The theory of the official nationality representatives. The theory of official nationality
In the socio-political thought of the second quarter of the 19th century. there were three directions:
1) conservative;
2) liberal-opposition;
3) revolutionary-democratic.
Under Nicholas I Pavlovich (1825–1855), the ideological doctrine of “official nationality” was developed.
1) orthodoxy- interpreted as the basis of the spiritual life of the Russian people;
2) autocracy- in it, supporters of the theory saw a guarantee, the inviolability of the Russian state;
3) nationality- it meant the unity of the king with the people, in which a conflict-free existence of society is possible.
The official doctrine had many supporters. Among them were the great Russian writers A.S. Pushkin (in the 1830s), N.V. Gogol, F.I. Tyutchev. Slavophilism and Westernism In the second quarter of the 19th century. Liberal thinkers, dissatisfied with the state of affairs in the country, made themselves known:
1) Westerners - were supporters of the development of Russia along the Western European path, a constitution, parliamentarism and the development of bourgeois relations. Representatives: N. Granovsky, P.V. Annenkov, B.N. Chicherin and others. P.Ya. is considered an extreme Westerner. Chaadaev, who in his “Philosophical Letter” spoke sharply about the historical past of Russia. He believed that Russia was pushed to stagnation and lag behind Europe by Orthodoxy, which formed a special way of thinking. Granovsky, Soloviev, Kavelin, Chicherin believed that Russia should develop and follow the same historical path as all other Western European countries. They criticized the theory of the Slavophiles about the original path of development of Russia. Westerners were confident that in Russia, over time, Western European orders would be established - political freedoms, a parliamentary system, a market economy. Their political ideal was a constitutional monarchy;
2) Slavophiles- like the Westerners, they advocated the abolition of serfdom, insisted on a special path for Russia, which they associated with the spirit of collectivism characteristic of the Russian people, especially clearly manifested in the institution of the peasant community. The main representatives of Slavophilism are A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs - advocated an original path of development for Russia, which should not be an exact copy of Western development. They also idealized the country’s traditional patriarchy, communalism, and Orthodoxy. It is these traditions, in the opinion of the Slavophiles, that should save Russia from the vices that had already manifested themselves by that time in the Western European countries moving along the path of capitalism. The Slavophiles did not oppose the monarchical form of government, at the same time they criticized the despotism that was characteristic of the policy of the autocracy of Nicholas I. The Slavophiles advocated the abolition of serfdom, the development of domestic industry and trade, freedom of conscience, speech and the press. Identical positions of liberal movements:
1) defense of political freedoms by Westerners and Slavophiles;
2) speaking out against despotism and serfdom;
The theory of official nationality
government ideology, formulated in 1833 by the Minister of Public Education, Count S.S. Uvarov. In line with the ideas of conservatism, she substantiated the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. It was developed in connection with the strengthening of the social movement in Russia in order to strengthen the existing system in the new socio-political conditions. This theory had a special sound for Russia due to the fact that in Western Europe in many countries in the first half of the 19th century. absolutism was over. The theory of official nationality is based on three principles: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. This theory refracted enlightening ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, about the absence of opposing classes in Russian society. The originality consisted in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to Christianity inherent in the Russian people. From these arguments, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and uselessness of fundamental social changes in Russia, about the need to strengthen the autocracy and serfdom. Since the time of Nicholas I, the theory of official nationality has been widely promoted through the press, introduced into the system of enlightenment and education. This theory caused sharp criticism not only among the radical part of society, but also among liberals. The most famous was the speech of P.Ya. Chaadaev with criticism of autocracy.
24.) Westernizers and Slavophiles. The origins of Russian liberalism.
The ideologists of the Slavophiles were A. Khomyakov, Yu. Samarin, the Aksakov brothers and the Kirievsky brothers.
The Slavophiles were supporters of the original path of Russia, they believed that it was necessary to be Russian in everything: in the structure of the state and life, in the organization of labor, in philosophy, literature, etc. At the same time, they did not deny the achievements of European civilization, but opposed the continuation of the reckless Europeanization begun by Peter I, as a path that would be disastrous for Russia. They considered serfdom and the police-bureaucratic state to be the offspring of Western innovations.
Slavophiles considered the main foundations of Russian identity to be communal forms of organizing life, zemstvo forms of government, and Orthodoxy. Sobornost - the main principle of Orthodoxy - opposes the principles of individualism and at the same time ensures the development of the individual. Serfdom, alien to Russian tradition, must be abolished.
