitrary individual

114
without or concern for ... a fatal The

SLAWOMIR MAZUREK the organic of character of the historical

process,

coincidence. revolution as presented revolution was by the Eurasians

interpretation and folk

caused

a real scandal

in ?migr? circles. The

nature of the Bolsheviks

theory regarding
especially were not irritat a group but power,

the national

ing. According to seize of professional revolutionaries who managed of the will of the masses rather unconscious "who preserve agents an Eurasian as of 'Petersburg' and understanding Russia identity an alien creation." not understanding The Bolsheviks themselves, the sense of of events, considered that and was they the also were, to some of extent, forced

to the Eurasians,

spokesmen industrialization

Europeanization, for the country

programme perceived

in this way.

The political (dictatorship), economic (monolith), and ideological (Marxist communism) innovations of the Soviet authorities led to the severing of all links with Europe. From the point of view of
Eurasians, to their Russia's isolation was in every more respect welcome; Also espe the

cially as the new authorities clearly intended to establish order close

structural ideal (about which in a moment).

foreign policy of the Soviet state appeared to be bringing sympto

matic in central Asia involved and the Far East they were changes: on a scale unmatched in the history of pre-Revolutionary Russia. was Far less controversial another of the characteristic feature to examine the clear tendency the revolution Eurasians' position as an event would devoid of a universal of historical sense. Whatever the crisis say about of the epoch or the general as revolution they treated significance. embracing in relation the West, event the catastrophic of the contemporary 'local' rather Florovskii is a Russian they character period, than global any all and

tendencies an

of

wrote Georgii "It did not bring revelations. The Russian revolution to its own origin, not sense,

matter

and objective

significance; event,

what ismanifested
revolution was,

in it is Russian

truth, truth about Russia."19 The

although it

therefore,

an epoch-making

opened up a new epoch in the history of Russia. Even a superficial

knowledge over the historical sense of the revolu of the controversy for several decades within intellectual tion, running circles, ?migr? an isolated one to state that this was allows position. Berdyaev, Ivanov, Frank, Merezhkovskii, and many, many others

Vyatcheslav

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM considered universal it a certainty significance, that the revolution was an event of

115
a

influencing

the fate of humanity.

The Bolshevik
Russia, could

victory, within

the perspective

of the history of

not only to the East'. 'a return It however, represented, as a state. not have taken place had Russia itself not survived

According
saved

to the Eurasians,

it was the Bolsheviks

themselves who

its unity and in the short term its survival. The guaranteed Russia' had unleashed the peoples of 'Petersburg amongst collapse

and ethnic groupings inhabiting it strong tendencies for independ ence which were defeated chiefly thanks to the new ideology and its
of the internationalist and class solidarity. proletariat mythologizing of Marxism's This was, however because falsehood and precisely

the artificiality of Bolshevik

Russia, national in order character, to survive, rooted

myths
needed

only a temporary solution;

ideology mentality, reflecting and culture. its

a new

in its traditions,

IDEOLOGYAND IDEOCRACY The distinction I have adopted between historiosophy and ideology - the first having been dealt with above, the second to be dealt
with below historiosophy some of raise significant doubts. It is easy to see that the may of the Eurasians contains many moments, ideological

even if, in spite of the appeals for academic neutrality20 made by

assessment. It is not, shun, to put itmildly, them, it doesn't us so far, a project in the shape presented for political however, by as at a later moment, Such a project reconstruction. only appeared

a result of the ongoing politicization

means pleasing have ideology, with to all of in mind the vision

of the entire movement

(by no

its adherents). Eurasians, as a rule the historiosophy of the new Russia.

in talking about created by them in our view,

together

Therefore,

only the final formulation and elaboration of this vision constitutes the ideologicalization of their position. In wishing to present the ideology of the Eurasians, we must examine the project for political
structure which they advanced for Russia.

