|
|
|
|
Social Sciences
Vol. 29, No. 1/January 1998
Russian Philosophy Today
By Vyacheslav Stepin *
The need for philosophical interpretation of reality is perhaps now stronger than ever. We have lost our old reference points and are looking for new ones. But they are not easy to find. Without question, there is demand for a new ideology, but it would be naïve, to say the least, to expect that somebody will produce a new Russian idea, say the word and make everything all right. It takes time and effort to generate and establish a new world outlook. What is happening in culture, in our search and discussions is largely associated with attempts to create elements and structures of a new vision of the world.
This work is in progress not only in philosophy but in other cultural spheres as well, politics, law, literature, art, science, religion, etc. In the past few years, the field of philosophical discussions has substantially expanded. Russian philosophy of the “Silver Age” was re-discovered, and a new construction was put on Western classical and modern philosophy, as well as the philosophical tradition of the East. All this accounts for the diversity of philosophical ideas.
It is not easy to say which of these ideas will manage to fit into tradition, into the boundaries of Russian spirituality, modifying the deeply rooted meanings of cultural realities (attitude to nature, interpretation of freedom, labor, justice, right, etc.). The current situation is complex in that the epoch of new Russian reforms has fallen to a complicated period of human history: one type of civilization is being replaced by another. The technogenic civilization, which came into being approximately 300 years ago in Europe and later spread to many other parts of the world, has most probably exhausted its development potential. Despite the undisputed scientific and technological advances, it has landed humanity in catastrophic global crises. The quest for new life goals designed to help overcome these crises and lead man to a new and higher cycle of civilization development is becoming a very pressing concern. This quest is under way in world philosophy, although so far only a few promising ideas have appeared. There is, for example, ecological ethics, a new discipline at the junction of philosophy and the natural sciences, which deals with a moral attitude to nature. Numerous works discuss politics, right and justice in the context of the global crises of modern civilization. Finally, there are interesting works, both in Russia and outside it, on changes in the type of scientific rationality and the trend of scientific-technological progress as a condition of transition to a new type of civilization.
One can, of course, complain that these ideas have not yet fallen into a new integral picture of the world. What we have are rudiments of such a picture, the first steps towards its formation. It is quite possible that necessary links and details are lacking, ones that have yet to be created in the process of the philosophical quest.
But I do not think this is sufficient reason to talk about a crisis of philosophy. This discipline, like all modern culture, was probably not ready for the rapid changes of the late 19th–early 20th century and did not build up an adequate store of new ideas. On the other hand, many such ideas may already be in existence, even if not yet expressed in philosophical terms.
As Hegel liked to say, the owl of Minerva flies at night. In the beginning of our century, Max Weber examined the role of Protestant ethics in the shaping of the spirit of capitalism. But in the epoch of the Reformation, when new ethics was just emerging, no one could have foreseen it would become a major element of a new civilization with all its good and bad consequences.
Now we can go on to a review of our recent philosophical past and ask the following question: did philosophy of the Soviet period perform its main function, generate new ideas and images?
There exists a number of oversimplified judgements and myths about the history of Soviet philosophy, for example, that it was subjected to harsh ideological control and amounted to dogmatic Marxism. Hence the conclusion that it was unable to produce anything novel or interesting, and that the entire Soviet period was a gap, isolation from philosophical thought which it would take a long time to overcome.
These myths about our philosophy are one of the ideological postulates of pseudo-democracy, which executed a primitive inversion in its evaluation of the Soviet past: what used to be viewed as an achievement is now declared a sin.
However, analysis of things as they really were produces a much more complicated picture. Of course, philosophy had a number of blind servants of ideology, preachers of dogmatic Marxism. In our Soviet past, the latter performed the function of religion, to which the “working people” had to be introduced.
But this does not mean that our philosophy had no one but “preachers of the Marxist parish”, for whom nothing existed but oversimplified dialectical and historical materialism turned into a dogma.
There was opposition to this trend. And I refer not only to such great thinkers as A. Losev and M. Bakhtin, who carried on the tradition of original Russian philosophical thought even in the years of the cruelest ideological persecution. By the mid-1960s, Soviet philosophy produced a trend that drew on authentic Marxism, above all, its interpretation of Hegel’s dialectics, which in fact stood opposed to the official version of Marxism. One of its most brilliant representatives was E. Ilyenkov.
