Features of the formation and development of Russian civilization. The role and place of Russia in world development (grade 10). Abstract: Russian civilization Features of Russian civilization point by point

Russian civilization is one of the largest civilizational communities in Eurasia. In Eurasia, the civilizational development of mankind has reached its maximum concentration, where the maximum diversity of its models has emerged, including the interaction of East and West. The multi-ethnicity and multi-confessional nature of Russia have made self-identification and “choice” difficult in the Eurasian space. Russia is characterized by the absence of a monolithic spiritual and value core, a “split” between traditional and liberal-modernist values, and a transformation of the ethnic principle. Hence the problems with national civilizational identity; one might say there is an identity crisis.

Belonging to the Russian civilization of many peoples and different religions is predetermined by the fact that they live together for a long time on a certain Eurasian territory, they are connected by centuries-old spiritual, social, human ties, the joint creation of cultural values and government structures, their common protection, common troubles and successes - all this affirmed among the large and multi-confessional population a sense of participation in the destinies of Russia, a number of common ideas, preferences, and orientations that became deep for the psychology of Russian ethno-confessional communities.

The contribution of Russian civilization to the universal human treasure is primarily of a spiritual and cultural nature, manifesting itself in literature, moral and humanistic concepts, a special type of human solidarity, various types of art, and so on. It is precisely when relating, comparing the values of one civilization with the achievements of other civilizations that one most often encounters biased approaches and assessments. It is impossible to judge civilization by the specific socio-economic and political system of society, attributing their inherent vices and shortcomings to the essence of the life of Russian society. Civilization factors are long-term in nature and are reflected in cultural, religious, ethical characteristics, historical traditions, and mentality. It is necessary to take into account the differences between today's short-term needs and conditions and long-term ideas and interests, as well as the differences between ideologically neutral national interests and the ideological and political orientations and party preferences of individual social groups. With any model of social development, stability in Russia cannot be achieved without taking into account the peculiarities of its civilizational development: the idea of the priority of the interests of society, the spiritual factor, the special role of the state, harsh natural and climatic conditions, colossal distances, when natural resources are located where there is no population. It is necessary to combine traditional domestic culture and the value of modernization. It is advisable to implement the values and norms achieved by modern world civilization through domestic forms of social life.

It must be taken into account that 20% of the non-Russian population mainly live compactly on their historical lands, occupying about half of the territory of Russia, and are also partially scattered in the diaspora. Without a Russian foundation, including the unifying role of the Russian language, Russian society cannot exist, but at the same time there is no Russia without the voluntary union of other age-old ethno-confessional communities. In the civilizational aspect, Russian culture is more all-Russian than purely ethnic, and this contributed to the creation of a great Russian culture that has gained worldwide recognition. It is necessary to take into account that Russian civilization is not innovative, but interpretative; transferring foreign achievements to Russian soil can produce brilliant results (for example, a Russian novel).

To understand the complexity of the paths of national history, it is necessary to imagine the features of the type of civilization and culture that Russia represents.

There are various classifications of civilization systems according to a certain principle, for example, religious. For a cultural analysis of the development of Russia, it is fruitful to consider the type of reproduction of society. The type of reproduction is a synthesized indicator and includes: 1) a special system of values; 2) characteristics of social relations; 3) personality type associated with the specifics of mentality.

There are two main types of social reproduction. The first is traditional, which is characterized by the high value of traditions, the power of the past over the future, the power of accumulated results over the ability to form qualitatively new, deeper achievements. As a result, society as a whole is reproduced in historically established unchangeable forms while preserving the achieved social and cultural wealth of humanity. The second is liberal, which is characterized by a high value of a new result, more effective and more creative, as a result of which corresponding innovations appear in the sphere of culture, social relations, personality type, including innovations in mentality.

These two types of reproduction of civilizations are the poles of a single, but internally contradictory human civilization. The traditional civilization is primary, and the liberal one appears as an anomaly, emerging in an immature form in the era of antiquity. Only after many centuries does it become established among a limited part of humanity. Today it is becoming dominant thanks to its moral, intellectual, and technical achievements.

Both civilizations exist simultaneously. Liberal society gradually grows out of traditional society, taking shape in the depths of the Middle Ages. Christianity played a special role here, primarily with its requirement to develop the personal principle, although it was accepted in different ways by different forms of Christianity. New values gradually appeared in all layers of society in the sphere of spirit, forms of creative activity, in the economy, in particular, the development of commodity-money relations, law, rational logic and appropriate behavior. At the same time, in any country, despite liberalism, layers of traditional culture and corresponding forms of activity inevitably remain, in particular in everyday life. In this case, elements of traditionalism find their place within the functioning mechanism of liberal civilization. Traditionalism may not integrate into liberal civilization. Moreover, traditionalism, even with a small number of supporters, can wage a fierce fight against liberalism, for example, terrorism.

The problem of the relationship between civilizations is extremely acute; it is of paramount importance today, when humanity is transitioning from traditional to liberal civilization. This is a painful and tragic transition, the severity and inconsistency of which threatens with catastrophic consequences.

The transition from traditional to liberal civilizations occurs in different ways. The first countries that embarked on this path (USA, England) followed it for a long time, gradually mastering new values. The second group of countries (Germany) embarked on the path of liberalism when pre-liberal values still occupied mass positions in them. The growth of liberalism was accompanied by crises, a powerful anti-liberal reaction, and attempts to stop the further development of liberal civilization at its immature level. It was in such countries that fascism developed. It can be understood as the result of the fear of a society that has already embarked on the path of liberal civilization, but is trying to slow down this process by resorting to archaic means, primarily through a return to tribal ideology, which acts as racism leading to genocide and race wars. Having suppressed liberalism, fascism, however, did not affect developed utilitarianism, private initiative, which ultimately comes into conflict with authoritarianism.

Third countries (Russia) are moving to liberalism under even less favorable conditions. Russia was characterized by the powerful influence of serfdom, which led to the fact that economic development itself occurred not so much through the development of the labor market, capital, goods, but, above all, through a system of forced circulation of resources by the forces of archaic statehood. The most important thing is that the real increase in the importance of commodity-money relations, the development of utilitarianism and free enterprise among the broad masses of the population caused discontent and a desire to go against the government, which has ceased to “equal everyone.” Therefore, liberalism in Russia was completely destroyed (the Cadets). However, liberalism did not die. The utilitarian desire for the growth of goods merged with the modernization tendencies of part of the intelligentsia, which made it possible to restore archaic statehood in its worst forms. The Soviet government tried to cultivate the achievements of liberal civilization, but rigidly accepted them as means for goals alien and hostile to liberalism.

Unlike the first two groups of countries, Russia has not crossed the border of liberal civilization, although it has ceased to be a country of the traditional type. A certain intermediate civilization arose, where forces arose that prevented both the transition to a liberal civilization and the return to a traditional one.

In addition, Russian civilization of the last three centuries is characterized by extreme contradictory development, accompanied by a deep split in society and culture.

In the public consciousness of Russia there are polar assessments of the specifics of Russian civilization. Slavophiles and Eurasians stood for the uniqueness of Russia, while Westerners assessed it as underdeveloped compared to the West. Such a division may indicate the incompleteness of the process of formation of Russian civilization: it is still in a state of civilizational search, it is a country of developing civilization.

The civilizational approach to Russia testifies to its backwardness from the West, and the cultural one - to its originality and uniqueness, manifested in the highest rises of the human spirit. There is a gap between the civilizational and cultural appearance of Russia. Civilizational backwardness exists in the economic, political and everyday spheres. Hence the numerous attempts at modernization. But in a cultural sense, Russia occupies an outstanding place. Russian culture became the soul of Russia, shaped its face and spiritual appearance. It was in the sphere of spiritual and cultural creativity that the national genius showed himself. The history of civilization and the history of culture are divergent values that can diverge far from each other. The gap between civilizations and culture, between body and soul is what ultimately divided Europe and Russia. In this confrontation, Russia seemed to take the side of culture, and Europe - civilization, not without damage to culture.

For a significant part of educated society, already in the 19th century, Western civilization became synonymous with the complete despiritualization of life, its extreme rationalization and formalization, the discrediting of the highest moral and religious values, and the transfer of the center of gravity from the spiritual to the material sphere. The majority of the Russian intelligentsia did not accept the reality of industrial mass society, seeing in it a denial of the ideals and values of Western European culture itself. An ambivalent attitude toward the West arose, combining recognition of its undoubted merits in the development of science, technology, public education, and political freedoms with rejection of a civilization that had degenerated into “philistinism.” Hence the search for the “Russian idea”, which would allow us to find a formula for life more worthy than in the West. Modernization is necessary, but without loss of originality. In relation to Western civilization, Russia is not an antipode, but a special type - another opportunity for its development. This type has not really taken shape, but exists only in the form of a project, an idea, but it must be taken into account when developing any program for reforming the country. Cultural tradition, spiritual continuity - this is what must be taken into account in the course of reforms.

