The ideology of autocracy. The formation of liberalism. Slavophiles and Westerners

After the defeat of the Decembrist uprising, a series of reactions began in the country. Nicholas I, who came to power in December 1825, during his thirty-year reign (1825-1855) constantly sought to strengthen autocratic power and suppress all freethinking. The Nikolaev regime relied on a certain social base - landowners and bureaucracy of all ranks and ranks. A vivid idea of ​​the worldview of the privileged classes is given by the notes of one of the largest figures of the Nicholas era - the manager of the III department, Leonty Vasilyevich Dubelt.

In his notes, L.V. Dubelt wrote that “the first duty of an honest man is to love his Fatherland above all else and to be the most faithful subject of his sovereign.” For Dubelt, the concepts of Fatherland and autocracy completely merged: without a tsar, in his opinion, there could be no Russia. Dubelt considered serfdom to be the key to the prosperity of Russia, along with autocracy. “God forbid,” he writes, “that serfdom should be abolished: the “peasant” may be happy at first, but then, having lost his head from the magic word “freedom,” he will want to try his luck in another place, go wandering around the cities, where he loses his holy morality, and perishes...” At the same time, he recognized the need for enlightenment. True enlightenment, in his opinion, should be based on religion.

Dubelt saw one of the most important tasks of the supreme power in a ruthless fight against any manifestations of “false” Western enlightenment; he proposed to isolate himself ideologically, to establish an impenetrable quarantine for “foreign teachings” seeking to penetrate Russian society and corrupt it.

In the early 30s. XIX century An ideological justification for the reactionary policies of the autocracy was born - the theory of "official nationality". The author of this theory was the Minister of Public Education, Count S.A. Uvarov. In 1832, in a report to the Tsar, he put forward a formula for the foundations of Russian life: “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality.” At its core is the point of view that autocracy is the historically established foundation of Russian life; Orthodoxy is the moral basis of the life of the Russian people; nationality is the unity of the Russian Tsar and the people, protecting Russia from social cataclysms. The Russian people exist as a single whole only insofar as they remain faithful to the autocracy and submit to the paternal care of the Orthodox Church. Any speech against the autocracy, any criticism of the church was interpreted by Uvarov as actions directed against the fundamental interests of the people.

Uvarov argued that education can not only be a source of evil and revolutionary upheavals, as happened in Western Europe, but can turn into a protective element. Therefore, all “ministers of education in Russia were asked to proceed exclusively from considerations of the official nationality.” Thus, tsarism sought to preserve and strengthen the existing system.

In Nikolaev Russia it became almost impossible to fight for socio-economic and political transformations. Attempts by Russian youth to continue the work of the Decembrists were unsuccessful. Student circles of the late 1820s - early 1830s. were few in number, weak and subject to defeat.

In conditions of reaction and repression against revolutionary ideology, liberal thought received widespread development. In reflections on the historical destinies of Russia, its history, its present and future, two most important ideological movements of the 40s were born. XIX century: Westernism and Slavophilism. Representatives of the Slavophiles were I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin, K.A. Aksakov and many others. The most outstanding representatives of Westerners were P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, A.I. Goncharov, I.S. Turgenev, P.A Chaadaev and others. On a number of issues they were joined by A.I. Herzen and V.G. Belinsky.

Both Westerners and Slavophiles were ardent patriots, firmly believed in the great future of their Motherland, and sharply criticized Nicholas's Russia.

Slavophiles and Westerners were especially harsh against serfdom. Moreover, Westerners - Herzen, Granovsky and others emphasized that serfdom was only one of the manifestations of the arbitrariness that permeated the entire life of Russia. After all, the “educated minority” suffered from unlimited despotism and was also in the “fortress” of power, of the autocratic-bureaucratic system.

While converging on criticism of Russian reality, Westerners and Slavophiles sharply diverged in their search for ways to develop the country. The Slavophiles, rejecting contemporary Russia, looked at modern Europe with even greater disgust. In their opinion, the Western world has outlived its usefulness and has no future (here we see a certain commonality with the theory of “official nationality”).

