Who are Slavophiles from a literary point of view? Who are the Slavophiles? The main provisions of the ideas of Slavophilism

In the middle of the 19th century, two directions of reform were formed in Russian society for the further development of the country. These directions had great differences among themselves. Representatives of one of them - the Slavophiles - advocated the promotion of the originality of Russia, the Slavic Orthodox idea, and the Westerners focused mainly on the West and proposed to take an example from it in everything and build a new society on its experience.

Slavophiles and Westerners - who are they?

	Westerners	Slavophiles
When did the movement form?	1830-1850	1840-1850
Segments of society	Noble landowners (the majority), individual representatives of the wealthy merchants and commoners	Landowners with an average level of income, partly from merchants and commoners
Main representatives	P. Ya. Chaadaev (it was his “Philosophical Letter” that served as the impetus for the final formation of both movements and became the reason for the start of the debate), I. S. Turgenev, V. G. Belinsky, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev , K. D. Kavelin.	A. S. Khomyakov, K. S. Aksakov, P. V. Kireevsky, V. A. Cherkassky. Very close to them in worldview are S. T. Aksakov, V. I. Dal, F. I. Tyutchev.

Differences of opinion Slavophiles And Westerners

Which path should Russia take?	Along the path taken by Western countries. Mastering Western achievements will allow Russia to make a breakthrough and achieve more through borrowed experience.	Russia has its own road. Why Western experience, when our own formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” will help Russia achieve greater success and a higher position in the world.
Paths of change and reform	There were two directions: liberal (T. Granovsky, K. Kavelin, etc.) and revolutionary (A. Herzen, N. Ogarev, etc.). Liberals advocated peaceful reforms from above, revolutionaries advocated radical ways to solve problems.	Only peaceful development was recognized.
Which system to choose and attitude towards the constitution	Some advocated a constitutional monarchy similar to England, while the most radical advocated a republic.	They opposed the introduction of a constitution and considered unlimited autocracy to be the only possible form of government for Russia.
Serfdom	The abolition of serfdom and the widespread use of hired labor, which will lead to the growth of industry and the economy.	Abolition of serfdom, but while maintaining the usual way of peasant life - the community. Each community is allocated land (for a ransom).
Attitude to economic development opportunities	It is necessary to quickly develop the economy using Western experience.	It was believed that the government should promote the mechanization of labor, the development of banks and railways - gradually and consistently.
	Religion should not interfere when it comes to solving government issues.	It is faith that is the “cornerstone” of the special historical mission of the Russian people.
	Westerners considered him a great transformer and reformer.	They had a negative attitude towards Peter's activities, believing that he forcibly forced the country to move along a path alien to it.

The meaning of disputes between Slavophiles And Westerners

Time has resolved all disputes. The road chosen by Russia turned out to be proposed by Westerners. The community began to die out in the country, the church became independent from the state, and the autocracy ceased to exist altogether.

The main thing is that representatives of both directions sincerely believed that there was an urgent need for changes in the country and postponing them to a later time would not benefit Russia. Everyone understood that serfdom was pulling the country back, and without a developed economy there was no future. The merit of the Slavophiles was that they aroused interest in the history and culture of the Russian people. It is the Slavophile V. Dal who is the author of the “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language.”

Gradually, a rapprochement between these two directions began to occur, and the disputes that took place between their representatives contributed to the development of society and the awakening of interest in social problems among the Russian intelligentsia.

The question of the past, present and future of Russia, the paths of its development and role in world history divided the educated minority into Slavophiles and Westerners. Their dispute was sparked by the “Philosophical Letter” of P. Ya. Chaadaev, published in the Moscow magazine “Telescope” in 1836, where the author, reflecting on the fate of the West and Russia, Catholicism and Orthodoxy, made negative conclusions about the historical fate of Orthodox Russia. Chaadaev’s ideas directly “awakened” two opposing social trends: Slavophiles and Westerners of the 40s could with equal right consider him both their mentor and opponent.

