The neoeurasism in perception of modern historiography and views of А. Dugin on ethnogenesis of East Slavs

K. Ivangorodsky

Abstract


Introduction. After the communist ideological dictate in historiographic sphere of modern post-soviet countries failed, have been developed the new doctrines that are aimed to be the only correct in the whole humanitarian space. One of them is the concept of neoeurasism by Russian historiography. For Ukrainians this concept is only political idea, that’s why it is not perceived as the ethnohistoriographic concept in which Ukraine and Ukrainians have negative roles. Majority of critically thinking researches mark that the concept is antiscientific and it’s population among the Russians must be deep analyzed.


Purpose. The ideologize scientific model of the historical past, proposed by neoeuroasism apologists (besides A. Dugin) through the connection with the Russian classic science (for the first with the “ethnological concept” by L. Gumilyov), is based on the ethnic original and ethnohistorical evolution of East Slav’s association. From here is lined up the geopolitical model of difficult today’s relations between Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. That’s why the article aim is the analyses of modern Russian science, ideology and ethnopolitical practices cross-coupling in the context of the neoeurasism concept influence.


Results. The neoeurasism was formed in Russia in the 1990ths One of the most important tasks for classic and modern neoeurasism’ apologists is permanent “translation of empire”. Today the neoeurasism doctrine became the unfinished theoretical model of new empire construction or restoration of the Soviet empire. The most substantial foundation of their theory the neoeurasism’ apologists concider the so-called “Russian eurasis civilization”. So the Russian self-identification process leaves unfinished and obscure.


The doctrinal level and ideological construction of modern Russian neoeurasism are connected with the A. Dugin person, who till the June of the 2014th held the position of the Moscow state university international relations sociology department manager but was fared because of appeals to kill the Ukrainians. That’s why the very important problem, which is marked by modern researches, is the neoeurasism (especially by A. Dugin) sloping to neo-fascist rhetoric and ideological content. Connection between the A.Dugin ideas and fascist tendency became the subject of many discussions in Russia and Europe.


The purpose of neoeurasism researches is the attempt to prove the Eurasia mythical monolithic nature and to deny the East Slavs ethno-differentiation. This is necessary for the only Russian ethnos empire domination. Taking into account insolvency of this theory, we have to notice that modern neoeurasism do not worry about making their model heuristic valuable and vigorous.


 


Conclusion. The modern Russian neoeurasism is pretended to be the scientifically-reasonable doctrine, directed to explain the Russian past and contemporaneity originality, but must be defined as pseudo-scientific, primitive creation. A. Dugin attempts to explain the ethno-historical development of Russians as the prevailed community in Eurasia region and to induce the neighbour nations to live in Russia empire are especially bright. But without any doubt this hypothesis is unscientific and not able to analyze the East Slavs historical past.


Keywords


neoeurasism, Eurasia, doctrine, historiography, А. Dugin, ethnogenesis, East Slavs

References


1.        More detailed look our article: Ivangorodsky, K. (2015). Criticism of «ethnologic conception» of Leo Gumiliov is in modern Russian historiography. Visnyk Cherkaskogo universytetu. Seria: Istorychni nauky (Cherkasy University Bulletin. Historical Sciences Series), 9 (342), 31-42 (in Ukr.)

2.        More detailed look our article: Ivangorodsky, K. (2015). Neoeurasism as Empire speaker as to Ethno-Historiography. In V. Smoliy (Ed.). Gurzhiivski istorychni chytannia (Gurzhii’s historical reading), 10, 44-49 (in Ukr.)

3.        The completest bibliography of modern researches of classic eurasism is presented in: About Eurasia and Eurasians (1999) In А. Аntoshchenko (Ed.). Petrozavodsk (in Russ.); Bystriukov, V. (2007). In search of Eurasia. Samara, 246-271 (in Russ.); in western literature: Laruelle, M. (1999). L’ideologie eurasiste russe ou comment penser l’Empire. Paris; Wiederkehr, S. (2007). Die eurasische Bewegung: Wissenschaft und Politik in der russischen Emigration der Zwischenkriegszeit und impostsowjetischen Russland. Köln.

4.        Makarov, V.G. (2006). «Pax rossica». History of Eurasian motion and fate of Eurasians. Voprosy Filosofii (Questions of philosophy), 9, 102-118 (in Russ.)

