Around the 40-50s of the 19th century, two directions stood out in Russian society - Slavophilism and Westernism. The Slavophiles promoted the idea of a “special way for Russia”, and their opponents, Westerners, were inclined to the need to follow the traces of Western civilization, especially in the areas of social structure, culture and civil life.
Where did these terms come from?
“Slavophiles” is a term coined by the famous poet Konstantin Batyushkov. In turn, the word "Westernism" first appeared in Russian culture in the 40s of the nineteenth century. In particular, you can meet him in the "Memoirs" of Ivan Panayev. Especially often, this term began to be used after 1840, when Aksakov and Belinsky broke up.
History of Slavophilism
The views of the Slavophiles, of course, did not appear spontaneously, "out of nowhere." This was preceded by a whole era of research, the writing of numerous scientific works and works, painstaking study of the history and culture of Russia.
It is believed that Archimandrite Gabriel, also known as Vasily Voskresensky, was at the very origins of this philosophical movement . In 1840, he released “Russian Philosophy” in Kazan, which became a kind of barometer of incipient Slavophilism.
Nevertheless, the philosophy of the Slavophiles began to take shape a little later, in the course of ideological disputes arising from the discussion of Chaadayev's “Philosophical Letter”. Adherents of this trend spoke in support of the individual, distinctive path of the historical development of Russia and the Russian people, which radically differed from the West European path. According to the Slavophiles, the originality of Russia lies primarily in the absence of the class struggle in its history, in the land of the Russian community and artels, as well as in Orthodoxy as the only true Christianity.
The development of the Slavophil current. Main ideas
In the 1840s The views of the Slavophiles were especially widespread in Moscow. The best minds of the state gathered in the literary salons of the Elagins, Pavlovs, Sverbeyevs - it was here that they communicated with each other and led lively discussions with Westerners.
It should be noted that the works and works of the Slavophiles were harassed by censorship, some activists were in sight of the police, and some were even arrested. Because of this, for quite a long time they did not have a permanent print publication and posted their notes and articles mainly on the pages of the Moskvityan magazine. After the partial relaxation of censorship in the 1950s, the Slavophiles began to publish their own magazines (Rural Improvement, Russian Conversation) and newspapers (Parus, Molva).
Russia should not assimilate and adopt the forms of Western European political life — all Slavophiles, without exception, were firmly convinced of this. However, this did not stop them from considering the active development of industry and trade, banking and joint stock companies, the introduction of modern machines in agriculture and the construction of railways to be necessary. In addition, the Slavophiles welcomed the idea of abolishing serfdom "from above" with the obligatory provision of land allotments to peasant communities.
Much attention was paid to religion, with which the ideas of the Slavophiles were quite closely related. In their opinion, the true faith that came to Russia from the eastern church determines a special, unique historical mission of the Russian people. It was Orthodoxy and the traditions of the social order that allowed the deepest foundations of the Russian soul to be formed.
In general, the Slavophiles perceived the people as part of conservative romanticism. Characteristic of them was the idealization of the principles of traditionalism and patriarchalism. At the same time, the Slavophiles sought to bring the intelligentsia to rapprochement with the common people, the study of his daily life and life, language and culture.
Representatives of Slavophilism
In the 19th century, many writers, scholars, and Slavophile poets worked in Russia. Representatives of this direction, deserving special attention - Khomyakov, Aksakov, Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were Chizhov, Koshelev, Belyaev, Valuev, Lamansky, Hilferding and Cherkassky.
The writers Ostrovsky, Tyutchev, Dahl, Languages and Grigoryev were close enough to this direction in worldview.
With respect and interest in the ideas of Slavophilism were respected linguists and historians - Bodyansky, Grigorovich, Buslaev.
History of the Occurrence of Westernism
Slavophilism and Westernism arose approximately at the same time, and, therefore, it is necessary to consider these philosophical movements in a complex. Westernism as the antithesis of Slavophilism is a direction of Russian anti-feudal social thought that also arose in the 1940s.
The initial organizational basis for the representatives of this direction were Moscow literary salons. The ideological debates that took place in them are vividly and realistically portrayed in Herzen's Past and Thoughts.
The development of the Westernized current. Main ideas
The philosophy of the Slavophiles and Westerners differed dramatically. In particular, the categorical rejection of the feudal-feudal system in politics, economy and culture can be attributed to the general features of the ideology of Westerners. They advocated the implementation of socio-economic reforms in a Western manner.
