Historical views of the Slavophiles. The direction of Slavophilism, its emergence and development

The first representatives of “organic Russian philosophy” were Westerners and Slavophiles.

Westerners include: P.L. Chaadaev, A.L. Herzen, T.M. Granovsky, N.G. Chernyshevsky, V.P. Botkin et al.

The main idea of ​​the Westerners is to recognize European culture as the last word of world civilization, the need for complete cultural reunification with the West, and use the experience of its development for the prosperity of Russia.

A special place in Russian philosophy of the 19th century. in general, and in Westernism in particular, P.Ya. Chaadaev, a thinker who took the first step in independent philosophical creativity in Russia in the 19th century, laying the foundation for the ideas of Westerners. He sets out his philosophical worldview in “Philosophical Letters” and in the work “Apology for a Madman.”

Chaadaev also understood the issue of rapprochement between Russia and the West in his own way. He saw in this rapprochement not a mechanical borrowing of Western European experience, but a unification on a common Christian basis, requiring reformation and renewal of Orthodoxy. Chaadaev saw this renewal not in the subordination of Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but rather in renewal, liberation from frozen dogmas and giving the religious faith vitality and activity so that it could contribute to the renewal of all aspects and forms of life. This idea of ​​Chaadaev was later deeply developed by the most prominent representative of Slavophilism A. Khomyakov.

The second direction in Russian philosophy of the first half of the 19th century. - Slavophilism. There is a strong opinion about the supporters of this trend as representatives of the liberal nobility, proclaiming a special historical destiny for Russia, special ways for the development of its culture and spiritual life. Such a one-sided interpretation of Slavophilism often led to the fact that this trend was interpreted as reactionary or, at best, as conservative and backward. Such an assessment is far from the truth. The Slavophiles really opposed the East to the West, remaining in their philosophical, religious, historical and philosophical views on Russian soil. But their opposition to the West did not manifest itself in a sweeping denial of its achievements, or in mossy nationalism. On the contrary, the Slavophiles recognized and highly valued the merits of Western European culture, philosophy, and spiritual life in general. They creatively accepted the philosophy of Schelling and Hegel and sought to use their ideas.

Slavophiles denied and did not accept the negative aspects of Western civilization: social antagonisms, extreme individualism and commercialism, excessive rationality, etc. The true opposition of Slavophilism to the West lay in a different approach to understanding the foundations, the “beginnings” of Russian and Western European life. Slavophiles proceeded from the conviction that the Russian people should have original spiritual values, and not accept indiscriminately and passively the spiritual products of the West. And this opinion remains relevant to this day.

In the development of Slavophilism, a special role was played by I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, Yu.F. Samarin. The diversity of their views is united by a common position: recognition of the fundamental significance of Orthodoxy, consideration of faith as a source of true knowledge. The basis of the philosophical worldview of Slavophilism is church consciousness, clarification of the essence of the church. This basis is most fully revealed by L.S. Khomyakov. The Church for him is not a system or organization, an institution. He perceives the Church as a living, spiritual organism, embodying truth and love, as a spiritual unity of people who find in it a more perfect, grateful life than outside it. The main principle of the Church is the organic, natural, and not forced unity of people on a common spiritual basis: selfless love for Christ.

So, Westernism and Slavophilism are two opposite, but at the same time interconnected trends in the development of Russian philosophical thought, which clearly demonstrated the originality and great creative potential of Russian philosophy of the 19th century.

Since the 30s. The official ideology of the autocracy recognized the concept of Russian nationality as one of the elements on which the state is based. At the same time, the basis of the policy of tsarism continued to serve as European norms, firmly established in the minds of the noble elite throughout the 18th century. and poorly taking into account the widespread way of life of the people. Against the general background of the Europeanization of power, the ideology of the official nationality looked artificial and was perceived by society as a hypocritical manifestation of feudal-serf traditionalism. The idea of ​​true nationality could not be built on the oppression of the individual.