5.        Bystriukov, V. (2008). Eurasian idea and contemporaneity. Collection of reasons. In N. Kirbaeva (Ed.) (2002), Мoscow. Ab Imperio, 1, 367-380 (in Russ.)

6.        Laruelle, M. (2009). Rethinking of the empire in post-soviet space: neoeurasism ideology. Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 1, 78-92 (in Russ.)

7.        Verkhovsky, A. & Pain, E. (2010). Civilization nationalism: the Russian version of the «special way». Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 2, 69-99 (in Russ.)

8.        Tishkov, V. (2005). «Eurasia» as metaphor and about the mission of Russian nation. VI Congress of ethnographers and anthropologists of Russia. Saint Petersburg, 22-28 (in Russ.)

9.        Trenin, D. (2012). Post-imperium: Eurasian history. Мoscow: ROSSPEN (in Russ.)

10.     Dugin A. (2014). Begun war! Call to the world is treachery! (Video-conference from May, 6 2014) Retrieved from www.anna-news.info/node/15794 (in Russ.)

11.     Allensworth, W. (1998). The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization and Post-Communist Russia. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

12.     Umland, A. (2003). Forming of fascist «Neoeurasian» intellectual motion in Russia. Way of Alexander Dugin from marginal extremist to the inspirer of post-soviet academic and political elite (1989-2001). Ab Imperio, 3, 289-304 (in Russ.)

13.     The components of Neoeurasian of А. Dugin are contained in many his books, in particular: Dugin, A. (1996). Mysteries of Eurasia. Мoscow; Dugin, A. (2000). Bases of geopolitics. Geopolitical future of Russia. To think Space. Мoscow; Dugin, A. (2002). Bases of eurasism: anthology. Мoscow; Dugin, A. (2004). Project Eurasia. Мoscow; Dugin, A. (2009). Fourth political theory. Russia and political ideas of the XXI century. Saint Petersburg; Dugin, A. (2014). Geopolitics of Russia. Moscow (in Russ.)

14.     Hielscher, K. (1993). Der Eurasismus: Die neoimperiale Ideologie der russischen «Neuen Rechten». Die Neue Gesellschaft: Frankfurter Hefte, 40, 5, 465-469; Shlapentokh, D. (2001) Russian Nationalism Today: The Views of Alexander Dugin. Contemporary Review, 279 (1626), 29-37; Ingram, A. (2001). Alexander Dugin: Geopolitics and Neo-Fiscism in Post-Soviet Russia. Political Geography, 20, 8, 1029-1051; Mathyl, M. (2002). Der «unaufhaltsame Aufstieg» des Aleksandr Dugin: Neo-Nationalbolschewismus und Neue Rechte in Russland. Osteuropa, 52, 7, 885-900.

15.     Wiederkehr, S. (2004). «Kontinent Evrasija»: Klassischer Eurasismus und Geopolitik in der Lesart Alexander Dugin. Auf der Suche nach Eurasiien: Politik, Religion und Alltagskultur zwischen Russland und Europa. In M. Kaiser (Ed.). Bielefeld, 25-138; Umland, A. (2004). Kulturhegemoniale Strategien der russischen extremen Rechten: Die Verbindung von faschistischer Ideologie und metapolitischer Taktik im «Neoeurasismus» des Aleksandr Dugin. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 33, 4, 437-454.

16.     Shekhovtsev, А. & Umland, A. (2010). Philosophia Perennis and «neoeurasism»: role of integral traditionalism in the utopian constructions of Alexander Dugin. Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 2, 169-186 (in Russ.)

17.     Umland, A. (2012). «Eurasian» projects of Putin and Dugin – likenesses and distinctions. Geopolitika (Lithuania). Retrieved from www.e-ices.org/russian/print/textid:15423 (in Russ.)

18.     Diunov, M. (2008) Russian Nomad. Russkiy Zhurnak (Russian Magazine), 5, 17-25 (in Russ.)

19.     Wiederkehr, S. (2010). «Continent Eurasia»: classic eurasism and geopolitician in exposition of Alexander Dugin. Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 1, 5-14 (in Russ.)

20.     Umland, A. (2012). Two-headed Eurasia. Kritika, 7-8, 28-29 (in Ukr.)

21.     Pahlevska, O. (2011). Neoeurasism, crisis of the Russian identity and Ukraine (Part I). Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 1, 49-86 (in Russ.)