The Slavophils denied autocracy, but were against the constitution on the Western model, advocated the convocation of a deliberative Zemsky Sobor as the spokesman for the people's opinion before the tsar. In this they saw a return to the primordially Russian principles of statehood, which K. Aksakov formulated as follows: "For the government - the right to act, and, consequently, the law. To the people - the power of opinion, and, consequently, words."
The Slavophiles were representatives of the liberal nobility who far-sightedly sought a way out of the impasse in order to avoid a revolutionary explosion in Russia along the Western lines. To be sure, they idealized Russia's past, but their struggle against servility to the West was of great historical significance.
The most prominent representatives of the Westerners were P. Annenkov, I. Vernadsky, T. Granovsky, B. Chicherin, S. Solovyov. They were united with the Slavophils that Russia needed profound changes related to its socio-political system. However, the Westerners criticized the Slavophiles for opposing Russia to the West. They believed that Russian culture was one of the European cultures, only far behind. The challenge is to continue on the path of Europeanization in order to catch up with the West and then outflank it. The Westerners idealized the parliamentary order of the Western European countries and advocated a constitutional monarchy.
Thus, the Slavophiles and Westernizers were united in their patriotism, in their rejection of autocratic despotism and serfdom. The disagreements lay in the choice of paths to the goal. They were united by the denial of revolutionary methods of struggle, the orientation towards carrying out reforms from above. All this suggests that both Slavophiles and Westerners represented two currents of one ideological and political direction - liberalism.
Liberalism is a political ideology whose name comes from the Latin word libero, meaning free. From the name of the ideology, we can conclude that liberals stand for all kinds of freedoms. Personal, political, economic and others. However, in my opinion, the concept of freedom is very vague. And by this word everyone understands their own. Freedom, among other things, gives an outburst of all human vices, which, under the same monarchy, are limited by religion, customs and traditions. It is thanks to liberal ideology that such phenomena as same-sex relationships are very common today. Liberalism often offers us a departure from life values that have been formed over centuries.
In liberalism, as in any political ideology, there are extremes, positive and negative features. Just above are the extremes of liberalism and its negative features. Now it’s worth talking about the positive ones. In my opinion, liberal ideology can be combined with any ideology of the right or left. Then liberal ideas will benefit society. Let's take the reign of Alexander II. Emperor Alexander II went down in history as a “liberator”. He abolished serfdom and carried out a number of liberal reforms that improved the situation of Russia and its people. Today, liberalism is widely considered to be the most progressive political ideology. In Russia, after the collapse of the USSR, the liberal public was in power in the country.
"Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality." With the help of these three words, the Minister of Public Education Sergei Uvarov managed to derive an ideal formula for the relationship between government and society in Imperial Russia. True, not for long...
Portrait of Sergei Semenovich Uvarov. Hood. V.A. Golike. 1833
In the history of Russia there were many bright and influential ideological concepts - starting with the thoughts of the elder Filofeya about Moscow as the Third Rome (1523). However, the first attempt to systematize and widely disseminate ideas about the purpose and goals of the state was the imperial triad, which, according to plan Nicholas I and the Minister of Public Education Sergei Uvarov, was supposed to consolidate the power for a long time and give its strengthening meaning.
Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich was an enemy of dreamy idle talk, which was generated in abundance by the imagination of the previous sovereign - Alexandra I. The new tsar needed businesslike employees whose words served only as a foundation for practice, and from the very beginning it was precisely such people that he wanted to see at the head of the army, foreign policy and industry. The emperor considered the task of creating an ideological doctrine that was strategically effective and simple in form to be no less important.
Nikolai understood that the moment had come to think about updating the state ideology. In earlier times it was largely shaped by the dictates of the Church. However, after the church schism of the 17th century, after the “secularization” that took place in the country throughout the 18th century, an urgent need arose for ideological guidelines related to the Orthodox faith, but not emanating from the Church.
Russian European
To develop a new doctrine, a person was required to be exquisitely educated, distinguished, well known in the circles of the picky enlightened public, and at the same time businesslike and executive. The Emperor looked closely at the energetic President of the Academy of Sciences, Sergei Semenovich Uvarov, for a long time. A seemingly sophisticated Russian European, he proved loyalty to the throne and respect for the indigenous traditions of Russia. And the empire in the early 1830s needed to regain its authority in the eyes of its own nobility...