A peculiar reaction of society to the hypocritical national ideology of autocracy was the Slavophil movement that emerged in the 30s and 40s. It was based on recognition of the identity of the Russian people and the stable traditions of folk culture. The Slavophil movement did not have its own organization or general program. Their views were deliberately inconsistent and often contradicted each other, but at the same time they had a pronounced commonality, which was based on a deep study of Russian and Slavic cultures and a sharp criticism of the autocratic-serf system of the Russian state.

The current of Slavophilism was not numerous, but it left a very noticeable mark on Russian social thought, mainly due to the participation in it of such famous writers and scientists as A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, S.T. Aksakov and his sons Konstantin and Ivan, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, D.A. Valuev, F.V. Chizhov, I.D. Belyaev and others. A position close to the Slavophiles was occupied by writers V.I. Dal, A.N. Ostrovsky, A.A. Grigoriev, F.I. Tyutchev, N.M. Languages. Many historians, lawyers, linguists and provincial writers showed a commitment to Slavophilism. Almost all of them came from the nobility. Slavophilism is richly represented in literary works, poetry, scientific works and journalism. It marked the beginning of the study of the history of the Russian peasantry, the collection of monuments of Russian folk culture and language. In this regard, the 10-volume collection of folk songs by P.V. became very famous. Kireevsky and the Russian language dictionary by V.I. Dalia. Slavophiles maintained close relations with famous figures in the European Slavic revival movement and the national liberation struggle. They made a significant contribution to the development of Slavic studies in Russia.

Slavophilism as a current of socio-political thought emerged in the late 30s, but views that placed national traits at the forefront of the development of society and the state appeared much earlier. For the first time, the ideas of national-patriotic foundations of statehood in Russia were found in N.M. Karamzin in “Note on Ancient and New Russia”. An older contemporary of the Slavophiles, P. Chaadaev, adhered to a European orientation and even ridiculed some Slavophil statements, but in his search for a moral ideal, he formulated a number of important provisions about the merits of Orthodoxy (he himself accepted Catholicism) in the national education and traditions of the Russian people.

The basis of the theoretical views of the Slavophiles was German classical philosophy and the latest European historical schools of that time. In 1829–1830 The Kireyevsky brothers studied in Germany: Ivan was a student of Hegel, and Peter was a student of Schelling. Koshelev at the University of Berlin was a student of the outstanding German lawyer Savigny, who later became the Prussian Minister for Legislative Reform. Savigny's fundamental view was that law cannot come from state power; the basis of laws should be the consciousness of the people, and the state can only harmonize the current legislation with it. In Paris, Koshelev established contacts with famous historians and political figures Guizot and Thiers. Other Slavophiles had similar European connections. The study of European schools of philosophy of history, the theory of class struggle in the historical process, with the general adherence of the Slavophiles to subjectivism, gave rise to their views about the special historical path of Russia in comparison with Europe.

The central place in the theory of Slavophilism is occupied by the question of the originality of the path of development of Russia, different from the Western one. In their opinion, the state in Rus' was formed on a trusting relationship between the people and the authorities. Historically, traditions of conciliarity and freedom of opinion have developed in Rus', so a peculiar feature was the absence of class antagonism and revolutionary upheavals. The traditional path of development was interrupted by the reforms of Peter I, and the country followed a Western path that was alien to the Russian people. Slavophiles sharply criticized Petrine and post-Petrine legislation, divorced from folk traditions and customs, and criticized the autocracy for its formalism and lack of popular representation. In this regard, the Slavophiles insisted on the convening of the Zemsky Sobor, which should concentrate the freedom of the Russian people. The symbol of power was the well-known formula of Konstantin Aksakov: “The power of power is for the king, the power of opinion is for the people.” The Slavophiles did not understand the opinion of the people in the ancient Russian sense, but clothed it in modern forms, demanding freedom of speech and press.

