Philosophical and historical research always has a certain practical orientation. By comprehending the past, we strive to understand the present and determine development trends modern society. In this sense, the solution to the question of the relationship between Western and Eastern cultures and civilizations, as well as Russia’s place in the dialogue of these cultures, is of particular importance and relevance for us. This problem has been raised quite often before in the works of philosophers and sociologists. Now it has begun to be discussed not only in the specialized press - monographs, articles, but also in weekly and daily magazine and newspaper materials, in political discussions, etc. In 1992 magazine "Questions of Philosophy" held a round table on the topic"Russia and the West: interaction of cultures",

at which leading Russian scientists presented their positions: philosophers, historians, philologists, regionalists, etc. Using the materials of this discussion, as well as the significant material of domestic and world thought that preceded it, we will try to answer the questions posed. West and East in this context are considered not as geographical, but as geosopiocultural concepts. One of the participants round table “,” V. S. Stepin, noted that by the term “West” he understands a special type of civilizational and cultural development that took shape in Europe around the 15th - 17th centuries. A civilization of this type could be called technogenic. Her character traits, in which his life activity directly takes place. In turn, this is accompanied by the increasing dynamics of social connections and their relatively rapid transformation. Sometimes, over the course of one or two generations, a change in lifestyle occurs and a new type of personality is formed.

The prerequisites for Western culture were laid in antiquity and the Middle Ages. The main milestones of its prehistory were the following: the experience of democracy in the ancient polis, the formation within its culture of various philosophical systems and the first examples of theoretical science, and then the Christian tradition formed in the era of the European Middle Ages with its ideas about human individuality, the concept of morality and the understanding of the human mind as created “in the image and likeness of God,” and therefore capable of rationally comprehending the meaning of existence. The synthesis of these two traditions during the Renaissance was one of the origins of the values ​​of technogenic civilization. The Age of Enlightenment saw the completion of the formation of worldviews that determined the subsequent development of technogenic civilization. The system of these attitudes formed the special value of the progress of science and technology, as well as the belief in the fundamental possibility of rational organization social relations. Socially, Western civilization is identified with the era of the formation and development of capitalist production and economic relations and bourgeois-democratic forms of government, the formation of civil society and legal domination. In technological terms - with industrial and post-industrial society.

Philosophers and sociologists consider the ideological, social and technological aspects of culture as a single whole, showing their inextricable unity and interaction. Thus, the German sociologist and philosopher M. Weber in his famous work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" convincingly showed the role of the Protestant Reformation and the religious teachings of Calvinism in the formation of the rationalistic spirit of capitalism and other fundamental values of this society. The result of this synthesis, according to Weber, was the following basic values ​​of Western culture: 1) dynamism, orientation towards novelty; 2) affirmation of dignity and respect for human personality; 3) individualism, orientation towards personal autonomy; 4) rationality; 5) ideals of freedom, equality, tolerance; 6) respect for private property.

The Western type of culture in philosophy and sociology is contrasted with the Eastern type, which has received the synthetic name of “traditional society”. Geopolitically, the East is associated with cultures Ancient India and China, Babylon, Ancient Egypt, national-state formations of the Muslim world. These cultures were original and, at the same time, characterized by some general features

: they were focused, first of all, on the reproduction of existing social structures, the stabilization of an established way of life, which often prevailed for many centuries. Traditional patterns of behavior, accumulating the experience of ancestors, were considered as the highest value. Types of activities, their means and goals changed very slowly and were reproduced for centuries as stable stereotypes. In the spiritual sphere, religious and mythological ideas and canonized styles of thinking dominated; scientific rationality was opposed to a moral and volitional attitude toward contemplation, serenity, and intuitive-mystical fusion with existence.

In the ideological aspect, in Eastern cultures there is no division of the world into the world of nature and society, natural and supernatural. Therefore, the eastern perception of the world is not characterized by the division of the world into “one and the other”; it is more characterized by a syncretic approach “one in the other” or “all in all”. Hence the denial of the individualistic principle and the orientation towards collectivism. Autonomy, freedom and dignity of the human person are alien to the spirit of Eastern culture. In Eastern worldview systems, a person is absolutely unfree, he is predetermined either by cosmic law or by God. This is where the political and economic models of the life of the “Eastern man” come from. To Eastern people

the spirit of democracy and civil society is alien. It was historically dominated by despots. The desire to instill the norms of Western democracy on Eastern soil produces very unique hybrids, and the implementation of these aspirations is associated with profound social cataclysms. Of course, all of these, in a certain sense, are speculative models; reality has never produced such pure “ideal types.” Moreover, in modern world when such close interaction of all spheres takes place public life

in different countries and continents, which leaves a huge imprint on the interaction and transformation of cultures. Now that we have given the most Western and Eastern types of culture, it is necessary to figure out which culture Russia gravitates towards most?

