The dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles has historical significance. Similarities and differences in the views of Slavophiles and Westerners on the history of Russia

Introduction

Worldview and political views of Westerners
The essence of Slavophilism
Ideological polemics between Westerners and Slavophiles

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

The topic of Westernism and Slavophilism is relevant at the present time. This is explained by the fact that the main issues of these socio-political directions are now facing Russia. Such questions include: is the historical path of Russia the same as the path of Western Europe, and the peculiarity of Russia lies only in its backwardness, or does Russia have a special path and its culture belongs to a different type?

In the intense debate about Russia's place in world history, Slavophilism and Westernism took shape as opposite currents of Russian socio-political thought in the late 30s - 40s. XIX century However, the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century is characterized by Russia's passage through the period of change from a socialist system to a democratic one. A consequence of these changes has been the emergence of questions about further development Russia and about the application of the socio-political experience of Western countries in Russian conditions, which puts the problem of borrowing at the epicenter of this confrontation.

For a specialist physical culture The topic of research into Westernism and Slavophilism is very important. Since the results of Russia’s domestic and foreign policy are reflected in the sporting achievements of both one athlete and the country as a whole. Therefore, a physical education specialist needs to know about the orientation domestic policy borrowing Western trends. Understanding Russia's foreign policy in relation to the West is necessary to represent the interests of athletes at international competitions. Under the current controversial circumstances regarding the path of development of Russia, a specialist in physical education must be able to predict the consequences of the political actions of the country's leadership in relations with the West. Such forecasting is necessary to maintain business relations between athletes from Russia and Western countries.

The goal is to explore the ideological and political views of Westernism and Slavophilism.

The purpose of the study defines the following tasks:

Describe Westernism;

Reveal the essence of Slavophilism;

Compare the ideological and political views of Westernism and Slavophilism.

The following authors studied Westernism and Slavophilism: A. A. Kara-Murza, O. Yu. Malinova, A.M. Ushkov, A.L. Yanov and others.

Article by Malinova O.Yu. “Westernism and anti-Westernism in Russia: The search for national identity in the context of catch-up modernization (XIX - XXI centuries)” describes one of the many problems that Russian society faced after the collapse of the USSR - the problem of collective self-identification in relation to the “progressive” West. Disputes about the “originality” of Russia, about its relationship to the “West” and about the possibility of a “special path” for it give rise to a relatively stable discourse, the structure of which is determined by the opposition of two poles, viewing Russia as “also-Europe” or “not-Europe” and appropriately assessing the prospects for mastering Western experience and the tasks of domestic and foreign policy. In her works, Malinova O.Yu. determined that the issue of Russia following the “Western” path of development is relevant, since the solution to this issue will depend on how the Russian political and economic system will develop, as well as on how relations with Western countries will develop, what projects of the global world order will prevail in world politics, etc.

In his work “Slavophiles and Russian foreign policy in the 19th century” Yanov A.L. not only described the conflicting opinions of Slavophiles and Westerners, but also came out in support of the latter. He presented arguments that refuted the opinion of the Slavophiles about the exclusive path of development of Russia and the rejection of Western tendencies, and also outlined all the benefits that the reunification of Russia with open world Europe.

In the article “Intellectual Portraits: Essays on Russian Political Thinkers of the 19th-20th Centuries.” Kara-Murza A.A. pointed out that Russia is part of Europe, but it is also original and unique, like any other European country. Therefore, a reasonable task for Russia is not to discard Western culture and not accumulate hatred towards the West, but get to know it exactly as it is. And, having learned, build political and economic relations beneficial to both Russia and the West. At the same time, it is necessary to borrow many useful trends from the West.

Ushkov A.M. in the article “Slavophiles and Russian foreign policy in the 19th century” he substantiated that democracy is mandatory component political culture of the West. The creation of democratic foundations for society in Russia, the combination of the principle of democracy with the principles of individualism and liberalism are indicators of the Western path of development. Also, the author pointed out the peculiarities of the forms of international relations, the democratic ideal of Western society in world politics and the realities of modern international relations, which once again confirms the priority of the Western path of development for Russia.

The structure of this work consists of an introduction, three paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references.

The introduction reveals the relevance of the topic, its significance for a physical education specialist; the goal and objectives are listed.

The first paragraph characterizes the ideological and political views of Westerners. The second point reveals the essence of Slavophilism. The third point is devoted to the opposition of ideological and political views.

The conclusion of the work contains the main conclusions.

1. Worldview and political views of Westerners

Westernism - a direction in Russian social thought of the first half of the 19th century century. Supporters of the European path of development advocated political and social reforms from above, against revolutions. They believed that Russia would follow the European path of development, but unlike the liberals, they believed that revolutionary upheavals were inevitable. Until the mid-50s, revolution was a necessary condition for the abolition of serfdom.

In Westernism at its early stage, there are a “left” (or left-radical) camp (Herzen, Belinsky) and those who can be called “right” Westerners (Botkin, Korsh, etc.). The central position, not adhering to either side, but, on the contrary, reconciling them, was occupied by Granovsky. But he also had to make a choice: in 1846, he had a quarrel and a break with Herzen. All this testifies to the heterogeneous composition of the Westernizing trend, if we consider it in ideological and political terms.

Westerners, representatives of one of the directions of Russian social thought of the 40-50s. XIX century, who advocated the abolition of serfdom and recognized the need for Russia to develop along the Western European path. Most Westerners by origin and position belonged to noble landowners; among them were commoners and people from the wealthy merchant class, who later became mainly scientists and writers. The ideas of Westerners were expressed and propagated by publicists and writers - P.Ya. Chaadaev, I.S. Turgenev, N.A. Melgunov, V.P. Botkin, P.V. Annenkov, M.N. Katkov, E.F. Korsh, A.V. Nikitenko and others; professor of history, law and political economy- T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, S.M. Soloviev, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, P.G. Redky, I.K. Babst, I.V. Vernadsky and others. Writers and publicists joined the Westerners - D.V. Grigorovich, I.A. Goncharov, A.V. Druzhinin, A.P. Zablotsky-Desyatovsky, V.N. Maikov, V.A. Milyutin, N.A. Nekrasov, I.I. Panaev, A.F. Pisemsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. The press organs in which Westerners collaborated were mainly Otechestvennye zapiski (from 1839), Sovremennik, Russian Vestnik (from 1856), Athenaeum (1858-1859), the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti, St. -Petersburg Gazette”, literary collections “Physiology of St. Petersburg” (1845), “Petersburg Collection” (1846).