Leading ideologists and publicists Slavophilism of the 40s: poet and philosopher A. S. Khomyakov, critic and publicist I. V. Kireevsky, his brother P. V. Kireevsky, public figure Yu. F. Samarin, brothers K. S. and I.S. Aksakovs are the children of the recognized writer Sergei Aksakov, also famous writers.Russian Westernism represented at that time V. G. Belinsky; A. I. Herzen; his friend and colleague N.P. Ogarev; public figure, professor at Moscow University T. N. Granovsky; V. P. Botkin; P. V. Annenkov, who became the first biographer of Pushkin; writer and journalist I. I. Panaev.

Both Slavophiles and Westerners were true guardians of the Fatherland; they were united by dissatisfaction with the results of the cultural and historical development of Russia and a thirst for national self-awareness. Both of them spoke about the need to abolish serfdom, about civil rights and freedoms. Both of them were in opposition to the tsarist bureaucracy. Slavophiles and Westerners had different assessments of the period of Muscovite Rus' and the reforms of Peter I, the bourgeois economic order of Europe and the patriarchal foundations of Russia. The issues discussed included the question of the purpose of art, the artistry and nationality of literature. The title of Khomyakov’s article “On the Old and the New,” which laid the foundation for the Slavophil movement as such in 1839, is symbolic. In the “past”, “old” - in Russian legends and traditions of Orthodoxy and folk morality, which is free from “profit”, self-interest, one must look for the beginning of “true Orthodoxy”. Tradition, the “succession of life” is the most necessary basis for its self-preservation, wrote K. Aksakov. Naturally therefore the admiration of Slavophiles for the age-old foundations of the monarchy, the Russian communal system, Christian collective, rather than individual, forms of life, up to “self-denial.” Sobornost - this is how, since the time of the first Slavophiles, the special quality of Russian, Slavic brotherhood, Orthodox unity of different layers of society has been defined on the basis of selfless service to the “world”, “community”, “clan”.

In art and literature, the Slavophiles valued what was original, in which the spiritual power of the people “created.” For Khomyakov these were icons and church music, for K. Aksakov and Samarin - the works of N.V. Gogol, A.K. Tolstoy, V.I. Dahl.

Representatives of Westernism believed that Russia could achieve prosperity only through rapprochement with Europe; in the rapid growth of industry, in the establishment of civil rights of the individual, in the ideals of equality, in the development of science, in bourgeois progress, they saw the guarantee of Russia's greatness.

Slavophilism is a nationalist direction of Russian social and philosophical thought that emerged in the 1830s-1850s, whose representatives advocated the cultural and political unity of the Slavic peoples under the leadership of Russia and under the banner of Orthodoxy. The trend arose in opposition to Westernism, whose supporters advocated Russia's orientation toward Western European cultural and ideological values.

Divided into: Elder Slavs- this is Khomyakov Alexey Stepanovich - was a theorist of the Slavs, laid the foundation of the Slavic doctrine; Kireevsky Ivan, Kireevsky Peter. Younger Slavs- this is Konstantin Aksakov (poet, publicist, literary critic); Yuri Samarin, Ivan Aksakov.

All Slavophiles are necessarily believers and necessarily Orthodox! true Christianity for them is Orthodoxy. Slavophiles, in most cases without evidence, announced a special path for Russia, established themselves in the idea of ​​the saving role of Orthodoxy as the only true Christian doctrine, and noted the unique forms of social development of the Russian people in the form of a community and an artel. “Everything that hinders the correct and complete development of Orthodoxy,” wrote I. V. Kireevsky, “everything that hinders the development and prosperity of the Russian people, everything that gives a false and not purely Orthodox direction to the people’s spirit and education, everything distorts the soul of Russia and kills her moral, civil and political health.”

