Suchergebnisse

Eurasianism, the theory that Russia was neither Europe nor Asia but a world unto itself, Eurasia, runs through much, if not all, of George Vernadsky's enormous scholarly output. Eurasianism was the fuel of his impressive productivity, the central, unifying theme of his varied investigations of Russian, Byzantine, and Inner Asian history. Despite the high esteem in which Vernadsky came to be held, there have been few examinations of his contributions to historical knowledge. Yet Vernadsky's career and his scholarship have much to tell us of the fate of the Imperial Russian historiographic tradition in the twentieth century.Vernadsky is most often associated with the theme of the significance of the Mongols in Russian history. Vernadsky's observations on this topic over the course of his nearly sixty-year career provide an excellent medium for understanding the ambiguities of his adherence to Eurasianism and for tracing the evolution of his Eurasianism in response to the different political and cultural environments in which he worked. As we shall see, the assumption of his eulogists that Vernadsky's Eurasianism was static is too simplistic, while the equally facile conclusion that Vernadsky gradually tempered the extremist elements of Eurasianism is too imprecise to be satisfactory. Indeed, the development of Vernadsky's historical concepts is far more complex than has hitherto been appreciated.

Research of the ideological foundations of Scythianism and Eurasianism underlines the conceptual affinity between these two movements, as well as their cause-and-effect relationship. These phenomena are embedded within the particular historical and social context. They are part of Russian socio-political thought during the pivotal years of the Great War and the October Revolution, and represent a medium through which we can reconstruct the prevailing "spirit of the time." Nevertheless, the focal point of this study is oriented towards the future, not the past. This is due to the fact that the ideas emanating from these movements hold a greater contemporary relevance than they did a century ago. We conclude that both Scythianism and Eurasianism are not just part of history, but rather far-reaching visions being realized before our eyes. From a contemporary perspective, the Scythians are pioneers of a "creative era" whose intuition and elan vital set Russia on a new civilizational trajectory. Their significance becomes particularly pronounced on the threshold of tectonic international changes and apocalyptic forecasts that can no longer be remedied through "political reforms", but solely through systemic changes. Similar to the period before the First World War, an avantgarde strategic culture emerges as a suitable solution, especially taking into account the dispersion of global power in the collective West.

Neo-Eurasianism as a political doctrine is a descendant of the Eurasianist thought in the interwar period and L.N. Gumilev's ethnological speculations during the Soviet era. Similarly to the oldest generation, Neo-Eurasianists, respond to the trauma of the lost empire in their thought: denying the leading position of the victorious competitor, they also deny the Western understanding of human rights. The polemic is conducted by a group of Russian visionaries, such as A. Panarin, A. Dugin, V. Korovin, as well as by much more pragmatic Kazakh theoreticians of law led by Z. Busurmanov. The Neo-Eurasianist narrative generally rejects the Lockean absolutization of inalienable individual's rights and emphasizes the communitarian aspect instead. Russian Neo-Eurasianists blame the Western ideologists for treating human rights as a diplomatic weapon against foreign independent powers and try to present the liberal concept as a speculative idea. However, contrary to the Russian tradition, the idea of individual rights is not rejected in the Kazakh legal theory; it is presented in the light of a necessity to protect the right to cultivate one's identity in the realities of a multiethnic state.

This article is dedicated to the concept of Eurasianism in the context of two approaches: Russian and Western. It will focus on how the idea of Eurasia has evolved over time first among Russian emigrants in Czechoslovakia, France and the USA in the period between the two world wars (P. Savitskii, N. Trubetskoy, G. Vernadsky), later – from the late 20th century in the USSR and in Russia itself (L. Gumilev, A. Dugin), and finally today, in the framework of Western social sciences (K. Hann). The aim of this paper is to give an indication of how this concept has served at different times and how its content has changed depending on the personality of the researcher and his worldview. The novelty of the approach is in contrasting the Russian and Western concepts of Eurasianism. The Russian perspectives speak of Eurasia within the framework of the Russian Empire or within the framework of the Soviet Union. The Western perspective is much wider than the Russian one and covers Europe and Asia. It was formed in the context of socio-anthropological research as an attempt to explain the processes taking place in post-communist countries, but it was also criticised. The fundamental question concerns its professional status – is it merely an ideological construction or does it have scientific substance?

The growing and increasingly politically active Russian Muslims of diverse ethnic backgrounds provide various political models for their relationship with Russians. Some still accept Eurasianism but assume that it is Muslims not Orthodox Russians who should be the "older brothers" in the alliance or, in any case, that the very notion of older and younger brother should be put to an end. The others want complete separation from Russia or at least the minimization of their relationship with it. Finally, others believe in the Islamization of Russia. The models provide a glance at the possible scenarios for Russia's future.

Introduction : is Russia a center or a periphery? -- Deconstructing imperial Moscow -- Postmodernist empire meets Holy Rus : how Aleksandr Dugin tried to change the Eurasian periphery into the sacred center of the world -- Illusory empire : Viktor Pelevin's parody of neo-Eurasianism -- Russia's deconstructionist westernizer : Mikhail Ryklin's "larger space of Europe" confronts Holy Rus -- The periphery and its narratives : Liudmila Ulitskaia's imagined south -- Demonizing the post-Soviet other : the Chechens and the Muslim south