State-Civilization: From Eurasianism toward Byzantinism
Today’s economic and sociocultural globalization weakens the positions of traditional nation-states. Russia, with its past as an empire, is facing questions about its identity and structural organization. Can Russia be considered a part of some existing civilization or an independent civilization itself? What grounds Russian civilization (if such an entity exists) must be founded upon? The answers to these questions have the direct influence on the development of Russian relationships with other modern civilizations. Many post-Soviet philosophers, historians, and political scientists are concerned with Russia’s future and the ways of its better shaping. Prof. Alexander Panarin (1940-2003), D.Phil, Head of the Chair of Political Science (Philosophical Department of Moscow State University) also dealt with the above issues. The subject of my research is evolution of Panarin’s views on the ‘must-be’ basic elements of Russia’s formation in today’s world. For analyzing it, I have used: (i) historical method (I examine Panarin’s views in their chronological development); (ii) comparative method (I intercompare Panarin’s ideas of different times to trace their evolution); (iii) systematic method (among the post-Soviet researchers, there are no less than 5 different points of view regarding the development of Russia; so I study Panarin’s position as a part of the above variety of views). In my article, I outline two major stages in evolution of Panarin’s ideas. The first is connected with the position of Eurasianism. At that time Panarin considered Russia’s future to be a civilization state with strong centralized power and adoption of Eurasian values. Foundation for such values Panarin saw in the main texts of Russian Orthodoxy and Islam. The second stage of Panarin’s views evolving is their association with Byzantinism position. Byzantine version of civilization state still includes as its key elements strong government and religious values but also adds civil society to it. As for the values, Panarin limits them to the Russian Orthodox views only. In my conclusion, I stress the significance of Panarin’s contribution into the development of the concept of ‘civilization state’. I also point out the importance of Panarin’s ideas of the leading role of spiritual heritage for any civilization state, the peculiarity of the Russian Orthodox civilization, and the emergence of the new territorial entities on the map of the modern world. I think they all are relevant to the modern Russian quest for its successful future.