Russia needs the practical reason of the West, just as the West needs the spiritual experience of Russia. Russia faces the problem of synthesis, reconciliation of the main achievements of Western civilization with its own culture. It is based on the affirmation of a special type of human solidarity, which is not reducible to economic and political-legal forms. We are talking about a kind of spiritual community that connects people regardless of private and national interests. This ideal has its source not so much in economic and political as in religious, moral and purely cultural forms of human life, originating in Orthodox ethics. F. M. Dostoevsky designated this quality as “worldwide responsiveness.”

So, in the person of the West and Russia, we are not dealing with two different civilizations, but with one, albeit developing in different directions. If the West gives priority to economic growth and strengthening the legal regulation of public life, then Russia, without denying either the role of economics or law, appeals, first of all, to culture, to its moral foundations and spiritual values, striving to make them the criterion of social progress. Russia does not deny Western civilization, but continues it in the direction of creating a universal civilization, in the direction of its reconciliation with the cultural and moral foundations of human existence. Russia and the West are two components of European civilization as a whole; through their confrontation, the mechanism of self-development of European civilization was realized.

The Eurasian character of Russian civilization is manifested in the existence of European and Eastern elements in their organic unity in society.

European features are primarily associated with Christianity, which dominates Europe. This means ideological unity, the existence of common principles of morality, understanding of the role of the individual and his freedom, in particular freedom of choice. The East Slavic tribes, having begun to form their culture in pagan, mythological forms, bypassing their rationalization in the paradigms of their own culture according to the type of antiquity, immediately replaced them with the Christian faith. It should be borne in mind that such a step was not caused by the problem of economic or sociocultural lag, but was rather of a purely political nature in search of integration with Byzantine culture. Therefore, the process of Christianization of Rus', although it proceeded differently than in the West, still had pan-European cultural origins, rooted in ancient spiritual and intellectual traditions.

Initially, Byzantium had a significant influence, which was manifested in “bookishness,” philosophical ideas, art, and architecture. Then, from the 18th century onwards, the influence of European forms of culture (science, art, literature) increased, rationalism and secularization of culture developed, the education system, European philosophy, socio-economic and political thought were borrowed. “Westerners” appeared in the social movement, formed in line with the ideology of the Enlightenment, including Marxism. In the Soviet Union, post-industrial orientations, including value orientations, began to take shape, although this process had its own specifics (changes affected the upper strata of society, there was a mechanical copying of forms without changing the essence). The European vector in politics was of particular importance for Russia. Although the settlement of Europe came from the east and the main vector of innovation during the Neolithic period was the east, subsequently the main path of innovation in modern and recent times came from the west. Features of the territory, low population density, underdeveloped cities, poor assimilation of Roman principles - all this complicated the innovation process in Russia.

The eastern “Asian” features of Russia are associated with the fact that the country was formed on the territory of traditional eastern cultures and states (Turkic Khaganates, Khazaria, Volga Bulgaria, later the Caucasus and Turkestan, the area of the Desht-i-Kipchak cultures). The Huns, the conquests of Genghis Khan, the Golden Horde and its heirs had a significant influence on eastern Europe.

In Russia, following the type of eastern despotism, the state actively intervened in basic economic relations, acting authoritarianly, it played a huge role in the formation of a special mentality, carried out educational functions in culture instead of the church, especially since the 18th century, putting the church in a dependent position. Through the Mongol Empire, much was borrowed from China: centralization, bureaucratization, the subordinate position of the individual in society, corporatism, the absence of civil society, introverted culture, its low dynamism, traditionalism. Eurasians even talked about civilization - a continent that formed from the Pacific Ocean to the Carpathians.

Russia - Eurasia is characterized by a certain stagnation and low innovation. In Western Europe, faster innovative development was caused by the development of cities, high population density, and the preservation of part of the ancient spiritual heritage, that is, the densification of the information space was stimulated. Russia could only partially compensate for the information hunger because waves of peoples swept through its territory, and it itself attracted more and more new peoples and countries into its borders (for example, the annexation of Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland), but it could not fully take advantage of the innovations of hostile Europe. By this time, the East had lost its innovative potential. European civilization was formed as an information civilization, and this is its advantage over the others, here are the reasons for rapid variability and acceleration of evolution. In addition, the civilizations of Western Europe could draw from past and other cultures the elements they needed and arrange them in accordance with their tasks. The advantage of the West is, first of all, the advantage of technology. Non-European peoples reached a high level in their technical improvements, but unlike the Europeans, they did not cultivate technology, did not adapt their existence to the rhythms and capabilities of the machine. However, the technology race is killing culture by consuming resources. The mechanism of European civilization has a built-in mechanism of universal destruction, incompatible with the creative principle that culture carries within itself. The question arises: is “advanced” Western civilization the highest stage of development of human society?

War is of particular importance in this race. Wars and militarization are a powerful stimulus for the development of technology. Thus, Peter I began solving Russia’s geopolitical problems with the creation of a modern army and navy and the corresponding industry.

It is impossible to understand the development of Russia in the 19th century, the evolution of its constituent territorial systems, without the fact of its militarization. The military factor largely set the vector of development of the USSR in the 30s and the post-war period.

The so-called “Tatar-Mongol yoke” (if it existed at all) was, with all its drama, a powerful wave of innovation that brought many innovations to Rus'. At the same time, other waves came from the West (Scandinavia, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania). The spaces of Northern Eurasia found themselves within the boundaries of a loosely connected, but unified territorial system with a total area of more than 4 million square meters. km from the Carpathians to the Yenisei. It was through the Horde that innovations from China, India and Central Asia penetrated, previously unavailable to Europe (for example, firearms).

Great geographical discoveries gave a historical respite to Eurasia by redirecting European activity to the West and South. But the Muscovite kingdom found itself on the periphery relative to the main centers of innovation; it was doomed to lag behind due to the delay of the innovation wave, which was intensified by the traditional closedness of our territorial system and the hostility of neighboring states. The collapse of Byzantium eliminated the influence of the southern hotbed of innovation. Low population and urban density sharply reduced creative potential and slowed down both the reproduction of innovations and the exchange of information about them and the exchange of innovations themselves.

The only adequate response to this historical conditionality of development was the formation of a “rigid” centralized state, which made it possible, through all types of concentration, to ensure high organization and the necessary dynamics. By the middle of the 16th century, after significant administrative reforms (the abolition of feeding, the introduction of elected zemstvo self-government, judicial reform, Zemsky Councils, the creation of a system of Orders, military reform), the autonomy of individual subsystems of the state at all its levels sharply decreased, and a rigid hierarchical structure was built. Moscow is becoming the dominant innovation center. It must be borne in mind that at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries the population of Rus' was 3 million people, and that of Europe - 85 million. Under Peter I, the population of Russia was 12 million people.

In the first half of the 19th century, contradictory processes were taking place in Russia: on the one hand, the country absorbed all new innovations, and on the other, internal contradictions led it to an increasing lag. In the 30s of the 19th century, the industrial revolution began in Russia - a hundred years later than in England.

By the middle of the 19th century, Russia found itself at a bifurcation point. The reforms of the 60s marked the country's choice: it followed the path of creating a Western-style industrial society. Dependence on foreign capital investments increased, and the income from investments exported abroad was greater than the investments themselves, that is, Russia turned into a country that forcibly exports capital.

The reforms of the 60s of the 19th century are considered the starting point of Russia’s entry into the capitalist path of development, and this happened 250 years after the beginning of the capitalization of Western Europe. As a result, on the eve of the revolutions of 1917, Russia became a moderately developed capitalist country with a lot of feudal remnants. Major innovations are penetrating into Russia from the West simultaneously with a wide influx of foreign capital. At the same time, for the newly annexed regions (Central Asia) and the outskirts of the empire, Russia and the Russians acted as carriers of innovation. In general, beyond the few centers of modern Russia, following the path of capitalism, stretched a huge country with pre-industrial, and even pre-agrarian development.

After 1917, the Soviet Union made a giant innovation leap, primarily due to its own innovative potential under the conditions of a ten-year external blockade. Despite numerous political and social costs, the most important task of modernizing the country was nevertheless solved. The territorial structure of innovation centers has changed significantly in favor of the Eastern regions of the country. The USSR became the largest innovation center for the modernization of China, Korea, Vietnam and other countries. Moreover, it is necessary to emphasize What is this occurred mainly due to the non-market nature of the main priorities of civilizational development. The most important innovative result was the formation of a unique Soviet civilization. A collectivist Soviet mentality was formed, sharply different from the Western one, genetically stemming largely from the ideals of conciliarity of the Orthodox tradition and the rural community. An ideal of the individual arose that put social rather than personal interests in the first place. For a significant part of society, sacrifice based on high passionarity has become the norm. The specifics of Soviet civilization do not make it possible for a formal statistical comparison of the parameters of Soviet civilization with Western ones. For example, in terms of per capita indicators, the USSR was inferior to the leading industrial countries, but this gap was reduced by 8-12 times compared to 1913, and the average indicators completely ignore the several times smaller social stratification, which in practice means approximately equal per capita indicators for average and more high for the lower strata of the population.