Panorama of St. Petersburg. Early 19th century
Freethinking is always inherent in young minds, but Nikolai, understanding this, nevertheless reasonably considered some ideas popular in the capital's salons to be dangerous for the country. By that time, Uvarov had gone through all the stages of “initiation” of the then enlightened elite. He was the founding father of the literary society "Arzamas", with which the biographies of V.A. Zhukovsky, A.S. Pushkin, K.N. Batyushkova, P.A. Vyazemsky. Writers who opposed conservative principles in literature most often gathered in the rich house of Uvarov.
In a society where everyone was given a humorous nickname taken from ballads Vasily Zhukovsky, Sergei Semenovich was dubbed the Old Woman, with ironic respect emphasizing that while still a very young man, he already belongs to the veterans of the struggle for the reform of the Russian literary language. After all, Uvarov was the author of the first positive review of the two-volume “Experiments in Poetry and Prose” Konstantina Batyushkova, which for some time became the manifesto of the “new literature”.
It must be said that by that time Uvarov had other, no less significant services to Russian literature. Thus, in a two-year discussion with the elderly poet Vasily Kapnist, he formulated the golden rule about the unity of form and thought in creativity, which became an axiom for writers of the Pushkin century. In addition, back in 1810, Vasily Zhukovsky translated into Russian the “Project of the Asian Academy,” written by Uvarov, as usual, in French.
This remarkable work shows the foresight of the future Minister of Public Education, who understood the need for Russia to conduct a responsible policy in the East. However, two years after the founding of Arzamas, Sergei Uvarov lost interest in the protracted literary game and left the society.
In 1818 he was appointed president of the Academy of Sciences. His family and friendly connections played a role here, and, undoubtedly, the reputation of a thoughtful researcher, earned by the French-language works “An Essay on the Eleusinian Mysteries” and “The All-Russian Emperor and Bonaparte.” Uvarov remained in this position until his death and, by the way, learned to cooperate with conservatives, whom the Arzamas people ridiculed.
At the same time, until 1822, he remained a trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district, and then headed the department of manufactures and domestic trade. It is noteworthy that in December 1832, Uvarov cast his vote for the election of Alexander Pushkin as a full member of the Russian Academy. The relationship between the two famous Arzamas residents was complicated by mutual barbs, but their communication was not interrupted for many years.
Basis of state ideology
In 1832, Uvarov became a comrade (deputy) of the Minister of Public Education. The ministry at that time was headed by an elderly prince Karl Andreevich Lieven, infantry general, comrade-in-arms Alexander Vasilievich Suvorov. Emperor Nicholas I had been ruling for many years; the wounds of December 1825 had healed, but the danger of strengthening revolutionary tendencies had not disappeared.
Uvarov was instructed to create a flexible system, a permanent mechanism for patriotic education. The most difficult thing is to explain to society the meaning of the “contract” with the state and the sovereign. A year later, as expected, the deputy, who had earned the royal trust, took the post of minister, where he remained for 16 years - until 1849.
Portrait of Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky. Hood. I.I. Reimers. 1837
The creed of Uvarov’s policy was reflected in the very first document he drew up in his new position. True, Uvarov outlined these fundamentals somewhat earlier, while he was still a comrade of the minister. It was then that three words were heard for the first time: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”! This trinity became the foundation of the state ideology of the Russian Empire - an ideology that worked effectively for two decades and was only shaken in the smoke of the Crimean War.
In the same 1830s, Uvarov amazed his contemporaries with popular political science:
“Deepening into the consideration of the subject and seeking those principles that constitute the property of Russia (and every land, every nation has such a Palladium), it becomes clear that there are three main principles without which Russia cannot prosper, strengthen, or live:
1. Orthodox Faith.
2. Autocracy.
3. Nationality.
The national idea, first of all, needed a folk hero who would personify all the values of the triad. The peasant became such a hero Ivan Susanin, who, according to the legend established by that time, was the savior of the young boyar Mikhail Romanov- the future sovereign.
And an opera dedicated to this feat Mikhail Glinka“Life for the Tsar,” which premiered in November 1836 at the St. Petersburg Bolshoi Theater, and the opening of the monument to the peasant hero in Kostroma - all this was a direct consequence of the establishment of Uvarov’s ideology.
