Approximately in the 40-50s of the 19th century, two trends emerged in Russian society - Slavophilism and Westernism. The Slavophils promoted the idea of ​​a "special path for Russia", while their opponents, the Westernizers, were inclined to follow in the footsteps of Western civilization, especially in the areas of social organization, culture and civic life.

Where did these terms come from?

"Slavophiles" is a term coined by the famous poet Konstantin Batyushkov. In turn, the word "Westernism" first appeared in Russian culture in the 40s of the nineteenth century. In particular, you can meet him in the "Memoirs" of Ivan Panaev. Especially often this term began to be used after 1840, when Aksakov broke with Belinsky.

The history of the emergence of Slavophilism

The views of the Slavophiles, of course, did not appear spontaneously, "out of nowhere." This was preceded by a whole era of research, the writing of numerous scientific papers and works, a painstaking study of the history and culture of Russia.

It is believed that Archimandrite Gabriel, also known as Vasily Voskresensky, stood at the very origins of this. In 1840, he published in Kazan "Russian Philosophy", which became a kind of barometer of the emerging Slavophilism.

Nevertheless, the philosophy of the Slavophils began to take shape somewhat later, in the course of ideological disputes that arose on the basis of the discussion of Chaadaev's Philosophical Letter. Adherents of this trend came out with the rationale for the individual, original path of the historical development of Russia and the Russian people, which was radically different from the Western European path. According to the Slavophiles, the originality of Russia primarily lies in the absence of class struggle in its history, in the landed Russian community and artels, as well as in Orthodoxy as the only true Christianity.

The development of the Slavophile current. Key Ideas

In the 1840s the views of the Slavophils were particularly widespread in Moscow. The best minds of the state gathered in the Elagins, Pavlovs, Sverbeevs - it was here that they communicated with each other and had lively discussions with Westerners.

It should be noted that the works and works of Slavophiles were subjected to harassment by censorship, some activists were in the field of view of the police, and some were even arrested. It is because of this that for quite a long time they did not have a permanent printed publication and posted their notes and articles mainly on the pages of the Moskvityanin magazine. After a partial easing of censorship in the 1950s, the Slavophiles began to publish their own magazines (Selskoye khosmostrovostvo, Russkaya Beseda) and newspapers (Sail, Molva).

Russia should not assimilate and adopt the forms of Western European political life - all the Slavophiles, without exception, were firmly convinced of this. This, however, did not prevent them from considering it necessary to actively develop industry and trade, banking and joint-stock business, the introduction of modern machines in agriculture and the construction of railways. In addition, the Slavophils welcomed the idea of ​​abolishing serfdom "from above" with the obligatory provision of land allotments to peasant communities.

Much attention was paid to religion, with which the ideas of the Slavophiles were quite closely connected. In their opinion, the true faith that came to Russia from the Eastern Church determines the special, unique historical mission of the Russian people. It was Orthodoxy and the traditions of the social order that allowed the formation of the deepest foundations of the Russian soul.

In general, the Slavophiles perceived the people within the framework of conservative romanticism. Characteristic for them was the idealization of the principles of traditionalism and patriarchy. At the same time, the Slavophiles sought to bring the intelligentsia closer to the common people, to study their daily life and way of life, language and culture.

Representatives of Slavophilism

In the 19th century, many writers, scientists and Slavophile poets worked in Russia. Representatives of this direction, deserving special attention - Khomyakov, Aksakov, Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were Chizhov, Koshelev, Belyaev, Valuev, Lamansky, Hilferding and Cherkassky.

The writers Ostrovsky, Tyutchev, Dal, Yazykov and Grigoriev were close enough to this direction in terms of worldview.

Respected linguists and historians - Bodyansky, Grigorovich, Buslaev - treated the ideas of Slavophilism with respect and interest.

History of Westernization

Slavophilism and Westernism arose approximately in the same period, and therefore, these philosophical trends should be considered as a whole. Westernism as the antipode of Slavophilism is a direction of Russian anti-feudal social thought, which also arose in the 40s of the 19th century.