Philosophers and sociologists have long been faced with the question:

How do Western and Eastern cultural heritage compare in Russian culture? Is an original path of development for Russia possible and necessary? The answers to these questions were often contradictory. On this basis there was an ideological dispute between various philosophical and ideological trends, the concentrated theoretical formulation of which took place in the middle of the 19th century. in the form of the ideology of Westernism and Slavophilism. Westerners, as mentioned above, did not seek to emphasize the peculiarities of Russian cultural experience and believed that Russia should adopt all the best achievements of Western culture and way of life. Slavophiles defended the idea of ​​​​the originality of the Russian path of development, linking this originality with the commitment of the Russian people to Orthodoxy. In their opinion, Orthodoxy was the source of a number of the most important features of the “Russian soul”, Russian culture, the most important of which are deep religiosity, increased emotionality and associated collectivist values, the priority of the collective over the individual, commitment to autocracy, etc.

(For more details, see the topic “Russian religious philosophy of the mid-19th - 20th centuries.”). The question of Russia's development path, its uniqueness Russian culture acquired even greater significance for Russian philosophers who found themselves after October revolution in exile. During this period on this topic several were published in various foreign publications major works leading Russian thinkers: Berdyaev N.A., Vysheslavtsev B.P., Zenkovsky V.V., Fedotov G.P., Florovsky G.V., Sorokin P.A. Most fully, with solid philosophical and historical-factological This topic was analyzed on the basis of this in the work of Ya. A.

N.A. Berdyaev believes that to determine the national type, national individuality, it is impossible to give a strictly scientific definition. The secret of any individuality is recognized only by love, and there is always something incomprehensible to the end, to the last depth. And the main question, according to Berdyaev, is not what the Creator intended for Russia, but what is the intelligible image of the Russian people, its idea. The famous Russian poet F.I. Tyutchev said: “Russia cannot be understood with the mind, nor can it be measured with a common yardstick. She has become something special; you can only believe in Russia.” Therefore, Berdyaev believes, in order to comprehend Russia it is necessary to apply the theological virtues of faith, hope and love.

One of the most important characteristics Russian folk individuality, according to Berdyaev, is its deep polarization and inconsistency. “The inconsistency and complexity of the Russian soul,” he notes, “may be due to the fact that in Russia two streams of world history collide and come into interaction - East and West. The Russian people are not a purely European and not a purely Asian people. Russia is a whole part of the world, a huge East-West, it connects two worlds. And two principles have always struggled in the Russian soul, eastern and western” (N. A. Berdyaev. Russian idea. The main problems of Russian thought of the 19th and early 20th centuries / About Russia and Russian philosophical culture: Philosophers of the Russian post-October diaspora. - M., 1990. - P. 44).

N.A. Berdyaev believes that there is a correspondence between the immensity, the boundlessness of the Russian land and the Russian soul. In the soul of the Russian people there is the same immensity, boundlessness, aspiration to infinity, as in the Russian plain. The Russian people, Berdyaev argues, were not a people of culture based on ordered rational principles. He was a people of revelations and inspirations. Two opposing principles formed the basis of the Russian soul: the pagan Dionistic element and ascetic-monastic Orthodoxy. This duality permeates all the main characteristics of the Russian people: despotism, hypertrophy of the state and anarchism, freedom, cruelty, a tendency to violence and kindness, humanity, gentleness, ritualism and the search for truth, individualism, a heightened consciousness of personality and impersonality, collectivism, nationalism, self-praise and universalism , pan-humanity, eschatological-missionary religiosity and external piety, the search for God and militant atheism, humility and arrogance, slavery and rebellion. These contradictory features of the Russian national character predetermined, according to Berdyaev, the complexity and cataclysms of Russian history.