Slavophiles defended the historical identity of Russia and singled it out as a separate world, opposed to the West due to the peculiarities of Russian history, Russian religiosity, and Russian stereotypes of behavior. The Slavophiles considered the Orthodox religion, opposed to rationalistic Catholicism, to be the greatest value. For example, A.S. Khomyakov, wrote that Russia is called to become the center of world civilization; it strives not to be the richest or most powerful country, but to become “the most Christian of all human societies.” The Slavophiles paid special attention to the countryside, believing that the peasantry carries within itself the foundations of high morality, that it has not yet been spoiled by civilization. Slavophiles saw great moral value in the village community with its gatherings making unanimous decisions, with its traditional justice in accordance with customs and conscience.

Slavophiles believed that Russians had a special attitude towards the authorities. The people lived, as it were, in a “contract” with the civil system: we are community members, we have our own life, you are the government, you have your own life. K. Aksakov wrote that the country has an advisory voice, the power of public opinion, but the right to make final decisions belongs to the monarch. An example of this kind of relationship can be the relationship between the Zemsky Sobor and the Tsar during the period of the Moscow State, which allowed Russia to live in peace without shocks and revolutionary upheavals such as the Great French Revolution. Slavophiles associated the “distortions” in Russian history with the activities of Peter the Great, who “opened a window to Europe” and thereby violated the agreement, the balance in the life of the country, and led it astray from the path outlined by God.

Slavophiles are often classified as a political reaction due to the fact that their teaching contains three principles of “official nationality”: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. However, it should be noted that the Slavophiles of the older generation interpreted these principles in a very unique way: by Orthodoxy they understood a free community of Christian believers, and they viewed the autocratic state as external form, which enables people to devote themselves to the search for “inner truth.” At the same time, the Slavophiles defended autocracy and did not attach much importance to the cause of political freedom. At the same time, they were staunch democrats, supporters of spiritual freedom of the individual. When Alexander II ascended the throne in 1855, K. Aksakov presented him with a “Note on the Internal State of Russia,” in which he reproached the government for suppressing moral freedom, which led to the degradation of the nation. Extreme measures, he pointed out, can only make the idea of ​​political freedom popular among the people and generate a desire to achieve it through revolutionary means. In order to prevent such a danger, Aksakov advised the tsar to grant freedom of thought and speech, as well as to bring back to life the practice of convening zemstvo councils. The ideas of providing the people with civil liberties and the abolition of serfdom occupied an important place in the works of the Slavophiles. It is not surprising, therefore, that censorship often subjected them to persecution and prevented them from freely expressing their thoughts.

Westerners, unlike the Slavophiles, assessed Russian originality as backwardness. From the point of view of Westerners, Russia, like most other Slavic peoples, was, as it were, outside of history for a long time. They saw the main merit of Peter I in the fact that he accelerated the process of transition from backwardness to civilization. Peter's reforms for Westerners are the beginning of Russia's entry into world history.

At the same time, they understood that Peter's reforms were associated with many costs. Herzen saw the origins of most of the most disgusting features of contemporary despotism in the bloody violence that accompanied Peter's reforms. Westerners emphasized that Russia and Western Europe were following the same historical path. Therefore, Russia should borrow the experience of Europe. They saw the most important task in achieving the liberation of the individual and creating a state and society that would ensure this freedom. Westerners considered the “educated minority” to be a force capable of becoming the engine of progress.

Despite all the differences in assessing the prospects for Russia's development, Westerners and Slavophiles had similar positions. Both of them opposed serfdom, for the liberation of peasants with land, for the introduction of political freedoms in the country, and the limitation of autocratic power. They were also united by a negative attitude towards the revolution; they advocated a reformist path to solving the main social issues of Russia. In the process of preparing the peasant reform of 1861, Slavophiles and Westerners entered into a single camp of liberalism. The disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles had great importance for the development of socio-political thought. They were representatives of the liberal-bourgeois ideology that arose among the nobility under the influence of the crisis of the feudal-serf economic system.

The liberal ideas of Westerners and Slavophiles took deep roots in Russian society and had a serious influence on subsequent generations of people who were looking for a path to the future for Russia. Their ideas continue to live today in disputes about what Russia is - a country destined for the messianic role of the center of Christianity, the third Rome, or a country that is part of all humanity, part of Europe, which is following the path of world-historical development.