Westerners did not clearly reflect their concepts programmatically in any one work or document. But the socio-political, philosophical and historical views of Westerners, having numerous shades and features among individual Westerners, were generally characterized by certain general features: negative attitude towards autocratic-serfdom reality; the social, scientific and literary activities of Westerners were objectively aimed at bringing closer and facilitating the development of the capitalist system in Russia; they criticized serfdom and drew up projects for its abolition, showing the advantages of wage labor. The abolition of serfdom seemed to Westerners possible and desirable only in the form of a reform carried out by the government together with the liberal nobles. Upon liberation, peasants were supposed to receive small plots of land, paying the landowners a cash ransom for themselves and the land. Westerners criticized the feudal-absolutist system Tsarist Russia, contrasting it with the bourgeois-parliamentary, constitutional order of Western European monarchies, primarily England and France. Many journalistic works of P.V. Annenkova, V.P. Botkina, I.V. Vernadsky, I.K. Babsta and others were dedicated to showing Western European socio-political life and popularizing bourgeois democracy. These works often showed an idealization of bourgeois law and order and life, a certain rational justification for the Christian faith of bourgeois democracy, the socio-political system of which then differed favorably from the feudal-bureaucratic structure of serf Russia. Advocating for the rapprochement of Russia with the bourgeois countries of Western Europe, Westerners called for the rapid development of industry, trade and new means of transport, first of all, railways; Convincedly advocated the free development of industry and trade without government interference.

They hoped to achieve the establishment of a bourgeois-parliamentary system in Russia peacefully, influencing public opinion on the tsarist government, disseminating their views in society through education and science. The path of revolution and the ideas of (utopian) socialism were unacceptable to Westerners. Convinced supporters of bourgeois progress and defenders of education and reform, Westerners highly valued Peter I and his efforts to Europeanize Russia. In Peter I they saw an example of a brave monarch-reformer who opened new paths for the historical development of Russia as one of the European powers. After the death of Nicholas I, Westerners, trying to encourage the tsarist government to reform, often set Peter I as an example to Alexander II. The philosophical views of Westerners were in line with the development of idealism, with a noticeable influence from the philosophy of G. Hegel and F. Schelling, and in the 50s. - O. Comta and G. Boklya.

2. The essence of Slavophilism

In 1839, a note “On the Old and the New” began to be distributed in Moscow secular and literary salons. Its author was Alexander Stepanovich Khomyakov. He was joined by Yu.F. Samarin, I.D. Belyaev, brothers Konstantin and Ivan Aksakov. Members of the new circle began to be called Slavophiles. The leaders of Slavophilism - Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860), Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky (1806-1856), Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov (1817-1860), Yuri Fedorovich Samarin (1819-1876) - came out with a justification for the original path of development of Russia. They were united by the idea of the deep difference between Russia and the countries of Western Europe, of the special path of its development. They saw the main features of Russia in the peasant community and the Orthodox faith. Critical of the modern church structure, the Slavophiles believed that Orthodoxy brought to Russia the spirit of fraternal communication and human warmth that distinguished the first Christians. Thanks to Orthodoxy and community, members of the circle argued, there is no internal struggle in Russia, all classes and estates live peacefully with each other. The political, social and economic transformations of Peter I were assessed critically by them. The Slavophiles believed that they had rejected Russia from natural way development, although they did not change its internal structure and did not destroy the possibility of returning to its previous path, which corresponds to the spiritual make-up of all Slavic peoples. As a result, they agreed on the formula “power for the king, opinion for the people.” Based on this, members of the circle advocated the convening of the Zemsky Sobor, the abolition of serfdom, but against a constitution on the Western model.

Slavophiles - mainly thinkers and publicists (A.S. Khomyakov, I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, I.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin) - idealized pre-Petrine Rus', insisted on its originality, which they saw in the peasant community, alien to social hostility, and in Orthodoxy. These features, in their opinion, were to ensure a peaceful path of social and political transformation in the country. Russia was supposed to return to the Zemsky Sobors, but without serfdom.

Slavophiles adhered to an organic view of society as a naturally formed community of people with its own principles for organizing life. An organic view of society meant that its development was represented as a process of self-development by analogy with the phenomena of living nature.

The structural unit of the Russian organization folk life Slavophiles imagined a community whose main characteristic was self-government. The communal structure, based on the principles of common responsibility, the development of joint decisions in accordance with the voice of conscience, a sense of justice, and folk customs, was for the Slavophiles the visible embodiment of a free community.

They contrasted the communal spirit of the Russian people with Western European individualism. I.V. Kireyevsky describes the difference between the organization of society in Western Europe and in Russia. If one wanted to imagine a Western society in the days of feudalism, one would imagine many castles, each of which is closed, isolated and hostile to all the others. Russian society of the same period is a countless number of small communities settled throughout the Russian land and each making up its own agreement or its own world. These small agreements merge into large agreements, which, in turn, constitute regional agreements, etc., until, finally, one general agreement is formed, “the agreement of the entire Russian land, which has over it the Grand Duke of All Rus', on which it is established the entire roof of the public building, support all the connections of its supreme structure.”

Slavophiles worked a lot and fruitfully to understand the ideological foundations of the state and cultural development of the Russian people before Peter. Slavophiles realized that the principles on which European culture is based are far from ideal, that Peter I was mistaken when he imagined that imitation of Europe was a guarantee of healthy state and cultural construction. Slavophiles said: “Russians are not Europeans, they are bearers of a great original Orthodox culture, no less great than the European one, but due to unfavorable conditions of historical development, they have not yet reached the same stage of development as European culture has reached.”

The political-historical concept of the Slavophiles is imbued with faith in the special historical mission of Russia, which is called upon to unite the opposite principles of life, showing the world an example of high political and spiritual freedom. In their value system, rather, Europe needed to catch up with Russia.

According to the Slavophiles, the internal task of the Russian land is the manifestation of a Christian, Orthodox society, bound at its apex by the law of living unity. Orthodoxy, in the concept of the Slavophiles, acted as the spiritual basis of all Russian life: “...penetrating into all the mental and moral beliefs of people, it invisibly led the state to the implementation of the highest Christian principles, never interfering with its political and economic development.”

3. Ideological polemics between Westerners and Slavophiles

The formation of Westernism and Slavophilism was facilitated by the intensification of ideological disputes among the intelligentsia after the publication of Chaadaev’s “Philosophical Letter” in 1836. By 1839, the views of the Slavophiles had developed, and around 1841, the views of the Westerners. In the Moscow literary salons of A.A. and A.P. Elaginykh, D.N. and E.A. Sverbeev, N.F. and K.K. Pavlov's certain days writers and scientists met - Westerners and Slavophiles. New works, often uncensored, discussed in salons, aroused passionate debate on socio-political, philosophical, historical and religious issues.