Kireyevsky valued monarchical culture. Wrote about 3 degrees of degradation of Europe:

1. Division of churches - Catholicism - dubious Christianity.

2. The emergence of Protestantism, moving away from the ideal of integrity.

3. The doctrine of atheism

Slavophiles believed that European culture was degrading. 3 stages of degradation:

The split between Catholicism and Orthodoxy

16th century – emergence of Protestantism

19 – emergence of atheism

A serious reproach to Europe is chaos, the chaos of constantly conflicting opinions. Everyone fights everyone. The most terrible event for S. was the appearance of Peter 1. Peter 1 is considered a European in spirit. He cut up the single Russian religious organism. The first, smaller part, the nobles, began to sharply imitate the Europeans, while the second, larger part, remained the same. The entire Russian intelligentsia followed Peter.

With their creativity, the Slavophiles created a powerful social and intellectual movement that greatly shook the cosmopolitan worldview and sycophancy towards the West that had been going on since the era of Peter I. Slavophiles tried to show the dead-end, flawed, unspiritual nature of Western European civilization, brushing aside known historical facts. By calling on people to turn to their historical foundations, traditions and ideals, the Slavophiles contributed to the awakening of national consciousness. They did a lot to collect and preserve monuments of Russian culture and language (Collection of folk songs by P. V. Kireevsky, Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by V. I. Dahl). Slavophil historians (Belyaev, Samarin, etc.) laid the foundation for the scientific study of the Russian peasantry, including its spiritual foundations. Slavophiles made a huge contribution to the development of pan-Slavic ties and Slavic unity.

Despite their enormous contribution to the development of Russian self-awareness, the Slavophiles were unable to develop a holistic worldview, which was largely explained by the nature of the cosmopolitan environment from which many of them came and which pushed them towards liberalism.

Slavophilism is a literary, religious and philosophical movement of Russian social thought that took shape in the 40s. 19th century, focused on identifying the identity of Russia and its differences from the West.

The main representatives of Slavophilism were the intelligent nobility. Russian Slavophiles were deeply religious people, Orthodoxy. Main representatives: Khomyakov, Kireevsky brothers, Aksakov brothers, Samarin. The beginning of Slavophil ideology began with the articles of Khomyakov (“On the Old and the New”) and Kireyevsky (“In response to Khomyakov”). The articles were not published.

Slavophiles believed that Russia had its own, unique, original culture. It is characterized by conciliarity, the predominance of the general over the individual and the strength of traditions.

Kireyevsky publishes the magazine “European”, which was closed already in the second issue by Nicholas the First, since it contained an article by Kireyevsky with the requirements of the constitution for Russia.

The city of St. Petersburg received its name from the name of St. Peter, but the Slavophiles believed that it was in honor of Peter the Great.

The most extreme Slavophile is K. Aksakov, and the most extreme Westerner is Chaadaev.

Khomyakov did not like Lermontov for creating Pechorin, in whom he did not find a single positive quality. He respected Pushkin, since he, according to Khomyakov, returned the Russian folklore flavor, has a Russian soul, although he was brought up in European manners.

In essence, Slavophilism is a reaction to the introduction of Western values ​​into Russia, which began in the era of Peter. They believed that Western values ​​could not adapt to Russian conditions and demanded at least some adaptation. They laid the foundation for the scientific study of the Russian peasantry.

Around the 40-50s of the 19th century, two trends emerged in Russian society - Slavophilism and Westernism. Slavophiles promoted the idea of ​​a “special path for Russia,” and their opponents, Westerners, were inclined to follow in the footsteps of Western civilization, especially in the spheres of social order, culture and civil life.

Where did these terms come from?

“Slavophiles” is a term introduced 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 “Memoirs” by Ivan Panaev. This term began to be used especially often after 1840, when Aksakov broke up with Belinsky.

History of the emergence 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 papers and works, and a painstaking study of the history and culture of Russia.

It is believed that Archimandrite Gabriel, also known as Vasily Voskresensky, stood at the very origins of this. In 1840, he published “Russian Philosophy” in Kazan, which became, in its own way, a barometer of the emerging Slavophilism.