In connection with the negative role of the state in the post-Petrine history of Russia, Slavophiles considered the problems of serfdom. This problem is most fully presented in the works of Konstantin Aksakov and A.P. Belyaeva. Slavophiles believed that until the end of the 17th century. in Russia, a beneficial division of functions and rights between the people and the state was preserved, the peasants retained their personal rights, had their own personality and labor. A certain agreement between peasants and landowners also remained. In the era of Peter the Great, the state broke the alliance between the classes of the Russian people and deprived the peasants of personal rights, turning serfdom into personal servitude. Hence, the Slavophiles directly linked the abolition of serfdom with a change in the nature of the Russian autocracy. They certainly advocated the abolition of serfdom by restoring mutual agreement between peasants and landowners. The initiators of the abolition of serfdom were to be the government and the landowners.

Regarding the problems of Russian society and government, the Slavophiles paid great attention to the role of the peasant community. The theory of the community as the main principle of Russian folk life was formulated in the late 30s. A.S. Khomyakov and I. Kireevsky, and then expanded by K. Aksakov, A.P. Belyaev and Yu.F. Samarin in polemics with Westerners. Slavophiles viewed the community as a unique social organization of the peasantry, which arose historically simultaneously with the Western European community, but the traditional nature of peasant life, combined with Orthodox teaching, turned the community into a “moral union,” “brotherhood,” and “the triumph of the human spirit.” They rejected the statements of their opponents that the modern community was created by the state, citing the fact of its existence on landowners' lands. In their opinion, the predominance of public interests over private ones in the community is important for preventing the impoverishment of the people, the proletarianization of the peasants and protects the country from social conflicts. Slavophiles argued that the community is the support of the state and the latter should not only take this into account, but also do everything possible to preserve it and independent existence. Between the state and the “land” (K. Aksakov called the Russian land one big Community - with a capital letter), a partnership should develop based on the recognition of mutual obligations. They saw this as the path of development for Russia.

The Slavophiles devoted a large place in their teaching to the Orthodox religion. The most developed system of ideas on this issue was developed by A.S. Khomyakov, whom N.A. Berdyaev called him “a knight of the Orthodox Church.” Slavophiles acted as independent secular theologians who had a negative attitude towards the frozen dogma and ritualism of the Orthodox Church. Khomyakov liked to repeat the idea that churches are built and services are performed not for God, but for living people. Religious views were very contradictory: deep religiosity was combined with numerous doubts generated by European philosophy. Through the Orthodox faith, the Slavophiles viewed human freedom not as a right, but as a duty. Internal freedom of the individual was opposed to freedom of personal and private interests. They viewed the concept of conciliarity as “moral unity,” but not as “publicity” or corporatism. Slavophiles dreamed of combining a “sense of churchliness” with the experience of modern enlightenment and modern philosophy. They saw the strength of Orthodoxy in the fact that the church does not pretend to subordinate science and the state (as in Catholicism), but recognizes them next to itself and feels in relative freedom. In their opinion, the Orthodox Church is unscrupulous and in everyday life can serve as a spiritual support for the people.

The Slavophiles were often reproached for the retrograde nature of their doctrine and their desire to destroy post-Petrine culture. In fact, the cult of ancient folk traditions, the value excess of custom over the law did not mean a return back to the pre-Petrine order. They welcomed technical progress - the creation of factories, factories, the construction of railways, the introduction of scientific achievements. Slavophiles had a quite normal attitude towards entrepreneurship (one of the most consistent Slavophiles, A.S. Khomyakov, was a successful landowner-entrepreneur who introduced all kinds of innovations in his household). They considered it useful to borrow the cultural and technical achievements of Europe, but at the same time they fought against a radical break in the traditional foundations of Russian life, formulated in their theory and which determined a special, original path for the development of Russia in comparison with both the West and the East.