The solution to the topic of the original foundations of Russian history and culture in the works of representatives of the so-called Eurasian movement (P. A. Karsavin, N. S. Trubetskoy, G. V. Norovsky, P. P. Stuchinsky, etc.) is of a somewhat different nature. . Eurasianism existed as a socio-political and ideological movement of the Russian emigrant intelligentsia from the early 20s to the end of the 30s of the XX century. Eurasianism, as a historical and cultural concept, it considers Russia as Eurasia - a special ethnographic world occupying the middle space of Asia and Europe, approximately outlined by three plains - East European, West Siberian and Turkestan. This world also has its own unique culture, “equally different from European and Asian.” At the same time, Eurasians emphasized the Asian focus of Russian culture, including the Turanian peoples in this culture, connecting Russia with the empire of Genghis Khan by continuity and declaring that “the Russian revolution opened a window to Asia.” The views of Eurasians on Russia's prospects in the development of world civilization are of particular interest. Eurasians believed that after the October Revolution old Russia with all its statehood and way of life, it crashed and sank into eternity. The World War and the Russian Revolution usher in a new era. And this era is characterized not only by the disappearance past Russia, but also by the decomposition of Europe, the comprehensive crisis of the West. And the West, according to Eurasians, has completely exhausted its spiritual and historical potential and must resign to a secondary and peripheral role in world history. The future in this new era belongs to a renewed Russia, and with it to the entire Orthodox world. Here, as we see, the Eurasians largely follow the Slavophiles.

The topics raised in discussions between Westerners and Slavophiles by N. A. Berdyaev and Eurasianists continue to be discussed in modern Russian philosophy. For many modern Russian philosophers, it is clear that the development of Western technogenic culture and civilization has led humanity to global problems and crises. In this regard, they pose the question: can we perceive the samples of Western experience as some kind of ideal, or should these samples themselves be subject to criticism? Perhaps humanity, in order to survive, must stand on new way civilized development. And this may mean that the deep crisis that has arisen in Russia in all spheres of public life is a necessary moment that can serve as an impetus for the creation of this new type of civilized development. In Russian culture, in the national Russian tradition, there are serious reasons for developing such a path of development, the main values ​​of which would be an orientation not towards ever-increasing material production and consumerism, but towards ascetic moderation based on the priority of spiritual values. Cold calculation, calculation, and rationalism must be opposed by the warmth of human relationships and Christian self-sacrifice, and individualism must be opposed by fraternal mutual assistance and collectivism. Along with these deep “metaphysical” questions, there are also more specific ones related to the social specifics of today’s situation in former USSR. What are the paths, what are the fates of that integrity, that community that was previously called Russia; will it come together again or is the process of its disintegration irreversible? This and other issues will have to be resolved both theoretically and practically not only by us, but also by future generations of the peoples of the once great Russian Empire.

Russian culture in the “East - West” system

Features of Russian culture were largely determined by her geopolitical situation: middle position between West and East; spatial characteristics of “distance” and “open space” as attributes of the Russian mentality; the problem of “cultural lag” of Russia in the Middle Ages.

The famous Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev noted that in Russia two streams of world history collide - the West and the East. Russian culture cannot be considered purely European or purely Asian: two principles have always fought in it - eastern and western. At different periods of its development, Russian culture borrowed customs and traditions different nations: pagan deities of the Scandinavian peoples; Byzantine Christianity (Orthodoxy); French language and ideas of enlightenment; language and customs of the English nobility.

One of the significant historical and cultural problems of Russia is the problem of cultural lag in the Middle Ages. By the beginning of the 18th century. in Russia there was no secular literature, architecture, music, philosophy and science, while Europe by this time had already created a huge array of scientific and philosophical knowledge, had experience in all areas of culture and a more progressive government system. Young Peter I, during a trip to Europe, was struck by the difference in the way of life of Europeans and Russians.

The culture of Russia is the culture of the Russian people, which initially developed on an East Slavic basis in the form of the culture of the Old Russian people (approximately in the 8th - 13th centuries), and from the 14th century. and to the present day represented by Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian cultures themselves. In this initial and most characteristic comprehension of Russian cultural self-awareness, the determining factor is the idea of ​​the temporary, local and essential unity of Russian culture and its certain originality among the cultures of other European peoples.

