«WEST – EAST» OPPOSITION IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY OF 1830–1850S:

R. Bekmetov, Ilsever Rami, I. S. Yunusov, O. Boldyreva
{"title":"«WEST – EAST» OPPOSITION IN RUSSIAN LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY OF 1830–1850S:","authors":"R. Bekmetov, Ilsever Rami, I. S. Yunusov, O. Boldyreva","doi":"10.22478/ufpb.2179-7137.2019v8n7.50031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the problem of determining the basic parameters of the cultural and civilizational identity of the Russian national character (the “Russian soul”) on the basis of literature and philosophy of the 30–50s of the 19th century. This period was not chosen by chance: in it, with the greatest strength and clarity, the leading trends in the development of Russian social (socio-philosophical) thought were identified, which had a direct and indirect influence on the literary process of the 19th century. In this transitional era, for certain reasons, objective conditions were created for the development of cornerstone ideological programs that became the subject of intellectual polemics, sometimes sharp and fierce, in subsequent times and which have not lost their relevance until now, as can be judged by modern book production, developing at the philosophical level, the most important questions of the future of Russia as a civilizational “mainland”, and on those very topical discussions that are conducted in the media space (television, no). One of the vivid exponents of this dispute was Petr Chaadaev, whose views on the cultural and civilizational identity of Russia were distinguished by a deep originality, which was in contrast with the official world outlook trends of the era. In the 1830–1850s, a discussion arose between “Slavophiles” and “Westerners”, which was also conducted on the pages of fiction. Due to this, a deprived of monolithic, rather contradictory picture of the perception of the West and the East as civilizational landmarks of the “Russian soul” has developed in the Russian consciousness. So, the East acted not only as a standard of high and refined culture, a role model, but also as a synonym for ignorance and inertness – all that is recorded in the capacious word meaning “Asian”. In the same way, the West was both a model of enlightenment and technocratic progress, and a kind of form of spiritual dependence associated with the decay and decay of the national. Such judgments were characteristic not only of the Russian society of the 1830–1850ss. In one form or another, they met in previous periods of Russian history, and in those countries of the world where the modernization process was coupled with the westernization of the cultural environment.","PeriodicalId":425856,"journal":{"name":"Gênero & Direito","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gênero & Direito","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22478/ufpb.2179-7137.2019v8n7.50031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of determining the basic parameters of the cultural and civilizational identity of the Russian national character (the “Russian soul”) on the basis of literature and philosophy of the 30–50s of the 19th century. This period was not chosen by chance: in it, with the greatest strength and clarity, the leading trends in the development of Russian social (socio-philosophical) thought were identified, which had a direct and indirect influence on the literary process of the 19th century. In this transitional era, for certain reasons, objective conditions were created for the development of cornerstone ideological programs that became the subject of intellectual polemics, sometimes sharp and fierce, in subsequent times and which have not lost their relevance until now, as can be judged by modern book production, developing at the philosophical level, the most important questions of the future of Russia as a civilizational “mainland”, and on those very topical discussions that are conducted in the media space (television, no). One of the vivid exponents of this dispute was Petr Chaadaev, whose views on the cultural and civilizational identity of Russia were distinguished by a deep originality, which was in contrast with the official world outlook trends of the era. In the 1830–1850s, a discussion arose between “Slavophiles” and “Westerners”, which was also conducted on the pages of fiction. Due to this, a deprived of monolithic, rather contradictory picture of the perception of the West and the East as civilizational landmarks of the “Russian soul” has developed in the Russian consciousness. So, the East acted not only as a standard of high and refined culture, a role model, but also as a synonym for ignorance and inertness – all that is recorded in the capacious word meaning “Asian”. In the same way, the West was both a model of enlightenment and technocratic progress, and a kind of form of spiritual dependence associated with the decay and decay of the national. Such judgments were characteristic not only of the Russian society of the 1830–1850ss. In one form or another, they met in previous periods of Russian history, and in those countries of the world where the modernization process was coupled with the westernization of the cultural environment.
1830 - 1850年代俄国文学和哲学中的“东西方”对立
本文致力于以19世纪30 - 50年代的文学和哲学为基础,确定俄罗斯民族性格(“俄罗斯灵魂”)的文化和文明特征的基本参数。这一时期的选择并非偶然:在这一时期,俄罗斯社会(社会哲学)思想发展的主要趋势得到了最有力和最清晰的确定,这对19世纪的文学进程产生了直接和间接的影响。在这个过渡时期,由于某些原因,为基础意识形态计划的发展创造了客观条件,这些计划在随后的时代成为知识分子辩论的主题,有时是尖锐和激烈的,直到现在还没有失去其相关性,可以通过现代书籍的制作来判断,在哲学层面上发展,俄罗斯作为文明“大陆”的未来最重要的问题,以及那些在媒体空间(电视,不是)进行的非常热门的讨论。彼得·查达耶夫(peter Chaadaev)是这场争论的生动代表之一,他对俄罗斯文化和文明身份的看法具有深刻的独创性,这与当时官方的世界观趋势形成鲜明对比。在19世纪30 - 50年代,“亲斯拉夫派”和“西方人”之间出现了一场讨论,这种讨论也出现在小说中。正因为如此,在俄罗斯人的意识中,西方和东方作为“俄罗斯灵魂”的文明地标的感知被剥夺了一个单一的,相当矛盾的画面。因此,东方不仅作为高雅文化的标准,一个榜样,而且作为无知和惰性的同义词——所有这些都记录在“亚洲”这个宽泛的词中。同样,西方既是启蒙运动和技术官僚进步的典范,也是一种与民族衰亡和衰败相关联的精神依赖形式。这样的判断不仅是十九世纪三五十年代俄国社会的特征。他们以这样或那样的形式,在俄罗斯历史上的前几个时期相遇,在世界上那些现代化进程与文化环境西化相结合的国家相遇。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信