"The Russian Idea" in the Postmodern situation: modern forms of the concept's existence on the example of Neo-Eurasianism

Pisarenko Yuliya Nikolaevna Master's Degree, Department of Russian Philosophy and Culture, St. Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, ul. Mendeleevskaya Liniya, 5 julia.pisarenko0608@gmail.com

"The Russian Idea" in the Postmodern situation: modern forms of the concept's existence on the example of Neo-Eurasianism

Russian Russian idea" first appears in F. M. Dostoevsky in the sense of a special mission of the Russian people: "We foresee that the nature of our future activities should be extremely universal, that the Russian idea, perhaps, will be a synthesis of all those ideas that Europe develops with such tenacity, with such courage in its individual nationalities" ^{[1, p. 13]}. In 1888, V. S. Solovyov read a report in Paris, "The Russian Idea", in which he spoke about "the meaning of Russia's existence in world history", noting that "the idea of a nation is not what it thinks of itself in time, but what God thinks of it in eternity" ^{[10, pp. 186-187]}. Solovyov's definition of the "Russian idea" thus continues Dostoevsky's "Messianic" and historiosophical interpretation of the concept. Later, the term is found in N. A. Berdyaev, V. V. Rozanov, I. A. Ilyin, S. L. Frank and other thinkers. At the same time, the semantic core of the concept "Russian idea" in various author's interpretations is expanding, including not only the "Messianic" and historiosophical meaning originally embedded in the concept by Dostoevsky and Solovyov, but also political-ideological, geopolitical, ethnonational, axiological and other meanings.

Russian Russian idea concept has thus entered the philosophical, sociological, political and cultural discourse as a set of ideas, judgments, theories and concepts about the special purpose of Russia and the Russian people, its mission, spiritual, historical, cultural path, about its identity, self-consciousness, national identity, about self-determination of Russia in relation to to the West and East as cultural and geopolitical units. At the same time, the "Russian idea" is not fixed in the strictly limited chronological framework of the XIX - early XX century, when the term itself arose. From this point of view, the concept of Elder Philotheus "Moscow-the Third Rome", dating back to the XVI century, and the idea of "Moscow-the Fourth Rome", that is, the anti-religious Messianism of the Bolsheviks or the idea of the "Third International", as well as the ideas of neo-Eurasians that arose in post-Soviet Russia, can equally be called the "Russian Idea"..

Despite the heterogeneity and diversity of the concept, all concepts related to the "Russian idea" are not eclectically collected under one term. They are all connected by a single semantic core and specific markers present in the concept of "Russian idea" in all cultural and historical paradigms. Characteristic discursive markers allow, firstly, classifying a concept as a "Russian idea", and secondly, typologizing the concept, revealing its various representations - Messianic, historiosophical, political-ideological and others.

In the postmodern situation, these characteristics are complemented by postmodern techniques – intertextuality, deconstruction, schizophrenic, grotesque, eclecticism, which together forms special forms of existence of the concept of "Russian idea" in the postmodern paradigm. Among the most common types of "Russian idea" in the postmodern situation are neoconservative, neo–Eurasian, neo-nationalist and neo-ideological (political).

Postmodernism as a philosophical and cultural trend began to take shape in Russia around the end of the 1980s. The most accurate definition of postmodernity was proposed by J. Lyotard in his work "The State of Postmodernity". Lyotard speaks about the formation in modernity (that is, in the 1970s, when his work was written) of a certain state of culture, science and knowledge, literature and art, which was conditioned by the processes that took place in previous eras - this socio–cultural paradigm Lyotard calls the "postmodern situation": "The subject of this study is the state of knowledge in the modern most developed societies. We decided to call it "postmodern". This word was born on the American continent from the pen of sociologists and critics. It denotes the state of culture after the transformations that the rules of the game in science, literature and art underwent at the end of the XIX century. Here we will consider these transformations in relation to the crisis of stories" ^{[9, p. 9]}. According to Lyotard, by the second half of the 20th century, there was a distrust of the so-called "big narratives" or "meta-narratives" and the system of argumentation that they used to legitimize knowledge. Lyotard considers both scientific discourse and ideological systems, such as socialism, etc., to be meta-narratives, which, in his opinion, have completely discredited themselves. Therefore, now autonomous micronarratives have come in their place, each with its own system of argumentation. Thus, we can talk about postmodernity as a state of a certain cultural predestination that forms certain "rules of the game" in science, art and other spheres.