Slavophilism is a direction of Russian social thought that opposed Westernism. Its adherents focused on the original development of Russia, its religious-historical and cultural-national identity and sought to prove that the Slavic world was called upon to renew Europe with its economic, everyday, moral and religious principles. Westerners, on the other hand, stood on the point of view of the unity of humanity and the laws of its historical development and considered it inevitable for Russia to follow the same historical paths as the Western European peoples who had gone ahead. The socio-political differences between these two intellectual trends were based on deep ideological differences. The worldviews of the Slavophiles were aimed at searching for stable factors influencing the historical process. Such factors, according to the Slavophiles, could not be natural and climatic conditions, nor a strong personality, but only the people themselves as “the only and constant actor” in history. Slavophiles believed that economic, political and other factors are secondary and are themselves determined by a deeper spiritual factor - faith, which determines the historical activity of peoples. The people and faith are related in such a way that not only faith creates the people, but also the people create faith, and precisely one that corresponds to the creative capabilities of its spirit. Slavophiles did not deny the achievements of Western European culture. They highly valued the external structure of Western life and treated Western European science with deep respect. But their active rejection was caused by the dominance of individualism, disunity, fragmentation, isolation of the spiritual world of people, the subordination of spiritual life to external circumstances, the dominance of material interests over spiritual ones. All this, they believed, was a consequence of rationalism, which became dominant in Western thinking due to the departure of Western Christianity, that is, Catholicism, from the true Christian religion.

The Slavophil ideal of salvation in the world grace Westernism opposed faith in the creative possibilities of reason, capable of ensuring the dominance of the thinking individual over the unbridled forces of nature and history.

Disputes about whether Russia should follow Western Europe or look for an “original” path, polemics about certain features of the Russian national character, disagreements in assessing the reforms of Peter I, etc. were only a form of posing a more significant question - about the future political and social transformations of Russia. Westerners associated them with the assimilation of the historical achievements of Western European countries; Slavophiles defended a utopia close to the currents of feudal socialism, idealizing the order that existed in pre-Petrine Russia.

The existence of Westerners as a single camp does not negate, however, the fact that they turned to to different parties Western reality, defended various ways of the future transformation of Russia, expressed, depending on their affiliation, the interests of different classes. From the second half of the 40s, differences affected the field of aesthetics, expressed in different attitudes towards atheism and materialism, and especially sharply in the interpretation of socio-political problems.

The trends that emerged in the sphere of ideological struggle of the 40s towards the demarcation of democracy, utopian socialism and liberalism finally took shape and were consolidated by the end of the 50s - early 60s in the struggle of political trends, when the question was - which way should Russia go? - took specific forms - how and to whom to liberate the peasants? Revolutionary democrats took the side of the peasantry, liberals (both Westerners and Slavophiles) took the side of the landowners, largely aligning themselves with the representatives of autocratic Russia, who began liberation “from above.”

Thus, the terms “Westerners” and “Slavophiles” reflect some real moments in the history of ideological and political struggle 40s.

Conclusion

The dispute between the Slavophiles and Westerners in the 19th century was resolved in favor of the latter. Russia then followed the Western path, i.e. capitalist path of development.

Having studied and compared Western European and Russian history, features of religious faith, systems of spiritual and social values, the Slavophiles clearly showed that the life principles of Russia and Europe are different, which meant the unacceptability of European forms of life for Russia.

Slavophiles were often reproached and are reproached for idealizing the history of Russia and wanting to restore the old. These reproaches are completely unfair. They understood perfectly well that there is no return to the past, history cannot go back, that, for example, the changes that occurred as a result of Peter’s reforms are irreversible. They preached not a return to the past, but the restoration of the viable principles of Russian society in changed conditions.

The main merit of the Slavophiles is the suppression of tendencies to blindly imitate European culture. They showed that Europe, which they wanted to imitate, was itself experiencing a spiritual crisis, that the civilization of the West was unsatisfactory. Slavophiles turned their attention to the original roots of Russian culture and proved that Russia, in a number of cases, stands above Europe. Thus, the influence of the Slavophiles on Russian thought was unusually strong. In the new historical conditions in post-reform Russia, pochvenism became a direct continuation of Slavophilism.

In general, the social, scientific and literary activities and views of Westerners, their struggle against the reactionary official ideology and criticism of the liberal-conservative positions of the Slavophiles had a certain progressive significance in the conditions of serf Russia. At the same time, a comparison of Westerners and Slavophiles shows that their ideological differences were a unique reflection of the objective contradictions in the development of Russian society on the eve of the abolition of serfdom in Russia. In the context of the brewing revolutionary situation of the late 50s. In the practice of preparing the peasant reform of 1861, the contradictions between Westerners and Slavophiles were smoothed out and a rapprochement between Westerners and Slavophiles was planned, because both objectively expressed the interests of liberal landowners and the bourgeoisie. The ideologists of the liberal landowners and the bourgeoisie were opposed by the revolutionary democrats led by Chernyshevsky and Herzen. In post-reform times, under the conditions of capitalist development, Westernism as a special direction in social thought ceased to exist.

The political program of the Westerners contained such provisions as the abolition of serfdom, strict compliance with existing laws, the establishment of a constitutional monarchy, and, in the future, a parliamentary republic and the provision of civil liberties set out in Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen 1789

We can distinguish three main ideas of “Westernism” of the 19th century, which he introduced into Russian culture. The first of them can be briefly formulated as follows: a statement by “Westerners” of Russia’s long-standing involvement in the context of world, especially European history, and the dependence of its development on this “context.” The second merit of the Westerners is the proclamation of a free personality. It is known that at the center of all constructions of the “Slavophiles” are mythologized ideas about the community as a social “personality”, where everyone individual voluntarily renounces himself, freely and consciously renounces “his sovereignty” in favor of the community. The priority social and moral value of the “Westerners” was the individual, his liberation from traditional, predominantly patriarchal and medieval shackles, the proclamation of his freedom and self-worth.

Finally, the third aspect of the “Westernization” legacy deserves to be noted: it was “Westernism” that posed such an important problem for the country in Russia legal support personal freedom, emphasized the importance of the legal side of human liberation, the need for legislation establishing human rights as a citizen, etc.

Thus, based on the relationship between Westerners and Slavophiles, we can conclude that the spiritual capital accumulated by Westerners over the entire history of the existence of this movement turns out to be more relevant and fruitful than various kinds romanticized and philosophical “national patriotism”, taken in all varieties of the concept of “originality” of the Slavophiles. This latter, that is, national patriotism, which insists on Russia’s “special”, “own”, “original” path, one way or another relied and is based on all kinds of myths, which are based on the idea of the “Russian soul”, or “ Russian idea”, dictating national existence with meaning, mission, purpose, etc., given constants. This also includes ideas about primordial Orthodoxy, original folk morality based on love, traditional “sovereignty”, “conciliarity”, etc. as truly national attributes of the Russian people and the initial foundations for solving the “Russian question”.