There are two approaches to defining the very concept of “Russian culture”. The first insists on a sharp contrast between “Rus-Ukraine” and the much later mixed cultural formation that developed in Russia proper. The second, especially gaining momentum at the present time, represents Russian culture as a combination of many different national cultures, one way or another connected with Russian culture itself. Both of these aspirations are to a certain extent explained by the specifics of Russian culture itself and the paths of its historical development; the uniqueness of natural conditions and socio-cultural environment, as well as the general flavor of the historical era.

In the Christian world, Russian culture is one of the three (along with Byzantine and Western Christian) most significant cultures.

Considering the issue about Russia's place in world history, the specifics of its own history and culture, about the uniqueness of its statehood, trying to understand and explain fancy patterns political history of the country and people, very often they turn to the old philosophical and historical scheme “East-West”. No matter how the initial concepts - the elements of this classical scheme - are understood. Russia is considered to belong either to the West or the East, or to have its own specifics, and therefore does not coincide with either the West or the East.

In the latter case, several independent positions are possible. For example, we can consider that Russia seems to be fluctuating between the West and the East (G.V. Plekhanov); you can declare it the great East-West or West-East (N.A. Berdyaev); you can predict her great role in the unification of West and East on the basis of true Christianity (young V.S. Solovyov); it can be considered as such a “third force” (the term of V.S. Solovyov), which does not directly depend on either the East or the West, forming a special world, quite comparable with the first two, although peculiar and unique (Eurasians).

The problem “East - West - Russia” was first stated in "Philosophical letters" P. Ya. Chaadaeva, which gave rise to a debate between “Westerners” and “Slavophiles”. Considering the history of Russia, P. Ya. Chaadaev believes that it turned out to be torn out of the world historical process. Russia relies on both Europe and the East, but must combine these two principles. This “isolation” is a consequence of Russia’s adoption of Orthodoxy. The philosopher thinks. That if Catholicism in its essence is a deeply social phenomenon, then Orthodoxy cultivates in a person such qualities as obedience, humility and asceticism. Having expressed the idea that Russia could become a bridge between the West and the East, since it has the opportunity to combine in its culture both great principles of spiritual nature - reason and imagination, P. Ya. Chaadaev thereby raises the question of a “third force” in the world stories.

Like P. Ya. Chaadaev, they saw their ideal of sociocultural development in Western Europe Westerners, who were absolutely convinced that Russia should learn from the West and go through the same path of development. They wanted Russia to assimilate European science, culture and the fruits of centuries-old enlightenment. Westerners had little interest in religion, and if there were religious people among them, they did not see the merits of Orthodoxy and tended to exaggerate the shortcomings of the Russian Church. The optimism of the Westerners lay in the belief that Russia will pass the path of Europe, since it already stands on its threshold and all the movements of European life find a response in it.

In contrast to Westerners, efforts Slavophiles were aimed at developing a Christian worldview based on the teachings of the fathers of the Eastern Church and Orthodoxy in the original form that the Russian people gave it. They idealize the historical and cultural past of Russia and the Russian national character. Slavophiles highly valued the original features of Russian culture and argued that the history and culture of Russia developed and would develop along their own path, completely different from the path Western peoples. In their opinion, Russia is called upon to heal Western Europe with the spirit of Orthodoxy and Russians social ideals, to help Europe resolve its internal and external problems in accordance with general Christian principles.

Throughout almost the entire 19th century. V research literature The prevailing idea was the deep and fundamental difference between Russian history and the history of Western European peoples. Relying on the Hegelian triad - China, India, the Middle East - and simultaneously introducing world history Russia as its new necessary link was allowed two, purely theoretical possibilities: preserving the three elements, but placing Russia as an additional link in one of them (most likely in the third, Christian - according to its main characteristic); or reducing the previous scheme to two elements and introducing a new element into the triad - Russia.

Of the theoretical possibilities presented, the second has clear theoretical priority. However, the idea of ​​Russian identity, which dominated Russian socio-philosophical thought of the 19th century, used the former, since for Russian thinkers Russia was represented, first of all, as a country of Christianity and Christian culture.

Thus, the question of Russia, its culture and place in history in relation to East - West is resolved as follows. Firstly, by indicating the Christian nature of its spiritual and cultural tradition and the European identity of the ethnic group, society and statehood (this distinguishes it from the civilizations of the East). Secondly, by indicating Orthodoxy and the coincidence of statehood and civilization due to geopolitical specifics, which distinguishes Russia from other countries Western Europe. Purely historically Russia(together with Byzantium and Western Europe) - This is the secondary and youngest Christian civilization of the Western world.