It should be noted that science developed at a faster pace than the economy as a whole. The level and quality of manufactured products and their competitiveness on world markets is evidenced by the example of the export of the most technically complex products - aviation equipment. During the period from 1984 to 1992, the USSR exported 2,200 aircraft of various classes and 1,320 helicopters (excluding Europe), while the United States - 860 and 280, respectively, China - 350 and 0, and European countries - 1,200 and 670. Total arms exports in the 80s it reached $20 billion a year, which debunks the myth about the purely raw material orientation of exports from the country.

As a result, due to social and technical innovations in the USSR after World War II, a powerful innovation complex of global importance arose, comparable in scale and productivity to a similar complex in the United States, and significantly superior in efficiency. Within the borders of the USSR, a model of a global system of relations between the innovation core and the periphery was worked out, which ensured the possibility of constant growth in regions and countries with a catching-up type of development. The scale, structure and products of this complex prove that the USSR was part of the so-called Kondratieff wave (a new stage of world development) with a minimal lag behind the leading countries of the world.

The result of Soviet modernization, unprecedented in world industrial history, which lasted for seventy years, was that the country almost halved historical time in the main breakthrough areas of socio-economic development (including, of course, the cultural revolution and modernization of the agricultural sector) and radically changed both the macroeconomic proportions between large natural-economic territorial systems within the country and the content of the innovation processes occurring within them. Since 1917, the USSR has become an independent and the world's largest center of social, and since the post-war period, technological innovation. Thus, the possibility of a different development of European civilization was proven and the broadest opportunities for achieving a modern level of development were demonstrated for countries that lagged behind due to a number of reasons, including the fault of the West, which carried out colonial robbery and unequal exchange.

The so-called “perestroika,” focused primarily on Western innovations, led to disastrous results that turned the Russian Federation and “post-Soviet” countries into the weakest link in the chain of industrial states. It is through the former USSR that the problems of world globalization are being solved. World experience shows that the benefits from market relations are received by those who control the world's financial and information resources, while the costs are borne by countries with a predominance of the real sector of the economy. There is not a single example in the world where countries with a raw materials-based production and export have reached the level of high-tech innovative development. It is necessary to keep in mind that it is precisely in the first years of the 21st century that the downward Kondratieff wave begins, and a global systemic crisis is on the agenda, which, apparently, was delayed by the involvement of the territory of the USSR and other former socialist countries in the “market economy”.

Description of the presentation by individual slides:

1 slide

Slide description:

Peculiarities of Russian civilization “Russia is a puzzle wrapped in a secret inside an enigma.” W. Churchill MOBU Secondary School No. 4 in the town of Luchegorsk, Primorsky Territory, teacher of history and social studies V.V. Zabora.

2 slide

Slide description:

Main questions of the topic Features of Russian traditionalism and modernization. Attitude to power. Community. Ascetic ideal. World-denying tradition. Relationship to East and West. Missionary

3 slide

Slide description:

“For you - centuries, for us - a single hour” A. Blok The image of Russia - a steppe mare - flying, rushing at a gallop, was perfectly captured by A. Blok in the poem “On the Kulikovo Field”: And eternal battle! Rest only in our dreams. Through blood and dust... The steppe mare flies, flies And crushes the feather grass... There is no peace! The steppe mare gallops! Russian society is changing suddenly, without long preparation, in leaps and bounds. Assignment: Illustrate this feature of the historical development of Russia.

4 slide

Slide description:

F. Tyutchev M. Voloshin “Oh, don’t wake up the sleeping storms - chaos is stirring under them!” F. Tyutchev What features of Russia do poets talk about? Who are you, Russia? Mirage? Obsession Were you there? Yes or not? Whirlpool... rapids... dizziness... Abyss... madness... delirium... M. Voloshin. Burning bush. The fields of my meager land are filled with sorrow. The hills of space in the distance Idgorbi, plain, humpbacks! A. Bely. Rus. Rustic hops wander in the grindstone, shaking the peoples. M. Voloshin. Burning bush. A. Bely

5 slide

Slide description:

Westerners and Slavophiles A clash of traditional and modernization values. A powerful state, army, order, service to the state and sovereign, Orthodoxy, ritual, hierarchy, extensiveness. Personality, freedom, equality, law, right, private property, labor What values does the populist P. Lavrov write about? We were proud of one thing: the power of Russia, When in the square, in front of the royal carriage, Orderly regiments were marching, Banners were waving, helmets were shining menacingly, And bayonets were sparkling... Granovsky T.N. Khomyakov A.S.

6 slide

Slide description:

Assignment: Here are several poetic and prose passages. Do literary characters demonstrate the logic of a traditional or modernized person? There is no freedom... But there is liberation. There is no equality - there is only balance. Not in equality, not in brotherhood, not in freedom, But only in death is the truth of rebellion. M. Voloshin. Rebel. There is no law - there is only coercion. All crimes are created by law. The state is guilty before the criminal. Holy Rus' is covered with sinful Russia. M. Voloshin. In the ways of Cain.

7 slide

Slide description:

The “Westernism-Slavophilism” dilemma remains relevant to this day, giving rise to either new forms of radical denial of everything Russian, or new forms of denial of the West. Thanks to the internal conflict of our civilization, Russia has demonstrated to the world the brightest examples of universalism. V. S. Solovyov (1853-1900) The Doctrine of God-Humanity L. N. Tolstoy (1828-1910) Embodies the unique quality of Russian civilization - its ability to hospitably accept and combine various religious and moral traditions V. I. Lenin (1870-1924) The Bolsheviks tried to implement the most universal project: the creation of a single humanity on the principle of complete renunciation of private property

8 slide

Slide description:

What feature of Russian culture is illustrated by the reasoning of the philosopher I. Ilyin: “Seeks ease and does not like tension; will have fun and forget; he will plow up the earth and throw it away; To cut down one tree will destroy five. And his land is “God’s”, and his forest is “God’s”; and “God’s” means “nobody’s”; therefore, what is foreign to him is not forbidden.” It's cold, pages, cold. Hungry, pages, hungry. N. A. Nekrasov Do you know what Russia is? An icy desert, and a dashing man walks across it. K. P. Pobedonostsev We were proud of one thing: the power of Russia. P. Lavrov. To the Russian people.

Slide 9

Slide description:

The eternal movement of Russians was noted by V. O. Klyuchevsky, who defined Russia as a country “that is being colonized.” The feeling of the limitlessness of space, of one’s eternal restlessness characterized the Russian person. V. Rozanov “Wanderer, eternal wanderer and everywhere only a wanderer.” “Actually, I was born a wanderer; wanderer-preacher” N. Berdyaev defined the consequences that Russia’s territorial expansion led to: “huge spaces were easily given to the Russian people, but their organization of this space was not easy.” Historian V. O. Klyuchevsky concluded: “The state grew fat, but the people lost weight.”

10 slide

Slide description:

It is very difficult and dangerous to move Russia. Any reform or revolution threatens anarchy. Russia is included in the global process as a country of the modernization type “from within” + “from without,” when an external factor accelerated internal processes. Russia is static by nature, subject to cyclical fluctuations, around a certain equilibrium point, and extensive. Modernization is selective in nature: borrowing technical and organizational achievements against the background of tightening exploitation by traditional, pre-bourgeois methods. The characteristic of Russia as a “second-tier” country is also recognized as a deep-seated rejection of the dynamics. Preference for stability. The traditionalist masses could be stirred up by total terror and the threat of starvation.

11 slide

Slide description:

Cycles of Russian history The Russian economist N.D. Kondratyev and his followers identified several cycles in the history of Russia, showing the alternation of “upward” (reforms, transformations) and “downward” (counter-reforms, tightening of the regime) waves. Try to complete the table according to the researcher's logic. I cycle II cycle III cycle IV cycle Upward wave Downward wave Upward wave Downward wave Upward wave Downward wave Upward wave Downward wave Late 1780-1810s. 1817-1855s 1855-early 1870s 1870-1891,1896's 1896-1914, 1921 Since 1914, 1921-1946 1940-1969, 1972 1972-1980 Reforms of Alexander I and projects of Speransky Arakcheevshchina. Reign of Nicholas I Great reforms of Alexander II Contreforts of Alexander III Reforms of Witte, Stolypin, NEP War communism, industrialization, collectivization

12 slide

Slide description:

Remember how the periodization of Russian history is given? Who makes the civilizational choice and decides the fate of the country at all stages of its development?

Slide 13

Slide description:

Assignment: Make a list of the five most important events in Russian history that influenced the formation of statehood and civilization. Arrange them in order of importance and justify your own position.