The original organizational base for representatives of this trend were Moscow literary salons. The ideological disputes that took place in them are vividly and realistically depicted in Herzen's Past and Thoughts.

The development of the western trend. Key Ideas

The philosophy of the Slavophiles and the Westernizers differed radically. In particular, the categorical rejection of the feudal-serf system in politics, economics and culture can be attributed to the general features of the ideology of the Westerners. They advocated the implementation of socio-economic reforms according to the Western model.

Representatives of Westernism believed that there was always an opportunity to establish a bourgeois-democratic system by peaceful means, using the methods of propaganda and education. They extremely highly valued the reforms carried out by Peter I, and considered it their duty to transform and shape public opinion in such a way that the monarchy was forced to carry out bourgeois reforms.

The Westerners believed that Russia should overcome economic and social backwardness not through the development of an original culture, but through the experience of Europe, which had long gone ahead. At the same time, they did not focus on the differences between the West and Russia, but on the commonality that was present in their cultural and historical fate.

In the early stages, the philosophical research of Westerners was particularly influenced by the works of Schiller, Schilling and Hegel.

The split of the Westerners in the mid-1940s. 19th century

In the mid-forties of the XIX century, a fundamental split occurred among Westerners. This happened after a dispute between Granovsky and Herzen. As a result, two directions of the Westernizing trend arose: liberal and revolutionary-democratic.

The reason for the disagreement lay in relation to religion. If the liberals defended the dogma of the immortality of the soul, then the democrats, in turn, relied on the positions of materialism and atheism.

Their ideas about the methods of carrying out reforms in Russia and the post-reform development of the state also differed. Thus, the democrats propagated the ideas of revolutionary struggle with the aim of further building socialism.

The works of Comte, Feuerbach and Saint-Simon had the greatest influence on the views of Westerners during this period.

In the post-reform period, under the conditions of general capitalist development, Westernism ceased to exist as a special trend in social thought.

Representatives of Westernism

The original Moscow circle of Westernizers included Granovsky, Herzen, Korsh, Ketcher, Botkin, Ogarev, Kavelin, etc. Belinsky, who lived in St. Petersburg, closely communicated with the circle. The talented writer Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev also considered himself a Westerner.

After what happened in the mid-40s. After the split, Annenkov, Korsh, Kavelin, Granovsky and some other figures remained on the side of the liberals, while Herzen, Belinsky and Ogarev went over to the side of the democrats.

Communication between Slavophiles and Westernizers

It is worth remembering that these philosophical trends were born at the same time, their founders were representatives of the same generation. Moreover, both the Westernizers and the Slavophils came out of the milieu and moved in the same circles.

Fans of both theories constantly communicated with each other. Moreover, it was by no means always limited to criticism: finding themselves at the same meeting, in the same circle, they quite often found something close to their own point of view in the course of their ideological opponents' reflections.

In general, most of the disputes were distinguished by the highest cultural level - the opponents treated each other with respect, carefully listened to the opposite side and tried to give convincing arguments in favor of their position.

Similarities Between Slavophiles and Westernizers

Apart from the Westerners-democrats who emerged later, both the former and the latter recognized the need for reforms in Russia and the solution of existing problems in a peaceful way, without revolutions and bloodshed. The Slavophils interpreted this in their own way, adhering to more conservative views, but they also recognized the need for change.

It is believed that the attitude towards religion was one of the most controversial points in the ideological disputes between supporters of different theories. However, in fairness, it is worth noting that the human factor played an important role in this. Thus, the views of the Slavophiles were largely based on the idea of ​​the spirituality of the Russian people, their closeness to Orthodoxy and their tendency to strictly observe all religious customs. At the same time, the Slavophils themselves, for the most part coming from secular families, did not always follow church rites. Westerners, on the other hand, did not at all encourage excessive piety in a person, although some representatives of the movement (a vivid example is P. Ya. Chaadaev) sincerely believed that spirituality and, in particular, Orthodoxy is an integral part of Russia. Among the representatives of both directions there were both believers and atheists.

