Civilization, as it was said

The civilizational approach to the global and domestic Russian order, proposed by President Vladimir Putin during the last Valdai Forum, became the subject of discussion on Thursday at a round table of the Expert Institute for Social Research (EISR). The event participants highly appreciated the historical scale of the Russian leader’s initiative, especially noted the rationalism underlying it and, just in case, warned that other approaches could only provoke an unnecessary nuclear apocalypse.

The doctrine “Russia is a state-civilization” became the basis of the new concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation adopted in March 2023. “Over the centuries, Russia has been formed as a country of different cultures, religions, and nationalities. Russian civilization cannot be reduced to one common denominator, but it cannot be divided either, because it exists only in its integrity, in its spiritual and cultural wealth,” Vladimir Putin deciphered this term, speaking on October 5 at the final plenary session of the XVI meeting of the International Discussion Club “Valdai”. He called the main qualities of a state-civilization “diversity and self-sufficiency.” As Kommersant previously reported, the ideological message about “Russia as a civilization” may also form the basis of the 2024 presidential campaign, which officially starts in December 2023.

Since the president’s arguments, like Russia-civilization itself, seemed quite self-sufficient to the participants of the EISI round table, they focused on explaining them.

Thus, historian Vardan Baghdasaryan noted that Mr. Putin contrasted two approaches to the concept of “civilization”: colonial (aka universalist), where there are civilized and uncivilized peoples, and variable, providing for the existence of different civilizations with different value systems. “It’s time to stop thinking one-dimensionally,” the scientist urged. “One-dimensional thinking is the basis of universalism, and where there is universalism, there is inequality, because universality (is built.— “Kommersant”) based on a certain standard: some correspond, and some do not.” The civilizational approach “offers something different,” but requires a special attitude, the expert insisted: “If we are building a state-civilization, we need to go through the institutions and spheres to see if they correspond to this promise.” Well, the message, among other things, does not correspond to such “Western-inspired” entities as “the idea of ​​separation of powers,” “Hollywood culture,” and the predominance of market competition over “solidarization” and the “artel model,” Mr. Baghdasaryan summed up.

“The idea of ​​the non-universality of the West is, in general, a deeply Western idea,” philosopher Boris Mezhuev hastened to disappoint the Pochvenniks. In his opinion, the most modern adherent of the civilizational approach, the American political scientist Samuel Huntington, whose 1996 work The Clash of Civilizations provoked a powerful barrage of criticism, was simply misinterpreted: “He warned that the West, especially the United States, would have a negative attitude towards other centers of civilization, suppress them, create counterbalances, like Ukraine (he already wrote about this then). And this will lead to the fact that all these counterweights will unite against the hegemonic power. Being an American patriot, he said that under no circumstances should this be done.” Mr. Mezhuev called for “rediscovering” this approach, especially since in Russia the corresponding intellectual discourse exists and is in full demand.

The civilizational approach itself, continued political scientist Sergei Perevezentsev, contains an idealistic (and at the same time rationalistic) message in its base, since it “implies the possibility of voluntary, peaceful coexistence of different civilizations,” which is impossible from the point of view of pragmatic universalism. “In this situation, the most important and most difficult thing is to reconcile these (different… “Kommersant”) values,” the expert pointed out. He called the state one of the key Russian values, without which “Russia perishes.” “This is the oldest Russian tradition, the famous idea about power and land, that the land lives by its own mind, trusting the state to govern itself,” explained Mr. Perevezentsev. “But at the same time it assumes that the state will not interfere with the land and the people to live as they consider necessary “

The peaceful coexistence of unique values ​​is quite possible, political scientist Igor Kuznetsov supported his colleague: “Modern civilizations are equal in value and rights, their ability for dialogue and synergy is much higher than the threats that come from them.” The alternative to this dialogue, political scientist Alexander Rudakov warned, in turn, will not suit anyone. “(This.- “Kommersant”) catastrophe, nuclear apocalypse,” he announced. “The promise of the civilizational model is rooted in the awareness of this fact: when the specter of a third world war looms before us, it is quite logical to think that all civilizational centers are equal partners. And civilizational dominance achieved through violence is the path to global conflict.”

Grigory Leiba