Slide 14

Slide description:

Describe the attitude towards the power of the Russian people? “The Russian people have always had a different attitude towards power than the European peoples. He never fought against power and, most importantly, never participated in it, was not corrupted by participation in it. Russian people have always looked at power as an evil from which a person must get rid of...” A. Tolstoy “Russian character is glorified in the world, It is studied everywhere. He is so strangely vast that he himself yearns for a bridle.” I. Guberman “...A Russian, no matter what his rank, circumvents the law wherever this can be done with impunity; and the government acts in exactly the same way" N. Berdyaev "...The main active forces are the state and the autocratic sovereign...from whom all the main phenomena of life came and to which they were reduced" V. Klyuchevsky

15 slide

Slide description:

Community has become one of the main characteristics of the Russian-Orthodox civilization. Think about it! What features of Russian Orthodox civilization does M. F. Dostoevsky talk about? “He is smart, he is Shakespeare, he is vain about his talent, humiliate him, destroy him...”; “...The highest freedom is not to save and not to provide yourself with money, but to share everything you have and go to serve everyone.”

16 slide

Slide description:

Consider the meaning of the proverbs: “It’s not caring that there is a lot of work, but it’s caring that there is none”; “Working will not make you rich, but you will be hunchbacked”; “I would drink and eat, but work wouldn’t come to my mind.” “You can’t make stone chambers from righteous labors”; “Let your soul go to hell, you will be rich”; “He’s like a saint: he’s not afraid of trouble”; “My mind is dull and my wallet is tight.” Think about the difference between the attitude to work: - Orthodox; - Catholic; - Protestant.

Slide 17

Slide description:

“In Russia, all property grew from “begged”, or “gifted”, or “robbed” someone. There is very little labor ownership. And this makes her not strong and not respected.” V.V. Rozanov Remember the positive heroes of Russian fairy tales? “Getting to a book and opening it and dealing with it is more difficult for me than writing an article. Writing is a pleasure, but “getting it done” is disgusting. There “they carry wings,” but here they have to work: but I am the eternal Oblomov.” Think! Why, when discussing the peculiarities of the Russian character, did the philosopher Rozanov mention a character from Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”? What are the causes of our poverty? Are we doomed to poverty? Rozanov V.V.

18 slide

Slide description:

Russian is a man of the community. The community is his protection, his means of survival. Humility is merging with the “world”, with the community, the collective. Communalism is the denial of the personality of one person (to be “like everyone else”, “to keep a low profile”). Striving for equalization. Life is perceived as serving the “world”, as a duty. Survival is the cause, collectivism is the effect. Communal consciousness and communal behavior merge work and rest: monotonous peasant labor was “flavored” with dancing, singing, fighting and drinking. Communalism leads to a lack of sense of private property. Community causes the psychology of “they owe me”, “they owe me”. The ancestral symbol is a patron, protector. For a traditional Russian person, wealth comes from the devil; the only justification for wealth is high social status.

Slide 19

Slide description:

Ascetic contempt of the spirit for the flesh. In the Russian understanding, society consists of the poor (like me) and the rich (they). You cannot be rich and honest at the same time. A specific feature of Russians is the desire to follow Christ in his humiliation and suffering. Christ, suffering for people, is the ideal of Russians. This is expressed poetically by F. Tyutchev: Dejected by the burden of the godmother, the Heavenly King departed in a servile form, blessing you all, my dear land. The Gospel image of Christ the Sufferer, the poor man, evoked in the 14th-15th centuries. "foolishness". Type of holy fool - Russian saint, his qualities: poverty, simplicity, humiliation, suffering, sacrifice. The Russian person is ready to sacrifice for the good of the country, homeland, state. "Feat" - "ascetic". Labor on earth has always been a feat for Russians. V. Surikov “The Holy Fool Sitting on the Ground”

20 slide

Slide description:

World-denying tradition. All thoughts are about the future. Existing things are transient, fleeting, accidental, and therefore untrue. N. Berdyaev: “The best, most cultured and thinking Russian people of the 19th century did not live in the present, which was disgusting for them, they lived in the future and the past. Hence, the “present,” that is, the life of a specific person, has no value; they are “fertilizer for the future kingdom of justice.” Andrei Bely: “Die” to say to Russia And think about the resurrection. M. Voloshin: So the seed, in order to germinate, Must decay... Eastley, Russia, And blossom with the kingdom of the spirit! Valery Bryusov: Everything will perish without a trace, perhaps, What only we knew, But you, who will destroy me, I greet with a welcoming hymn. What perception of the world is typical for Russian civilization?

21 slides

Slide description:

Attitude to the West and the East M. Voloshin wrote in the poem “Russia”: At the bottom of our souls we despise the West, But from there, in search of gods, We steal the Hegels and Marxes, So that, perched on the barbaric Olympus, Smoke styrax and sulfur in their honor And chop off heads to the native gods, And a year later - to drag an overseas fool to the river, tied to his tail. The attitude towards the West is active. Active dislike, reaching the point of hatred, or active “love”, striving for the most complete imitation. Overall, there is a lack of acceptance of it. Even in periods of “dislike” there is a desire to adopt technology, but not ideology. The attitude towards the East is calm. Sometimes indifferent, sometimes patronizing, sometimes admiring.

22 slide

Slide description:

What did the “Catholic and Protestant worlds” offer the Russians? They are focused on worldly values, on a pragmatic approach to life, on active intervention in the world, on a clear and real result. What is the Orthodox world oriented towards? It is focused on mystical rather than worldly, pragmatic values. The process is more important, not the result. What is more important is the dispute as a process, not its essence. What is more important is the search for the “meaning of life”, rather than specific work to effectively improve people’s lives. What type of consciousness (traditional or modernized) do the heroes of Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” - Oblomov and Stolz - demonstrate?

Slide 23

Slide description:

O unworthy of election, You are chosen. Khomyakov And you, element of fire, go crazy, burning me, Russia, Russia, Russia - the Messiah of the coming day! A. Bely Why was Russia chosen? Vladimir Solovyov “...Entrust her with the great responsibility of morally serving both the East and the West, reconciling both within herself.” What formula did Russia take as the basis of its ideology?

24 slide

Slide description:

The idea of “Moscow - the Third Rome” is an isolationist self-awareness in the Moscow principality, the main idea is not God’s chosenness, but responsibility to humanity for the preservation of the Divine truth embodied in their state and everyday structure. The activities of Peter I as an active return of Russia to the pan-European world. Inclusion of Russia in the circle of universal human enlightenment. Europeanization is not only a way of technical modernization, but also a form of service to humanity. Universalism Universalism State Civilization

25 slide

Slide description:

What two leading functions of Russia are pointed out by the poet M. Voloshin: And Rus' conceived and carried in her womb - the Third Rome - a blind and terrible fruit: May what was conceived in flame and anger unite the east and the west! Are we not destined to overcome the last destinies of Europe, in order to prevent Her disastrous paths? Russia's mission: sacrificial and “conciliatory” (unifying) Why did Byzantine Constantinople fail? And why, on the other hand, did Byzantine Moscow retain its integrity? How would you answer this question? "You're the best! There is no mercy for the best!” - exclaimed M. Voloshin (Blessing). How do you understand this statement?

26 slide

Slide description:

Russia's civilizational mission in the 21st century? Political aspect: creation of a democratic state, active promotion of the creation of a fair world order, excluding the possibility of dictatorship from a single superpower. Economic aspect: gaining a comfortable place in the international division of labor. Cultural aspect: preservation, development of a unique culture, the Russian language (support for Russianphony - love for Russia and Russian culture). Environmental aspect: preservation of the unique natural diversity of Russia.

Slide 27

Slide description:

Symbols of Russia Assignment: Come up with symbols of Russia based on human senses. 1.Vision. Form: inanimate object (temple, village or city architecture, living object (flower, tree) Color: what color, in your opinion, can be called the color of Russia? 2. Hearing. What folklore or classical piece of music, what rhythm, dance, best emphasizes the spirit of the Russian people? 3. Smell. What smell (for example, a flower) can be a symbol of Russia? What work of art or literature can be, in your opinion, a symbol of Russia? A. Literature. ). ?

28 slide

Slide description:

Reflection Exercise “The learning process” Purpose: analysis of knowledge acquisition, work with concepts, a way to organize thoughts. This is an opportunity to compile aspects of knowledge: 1) what you learned about the problem from others 2) what you learned from your experience 3) what you wanted to clarify for yourself Write or symbolize what you were taught? What have you learned from others? What have you learned yourself? What did you come to based on your own activities? What did you read and learn? What is unknown? What do you want to know? Outline the prospects for further development of your knowledge. Next, you can outline thoughts, ideas, plans, projects that will arise as you work with the first three sections.