In the 1960s–1970s, Soviet scholars began to assimilate the achievements of world philosophy, including its non-Marxist schools. Polemics with them stimulated the production of numerous and very dissimilar concepts, which were, apparently, versions of Marxism but were often very unlike it (at least, its classical interpretation). Suffice it to recollect the work of M. Mamardashvili of the 1970s–1980s, which developed the ideas of phenomenology rather than of materialist dialectics.
A great variety of ideas, including ones going back to non-Marxian sources (positivism, neo-Kantianism, post-positivism), albeit couched in Marxist terms, can be found in Soviet studies of the philosophy of science of the 1970s–1980s.
Extremely fruitful was the development of the philosophy of activity and its application in various fields of philosophy and sociology. An important contribution was made by G. Shchedrovitsky and his school, which fused the ideas of Marx and German classical philosophy with the advances made by modern semiotics, the theory of systems, linguistic philosophy and the philosophy of structuralism.
The idea of the primacy of the substance of activity was developed by I. Alexeev: he made an attempt to prove that the objects of the outside world with which a person comes into contact are constructed by this person’s activity. To substantiate this concept, he drew on Marx’s well-known thesis that an object is revealed to the subject not through contemplation but through practice, and on a less well known idea contained in one of Marx’s early works, that matter is nothing outside man and his activity.
Finally, global problems were raised and developed (mainly in the journal Voprosy filosofii in the 1970s); the orthodox scholars viewed this as departure from the “principles of class analysis”.
Soviet philosophy of the 1970s–1980s no longer contained a unified and dogmatic all-embracing Marxist paradigm. It displayed a diversity of ideas and approaches, different versions of Marxism, which used the latter’s heuristic potential.
I shall not mention all contemporary philosophers thanks to whom philosophical thought made headway in those difficult years. It their efforts that paved the way for the progress of philosophy in our days. And I would not say that the generation active in the 1970s–1980s has ceased producing and developing new ideas, although a new generation of philosophers who have interesting pieces of research to their credit is already in existence.
In my view, the allegations that the crisis in our philosophy is deepening are, to put it mildly, irresponsible. They arise from old ideological cliches. Many of those who used to talk about “the only correct philosophy, dialectical materialism”, and the crisis of Western philosophical thought (while frequently borrowing the latter’s ideas and even whole works without, however, quoting them) are now declaring that Russian philosophy is in a crisis.
Of course, there is still quite a few low-quality works, mere compilations, but their number in the West is by no means smaller; there, compilers are also busy stealing ideas from both their compatriots’ and Russian works (since translations of Russian works into English and other languages are now more easily available). As for original solutions and fresh ideas, they have always been rarer than compilations and interpretations.
The educated public (Russia is still among the few countries with a well-educated population) will not find it hard to learn to distinguish professional and responsible pieces of research from lightweight productions and verbal demonstrations of somatic states of various prophets and “unrecognized geniuses”. The latter have always besieged scientific research establishments and overwhelmed “higher-ranking authorities” with complaints. Now they are looking for somebody to listen to and to sponsor them, and are setting up homespun academies against promises of recipes for quick economic and spiritual revival.
This philosophical chaos may have produced nostalgia for the past when the rules were strict and there existed a system of ideas within or at least with the consent of which philosophical research was done. But it is conveniently forgotten that in the 1950s, this system provided a favorable environment for dialectical-materialistic substantiation of such pseudo-scientific concepts as those advanced by T. Lysenko and O. Lepeshinskaya and for attacks against Einstein’s theory of relativity, Bohr’s complementation theory, the resonance theory in chemistry, etc.
Nostalgia is a frequent element of present-day debates about the history of Soviet philosophy. When the ideas of E. Ilyenkov, who is productively working within Hegel’s and Marx’s dialectical tradition, were discussed, it was stated quite categorically that it is the only source of answers to the questions posed by the present.
I cannot agree with this, or with an attempt to ban any critique of Hegel’s work. It was not the only productive development line in new European philosophy, and apart from the latter, there is also Oriental philosophy, which has assimilated the traditions of India, China and the Muslim world. And, finally, we must not forget about the existence of the original Russian philosophy of the “Silver Age”, which cannot be reduced to either Western or Oriental philosophical trends and schools.