More was

than likely the most

important element was

state. For

the concep
this

tion of an ideocracy, of

i.e. an ideological

the Eurasians

the structure of the future: they prophesized

ideocracy (undoubtedly affiliated

the arrival of a
anti

century

to the subsequent

116
Western motif, was for

SLAWOMIR MAZUREK was the anti-theory to parliamentary above, even

ideocracy

democracy, which was associated with theWest). The first modern

ideocracy deprived Soviet of a future a state, for the reasons cited Russia, to an ephemeral and condemned existence,

though conveying ideas about the possibilities for the new order (the Eurasians did not hide their surprise regarding its achievements that
grew as a result as 'post-Bolshevik' plans as a country of the promulgation of the five-year plans). was concerned Russia it was presented Soviet and economic retaining political As far in their institu

tions though possessing a new ideology. They intended it to remain with a monolithic economy and retain the institution of a single
party, though it would be already claimed a Eurasian single party. Eurasian

ideologists believed
a classless this society. is concentrating

that they would be able to create in this way

They power quite in the hands that the route to seriously of a 'classless ruling elite',

the selection for which would

take place exclusively

as to whether a theocracy. On

on the basis of
post-Bolshevik the one hand, to avoid Nor of state this is there

criteria'. 'ideological It is not easy to answer the question would be at the same time ideocracy Eurasians, term; room when driven hard

an aversion they declare for discussion the handing concerning to Orthodox hierarchies. On the other hand, the necessity culture, and for

by polemicists, to religious

attempt coercion.21 over

about Orthodox gion.

rebirth, religious the subordination of all areas to one

power write they incessantly an to create the need of life to reli - uses the wide

example term fideocentrism, from his fellow countrymen ranging demanding as they have apparently that they subordinate, done for centuries

Trubetskoi

to limit ourselves

in

India, the whole of social life to the requirements of religion.22

Considerations Russian Eurasian touched ideocracy doctrine. on concerning were for At times Orthodoxy's sure one of one has place the weaker in the future in the points that its creators of ques

this problem

area

only

the impression to increase the number

tions which
doubtful defended

they were not able to deal with, or to suddenly propose

is the theory nature of the

answers

An evident and diagnoses. example of them concerning the Eurasian many by

Orthodox
Eurasia

faith and the natural gravitation

towards Orthodoxy; the theory seems

of other religions
designed

of

to sustain

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM dreams

117

for the ideological-religious and to appease unity of Russia or less sympathetic of denominational coercion. More opponents seen perfectly of the Eurasians critics have the inadequacies in not only their religious have drawn attention They conceptions. to its vague to instrumentalize but to the tendency reli character, on the most as to concentrate as well to treat it superficially gion, customs ceremonial and not the spiritual aspects external, (bytovoi), of Orthodoxy.23

The ideologization
to its decomposition.

and politicization
The circle broke

of Eurasianism

led finally
in an

into two camps

engaged

unrelenting struggle with each other: the anti-Bolshevik (Savitskii, V.N. IT in, N. Trubetskoi) and the pro-Bolshevik grouping that
formed around the paper 'Evrasia' (Karsavin, Efron, Sviatopolk

to Mirskii). The latter group tried, understandably unsuccessfully, strike up a dialogue with the Soviet authorities. With time the
Eurasians became less intellectually productive, and increasingly

they used up their energy in typically damning ?migr? squabbles.24 Having presented the Eurasians' position in this way it is time
to answer the questions raised at the very start. The task at hand

will be all the easier if we first of all examine several interpretative

generalizations.

Let us begin by placing Eurasianism

of two currents in the philosophy within

against the background

whose separation as a philo in

of history,

the first half of the twentieth century constituted one of the most
important symptoms to move of these the crisis of historiosophy

sophical discipline,
attempts The first sics are

for in both cases we

are dealing with

clear

into a new, non-philosophical is religious-eschatological

type of discourse. in nature, and its clas

the Russian Berdyaev,

of history: naturalistic, of

relatively and Toynbee. the great Eurasianism stands synthesis, Spengler to this latter current, it is not an historicism, it close for although

in the philosophy specialists 'catastrophizing' and Rozanov. The second may be called Frank, and is represented historicist, by the creators

is difficult to minimize Eurasians keenly refer linguistics, climatology, of geopolitical research;

culture as a creation

its naturalistic and scientific preferences. in their considerations to the findings of geography, and ethnology; they are fond they display a sensitive bent for treating
and spatial conditions. Naturalism,

of climatic

118
of though Konstantin a different Leont'ev.