Let us define the main stages in the emergence of the “triune” ideological concept. The earliest mention of the triad “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” dates back to March 1832: in the surviving draft of a French-language letter to the emperor, the then comrade minister of public education proposed a formula that met the expectations of the monarch.
From the time of Peter the Great Few doubted that Russia's path was to learn from Europe. However, Nicholas I and Uvarov (and besides them, at about the same time, A.S. Shishkov, N.V. Gogol, A.A. Kraevsky and some other thinkers) drew attention to the important advantages of the Russian way of life.
“Russia still keeps in its chest religious convictions, political convictions, moral convictions - the only guarantee of its bliss, the remains of its people, the precious and last guarantees of its political future,” Uvarov wrote to the sovereign, and both he and the emperor considered these qualities to be the basis of Russian victories.
In his first letter to Nicholas I, Uvarov cockily defined the leadership role of the Ministry of Public Education in the administrative body of the empire. And in March 1833, upon assuming a new position, he ordered the distribution of a circular to educational districts, in which he formulated his credo and the credo of the ministry as follows:
“Our common duty is to ensure that public education, in accordance with the highest intention of the august monarch, is carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, Autocracy and nationality.”
Ivan Susanin. Hood. K.E. Makovsky. 1914. The peasant Ivan Susanin became a national hero, personifying all the values of the triad “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”, who saved the boyar Mikhail Romanov, the future tsar, in the Time of Troubles
Small word
It is significant that the word “nationality” - the only one in the triad - was still written with a small letter. Nationality seemed to be the most controversial side of the triad. In Uvarov’s understanding, nationality is the Russian analogue of the European “national principle”. There it was associated with the struggle against monarchical and church foundations. From the Russian national consciousness, predominantly peasant, Uvarov expected unity with the tsar and faith. But for this, the ruling class had to take a step towards the “rabble”.
“Whatever the conflicts they had to endure, both of them live a common life and can still enter into an alliance and win together.” It was about the union of the conservative principle (religion and autocratic power) and the people.
More than once, researchers have noted that Uvarov’s formula stemmed from the Russian military motto “For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland!”, which appeared at the end of the 18th century. But it is worth emphasizing that his ministry, in its public efforts, not only adopted, but also popularized this slogan.
The first issue of the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education,” published since 1834, stated that “guided by the commands of the monarch, who is vigilantly concerned about the benefit of the country given to him by God, the ministry has a direct and sacred duty to give useful direction to the readers of its magazine, so that the true ones may be satisfied.” sons of the Fatherland have a just desire to know how they can better contribute to the high intentions of the Father of Russia.”
In 1843, Uvarov compiled a major note, which summed up the results of his ten years of work at the head of the ministry. This work was published in St. Petersburg in 1864 under the title “Decade of the Ministry of Public Education. 1833–1843."
And 11 years after the birth of the legendary formula, its author remained faithful to it. And Russia has become accustomed to the triad. This means that the policy that the minister, the ministry, and the press entrusted to him had been pursuing for a whole decade did not suffer bankruptcy.
On the contrary, Uvarov’s ideas were introduced into the masses; in the early 1840s, adherence to them became a sign of good form for the Russian political elite. But Uvarov achieved more. He dreamed of uniting the country around his triad, uniting it for the good of Russia, its power, its enlightenment.
He had enough ambition and diligence to implement his ideological program throughout the empire. Nikolai could not even dream of a better minister. The Ministry of Public Education was responsible for ideology, and for propaganda, and for communication with the Church, and, at the initiative of Uvarov, for Russia's reputation in the world. Let us recall that after the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), Russia's participation in the events of European life became an everyday, almost routine matter.
It was no longer only trade, espionage and war that were on the agenda in the international politics of the empire. The All-Russian Emperor tried to follow political trends, the ideological conjuncture throughout the Old World. Monitor and influence the situation in the spirit of maintaining monarchical legality.
Historian's Unfair Sentence
Not everyone liked the character of the minister, whom the tsar awarded the title of count in 1846 for his faithful service. In addition, Uvarov inherited the millionth fortune of his father-in-law, in other words, he was known as an unbearably lucky gentleman.
However, Sergei Semenovich, burdened with state affairs, did not escape nervous breakdowns. Heightened pride sometimes blinded the minister. A connoisseur of Russian antiquity P.I. Bartenev wrote:
“Faces are still alive who remember how S.S. Uvarov appeared pale and not himself at the Konyushennaya Church for the funeral of Pushkin, and how they shunned him.