Representatives of Westernism believed that there always remained an opportunity for the establishment of the bourgeois-democratic system in a peaceful way, by methods of propaganda and enlightenment. They highly appreciated the reforms carried out by Peter I, and considered it their duty to transform and shape public opinion in such a way that the monarchy was forced to carry out bourgeois reforms.
Westerners believed that Russia should overcome economic and social backwardness not due to the development of an original culture, but due to the experience of Europe, which has long gone ahead. At the same time, they did not focus on the differences between the West and Russia, but on the general that was present in their cultural and historical fate.
In the early stages, the philosophical research of the Westerners was particularly influenced by the works of Schiller, Schilling and Hegel.
The split of the Westerners in the mid-40s. XIX century
In the mid-forties of the XIX century, among the Westerners there was a fundamental split. This happened after a dispute between Granovsky and Herzen. As a result, two directions of the Westernist movement arose: liberal and revolutionary-democratic.
The reason for the disagreement was in relation to religion. If liberals defended the dogma of the immortality of the soul, then the democrats, in turn, relied on the positions of materialism and atheism.
Their ideas about the methods of reforming in Russia and the post-reform development of the state also differed. Thus, the democrats propagated the ideas of the revolutionary struggle with the goal of further building socialism.
The greatest influence on the views of the Westerners in this period was the work of Comte, Feuerbach and Saint-Simon.
In the post-reform period, under conditions of universal capitalist development, Westernism ceased to exist as a special direction of social thought.
Westerners
The initial Moscow circle of Westerners included Granovsky, Herzen, Korsh, Ketcher, Botkin, Ogarev, Cavelin, etc. Communicated closely with Belinsky, who lived in St. Petersburg. The talented writer Ivan Sergeyevich Turgenev also considered himself a Westerner.
After what happened in the mid-40s. The split Annenkov, Korsh, Cavelin, Granovsky and some other figures remained on the side of the liberals, and Herzen, Belinsky and Ogarev went over to the side of the democrats.
Communication between Slavophiles and Westerners
It is worth remembering that these philosophical directions arose at the same time, their founders were representatives of the same generation. Moreover, both Westerners and Slavophiles emerged from a single social environment, revolved in the same circles.
Fans of both theories constantly communicated with each other. Moreover, this communication was far from always limited to criticism: being at the same meeting, in the same circle, they quite often found in the course of the thoughts of their ideological opponents something close to their own point of view.
In general, most disputes were distinguished by the highest cultural level - opponents treated each other with respect, listened carefully to the opposite side and tried to provide convincing arguments in favor of their position.
Similarities between Slavophiles and Westernizers
Apart from the Westernized Democrats who emerged later, the first and second recognized the need for reforms in Russia and the solution of existing problems in a peaceful way, without revolutions and bloodshed. The Slavophiles interpreted this in their own way, adhering to more conservative views, but they also recognized the need for change.
It is believed that attitude to religion was one of the most controversial issues in ideological disputes between supporters of different theories. However, in fairness, it is worth noting that the human factor played a significant role in this. Thus, the views of the Slavophiles were largely based on the idea of the spirituality of the Russian people, their proximity to Orthodoxy and their tendency to strictly observe all religious customs. At the same time, the Slavophiles themselves, most of them immigrants from secular families, did not always follow church rites. Westerners did not at all encourage excessive piety in a person, although some representatives of the trend (a vivid example - P. Ya. Chaadaev) sincerely believed that spirituality and, in particular, Orthodoxy was an integral part of Russia. Among the representatives of both directions, both believers and atheists were present.
There were also those who did not belong to any of these currents, occupying the third side. For example, V.S. Solovyov in his writings noted that a satisfactory solution to the main universal human issues has not yet been found either in the East or in the West. And this means that to work on them together should be all, without exception, the active forces of mankind, listening to each other and by common efforts approaching prosperity and greatness. Solovyov believed that both “pure” Westerners and “pure” Slavophiles are limited people and incapable of objective judgments.
To summarize
Westerners and Slavophiles, the main ideas of which we examined in this article, were essentially Utopians. Westerners idealized the overseas development path, European technologies, often forgetting about the peculiarities of the Russian mentality and the eternal differences in the psychology of Western and Russian people. The Slavophiles, in turn, extolled the image of the Russian man, were inclined to idealize the state, the image of the monarch and Orthodoxy. Both those and others did not notice the threat of revolution and until the last hoped for a solution to the problems by the method of reform, in a peaceful way. It is impossible to single out the winner in this endless ideological war, because debates about the correctness of the chosen path of Russia's development do not stop to this day.