SLAWOMIR MAZUREK type, was In Leont'ev characteristic this was for balanced their

precursor, however by

original and far outmoded eschatologism which one searches for vainly in his twentieth century pupils. The banality and meagreness of eschatologism within the Eurasians' historiosophy remains closely linked with their ignor
ance of such the regarding the eschatological millenarianism. completely istic here a pervading question sense of history. As perspective Eurasians insensitive are not their for Russian is known the the thinkers as that of faith introduction of

enabled

preservation

within a sensibility to history through the simultaneous rejection of

reject millenarianism, equally to the problem of eschatology. statements in which they avoid yet remain Character the matter,

but those in which

of of that time intellectual,

something

unheard of in Russian
tertiary routines.25 role,

thought

a secondary or and linguistic theological, it plays

afoul falling This eschato

logical reserve is striking and easily noticed despite the abundant

catastrophic distress rhetoric.

It is not difficult to find an explanation

is missing in the Eurasians, for

for this. Eschatological

are not oppressed by

they

the question of the sense of history; this question does not oppress them for in point of fact they know the answer (although they
probably have never couched it expr?s sis verbis). They concentrate

on the fate of Russia which, thanks to the Bolshevik revolution, regenerates in the direction of a destiny which they had not even
In this conception envisaged. most significant conception and for Eurasians undoubtedly this is after has meaning. all the One history

- on the whole may look toward the future with hope; they accept - that there exists in implicite though this is not essential history
an impersonal regulating mechanism. It is this that explains why

the Eurasian nature of the Russians could not be forced relentlessly, West. The workings of the pushing them towards the domains of the
mechanism are closely of tied to the already mentioned permanence for concrete characteristic ethno-cultural predispositions subjects.

The cunning of historical reason, of which

the victims, of Russians turns out themselves. to be finally the cunning

the Bolsheviks
of the Eurasian

become
nature

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM Such Not all, is the standard however, considerable

119

devotes

for the theoreticians of Eurasianism. position it with Florovskii accept approbation. Georgii to the question neces attention of historical

sity. He formulates his position

smenovekhovstvo, Ustryalov,

in a polemic with the leader of the

as with the poets, Blok and

as well

Belyi, who sympathized with the revolution, though this does not mean that his criticism does not apply to the views of many eminent
representatives of the Eurasian current. Florovskii reproached the

adherents of the thesis of historical necessity for dealing in the cult of strength as well as in the naive belief that events head via the
shortest route to a happy finale. He writes about the need to work out

a third historiosophical
ical voluntarism even in the most

standpoint free of vestiges of historiosoph

he does not sketch he when shifts not it out, however, to an analysis in a tone he does quite not

and fatalism;

of concrete close adopt

terms, though general historical he expresses events, Eurasians. Who

himself

to that of other

is to say whether

their assumptions.26

We have mentioned that Eurasianism had much in common with the naturalist current in contemporary philosophy of history; we
have naive also said that None its creators of often succumbed however, to more that their or less scientism. this means, start of histori

osophy
such was

is totally devoid of a metaphysical

the case at the as soon as Lev

background. Even

if

the twenties, then the situation an eminent of the Karsavin, changed representative to be an adherent Russian of all-unity, declared himself philosophy of existence of Eurasianism. Karsavin's combines the philosophy metaphysics existences, personal from of all-unity with the smallest hierarchical to the personalism: all created a potential possess largest, actualizes itself (in the temporal

character:

this potential

plane always only partially) through participation in Logos', besides individuals [individual'naya lichnost'] there exist symphonic indi
viduals [simfonicheskaya, respectively the Church, sobornaya state. The lichnost'] usefulness who

stand higher
gical hierarchy!),

in the ontological
e.g.

hierarchy
nation,

(but not in the axiolo

of

this philosophy as the ontological background for Eurasian historio it became a perfect sophy was limited however. Superficially,
sanction equally for polycentrism treating nations and cultures as

distinct, unique and equally valuable objects; as for the Eurasian

120

SLAWOMIR MAZUREK

conception of the Russian people, in the thought of which itwas a cultural and ethnic unit within a multitude. In reality the only well
justified sanction was the last, for as opposed to the Russian nation

which within the historiosophy of the Eurasians is really harmonious unity inmultiplicity, humanity, as a result of the dramatic conflict between Europe and the rest of the world, could not be described as
a symphony of cultures.27 to the question of With regard of Eurasianism secondary standing, historiosophical the answer must the present as concisely new quality One can tradition, be there elaborated and the relatively innovation, in the face of the Russian

a short answer; to provide is no way the whole and in a sense of upon, If, however, I were to answer is rather a that Eurasianism