Slide 29

Slide description:

Sources Zakharova E. N. Methodological recommendations for the study of history. – M.: Vlados, 2001. History of Russia and its closest neighbors. – Electronic manual, 2005. Encyclopedia of Russian History. 862-1917. Electronic manual, 2002. Internet resources. Images. Social science. Global peace in the 21st century. – edited by L. V. Polyakova. – M., Education, 2008.

Preamble
Russian civilization is a set of spiritual, moral and material forms of existence of the Russian people

A long-term study of documentary sources of the development of Russian life over the last two thousand years allows us to conclude that a unique civilization has developed in Russia, the high spiritual and moral values of which are increasingly revealed to us in the concept of “Holy Rus'”, in Orthodox ethics and love of philosophy, the Russian icon, church architecture, hard work as a virtue, non-covetousness, mutual assistance and self-government of the Russian community and artel - in general, in that structure of existence where spiritual motives of life prevailed over material ones, where the goal of life was not a thing, not consumption, but improvement, transformation of the soul. These spiritual forms of existence permeate the entire historical life of the Russian people, can be clearly traced from primary sources for more than two thousand years, manifesting themselves, of course, differently in different periods and in different regions of Russia.

Russian civilization is an integral set of spiritual, moral and material forms of existence of the Russian people, which determined its historical destiny and shaped its national consciousness. Based on the values of their civilization, the Russian people managed to create the greatest state in world history, uniting many other peoples in a harmonious connection, and develop great culture, art, and literature, which have become the spiritual wealth of all humanity.

For the first time, the great Russian scientist N.Ya. came to the idea of the existence of Russian civilization. Danilevsky. True, he spoke not about Russian, but about Slavic civilization, however, the concepts that he put into it allow us to speak, most likely, about Russian civilization. It was Danilevsky who was the first in the world to scientifically develop the theory of cultural and historical types, each of which has an original character.

Before him, the prevailing idea was that human society develops in all countries in the same way, as if linearly, upward, from lower to higher forms. First there were India and China, then the highest forms of development moved to Greece and Rome, and then received final completion in Western Europe. These ideas were born in the West and were a Western version of the concept of the “Third Rome”, that is, the West, as it were, took over the baton of world development, declaring itself the highest expression of world civilization. All the diversity of cultural and historical types was considered within the framework of a single civilization. These misconceptions of N.Ya. Danilevsky convincingly denied. He showed that development does not proceed linearly, but within the framework of a number of cultural and historical types, each of which is a closed spiritual space in relation to others, and can be assessed only by its internal, inherent criteria.

Civilization is the main form of human organization of space and time, expressed by qualitative principles that lie in the peculiarities of the spiritual nature of peoples that make up a distinctive cultural and historical type. Each civilization is a closed spiritual community, existing simultaneously in the past and present and facing the future, possessing a set of characteristics that allow it to be classified according to certain criteria. Civilization is not equivalent to the concept of “culture” (although they are often mistakenly identified). Thus, the latter represents only a specific result of the development of the internal spiritual values of civilization, having a strict limitation in time and space, that is, it appears in the context of its era.

The division of humanity into civilizations is no less important than the division into races. If races are historically developed varieties of humans, having a number of hereditary external physical characteristics that were formed under the influence of geographical conditions and were consolidated as a result of the isolation of various human groups from each other, then belonging to a certain civilization reflected a historically developed spiritual type, a psychological stereotype that had become entrenched in a certain national community, as well as due to special historical and geographical living conditions and genetic mutations. If belonging to a race was expressed in skin color, hair structure and a number of other external characteristics, then belonging to a civilization was expressed primarily in internal, spiritual, mental and psychological characteristics, self-sufficient spiritual attitudes.

Each civilization has its own unique character and develops according to its own laws. In general, the conclusions of N.Ya. Danilevsky’s ideas about the nature of civilization come down to the following:

every tribe or family of peoples, characterized by a separate language or a group of languages close to each other, constitutes an original cultural-historical type if, according to its spiritual inclinations, it is capable of historical development;
In order for a civilization characteristic of a distinctive cultural and historical type to arise and develop, the political independence of its peoples is necessary;
the beginnings of a civilization of one cultural-historical type are not transmitted to peoples of another type. Each type develops it for itself under the greater or lesser influence of alien previous or modern civilizations;
civilization, characteristic of each cultural-historical type, only reaches completeness, diversity and richness when the ethnographic elements that make it up are diverse, when they, without being absorbed into one political whole, taking advantage of their independence, make up a federation or political system of the state.

Russian civilization as a spiritual and historical type arose almost two millennia before the adoption of Christianity. Its contours emerge in the spiritual ideas of the Chernoles culture of the Middle Dnieper region in the 10th–8th centuries. BC e. As noted by Academician B.A. Fishermen, even then the agricultural tribes of the Eastern Slavs created an alliance for defense against the nomadic Cimmerians, learned to forge iron weapons and build powerful fortresses. The ancient people of these tribes called themselves Scolots. In the 7th century BC e. The Skolot tribal union entered as an autonomous unit into a vast federation, conventionally called Scythia.

There is a whole series of evidence from ancient historians, geographers, and philosophers about the life of the agricultural Skolot tribes of Scythia. In particular, Strabo notes the characteristic features of the Scolots: Philokalia (courtesy), justice and simplicity. Even then, one can discern the worship of the good principles of life, the democratic way of life and everyday life, non-acquisitiveness and contempt for wealth. Many sources especially emphasize the commitment of the Skolot tribes to their traditions and customs.

Invasion of numerous Sarmatian tribes in the 3rd century. BC e. suspended the process of formation and maturation of Russian civilization. The agricultural tribes were forced into the deep forest zone, where many things had to start from scratch. Zarubinetskaya culture and the Chernyakhovskaya culture that grew out of it, which existed until the 4th–5th centuries. n. e., were a regression compared to the Skolotsk period, but, nevertheless, they managed to preserve the main spiritual features, which, in the new conditions of the mid-1st millennium, made it possible to finally form the cultural and historical type of Russian civilization, creating tribal unions, and later - and a single state.

The entire subsequent period of development of Russian civilization can be characterized as a process of its natural expansion to natural boundaries. The process of expansion of Russian civilization was carried out primarily by spiritual power, and not by military force. Russian spiritual power organized other nations around itself, suppressing opponents and rivals with the power of goodness and justice. Finno-Ugric, and later many Siberian peoples were involved in Russian civilization voluntarily, without blood and violence.

Danilevsky's great discovery about the diversity and originality of civilizations has not received due appreciation from his contemporaries; moreover, his teaching is being reviled. The prevailing opinion continues to be that Russia has developed and will continue to develop in line with European civilization, which is the highest expression of world civilization.

For many outstanding Russian contemporaries N.Ya. Danilevsky, the Russian world was perceived through the eyes of a Westerner, through Western European “blinders” that made invisible many of the outstanding values of Russian culture that define its identity. But what could one expect if at the end of the 19th century. many Russian philosophers did not know icon painting and church architecture, and if they spoke about them, then only as borrowings from Byzantium? Perhaps the most outstanding critic N.Ya. Danilevsky V.S. Solovyov wrote his works about Sofia without knowing either Russian icon painting or ancient Russian literature. Hence his fall from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, disbelief in Russian culture and the conclusion that the Russian people do not have special talents.

Similar arguments were not uncommon. For example, historian V.O. Klyuchevsky argued that ancient Russian thought, with all its formal intensity and strength, never went beyond the boundaries of “ecclesiastical and moral casuistry.” To say this means admitting your ignorance in the field of ancient Russian literature, which produced a huge number of talented literary works of various genres. The church historian Golubinsky, who seemed to have to study ancient Russian literature more deeply, believed that “Ancient Rus', right up to Peter’s revolution, did not have not only education, but even bookishness...”.

The negative attitude of the intelligentsia and the ruling stratum towards the values of Russian civilization, which they were obliged to serve, became one of the main reasons for the great tragedy of Russia in the 20th century. Due to various historical circumstances, a significant part of the Russian ruling stratum and intelligentsia, called upon to serve the development and improvement of people's life and the development of the country's cultural heritage, betrayed their purpose and became an instrument for rejecting the national heritage, imposing alien ideas and forms of life on the people, borrowed mainly from the West. Adulation of the West has become a distinctive feature of a significant part of Russian educated society and the ruling stratum, as noted by Lomonosov and Fonvizin, Pushkin and Dostoevsky, Chekhov and Bunin.

The development of Western European “enlightenment” in Russia is a consistent the process of rejection and destruction of Russian national culture, destruction of Russian civilization, moral and physical destruction of its carriers, attempts to build utopian forms of life in the country.

What separated Russian and Western civilizations, making their meeting so tragic? The answer to this question is extremely important for understanding the values of Russian civilization. The main difference is the different understanding of the essence of human life and social development. Civilization in Russia was predominantly spiritual, while in the West it was predominantly economic, consumerist, even aggressively consumerist in nature. The roots of Western civilization lie in the Jewish worldview of the Talmud, which proclaims a small part of humanity to be a “chosen people” with a special “right” to dominate others and appropriate their works and property.