In the 40s of the XIX century. In Ukraine, two main directions in socio-political thought are taking shape: liberal-democratic and revolutionary-democratic. The ideologists of the liberal-democratic trend were: Nikolai Kostomarov, Vladimir Antonovich, Mikhail Drahomanov and others, and the revolutionary-democratic - Sergei Podolinsky, Taras Shevchenko, Ivan Franko, Lesya Ukrainka and others. A clear demarcation into two leading directions was also evident in the first secret political organization in Ukraine - in the activities of the Cyril and Methodius Partnership. This organization arose in Kyiv at the end of 1845 - beginning of 1846. and set as its goal the creation of a Slavic democratic federation led by Ukraine. The founders of the partnership were a professor at Kyiv University Nikolay Kostomarov, student Basil Belozersky and official, governor general Nikolay Gulak. Taras Shevchenko took an active part in the activities of the partnership. The organization did not last long. The tsarist government discovered and destroyed the Cyril and Methodius Partnership, and Taras Shevchenko was arrested for revolutionary activities and in 1847 was forced into soldiery.

The main ideas of the organization and its program provisions are set out in the “Book of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People” and the “Charter of the Slavic Fellowship of Saints Cyril and Methodius”. The partnership set as its goal the national and social liberation of Ukraine: the elimination of serfdom, class privileges, the proclamation of freedom of conscience, etc. It was assumed that the Slavic federation would include Ukraine, Russia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Serbia, and Bulgaria. The highest legislative power was to belong to the bicameral Sejm, and the executive power to the president. The members of the partnership sought to discover a political ideal, the implementation of which would first of all bring freedom to Ukraine.

In the second half of the 19th century. creativity occupies a prominent place in the history of socio-political thought of Ukraine Mikhail Drahomanov(1841-1895). His socio-political concept combined socialist ideas of social equality and justice with bourgeois-democratic ideas of constitutional law, broad local self-government, the need for political struggle, etc.

The essence of his program of political struggle for Ukrainians was to achieve political reforms, democratization and federalization within Russia and Austria-Hungary, and Galicia was to become the center of this national struggle. He believed that national rights could be achieved on the basis of political freedoms - the more political freedoms, the more national rights.

One of the representatives of the revolutionary democratic trend in the political thought of Ukraine was I. Franko(1856-1916). He was a socialist, but did not advocate the dictatorship of the proletariat, and focused attention not on class, but on universal human values. Socialism, according to I. Franko, should be based on broad self-government. The thinker advocated the equality of all nations and believed that the best solution The national problem would be the creation of state associations of a mixed (federal-confederal) type, the basis of which would be solidarity of interests.

The political thought of Russia is unique in comparison with the European socio-political tradition. This uniqueness is due to two important circumstances. Firstly, special geographical location Russia (between West and East), and, secondly, in comparison with the advanced countries of Europe, Russia was at a higher early stage political development.

In our country, a market economy was combined with elements of a feudal system; politically, an absolute monarchy was preserved. The ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity contradicted the existing Russian life, therefore, the advanced strata of society demanded the liberation of the people from serfdom and tyranny. Around the idea of ​​freedom throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. The spiritual and moral foundations of the life of the Russian intelligentsia were formed.

These features of the evolution of Russian political thought were reflected in specific political theories and actions. At the beginning of the 19th century. For the first time, an organized group of Russian intellectuals of a radical orientation - the Decembrists - entered the arena of political struggle.

The basis of the Decembrists' views on society and man were the ideas of the Enlightenment about natural equality, about slavery as a result of violation of natural law. The Decembrists called for the creation of a civil society, basing it on respect for human and civil rights. In “Russian Truth” P.I. Pestel (1723-1826) put forward such far-reaching political and social ideas, such as the abolition of serfdom, the proclamation of Russia as a republic, the elimination of estates, freedom of the press and religion, the involvement of peasants in governing the country, the inviolability of private property.

By 1840-1850 refers to the dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners that has survived to this day. The Slavophiles (I. Kireevsky, A. Aksakov, Yu. Samarin) proceeded from the idea of ​​Russian identity, in which they saw not only independence from the West, but also a condition for the revival of the Russian spirit.

In approaches to state structure In Russia, the Slavophiles proceeded from the need to preserve autocracy, the strength of which they saw in fidelity to popular principles - Orthodoxy and nationality. Negatively assessing the activities of Peter I as a pro-Western politician, the Slavophiles at the same time advocated for a strong autocrat similar to Peter. While remaining opponents of political violence, the Slavophiles believed that Peter introduced an element of violence into Russian history, divided the classes, and became the culprit of class enmity, previously unknown to Russian society.