text constitutes as possible, than merely grasp

an answer. I would a new say

therefore

of well-known ideas. configuration it as something made of three up entirely are radicalized by Eurasians, and as

kinds of elements: new ideas and concepts; ideas that appear in the
Russian well intellectual tradition yet as significant omissions. The thesis concerning roots of their

the Eurasianism is undoubtedly idea, one

of Russians, innovatory that does not

the

Tatar

statehood is an original

in char

acter in relation to the indigenous historiosophical

idea of ideocracy

tradition. The
appear in

earlier Russian political thought. It is equally difficult not to note the independence and originality of the historiosophy of revolution worked out by the Eurasians. What distinguishes their diagnosis
from those no of others of the same time is not only but the thesis

concerning
'local', conviction

the support of the Bolsheviks

'universal', longer in its fundamentally nature of reactionary

by the people
revolution, character (the

and the
also the return

to Eurasian identity). Equally the concept of the Russian nation as a symphonic unity of collective individuals (peoples and ethnic groupings) is a novel thought, although it could not have come about were it not for the ontology of sobornosf, developed and elaborated since the days of Khomyakov. Amongst the ideas that belong to the Russian intellectual tradi
by the Eurasians, anti-Westernism. first place, Regardless movens of the entire Eurasian spiritus tion, and radicalized we have to mention, we see in the here the whether historiosophy

(and,

as we

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM have recalled, the defense of such a position that consider would

121
not be a hopeless severe

undertaking) or simply as one of its themes, itwould be difficult not

to agree with The the views Eurasians to be the most

critics of theWest
Slavophiles Dostoevskii,

in the history of Russian

and their and successors Leont'ev -

letters.28
among whom in criticising I include Europe

Danilevskii,

constantly displayed a fascination with its culture. It is true that, on the whole, they considered its splendour to be irretrievably past;
it occurred to them, however, to hold a different position as regards

the dependency
Europe. an uncompromising Konstantin

between
critic

the rebirth of Russia

highly of Western considered liberalism,

and the healing of

by the Eurasians, and the creator

Leont'ev,

of catastrophic historiosophy, often said that the future Byzantine Russia should pay off its debts to Europe, by saving it from sinking into the depths of social egalitarianism. It is difficult to imagine any
of the Eurasians between Europe In their view similar. there exists saying something a chasm to bridge and Russia in a way impossible there is no way one can talk of a community back on their it.' anti of

similar to thatwhich exists between Europe and the rest of humanity.

As a consequence one can

historical destiny. If it is not condemned

because The Westernism, and which Eurasians which ignore Europe, were never was a product 'one can able

to conflict, then this is only

turn one's to harmonize

of the radicalization with radical cultural

of Slavophile

post-Slavophile also needs

anti-Westernism, as more to be viewed

polycentrism, than the polycentrism

of Danilevskii or Leont'ev (the difference here is not however as West). The radical criti striking as it is in the case of criticism of the
cism of European aggressor reveals culture, which always to its very nature, appears according if one for a moment radical already form know itself as a scheming to be out of keeping

with
however was teenth

the theory of the equal standing of cultures. This

formulated century ignores in a more we the criticism than in the

theory,
-

of Europe letters of nine an attempt

thinkers:

that there was

to deny the difference between primitive and historical cultures, pointing out the richness of the former. The bold polycentrism of the
Eurasians underwent deformation under pressure from their radical anti-Westernism.

The
however,

originality
not only

of
by

the Eurasians'
the presence of

conception
themes and

is forejudged,
formulations not

122
met typical in other themes. Russian For reserve

SLAWOMIR MAZUREK but also historiosophies, these reasons, I have what acquires significance; in the absence called above of their posi

eschatological

indeed

a unique

tion against the background of Russian thought in general and surely unmet amongst the ?migr? philosophers of history discussing the phenomenon of revolution. An original feature is equally the
absence of the question and concerning the meaning other of history, Russian always thinkers.

going at full steam with the momentary,

to its meaning, these Maybe tormenting all weaknesses

though intense despair as

at the time

are in the Eurasian though position, reason for which would be weaknesses of their position alone, they from the position of an historian of ideas. they are rather striking

