Russian-American Christian University osponsors onference on the
Russian Idea
02/07/2002
A conference on the Russian Idea, cosponsored by the Russian-American
Christian University (RACU) and the Peoples Friendship University of
Russia (RPFU), was held on January 24, 2002. Dr. Larry V. Ort, VPAA
and Executive Vice President of RACU, and Dr. Pyotr Grechko, Professor
and Chairperson of the Department of Social Philosophy at RPFU, served
as co-conveners and co-chairs of the conference.
Dr. Orts review of the related research and writing of Dr. Wendy Helleman,
a scholar teaching at Moscow State University under the auspices of
the International Institute for Christian Studies, served as the stimulus
for the conference. Dr. Helleman describes the significance of the Russian
Idea as follows:
In the early 1990s nationalist groups used the Russian Idea primarily
in response to (American inspired) democratic reforms, which they regarded
as nothing less than a sell-out of Russia to technocrats and oligarchs.
Politicians like Zhirinovsky and Zyuganov, cleverly exploiting pride
wounded at the loss of superpower status, led alliances of (former)
Communists and Orthodox looking for something more authentically Russian.
Defeating Zyuganov in 1996, Yeltsin also sole his thunder, and asked
intellectuals to come up with a Russian Idea more appropriate for
the times. He was looking for an alternative vision for Russias future,
a new ideology to lead the country out of its successive crises. Although
he did not receive the answer desired, he did stimulate an important
discussion. (Personal e-mail to L. Ort and others).
Dr. Wendy Helleman (Moscow State University and International Institute
for Christian Studies), Dr. Igor Chubais (Director of the Russian Studies
Center, RPFU), Dr. V. V. Vanchugov (Professor of Philosophy and Literature,
RPFU), and Dr. B. O. Volkogonova (Professor of Philosophy, Moscow State
University) were presenters at the conference. The presentations were
excellent; they served to provoke ones thinking and to stimulate considerable
discussion.
Dr. Helleman argued that ideas serve to direct our thinking both upward
and downward, to the divine and to the world of experience about us.
Plato and Descartes stress the divine dimension of ideas, while Berkeley,
Hume and Kant stress the experiential or sensory component of ideas.
While Orthodoxy recognized both dimensions of ideas, Communism replaced
Orthodoxy with an ideology grounded in a worldview that stressed action
and the implementation of political policies and programs (solely grounded
in the world of experience). The failure of Communism resulted in the
collapse of this ideology; consequently the Russians, having long been
accustomed to living under an ideological framework, feel lost. Noting
that Russian Orthodoxy has long served as one of the key components
of the Russian Idea, Dr. Helleman asks if Orthodoxy can now serve to
fill this ideological void, and if so, if such action would serve to
alienate Islamic and other ethnic groups. While the Orthodox Church
may be able to provide an ideology or a perspective from the transcendent
to give a framework for action and for making useful judgments on events,
Dr. Helleman observes that there is as of yet little evidence of the
ability of the Orthodox Church to make the link from theory to practice.
Thus far, the Orthodox Church has not been able to call to account the
pervasive graft and corruption or to provide an overarching vision of
a Christian society.
Dr. Chubais reported on extensive research into the meaning of the
Russian Idea, research that examined 12 centuries of Russian history;
content analysis of 1,100 Russian proverbs and sayings; analysis of
the semantic field of Russian poetry devoted to Russia; and the study
of all the works of Russian philosophers on [the] Russian Idea. As
a consequence of this research, the Russian Idea is seen to be composed
of three complementary aspects: Orthodox Christianity (in the sphere
of spiritual life), aggregation of lands (in the sphere of nation and
state making), and community collectivism (in the sphere of mentality
and local administration, management). Dr Chubais argues that we must
re-implement these three aspects in ways that will promote a qualitative
expansion of the Russian Idea.
Dr. Vonchugov argued that it would be better to speak of several ideas
as opposed to the Russian Idea, for the Russian Idea contains several
aspects including the philosophical, religious, and political. He contends
that many have taken the liberty to make varied definitions of the Russian
Idea fit their own agendas. Such approaches on the part of varied authors
tend to fall into two categories: the third testament or a matryoshka
doll. Authors aligned with the third testament draw upon many quotations,
mainly of a messianic kind, which they see as comprising a new bible.
The interpreters variously interpret these quotations and consider them
as sacred. In contrast, the other authors use the same quotations to
create a post-modernist matryoshka doll and consider the exercise
of examining the various layers within layers exercise as an intellectual
game. Vonchugov contends that we need to carefully explore the literary
context of the use of Russian Idea; as first used by Dostoevsky, it
was devoid of any repressive context. Such an analysis, Vonchugov argues,
clearly reveals that the Russian Idea was used to establish a cultural
identity, to give birth to an aesthetics and ethics. Hence, the Russian
Idea should remain on this level; it should not be made into a political
agenda.
Dr. Volkonogov considers the question of whether the Russian Idea presently
serves as a temptation to nationalism (The Russian Idea Today: Temptation
of Nationalism). Dr. Volkongovs studies have led her to conclude that
the great national ideas have, throughout the history of many countries
and nations, either always appeared at a time of crisis (thereby serving
to unite the people in the face of crisis) or as a symptom of disease
and a false way to healing, directing the search for [a] way out of
crisis into [an] ineffective route leading to nationalism and isolation,
something that is an evident anachronism in a modern world. As Dr.
Volkonogov observes, in times of crisis, people have a tendency to go
back to their ethic roots, to find psychological comfort in identification
with their family, whether great or small. Today, as a result of
crisis, Russia faces an evident ethnical challenge. Dr. Volkonogov
argues, the chief objective for any sound politician or ideologist
should be the prevention of nationalistic outburst as a reaction to
this challenge. Dr. Volkonogov concludes:
The assumption that we live in the time of planned history (A.Zinovyevs
term) suggests greatly increased responsibility for politicians and
ideologists, those that deal with social engineering. Emotional propaganda
and promotion of national revival and going back to the roots that
has a pure culturology meaning in quiet times, in times of trouble
and long-term crisis, when the habitual niches of life are being destroyed,
may lead to isolation policy or even let out the evil genie of aggressive
nationalism. And we think this calls for de-ethnization of state power,
although these days the actual political processes unfortunately seem
to take the opposite direction.
Discussion of the appropriateness of the Russian Idea as the basis
for a political agenda is crucial. Can the historical aspects of the
Russian Idea be adapted to a new agenda as Chubais argues? If so, can
the politicians and the ideologists, the social engineers, assure the
de-ethnization of the Russian Idea? Clearly, these questions call for
continued discussion in a larger format.
The Russian-American Christian University and the Peoples Friendship
University of Russia are committed to working toward a more expansive
conference, hopefully to be held in the fall of 2002, which will further
consider these timely questions.
Note: Quotations are taken from synopses of the presentation presented
in advance of the conference and from personal e-mail. RACU and RPFU
plan to publish a monograph of these presentations and some of the ideas
expressed during the general discussion.
Dr. Larry V. Ort
VPAA and Executive Vice President