A comparative examination of Russian culture with others, as a rule, has the goal of establishing a fundamental interaction between them, as well as overcoming, in the words of O. Spengler, the “mutual impenetrability” of closed cultures-civilizations. Such a comparison is possible at three levels: 1) national(Russian and French, Russian and Japanese culture, etc.); 2) civilizational(comparison of Russia with the civilizations of the East and Western European “Faustian” or Western European civilization); 3) typological(Russia in the context of the West and East in general).

Nationally Russian culture is one of the national European cultures, which has its own special “face”, along with everyone else, starting with the ancient Hellenes, from whom the European civilizational and historical tradition comes. This specificity - its huge territory and the unified state of the Russian people, and hence the coincidence of nation and civilization.

What distinguishes Russian from eastern civilizations is Christianity and its connection with the Hellenic pan-European foundation (through Greek Byzantium); from the civilization of Western European peoples - the Orthodox character of Russian culture and the points mentioned above.

Finally, in the broadest cultural context Russia together with Western Europe is the West as opposed to the East. This determines Russia's place in the dialogue of cultures. As a geopolitical force, it has already saved European civilization twice: from the Tatar-Mongols in the Middle Ages and from its own European “plague” (fascism) in the 20th century.

But can Russia, as a spiritual force, become a “bridge” between Europe and Asia, or, moreover, between the original Christianity and the future spirituality on our planet, this is a big and complex issue. When considering the place and role of Russia in modern culture, two options for reasoning are acceptable: from world culture to Russian culture, and vice versa.

For modern culture characterized by two important features: cultural expansion of the West- in a situation of extreme secularization and at the same time universalization own culture; And struggle for cultural autonomy and identity in non-Western civilizations in the face of "modernization" and "Westernization".

Russian culture in modern times, and especially in the Soviet and post-Soviet era, has experienced a similar impact. Having discovered a significant desire to accept the standards of “Westernism” and “modernism”, which has twice already led to the collapse of the existing statehood and to a historical gap between Orthodoxy and culture.

To what extent does a culture oriented towards the scientistic-materialistic ideal of universality, internally contradictory at its core, have prospects and a future is a question that is increasingly worrying the most serious Western thinkers. Their search - in the direction of reviving the basic values ​​of Christian culture - coincides with the efforts of those Orthodox thinkers and scientists, people of art, public figures and politicians who defend not the “originality” of Russia for its own sake, but the traditional idea for Russian culture of its fundamental spirituality.

Tractina Tatyana 07/23/2015 at 17:00

Controversy discussions about where Russia belongs civilizationally (to the East or the West) have been going on for so long that they have become quite boring. Moreover, both camps find such arguments in the history of Russia that a feeling is created that everyone is right. And this makes it even more confusing. About it Pravda. Rusaid the famous television commentator and historian Andrei Svetenko.

- Andrey Sergeevich, Rus' has been oriented towards the West since ancient times. What played here main role: adoption of Christianity or political, trade interests?

Of course, the most important, system-forming, mental moment is the adoption of Christianity. This automatically drew the country and people into the orbit of Western civilization. Moreover, Rus' adopted Christianity even before the split into Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

This, naturally, laid the vector of development towards Byzantium and Europe. Naturally, the concept of Moscow as the third Rome confirms this and is built on this. Of course, initially there were also objective economic factors.

The incorporation of ancient Russian principalities is indicative. The moment of linking the economy to European processes is the famous transit route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” This shows the inclusion of Ancient Rus' in global economic processes, saying modern language about events thousands of years ago.

But this process gradually faded for a number of reasons: expansion from the East, the defeat of the Crusaders in the Middle East, then the decline and fall of Byzantium. All this strategically changed the situation in the East of Europe, from the point of view of its inclusion in economic trade processes.

You can list the names of ancient Russian princesses who were married to French kings. This is a normal process. Dynastic marriages under Yaroslav the Wise and other Kyiv princes are an indication that Ancient Rus', of course, was organic integral part quite clearly traceable European mosaic.

The most interesting thing is that in the 15th-17th centuries, including during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, Europeanization continued. Then the Great Geographical Discoveries took place, and Russia was also drawn into the orbit of global international relations.