Slavophilism as a social doctrine, as “ political program“was historically justified and theoretically valuable as long as those realities from which its founders (I. Kireevsky and A. Khomyakov, Yu. Samarin and K. Aksakov, etc.) proceeded from, idealizing and mythologizing them, continued to exist, that is, while it was preserved patriarchal-peasant community, and Orthodox religious beliefs were deeply rooted in the popular, mass consciousness.

The fact that the Slavophile utopia was based on these realities explains the recognition by a number of Westerners (for example, K. Kavelin) of certain theoretical aspects Slavophilism and even a strong turn of some of them in its direction, which indicates the relative elasticity of the boundaries between these “directions”.

List of used literature

Literature

Antonov K.M. Slavophiles and I.V. Kireevsky: the formation of research trends. // Bulletin of PSTGU, 2006. - No. 16. - P. 55-92.
Gadzhiev K.S. Political Science: Textbook for Universities. - M.: Logos, 2007. - 437 p.
Irkhin Yu.V., Zotov V.D., Zotova L.V. Political science: Textbook M.: Yurist, 2002. - 511 p.
Kozyrev G.I. Political science. - M.: Infra-M, 2009. - 392 p.
Political science: Textbook for universities, ed. Reshetnikova S.V. - M.: TetraSystems, 2008. - 381 p.
Smirnov G.N., Petrenko E.L., Sirotkin V.G., Bursov A.V. Political science. - M.: Prospekt, 2008. - 336 p.
Melville A.Yu., Alekseeva T.A., Borishpolets K.P. Political Science: Textbook for Universities. - M.: Welby, 2007. - 471 p.
Tint Yu.S. Political Science: Textbook for Universities. - M.: RIOR, 2008. - 405 p.

Periodicals

Volodin A.G. The problem of "Westernism". How does it appear to us today? // Free Thought, 2002. - No. 7. - P. 19-31.
Kara-Murza A.A., Veidle V.V. // Kara-Murza A.A. Intellectual portraits: Essays on Russian political thinkers of the 19th-20th centuries. M.: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2006. - pp. 107-119.
Malinova O.Yu. “Long” discourse about national identity and the opposition of Westernism and anti-Westernism in post-Soviet Russia” // Russian nationalism: Social and cultural context/ Comp. M. Laruelle. - M.: New Literary Review, 2008. - P. 235-256.
Malinova O.Yu. Westernism and anti-Westernism in Russia: The search for national identity in the context of catch-up modernization (XIX - XXI centuries) // Paths of Russia: Continuity and discontinuity of social development. - M.: MVSSHEN, 2007. - P. 298-306.
Malinova O.Yu. Images of the “West” and models of Russian identity in discussions of the mid-19th century. // Cosmopolis, 2006. - No. 2 (12). - P.38-59.
Ushkov A.M. Comparative political science: West - Russia - East. // Author's programs training courses in political science. / Under general ed. prof. Irkhin Yu.V. - M.: MAKS Press, 2007. - P. 85-109.
Yanov A.L. Slavophiles and Russian foreign policy in the 19th century // Polis-M, 2001. - No. 6.- P. 158-171.

14. The ideological dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles and its modern significance.

Beginning and mid-19th century. passed under the sign of confrontation Westerners AndSlavophiles on the question of the path of development of Russia.

Slavophiles defended the originality of Russian thought and linked this originality with the unique originality of Russian spiritual life.

Westerners sought to integrate Russia into the process of development of Western (European) culture. They believed that since Russia embarked on the path of development later than other European countries, it should learn from the West.

Slavophiles asserted the originality and uniqueness of Russian spiritual life (Khomyakov, Kireevsky, Aksakov).

Slavophiles defend the thesis about fundamental difference development of Russia from the entire Western civilization. And here the religious principle comes to the fore.

Western peoples, having perverted symbol of faith, thereby consigning the “conciliar principle” to oblivion. And this, in turn, gave rise to shortcomings of European culture and, above all, the disintegration of society into selfish individuals pursuing their own mercantile interests.

Russia, relying on the Orthodox spiritual foundation, is following its own special path, which should lead it to world leadership.

At the heart of the philosophical idea Slavophiles lay the concept of the messianic role of the Russian people, their religious, cultural identity and the decisive role of Orthodoxy for the development of world civilization.

This allowed the Slavophiles to harmoniously combine freedom and necessity, individual religiosity and churchliness.

“Conciliarity” was also considered as a consequence of the interaction of the free human principle, i.e. freedom, human will and the divine principle, i.e. "grace".

The basic basis of “conciliarity” is unconditional truths, or the fruits of people’s spiritual quests. “Conciliarity” can be realized by those who live within the moral fence of the church. The main sign of “conciliarity” is human participation in religious rites, where the principle of unity in plurality is realized.

Slavophiles recognized the important role of the rational principle in people's lives and advocated the combination of “conciliar truths” with enlightenment.

Hence, Orthodoxy and community were considered the main substance of the Russian people.

The purpose of great personalities is to be exponents of this national spirit of Russians.

In this way Slavophiles they wanted Russia to enter world civilization and become a world leader on an Orthodox, spiritual basis.

The beginnings of realizing your ideas Slavophiles seen in a rural community.

The communal structure determined the special path of Russia in the history of mankind, for it combines two principles: economic and moral.

Community principles of life strengthened the spirit of “conciliarity”, etc. The priority was the self-denial of each for the benefit of all.

As a result, the enlightened and enlightened people's communal principle will become a communal, church beginning.

Westerners distinguished by the desire to integrate Russia into the process of development of European culture.

Russia must learn from the West and follow the same historical path.

The ideology of the Westerners was supported by: Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, Herzen.

The philosophy of this trend was called “revolutionary democracy” or “raznochinstvo”.

The “raznochintsy”, through artistic images and scientific and journalistic articles, called on the intelligentsia to open the people’s eyes to their present situation and raise them to the holy cause of the revolution.

They called for a qualitative transformation of the ideological and theoretical platform of the liberation Russian movements, move from the noble tactics of military coups to the mixed-populist tactics of peasant uprisings.

An influential figure "Westerners "wasHerzen.

He allowed the transfer of Western experience to Russian soil. He created the theory of Russian socialism, in which he proclaimed the right of everyone to land, communal ownership of it and secular self-government.

He dreamed of achieving this through reforms, peaceful transformations, or through some other alternative that is not associated with revolution.

Replacing the old order and old social relations is possible through various forms of social renewal.