During the XI–XVIII centuries. the former Christian civilization of the West is gradually being transformed into a Judeo-Masonic civilization, denying the spiritual values of the New Testament, replacing them with the Jewish worship of the golden calf, the cult of violence, vice, and carnal enjoyment of life. Holy Rus' could not accept such a worldview. The priority of the main life values and joys of a person in Ancient Rus' was not on the economic side of life, not in the acquisition of material wealth, but in the spiritual and moral sphere, embodied in the high, unique culture of that time.

Without an understanding of Orthodoxy, it is impossible to understand the significance of Russian civilization, Holy Rus', although it should be remembered that it is not reduced to pure churchliness and examples of ancient Russian holiness, but is much broader and deeper than them, including the entire spiritual and moral sphere of the Russian person, many elements of which arose Before the adoption of Christianity, Orthodoxy crowned and strengthened the ancient worldview of the Russian people, giving it a more refined and sublime character. Speaking about the predominantly spiritual nature of Russian civilization, there is no point in asserting that such a civilization was the only one. Russian civilization had much in common with Indian, Chinese and Japanese civilizations.

The search for the goal of development not in the acquisition of material wealth, not outside a person, but in the depths of his soul, in the desire for the absolute principles of existence, makes these great civilizations similar. In the 16th century The ideological struggle between Russian and Western civilizations, in particular, found expression in the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome”, the basis of which was the affirmation of the values of Russian civilization and opposition to Western ideology. In the West they “ask for a life in the present world,” but in Rus' they “ask for a future life.” Of course, the reasons for this struggle are much more serious than a simple clash between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. By the 16th century In Europe, two opposing life ideologies crystallized, one of which, the Western one, developed in line with aggressive consumerism, which grew into the 20th century. into a real consumption race.

The confrontation between Russian and Western civilizations became the defining event of the 20th century. Even the “cold” war between “communism” and “capitalism” was basically a struggle between Russian and Western civilizations, since many communist ideas were a perverted version of the ideas of Russian civilization. And today, in this confrontation between Russian and Western civilizations, the fate of all humanity is being decided, for if Western civilization finally wins, the world will be turned into a giant concentration camp, behind the barbed wire of which 80% of the world’s population will create resources for the remaining 20%.

Devoid of any restrictions, the consumption race of Western countries will lead to the depletion of world resources, demoralization and destruction of humanity. Spiritual civilizations give humanity a chance for survival, one of the main places among which is occupied by Russian civilization, which is focused not on aggressive consumerism and the war of all against all, but on reasonable self-restraint and mutual assistance. Russian civilization was the main obstacle on the West's path to world domination.

For centuries, it delayed the greedy pressure of Western consumers on the treasures of the East. This earned her the special hatred of the Western public. The West rejoiced at any failures, any weakening of Russia. For Western Europe, wrote I.A. Ilyin, “Russian is foreign, restless, alien, strange and unattractive. Their dead heart is dead to us too. They proudly look down on us and consider our culture either insignificant, or some kind of big and mysterious “misunderstanding”... In the world there are peoples, states, governments, church centers, behind-the-scenes organizations and individuals - hostile to Russia, especially Orthodox Russia, especially imperial and undivided Russia. Just as there are “Anglophobes”, “Germanophobes”, “Japanophobes”, so the world is replete with “Russophobes”, enemies of national Russia, who promise themselves every success from its collapse, humiliation and weakening. This must be thought through and felt to the end.”

The pressure of Western civilization on Russian civilization was constant. This was not a free meeting between two distinctive sides, but a constant attempt by the Western side to assert its superiority. Several times Western civilization sought to destroy Russian civilization through military intervention, for example, the Polish Catholic invasion and Napoleon's campaign. But each time she suffered a crushing defeat, faced with a powerful force incomprehensible to her, trying to explain her inability to defeat Russia by various external factors - the Russian winter, vast territory, etc.

But still Russian civilization is largely destroyed, but not as a result of weakness, but as a result degeneration and national degeneration of its educated and ruling layer. People who, by their national and social role in society, should be the guardians of the precious vessel of Russian civilization, dropped it from their hands, and it broke.

This was done by the intelligentsia and nobility, deprived of national consciousness, under the influence of “Western enlightenment.” Although the precious vessel of Russian civilization is broken, its images continue to be preserved at the genetic level in the depths of the national consciousness of the indigenous Russian people. They, as a memory of the City of Kitezh, are kept in the national consciousness, marking the “golden age” of the Russian people, the century when the Russian people remained themselves, lived according to the behests of their ancestors in the conciliar unity of all classes. National consciousness is formed over the course of many generations and absorbs the ancestral experience of the people, determined by Divine providence and historical destiny.

National consciousness is not a chain of speculative constructions, but the spiritual and moral guidelines of the Russian people that have acquired the character of an unconscious beginning, expressed in their typical actions and reactions, proverbs, sayings, in all manifestations of spiritual life. National consciousness cannot be identified with the national ideal, although the latter is an integral part of it. Most likely, these are some kind of nodes of the people's psyche that predetermine the most likely option for practical choice in certain conditions. This does not mean at all that deviations and actions that are extremely opposite cannot occur.

National consciousness creates one of the main preconditions for a fulfilling life. A person devoid of national consciousness is flawed and weak, he turns into a toy of external forces, the depth and fullness of the surrounding life is inaccessible to him. The disadvantage and tragedy of many Russian intellectuals and nobles was that they were deprived of Russian national consciousness and became an instrument of destruction of Russia in the hands of its enemies. Understanding the spiritual and moral values of Russian civilization and the depths of national consciousness is of paramount importance today, because it allows us to discover for us and free from all sorts of layers the source of our strength - the Russian national core.

Since the times of the Slavophiles and Danilevsky, this path has not yet been completely overcome. Leading Russian philosophers and scientists of the late 19th - 1st half of the 20th centuries. practically did not touch this area of knowledge, and if they considered it, it was from a Westernized position, interpreting Russian identity as a legacy of Byzantium. The voices of nationally minded Russian scientists were drowned out by standard formulations about the centuries-old backwardness of Russia and the reactionary nature of its people. Only a few scientists were able to overcome the absurd chorus of Westernizing denunciations and show the world what a precious spiritual treasure historical Russia - Holy Rus' - was.

The main generalizations of this book were prompted by conversations with one of the greatest Orthodox ascetics and thinkers of the 20th century. Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga John.

In 1993, at a meeting of the commission for the canonization of saints of the Russian Orthodox Church, at which a report was made on G. E. Rasputin in connection with the upcoming glorification of Nicholas II, Bishop John gently but very convincingly reproached him for his “one-sided enthusiasm for the Russian question.” According to the Metropolitan, this issue is more of a religious than a national character.

The difficult trials that befell the Russians are a consequence of the fact that over the past centuries they have been a God-bearing people, the main custodians of the Christian faith. Therefore, it was the Russians who bore the brunt of the enemies of the human race. The concept of Holy Rus' was for the Metropolitan synonymous with the concept of “Russian civilization”. This was clear from conversations with him. In our country, said Bishop John, the national question was predominantly only an external form, behind which the desire of the Russians to preserve their faith was hidden.

All visible contradictions - social, economic, political - were of secondary importance, and the main thing for the native Russian person always remained the question of faith, of Holy Rus' (Russian civilization), the memories of which were kept in the recesses of his soul. The revival of Holy Rus' (Russian civilization) in all the greatness and unity of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality is the main meaning of the life of a native Russian person. The great Orthodox ascetic constantly pursued this idea in his works and conversations. At the last meeting with Bishop John, which took place ten days before his death, he presented his book “Overcoming Troubles,” accompanying it with parting words about “increasing love for Holy Rus',” which became his spiritual testament.

Revealing the spiritual values of Russian civilization, stored in the national consciousness of Russian people, we mean, first of all, people before the beginning of the 18th century, for whom they were an organic worldview. In later times, until the beginning of the 20th century, this integral worldview of Russian civilization was preserved in the minds of Orthodox ascetics, saints, spiritual writers, as well as indigenous Russian peasants and merchants, especially in the northern regions of Russia (although not everyone).

Used in the book the concept of “Russian people” includes, as was customary before 1917., all its geographical parts, including Little Russians and Belarusians. Back in the 19th century. no one doubted that they belonged to the Russian nation. Official statistics considered all of them Russians and divided them into Little Russians and Belarusians on a purely geographical, rather than national basis. Like Siberia or the Urals, Ukraine and Belarus constituted a single geography of the Russian people, an integral fraternal organism.

Some linguistic and ethnographic differences between Ukraine and Belarus were explained by the peculiarities of their historical development under the conditions of centuries-old Polish-Lithuanian occupation. The proclamation of the Russian people of Ukraine as a special people is the result of the subversive work of the Austro-German intelligence services (and later Western intelligence services in general with the aim of dismembering and weakening the single fraternal organism of Russia. The author expresses deep gratitude to all individuals and organizations that provided creative assistance and financial support, without kind participation which this book could not have published.

