Historism is in a ministry

We publish another critical review of "Materials and proposals for the project of the foundations of state cultural policy." Author, doct. philosopher. sciences Nikolai Koposov, currently teaches in the USA

It is difficult to discuss the so -called “materials and proposals” of the Ministry of Culture to the project of the Fundamentals of the State Cultural Policy: the document is completed in the genre of official notes, amazes with the wretchedness of thought and syllable and forces us to recall numerous jokes about the institution that generated it, which in the Russian tradition is firmly associated with the complete lack of culture. And yet L.S. Klein is right to discuss the document: after all, in recent years in our country the most ridiculous proposals easily acquire the power of the law.

L.S. Klein indicates a number of logical contradictions and inaccurate statements, from which anonymous authors of “materials and proposals” come. I would like to continue his analysis of the “principle of historicism” and the “civilizational principle” in the form in which they are formulated in the document.

The principle of historicism is understood as follows: "Culture is formed for a long time in the process of historical development, which is the basis of the identity of this social community."

This is an extremely simplified understanding of historicism, and also controversial. First, how does it know that the community has identity, and besides, “one” on all members of the community? What is identity? The same as culture? Then the culture “is the basis” of itself. Or, perhaps, identity - a set of differences in this "community" from others? But then how does it know that it is culture - and not economics or politics - underlies these differences? Take, for example, thief and incompetent officials - they have them with us because in Russia such a cultural code (i.e. we are all thieved and incompetent), or because we have an authoritarian regime and not fully formed institute of private property? Personally, the second explanation is closer to me. If you proceed from the first, then there is no need to fight corruption. From the red sun to sulfur Sun - they took, we take and take. We do not need European values, a rule of law and other psychological weapons to decompose Holy Rus'.

Secondly,-returning to historicism-culture is understood as a phenomenon in development, which is wonderful. It is not entirely clear how this is combined with the following statement: “The civilian core of the Russian (Russian) culture with its inherent values ​​remains unchanged throughout this period” (“From the Russian Empire through the USSR to the modern Russian Federation”).

That is, presumably, the “development process” is over, the culture has formed and is not going to change? Is this historicism? Only for those who hope that the empire is unshakable and will be forever.

No: if everything develops, then there are no unchanged entities and cannot be. There is no unprocessed time of “Russian”, it is a historically changing category. Today, the Russian is alone, and tomorrow, perhaps, it’s already completely different (it would be good if they were democratic). And development, as rightly emphasizes L.S. Klein, possible only due to the presence in each culture of "fluctuations, scattering, deviations." That is how, by the way, historicism was usually understood in the Russian intellectual tradition (for example, Shklovsky, Tynyanov, Propp).

Historism is an extremely wide concept. There was historicism of education, historicism of the German historical school, Marxist historicism, etc. The difference between them is considerable. From the authors of the official note, it is a sin to ask which of these traditions they urge to join. I will be responsible for them to this question, but a little lower.

Those names that are named in “Materials and sentences”- Danilevsky, Toynbee, Gumilev, Huntington- are given in the section on the “civilizational principle”. It is them - and only them! - Ideas are called upon to serve as a theoretical justification of state cultural policy. From the point of view of a professional historian, not one of these authors belongs to the number of scientists whose ideas retain scientific relevance. Many colleagues will say that their work generally lies outside of science. The progress of historical knowledge in the twentieth century is associated with completely different names - Bloc, February, Brodel, Hobsbaum, Thompson, Kozellek, etc. For what reason the document, born in the bowels of the Ministry of Culture, ignores the achievements of academic science and refers to, to put it mildly, intellectually problematic authors as the main theorists, it is absolutely incomprehensible. Or, rather, on the contrary: it is absolutely clear, because ignorance and nationalism often go in a couple.

In conclusion - about the main thing. The version of historicism, on which the authors of “proposals” are based, goes back to German romanticism, but most fully embodied in the extremely conservative Prussian historical school, which defended the idea of ​​the uniqueness of the “German soul” and “special path” ( Sonder - weg ) historical development of Germany. This version was adopted by the Nazis. As you know, Sonderweg was interrupted on May 9, 1945. The connection between the ideology of a special path and the “German disaster” is the most direct. From the uniqueness of the German soul, it is at hand to the blond of the beast, and from there - to the bench of the defendants in Nuremberg. After 1945, German historians and intellectuals prefer the theory of “the unity of the path of development of all races, nations and other social organisms” (which the authors of “proposals” deny).

The Russian Slavophilism of the 19th century is a “translation from German” (the then Slavophiles were in the languages). “Russia is not Europe” - re -trinkets on the topic “Germany is not Europe” (or “Germany is not the West”). Yes, yes - this is exactly what the German "Germanophiles" were expressed until the mentioned 1945. And the Russian soul in the image of the Slavophiles to the extent of indifference resembled a German soul: after all, in both cases, the main thing was not to be like soulless and utilitarian individualists - the British, French and other Americans. The Germans - Volk , and we have a people, they have - Volksseele , we have a folk soul, they have - Volksdeutsche , we have compatriots abroad, they have Geistigkeit , we have spirituality, they have - Gemeinschaft , we have a community, they have Boden , we have the soil, they have - Reich , we have a power, they have - Fuhrer , we have a leader. And everyone has continuous identity.

There were, however, and differences. The Germans already had in the 19th century Rechtsstaat , and we still do not have a rule of law.

But, fortunately, neither in Germany, nor in Russia the ideology of a special path was exhausted. Germany was ill with her, we are not yet. But the example of Germany shows what consequences this ideology is fraught with, no matter how it is covered with historicism or civilizational approach.