Russia and Europe

Chapter 6: How What Is National Relates to What Is Universally Human

 6  How What Is National Relates to What Is Universally Human     a  +  b  >  a   —from  simple  algebra     Usually  the  relationship  of  the  national  to  the  universal  is  presented  as  the  op-­‐‑ position  of  the  contingent  (basic,  narrow,  and  limited)  to  the  boundless  and   free,  like  a  cocoon  or  shrouding  chrysalis  that  one  must  break  through  to  en-­‐‑ ter  the  light,  or  like  a  line  of  courtyards  and  fenced  enclosures  surrounding  a   broad  square,  that  can  only  be  entered  by  breaking  through  these  partitions.   The  universal  genius  is  considered  someone  who  manages  by  the  force  of  his   own  spirit  to  break  free  from  nationality,  and  bring  himself  and  his  contem-­‐‑ poraries  (in  whatever  field  of  activity)  into  the  sphere  of  the  universal.  The   civilizational  process  of  national  development  consists  precisely  of  the  grad-­‐‑ ual   rejection   of   national   contingency   and   limitation,   to   gain   entry   into   the   realm   of   vital   universality.   So   the   contribution   of   Peter   the   Great   was   pre-­‐‑ cisely  that  he  brought  us  out  of  the  captivity  of  national  limitation  and  ush-­‐‑ ered  this  child  of  humanity  into  freedom,  or  at  least  showed  it  the  way.  This   idea  developed  among  us  in  the  1830s  and  1840s,  up  to  the  literary  pogrom  of   1848.1   Its   main   representatives   and   champions   were   Belinskii   and   Granov-­‐‑ skii;2  its  followers  were  the  so-­‐‑called  Westernizers,  which  included  almost  all   intellectuals   and   merely   educated   people   of   that   time;   its   organs   were   Ote-­‐‑ chestvennye  zapiski  and  Sovremennik;3  its  inspirations  were  German  philosophy   and  French  socialism;  its  only  opponents  were  the  outnumbered  Slavophiles,                                                                                                                             1  In  response  to  the  Revolutions  of  1848  cropping  up  across  Europe,  Tsar  Nicholas  I   launched  an  aggressive  crackdown  on  all  forms  of  apparent  subversion  within  Russia,   including   debates   of   political   and   social   questions.   Danilevskii   himself   was   impris-­‐‑ oned  and  exiled  for  his  participation  in  the  Petrashevskii  circle,  even  though  techni-­‐‑ cally  cleared  of  wrongdoing.  Rigid  censorship,  for  both  Slavophiles  and  Westernizers   alike,  remained  in  place  until  the  1860s.   2  Vissarion  Grigorievich  Belinskii  (1811–48):  Russian  literary  critic  championing  “so-­‐‑ cial  literature,”  or  fiction  exploring  social  problems.  Timofei  Nikolaevich  Granovskii   (1813–55):   Moscow   University   lecturer   on   medieval   European   history,   proponent   of   Western  ideas  and  values.     3  Otechestvennye   zapiski   (Notes   of   the   Fatherland)   and   Sovremennik   (The   Contempo-­‐‑ rary):   Literary   journals   popular   with   the   Russian   intelligentsia.   Sovremennik   became   more  radical  in  the  1850s  and  1860s,  until  shut  down  by  the  state  in  1866,  after  which   Otechestvennye  zapiski  continued  that  line,  until  shuttered  in  1884.   96 RUSSIA AND EUROPE standing  alone,  the  objects  of  laughter  and  scorn.  This  was  completely  under-­‐‑ standable.   “National”   meant   not   something   general,   but   something   specifi-­‐‑ cally  Russian-­‐‑national,  so  poor  and  insignificant,  especially  if  seen  from  a  for-­‐‑ eign  point  of  view.  And  how  could  people  not  take  a  foreign  point  of  view,   when  their  whole  education  was  drawn  from  foreign  sources?  It  took  more   than  the  normal  degree  of  courage,  independence,  and  sagacity  to  see  in  the   poor,  beggarly  guise  of  Russia  and  Slavdom  a  hidden  unique  treasure,  and  to   say  to  Russia:       Revive  the  past  in  your  heart,     And  from  its  hidden  depths       Seek  out  the  spirit  of  life!4     “Universal”   referred   to   what   had   developed   so   broadly   in   the   West,   namely  the  European,  or  the  Germanic-­‐‑Roman,  in  contrast  to  what  was  nar-­‐‑ rowly   Russian.   There   were   two   reasons   for   confusing   the   European   for   the   universal.  First,  the  universal  was  considered  neither  German  nor  French  (not   to  mention  English),  which  likewise  bore  the  imprint  of  narrow  nationalism,   but   something   transcending   national   limitations   and   seeming   all-­‐‑European.   Thus   a   generalization   had   been   made,   and   from   it   followed   a   universaliza-­‐‑ tion.  Besides,  it  was  essentially  this  already,  and  had  not  only  spread  every-­‐‑ where  superficially,  but  must  inevitably  be  completed  by  means  of  steamship,   railroad,  telegraph,  the  press,  free  trade,  and  so  on.  Here  it  was  not  under-­‐‑ stood  that  France,  England,  and  Germany  were  individual  political  entities,   but  Europe  as  a  whole  was  always  a  single  cultural  entity;  that  therefore  there   could   be   no   further   outbreak   of   national   divisiveness;   and   that   Germanic-­‐‑ Roman   civilization   had   always   been   the   common   property   of   all   the   tribes,   and  so  it  would  remain.  Secondly,  and  more  importantly,  the  recent  products   of  European  civilization  (German  philosophy  and  French  socialism,  starting   with  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man)5  had  broken  the  fetters  of  national-­‐‑ ism,  even  all-­‐‑European  nationalism,  and  in  both  scientific  theory  and  social   policy  aspired  to  concern  themselves  with  nothing  less  than  the  most-­‐‑univer-­‐‑ sally-­‐‑human  (naiobshchechelovechneishee).  German  philosophy...