Nevertheless, the philosophy of the Slavophiles began to take shape somewhat later, in the course of ideological disputes that arose from the discussion of Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter”. Adherents of this direction came out with a justification for the individual, original path of historical development of Russia and the Russian people, which was radically different from the Western European path. According to Slavophiles, the originality of Russia lies primarily in the absence of class struggle in its history, in the Russian land community and artels, as well as in Orthodoxy as the only true Christianity.

Development of the Slavophile movement. Key Ideas

In the 1840s. The views of the Slavophiles especially spread in Moscow. The best minds of the state gathered in the Elagins, Pavlovs, Sverbeevs - it was here that they communicated with each other and had lively discussions with Westerners.

It should be noted that the works and works of Slavophiles were subjected to harassment by censorship, some activists were in the sight of the police, and some were even arrested. It is because of this that for quite a long time they did not have a permanent printed publication and posted their notes and articles mainly on the pages of the Moskvityanin magazine. After the partial easing of censorship in the 50s, 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. This, however, did not prevent them from considering it necessary to actively develop industry and trade, banking and joint stock business, the introduction of modern machines in agriculture and the construction of railways. In addition, the Slavophiles welcomed the idea of ​​abolishing serfdom “from above” with the mandatory provision of land plots to peasant communities.

Much attention was paid to religion, with which the ideas of the Slavophiles were quite closely connected. In their opinion, the true faith that came to Rus' from the Eastern Church determines the special, unique historical mission of the Russian people. It was Orthodoxy and the traditions of social life that allowed the deepest foundations of the Russian soul to form.

In general, the Slavophiles perceived the people within the framework of conservative romanticism. Characteristic of them was the idealization of the principles of traditionalism and patriarchy. At the same time, the Slavophiles sought to bring the intelligentsia closer to the common people, studying their everyday life and way of life, language and culture.

Representatives of Slavophilism

In the 19th century, many writers, scientists and Slavophile poets worked in Russia. Representatives of this direction who deserve special attention are Khomyakov, Aksakov, Samarin. Prominent Slavophiles were Chizhov, Koshelev, Belyaev, Valuev, Lamansky, Hilferding and Cherkassky.

The writers Ostrovsky, Tyutchev, Dal, Yazykov and Grigoriev were quite close to this direction in worldview.

Respected linguists and historians - Bodyansky, Grigorovich, Buslaev - treated the ideas of Slavophilism with respect and interest.

The history of the emergence of Westernism

Slavophilism and Westernism arose approximately in the same period, and therefore, these philosophical movements need to be considered in a complex manner. Westernism as the antipode of Slavophilism is a direction of Russian anti-feudal social thought, which also arose in the 40s of the 19th century.

The initial organizational base for representatives of this movement was the Moscow literary salons. The ideological debates that took place in them are vividly and realistically depicted in Herzen’s Past and Thoughts.

Development of the Westernization trend. Key Ideas

The philosophy of Slavophiles and Westerners differed radically. In particular, the general features of the ideology of Westerners include a categorical rejection of the feudal-serf system in politics, economics and culture. They advocated carrying out socio-economic reforms along Western lines.

Representatives of Westernism believed that there was always the possibility of establishing a bourgeois-democratic system peacefully, through the methods of propaganda and education. They extremely highly valued 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 through the development of an original culture, but through the experience of Europe, which had long gone forward. At the same time, they focused not on the differences between the West and Russia, but on the common features that were present in their cultural and historical destinies.

In the early stages, the philosophical research of Westerners was particularly influenced by the works of Schiller, Schilling and Hegel.

The split of the Westerners in the mid-40s. 19th century

In the mid-forties of the 19th century, a fundamental split occurred among Westerners. This happened after the dispute between Granovsky and Herzen. As a result, two directions of Westernization emerged: liberal and revolutionary-democratic.

The reason for the disagreement lay in the attitude towards religion. If liberals defended the dogma of the immortality of the soul, then democrats, in turn, relied on the positions of materialism and atheism.

Their ideas about the methods of carrying out reforms in Russia and the post-reform development of the state also differed. Thus, the democrats propagated the ideas of revolutionary struggle with the aim of further building socialism.