Under the sign of European standards and values, various trade missions and representative offices appeared here, and merchant connections developed. The British began a search for the northern sea route. As a result, they learned about the port of Arkhangelsk.

Serious trade began to be carried out through him under Ivan the Terrible. At the same time, our model of statehood was borrowed at that time, mostly from the East. In Russia there is always a turning point and there is a debate going on: the state for society or society and people for the state.

In the root sense, of course, Russia is an organic part of the European world. But borderliness leads to the birth of theories to explain some kind of transitivity, betweenness: Eurasia, an attempt to connect two opposite vectors of development, revealing in the process an understanding of itself as not just a bridge between them, but something original and unique, and for which there are no common remedies for crises and problems are not suitable. Tyutchev reflected this very accurately:

“You can’t understand Russia with your mind, you can’t measure it with a common yardstick: It has become something special - You can only believe in Russia.”

This is a hindrance, it seems to me, because it is high time to understand Russia with our minds, and this is now taking place. The most interesting thing is that economic processes and the development of Russia from ancient times to modern times took place, economic policy and practice was based on understandable, sane laws that existed in Europe.

We were no different in this sense. For example, Doctor of Economic Sciences Alexander Bessolitsyn, who conducted very interesting research, speaks about this.

The only thing is that, for the sake of the concept of strong individual power, there was a process of consolidating class differences in society, and not an attempt to combine polyphony, the concept of creating some kind of system that would take into account the interests of different classes, which quite naturally suggests itself.

The line of dominance prevailed with the transfer of the powers of an arbitrator to the sovereign, based on which he, by definition, must be good and correct, and the boyars must be bad, and everyone else can be bad if they rebel. Bulat, Razin and Pugachev, peasants and Cossacks may want something wrong.

And it turns out to be a paradox. Everything that is imbued with unity, artelism, and collectivism, upon closer examination suddenly reveals the personal, private interests of the representative of each class. And in this sense, it is not correct to think that the Russian peasant is a community member, a collective farmer at heart.

He has very strong instincts, private property instincts have always been developed, and this has always manifested itself in his socio-political environment. It was the lack of opportunities to implement it that led to many unrest.

- Asia lagged significantly behind Europe and the USA, but in recent years there has been a leap that the West has never dreamed of. Why didn’t we reorient ourselves to the East in time? We are We can interact very effectively.

The scale of growth is impressive, but we must not forget about the low starting position, and not confuse the concept of the volume and scale of the economy with the indicator of growth rates. You had a ruble, it became two, your growth rate is 100 percent.

I had a million, became a million and two rubles, and I had an insignificant fraction of a percent growth. Now the first ones have arisen serious problems in the Chinese economy.

It is necessary to consume what the Chinese have produced by the Chinese themselves, to develop internal freedoms. This will, to some extent, lead to the degeneration of this socialist society into some new qualitative state, which the Chinese authorities are trying to prevent.

India is also showing strong growth rates. There, too, there is a huge scale, more than a billion population, vast territories and resources. There are three traditional factors of production: land, labor and capital.

In the East, the labor factor prevails: skill, ability, willingness to work, availability work force, which is ready to make products of acceptable quality for relatively little money.

There are certain resources in the earth, minerals. Now capital has appeared.

But the most important thing in our time is a new factor - know-how, high-tech, innovation, that is, intellectual potential. We need to work more actively in this direction, not choose between East and West, but proceed from the realities of economic feasibility.

Russian civilization: West or East? Types of civilizations

1. Ed. Balabanova A.I. – ed. with change Banks and banking. Textbook, St. Petersburg: Unity, 2005;

2. Ed. Lavrushin O.I. Banking. - M.: Banking and Exchange Information Center, 1999

3. Ed. Krolivetskaya L.P., Tikhomirova E.V. Banking. Lending activities of commercial banks. Textbook: “KnoRus”, 2009;

4. Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On banks and banking activities in the Republic of Kazakhstan”.

Geographical, natural-climatic and mental factors of Russian history

As V.O. said Klyuchevsky, “nature is the cradle of the people.” Indeed, it is the climate, soil properties, humidity and similar factors that largely shape work standards, work culture (especially in agricultural areas), and therefore the mentality of the people.