Despite differences in views, “Slavophiles” and “Westerners” grew from the same root. Almost all of them belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia, being major writers, scientists, and publicists. Most of them were students of Moscow University. The theoretical basis of their views was German classical philosophy. Both of them were concerned about the fate of Russia and the ways of its development. Both of them opposed the “feudal system.”

Historical experience of discussions of the 40-50s. XIX century in Russia between the "Westerners" and the "Slavophiles" is of enduring significance. Their echoes in different forms and in different terminological expressions pass through the 20th century and continue to reappear in the 21st century.

The ideas of “Westerners” and “Slavophiles” took deep roots in Russian society and had a serious influence on subsequent generations of people who were looking for a future for Russia.

Their ideas continue to live today in debates about what Russia is:

a country destined for the messianic role of the center of Christianity, the third Rome,

or a country that is part of all humanity, part of Europe, which is part of all humanity, part of Europe, which is undergoing world-historical development.

Russian philosophy - not a distant page of the distant past, which has already been absorbed by the stream of time. This philosophy is a living thought. We find answers to many modern questions in the writings of Slavophiles and Westerners.

This allows one to overcome the “inferiority complex” – a false belief about the lack of independence of Russian philosophical thought, and to defend its originality.

Representatives of the “new Slavophilism” adhere to the view that Russia can successfully develop as great country, only if it again relies on three unshakable foundations, closely interconnected - Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.

Moreover, the elimination of one of them destroys and destroys the remaining ones.

This situation, according to the “new Slavophiles,” has continued since 1917, when the autocracy was overthrown, the Orthodox faith was greatly shaken, and thereby the foundations of the identity of the Russian people were undermined. The “new Slavophiles” devote an important place to criticism of Soviet power, socialism and atheism, as well as the Bolsheviks, “who destroyed churches and killed priests.”

The “new Slavophiles” are also negatively and critically disposed towards that part of the intelligentsia that is oriented towards Western democracy, the Western rule of law, the Western type of culture and which they sometimes call “Russophobes”, “cosmopolitans”, “citizens of the world”, “neo-Westerners” .

At the same time: if the “Westerners” of the first half of the 19th century, despite their desire to follow Western models to the detriment of Russian originality, were characterized by a patriotic attitude towards Russia and sincere concern for its welfare, then the “neo-Westerners” are distinguished rather by a lack of patriotism, oblivion of national interests countries.

Criticizing the “neo-Westerners” for the collapse of the state, servility to the Western powers and the humiliation of their own country, modern “Slavophiles”, like their distant predecessors, rely on Orthodoxy as the basis of public morality, genuine spirituality, as a cultural value and national treasure of the Russian people, the support of their national identity.

Considering Orthodoxy to be the basis of the national self-awareness of the Russian people and their statehood, “neo-Slavophiles” are convinced that it was the loss of the Orthodox faith, along with the liquidation of the tsarist autocracy, that led to the loss of true spirituality and their own statehood by the Russian people.

Hence their faith in the ability of the Orthodox Church to contribute to the social, spiritual and political revival of Russia.

The formation of original Russian philosophy began in the 19th century with the formulation and comprehension of the question of the historical fate of Russia.

At the turn of the 30-40s. Among the noble intelligentsia, two opposing currents of Russian socio-political thought developed: Slavophilism and Westernism. Representatives of these directions expressed opposing versions of Russia's civilizational affiliation, its place and role among other peoples, the features of its political and legal experience in comparative historical comparison with the experience of Europe and the peoples of the East.

The main problem around which the discussion ensued can be formulated as follows: is the historical path of Russia the same as the path of Western Europe, and the peculiarity of Russia lies only in its backwardness, or does Russia have a special path and its culture belongs to a different type? How representatives of Westernism and Slavophilism answer this question, I will try to highlight in my work.

Of particular note is the role of Chaadaev, who was able to formulate a number of problems that subsequently received their development in the ideology of both Westernism and Slavophilism. Those whom we today call “Westerners” and “Slavophiles” were united by a feeling of dissatisfaction with the existing regime, all their thoughts were aimed at finding ways that could lead to the correction of the abnormal state of affairs in Russia. In this sense, both of them were in opposition to Russian autocratic policies. As for their theoretical views, we can come to the conclusion that there were more similarities between them than differences. Both of them recognized the fact of the uniqueness of Russian history, its inadequacy to Western European history. In relation to the past and in the perception of the present, they were in solidarity. As for the future, this is where their paths diverged.

One version linked Russia with a common European destiny. Westerners believed that Russia was the same as Europe, but only lagged behind it in development. Over the centuries of the yoke, the European face of Russians has changed significantly, and only Peter was able to tear the country out of backwardness and sleep, and turn it back onto the main path of European civilization. The future of Russia lies in the example of Europe, in borrowing its state, social, and technological experience. Russians should follow the example of the leaders European countries build our statehood, develop parliamentarism, democratic traditions, and improve culture. Westerners devoted an important place to the question that the Russian must finally recognize himself as an independent person who knows and respects his rights. Slavophilism Westernism political national

Contemporaries interpreted Westernism very broadly, classifying among its adherents all those who opposed the Slavophiles in ideological disputes. Westerners, along with people who held very moderate views, such as P.A. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, N.X. Ketcher, W.F. Korsh, those who held radical views were also included - V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev. However, Belinsky and Herzen, in their disputes with the Slavophiles, called themselves “Westerners.”

According to its origin and social status Most Westerners belonged to the noble intelligentsia. Representatives of this socio-political trend were famous professors at Moscow University: historians T.N. Granovsky and S.M. Solovyov, lawyers M.N. Katkov and K.D. Kavelin, philologist F.I. Buslaev, as well as prominent writers - I.I. Panaev, I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, later - N.A. Nekrasov.

Supporters of the ideas of Westernism denied autocratic power and advocated a constitutional-monarchical form of government on the Western European model, with limitations on the power of the tsar, with guarantees of freedom of speech and the press, personal inviolability, and the introduction of a public court. In this regard, they were attracted by the parliamentary system of England and France, to the point of idealizing it by some Westerners.

Like the Slavophiles, Westerners advocated the abolition of serfdom from above and had a negative attitude towards the autocratic-bureaucratic system of Nicholas's reign, but in contrast to the Slavophiles, they assigned decisive importance to reason. They advocated the intrinsic value of the human person.

Westerners considered the activities of Peter I as the first phase of the country's renewal; the second, in their opinion, should begin with reforms that will be an alternative to the path of revolutionary upheaval.

Professors of history and law (for example, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) attached great importance to the role of state power and became the founders of the so-called “state school” in Russian historiography. Here they were based on Hegel’s scheme, who considered the state to be the creator of the development of human society.