As we are looking for new ways for civilization to follow, for new philosophical reference points, isolationism in this sphere has neither justification nor a future. This is the time of a dialogue of cultures, vigorous interaction of philosophical ideas. The epoch of great synthesis of the spiritual traditions of East and West the ideal of V. Solovyov and other Russian thinkers—may even be beginning. In any case, I have no doubt that each new step, each breakthrough to new ideas in philosophy requires a critical assimilation of its previous evolution, critical analysis of the accumulated store of ideas.
When the reference is to the search for a new meaning of life, this implies criticism of both the Hegelian–Marxian tradition (needless to say, taking care to preserve its valuable elements) and the new European type of philosophical thinking.
It would make sense to ask: what overt and disguised philosophical postulates constitute the foundation of this type of thinking, how do they correlate with the crisis of modern civilization? Philosophy must ask such questions if it is to perform its main function in culture.
As is known, the prerequisites of rationalism dominating new European culture were shaped in the Antiquity. Socrates asked, “How to achieve goodness in life and in actions?” and replied: first comprehend what goodness means, and then act on the basis of this understanding.
Consequently, rational cognition of the world is a condition of correct actions and behavior and a condition of a life of goodness. This idea was a dominant program in subsequent evolution of new European thought. It is developed in Hegel’s rationalism and in project thinking, which strongly manifests itself in Marxism. According to it, life should and can be built on the basis of a project, transform social objects and even direct personality’s development drawing on the knowledge of the laws of social evolution. These ideas naturally fit into the cultural tradition which has bred modern technogenic civilization with its strengths and adverse consequences (present-day global crises).
The East produced another interpretation of ratio and activity. Reigning there is the ideal of minimal interference into natural and social processes, the concept of Tao as unity of truth and morality.
I do not mean that the road to salvation lies in the ancient Oriental world outlook. What I do mean is that now is the time of the great quest, the time of contact among philosophies and cultures, the beginning of their dialogue.
Incidentally, modern Western culture is producing new philosophical ideas that echo those of the East, even though they have arisen within a very different tradition.
For a long time, scientific rationality and the strategy of technogenic activity, which constitute the dominant of Western civilization, stood opposed to the Eastern mode of thinking and behavior. But in the second half of our century, technogenic culture began to generate new philosophical images, which unexpectedly began to correlate with Eastern ideas. I refer to the modern scientific picture of the world and the mentalities shaped while mastering complex systems that evolve in history.
I have already analyzed these unexpected philosophical consequences of the latest scientific and technological advances, but it would do no harm to mention them again as we discuss the future of modern philosophy.
First, a few words about the new ideas regarding natural environment and man’s relationship with it. These ideas no longer fit into the traditional “technogenic” interpretation of nature as an inorganic world indifferent towards man, into the view of nature as a “inanimate mechanism” which can be experimented upon, mastered step by step, transformed and subjugated to man.
Modern science has shaped a new perception of natural environment as man’s habitat. Nature is no longer seen as a conglomeration of qualitatively specific objects or even as a mechanical system, but as an integral living organism, which may be transformed only within certain limits. Going beyond them causes the system to change, it passes into a qualitatively new state, and this can provoke its irreversible simplification, disappearance of many biogeocenoses, and annihilation of mankind.
Before the mid-20th century, this interpretation of natural environment would have been seen as an atavism, return to semi-mythological consciousness, which cannot coexist with scientific ideas and principles. But thanks to the view of living nature as a complex interaction of ecosystems, V. Vernadsky’s ideas regarding the biosphere as an integral system of life interacting with the Earth’s inorganic envelope, and the headway of modern ecology, this new understanding of the immediate sphere of human activity as an organism and not a mechanical system has become a scientific principle substantiated by numerous theories and facts.
This view of nature stimulated a search for new ideals as regards man’s treatment of nature, which are claiming the role of the spiritual principles that can be used to deal with global problems. Big headway has been made by the so-called “in-depth ecology”, which has broken up with anthropocentrism and treats man not as the lord and master of nature and the crown of creation but as an element in the diversity of life, one of the living beings correlating with the others not through rivalry and domination but on the basis of cooperation and mutuality.
