| This article is part ofa series on |
| Conservatism in Russia |
|---|
 |
Literature |
Slavophilia (Russian:славянофильство) was a movement originating from the 19th century that wanted theRussian Empire to be developed on the basis of values and institutions derived fromRussia's early history. Slavophiles opposed the influences ofWestern Europe in Russia.[1] Depending on the historical context, the opposite of Slavophilia could be seen asSlavophobia (a fear of Slavic culture) or also what some Russian intellectuals (such asIvan Aksakov) calledzapadnichestvo (westernism).[2]
Slavophilia, as an intellectual movement, was developed in 19th-centuryRussia. In a sense, there was not one but many Slavophile movements or many branches of the same movement. Some were left-wing and noted that progressive ideas such asdemocracy were intrinsic to the Russian experience, as proved by what they considered to be the rough democracy of medievalNovgorod. Some were right-wing and pointed to the centuries-old tradition of theautocratictsar as being the essence of the Russian nature.[citation needed]
The Slavophiles were determined to protect what they believed were unique Russian traditions and culture. In doing so, they rejectedindividualism. The role of theRussian Orthodox Church was seen by them as more significant than the role of the state.Socialism was opposed by Slavophiles as an alien thought, and Russianmysticism was preferred over "Westernrationalism". Rural life was praised by the movement, which opposedindustrialization and urban development, and protection of the "mir" was seen as an important measure to prevent the growth of the working class.[3]
The movement originated inMoscow in the 1830s. Drawing on the works of GreekChurch Fathers, the philosopherAleksey Khomyakov (1804–60) and his devoutlyOrthodox colleagues elaborated a traditionalistic doctrine that claimed Russia has its own distinct way, which should avoid imitating "Western" institutions. The Russian Slavophiles criticised the modernisation ofPeter the Great andCatherine the Great, and some of them even adopted traditional pre-Petrine dress.[citation needed]
Andrei Okara argues that the 19th-century classification of social thought into three groups, the Westernizers, the Slavophiles and the Conservatives, also fits well into the realities of the political and social situation in modern Russia. According to him, examples of modern-day Slavophiles include theCommunist Party of the Russian Federation,Dmitry Rogozin andSergei Glazyev.[4]
The doctrines ofAleksey Khomyakov,Ivan Kireyevsky (1806–1856),Konstantin Aksakov (1817–1860) and other Slavophiles had a deep impact on Russian culture, including theRussian Revival school of architecture, composers such asThe Five (active in the 1850s and 1860s), the novelistNikolai Gogol (1809-1852), the poetFyodor Tyutchev (1803-1873) and thelexicographerVladimir Dahl (1801-1872). Their struggle for purity of theRussian language had something in common with ascetic views ofLeo Tolstoy (1828-1910). The doctrine ofsobornost, the term for organic unity and integration, was coined by Kireyevsky and Khomyakov. It was to underline the need for cooperation between people, at the expense of individualism, on the basis that opposing groups focus on what is common between them. According to Khomyakov, the Orthodox Church organically combines in itself the principles of freedom and unity, but the Catholic Church postulates unity without freedom, and in Protestantism, on the contrary, freedom exists without unity.[5] In the Russian society of their time, the Slavophiles sawsobornost in ideal form in the peasantobshchina. Theobshchina recognized the primacy of collectivity but guaranteed the integrity and the welfare of the individual within the collective.[6]
In the sphere of practical politics, Slavophilism manifested itself as apan-Slavic movement for the unification of all Slavic people under leadership of the Russiantsar and for the independence of theBalkan Slavs from Ottoman rule. The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 is usually considered[citation needed] a high point of this militant Slavophilism, as expounded by the charismatic Russian military commander GeneralMikhail Skobelev.[7]Russians' attitudes towards other nations with Slavic origins varied, depending on the group involved. Classical Slavophiles believed that "Slavdom", alleged by the Slavophile movement to grant a common identity to all people of Slavic origin, was based onEastern Orthodox religion.[8]
