T.A. Parchomenko: Intellektual’naja ėlita v kontekste russkoj istorii XIX–XX vv. [Die intellektuelle Elite im Kontext der russischen Geschichte des 19.–20. Jahrhunderts] Hrsg. von T. A. Parchomenko. Moskva: Rosspėn, 2012. 318 S. Aktual’naja kul’turologija. ISBN: 978-5-8243-1415-1

T.A. Parchomenko: Intellektual’naja ėlita v kontekste russkoj istorii XIX–XX vv. [Die intellektuelle Elite im Kontext der russischen Geschichte des 19.–20. Jahrhunderts] Hrsg. von T. A. Parchomenko. Moskva: Rosspėn, 2012. 318 S. Aktual’naja kul’turologija. ISBN: 978-5-8243-1415-1.

One of the most prominent and distinctive features of the Russian intellectual landscape as it emerges from the wreckage of the communist era has been the amorphous discipline known as culturology. By and large, westerners have found the mixture, claiming to combine a vague cultural analysis with ‘science’, national identity politics and Orthodox religion, to be a little too rich. In return, culturology has often appeared to be dismissive of the west, though it references some of the west’s major thinkers. It has also been seen to be assertively Russian nationalist, in a slavophile and Eurasian mode, which lauds the Russian ethnos but looks down on others. It is said to refuse recognition of the Judaic tradition to the point of being overtly anti-Semitic, though other critics would claim that it treats all other non-Orthodox religions in much the same way. Does this volume, published under the prestigious banner of Rosspen, fit the stereotype or confound it? First of all it does not wear its culturological provenance on its sleeve in that neither the title nor the brief resumé and introduction mention it. However, the first of the book’s two sections and a glance at its contributors page proclaims it as a product of the Russian Institute of Culturology and a small tab on the front cover categorises it as “aktualnaia kulturologiia” (actual culturology) The first section is devoted to The Intellectual Elite as a Culturological Problem and the second to The Place of the Intellectual Elite in the Spiritual Life of Russia in the XIX–XX Centuries: Ideas and Personnel (Personalii). Experienced observers will already see warning signs beginning to appear.

It is the fate of many books such as this on the Russian intelligentsia, to spend an inordinate amount of time defining the basic terms in a way that seldom seems comprehensive and satisfactory. This volume is no exception. In a very brief but absorbing and mercifully clear introduction, V.L. Rabinovich, an elder statesman of Russian cultural analysis, identifies three key characteristics. As respected intellectual achievers, characterised by their sensitivity to the plight of those less well-off than themselves, the intellectual elite are distinguished first, through being masters of their field; second, speaking excellent Russian, their native language, and, third, being happy. No suicidal melancholy for these bright people, nor, apparently, is there room for ethnic minorities. However, at least Rabinovich conforms to his ideal of clear, excellent language. Proceeding further into the volume this welcome characteristic becomes decidedly fuzzy. In accordance with the usual practice of culturology the inquiry into definition largely eschews socio-political and economic elements. The opening chapter delves into the linguistic roots of the terminology, especially in Latin antecedents. It is especially obfuscatory on what “intellect” is. The author, K.Z. Akopian, “resolutely confronts” any attempt to define intellect in any way that can be “quantitatively measured” and also confronts “the fixation on levels of development of the intellect of the individual (including by so-called IQ)”. Intellect is “very close” to what Vygotsky called “smart emotions” (umnye emotsii). Intellect is “the fullness of the individual’s capabilities” or “the exhaustive completeness of his [sic] spiritual inclinations and psychological capabilities”. (p. 18) There is worse to come. Exploring the far from self-evident term “The Elite of Time” O.K. Rumiantsev starts out from Karl Jasper’s concept of the Axial Age as a formative moment in the history of spirituality and, for Rumiantsev, the moment of “the acquisition by humanity of targeted transcendence” (p. 32) and runs through that history to arrive at postmodernism via the rhetorical and modern epochs only fourteen pages later. Such sweeping runs through the empirically vague, partly in the name of science (if not of clarity) are reminiscent of some of the equally vast and heady intellectual draughts from the theosophy of the Silver Age and Spengler. Rumiantsev’s selection, on no apparent basis, of reason, will and talent as the three basic human capabilities and their orientation towards the pursuit of truth, the good and beauty (p. 28) are also reminiscent of that earlier time.

It is with some relief that one turns from these fundamental socio-philosophical journeys to more mainstream methodologies. In a survey of approaches to defining the intelligentsia A.V. Kvakin goes as far as to say, quite correctly, that “paradoxically” (why so?) some of the most serious research on the Russian intelligentsia has frequently appeared outside the Fatherland. Stuart Finkel is justifiably referenced here, but no one else. He also uses the excellent work of Jan Szczepański who, he claims, distinguished three categories of intellectual and creative intelligentsia based on the pursuit of truth and justice; popularisation and the development of ideologies and, third, as a social layer of highly-educated people having decisive importance for the development of culture.

The remainder of the volume follows this more accessible form of argument and roots itself in well-trodden paths of discussion of Russia’s intellectual history from the early nineteenth century. Some contributors engage somewhat with non-Russian historiography but, for the most part, they only look beyond Russia’s boundaries occasionally. Irritatingly, as in other spheres in this transitional time, they sometimes appear to be re-inventing the wheel.

The most interesting aspect of the volume as a whole is the weaving together of a new “Russian idea” which, by and large, skips the Soviet era, though, and not all culturological schools do this, it does pay some attention to late Soviet-era dissidents. It picks up threads from the Silver Age plus largely émigré-developed strains such as Eurasianism. The authors, like many Russian intellectuals before them, certainly believe their work to be of vital importance. Rabinovich claims that the war in Chechnia would have been avoided had its supporters been familiar with Tolstoy’s Haji Murat. It was not read because Russia’s current elite did not finish at the gymnasium and, consequently, philistinism (khamstvo) is the order of the day (p. 5). For S.I. Ryzhakova, under pressure of globalisation and an oligarchy which has cleaned the country out and exported its capital and wealth, the current crisis arose because of a lack of spirituality and religiosity. Getting Russia out of the cul-de-sac depends on the intellectual elite bringing its ideas to life and nurturing an electorate capable of understanding those views. (p. 99–100) Case studies draw on Russia’s past with a view to illustrating how this might be done. They range from the influence of Orthodoxy on XIX century intellectuals and pass through Eurasianism, Danilevsky and broad issues of religion and Russian society. They are all stimulating if rather inward-looking in places. Overall, this volume is perhaps weighed down by its vague, sweeping underpinnings but rises above them when the discussion turns to the more concrete, but what chance is there of the masses looking towards even a perfected (?) ivory tower for guidance?

Christopher Read, Coventry