This is the foundation of various versions of new ethics, which (along with the rules of public behavior regulating human relations) is to include “ethics in the ecological sense” (biospheric ethics), rules that restrict man’s freedom of action in the struggle for survival. New ethics should regulate the relations among man and the Earth, animals and plants, and foster awareness of individual responsibility for the health of the Earth.
Along with the new ethical view of the world, there appear programs for reforming the traditional religions and shaping a world outlook that would help implement the ideal of man’s responsibility towards nature and of an organic link with it, and which would foster the view of human activity not as confrontation but as harmony with nature.
It is indicative that the new philosophical ideas arising in Western culture of the second half of the 20th century and resting on modern scientific ideas of the natural environment of human life echo the principles of Oriental cultures and the philosophy of Russian cosmism.
The view of the world as a single organism consisting of mutually dependent elements can be found in practically all traditional cosmologies of the East. These cultures postulated the ideal of inner unity and harmony of man and nature. This union was implicit in the Taoist and Confucian principle of “one in all and all in one” and the Buddhist teaching of the Dharma (all elements of the Dharma are equal and mutually connected). The Eastern cultures have never viewed the world as divided into a world of nature and a world of man but saw it as an integral organism, with its parts united by peculiar resonance links. “Everything is connected through the single way, Tao, everything is linked with everything else. Life is one, and the striving of each of its parts must coincide with the striving of the whole”. 1 The humans, who constitute part of the world, must sense the world’s rhythm and bring their reason in line with the “celestial rhythms”: then they would be able to comprehend the nature of things and hear the “music of mankind”. 2 The European mind was long unable to accept that the idea of world rhythms and their mutual influence, including the rhythms of human activity, and perceived it not being rooted in scientific facts as something mystical and rationally inexpressible. However, the modern scientific picture of the world, which has assimilated the advances of synergetics, is shaping a new awareness of the interaction among the parts of the whole and coordination of their changes. It turns out that in complex historically developing systems a special place belongs to non-coercive interactions based on cooperative effects.
In open self-organizing systems, such interactions act as the constituting factor. It is thanks to them that the system is able to go from one state of self-organization to another, generating new structures in the process of its evolution.
Cooperative properties can be traced in different self-regulating systems which comprise a very large number of elements and subsystems. They can be revealed, for example, in the behavior of the plasma, coherent laser irradiation, population morphogenesis and dynamics, and economic process of market self-regulation.
For example, when determining the critical thresholds of a laser’s energy pumping, there emerges the effect of emission of a light wave by atoms: the latter act in a strictly correlative manner, each atom emits a purely sinusoidal wave, as if coordinating its behavior with that of the other irradiating atom, that is, the effect of self-organization arises.
Similar effects can be observed in embryonic cell division, when each cell in the tissue receives information about its position from the surrounding cells, which is how their coordinated differentiation takes place.
Synergetics sums up the cooperative effect situations assuming that they are fundamental for complex self-organizing systems. The “resonance” in the functioning of the elements of such systems and the presence of cooperative effects are regarded as major manifestations of self-organization. But in that case, we must develop a different approach to the shaping of new structures and states of complex developing systems. The strategies of activity should take account of the fact that in consequence of cooperative effects, a system may generate new structures with minimal outside influence, especially if it is in a state of instability. This strategy obviously incorporates the idea of non-violent action developed by the Indian cultural tradition.
And, finally, the situation of exploration in the cognition and behavior of complex developing systems gives a new slant to the issue of demarcation between truth and morality, rational purposeful and intuitive action, which used to draw a sharp dividing line between Western and Eastern cultural traditions.
George Needham, a prominent expert on ancient Chinese science and culture, justly noted that the scientific and technological revolution in Europe effectively isolated scientific truth from morality thereby making the world more dangerous, while the Eastern doctrines had never been guilty of this sin. 3 But this opposition looks different in the context of new trends in scientific cognition and technological activity that have historically developing, human-dimensional systems as their objects. Specimens of such systems are the biosphere, biocenoses, social objects, including sophisticated technical systems (“man technical appliance ecological environment”, “man—computer network”, etc.).
While continuing the objective study and technological use of such systems, the learning and acting subject is obliged to employ special activity strategies that would take account of the specifics of human-dimensional, developing objects.