There were also those who did not belong to any of these currents, occupying the third side. For example, V. S. Solovyov noted in his writings that a satisfactory solution to the main universal human issues has not yet been found either in the East or in the West. And this means that all, without exception, the active forces of mankind should work on them together, listening to each other and by common efforts approaching prosperity and greatness. Solovyov believed that both “pure” Westerners and “pure” Slavophiles were limited people and incapable of objective judgments.

Summing up

Westerners and Slavophiles, whose main ideas we have examined in this article, were, in fact, utopians. Westerners idealized the foreign way of development, European technologies, often forgetting about the peculiarities and age-old differences in the psychology of Western and Russian people. The Slavophils, in turn, extolled the image of the Russian people, they were inclined to idealize the state, the image of the monarch and Orthodoxy. Both those and others did not notice the threat of the revolution and until the last hoped for a solution to the problems by the method of reforms, in a peaceful way. It is impossible to single out a winner in this endless ideological war, because disputes about the correctness of the chosen path of Russia's development do not stop to this day.

Slavophilism- one of the most noticeable currents of socio-philosophical discussion in Russian society in the 30-50s. XIX century, the opposite of "Westernism". Despite the fact that at the beginning of its development, the socio-political thought of Russia had a similar vision of the country's problems and, in part, approaches to their solution. But, conceptually, the Westerners developed their views in the direction of European anthropocentrism, then the meanings of the Slavophiles concentrated in the field of theocentrism, which led to the divergence of their ideas.

The predecessors of the Slavophiles can be considered the movement of "original" - historians and writers. They criticized in their magazine "Moskovityanin" the process of Europeanization of Russia. The Slavophiles went beyond mere criticism, subsuming the theological and philosophical foundations for the idea of ​​the originality of the development of our country. A. Khomyakov, I. Kireevsky, K. Aksakov and Yu. Samarin are considered the founders and theorists of Slavophilism.

The main provisions of the ideas of Slavophilism

1. The historical fate of the Russian people in its originality.
2. Religion, the state and social system, lead Russia along a special path of development.
3. The monarchy should be the embodiment of a symphony of power and people, and not absolute tyranny.
4. The ideal form of government is a parliamentary monarchy in the form of Zemsky Sobors.
5. The unconditional necessity of the abolition of serfdom.
6. Giving Russian citizens rights and freedoms comparable to democratic ones.
7. Peter's Europeanization changed the natural course of Russia's historical development.
8. The existence, as well as the further development and prosperity of the Fatherland, along with Orthodoxy and the great-power monarchy, should be based on the peasant community.
9. The West can help the development of Russia with scientific and technological innovations in the part where there may be a lag.

Social aspects prove the correctness of the ideas of the Slavophiles

The most important social aspect of the Slavophile movement was the conviction that Russia was not a backward part of Europe. It does not need to be forcibly pulled up to European standards. A top-down view of "arrested Russians" is untenable. We have our own vision of the world (as well as others) and our attitude to our shortcomings is extremely critical. But we will correct these shortcomings ourselves, relying on our own characteristics and traditions.

The views of the Slavophiles caused a powerful wave of criticism in the liberal environment. They were criticized both by contemporary liberals and later adherents of "universal values, up to the present time. The Slavophils wanted to solve the existing problems in all spheres of life in Russia by transformations in the spirit of national identity.

Time proved the correctness of the Slavophiles. The Great Peasant Reform and the transformations that followed it stopped the development of the revolutionary situation in the country. But the "crackdown" under Alexander III and the vague policy of Nicholas II led to the revolution of 1905-1907. The “crush of the community” that followed Stolypin caused a revolutionary wave in 1917.