22.     Pahlevska, O. (2011). Neoeurasism, crisis of the Russian identity and Ukraine (Part II). Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 2, 127-156 (in Russ.)

23.     Senderov, V. (2009). Neoeurasism: reality, dangers, prospects. Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 1, 127-156 (in Russ.)

24.     Senderov, V. (2009). Project Russia against Russian europeism: concerning one having a large circulation book. Voprosy Filosofii (Questions of Philosophy), 2, 20-29 (in Russ.)

25.     Limonov, E. (2009). Man of short will. Ideas about a former comrade-in-arms. Retrieved from www.laertsky.com/sk/sk_026.htm (in Russ.)

26.     Murphy, D.T. (1997). The Heroic Earth. Geopolitical Thouth in Weimar Germany. 1918–1933. Kent, from: Glebov, S. (2003). Borders of empire as borders of modern. An anti-colonial rhetoric and theory of cultural types are in eurasism. Ab Imperio, 2, 267-291 (in Russ.)

27.     Lux, L. (2009). Eurasian ideology is in the European context. Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 1, 39-56 (in Russ.)

28.     Umland, A. & Bredis, I. (2009). Post-soviet paradox: democracy in Ukraine, autocracy in Russia. Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 2, 207-210 (in Russ.)

29.     Laruelle, M. (2009). Alexander Dugin, ideological mediator: confluence of different doctrines of right-radical political spectrum. Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 2, 63-87 (in Russ.)

30.     Dugin, A. (1994). Conservative Revolution. Moscow. Retrieved from http://arctogaia.org.ru.e2.gfns.net/article/20 (in Russ.)

31.     Hirsch, F. (2005). Empire and Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union. Ithaka; London: Cornell University Press.

32.     Beissinger, М. (2008). The Phenomenon of reproduction of empire in Eurasia. Ab Imperio, 1, 157-176 (in Russ.)

33.     Bassin, M. (2003). «Classical» Eurasianism and the Geopolitics of Russian Identity. Ab Imperio, 2, 257-266.

34.     Panarin, A. (2001). Orthodox civilization in the global world (fragments from a book). Moskva (Moscow), 3, 128-140 (in Russ.)

35.     Panarin, A. (2014). Orthodox civilization. Moscow (in Russ.)

36.     Kirdina, S. (2014). Institutional matrices and development of Russia: introduction to Х- Y- theory. Saint Petersburg (in Russ.)

37.     The program of political party «Eurasia» (2002). Materials of constituent convention. Moscow (in Russ.)

38.     Dugin, A. (2002). Bases of eurasism: anthology. Мoscow (in Russ.)

39.     Shnirelman, V. (2009). Eurasia or Europe? Role of Ukraine in Eurasian and Eurasia in Ukrainian discource. Forum noveishei vostochnoevropeyskoy istorii i kultury (Forum of the newest East Europe history and culture), 1, 125-147 (in Russ.)

40.     Glebov, S. (2003). Borders of empire as borders of modern. An anti-colonial rhetoric and theory of cultural types in eurasism. Ab Imperio, 2, 267-291 (in Russ.)

41.     Masnenko, V. (2001). Historical idea and nationhood in Ukraine (end of ХІХ first third of ХХ century). Кyiv; Cherkasy (in Ukr.)

42.     Artiuh, V. (2005). Eurasism contra ukrainism: about a discussion between М. Trubetskoy and D. Doroshenko. Ukraine in the context of eurointegration. Sumy, 181-182 (in Ukr.)

43.     Hobsbawm, E. (1990). Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.     Grant, B. (2011). We all Eurasian. Ab Imperio, 4, 21-34 (in Russ.)

45.     Dugin, A. (2000). Bases of geopolitics. Geopolitical future of Russia. To think Space. Мoscow. Retrieved from http://konservatizm.org/konservatizm/books/130909045213.xhtml (in Russ.)

46.     Dugin, A. (2002). Evolution of national idea of Rus’ (Russia) on the different historical stages. Bases of eurasism: anthology. Мoscow, 716-743 (in Russ.)

 

47.     Dugin, A. (2002). Slavic world and basic tendencies of geopolitics. Bases of eurasism: anthology. Мoscow, 744-758 (in Russ.)


Full Text: PDF (Русский)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
Archive
2014 22   29 Том 328
2015 9   22 29
2016 1   02 3-4
2017 1 2 3 4
2018 1 2 3-4

User

Journal Content

Browse

Language