Indeed, at the same time, Uvarov took energetic measures to neutralize the students, which he did not want to allow until farewell to Pushkin. It was announced that on the day of the funeral, the minister himself would visit the university to track down the truants. Trustee of the Moscow Educational District Count S.G. Stroganov Uvarov instructed:
“On the occasion of the death of A.S. Pushkin, without any doubt, articles about him will be placed in Moscow time-based publications. It is desirable that in this case, both on the one hand and on the other, proper moderation and tone of decency should be observed. I ask Your Excellency to pay attention to this and order the censors not to allow the publication of any of the above articles without your prior approval.
It seems to be reasonable words, a state position. Moderation is really necessary when it comes to the ruler of thoughts, who died in a criminal duel. But when comparing this message of Uvarov with his future words about Pushkin's genius, the hypocrisy of the Minister of Public Education becomes more obvious. Tragic days always tear off "everything and every mask" ...
Historian Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov(by the way, a regular contributor to the Journal of the Ministry of National Education) spoke venomously of Uvarov:
“He was a man, no doubt, with brilliant talents, and for these talents, for education and a liberal way of thinking, he was able to take the place of Minister of Public Education and President of the Academy of Sciences; but in this man the faculties of the heart did not at all correspond to those of the mind. Presenting himself as a noble gentleman, Uvarov had nothing truly aristocratic in himself; on the contrary, it was a servant who received decent manners in the house of a decent master (Alexander I), but remained a servant in his heart; he spared no means, no flattery, to please the master (Emperor Nicholas); he inspired him with the idea that he, Nikolai, was the creator of some new education based on new principles, and he invented these principles, that is, the words: Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality; Orthodoxy - being an atheist, not believing in Christ, even in a Protestant way; autocracy - being a liberal; nationality - having not read a single Russian book in his life, writing constantly in French or German. Decent people, close to him, confessed with grief that there was no meanness that he would not be able to do, that he was filthy all around with unclean deeds. When talking with this man, the conversation is very often brilliantly intelligent, however, one was struck by extreme pride and vanity; only, it happened, and you wait - he will say that when the world was created, God consulted with him about the plan.
Portrait of Emperor Nicholas I. Hood. V.D. Sverchkov. 1856. Nicholas I considered it very important to create a state ideological doctrine
IN UVAROV'S UNDERSTANDING NATIONALITY IS THE RUSSIAN ANALOGUE OF THE EUROPEAN "NATIONAL BEGINNING". There it was associated with the struggle against the monarchical and ecclesiastical foundations. From the Russian people's self-consciousness, Uvarov expected unity with the tsar and faith
Well, a harsh sentence from the great historian, who showed himself here as both a passionate satirist and a supporter of liberalization. But I think the verdict is not entirely fair. No wonder: the author and the object of his criticism belonged to different ideological camps.
In addition, it was really not easy to get along with Uvarov, and his notorious "aristocratism", which already caused controversy in the 1820s, could not be forgiven by the writers of Pushkin's circle either. True, they were jarred, first of all, let's say, by the lightness of Uvarov's aristocracy.
They liked to remember that the father of the illustrious count was the “upstart” Senka the bandura player, who owed everything Grigory Potemkin. It was rumored that Uvarov was the illegitimate son of General S.S. Apraksina. And for Sergei Solovyov, the count was also "a servant with the habits of a gentleman." There are traces of Pushkin's snobbery in this remark of the historian. And the important role of propaganda, deliberately used by Uvarov in creating the current triune formula of state ideology, was still to be seen by Solovyov's descendants in the 20th century.
Historian's son, philosopher Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov, was no longer so categorical in his assessment of Uvarov. On the contrary, he took the minister under protection from Pushkin's causticity, noticing the incorrectness of the poem "On the recovery of Lucullus", in which the poet tried to ridicule the author of the triad in the juvenile style. V.S. Solovyov wrote:
“In his public activities, Uvarov had great merits: of all the Russian ministers of public education, he was, without a doubt, the most enlightened and gifted, and his activity was the most fruitful. For serious satire inspired by public interest, Uvarov did not give a reason, and, in fact, Pushkin denounces only the private nature of the minister, and his denunciation is more of a libel than satire.