All subsequent historical development has shown that on Russian soil, a multi-party system, parliamentarism and democracy of the European type do not take root well. The Westernism that has won today has proved its inconsistency and the correctness of the Slavophiles. Almost all of their ideas are, to one degree or another, relevant today. You just have to read and understand them carefully. Then you can see with your own eyes the evidence of their correctness.

Slavophiles- representatives of one of the directions of Russian social and philosophical thought of the 40-50s. XIX century, who came out with the justification of the original path of the historical development of Russia, fundamentally different from the path of Western Europe. The identity of Russia, in their opinion, is in the absence of internal antagonisms in its history, in the Russian land community and artels, in Orthodoxy as the only possible path of Christianity.

The views of the Slavophiles took shape in ideological disputes that escalated after the publication of P.Ya. Chaadaev "Philosophical Letters", first of all the first (anonymous) letter to No. 15 of the Telescope magazine in September 1836. The main role in the development of the views of the Slavophiles was played by writers, poets and scientists - A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were P.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Koshelev, I.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev, F.V. Chizhov, I.D. Belyaev, A.F. Hilferding. Writers V.I. Dahl, ST. Aksakov, A.N. Ostrovsky, F.I. Tyutchev, N.M. languages.

The focus of the Slavophiles in the 40s. 19th century was Moscow, literary salons A.P. Elagina (mother of the Kireevsky brothers), D.P. and E.A. Sverbeev, P.F. and K.K. Pavlov. Here the Slavophils communicated and had their ideological disputes with the Westerners about the path of transformations in Russia.

The ideological and philosophical views of the Slavophiles were largely determined by the negative attitude of Moscow intellectuals to the political realities of the reign of the Russian Emperor Nicholas I: the police nature of the state, the permissiveness of the secret investigation, censorship. They tried to find social harmony.

Slavophiles ideologically substantiated:

• - the need to return to the origins of the patriarchal way of Russian life, which was interrupted by the reforms of Emperor Peter I;
• - the position according to which Russia is not just not like the West, it is the opposite of the West, it has a special way of being and a different type of civilization;
• - the expediency of spiritual reliance on Orthodoxy, as the true path of development, catholicity, voluntary recognition of power by society and harmony with it;
• - a special worldview, which is based on national identity, humanism, and not violence, as in the West.

Although the Slavophiles carefully developed their idea of ​​a special, Russian type of civilization, much in their positions was of an emotional rather than theoretical nature (“You cannot understand Russia with the mind!”).

Aesthetic views of the Slavophiles . Artistic creativity reflected the characteristic aspects of Russian reality that corresponded to the theoretical principles of the Slavophiles: peasant community, patriarchal orderliness of life, proud humility and Orthodoxy of the Russian people.

During the years of the revolutionary situation (1859-1861) there was a significant rapprochement between the views of the Slavophiles and the Westerners on the basis of the liberal idea.