In the postmodern situation, however, there is a tendency to declaratively deny postmodern principles in philosophy, science, art, etc. In other words, you can declare yourself outside the influence of postmodernism and criticize its attitudes. However, even in this case, the subject finds himself in a situation of information embeddedness in the postmodern system. For any subject included in the system of modern scientific, philosophical, cultural discourse, it becomes impossible to ignore the existence of argumentation systems and artistic techniques formed by postmodernity - deconstruction, the principle of simulacrum and myth formation, parology, intertextuality and others. Thus, even as a participant in the discursive criticism of postmodernity, the subject is embedded in the postmodern paradigm.

The concept of "Russian idea" turns out to be embedded in the postmodern system according to a similar principle, with a greater or lesser degree of inclusion, depending on the form of existence. A comparison of the concepts of the "Russian idea" of the same type, but formed in the conditions of different cultural and historical paradigms, is representative enough to identify the markers of postmodernity.

The most interesting for comparative analysis are the Eurasian version of the "Russian idea", set forth at the beginning of the last century by N. S. Trubetskoy in his work "The Legacy of Genghis Khan. A look at Russian history not from the West, but from the East", and the neo-Eurasian version of the concept presented at the beginning of the XXI century by A. G. Dugin in his "Manifesto of the Modern Eurasian Movement".

The specifics of the interpretation of the "Russian idea" by the Eurasians lies in the historiosophical understanding of the purpose of Russia in its relation not to the West, but to the East: "Thus, in the historical perspective, the modern state, which can be called both Russia and the USSR (it's not the name), is part of the great Mongol monarchy founded by Genghis Khan" ^{[11, p. 147]}. N. S. Trubetskoy, thus, departs from the generally accepted tradition that sees the foundations of Russian statehood in Kievan Rus, considering Russia "the core of the Genghis Khan monarchy" ^{[11, p. 147]}. At the same time, he considers Eurasia not only as a state system, empires or monarchs, according to Trubetskoy, Eurasia is also a special ethnographic organism connecting various ethnic groups and geographical zones: "Eurasia in the aforementioned sense of the word is geographically and anthropologically a kind of unified whole" ^{[11, p. 148]}.

Trubetskoy considers the factor of ethnogeographic unity of Eurasia to be a natural prerequisite for the formation of a unified statehood on its territory. This historical mission, according to Trubetskoy, was fulfilled by Genghis Khan, creating his powerful "Eurasian" empire. Over time, the unity of the Genghis Khan monarchy began to be violated, but since "Eurasia is a geographically, ethnologically and economically integral, unified system" ^{[11, p. 152]}, state unification is organically necessary for it. This task was fulfilled by Russia, which thus became the heir of the Genghis Khan empire: "The Russian state instinctively sought and sought to recreate this broken unity and therefore is the heir, successor, continuer of the historical work of Genghis Khan" ^{[11, p. 152]}. At the same time, the Eurasian civilization, according to Trubetskoy, opposes the European civilization at its core – spiritually, ethnogeographically, culturally and historically. Russia as a Eurasian civilization needs to fight the "European spirit" ^{[11, p. 217]}. This idea actually contains the "Russian idea", according to the ideologists of Eurasianism. It is important to note that communism, on which the ideology of the Soviet state was based, Trubetskoy also considered part of the European materialistic civilization that did not take into account the spiritual and cultural specifics of Russia.

Now let us turn to the "Russian idea" of the Neo-Eurasians, and in particular to the work of A. G. Dugnn "Manifesto of the modern Eurasian movement". The first thing I would like to draw attention to is the genre of the text, which Dugin defines as a "Manifesto", since "Eurasia" for the author is not only an ideological program, but also a political movement. The combination of philosophical discourse with a political program is an example of pastiche or intertextuality, that is, characteristic postmodern techniques. At the beginning of the Manifesto, Dugin refers to the basic postulates of classical Eurasianism, then in the rhetoric of a political slogan-appeal he appeals to potential like-minded people: "We appeal to those who want, passionately want us to finally straighten up with all our heroic might, to throw off parasitic growths from our common organism, to break the veil of mental fog, We have established our sunny Russian ideals over the country, the mainland, the world – the ideals of Freedom, Justice, Loyalty to the Origins" ^{[5, p. 11]}.