The Earl's Legacy
In 1996, after a far from uncontroversial presidential campaign, Boris Yeltsin publicly gave the task to invent a national idea. But a unifying, nationwide conscious image cannot be deduced in the laboratory: the homunculus will not take root as a national idea. Here you need to capture the nature of the state, folk culture and snatch something that is organically inherent in the majority.
The "new" building of Moscow University on Mokhovaya Street, built in 1835. Photo from 1912
Yeltsin's associates did not succeed in what Uvarov did. Russia is a military power. Sergei Semenovich remembered the battle cry "For Faith, Tsar and Fatherland!". He understood: it is not required to invent anything, it is only necessary to catch and generalize.
Uvarov knew the laws of propaganda well, he was aware of the effectiveness of revolutionary slogans and rebellious French journalism. He was not afraid to borrow uniforms from the revolutionaries. They have “Freedom, equality and brotherhood”, we have “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”. He understood the agitational power of the press like no one else in Russia at that time.
The ABC of the triad was also explained by priests in sermons, so that every person in the country would perceive these foundations as the essence of the state system. The minister's keynote speeches were also published in European capitals, so that everyone would know that the triad is the palladium of the Russian Empire. Recall that it was Uvarov who quickly translated Pushkin’s poem “To the Slanderers of Russia” into French and tried to ensure that during the days of the Polish uprising in 1830-1831, the patriotic formulas of the Russian poet reached the European “tops”.
The triad was built to last for centuries, but operated in full force only until 1855. After the defeats in the Crimea, after the death of Emperor Nicholas, the situation changed dramatically. The empire began to doubt its own strength and embarked on revolutionary transformations. What an apotheosis of primordial autocracy!
Another 10 years passed - and the great reforms changed the attitude towards both the monarch and the people. In Russia, a layer of large owners appeared, they fought for political influence. Against this background, socialist protest moods also grew.
An unflattering, critical definition remains in science - "the theory of official nationality." “Official” means in many respects false, artificial. This is Academician A.N. Pypin, a talented historian of literature and a left-wing sociologist, christened the Nikolaev ideology in this way already in the post-reform years. Supporters of renewal - both liberals and socialists - smashed Uvarov's concept to smithereens. For reaction, for the preservation of backwardness.
The development of events from 1855 to 1917 largely confirms the correctness of the critics. After the fall of Sevastopol, Russia could hardly be called a quiet haven compared to rebellious Europe. The triumph of flourishing conservatism did not take place. And educational institutions, even under conditions of censorship pressure, did not become a forge of loyalty. The idea of a triad failed.
On the other hand, Emperor Nicholas I and his minister Sergei Uvarov created a thoughtful, balanced protective ideology based on the study of folk culture. And although the triad did not become an eternal panacea for the throne, the very experience of that fruitful ideological work is invaluable. In peacetime, the government tried to rally millions of citizens, showed a propaganda initiative.
And not the emperor and his minister of wine, that the next generation of managers of the Russian Empire lacked agility. There were enough conservatives in the Ministry of Public Education even after that, but, by and large, they only knew how to “freeze” when it was necessary to get ahead of their opponents like Uvarov.
Arseny Zamostyanov
In politics, as in all social life, not moving forward means being thrown back.
Lenin Vladimir Ilyich
The theory of official nationality arose during the reign of Nicholas 1; this theory was based on the principles of the Orthodox faith, autocracy and nationality. This ideology was first voiced in 1833 by Count Uvarov, who in the Russian Empire served as Minister of Education.
The main content of the theory
The government of Nicholas 1 sought to create an ideology in Russia that meets the needs of the state. The implementation of this idea was entrusted to S.S. Uvarov, who on November 19, 1833 sent a special report to the emperor, entitled "On some general principles that can serve as a guide in strengthening the Ministry."
In this report, he noted that in Russia there are only three unshakable concepts:
- Autocracy. Uvarov sincerely believed that the Russian people did not share such concepts as "king" and "country". For people, this is all one, guaranteeing happiness, power and glory.
- Orthodoxy. The people in Russia are religious, and honor the clergy on a par with state power. Religion can solve issues that cannot be solved by autocracy.
- Nationality. The foundation of Russia lies in the unity of all nationalities.
The general essence of the new concept boiled down to the fact that the Russian people are already developed, and the state is one of the leaders in the world. Therefore, no fundamental changes are needed. The only thing that was required was to develop patriotism, to strengthen autocracy and the position of the church. In the future, supporters of this program used the slogan “Autocracy. Orthodoxy. Nationality".