Khomyakov Alexey Stepanovich(1804-1860), philosopher, writer, poet, publicist. Born in Moscow in an old noble family. IN 1822 passed the exam at Moscow University for the degree of candidate of mathematical sciences, then entered the military service. He was familiar with the participants of the Decembrist movement, but did not share their views. In 1829 G. retired and took up literary and social activities. A. Khomyakov made a decisive contribution to the development of the Slavophile doctrine, its theological and philosophical foundations. Among the ideological sources of Slavophilism, he primarily singled out Orthodoxy, within which the doctrine of the religious and messianic role of the Russian people was formulated. He also experienced a significant influence of the German philosophy of F. Schelling and G. Hegel. Formally, not adjoining any of the philosophical schools. Khomyakov did not recognize materialism, characterizing it as "the decline of the philosophical spirit," but he did not fully accept certain forms of idealism either. The starting point in his philosophical analysis was the position that "the world appears to the mind as a substance in space and as a force in time." However, matter or matter "before thought loses its independence." The basis of being is not matter, but force, which is understood by the mind as "the beginning of the variability of world phenomena." He especially emphasized that its beginning "cannot be sought in the subject." The individual or "private principle" cannot "result into the infinite" and the universal, on the contrary, it must receive its source from the universal. Hence the conclusion that "the force or reason for the existence of each phenomenon is in everything." "Everything", from the point of view of A. Khomyakov, contains a number of characteristics that fundamentally distinguish it from the world of phenomena. First, "everything" has freedom; secondly, rationality (free thought); thirdly, will ("screaming reason"). Only God can possess such traits collectively. In his "Notes on World History" he divides all religions into two main groups: Kushite and Iranian. The first is built on the principles of necessity, dooming people to thoughtless submission, turning them into mere executors of someone else's will, while the second is a religion of freedom that addresses the inner world of a person, requiring him to make a conscious choice between good and evil. Christianity expressed its essence most fully. Genuine Christianity makes the believer free, since he "does not know any external authority over himself." But, having accepted "grace," the believer cannot follow arbitrariness; he finds the justification of his freedom in "unanimity with the Church." Rejecting coercion as a path to unity. Khomyakov believes that the means capable of uniting the Church can only be love, understood not only as an ethical category, but also as an essential force that ensures "for people the knowledge of the unconditional Truth." The most adequate way to express the unity based on freedom and love can, in his opinion, only catholicity, which plays, as it were, the role of an intermediary between the divine and earthly worlds. Khomyakov's socio-political views were oppositional in relation to the Nikolaev regime, he was a supporter of the abolition of serfdom, the death penalty, opposed the omnipotence of spiritual censorship, for religious tolerance, for the introduction of freedom of speech. Poetic Tragedies "Ermak", "Dmitry Impostor".

A.C. Khomyakov died 23.09(5.10) 1V60 in the village of Ivanovskoye, now the Dankovsky district of the Lipetsk region.

Kireevsky Ivan Vasilievich(1806-1856), philosopher and literary critic, one of the leading theorists of Slavophilism. Born in Moscow into a highly educated noble family. He was greatly influenced by his mother Avdotya Petrovna, niece of V.A. Zhukovsky, who came out after the death of her father in 1817 married to A.A. Elagin, one of the first experts in the philosophy of I. Kant and F. Schelling in Russia. In the literary salon of A.P. Elagina gathered almost the entire intellectual elite of Moscow. Ivan Kireevsky was in Germany in 1830, where he listened to G. Hegel's lectures on philosophy, philosophy of law and personally met the thinker, who recommended him to study philosophical sciences. In Berlin, I. Kireevsky listened to the lectures of Schleiermacher, in Munich - Schelling. Returning to Russia, he made an attempt to publish the magazine "European", but the publication was banned. Later, he became close to the elders from Optina Hermitage, with whom he was connected by literary activity. He is trying to get a chair of philosophy at Moscow University, but unsuccessfully, as he was considered politically unreliable. In 1852, the Slavophiles published their own journal, Moscow Collection, in which I. Kireevsky published. His article "On the Necessity And opportunities for new started for philosophy", published in 1856 in the journal "Russian conversation", turned out to be posthumous. The last years of his life he worked on a course in philosophy and hoped that this work would show the world "its own face in philosophy."

I.V. Kireevsky died 1 June 1(23) 1856 from cholera in St. Petersburg. He was buried in Optina Pustyn.