One of the relevant areas of the Slavophile worldview was national problem. For the first time in the history of Russian social thought, the older Slavophiles (in the literature it is customary to consider the generation of Slavophiles before the beginning of the 60s as the elders) comprehensively examined the uniqueness of Russian culture, national thinking and character in comparison with the corresponding features of Western European peoples. Their assessments of the cultural and historical development of Russia were exalted, and in some cases they even idealized the image of the Russian people. In the light of national problems, Slavophiles started talking about the fate of the southern and western Slavic peoples, approaching the idea of ​​political, cultural and confessional unions. Public attention to the fate of the Austrian Slavs even caused repressive actions by the authorities towards some Slavophiles. The most acute confrontation between Slavophilism and the Nicholas regime manifested itself in the Slavic question. Nicholas I, a supporter of legitimism in relation to the monarchies of Austria and Turkey, categorically persecuted any mention of the liberation of the Slavic peoples. He imagined the liberation and unification of the Slavs as revolutionary actions with the spread of the revolution to Russia. After reading the testimony of the arrested I. Aksakov, Nicholas I wrote in the margins the phrase: “...under the guise of participation in the imaginary oppression of Slavic tribes in other states, the criminal idea of ​​uniting with these tribes smoulders...”. Meanwhile, the Slavophiles themselves considered this activity completely harmless and not even that significant. Koshelev wrote in his memoirs: “We all, and especially A. Khomyakov and K. Aksakov, were nicknamed “Slavophiles,” but this nickname does not at all express the essence of our direction. True, we have always been disposed towards the Slavs, tried to be in relations with them, studied their history and their current situation, helped them as much as we could; but this did not at all constitute the main, significant difference between our circle...”

The entire set of views of the Slavophiles shows that Russian problems were of primary importance to them, but when assessing Russia’s position in the community of other civilizations, they could not help but pay attention to the Slavic issue. Slavophiles considered Russia the center of the Slavic world. The older Slavophiles advocated the national liberation of the Slavic peoples. Poland was no exception. On this occasion, Khomyakov wrote that in Poland and Lithuania it is necessary to conduct a population survey (referendum) and on this basis determine their future fate. The question of the Ukrainian people was somewhat more complicated. Senior Slavophiles welcomed the development of the Ukrainian language and national culture, but did not consider the problem of Ukrainian statehood. The older Slavophiles had no Russification ideas.

A different picture emerged after the Polish uprising of 1863. A new generation of Slavophiles began to actively advocate for the unification of the Slavic peoples under the auspices of the “Russian tribe, the strongest and most powerful.” On the issue of national relations, the views of the Slavophiles increasingly acquired a Russification character, which led to the formation of a new movement - Pan-Slavism.

Despite the opposition of the Slavophiles, the government periodically turned to them for assistance. In particular, the government of Nicholas I turned to them when developing policies on such a painful and sensitive issue for tsarism as sectarianism and schism. In critical situations they were involved in administrative activities in Poland. Slavophiles made a great contribution to the preparation and implementation of the abolition of serfdom.

Instilled in Russian society faith in motionless ideals of antiquity; it was a purely conservative faith. The first Slavophiles preached free development ideals of antiquity; they were patriotic progressives. The main means of achieving the goal of the “official nationality” was “guardianship” of society and the fight against protest, while the Slavophiles stood for freedom of thought and speech. But in terms of the essence of ideals, both theories were in contact on many points.

The emergence of Slavophilism

Slavophilism arose as a result of:

1) romanticism, which awakened nationalist aspirations among many peoples of Europe,

5) finally, there was a basis for patriotic sympathies in native literature: in the poetry of Pushkin, Zhukovsky, and later Lermontov, national-patriotic sentiments were already reflected; in their creations the search for native culture was already determined, the family, state and religious ideals of the people were clarified.

The main representatives of Slavophilism

The school of Slavophiles emerged around the second half of the 1830s: the Kireyevsky brothers (Ivan and Peter), Khomyakov, Dm. Valuev, Aksakovs (Konstantin and Ivan), Yuri Samarin are the most prominent figures of Slavophilism who developed this doctrine in philosophical, religious and political terms. At first they were friends with the “Westerners,” but then they separated from them: Chaadaev’s philosophical letters severed the last ties.