Westerners propagated their ideas from university departments, in articles published in “Moscow Observer”, “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, “Otechestvennye Zapiski”, and later in “Russky Vestnik” and “Athenea”.

The Slavophiles took the opposite position. In their opinion, Russia has its own destiny, its own path in history. Western orders and recipes for treating social ills do not suit her. Russia is not a state land, but a communal, family land. First of all, it has strong traditions of collectivism and collective ownership. The Russian people do not claim state power; they trust it to the monarch, who is like a father in the family, his word and will are a living law that does not need to be formalized in the form of a constitution. The Orthodox faith plays an important role in the life of the country and its people. It is she who shows the Russians their true purpose- to true moral self-improvement.

The founder of the Slavophiles was the writer A.S. Khomyakov, an active role in the movement was played by I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, I.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin. Among the most famous Slavophiles were also F.I. Tyutchev, V.I. Dahl, N.M. Languages.

For theoretical justification On the national path of development of Russia, the Slavophiles turned to Western European, mainly German classical philosophy. They were especially interested in the works of Schelling and Hegel; they were impressed by their interpretation of the historical process.

Slavophiles sought to prove that social peace and rejection of revolutionary upheavals are organically inherent in the Russian people. If there were unrest in the past, they were not associated with betrayal of the highest authority, but with the question of the legitimacy of the power of the monarch. The Russian people (by their nature non-state) should not interfere in politics, giving the monarch full power. But the autocrat must also rule without interfering in the internal life of the people, but taking into account their opinion. Hence the demand of the Slavophiles for the convening of a deliberative Zemsky Sobor, which expresses the opinion of the people and acts as an “adviser” to the tsar. Hence also the demand for freedom of speech and press for the free expression of public opinion.

Various theories and trends constantly sweeping Russia have not led the country to a definite decision on which path to follow. The disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles have become part of history, and their relevance shines through the centuries. One can find many sources of contradictions between these two philosophical directions: the possibility of political arrangement, and the course of historical development, and the position of religion in the state, education, the value of folk heritage, etc.

And yet, in my opinion, it is hardly advisable to strictly distinguish between these two “camps”. Despite differences in views, Slavophiles and Westerners grew from the same root. Almost all of them belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia, they were major writers, scientists, and publicists. Most of them are graduates of Moscow University.

The only important ideological difference was the attitude towards the spiritual traditions of Orthodoxy: the Slavophiles defended the principles of the Christian philosophy they uniquely understood, while Westerners generally adhered to rationalistic views.

The theoretical basis for both views was German classical philosophy. All of them were concerned about the fate of Russia, the paths of its development, although they understood them differently.

Historical experience of discussions of the 40-50s. XIX century in Russia between Westerners and Slavophiles is of enduring significance. Their echoes in different forms, in different terminological expressions pass through all subsequent decades of the 19th century (pochvenism, the concepts of Russian liberals and radicals), through the 20th century and continue to reappear in the 21st century.