The works of Comte, Feuerbach and Saint-Simon had the greatest influence on the views of Westerners during this period.

In post-reform times, under the conditions of general capitalist development, Westernism ceased to exist as a special direction of social thought.

Representatives of Westernism

The original Moscow circle of Westerners included Granovsky, Herzen, Korsh, Ketcher, Botkin, Ogarev, Kavelin, etc. Belinsky, who lived in St. Petersburg, communicated closely with the circle. The talented writer Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev also considered himself a Westerner.

After what happened in the mid-40s. After the split, Annenkov, Korsh, Kavelin, Granovsky and some other figures remained on the side of the liberals, while Herzen, Belinsky and Ogarev went over to the side of the democrats.

Communication between Slavophiles and Westerners

It is worth remembering that these philosophical trends arose at the same time, their founders were representatives of the same generation. Moreover, both Westerners and Slavophiles came from among them and moved in the same circles.

Fans of both theories constantly communicated with each other. Moreover, it was not always limited to criticism: finding themselves at the same meeting, in the same circle, they quite often found in the course of the reflections of their ideological opponents something close to their own point of view.

In general, most disputes were distinguished by the highest cultural level - the opponents treated each other with respect, listened carefully to the opposite side and tried to present convincing arguments in favor of their position.

Similarities between Slavophiles and Westerners

Not counting the Westernizing democrats who emerged later, both the former and the latter recognized the need to carry out reforms in Russia and solve existing problems peacefully, without revolutions and bloodshed. Slavophiles interpreted this in their own way, holding more conservative views, but also recognized the need for change.

It is believed that the attitude towards 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 closeness to Orthodoxy and their tendency to strictly observe all religious customs. At the same time, the Slavophiles themselves, most of them coming from secular families, did not always follow church rituals. Westerners did not at all encourage excessive piety in a person, although some representatives of the movement (a striking example is P. Ya. Chaadaev) sincerely believed that spirituality and, in particular, Orthodoxy was an integral part of Russia. Among the representatives of both directions there were both believers and atheists.

There were also those who did not belong to any of these movements, occupying the third side. For example, V.S. Solovyov noted in his writings 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 all, without exception, the active forces of humanity must work on them together, listening to each other and with common efforts approaching prosperity and greatness. Solovyov believed that both “pure” Westerners and “pure” Slavophiles are limited people and incapable of objective judgments.

Let's sum it up

Westerners and Slavophiles, whose main ideas we examined in this article, were essentially utopians. Westerners idealized the foreign path of development, European technologies, often forgetting about the peculiarities and eternal differences in the psychology of Western and Russian people. Slavophiles, in turn, extolled the image of the Russian person and were inclined to idealize the state, the image of the monarch and Orthodoxy. Both of them did not notice the threat of the revolution and until the very end hoped to solve problems through reforms, in a peaceful way. It is impossible to single out a winner in this endless ideological war, because debates about the correctness of the chosen path for Russia’s development do not stop to this day.

Instilled in Russian society a belief in motionless ideals of antiquity; it was a purely conservative faith. The first Slavophiles preached free development ideals of antiquity; they were patriotic progressives. The main means of achieving the goal of the “official people” was “guardianship” of society and the fight against protest, while the Slavophiles stood for freedom of thought and speech. But in terms of the essence of ideals, both theories were in contact on many points.

The emergence of Slavophilism

Slavophilism arose as a result of:

1) romanticism, which awakened nationalist aspirations among many peoples of Europe,

5) finally, there was a basis for patriotic sympathies in native literature: in the poetry of Pushkin, Zhukovsky, and later Lermontov, national-patriotic sentiments were already reflected; in their creations the search for native culture was already determined, the family, state and religious ideals of the people were clarified.

