ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ ТЕОРИЯ И АНАЛИТИКА АЛЕКСАНДРА ПАНАРИНА
Статья посвящена осмыслению научного и аналитического наследия одного из наиболее ярких современных мыслителей А.С. Панарина, в творчестве которого особое место занимают проблемы, возникающие в процессе межцивилизационных взаимодействий в современном мире на фоне качественного изменения глобального политического климата. Предметом исследования стал и непростой жизненный путь Панарина, и особенности его творческого метода, которые позволили ему стать основателем успешно развивающейся российской научной школы и оригинального направления политической философии, а также характерный для его творчества четко прописанный и тщательно отрефлексированный цивилизационный подход. Акцентировано внимание на наиболее продуктивном этапе работы ученого, который пришелся на период начала формирования и институционализации в постсоветской России политических наук. Особое внимание уделено последним работам Панарина, в которых раскрывается природа глобальной стратегической нестабильности и специфика православной цивилизации. ; Modern philosophical discourse, particularly on the question of Russian civilization path, is usually treated from the standpoint of philosophical works formal affiliation to Liberalism, Marxism, or Conservatism (Neo-Conservatism, Eurasianism, and Nationalism). My article examines scientific and analytical heritage of Alexander S. Panarin, who remains one of the most outstanding modern thinkers. In Panarin's works, the problems arising in process of interaction between civilizations in the modern world against the backdrop of a qualitative change in the global political climate, take a special place. In the same time, his creative work directed against a specific anti-state and anti-Russian liberalism, is cannot be unambiguously attributed either to Conservatism or to Eurasianism, or to Marxism or to Nationalism. The subjects of my investigation are Panarin's challenging path of life and peculiarities of his constructive method, which let him become the founder of a successfully developing Russian scientific school and original movement of political philosophy, as well as his clear and deeply reflected approach being typical for his work. For these purposes, I used bio-bibliographical and analytical-reading approaches, as well as comparative method, by means of which I show some common grounds of Konstantin Leontyev's conception and Alexander Panarin's philosophical views. In my article, I write about Professor Panarin's scientific biography, his pedagogical gift and manner of working with students. He was open to discussion with any student, even a freshman, helping to overcome the intellectual servitude, to get rid of fear at the adoption of the philosophical approaches. I also show the reasons for which philosopher Panarin did not become one of 'Westerners'. First, he knew the value of 'Westerners' in the countries of non-West. Those 'Westerners' are not only controlled by the West, but also nothing less than are ashamed of national identity and they are afraid of being caught in the role of conductors of national interests of their countries. Secondly, Panarin too highly valued the achievements of Western culture and scientific thought, to merge with 'obsequious Westernism' that incites the worst forces in the West, and thus leads to the emergency dramatic discredit the West in the eyes of the majority in non-Western world In my article, I focused on the most productive stage of Panarin's work during the period when process of political science's formation and institutionalization had just started in post-Soviet Russia, and I pay special attention to the latest Panarin's works revealing the nature of global strategic instability and specificity of orthodox civilization. Having analyzed in detail Panarin's writings of the last five years of his life, I conclude Panarin was belong to rare cohort of people who are called systems analyst, because he could solve problems not amenable to set of run-in methods, but he was not part of the System of total unification; he was the opponent of such System and, from this point of view, he was a conservative.