An important feature of Slavophile ideology was the desire to reconcile the interests of all classes of Russian society and achieve social harmony. Some ideologists saw the basis for such agreement in Orthodoxy, others - in general outline Russian national character.

The basis of liberal thought in Russia was the ideas of Westernism (A. Herzen, V. Belinsky, etc.), which connected the future Russian society with the assimilation of the achievements of Western civilization. Some Westerners proceeded from the possibility of reforming Russian reality from above, opposing the peasant revolution and generally rejecting the revolutionary idea. Another part of the Westerners took the position of revolutionary democracy.

The most significant role in the development of political thought in 1850-1860. played by A.I. Herzen (1812-1870). It is known that Herzen went through a difficult path of evolution of his political views, having survived in the late 40s. a kind of “spiritual drama” associated with the transition from the liberal camp to the revolutionary democrats. Herzen found a way out of this personal drama by understanding the idea of ​​“Russian socialism.” Herzen believed that socialism would provide the most correct and reasonable organization of economic life, and associated the establishment of socialism with the destruction of private property.

How did Herzen see the transition to socialism? Recognizing the desire for a “revolution without bloody means,” Herzen came to understand the need for a social revolution, thereby becoming one of the creators of populism.

Political thought of the early 20th century. was largely influenced by the idea of ​​reconciliation and harmonization of warring forces, the unity of the Russian intelligentsia and people for the benefit of Russia.

The ideas of non-violence, universal brotherhood based on the fusion of the intelligentsia with the people were developed in the works of the prominent Russian philosopher and public figure Nik. Fed. Fedorov (1828-1903). The thinker considered the unity of knowledge and action, theory and practice to be a condition for the transformation of social relations. Fedorov defined the social structure as a “common cause,” as a kind of ideal human association, a large family, closely connected by the bonds of common ancestors and a common destiny. Fedorov developed and regulated in detail the internal life of the community - from birth and baptism for the “common cause”, education carried out by the entire community, to marriage and burial.

The October Revolution of 1917 and the tragic events of Russian history that followed it led to the fact that Russian political thought began to develop in two main areas: 1) in Russian reality, the Bolshevization of spiritual life after the capture political power; 2) in foreign conditions, where it was possible to preserve Russian independent political science and its spiritual and moral foundations. Public figures Russian diaspora raised in their works themes of great social and spiritual significance - the role of Orthodoxy in the development of Russian spiritual culture, the national self-awareness of the Russian people, i.e. addressed such problems, the study of which in Soviet Russia it was impossible.

On the social and cultural life of Russia first half of the 19th century V. two events in the history of the country had a huge impact - Patriotic War 1812 and the Decembrist movement. They played a decisive role in the development of public consciousness and influenced government policy in the field of culture. These events left their mark on many areas of artistic culture.

The era of 1812 is an important stage in the development of national identity. The general ideological atmosphere of the pre-war years and the period of the Patriotic War caused an unprecedented patriotic upsurge in the country. The successful completion of the war was perceived by contemporaries as a national victory that prevented foreign enslavement. V. G. Belinsky wrote about 1812. as about the era with which "began new life for Russia", emphasizing that the matter is not only "in external greatness and splendor", but above all in the internal development in society of "citizenship and education", which were "the result of this era."

Associated with the growth of national self-awareness is interest in one’s own history, which especially increased at this time. A fact of enormous cultural significance was the “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin, the first 8 volumes of which were published in 1818. Karamzin was the first historian whom the public began to read.

The era of 1812 also gave rise to a fairly widespread religious quest among some secular and spiritual leaders in Russia. The government, represented by Alexander I, at that time adhered in its confessional policy to the principle of religious tolerance towards all religions on an equal basis with Orthodoxy.

The performance of the noble revolutionaries in December 1825 was undoubtedly an important milestone in the social and cultural life of the country. A.I. Herzen wrote that the Decembrists “awakened the soul of the new generation.” The desire to comprehend and understand the ideas of the noble revolutionaries, to accept or reject them contributed to the activation of the spiritual life of the intellectual strata of Russian society and the emergence of new guidelines in the official ideology.