As it is impossible in principle to exactly calculate the future trajectory of the system in the bifurcation points, the acting subject is faced with the problem of choice every time. It is important not to become trapped in catastrophic trajectories, to cut off the unfavorable development scenarios. This can be done not only on the basis of knowledge of the available options but, above all, being guided by values and moral rules that could warn one against thoughtless and dangerous actions.
I would like to note in passing that it is such actions, ones that scorn the moral imperatives, that have caused the Chernobyl catastrophe and many of the adverse consequences of the economic reform program chosen in late 1991.
The need for a close link between truth and morality when complex human-dimensional systems are used finds an unexpected response in the ancient Oriental cultural tradition, which assumes that man can fathom the truth only through moral self-advancement.
Chinese thinkers, who pondered the mutual dependence of all elements of the Cosmos, believed that the way personified by Tao or Heaven regulates human actions. But Heaven may turn either towards man or away from him. It is no chance that, according to the Chinese, the behavior of Heaven depends on human actions. 4 In ancient China, natural calamities were viewed as an indication of a bad reign, the rulers’ immoral behavior.
Of course, understood literally, these ideas have a taste of mysticism. But they harbor a deeper meaning, a demand for ethical regulation of the humans’ cognitive and technological activity (including the social management technologies). And this in-depth meaning is consonant with the modern quest for new philosophical guidelines for the evolution of civilization.
Thus by the late 20th century, when humanity is obliged to look for new survival strategies, many ideas set forth in traditional Oriental doctrines prove consonant with the new values and philosophical meanings emerging in the technogenic culture of our age.
This does not mean, of course, that we are re-adopting the world outlook of early traditional societies. The reference is to the use of the heuristic potential of Western culture and the spiritual experience of Oriental cultures in the search for new values. The influence of the East is perceptible in practically all ideas of in-depth ecology and biospheric ethics, which make a productive use of the much-discussed dialogue of cultures. In the current situation, the latter implies not only their mutual understanding, but also participation in the generation of a new hierarchy of values designed to become the foundation of mankind’s safe and sustainable development. These new values cannot be reduced to either Western or Eastern tradition but present a selective synthesis of the two.
An important contribution to the establishment of a new system of values and planetary thinking based on tolerance and dialogue of cultures could be made not only by Oriental but also by Russian philosophic tradition, especially the ideas of Russian cosmism. They are not yet really appreciated by Western thought, which makes it all the more important for us Russian philosophers to analyze these ideas in the context of modern scenarios of the evolution of civilization.
One must say that this trend has recently been analyzed quite thoroughly. I would like to concentrate on those of its aspects that are consonant with the quest for new value orientations.
As is known, the philosophy of cosmism came into being as an antithesis to physicalist thinking and developed the ideas of unity of man and Cosmos, both in religious (N. Fedorov, V. Solovyov, S. Bulgakov) and natural scientific context (N. Kholodnyi, K. Kholodnyi, K. Tsiolkovsky, A. Chizhevsky, V. Vernadsky). And, although cosmism, especially its religious trends, contained quite a few mystical and utopian elements (for example, Fedorov’s resurrection project), this philosophy has a substantial heuristic potential. For all its diversity, one can identify general ideas and themes consonant with contemporary philosophical search.
First, this is the idea of unity of man and nature, their coordinated mutually dependent development. Man and life on the Earth are viewed as an outcome of cosmic evolution (incidentally, scientific proof of this idea developed mainly by A. and V. Vernadskys is expanding). But the evolution of man and his reason at a certain stage of this process begins to exert an ever-increasing effect on natural processes and becomes a significant factor of their new organization. To put this idea in modern terms, Russian cosmists advocated the principle of feedback between man and Cosmos. Viewed as the ideal was human activity able to bring harmony to the relations between man and nature (co-evolution, to use the modern word). This ideal can be achieved by mankind’s uniting into a planetary community and its spiritual advancement based on the awareness of the organic integrity of Cosmos, unity of the rational and the moral principles.
Many of these ideas put one in mind of the views of man and the world found in traditional Oriental cultures. But the philosophy of Russian cosmism cannot be reduced to them. Deeper analysis reveals significant distinctions.