The material was prepared based on the book by O.A. Platonov.
"Russian civilization. History and ideology of the Russian people"

Features of Russian civilization

Belonging to the Russian civilization of many peoples and different religions is predetermined by the fact that they live together for a long time on a certain Eurasian territory, they are connected by centuries-old spiritual, social, human ties, the joint creation of cultural values and state structures, their common protection, common troubles and good luck - all this affirmed among the large and multi-confessional population a sense of participation in the destinies of Russia, a number of common ideas, preferences, and orientations that became deep for the psychology of Russian ethno-confessional communities.

To understand the complexity of the paths of national history, it is necessary to imagine the features of the type of civilization and culture that Russia represents.

characteristics of social relations; 3) personality type associated with the specifics of mentality.

In addition, Russian civilization of the last three centuries is characterized by extreme contradictory development, accompanied by a deep split in society and culture.

The Eurasian character of Russian civilization is manifested in the existence of European and Eastern elements in their organic unity in society.

Caucasus and Turkestan, area of the Desht-i-Kipchak cultures). The Huns, the conquests of Genghis Khan, the Golden Horde and its heirs had a significant influence on eastern Europe.

The so-called “Tatar-Mongol yoke” (if it existed at all) was, with all its drama, a powerful wave of innovation that brought many innovations to Rus'. At the same time, other waves came from the West (Scandinavia, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania). The spaces of Northern Eurasia found themselves within the boundaries of a loosely connected, but unified territorial system with a total area of more than 4 million square meters. km from the Carpathians to the Yenisei. It was through the Horde that innovations from China, India and Central Asia, previously unavailable to Europe (for example, firearms), penetrated.

The great geographical discoveries gave historical respite to Eurasia by redirecting European activity to the West and South. But the Muscovite kingdom found itself on the periphery relative to the main centers of innovation; it was doomed to lag behind due to the delay of the innovation wave, which was intensified by the traditional closedness of our territorial system and the hostility of neighboring states. The collapse of Byzantium eliminated the influence of the southern hotbed of innovation. Low population and urban density sharply reduced creative potential and slowed down both the reproduction of innovations and the exchange of information about them and the exchange of innovations themselves.

After 1917, the Soviet Union made a giant innovation leap, primarily due to its own innovative potential under the conditions of a ten-year external blockade. Despite numerous political and social costs, the most important task of modernizing the country was nevertheless solved. The territorial structure of innovation centers has changed significantly in favor of the Eastern regions of the country. The USSR became the largest innovation center for the modernization of China, Korea, Vietnam and other countries. Moreover, it must be emphasized that this happened mainly due to the non-market nature of the main priorities of civilizational development. The most important innovative result was the formation of a unique Soviet civilization. A collectivist Soviet mentality was formed, sharply different from the Western one, genetically stemming largely from the ideals of conciliarity of the Orthodox tradition and the rural community. An ideal of the individual arose that put social rather than personal interests in the first place. For a significant part of society, sacrifice based on high passionarity has become the norm. The specifics of Soviet civilization do not make it possible for a formal statistical comparison of the parameters of Soviet civilization with Western ones. For example, in terms of per capita indicators, the USSR was inferior to the leading industrial countries, but this gap was reduced by 8-12 times compared to 1913, and the average indicators completely ignore the several times smaller social stratification, which in practice means approximately equal per capita indicators for average and more high for the lower strata of the population.

One of the most important factors in the failure of reforming the USSR is the complete disregard for the geographical, geopolitical and historical features of our country. What was not taken into account were the climate, the objectively high cost of labor reproduction, the increased energy intensity of the national product, even in the southernmost republics, high transport costs, the mentality of the elite and citizens, and other development factors. 8.2.

Dostoevsky said that the Russian question is a question of universal human meaning. And indeed, raising the question of Russian civilization, we inevitably come up with questions of other civilizations, civilizational dialogue.

So, does Russian (Russian) civilization exist?

Russia is a country of many ethnic groups and religions. There are dozens of them. Therefore, in the Russian dictionary there is the word Russian, and there is the word Russian. At the same time, the Russian people make up the majority of the Russian population (about 80%), the Russian Orthodox Church occupies its historically formed place among traditional Russian religions. Accordingly, I will always use the phrase Russian (Russian) civilization, which seems strange to a non-Russian-speaking person. It contains very important content for our topic, reflecting the connectedness of the concepts (but not exclusivity!) of ethnicity and civilizational identity. Civilization is broader than ethnicity. [...]

It would seem that the existence of Russian (Russian) civilization within the framework of international civilizational discourse is beyond doubt. The phenomenological nature of Russian Orthodox civilization was recognized by both A. Toynbee and S. Huntington. Skepticism regarding the very existence of a special Russian (Russian) civilizational type has an internal Russian origin. Genetically, it is associated with the modified ideology of Russian Westernism and has more political than scientific foundations. In this regard, the debate on the question of whether there is a Russian civilization has a predominantly internal Russian format. However, it is advisable to present it as a general methodological problem of proving the existence of modern civilizational types.

Is this question relevant? Yes, because the opposite position on the issue of modern local civilizations and their destinies is very active in the world.

In particular, the position of denying the phenomenological nature of Russian (Russian) civilization includes several significant views that are in circulation much wider than only in relation to the issue of Russian civilization.

1. Value profiles of civilizations
To solve this problem, we used the known data from sociological measurements within the framework of the international World Values Survey project. We examined the situation in Russia in comparison with the indicators of countries traditionally defined as typical exponents of the corresponding civilizational areas. This is the Western Atlantic (Anglo-Saxon) civilization - USA, European - (Germany), Latin American, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Islamic (Iran) civilizations. [...]

In addition, modern sociology does not fully identify the fundamental historically inertial civilizational value constants. They are layered with current states of consciousness, including those manipulated with the help of modern information technologies, which masks the effects and makes their identification difficult.

Nevertheless, based on the assumption of the inertia of the factors of stability of the identity of civilizations, we believe that the analysis of country-by-country comparison of sociological measurements is very informative. Table 2 shows the level of preference in Russia for a number of paramount values in human life and society. Their average, maximum and minimum values in the world are also given.

The given indicators of sociological measurements contradict some stereotypes. For example, about indifference, non-family, the cult of work and the acquisitive guidelines of American society. For all the indicated parameters, the United States, when compared with Western Europe, has more significant indicators.

On the other hand, Japan, usually positioned as a bastion of tradition and behavioral codes, reveals a low significance of these values in relation to the world level. Nevertheless, for the most part, existing ideas about the identity of the “value profile” of different civilizations were confirmed. This indicates the correctness of the methodological approach.

In the list of eight civilizations, Russia has the maximum (first place) or minimum (last place) according to five value parameters. The maximum value is the value of helping people and economic growth, the minimum is the attitude to politics, freedom of speech, and imagination.

Three of the five listed value guidelines are traditionally related in the literature to the specific civilizational characteristics of Russia. This:
1. Community welfare (the value of helping people);
2. Auto-subjectivity of power, autocracy, refusal of the people to directly participate in political life in favor of the supreme sovereign (minimization of the value of politics);
3. Inadaptability in the Russian context of the axiology of liberal freedoms and the ideology of liberalism itself (minimization of the value of freedom of speech).

The relatively low rate of education being focused on developing imaginative abilities is determined by the tradition of polytechnic education in Russia. Artistic and figurative education here does not play the role that is given to it in a number of other civilizations. The significance of the indicator of high economic growth for the Russian population reflects the historically low level of well-being and the desire to improve it.

2. The degree of value proximity of different civilizations to Russia

How do Russia's value indicators compare with the axiological profile of other civilizations? Can it be identified within the framework of other civilizational systems or is it a civilizationally independent phenomenon?

The calculation consisted of establishing the frequency for each civilization of cases where its indicator is closest to the Russian level. The obtained result allows us to assert the value independence of Russia. A wide range of countries was discovered that have the greatest degree of proximity to Russia in terms of one or another parameter (Fig. 1).

None of the compared civilizational systems comes close to even a third of the possible level of agreement between indicators. The United States has the least similar indicators as a manifestation of closeness to Russia. This confirms the hypothesis about the heterogeneity of Russian and American civilizational value types.

3. The degree of value distance of different civilizations from Russia

Along with the question of civilizational proximity, the question of identifying Russia’s value antipodes is legitimate. This is, in general, a question about the alternative nature of the genesis of the Russian civilizational system. The verification was carried out by calculating the frequency of cases of the greatest distance between the value indicators of the group of countries under study and the Russian ones.