For social thought of the 18th - early 19th centuries. Russia's belonging to Western Europe was an obvious fact. Now, after the events of December 14, 1825, the awareness of this spiritual-intellectual connection began to be perceived sharply critically by the official authorities. In government documents (Manifesto of July 13, 1826, “Report of the Commission of Inquiry”) Decembrism was declared “an infection introduced from outside,” and the opposition of Russia to Western Europe was elevated to the principle of official ideology. The idea of ​​the superiority of autocratic, Orthodox Russia over the “rotting” West has become one of the components theories of the official nationality.

In the socio-economic life of the country in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. The processes that testified to the crisis of the feudal-serf system, the further development of the capitalist way of life, and the deepening of social differentiation became more and more clearly visible.

Massive use of technology associated with the industrial revolution, i.e. the transition of manufactory to factory was a qualitatively new moment in the development of productive forces. The birth of domestic mechanical engineering dates back to this time. The factories produced steam engines, working machines and mechanisms, mainly for textile enterprises. In 1831, the first mechanical establishment for the production of agricultural machines arose in Russia.

Steam engines began to be used in transport. In 1815, the first steamship appeared on the Neva. Railway construction began in the late 1930s. The railway connection between Moscow and St. Petersburg, opened in 1851, was of great importance for the development of internal economic relations.

But still in the first half of the 19th century. the main mode of transport remained horse-drawn and water, and the main routes of communication were dirt roads and rivers. By 1861, there were only about 1.5 thousand versts of railway tracks in Russia, which was very insignificant for the vast expanses of the country.

The ideas of national identity, used by the official ideology, began to be applied in the cultural policy of the government, primarily in relation to the education and enlightenment system. To protect Russia from shocks Western Europe and their consequences were supposed to “multiply, wherever possible, the number of mental dams.” This was the opinion of the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov in the early 30s.

Already in the last decade of the reign of Alexander I in school education The influence of the church and religion increased. In 1817, the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education was created, headed by A. N. Golitsyn, chairman of the St. Petersburg Bible Society. In 1819, departments of “knowledge of God and Christian teaching” were established in all Russian universities and a theology course was introduced. In the 18th century the absence of theology in the curriculum of Moscow University distinguished it from other European universities. IN primary schools The study of the book “On the Positions of Man and Citizen” was prohibited, the beginnings of natural history and technology were excluded from the course of district schools, and courses in geography and history were reduced. “Sciences that refine the mind do not constitute the well-being of the people without faith and without morality; teaching the entire people to read and write would bring more harm than good; sciences are useful only when, like salt, they are used in moderation, depending on the state (i.e. class) people,” wrote A.S. Shishkov, who was then the Minister of Public Education, in a report to the Tsar in 1824. These words formulated the principle of class education, which became central to the policy of the government of Nicholas I in relation to the school.

Censorship became one of the means of combating the spread of progressive ideas in society. The censorship regulations published in 1826 were called “cast iron” by contemporaries. The censor could, at his discretion, shorten the text and replace words and expressions. From this time until the end of Nicholas's reign, open persecution of advanced literature and journalism intensified, and the years that followed the revolutionary events of 1848 in Western Europe received the notorious name "the era of censorship terror." It was forbidden to publish anything that, in the slightest degree, in the opinion of the authorities, could damage the existing order in Russia, “weaken the respect due to authority.” The censorship circulars of the 50s stated that “in books for the common people” one should not allow criticism of the government, the church, describe the “disasters of the serf peasantry”, one should “avoid talking about the people’s will, about the demands for the needs of the working classes.”

Despite the prohibitions, life made adjustments to education and enlightenment.

With the development of the economy and the increase in areas of life requiring literate, educated people, the authority of knowledge and the need to acquire it increased. In the 30s, many departmental schools appeared (Ministries of Finance, State Property, Military, Religious Departments, etc.). In the 40-50s, about 3 thousand volost schools of the Ministry of State Property were created. It was the most numerous rural school in pre-reform Russia.

By the first half of the 19th century. include attempts at public participation in the dissemination of education. In 1819, the "Society for the Establishment of Schools by the Method of Mutual Education" was created, which sought to organize a system of Lancaster schools. Initially, the government supported this initiative by the public. But after Lancaster schools began to be used by the Decembrists (M. F. Orlov, N. N. Raevsky) for the purposes of revolutionary propaganda, they were closed.

Public organization there was a Literacy Committee created in 1845 under the Moscow Society of Agriculture. Its task was also the comprehensive dissemination of literacy on a religious and moral basis among the rural population.