It should be noted that the principles that were set forth in the theory of official nationality were not new. Back in 1872, A.N. Pypin in his literary works came to exactly the same conclusions.
Disadvantages of the new ideology
Uvarov's theory was logical and many politicians supported it. But there were also a lot of critics who, for the most part, singled out two shortcomings of the theory:
- She denied any creation. In fact, the document was a statement of the fact that is important for the Russian people, and what unites them. There were no development proposals, because everything is perfect anyway. But society needed a constructive development.
- Focus only on the positive side. Every nationality has both advantages and disadvantages. The official blog theory emphasized only the positive, refusing to accept the negative. In Russia, there were many problems that needed to be solved, the ideology of the official nationality denied such a need.
The reaction of contemporaries
Naturally, the shortcomings of the new ideology were obvious to all thinking people, but only a few dared to voice their position out loud, fearing a negative reaction from the state. One of the few who decided to express their position was Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. In 1836, the Teleskop magazine published a Philosophical Letter, in which the author noted that Russia was actually isolating itself from Europe.
The state created in the country an atmosphere of self-confident nationalism, which was based not on the real state of affairs, but on the stagnation of society. The author emphasizes that in Russia it is necessary to actively develop ideological currents and the spiritual life of society. The reaction of the government of the Empire was paradoxical - Chaadaev was declared insane and put under house arrest. This was the official position of the state and personally of Emperor Nicholas 1, under which the theory of official nationality for many years became the main ideological document in the country. This theory was spread by everyone who had anything to do with the state.
Literature
- History of Russia 19th century. P.N. Zyryanov. Moscow, 1999 "Enlightenment"
- Reports of Uvarov to Emperor Nicholas 1.
- official nation. R. Wortman. Moscow, 1999.
In Russia, since the reign of Peter the Great, the ruling circles have recognized the need to create their own class of educated people. However, the situation was very contradictory. The fact is that in Russia "educated people" most often became "underminers" of the foundations - opponents of absolutism. In this regard, he subsequently had a rather ambiguous attitude towards education. After all, the question of the development of education in Russia was closely interconnected with another question, more important - with the preservation of the existing system.
The ideologist of the "protective", conservative internal political direction was Uvarov (Minister of Education). He considered it a paramount task to identify the principles that make up the distinctive features of Russia, belong only to her. It was he who in 1832 formulated the well-known triad "nationality, autocracy, Orthodoxy." became the basis. It was based on the theory of the official nationality of Uvarov.
Taking into account the fundamental differences in the historical development of Russia and Europe, the Minister of Education set out to combine the formation of culture and education and the idea of the need for autocracy as a form of political system that has been inherent in the Russian state since ancient times. It should be noted that Western European enlightenment gave rise to revolutionary conflicts. In Russia, however, "order" survived, as it relied on principles that were incomprehensible and unknown to Europe. The theory of official nationality combined enlightenment ideas and thoughts about unity, the voluntary union of the people and the sovereign. This provided for the absence of opposing classes. At the same time, the author of the theory of official nationality recognized autocracy as the only possible one. Orthodoxy meant an exceptionally deep religiosity inherent only in Russian people. In accordance with centuries of experience, the theory of official nationality argued that autocracy was the only form that contributed to the maintenance of the existence of Eastern Christianity, which, in turn, reflected the internal moral and religious position of state power.
Submitting to the task of preserving the existing system in the country, Uvarov put forward his own concept. It consisted in the creation of such educational institutions and disciplines that not only would not harm the state system, but at the same time would become one of the most reliable supports for the autocracy. It remains to decide only the question of the content of the proposed education. However, the Minister of Education could not deny that the development of new disciplines in Russia without the involvement of the ideas of modern European science was not possible. It should be noted that until that time, the foundations on which the theory of official nationality was based manifested themselves in some way spontaneously. With the development of the concept, the minister set himself the task of subordinating the entire system of "primordially Russian" education. Thus, education, forming and developing within the framework established by the concept, could not undermine the existing order.
The theory of official nationality recognized serfdom as a boon for the state and people. This system provided for the personal dependence of one person on another, subordination to a superior, based on the law-abiding peasant masses. Order and discipline, love for the king, civil obedience, submission to government authority were considered the best human qualities. Thus, the spirit of the era of Nicholas I was perfectly reflected in the theory of official nationality.
