The Peculiarity of Russian History
The Peculiarity of Russian History
Two intricately related themes are introduced here. The first deals with the virtues and limitations of different, competing ideas concerning the peculiarity of the historical development of Russia, the second is a detailed reconstruction of Russian self-reflection on this deviation. Alexander Ianov (New York) discusses three different traditions in the description of the Russian peculiarity – the ‘Tartaric’, the ‘Byzantine’ and the ‘patrimonial’ model -, then briefly summarizes his own point of view. Alexander Ahiezer (Moscow), whose book caused a sensation in Russian intellectual life as soon as it appeared in 1991 presents, here a summary of his main theses, which together could be regarded as constituting a fourth interpretation of the Russian idiosynchrasy. Boris Groys (Köln) then gives an original analysis of the background of the so-called slavophile-westernist debate, a crucial episode in Russian self-reflection. Andrzej Walicki (USA) reviews the Russian intellectual tradition before 1917, which determined much of what still was to come, and pays special attention to the history of the intellectual movement that opposed the radical tradition and constituted its rival. The section is completed with comments from Hungarian authors. Zoltán Sz. Biró states that the way Russia evolved proved detrimental to the formation of a societal order which is based on civil and political freedom. Lastly Tamás Krausz points to the influence of ‘civilization racism’ and russophobia in judgements about Russia’s being difference.