In general, it is worth noting the well-known growth of primary schools. So, if at the beginning of the 19th century. Since there were 158 schools in the country (32 gymnasiums and 126 district schools), by the mid-50s there were on average about 130 primary schools in each province. However, the vast majority of schools were concentrated in cities. The pre-reform school was a phenomenon of urban culture.

By the middle of the 19th century. approximately 0.7% studied in primary schools; in capitals and in some provincial cities - 3-5% of all residents. True, this general picture of the state of literacy can be somewhat adjusted taking into account various public forms of education (schools supported by public capital, private boarding schools, literacy schools, including among Old Believers peasants). However, these data cannot fundamentally change the average literacy rate in pre-reform Russia.

Universities were the main form of higher education in Russia. In addition to universities, there were other higher education institutions educational establishments: Medical-Surgical Academy and Main Pedagogical Institute in St. Petersburg, Lazarevsky Institute oriental languages in Moscow, religious, military, technical schools and academies, many of which were in the nature of closed educational institutions.

In the second quarter of the 19th century. The oldest technical educational institutions in our country arose: St. Petersburg Practical Technological Institute (1828, now - Lensovet Technological Institute), Moscow Vocational School (1830, now - Moscow State Technical University named after N. E. Bauman ). Since the 30s, real classes for the study of technical and commercial sciences were opened at gymnasiums and district schools, factory schools appeared at some textile manufactories and factories, public lectures were given to factory owners at universities on technical chemistry, production technology, etc. In 1822, on the initiative of the Moscow Society of Agriculture, an Agricultural School was opened in Russia - the country's first secondary agricultural educational institution.

Education covers a wide range of problems related to interest in the book and its dissemination, and to the formation of a system of cultural and educational institutions. In pre-reform Russia, interest in books undoubtedly increased, and the reading environment itself continued to expand. There was an increase in book publishing (at the end of the 50s, about 2 thousand books were printed), large domestic book publishers appeared (brothers I. I. and K. I. Glazunov, S. I. Selivanovsky, V. A. Plavilshchikov, A. F. Smirdin and others), the book trade expanded. In the 30s of the XIX century. There were more than 100 bookstores in Russia. The number of periodicals over half a century (1800-1850) also increased by more than 3.5 times (from 64 to 230 titles), and social literary, scientific, and departmental journals were published. In the 1920s, a new type of publication began to spread - the literary and artistic almanac. Since 1837, the newspaper "Gubernskie Vedomosti" began to be published (until 1917).

The demand for books, newspapers, and magazines has increased, especially among the common people. One official document from the late 40s emphasized that “newspapers are read by all petty officials in Gostiny Dvor, in taverns, and in lackeys, thus scattering among hundreds of thousands of readers.”

In the 40s, the publishing activity of A.F. Smirdin (1795-1857) became widely known. He published more than 70 collected works of Russian writers, among them A. S. Pushkin, N. V. Gogol, V. A. Zhukovsky, M. Yu. Lermontov, I. A. Krylov. By simplifying design and increasing circulation, Smirdin reduced retail prices, made books accessible “to poor people,” and thereby contributed to their distribution. Smirdin was the first to introduce writer's fees into the practice of book publishing; before that, writing was considered entertainment and received almost no pay. His achievement was the publication of the magazine "Library for Reading" (since 1834), which was sold mainly in the provinces. The magazine's circulation - 5-6 thousand - was quite large for that time.

Contemporaries emphasized the great role of magazines in social and cultural life. “They absorb the entire mental movement of the country,” Herzen wrote, “in no other country, with the exception of England, has the influence of magazines been so great.” Journalism of the 30s and 40s was characterized by a more clearly expressed public position, which generally coincided with a certain direction in social thought. Conservative-protective, official journalism ("Moskvityanin", "Northern Bee") was opposed by the democratic trend, the exponents of which in the 20s - the first half of the 30s were "Moscow Telegraph" and "Teleskop", and in the subsequent period - "Sovremennik" " and "Domestic Notes".

The development of librarianship during this period was associated with the opening of public libraries in some provincial and district cities. These libraries usually arose through the efforts of the local community, without government support. In the mid-50s, out of approximately 40 public libraries opened in the 30s, a little more than 10 continued to operate. And yet, despite unfavourable conditions, public libraries facilitated the distribution of books and magazines. In many provincial cities they became important cultural centers.