The main representatives of Slavophilism

The school of Slavophiles emerged around the second half of the 1830s: the Kireyevsky brothers (Ivan and Peter), Khomyakov, Dm. Valuev, Aksakovs (Konstantin and Ivan), Yuri Samarin are the most prominent figures of Slavophilism who developed this doctrine in philosophical, religious and political terms. At first they were friends with the “Westerners,” but then they separated from them: Chaadaev’s philosophical letters severed the last ties.

Views of Slavophiles - briefly

In search of an independent type of Russian culture, Slavophilism acquired a democratic character, a tendency to idealize antiquity and a tendency to Pan-Slavism(the dream of uniting all Slavs under the Russian state). The Slavophiles, in some respects, came close to the liberal part of Russian society (democracy), but in others to the conservative part (idealization of antiquity).

The first Slavophiles were well-educated people, inspired by an ardent faith in their teaching, independent and therefore courageous. They believed in the great future of Russia, worshiped “Holy Russia”, said that Moscow was the “third Rome”, that this new civilization would replace all the outdated cultures of the West and save the “decaying West” itself. From their point of view, Peter I committed a sin by delaying the independent development of the Russian people. Slavophiles expounded the theory of the existence of “two worlds”: eastern, Greco-Slavic – and western. They pointed out that Western culture is based on the Roman church, ancient Roman education, and its state life is based on conquest. They saw a completely different order of things in the eastern Greco-Slavic world, the main representative of which is the Russian people. Eastern Christianity is Orthodoxy, the distinctive feature of which is the unchanging preservation of universal tradition. Orthodoxy is therefore the only true Christianity. Our education is of Byzantine origin; if it was inferior to the Western in the external development of the mind, it exceeded it in its deep sense of living Christian truth. The same difference is visible in the state structure: the beginning of the Russian state differs from the beginning of Western states in that we did not have a conquest, but there was a voluntary calling of rulers. This basic fact is reflected in the entire further development of social relations: we did not have violence combined with conquest, and therefore there was no feudalism in its European form, there was no internal struggle that constantly divided Western society; there were no classes. Land was not the personal property of the feudal aristocracy, but belonged to the community. The Slavophiles were especially proud of this “community”. They said that the West only recently reached the idea of ​​​​creating a “community” (Saint-Simonism), the institution of which has already existed for centuries in the Russian village.

Thus, before Peter the Great, according to the Slavophiles, our development proceeded naturally. Religious consciousness was the main moral force and guidance in life; The people's life was distinguished by the unity of concept and unity of morals. The state was a vast community; power belonged to the king, who represented the general will; the close connection of the members of this great community was expressed by zemstvo councils, national representation that replaced the ancient evening. With such a liberal idealization of antiquity (veche, cathedrals) was associated the most enthusiastic admiration for the simple Russian “God-bearing” people; in his life, Slavophiles saw the embodiment of all Christian virtues (love for neighbors, humility, lack of selfishness, piety, ideal family relationships). Therefore, the slogan of Slavophilism became a modified formula of the official ideology of the era of Nicholas I: autocracy ( limited among the Slavophiles by zemsky councils), Orthodoxy ( with spiritual assemblies and parish powers) and nationality ( with community, cathedrals and freedom of development). Taking this point of view, Slavophiles were often strict critics of Russian modernity, and therefore, if not all, then many of them should be classified as opposition figures of that time.

When the caravan turns back, a lame camel is ahead

Eastern wisdom

The two dominant philosophical thoughts in Russia in the 19th century were Westerners and Slavophiles. This was an important debate from the point of view of choosing not only the future of Russia, but also its foundations and traditions. This is not just a choice of which part of civilization this or that society belongs to, it is a choice of a path, a determination of the vector of future development. In Russian society, back in the 19th century, there was a fundamental split in views on the future of the state: some considered the states of Western Europe as an example for inheritance, the other part argued that the Russian Empire should have its own special model of development. These two ideologies went down in history, respectively, as “Westernism” and “Slavophilism.” However, the roots of the opposition of these views and the conflict itself cannot be limited only to the 19th century. To understand the situation, as well as the influence of ideas on today's society, it is necessary to delve a little deeper into history and expand the time context.

