Abstract:  
 
This article examines the models of modernizations followed by Russia, beginning with the reforms of Peter the Great and up until the XX century. Special attention is given to the trends of transformations, which in response to the challenges of time were carried out in the area of government structure and economic life of the Russian society, considering the historically established legal norms and spiritual-cultural traditions. In I. N. Sizemskaya research, the history of Russia’s modernization is presented as the history of geopolitical and cultural relations of Russia and Europe; the reforms of Peter the Great are being considered as its origins, which after accepting Christianity, became the first major attempt to include the country into the all-European course of development. The author believes that the reforms of Peter the Great were not a modernization in its classical form, i.e. a transition from the traditional society to modern society, but they drastically turned the society towards the reformations in the political-administrative, religious, and cultural institutions, as well as defined the beginning of its path towards the innovation development according to the vector of Modern Times. An important factor in this process became the establishment of a platform for the emergence of Russian culture, similar to European. As the next historically significant stage of modernistic reforms, the author reviews the reforms of Alexander II, which were actively supported by the Russian liberalism. Such reforms oriented towards capitalization of the Russian society, taking into account its actual state and readiness for the innovation transformations. As demonstrated by I. N. Sizemskaya, the West will become the example of development; capitalism will become the goal; and the “catching modernization” – the way for its achievement. Within the retrospective socio-philosophical analysis of the model of modernization, the author of this article bases herself on interpretation of modernization as the process that captures all spheres of social life and contains a sociocultural component as a guarantee for success, which provides a sustainable character to the implemented changes.
 
 

Abstract: In the center of author’s attention is the problem of “Poet and power”. Examining this issue in the historical retrospect, the author turns to the history of the Russian intelligentsia as the phenomenon of Russian culture, associating its background with the emergence of “military intelligentsia” of the era of Peter the Great. With the reforms of Peter the Great has appeared an educated social class, which combined spiritual work with government service, in other words the direct cooperation with authorities. The result of the joint efforts and the accomplishment of the reforms became the noble culture, the subject of which was Russian art intelligentsia. The article illustrates that on all stages of its history, art intelligentsia following the ideas of Enlightenment, was its carrier and founder, accumulating the ethical and humanistic values and protecting ideas of freedom and social justice. In a constant opposition to the conservative public powers, it protected the right to freedom of will and spiritual (intellectual and artistic) work. Within the framework of the chosen historical-philosophical analysis, the author focuses attention on the fact that the Russian intellectual in comparison with the European intellectual, felt as “outsider” within his own sociopolitical environment, which justified autocracy and general ignorance. The author concludes that the critical attitude towards reality was a constant of self-consciousness of intelligentsia. The author also examines the history of relationship between the art intelligentsia and the government after the October of 1917. The new political regime escalated the dictate of the government through Stalin upon the spiritual life of society. The new victims of new regime became N. Gumilev, O. Mandelshtam, and A. Akhmatova. Their creative path and opposition to the totalitarian regime became a separate subject of research.

Abstract: The article deals with the problem «Russia – Europe» as is was put in the history of Russian philosophical thought and in the works of a prominent Russian cultural scientist and historian living outside Russia Vladimir Veydle in connection with his analysis of the European sources of Russian culture. According to the author, the works of Veydle, centered around the theme of historical formation and development of the cultural unity between Russian and Europe, is in tune with sociocultural problems faced nowadays by modern Russia. The underlying reason for the author’s turning to this topic is the acknowledgement of the extremely strong influence of spiritual culture (art, literature, poetry) on the development of society. Culture does not reflect the being of people but exists as their other-being, and therefore the fate of culture and the historical fate of a nation are inseparable. This methodological attitude has determined the direction of the research analysis. Attention is paid to the prevailing themes in Veydle’s creative works. 1. Adoption of Christianity, the Byzantine religion, determined the vector of historical movement and spiritual development of Russia and included it into the European cultural space «as a part and whole», i.e. predetermined to be Europe not only as a territory but also as a culture. 2. Inheritance of ancient Greek traditions from Byzantium that gave way for development of Orthodox national self-sufficiency distinguished Russian spirituality from the cultural world of Europe. That created the feeling of certain alienation of faith, ways of life and values, to which Europe did not object though contradistinction of Russia has always threatened with closure in its own being: losing itself in Russia, Europe was losing a historically established integrity of its cultural outlook. Therefore, the question about Russia’s place in Europe initially rose not only as the Russian question. 3. The most important outcome of Peter the First's activities was the appearance of the culture of Russian nobility that combined «Westernness» and «Russianness». To the most degree, according to Veydle, that could be said about Pushkin. In this sense, the fate of Russia was reflected in Pushkin's works more than in all subsequent overturns and revolutions. 4. The Silver Age of Russian culture that actualized the problem of the traditional and the new in creative works and its relation to religious consciousness coincided in time with the crisis of spirituality experienced by European art and accompanied by the predominance of the consumer and aesthetic standards of popular culture. Veydle in his essay «The dying of art» ponders about the fate of literature and artistic creation under these conditions and this topic is also reflected in the present article. 5. October 1917 introduced a split into Russian culture but both outside Russia and under new circumstances the best representatives of Russian culture maintained the relationship with the accumulated spiritual experience, established traditions of artistic creation and preserved Russian culture as a whole. Even though they lived and created in the violently divided world, Akhmatova and Merezhkovskiy, Tsvetaeva and Khodasevich, Nabokov and Pasternak equally introduced Russian culture. 6. The author of the article pays special attention to Veydle’s attitude to the Eurasian theme. Veydle took Eurasian interpretation of the sources of Russian culture and history as the desire to separate Russia from Europe and the attempt that did not meet the task of scientific interpretation of real cultural relations between Russia and Europe. Veydle's critical objections was dictated by the belief that Russian culture was born and developed in Europe and not in Asia, and therefore its «removal», even partial, from the cultural European space is violent to the spiritual life and history of both Russia and Europe.

Abstract: This article looks at the key points of A.I. Gerzen's historico-philosophical views about "uncombed improvisation of history", about the problem of variability of the historical process and the impact of coincidence and purposeful human actions on this process. These ideas are interpreted by the author in relation to modern socio-philosophical knowledge.