Oriental cultures place the value of nature higher than the value of man. Human activity is directed not so much outwards as inwards, towards self-advancement and self-restriction, which can help man adapt to nature viewed as an integral whole. Man is not perceived as an element of nature isolated from it but is included into the cycle of the cosmic organism.
Western culture developed an opposite interpretation of man and his activity. The value of human personality exceeds the value of nature. Man is a special, inspired part of nature also capable of continuing the acts of divine creation. Human activity is directed outwards, at a transformation of the external world and its subjugation to man. The demiurgic activity of man drawing on rational knowledge of the laws of nature can know no boundaries.
The philosophy of Russian cosmism did not fully share either view. It made a bold attempt, which was far ahead of its time, to achieve a synthesis of these opposite approaches and formulate an idea of mutual correlation of the two directions of human activity.
Cosmism contains sharp criticism of the mode of action typical of Western civilization, aimed at the exploitation of nature, which leads to a disruption of its organic ties. Russian thinkers maintained that the purely technological attitude to nature has limits. Prophetically, they warned against unrestrained technological exploitation of nature and predicted global catastrophes that lay en route (devastation of nature as a result of its abuse). And this in the beginning of our century, when scientific and technological progress was seen as the answer to everything and ecological and other global crises were far away!
At the same time, the plans for the future made by Russian cosmists did not discard the Western cultural tradition but drew freely on its potential and ideas. The reference is, first of all, to the ideas of progressive evolution of mankind and Cosmos and of the value of human personality, which received an original interpretation and were advanced by Russian philosophy.
The ideal of practically all trends of Russian cosmism is for mankind to reach a high enough development level to unite at the scale of the planet and manage nature as a single organism with a view to harmonizing it. The range of interpretations of this idea was broad enough, from the notions of religious cosmism (unity of man’s creative spirituality with divine wisdom which organizes Cosmos) to the concept of the biosphere and the noosphere scientifically substantiated and developed by V. Vernadsky.
In principle, these ideas can be interpreted as sketches of an optimistic scenario of human evolution, although, as we now know, there are also catastrophic options that are, unfortunately, likely enough. To avoid them, we need to revise the values of consumer society and the system of philosophical foundations of technogenic civilization.
I believe that modern Russian philosophy is not only able but simply must take an active part in such a revision (using the means of philosophical discourse natural to it).
The ambitious task finding a new meaning of life—which is set to world philosophy, determines a special frame of reference when evaluating our recent “philosophical past”.
The Hegelian–Marxian tradition, which is scrutinized often enough, should be viewed from the angle of new problems facing philosophy. And if the reference is to the dialectical method developed within its framework, it should also be subjected to an expert examination of a kind and, possibly, modernized with account of the new ideas of historically developing, human-dimensional systems and new strategies of human activity.
Many factors associated with the specifics of such systems found expression in Hegelian dialectics and its subsequent Marxist version. But modern theory and practice are calling for serious amendments. There is need to take into consideration the ideas of cooperative effect and non-coercive interactions, which cast a new light on the evolution of complex systems. The seemingly indisputable ideal of activity as creative coercive transformation of objects is no longer so indisputable when applied to complex self-organization processes. In the new paradigm, the spirit of revolutionary transformation of the world is getting ousted by non-coercive strategies.
A critical revision is also in order when it comes to the view of development as movement towards a certain preset goal presented in the Hegelian and Marxian concept of historical progress. Many sensible critical objections against it were made by Karl Popper. The attempts of modern champions of Hegel’s ideas to ignore this criticism are hardly fruitful (and neither is the opposite stand a wholesale rejection of the Hegelian and Marxian tradition).
Philosophical thought advances not only and, perhaps, not so much through confrontation and clash of different philosophical systems as through dialogue between them, an exchange of ideas.
The Marxist–Leninist tradition has always stressed the conflict and struggle of opposites, and disapproved of the idea of reconciling contradictions (which goes back to Hegel). It was viewed as departure from the ideal of class struggle and as justification of opportunism.
