The Origins of the Idea of “Civilizational” Multipolarity in Russian Religious Thought (from 19th to First Half of 20th Century)

IF 0.2 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
M. M. Medovarov
{"title":"The Origins of the Idea of “Civilizational” Multipolarity in Russian Religious Thought (from 19th to First Half of 20th Century)","authors":"M. M. Medovarov","doi":"10.24833/2071-8160-2024-olf2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article explores the development of the concept of «civilizational» multipolarity in Russian religious thought from the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. This notion of «civilizational» multipolarity suggests that power centers, beyond forming a geopolitical balance, also represent distinct civilizations. During the first half of the 19th century, Russian conservatism was predominantly Eurocentric and semi-colonial. However, in the latter half of the century, Russian religious thinkers began to recognize the plurality of civilizations and their potential to emerge as independent power centers, thereby reevaluating Russia's role in the world. Thinkers like Nikolay Danilevsky, Vladimir Lamansky, and Konstantin Leontyev progressively moved away from a colonial mindset, leading to the crystallization of the idea of «civilizational» multipolarity.At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, thinkers such as Vladimir Gringmut, Lev Tikhomirov, Prince Esper Ukhtomsky, and Sergey Syromyatnikov further advanced these ideas. They identified an «awakening of the East» and advocated for Russia to align with Eastern civilizational powers in anticipation of an imminent world war. Post-1917 revolution, the concept of «civilizational» multipolarity persisted in the Eurasianist thought of the 1920s and 1930s, which is a focal point of this article. Leaders of the Eurasianist movement, such as Prince Nikolay Trubetskoy and Petr Savitsky, developed the doctrine of autarkic «worlds»-civilizations, envisioned as large economic blocs unified by common culture, ideology, and centralized authority. Religious ideas and rhetoric, including the trope of «Babylonian confusion», played a significant role in the Eurasianists' justification of their preferred international order.","PeriodicalId":42127,"journal":{"name":"MGIMO Review of International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MGIMO Review of International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2024-olf2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article explores the development of the concept of «civilizational» multipolarity in Russian religious thought from the 19th century to the first half of the 20th century. This notion of «civilizational» multipolarity suggests that power centers, beyond forming a geopolitical balance, also represent distinct civilizations. During the first half of the 19th century, Russian conservatism was predominantly Eurocentric and semi-colonial. However, in the latter half of the century, Russian religious thinkers began to recognize the plurality of civilizations and their potential to emerge as independent power centers, thereby reevaluating Russia's role in the world. Thinkers like Nikolay Danilevsky, Vladimir Lamansky, and Konstantin Leontyev progressively moved away from a colonial mindset, leading to the crystallization of the idea of «civilizational» multipolarity.At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, thinkers such as Vladimir Gringmut, Lev Tikhomirov, Prince Esper Ukhtomsky, and Sergey Syromyatnikov further advanced these ideas. They identified an «awakening of the East» and advocated for Russia to align with Eastern civilizational powers in anticipation of an imminent world war. Post-1917 revolution, the concept of «civilizational» multipolarity persisted in the Eurasianist thought of the 1920s and 1930s, which is a focal point of this article. Leaders of the Eurasianist movement, such as Prince Nikolay Trubetskoy and Petr Savitsky, developed the doctrine of autarkic «worlds»-civilizations, envisioned as large economic blocs unified by common culture, ideology, and centralized authority. Religious ideas and rhetoric, including the trope of «Babylonian confusion», played a significant role in the Eurasianists' justification of their preferred international order.
俄罗斯宗教思想中 "文明 "多元性思想的起源(19 世纪至 20 世纪上半叶)
文章探讨了 19 世纪至 20 世纪上半叶俄罗斯宗教思想中 "文明 "多极化概念的发展。这种 "文明 "多极性概念表明,权力中心除了形成地缘政治平衡之外,还代表着不同的文明。19 世纪上半叶,俄罗斯的保守主义主要是欧洲中心主义和半殖民主义。然而,在本世纪下半叶,俄罗斯宗教思想家开始认识到文明的多元性及其作为独立权力中心出现的潜力,从而重新评估了俄罗斯在世界上的角色。19 世纪和 20 世纪之交,弗拉基米尔-格林穆特、列夫-季霍米罗夫、埃斯佩尔-乌赫托姆斯基亲王和谢尔盖-西罗米亚特尼科夫等思想家进一步推进了这些思想。他们发现了 "东方的觉醒",并主张俄罗斯与东方文明强国结盟,以应对迫在眉睫的世界大战。1917 年革命后,"文明 "多极化概念在 20 世纪二三十年代的欧亚主义思想中持续存在,这也是本文的重点。尼古拉-特鲁别茨科伊亲王和彼得-萨维茨基等欧亚主义运动领导人提出了自成体系的 "世界"--文明理论,认为这些文明是由共同的文化、意识形态和中央集权统一起来的大型经济集团。宗教思想和言论,包括 "巴比伦混乱 "的说法,在欧亚主义者为其偏好的国际秩序辩护的过程中发挥了重要作用。
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
MGIMO Review of International Relations
MGIMO Review of International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
12 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信