Views of Slavophiles - briefly

In search of an independent type of Russian culture, Slavophilism acquired a democratic character, a tendency to idealize antiquity and a tendency to Pan-Slavism(the dream of uniting all Slavs under the Russian state). The Slavophiles, in some respects, came close to the liberal part of Russian society (democracy), but in others to the conservative part (idealization of antiquity).

The first Slavophiles were well-educated people, inspired by an ardent faith in their teaching, independent and therefore courageous. They believed in the great future of Russia, worshiped “Holy Russia”, said that Moscow was the “third Rome”, that this new civilization would replace all the outdated cultures of the West and save the “decaying West” itself. From their point of view, Peter I committed a sin by delaying the independent development of the Russian people. Slavophiles expounded the theory of the existence of “two worlds”: eastern, Greco-Slavic – and western. They pointed out that Western culture is based on the Roman church, ancient Roman education, and its state life is based on conquest. They saw a completely different order of things in the eastern Greco-Slavic world, the main representative of which is the Russian people. Eastern Christianity is Orthodoxy, the distinctive feature of which is the unchanging preservation of universal tradition. Orthodoxy is therefore the only true Christianity. Our education is of Byzantine origin; if it was inferior to the Western one in the external development of the mind, it surpassed it in its deep sense of living Christian truth. The same difference is visible in the state structure: the beginning of the Russian state differs from the beginning of Western states in that we did not have a conquest, but there was a voluntary calling of rulers. This basic fact is reflected in the entire further development of social relations: we did not have violence combined with conquest, and therefore there was no feudalism in its European form, there was no internal struggle that constantly divided Western society; there were no classes. Land was not the personal property of the feudal aristocracy, but belonged to the community. The Slavophiles were especially proud of this “community”. They said that the West only recently reached the idea of ​​​​creating a “community” (Saint-Simonism), the institution of which has already existed for centuries in the Russian village.

Thus, before Peter the Great, according to the Slavophiles, our development proceeded naturally. Religious consciousness was the main moral force and guidance in life; The people's life was distinguished by the unity of concept and unity of morals. The state was a vast community; power belonged to the king, who represented the general will; the close connection of the members of this great community was expressed by zemstvo councils, national representation that replaced the ancient evening. With such a liberal idealization of antiquity (veche, cathedrals) was associated the most enthusiastic admiration for the simple Russian “God-bearing” people; in his life, Slavophiles saw the embodiment of all Christian virtues (love for neighbors, humility, lack of selfishness, piety, ideal family relationships). Therefore, the slogan of Slavophilism became a modified formula of the official ideology of the era of Nicholas I: autocracy ( limited among the Slavophiles by zemsky councils), Orthodoxy ( with spiritual assemblies and parish powers) and nationality ( with community, cathedrals and freedom of development). Taking this point of view, Slavophiles were often strict critics of Russian modernity, and therefore, if not all, then many of them should be classified as opposition figures of that time.

When the caravan turns back, a lame camel is ahead

Eastern wisdom

The two dominant philosophical thoughts in Russia in the 19th century were Westerners and Slavophiles. This was an important debate from the point of view of choosing not only the future of Russia, but also its foundations and traditions. This is not just a choice of which part of civilization this or that society belongs to, it is a choice of a path, a determination of the vector of future development. In Russian society, back in the 19th century, there was a fundamental split in views on the future of the state: some considered the states of Western Europe as an example for inheritance, the other part argued that the Russian Empire should have its own special model of development. These two ideologies went down in history, respectively, as “Westernism” and “Slavophilism.” However, the roots of the opposition of these views and the conflict itself cannot be limited only to the 19th century. To understand the situation, as well as the influence of ideas on today's society, it is necessary to delve a little deeper into history and expand the time context.