It would be absurd of course to claim that Eurasianism is a creation totally independent of theRussian intellectual tradition, that besides this it has nothing in common with the proposals of then
contemporary different Russian authors. In the course of these arguments

we have pointed out repeatedly

that it does represent something

as of Leont'ev (we have spoken at least of the significance to the current, and about anti-millenarianism the precursor bringing to the thinkers the Eurasians closer of the Russian renaissance in historiosophy). traits 'original' What is more, the characterization allows one above its

engaged of the

of Eurasianism

to realize

dependence upon tradition: it has to be dependent given that several

of as the product of a radicalization of ideas appear earlier. This raises the question, of the that had appeared however, As it turns out we scale of this dependence. could discuss this its elements so long as we then, remain on the level of the most Eurasianism of general to us as another

only

descriptions:

importantly,

appears

Russian

historiosophy
Similarities

combining
manifest

anti-Westernism
themselves however,

with

cultural
level from of this able

polycentrism.

at a certain to step down

only. generalization level of generality, instantly position. to perceive

or

It is enough, rather of the entire

characteristics, vague nature of characteristic

to be

the Eurasian

NOTES
1 Cf. S.S. Khoruzhyi,
pass.

"Karsavin,

evrazistvo

i VKP," Voprosy filosofii

1992, 2,

p. 79,

RUSSIAN EURASIANISM 123 2 C. Khachaturian, "Istoki russkoi revolucji," Slavia Orientalis, 1993, 3, p. 414. 3 L. i Vostok v kontseptsii Suchanek, "Rossiya, Evropa evrazitsev," Slavia
1994, Rossiya no. 1. za rubezhom. Istoriya kultury russkoj emigratsii, M., 1994,

Orientalis, 4 M. Raeff, p. 190.

Kn. N. Trubetskoi, Evropa i chelovechestvo, Sofia 1920. R Suvchynskii, G.V. Florovskii, N.S. Trubetskoi, Iskhod k vostoku. Savitskii, i svershenija. Utverzhdenie evrazitscev, Sofija, 1921. Predchuvstvia 7 R Suvchynskii, G.V. Florovskii, N.S. Trubetskoi, G. Florovskii, Savitskii, R Bitsilli, Na putyakh. Utverzhdeniye evrazitsev. Kniga vtoraya, Berlin, 1922. 8 1923. Rossiya i latinstvo, Berlin, 9 iEvropa, Paris, p. 158. Cf. V. Zen'kovskij, Russkie mysliteli 6
10 N.

11 Ibid. 12 Cf. N. Berdjaev, "Evrazitsev," Puf, 1925. 13 Cf. T.N. Ochirova, "Evrazistvo i puti russkogo
aniya," Seriya Literatury i Yazyka, 1993, no. 4, vol. 52,

Trubetskoi,

op.

cit.,

p.

82.

istoricheskogo
pp. 37-38.

samosozn

14 Cf. E. Lo Gatto, Pagine di storia e di letteratura russa, Roma, 1928, p. 45. 15 Cf. Eevrazistvo, Opyt sistematicheskogo izlozheniya, Paris, 1926, pp. 37-38. 16 E. Lo Gatto, op. cit, pp. 450-446. 17 G. Florovskii, "O patriotizme pravednom i grekhovnom," Na putyakh, op. cit.,

p. 269. 18 N. Trubetskoi, op. cit., p. 78. 19 G. Florovskii, op. cit., p. 278. 20 Cf. N. Trubetskoi, op. cit., p. 42.

21 Cf. P. Savitskii, Vbor'be za evrazistvo, Paris, 1931. 22 Cf. N. Trubetskoi, "Religii Indii i khristianstvo," Iskhod k vostoku. op cit.,

p. 191. 23 Cf. P. Savitskii, op. cit., p. 161. 24 Cf. S. S. Khoruzhyi, op. cit., pp. 82-83. 25 Cf. L. Karsavin, Lichnost' "Tserkov',

i gosudarstvo,"

L.

Karsavin,

Soch

26 Cf. G. Florovskij,
27 28 Cf. Cf. S. S. Khoruzhyi, T. Ochirova,

ineniya,

Moskva,

1993.

op. cit.
op. op. cit., cit., p. pp. 81-82. op. cit., p. 167. 35; V. Zen'kovskii,

This Filozofii

is an amended version of an article published i 1996, no. 41. Mysli Spolecznef,

in 'Archiwum Historii

Translated from Polish by Guy R. Torr

02-764 Warszawa 6, m. 52

ul. Egejska

Poland