In the 30-40s. XIX century Moscow becomes the main center of intellectual life in Russia. Behind the external slowness and everyday conservatism of the second capital, there was hidden an intense ideological search conducted by representatives of the “educated minority.” At the evenings at the Pavlovs, Sverbeevs, Chaadaevs, A.P. Elagina, “friends” and “enemies” gathered almost every day; Westerners and Slavophiles, so that in Once again to cross their ideological weapons in an irreconcilable duel. As B.N. Chicherin noted in his memoirs, “the stuffy atmosphere of a closed circle, no doubt, has its disadvantages; but what to do when people are not allowed on Fresh air? These were the lungs with which Russian thought, squeezed from all sides, could breathe at that time.”
This public exchange of thoughts between the two most prominent ideologists of Slavophilism is considered the starting point of the circle’s history. From the very beginning, in addition to Khomyakov and I.V. Kireevsky, P.V. Kireevsky, P.A. Valuev, then K.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin, A.F. Chizhov, V.A. Panov joined him , A.I. Koshelev and others. Slavophiles, many of whom were related to each other by family ties, formed a close friendly circle that regularly gathered to discuss literary, social and philosophical issues.
The Westernizing circle appeared somewhat later than the Slavophile one, around 1841. It was grouped around Moscow University professor T.N. Granovsky. It included K.D. Kavelin, L.N. Kudryavtsev, N.H. Ketcher, E.F. Korsh, V.P. Botkin, A.I. Herzen, M.N. Katkov, N.I. Krylov, N.F. Pavlov and a number of other representatives of Moscow educated society.
N.A. Berdyaev is a subtle expert and researcher of Russian social thought of the 40s. characterized the attitude of Westerners and Slavophiles to German philosophy in this way: “...It’s time to admit that the Slavophiles were better Europeans, more cultured people than many, many of our Westerners. The Slavophiles creatively refracted into our national spirit what was happening at the heights of European and world culture. Better than the Westerners, the Slavophiles absorbed European philosophy, they went through Schelling and Hegel - these are the pinnacles of European thought of that era... The significance of the Slavophiles must be sought... in the fact that they creatively tried to rework Hegel and Schelling, they treated them independently and said thus having its say in the development of philosophical thought.” The lack of originality in the philosophical thought of Westerners did not prevent them from playing an important and very positive role in the social life of Moscow in the 40s. Contemporaries repeatedly noted beneficial effect, which was exerted on students at Moscow University by young professors who were members of the Westernizing circle. Granovsky and his associates gained wide popularity due to the preaching of humanistic ideas, which were enthusiastically received by society. In addition, great interest in the lectures of Western professors was caused by their use of the ideas of German classical philosophy in teaching. According to contemporaries, T.N. Granovsky’s lectures were particularly brilliant, the factual material of which was connected into a single logical chain by Hegelian dialectics. The history of Western Europe, taught in this way, received completely new scientific coverage. Lectures by young professors at Moscow University were perceived by contemporaries as a new and progressive word in the development of Russian science.
The realization of this potential in practice was prevented by Peter's reforms, which introduced alien European elements into Russian life. The normal development of Russia from the point of view of the Slavophiles was possible only if it returned to its original, original beginnings. At the same time, there was no talk of restoring the pre-Petrine order, which Westerners repeatedly accused the Slavophiles of calling for. “Do me a favor,” wrote A.S. Khomyakov to A.I. Koshelev, for example, in his famous letter “On the Rural Community,” “put away any thought that a return to antiquity has become our dream. It’s one thing to advise against cutting off the roots of a tree and to heal carelessly made cuts, and another thing to advise leaving only the roots and, so to speak, hammering the tree into the ground again.”
The social ideal of the Slavophiles was a “churched society”, i.e. embodiment of Christian principles in public life. They considered the peasant community to be a small and imperfect model of such a society. Therefore, almost all representatives of the “Moscow direction,” as the glorifying nophiles were sometimes called, actively defended its right to exist. From the point of view of Khomyakov and his like-minded people, the active propaganda of Orthodox values among the educated strata of society, coupled with the every possible strengthening of the role of the community in the social life of Russia, should have led over time to the achievement of its original ideal.
The Slavophiles were characterized by an active desire to overcome the “lifeless cosmopolitanism” and “mental apathy” of Russian society. A.S. Khomyakov considered it necessary to influence him with education and upbringing; K.S. Aksakov tried to attract by personal example to the “Russian idea” - he wore a murmolka, boots, and Russian clothes. Yu.F. Samarin, while on different posts in the state apparatus, he tried to implement the Slavophile “love of the people”, in accordance with the possibilities and needs of the moment.
Just like the Westerners, the Slavophiles stood for the gradual reorganization of Russia. They advocated (except for one I.V. Kireevsky) for the earliest possible liberation of peasants from serfdom with land allotment, for a softening of censorship oppression. Autocratic power in Russia, but in the opinion of some of them, should have been supplemented by a Zemsky Sobor.
The recognized leader of the Slavophil circle Main was Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804 - 1860).
figures Coming from an ancient and rich noble family, Slavophiles and early childhood was brought up Orthodox and Western.
Alexey Stepanovich believed that the historical development of Europe and Russia was initially based on different prerequisites. The West has absorbed the remains of ancient civilization, which were imbued with the spirit of rationalism and individualism. In addition, European states arose from conquest and their structure initially contained antagonism that arose from the struggle between conquerors and conquered. None of this happened in Russia. The rationalism and individualism of the West was completely alien to her. Since ancient times, the Russian people lived as a community, which was characterized by community of property, fraternal mutual assistance and tolerance. Russian state arose as a result of the voluntary calling of the Varangians and did not carry with it the original antagonism. The differences between Russia and the West in the religious sphere were extremely significant. Khomyakov saw Catholicism primarily as the dominance of hierarchy. From his point of view, the Western church had turned into an institution of power, which was fundamentally contrary to the very spirit of Christian doctrine.
According to the Slavophile ideologist, the Russian people were the only ones who accepted Christianity in the fullness of its doctrine. The Orthodox Christian civilization of Russia, based on the community, according to Khomyakov, had enormous development potential. While the West, burned from within by the fire of class and political struggle, was heading straight towards social catastrophe, Russia gave the world hope for building a humane Christian society based on fraternal moral ties and mutual love. Of course, Khomyakov’s ideals were utopian, but they can hardly be called reactionary.
The views of Ivan Vasilyevich Kireevsky (1804-1856), Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov (1817-1860) and Yuri Fedorovich Samarin (1819-1876) also had a significant influence on Slavophil teaching.
I.V.Kireevsky was a recognized authority in the field of philosophy among Slavophiles. It was he, along with A.S. Khomyakov, who was involved in the development of the theory of knowledge and the historiosophy of Slavophilism. Moreover, in a number of cases he takes precedence in formulating the basic provisions of the doctrine. It was he who was the first from the Slavophile circle to show the difference in the foundations of Western European and Russian enlightenment. He also has priority in developing the concept of “integral knowledge,” which formed the basis of Slavophile epistemology. From Kireyevsky’s point of view, correct knowledge of the world is accessible only to believing thinking, which is the totality of all human cognitive abilities - reason, faith, will, aesthetic and moral feelings. " Main character believing thinking, - noted Ivan Vasilyevich, - consists in the desire to collect all the individual forces of the soul into one force, to find the inner focus of being, where reason and will, and feeling, and conscience, the beautiful and true, amazing and desirable, fair and merciful, and the entire volume of the mind merges into one living unity, and thus the essential personality is restored to its original indivisibility.” Despite the outstanding contribution made by I.V. Kireevsky to the development of the Slavophil doctrine, his views did not always coincide with the opinions of the majority of members of the circle. His former Westernizing interests were taking their toll. Contemporaries repeatedly noted Kireevsky's disagreements with A.S. Khomyakov and K.S. Aksakov. His special position in the circle of Slavophiles was pointed out in “The Past and Thoughts” by A.I. Herzen.
The most radical positions within the “Moscow Direction” were, by all accounts, occupied by K.S. Aksakov. Konstantin Sergeevich was mainly engaged in the study of Russian history. It was he who formulated the theory of “Earth - And “State”. According to Aksakov’s views, the Russian people, “Earth,” not wanting to take on the heavy burden of power, voluntarily called for it from the outside. Since then, “Earth” and “State” have formed a voluntary union, but at the same time they do not mix with each other. “Earth” lived its own life, supporting the “State”, but without interfering in the affairs of government, while the “State” protected “Earth” from internal unrest and external enemies. The situation changed dramatically at the beginning of the 18th century. Peter I upset the balance that had developed between the “Land” and the “State”. K.S. Aksakov saw this as a real disaster for Russia. The “state” essentially betrayed the “Earth”, enslaved it, and in this the Slavophil thinker saw the source of all the shortcomings of the contemporary state of Russia.
Despite the excessive idealization of social relations of pre-Petrine Rus', which was undoubtedly present in the concept of K.S. Aksakov, it is necessary to note its unconditional scientific value. She was highly appreciated by the famous Russian historian N.I. Kostomarov. The works of a number of modern researchers scientifically confirm the validity of many of the conclusions of the Slavophile thinker.
Yuri Fedorovich Samarin inherited the breadth of views of A.S. Khomyakov. He authored works on philosophy, history, and theology. In the second half of the 40s. He was one of the first in Russia to raise the “Balst See question.” In his “Letters from Riga” Samarin harshly criticized the policy of the tsarist government, which supported the Baltic nobility and called for the protection of Estonians and Latvians from German tyranny. For his bold speech, Yuri Fedorovich paid with a two-week arrest and was suspended from activities in the Baltic states.
During the years of preparation for the abolition of serfdom in Russia, Samarin became famous as one of the most active developers of the provisions of the peasant reform.
The most remarkable personality among Westerners was T.N. Granovsky (1813 - 1855), which was also recognized by his opponents from the Slavophile camp. He came from a middle-class noble family. He received a good initial education and then entered the law faculty of Moscow University, which he graduated in 1835. After a two-year business trip to Berlin, where he studied the history and philosophy of Hegel, Granovsky began lecturing on European history at Moscow University. He very quickly gained popularity among students. In 1845, he defended his master's thesis, which became a real event in the social life of Moscow. No less striking event were the public lectures of T.N. Granovsky, which attracted large audiences and brought the historian wide public fame.
Granovsky becomes the center of attraction for the liberal-minded Moscow intelligentsia. Vivid evidence of the authority that Timofey Nikolaevich enjoyed is contained in the memoirs of B.N. Chicherin. “He remained in the memory of everyone as the best representative of the people of the forties, as the noblest bearer of the ideals that animated them, truly human ideals, dear to the heart of everyone in whom the desire for freedom and enlightenment has not dried up.” In the second half of the 40s - early 50s. Granovsky is actively involved in scientific and pedagogical activities. At the same time, he conducts an energetic polemic with the “Moscow direction.”
Also in 1845, the first cracks split the unity of the once monolithic Westernizing circle. A.I. Herzen, whose worldview evolved at that time towards materialism and atheism, began to diverge ideologically from for the most part Westerners who continued to remain in Hegelian positions. In the summer of 1845, in the village of Sokolovo, where the Granovsky family rented a dacha, the brewing contradictions emerged in all their severity. I.I. Panaev, who was a witness to the Sokolov disputes, recalled: “One evening, when we were all sitting on the upper balcony of the house occupied by Iskander (a pseudonym of A.I. Herzen), a conversation began between him and Granovsky about those theoretical issues that they did not touch at all or touched only lightly, as if afraid to touch them... Word for word, the arguers became heated; Granovsky apparently found this dispute very unpleasant and tried to stop it, but Iskander stubbornly continued it. Finally, Granovsky, his face changing, said dryly: “No matter what you say, you will never convince me and force me to accept your views... There is a line beyond which I would not like to cross. We have reached this point." Iskander looked at Ogarev sadly and ironically. Ogarev shook his head sadly. An awkward silence followed...” Herzen’s subsequent departure abroad tore him away from the Westernizing circle. The transition to the position of “peasant socialism” and rapprochement with the Slavophiles in the 50s. completely ruined relations with his former associates.
Recognized leader of Westerners in the 40s and 50s. T.N. Granovsky continued to remain. His death in 1855 was an irreparable loss for the circle. “...He left,” B.N. Chicherin recalled with bitterness, “leaving behind an emptiness that nothing could fill. No one was able to replace him; The chairman's seat remained unoccupied." Having lost a connecting center, the Westernizing circle soon disintegrates. In 1860, the Slavophiles also suffered severe losses. First A.S. Khomyakov dies of cholera, and then at the end of the year K.S. Aksakov. The Kireyevsky brothers died even earlier. The death of the most authoritative ideologists of the “Moscow Direction” led to its protracted crisis, which ended in collapse in the mid-60s.
The disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles were of great importance for the development of Russian social thought. It can be said without exaggeration 4Q°a>> that they were one of the central
events in the ideological life of Russia in the mid-19th century. They were the first to formulate the problem of Russian identity, develop their own national philosophy, their own view of the historical development of Russia. "Great Debate" of the 40s. largely determined the nature of philosophical discussions in our country until the beginning of the 20th century. At the same time, the disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles also had a very specific political significance. A whole galaxy of figures emerged from Moscow circles who played a major role in the preparation and implementation of peasant reform in Russia. Many participants in the “Great Dispute” of the 40s: Kavelin, Chicherin, Katkov, Samarin, Koshelev, I. Aksakov continued to play a prominent role in the socio-political life of the country in the post-Reform period.

The dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners was a dispute about the fate of Russia and its recognition in the world. “Both of them loved freedom. Both of them loved Russia, Slavophiles like a mother, Westerners like a child...” Berdyaev N., “Russian Idea” - M. Eksmo, 2008. - 18 p.

Russian philosophy of history had, first of all, to resolve the question of the meaning and significance of Peter's reforms, which cut Russian history, as it were, into two parts. This was the main reason for the collision.

Is the historical path of development of Russia the same as the path of the West, and can this be called the path of universal civilization or universal human progress, or is the peculiarity of Russia only in its backwardness? way and its civilization belongs to a different type? Could Russia's path and civilization belong to a different type? These questions were the main theme of the clash between Slavophiles and Westerners.

It should also be borne in mind that there was no unity of opinion among the Slavophiles themselves. Their disputes among themselves were sometimes no less sharp character than with Westerners, since a very contradictory system of views combined both progressive and conservative features.

Peter's reform and the Europeanization of Peter's period were a change in Russia. Slavophiles, like Westerners, advocated the abolition of serfdom from above, that is, with the help of the authorities, and the implementation of a number of reforms - the court, administration and others, bourgeois in essence; advocated the development of industry, trade, education, and freedom of speech and press.

The main idea of the Slavophiles is proof of the original path of development of Russia. The community, in the view of the Slavophiles, is “a union of people based on a moral principle” - a typically Russian institution. A. S. Khomyakov wrote: “The community is the one surviving civil institution throughout Russian history. Take it away - there will be nothing left; from its own development a whole civil world can emerge.” The community was close to the Slavs because in it, with its regular redistribution of land, a special moral climate reigns, which manifests itself in various national assemblies, and in ancient times - at the veche.

Slavophiles believed in special type culture, arising on the spiritual soil of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church is the best way to promote the development of these qualities. It was considered by theorists of Slavophilism as a decisive factor that determined the character of the Russian people, because Orthodox Church, unlike Catholicism, subordinated to rationalism, never claimed secular power and was always limited only to the sphere of faith and spirit. That is why the development of Russia followed the path of “internal truth,” moral improvement and “development of the spirit,” while in the West it followed the path of “external truth,” i.e., along the path of the development of formal legality, without caring about the morality of the people themselves. According to Slavophiles, Russia should heal Western Europe with the spirit of Orthodoxy and Russian social ideals, as well as help Europe in resolving its internal and external political problems in accordance with Christian principles V.A. Kolosov, N.S. Mironenko. Geopolitics and political geography: Textbook for universities. - M.: Aspect Press, 2001- 479 p.

The defense of autocracy as the most acceptable form of power for the Russian people coexisted among the Slavophiles with criticism of the specific bearer of this power and his political system, in this case Nicholas I, they categorically did not accept the Nicholas political system

Westerners judged Russia's development paths differently. In contrast to the Slavophiles, they argued that Russia, although lagging behind, was following the same path of historical development as all Western European countries, and advocated its Europeanization of Russia.

Most Westerners saw the community as a relic of the past, and believed that the community and any other communal land ownership should face extinction, just as happened with peasant communities in Western European countries.

Supporters of the ideas of Westernism denied autocratic power and advocated a constitutional-monarchical form of government on the Western European model, with limitations on the power of the tsar, with guarantees of freedom of speech and the press, personal integrity, and the introduction of a public court. In this regard, they were attracted by the parliamentary system of England and France, to the point of idealizing it by some Westerners.