The roots of the emergence of Slavophiles and Westerners

It is generally accepted that the split in society over the choice of their path or the inheritance of Europe was brought about by the Tsar, and later by Emperor Peter 1, who tried to modernize the country in a European way and, as a result, brought to Rus' many ways and foundations that were characteristic exclusively of Western society. But this was only one, extremely striking example of how the issue of choice was decided by force, and this decision was imposed on the entire society. However, the history of the dispute is much more complex.

Origins of Slavophilism

First, you need to understand the roots of the appearance of Slavophiles in Russian society:

1. Religious values.
2. Moscow is the third Rome.
3. Peter's reforms

Religious values

Historians discovered the first dispute about the choice of development path in the 15th century. It took place around religious values. The fact is that in 1453 Constantinople, the center of Orthodoxy, was captured by the Turks. The authority of the local patriarch was falling, there was more and more talk that the priests of Byzantium were losing their “righteous moral character,” and in Catholic Europe this had been happening for a long time. Consequently, the Muscovite kingdom must protect itself from the church influence of these camps and carry out cleansing (“hesychasm”) from things unnecessary for a righteous life, including from “worldly vanity.” The opening of the patriarchate in Moscow in 1587 was proof that Russia has the right to “its own” church.

Moscow is the third Rome

Further definition of the need for one’s own path is associated with the 16th century, when the idea was born that “Moscow is the third Rome,” and therefore should dictate its own model of development. This model was based on the “gathering of Russian lands” to protect them from the harmful influence of Catholicism. Then the concept of “Holy Rus'” was born. Church and political ideas merged into one.

Peter's reform activities

Peter's reforms at the beginning of the 18th century were not understood by all his subjects. Many were convinced that these were measures that Russia did not need. In certain circles, there was even a rumor that the tsar was replaced during his visit to Europe, because “a real Russian monarch will never adopt alien orders.” Peter's reforms split society into supporters and opponents, which created the preconditions for the formation of “Slavophiles” and “Westerners.”

Origins of Westernism

As for the roots of the emergence of the ideas of Westerners, in addition to the above reforms of Peter, several more important facts should be highlighted:

• Discovery of Western Europe. As soon as subjects of Russian monarchs discovered the countries of the “other” Europe during the 16th-18th centuries, they understood the difference between the regions of Western and Eastern Europe. They began to ask questions about the reasons for the lag, as well as ways to solve this complex economic, social and political problem. Peter was under the influence of Europe; after his “foreign” campaign during the Napoleonic War, many nobles and intelligentsia began to create secret organizations, the purpose of which was to discuss future reforms using the example of Europe. The most famous such organization was the Decembrist Society.
• Ideas of the Enlightenment. This is the 18th century, when European thinkers (Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot) expressed ideas about universal equality, the spread of education, and also about limiting the power of the monarch. These ideas quickly found their way to Russia, especially after the opening of universities there.

The essence of ideology and its significance

Slavophilism and Westernism, as a system of views on the past and future of Russia, arose in the years 1830-1840. The writer and philosopher Alexei Khomyakov is considered one of the founders of Slavophilism. During this period, two newspapers were published in Moscow, which were considered the “voice” of the Slavophiles: “Moskvityanin” and “Russian Conversation”. All articles in these newspapers are full of conservative ideas, criticism of Peter’s reforms, as well as reflections on “Russia’s own path.”

One of the first ideological Westerners is considered to be the writer A. Radishchev, who ridiculed the backwardness of Russia, hinting that this was not a special path at all, but simply a lack of development. In the 1830s, P. Chaadaev, I. Turgenev, S. Soloviev and others criticized Russian society. Since the Russian autocracy was unpleasant to hear criticism, it was more difficult for Westerners than for Slavophiles. That is why some representatives of this movement left Russia.