The Russian Empire, besides containing Russians, ruled over millions of other Slavs: Ukrainians, Poles and Belarusians, who had their ownnational identities, traditions and religions. Towards Ukrainians and Belarusians, the Slavophiles developed the view that they were part of the same "Great Russian" nation, Belarusians being called the "White Russians" and Ukrainians "Little Russians" or "Malorussians". Slavophile thinkers such asMikhail Katkov (1818-1887) believed that both these nations should be ruled under Russian leadership and were an essential part of the Russian state.[9] At the same time, they denied the separate cultural identity of Ukrainian and Belarusian people,[9] believing that their national as well as linguistic and literary aspirations were a result of "Polish intrigue" to separate them from Russians.[10] Other Slavophiles, like Ivan Aksakov, recognized the right of Ukrainians to use theUkrainian language but saw it as completely unnecessary and harmful.[11]Aksakov, however, did see some practical use for the "Malorussian" language: it would be beneficial in the struggle against the "Polish civilizational element in the western provinces".[9]
Besides Ukrainians and Belarusians, the Russian Empire also included the Poles, Slavs whose country had disappeared in 1795 after three neighboring states, including Russia,partitioned its territory. In 1815 the decisions of theCongress of Vienna expanded Russian control into more Polish-inhabited areas, including Warsaw. Poles proved to be a problem for the ideology of Slavophilism.[12] The very name "Slavophiles" indicated that the characteristics of the Slavs were based on their ethnicity, but at the same time, Slavophiles believed thatOrthodoxy equaled Slavdom. This belief was belied by very existence of Poles within the Russian Empire, who, while having Slavic origins, were also deeplyRoman Catholic, the Catholic faith forming one of the core values of Polish national identity.[13] Also, while Slavophiles praised the leadership of Russia over other nations of Slavic origin, the Poles' very identity was based on Western European culture and values, and Poles saw resistance to Russia as resistance to something representing an alien way of life.[14] As a result, Slavophiles were particularly hostile to the Polish nation, often emotionally attacking it in their writings.[15]
Whenthe Polish uprising of 1863 started, Slavophiles usedanti-Polish sentiment to foster feelings of national unity in the Russian people,[16][need quotation to verify] and the idea of the cultural union of all Slavs was abandoned.[17][need quotation to verify] With that, Poland became firmly established to Slavophiles as a symbol of Catholicism and Western Europe, that they detested,[18] and as Poles were never assimilated within the Russian Empire -constantly resisting Russian occupation of their country - in the end, Slavophiles came to concede that annexation of Poland was a mistake when they realised that the Polish nation could not berussified.[19]"After the struggle with Poles, Slavophiles expressed their belief, that notwithstanding the goal of conquering Constantinople, the future conflict would be between the "Teutonic race" (Germans), and "Slavs", and the Slavophile movement turned toGermanophobia.[20]
Most Slavophiles wereliberals and ardently supported the emancipation of serfs, which finally took place in theemancipation reform of 1861. Presscensorship,serfdom andcapital punishment were viewed as baneful influences of Western Europe.[21][year missing] Their political ideal was aparliamentary monarchy, as represented by the medievalZemsky Sobors.
After serfdom was abolished in Russia and the end of the uprising in Poland, new Slavophile thinkers appeared in the 1870s and 1880s, represented by scholars such asNikolay Danilevsky, who expounded a view of history as circular, andKonstantin Leontiev.[citation needed]
Danilevsky promoted autocracy and imperialistic expansion as part of Russian national interest. Leontiev believed in apolice state[citation needed] to prevent European influences from reaching Russia.[22]
Later writersFyodor Dostoyevsky,Konstantin Leontyev, andNikolay Danilevsky developed a peculiar conservative version of Slavophilism,Pochvennichestvo (from the Russian word forsoil). The teaching, as articulated byKonstantin Pobedonostsev (Ober-Procurator of theRussian Orthodox Church), was adopted as the officialtsaristideology during the reigns ofAlexander III andNicholas II. Even after theRussian Revolution of 1917, it was further developed by theémigré religious philosophers likeIvan Ilyin (1883–1954).[citation needed]
Many Slavophiles influenced prominentCold War thinkers such asGeorge F. Kennan[citation needed], instilling in them a love for theRussian Empire as opposed to theSoviet Union. That, in turn, influenced their foreign policy ideas, such as Kennan's belief that the revival of theRussian Orthodox Patriarchate, in 1943, would lead to the reform or overthrow ofJoseph Stalin's rule.[citation needed]
[...] some who had benefited from past imperial expansion, as illustrated by Cherniaev, Fadeev, and Skobelev, clearly welcomed panslavism and supported its imperial policy presciptions.
| Topics |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Organizations and movements | ||
| People | ||
| Media | ||
| Related topics | ||