But now, in an effort to achieve stability in our conflict-ridden society, we should take a fresh look at this idea of Hegel’s. It would be useful to recollect that it substantiates the value of civil society and social contract. Tolerance, concord and non-coercive development are clearly becoming a condition of humanity’s survival. Of course, a variety of development scenarios is still possible. Continued confrontation, the motto of the 20th century, is far from impossible, and neither are clashes among countries and civilizations over the diminishing resources in the context of deepening global crises. But if we manage to turn into a new road leading out of global crises, the main philosophical principle should be dialogue with account of the diversity of cultural traditions and national interests, a quest for concord and unity without attempts to destroy diversity and achieve uniformity. We shall have to overcome our old habit to unite only in the face of a common enemy and to find such an enemy, should one happen to be absent, on the basis of the principle: “we are different from them, therefore, they are our enemies”.
This is the most ancient mode of identification, which goes back to the primitive epoch. Its dominance has always produced closed societies. But now we need different development strategies, different identification methods, which would protect the uniqueness of our own culture but at the same time make us open to other cultures, ready for uninterrupted dialogue on the basis of open information exchange. Involvement in post-industrial development implies such exchange.
I believe that, despite the obvious adverse effects of Russian reforms, the new freedom of information contacts and society’s openness are indisputable achievements and a necessary prerequisite for Russia’s possible post-industrial evolution.
I agree that a productive political philosophy is exceptionally important and that Soviet philosophy should be evaluated with account of the specifics of the unique and integral Soviet civilization, which has made a tremendous impact on human history in the 20th century. But it would be only fair to mention not just its achievements and the genuine philosophers it has produced. One has to talk about the complexities and the dramas of intellectual creative work in the situation of total ideological control. It may have been softer or tighter, but it was always there under the Soviet regime, and this must not be forgotten.
There are lamentations about the failures of “red reforms”, which were halted in some places because the rulers neglected to consult a wise thinker. But let me ask: could such a person have possibly been there? And if he could, would the rulers have listened to or heard his advice? The ruling quarters comprised a definite brand of individuals selected and processed by the political system.
Thought follows a tortuous route and finds outlets even in the most suffocating environments. Pushkin’s “secret freedom” often gave an impetus to the work of artists, scientists, and philosophers. However, even “secret freedom” can be exercised to a varying degree depending on the social situation. Who can tell how our philosophy would have evolved if it were not for Khrushchev’s thaw? Would such original names as Ilyenkov, Mamardashvili, or Shchedrovitsky have appeared in the 1960s–1980s?
The history of Russian philosophy was not interrupted by Soviet government. There were new ideas and schools and originally thinking philosophers. Talking about the obstacles to their work built by ideological control, we do not try to undervalue what they have done; on the contrary, we want to give credit where credit is due.
We should neither forget the lessons of the past nor idealize this past. In this connection, I would like to recollect L. Guinsburg’s description of an American businessman’s visit to Buchenwald, where this man was prisoner during the Second World War. His eyes shining, he rushed around the former concentration camp, excitedly saying to his wife: “Look, this is our Appelplatz! And here are the trestles where I was flogged!” Commenting on this episode, the writer says he could easily understand the man’s feelings: his youth passed there, there he learnt what human solidarity meant, there he passed through an inferno and survived.
When we philosophers, sociologists, historians and political scientists ponder the drama of Soviet philosophy, its ups and downs, we would do well to remember that historical truth does not tolerate a selective approach to facts, and not to become too excited when recollecting the “floggings” (ideological brainwashing) we got.
Our generation of the 1960s made a valuable contribution to philosophy: this fact is recognized even by our colleagues in the West. But that we had to exercise severe self-control is also a fact. The new generation of philosophers will critically evaluate our achievements and will probably go further in its search for new ideas. I hope that it will have at least as much spiritual freedom as we have here in Russia in the mid-1990s.
Translated by Natalia Belskaya
Endnotes
*: V. Stepin, RAS Full Member, Director of the RAS Institute of Philosophy. The article was published in Russian in Voprosy filosofii, No. 5, 1997. Back.
Note 1: Ancient Chinese Philosophy, Moscow, 1972, Vol. 1, p. 26 (in Russian). Back.
Note 2: T.P. Grigorieva, 20th-century Japanese Literature, Moscow, 1983, p. 127 (in Russian). Back.
Note 3: George Needham, “Heralds of the Modern Science” in: The UNESCO Courier, November 1988, p. 9. Back.
Note 4: Guo Yu. Speeches of Kingdoms, Moscow, 1987, p. 298 (in Russian). Back.