Aksakov Konstantin Sergeevich(1817-1860), philosopher, publicist, poet, historian, ideologist of Slavophilism. Born in Novo-Aksakovo, Buguruslan district, Orenburg province, in the family of a writer, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Aksakov. His brother I.S. Aksakov (1823-1886) - philosopher and publicist. In 1832-1835. Studied at the Moscow University in the verbal department. In his student years he was a member of the circle of N.V. Stankevich, where he was influenced by German philosophy, primarily by G. Hegel. This influence was noticeable in his master's thesis Lomonosov in the History of Russian Literature and the Russian Language (1846). At the end of the 1830s. Aksakov is getting closer to A.S. Khomyakov and I.V. Kireevsky and soon became a theoretician of Slavophilism himself. Aksakov's main contribution to the Slavophile movement is socio-political theory, including both a peculiar interpretation of Russian history and a system of aesthetic views. He formulated his views on history at the end of 1840 - early 1850s: "Voice from Moscow", "A generic or social phenomenon was an outcast?", "About the ancient way of life among the Slavs in general and among the Russians in particular". The life of the Slavic tribes, in his opinion, was determined by the traditions of the peasant community and folk life. The territories where they were engaged in agriculture were subjected to constant raids, which forced them to go to the creation of a state. For this, the Varangians were invited, who brought the ideas of statehood to the Russian land. This allowed the indigenous population not to confuse the concept of state and land for themselves, but to agree only to the creation of their voluntary union. Aksakov's concept of land was identical to the concept of the people; he referred to it the lower class, whose consciousness was imbued with the ideas of faith and communal life. The state carried in itself the beginning of power, which aspired only to the implementation of "external truth", which was realized in the political and legal organization of Western-type societies. Aksakov considered the state, according to its principle, regardless of the form of government, a manifestation of violence. It is Aksakov who characterizes the Russian people as non-state. The concept of "earth" formulated by him and states" and a significant role in the Slavophile criticism of the West and Western influence, served as a justification for the special historical path of the Russian people, who prefer "internal truth" (the Christian-moral structure of life, embodied historically in the peasant community) to "external truth" (the political and legal organization of Western society). type). Aksakov considered the community not only as an existing rural community, but put a broader interpretation into this concept. He saw the manifestation of the communal principle in Novgorod, where the people solved the most pressing issues for themselves at a veche or when residents of one street gathered for a gathering to discuss the problems of their lives. Aksakov was an active supporter of the abolition of serfdom and sought to deduce the need for reform from the general principles of his social theory. In 1855, he addressed the Russian Emperor Alexander II with a note "On the internal state of Russia", where he outlined a certain social ideal, the achievement of which made it possible, from his point of view, to avoid the revolutions that were shaking Europe at that time. Aksakov's aesthetic views were formed mainly in line with the ideas of philosophical romanticism, primarily Schelling's philosophy of art. In the future, he made a lot of efforts for a philosophical understanding of the development of domestic literature and art. Rejecting equally the concept of "pure art" (art for art's sake) and "naturalism" in literature (the natural school), Aksakov recognized "people" as the main criterion for evaluating artistic creativity. He wrote sharply negatively about any manifestation of the aristocracy of the upper class in society (work: "The public - the people. The experience of synonyms").

Konstantin Sergeevich died on December 7 (19), 1860 G. on the island of Zante (Zante) in Greece, where he was buried.

In the middle of the 19th century, two directions of its reformation were formed in Russian society for the further development of the country. These areas were very different from each other. Representatives of one of them - the Slavophiles - advocated the promotion of the identity of Russia, the Slavic Orthodox idea, while the Westerners focused mainly on the West and offered to take an example from him in everything and build a new society on his experience.

Slavophiles and Westernizers - who are they?

Differences of opinion Slavophiles And Westerners

The meaning of disputes between Slavophiles And Westerners

Time has resolved all disputes. The road chosen by Russia turned out to be proposed by Westerners. The community began to die out in the country, the church became independent of the state, and the autocracy ceased to exist altogether.

The main thing is that representatives of both directions sincerely believed that the country needed changes and that their postponement to a later time would not be in Russia's favor. Everyone understood that serfdom was pulling the country back, and there was no future without a developed economy. The merit of the Slavophiles was that they aroused interest in the history and culture of the Russian people. It is the Slavophile V. Dal who is the author of the Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language.

Gradually, the rapprochement of these two directions began to take place, and the disputes that went on between their representatives contributed to the development of society and the awakening of interest in social problems among the Russian intelligentsia.