The climate on the territory of the East European Plain is sharply continental: harsh, with very long cold winters and short, cool summers. The agricultural work season begins at the end of April and ends in mid-September, i.e. very short. Productivity is low, most of the soil is generally unsuitable for cultivation. Therefore, the peasant was forced to work to the limit of his capabilities. In addition, once every 12–15 years, nature brought some “surprises” like a crop failure... Thus, the Russian work ethic was formed: you need to work a lot, hard, be able to do everything, but at the same time, irresponsibility is revealed, as well as an amazing inability to work systematically , evenly.

Natural conditions required collective efforts. Therefore, Russians have a high team mentality.

Due to the large territories, national pride was formed.

Since Russia is not surrounded on all sides by the sea, mountains, or other obstacles, it was very open to invasion. In addition, there were almost no loyal states nearby. The consequence is that most of Russian history is military history.

The country's long distance from the centers of European civilization has led to a lag in cultural development. Russia didn't have a base European culture- antiquity. The country was isolated and there was stagnation.

Also, due to the vastness of the territory and as a result of colonization, the country is multinational, multi-religious, which created certain problems in mutual understanding, but at the same time cultivated tolerance and worldly wisdom in people. Christian religion was brought to Rus' from Byzantium, so its eastern version, Orthodoxy, was adopted. And when in 1054 there was a collapse of Christianity into Orthodoxy and Catholicism, Russia remained faithful to the traditions of the “big brother”. And in general Orthodoxy is “fidelity”, “orthodoxy”. The culture of Russia is mainly religious, built on traditions and its own unique mentality.

Russian civilization: West or East? Types of civilizations

Civilization is a human community that, over a certain period of time, has stable special features in socio-political organization, economics and culture (science, technology, art, etc.), common spiritual values ​​and ideals, mentality.

Among the so-called Western countries currently include the countries of Western Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and sometimes also South Africa, Israel, Japan, etc.

Currently to countries of Eastern Europe include: Belarus, Hungary, Bulgaria, Moldova, Russia (up to 22% of the territory), Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Ukraine

As for Russia’s attitude to the Western or Eastern civilizational types, we can say that Russia does not fit completely into either the Western or the Eastern type of development. Russia has a huge territory and therefore Russia is a historically established conglomerate of peoples belonging to different types development, united by a powerful, centralized state with a Great Russian core. Russia, geopolitically located between two powerful centers of civilizational influence - East and West, includes peoples developing both Western and Eastern variants.

As a result, from the moment of its inception, Russia has absorbed a huge religious and cultural diversity of peoples living on its territory and adjacent to it. For a long time, the development of Russia was influenced by states of both eastern (Mongolia, China) and western (during the reforms of Peter I, a lot was borrowed from the Western type of development) civilizational types. Some scientists identify a separate Russian type of civilization. So it’s impossible to say exactly which civilization type Russia applies.

The concepts of “Eastern culture” and “Western culture” are very relative. Figuratively speaking, the East (which is usually understood as Asia) and the West (represented by Europe and North America) are two branches of the same tree, each developing in its own direction, at the same time, in parallel, but in different ways. Neither of them rises above the other. They have a certain similarity, but there are also enough differences. How are they different? Let's try to figure it out.

Definition

Culture of the East– the culture of countries such as China, India, Japan, as well as other Asian countries, characterized by stability, tradition, and inviolability.

Western culture– culture of European countries and North America, embodying a dynamic lifestyle, rapid development, including in the technological field.

Comparison

The man of the West, unlike the man of the East, has his own mentality, his own views on life, existence, nature and much more. The cultures of the East and West differ in religious, philosophical, scientific and other issues. Basic cultural differences between East and West are presented in the table.

Conclusions website

1. The culture of the East is characterized by sustainable historical development, The West is moving forward in spurts.
2. Western culture is characterized by a dynamic way of life; the previous value system is destroyed and another one emerges. Eastern culture is distinguished by its inviolability, non-resistance, and stability. New trends are harmoniously integrated into the existing system.
3. In Eastern culture, many religions coexist side by side. In the West, Christianity dominates.
4. Eastern culture is based on ancient customs and foundations. The West tends to loosen traditions.
5. The West is characterized by scientific, technological, rational knowledge of the world. The East is irrational.
6. Man of the Western world is cut off from nature; he commands it. The man of the East is fused with nature.