Common and distinctive views of Westerners and Slavophiles

Historians and philosophers who study Westerners and Slavophiles identify the following subjects for discussion between these movements:

• Civilizational choice. For Westerners, Europe is the standard of development. For Slavophiles, Europe is an example of moral decline, a source of harmful ideas. Therefore, the latter insisted on a special path of development of the Russian state, which should have a “Slavic and Orthodox character.”
• The role of the individual and the state. Westerners are characterized by the ideas of liberalism, that is, individual freedom, its primacy over the state. For Slavophiles, the main thing is the state, and the individual must serve the general idea.
• The personality of the monarch and his status. Among Westerners there were two views on the monarch in the empire: either it should be removed (republican form of government) or limited (constitutional and parliamentary monarchy). Slavophiles believed that absolutism is a truly Slavic form of government, the constitution and parliament are political instruments alien to the Slavs. A striking example of this view of the monarch is the 1897 population census, where the last emperor of the Russian Empire indicated “owner of the Russian land” in the “occupation” column.
• Peasantry. Both movements agreed that serfdom was a relic, a sign of Russia’s backwardness. But the Slavophiles called for its elimination “from above,” that is, with the participation of the authorities and the nobles, and Westerners called for listening to the opinion of the peasants themselves. In addition, the Slavophiles said that the peasant community is the best form of land management and farming. For Westerners, the community needs to be dissolved and a private farmer created (which is what P. Stolypin tried to do in 1906-1911).
• Freedom of information. According to Slavophiles, censorship is a normal thing if it is in the interests of the state. Westerners advocated freedom of the press, the free right to choose a language, etc.
• Religion. This is one of the main points of the Slavophiles, since Orthodoxy is the basis of the Russian state, “Holy Rus'”. It is Orthodox values ​​that Russia must protect, and therefore it should not adopt the experience of Europe, because it will violate Orthodox canons. A reflection of these views was Count Uvarov’s concept of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which became the basis for the construction of Russia in the 19th century. For Westerners, religion was not something special; many even talked about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

Transformation of ideas in the 20th century

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, these two trends underwent a complex evolution and were transformed into directions and political trends. The theory of the Slavophiles, in the understanding of some intelligentsia, began to transform into the idea of ​​“Pan-Slavism”. It is based on the idea of ​​uniting all Slavs (possibly only Orthodox) under one flag of one state (Russia). Or another example: the chauvinistic and monarchist organizations “Black Hundreds” arose from Slavophilism. This is an example of a radical organization. The constitutional democrats (cadets) accepted some of the ideas of the Westerners. For the socialist revolutionaries (Socialist Revolutionaries), Russia had its own model of development. The RSDLP (Bolsheviks) changed their views on the future of Russia: before the revolution, Lenin argued that Russia should follow the path of Europe, but after 1917 he declared his own, special path for the country. In fact, the entire history of the USSR is the implementation of the idea of ​​one’s own path, but in the understanding of the ideologists of communism. The influence of the Soviet Union in the countries of central Europe is an attempt to implement the same idea of ​​​​pan-Slavism, but in a communist form.

Thus, the views of Slavophiles and Westerners were formed over a long period of time. These are complex ideologies based on the choice of a value system. These ideas went through a complex transformation throughout the 19th-20th centuries and became the basis of many political movements in Russia. But it is worth recognizing that Slavophiles and Westerners are not a unique phenomenon in Russia. As history shows, in all countries that lagged behind in development, society was divided into those who wanted modernization and those who tried to justify themselves with a special model of development. Today this debate is also observed in the states of Eastern Europe.

Features of social movements in the 30-50s of the 19th century

Slavophiles and Westerners are not the only social movements in Russia in the 19th century. They are simply the most common and well-known, because the sport of these two areas is still relevant to this day. Until now in Russia we see ongoing debates about “How to live further” - copy Europe or stay on your own path, which should be unique for each country and for each people. If we talk about social movements in the 30-50s of the 19th century in the Russian Empire, they were formed under the following circumstances

This must be taken into account since it is the circumstances and realities of time that shape people’s views and force them to commit certain actions. And it was precisely the realities of that time that gave rise to Westernism and Slavophilism.