The roots of the emergence of Slavophiles and Westerners

It is generally accepted that the split in society over the choice of their path or the inheritance of Europe was brought about by the Tsar, and later by Emperor Peter 1, who tried to modernize the country in a European way and, as a result, brought to Rus' many ways and foundations that were characteristic exclusively of Western society. But this was only one, extremely striking example of how the issue of choice was decided by force, and this decision was imposed on the entire society. However, the history of the dispute is much more complex.

Origins of Slavophilism

First, you need to understand the roots of the appearance of Slavophiles in Russian society:

1. Religious values.
2. Moscow is the third Rome.
3. Peter's reforms

Religious values

Historians discovered the first dispute about the choice of development path in the 15th century. It took place around religious values. The fact is that in 1453 Constantinople, the center of Orthodoxy, was captured by the Turks. The authority of the local patriarch was falling, there was more and more talk that the priests of Byzantium were losing their “righteous moral character,” and in Catholic Europe this had been happening for a long time. Consequently, the Muscovite kingdom must protect itself from the church influence of these camps and carry out cleansing (“hesychasm”) from things unnecessary for a righteous life, including from “worldly vanity.” The opening of the patriarchate in Moscow in 1587 was proof that Russia has the right to “its own” church.

Moscow is the third Rome

Further definition of the need for one’s own path is associated with the 16th century, when the idea was born that “Moscow is the third Rome,” and therefore should dictate its own model of development. This model was based on the “gathering of Russian lands” to protect them from the harmful influence of Catholicism. Then the concept of “Holy Rus'” was born. Church and political ideas merged into one.

Peter's reform activities

Peter's reforms at the beginning of the 18th century were not understood by all his subjects. Many were convinced that these were measures that Russia did not need. In certain circles, there was even a rumor that the tsar was replaced during his visit to Europe, because “a real Russian monarch will never adopt alien orders.” Peter's reforms split society into supporters and opponents, which created the preconditions for the formation of “Slavophiles” and “Westerners.”

Origins of Westernism

As for the roots of the emergence of the ideas of Westerners, in addition to the above reforms of Peter, several more important facts should be highlighted:

• Discovery of Western Europe. As soon as subjects of Russian monarchs discovered the countries of the “other” Europe during the 16th-18th centuries, they understood the difference between the regions of Western and Eastern Europe. They began to ask questions about the reasons for the lag, as well as ways to solve this complex economic, social and political problem. Peter was under the influence of Europe; after his “foreign” campaign during the war with Napoleon, many nobles and intelligentsia began to create secret organizations, the purpose of which was to discuss future reforms using the example of Europe. The most famous such organization was the Decembrist Society.
• Ideas of the Enlightenment. This is the 18th century, when European thinkers (Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot) expressed ideas about universal equality, the spread of education, and also about limiting the power of the monarch. These ideas quickly found their way to Russia, especially after the opening of universities there.

The essence of ideology and its significance

Slavophilism and Westernism, as a system of views on the past and future of Russia, arose in the years 1830-1840. The writer and philosopher Alexei Khomyakov is considered one of the founders of Slavophilism. During this period, two newspapers were published in Moscow, which were considered the “voice” of the Slavophiles: “Moskvityanin” and “Russian Conversation”. All articles in these newspapers are full of conservative ideas, criticism of Peter’s reforms, as well as reflections on “Russia’s own path.”

One of the first ideological Westerners is considered to be the writer A. Radishchev, who ridiculed the backwardness of Russia, hinting that this was not a special path at all, but simply a lack of development. In the 1830s, P. Chaadaev, I. Turgenev, S. Soloviev and others criticized Russian society. Since the Russian autocracy was unpleasant to hear criticism, it was more difficult for Westerners than for Slavophiles. That is why some representatives of this movement left Russia.