Returning to the work of N. S. Trubetskoy, it is important to emphasize that he based his Eurasian theory on a civilizational approach. The confrontation between Russia and the West, according to Trubetskoy, is the confrontation of two civilizations that are different in their spiritual, cultural and historical foundations - Eurasian and European. While the confrontation between Russia and the West, in Dugin's neo-Eurasian theory, is rather political: "Modern Europe [...] is no longer a source of "world evil". The rapid political events of the 20th century contributed to the transfer of this dubious initiative even further west – to North America. Therefore, at the current stage, Russia can find strategic partners in Europe interested in reviving its former political power. Eurasian Russia should act as the liberator of Europe, but this time from American political, economic and cultural control" ^{[5, p. 13]}.

In the above quote there are two contradictions at once – firstly, Dugin speaks of Europe as a strategic political partner, while N. S. Trubetskoy believed that Russia should focus on an alliance with the peoples with whom it forms an ethnogeographic unity, that is, with Eurasia. At the same time, the Eurasians advocated the fencing of Russia from Europe. Secondly, Dugin expresses the idea that Russia "should act as the liberator of Europe" from globalism. In this thought, echoes of the messianic "Russian idea" of Dostoevsky and Solovyov are clearly heard, but they implied spiritual salvation, not political, and had nothing to do with Eurasianism, which was formed chronologically later. Here again we find an example of intertextuality, as well as another technique peculiar to postmodernism – the gap between the signified and the signifier or simulacrum. Dugin, referring to the ideas of classical Eurasians, partially replaces the meanings originally laid down in the concept of Eurasia and Eurasianism.

Another example of postmodern mosaic is found in the following thesis of Dugin: "Eurasianism sees the development of the cultural process in a new appeal to the depths of history, in the weaving of the original motives of culture into the fabric of modern forms. Priority in this area is given to church tradition, national motives, the origins of folk art, folklore, epic, continuation and revival of traditions" ^{[5, p. 14]}.

In fact, Dugin calls for an eclectic artificial connection of various forms of traditional Russian culture with modernity, to "weave them into the fabric of modern forms." While N. S. Trubetskoy and the classics of Eurasianism spoke of traditions as a living organism, "Russian material", from which it is impossible to artificially build a certain ideal ^{[11, p. 208]}.

Here is another example from Dugin's Manifesto, which is extremely representative from the point of view of identifying postmodern markers: "Being a new and fresh worldview that is only developing into final forms, Eurasianism prioritizes addressing young people whose consciousness has not yet been corrupted by chaotic jumps from one inadequate ideological model to another, even less adequate. The Eurasian ideal is a strong, passionate, passionate, healthy and beautiful person, ready for responsible activities, feats and achievements, trials and victories, for great love and family happiness, for procreation, for a rich and at the same time pious life" ^{[5, p. 14]}. In the above passage, we see several characteristic postmodern features at once. Firstly, it is a simulacrum, since the text genre resembles an advertising slogan – it is not even a political program, but an "advertisement of Eurasianism", and secondly, it is embedded in the field of philosophical discourse. The appearance of such a genre in the text of the Manifesto can also be called "grotesque" with elements of parody of the "Aryan myth" - it is actually a "call" addressed to "strong, young and beautiful Aryans".

The following quote contains even more postmodern techniques: "Our task is to implement a new Eurasian selection based on these energies, to give the most worthy the opportunity to participate in determining the fate of the country and the people. We will not allow our children to be killed, raped, humiliated, perverted, sold and "put on a needle". Our ideal is a celebration of physical and spiritual health, strength and valor, faith, dignity and honor" ^{[5, p. 14]}. Firstly, Dugin uses the term "energies", eclectically combining the genre of the political manifesto with esoteric terminology. Then he adds the rhetoric of the "Aryan myth" about the selection of worthy ones to "determine the fate of the country and the people." And the quote ends with a socio-political slogan about a healthy nation.

Thus, Dugin, while declaratively denying globalism and postmodernism, uses in his text all the characteristic postmodern techniques – intertextuality, pastiche, eclecticism, grotesque, parody, the gap between the signified and the signifier, simulacrum, myth, which demonstrates the embeddedness of the neo-Eurasian form of the Russian idea in the postmodern system.