It turned out that, just as on the issue of coincidence, none of the civilizational systems can be defined as a stable Russian antipode. For none of them the contrast value reaches 30%. At the same time, the West finds itself in a polar position in relation to Russia even less often than the countries of the East. The maximum frequency of value oppositions to Russia is demonstrated by Japan – 8 times, India – 7 times, Iran – 6 times. The alternativeness here is obviously a consequence of the mental differences of peoples, which go back not least to the variability of the religious platform. Countries that were civilizationally formed on the foundation of Christianity are less likely to be in value opposition to Russia. This also testifies to Russia's civilizational self-sufficiency.

When subtracting distance indicators from the frequency of cases of the greatest proximity, paradoxically, at first glance, the country that is axiologically closest to Russia turned out to be Brazil (the highest indicator in the first case, the lowest in the second). This proximity cannot be explained by cultural influence. Historically, contacts between Brazil and Russia have been minimal.

Consequently, the reasons for value similarity should be sought in the similarity of civilizational genesis.

There are two coinciding circumstances - a large state territory and a traditionalist version of Christianity (orthodox Catholicism in one case and orthodox Orthodoxy in the other).

Other countries, the USA and China, also have a comparable territorial scale. So, it's not just a matter of territory. The factor of traditionalist Christianity is more important. The modernized Christian faith, formed in the mainstream of Protestantism, creates a different axiological type. Thus, the weight of the religious factor of civilization in relation to the generation of its value guidelines is confirmed.

Another thing is that this role in modern society is decreasing. The genetic factor bases for the viability of civilizations and the current axiological guidelines of society under conditions of manipulation are far from identical.

4. Civilizational value hierarchies

The hierarchy in sets of values differs for different civilizations. Proof of this position are the configurations of the ratings of the ten most significant value guidelines in different countries. All of them are different from the world average configuration.

A certain exception against the background of high variability represents the value of the family. In 6 out of 8 ratings, the family was in first place. This indicates the fundamental importance of the institution of family for humanity, regardless of the civilizational corridor of development. However, even in this value indicator there is variability. For German society, family is in second place in the hierarchy of values, and for Chinese society it is in fourth place. For Russia, the first three basic values are as follows: family - work - patriotism.

Indicative is the discrepancy between different civilizations not only of the top ten, but even of the top triads of civilizational values (Fig. 5).

The only exception is the coincidence of the highest value triads for Russia, India and Iran.

5. Civilization-value balance.

Based on the established fact of differences in value preferences of different civilizations, it is possible to introduce a total indicator of the value positioning of each civilization. Then, on a comparison scale, it will be possible to see the position of Russia and evaluate its right to be considered an independent, identical civilization (Fig. 6).

Countries representing Western civilization find themselves at the greatest distance from Russia. The hypothesis about the value non-identity of Russian civilization with the West is thus clearly confirmed by sociological material.

In this case, as stated above, we are by no means talking about their antinomy. There are not so many polar contradictions between them, in comparison with non-Christian civilizational communities. The discrepancy between Russia and the West lies not so much in the nomination of values, but in their expression or preference. But in the end, this makes a significant difference in understanding the meaning of life and ongoing phenomena and processes. In the choice of personal, group and national actions in domestic and foreign policy. In assessments and rhetoric. These differences are not accidental and are not malicious or directed against anyone. It's just that civilizations are different. Not worse or better than others, but different.

6. On the value stability of identity
When identifying the significance of a value for a particular civilization, an adjustment for time is naturally necessary. Value indicators do not remain historically unchanged. They can either be strengthened through the targeted efforts of the state and society, or be destroyed. Thus, traditional society is focused on strengthening traditional value guidelines. Values are established in it as sacred laws. There is a system of taboos that protects them from destruction.

The era of modernity caused the process of destruction of the value constants of civilizations. The period of postmodern inversions further accelerated the course of destructive processes.

An indirect indicator of the axiological state of each civilization is the ratio of the weight of its value package with the global level. The reduced state of a package can serve as an indicator of both its destruction and the low factor value of some values for the viability of the corresponding civilization. The insignificance of one value-factor can be compensated by the increased level of significance of another. That is why an analysis of the entire value package was chosen. Exceeding the world level will mean a relatively prosperous state in terms of preserving values, while a lower position in relation to it will mean a threat to the axiological destruction of civilization.

The result of the calculations was confirmation of the thesis about the civilizational-value destructiveness of modernity. (Fig.7). The performance of six of the eight civilizations compared was below the world level. Above it are only India and Iran. It was the civilizational systems they represented that managed to maintain the greatest connection with the principles of traditional society. On the contrary, the countries of the “golden billion” - the USA, Japan, Germany - demonstrate the worst value indicators relative to the world level.

Today, the position of the countries of the “golden billion” in the world is still dominant. However, an analysis of their value state makes it possible to predict future civilizational upheavals for them. A society with devalued values has no prospects for long-term existence. Speaking about Russia, we must also qualify its situation as threatening.

7. Civilization matrix

It is certainly and obvious that peoples and countries are moving closer to each other in the process of globalization. There is a global dissemination of culture, information, institutions, technologies, and infrastructures. Similar modernization problems are being solved. However, modernization models vary significantly depending on the civilizational context. The historically developed matrix of civilizational existence can act today as a special “civilizational development limiter” (or, on the contrary, a “civilizational development corridor”).

In Table 3, based on the methodology proposed in the work, the main conditions for the occurrence of modernization processes are identified. Basic ideological positions turn out to be fundamentally different depending on civilization. For Russian civilization they are completely different than, for example, for Western communities.

A nontrivial issue in the discourse on the identification of civilizations is the ambiguity of the content of seemingly coinciding concepts. Let us show this using the example of a community, which is presented as an indispensable social institution of the traditional model of society. Its existence appears to be identical in different types of civilizations, which at first glance speaks in favor of the universalism of world development. But are identical institutions hidden under the same concept of community?

For the analysis, the communal structures of three civilizations were taken: for the Russian one - the concept of “peace”, Western European - “civic” and Chinese “jia” (Table 4)

Here again a linguistic excursion is needed. The Russian word “mir” is very ambiguous. It was this feature of the Russian language that the brilliant Leo Tolstoy used in his world famous novel “War and Peace”. So, “peace” is not war. “The World” is all of humanity and the whole earth as a planet. “The world” is everything that surrounds us. “The world” is a community, a local community. There was no agreement for “community” for any of the six comparative parameters used. There are three fundamentally different social institutions, an attempt to identify them with one semantic load leads to significant deformation in relation to each of them.

Russian civilization is a complex of historically formed systems that ensure its viability. These systems were justified ideologically and consolidated in the minds of the population as values.

8. The dangers of civilizational engineering
Since the early 1990s. Russia, due to many circumstances, has entered a phase of civilizational value inversion. Samples of Western community organization were taken as a standard. They were not very justifiably perceived by society as generally applicable universals, whereas in reality they represent unique life-support mechanisms only for a certain civilization. Few people have thought about the fact that they may not be suitable for the Russian civilizational context. We see that there is even less understanding of how dangerous such transfers can be for the recipient civilization.

The destruction of the previous Russian (Soviet) civilizational model was not followed by the creation of something fundamentally comparable in effectiveness. The introduced elements of Western life support systems have revealed their non-functionality in Russia.

When, almost 20 years later, we began to sum up the results of neoliberal reforms, it turned out that the country continues to exist only due to the heavily destroyed, but not yet completely destroyed, mechanisms of functioning of the Soviet, and previously, imperial Russian statehood.

The Bolsheviks came to an equally disappointing result in the implementation of the task of building a “state of a new type”. As is known, they borrowed as a standard, also from the West, the model of the Paris Commune. However, to the surprise of the left radicals, the state built in the USSR reproduced the main content of the previous system in new shells. The experience of historical civilizational value inversions indicates that attempts at civilizational “engineering” are contraindicated. This is also how non-viable mutations arise during genetic engineering.

Table 4 reflects the value aspirations of modern reforms in Russia to replace traditional Russian life support systems of Russian (Russian) civilization with Western ones. The ineffectiveness of imposed civilizational transfers serves as further evidence of the reality of the existence of a special Russian (Russian) civilization. There is a Russian proverb: “What is healthy for a Russian is death for a German.” And vice versa. […]

Thus, the results of our analysis, obtained through the use of global sociological tools, coincide with the conclusions drawn from the use of other research methods. This is significant evidence of their reliability.

Our main conclusion is this: Russia truly has a civilizationally unique structure of values.

Its specificity gives every reason to make a statement about the existence of a special Russian (Russian) civilization.

Axiological transfers from other civilizations can be destructive and, most likely, this is an inevitable consequence in most cases and attempts of artificial value borrowing.

If they are imposed, the destructive result seems to have no alternative. It becomes obvious that these conclusions apply to other local civilizations in relation to the challenges of maintaining their identity and thereby existence.

Thus, the historical time for abandoning the civilizational diversity of the world has not yet come, if it ever will come in the foreseeable future.

Sulakshin S.S. , General Director of the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology

Bagdasaryan V.E. , Project Manager at the Center for Scientific Political Thought and Ideology