Common and distinctive views of Westerners and Slavophiles

Historians and philosophers who study Westerners and Slavophiles identify the following subjects for discussion between these movements:

• Civilizational choice. For Westerners, Europe is the standard of development. For Slavophiles, Europe is an example of moral decline, a source of harmful ideas. Therefore, the latter insisted on a special path of development of the Russian state, which should have a “Slavic and Orthodox character.”
• The role of the individual and the state. Westerners are characterized by the ideas of liberalism, that is, individual freedom, its primacy over the state. For Slavophiles, the main thing is the state, and the individual must serve the general idea.
• The personality of the monarch and his status. Among Westerners there were two views on the monarch in the empire: either it should be removed (republican form of government) or limited (constitutional and parliamentary monarchy). Slavophiles believed that absolutism is a truly Slavic form of government, the constitution and parliament are political instruments alien to the Slavs. A striking example of this view of the monarch is the 1897 population census, where the last emperor of the Russian Empire indicated “owner of the Russian land” in the “occupation” column.
• Peasantry. Both movements agreed that serfdom was a relic, a sign of Russia’s backwardness. But the Slavophiles called for its elimination “from above,” that is, with the participation of the authorities and nobles, and Westerners called for listening to the opinions of the peasants themselves. In addition, the Slavophiles said that the peasant community is the best form of land management and farming. For Westerners, the community needs to be dissolved and a private farmer created (which is what P. Stolypin tried to do in 1906-1911).
• Freedom of information. According to Slavophiles, censorship is a normal thing if it is in the interests of the state. Westerners advocated freedom of the press, the free right to choose a language, etc.
• Religion. This is one of the main points of the Slavophiles, since Orthodoxy is the basis of the Russian state, “Holy Rus'”. It is Orthodox values ​​that Russia must protect, and therefore it should not adopt the experience of Europe, because it will violate Orthodox canons. A reflection of these views was Count Uvarov’s concept of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which became the basis for the construction of Russia in the 19th century. For Westerners, religion was not something special; many even talked about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

Transformation of ideas in the 20th century

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, these two trends underwent a complex evolution and were transformed into directions and political movements. The theory of the Slavophiles, in the understanding of some intelligentsia, began to transform into the idea of ​​“Pan-Slavism”. It is based on the idea of ​​uniting all Slavs (possibly only Orthodox) under one flag of one state (Russia). Or another example: the chauvinistic and monarchist organizations “Black Hundreds” arose from Slavophilism. This is an example of a radical organization. The constitutional democrats (cadets) accepted some of the ideas of the Westerners. For the socialist revolutionaries (Socialist Revolutionaries), Russia had its own model of development. The RSDLP (Bolsheviks) changed their views on the future of Russia: before the revolution, Lenin argued that Russia should follow the path of Europe, but after 1917 he declared his own, special path for the country. In fact, the entire history of the USSR is the implementation of the idea of ​​one’s own path, but in the understanding of the ideologists of communism. The influence of the Soviet Union in the countries of central Europe is an attempt to implement the same idea of ​​​​pan-Slavism, but in a communist form.

Thus, the views of Slavophiles and Westerners were formed over a long period of time. These are complex ideologies based on the choice of a value system. These ideas went through a complex transformation throughout the 19th-20th centuries and became the basis of many political movements in Russia. But it is worth recognizing that Slavophiles and Westerners are not a unique phenomenon in Russia. As history shows, in all countries that lagged behind in development, society was divided into those who wanted modernization and those who tried to justify themselves with a special model of development. Today this debate is also observed in the states of Eastern Europe.

Features of social movements in the 30-50s of the 19th century

Slavophiles and Westerners are not the only social movements in Russia in the 19th century. They are simply the most common and well-known, because the sport of these two areas is still relevant to this day. Until now in Russia we see ongoing debates about “How to live further” - copy Europe or stay on your own path, which should be unique for each country and for each people. If we talk about social movements in the 30-50s of the 19th century in the Russian Empire, they were formed under the following circumstances

This must be taken into account since it is the circumstances and realities of time that shape people’s views and force them to commit certain actions. And it was precisely the realities of that time that gave rise to Westernism and Slavophilism.