During the period under review, the system of cultural and educational institutions continues to be formed. In the atmosphere of patriotic upsurge caused by the events of the Patriotic War of 1812, the idea arose of creating a national museum in Russia, which was supposed to conduct educational work so that “every citizen,” noted in the magazine “Son of the Fatherland,” would have the right to educate himself find the necessary materials and information." This project was implemented only with the creation Historical Museum in Moscow already in post-reform times.

In 1852, the Hermitage, which had existed since the second half of the 18th century, was opened to the public. like a palace museum. In terms of the breadth and value of its art collections, the Hermitage is one of the largest museums in the world. Since 1856, P. M. Tretyakov (1832-1898) began collecting works of Russian painting. The gallery he created was a “Russian, national, national gallery” (V.V. Stasov).

Art exhibitions have become quite widespread. In addition to academic exhibitions, the beginning of which dates back to the second half of the 18th century, from the 20s of the 19th century. Exhibitions of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts began to be held in St. Petersburg, and from the 30s - of the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture.

Since 1829, All-Russian industrial exhibitions were organized in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and in 1846 the first agricultural exhibition was organized. These exhibitions were covered in the press and aroused interest. It should be noted that they were carried out only in capitals.

The 19th century was a time of serious changes in people’s consciousness and the development of socio-political thought. The acceleration of the pace of life, domestic and foreign political events undoubtedly influenced this process.

The Patriotic War of 1812 strengthened the ideological division in Russian society and led to an increase in sentiment against the existing order in Russia, under which the Russian people, who defended the independence of the country, continued to remain in serfdom. “Did we liberate Europe in order to put chains on ourselves? Did we give the constitution of France so that we wouldn’t dare talk about it, and bought primacy among nations with blood so that we could be humiliated at home?” - these words of the Decembrist A. A. Bestuzhev expressed the thoughts of many progressive people of Russia.

The attitude towards serfdom and autocracy was the core issue of the ideological struggle of the first half of the 19th century. In the public consciousness, the idea of ​​autocracy as the most acceptable form of political power in Russia was very widespread. Attempts by M. M. Speransky to express the idea of ​​​​limiting autocratic power (“Plan of State Transformations” of 1809) were unsuccessful. N. M. Karamzin in “Note on Ancient and new Russia" (1811) wrote that "autocracy is the palladium of Russia", it "founded and resurrected the country and has always been the main condition of its political existence." One of the figures of the Decembrist movement G.S. Batenkov, a widely educated man, the author of projects for political reorganization , wrote that “people have not matured for a republic, due to the vastness of the state, according to the experience of thousands of years and according to our morals, republican rule is not typical for us, at least - a monarchy is needed for the transition.”

The Decembrists were the first to attempt to overthrow serfdom and autocracy in Russia through revolutionary means. A large role in their social views was assigned to education as a force promoting social progress. But unlike the enlighteners of the 18th century. they considered progress incompatible with serfdom.

Second quarter of the 19th century. - a time of understanding the political and social issues raised by the Decembrists, searching for ways to solve them.

Social thought sought to develop an understanding of such problems as the role of the people in the social movement, Russia - the West and the attitude towards the Western European political and social system. Along with the main issue - the attitude towards serfdom and autocracy - the solution to these problems led to the emergence of various currents of social thought and their demarcation.

Understanding the most important socio-political issues is associated with increased interest in German classical philosophy in Russia. Dialectics, the idea of ​​development, became the banner of anti-feudal forces. In the 30-40s, the works of Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel were widely known among intellectual youth and were studied in university circles.

The “ferment of minds” forced the government to look for ways to strengthen ideological influence on the mental and ideological life of society. In the mid-30s, the “root principles” of the official ideology were developed - autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality - which were supposed to preserve political and social stability, form the moral basis of education in society and become the “last anchor of salvation” for Russia.

It was also a “solution” to the question of serfdom and autocracy from the government’s point of view. The provisions of the theory of “official nationality” were propagated in textbooks, lectures by professors, in journalism, and literature. However, it was no longer possible to reign supreme in the minds, as the government had hoped.

P. Ya. Chaadaev (1794-1856) was one of the first to subject the official ideology to devastating criticism. His “Philosophical Letter,” published in 1836 in the journal “Telescope,” was, according to Herzen, like “a shot that rang out on a dark night,” it “shook the whole thinking Russia"Chaadaev tried to solve in his own way the “damned questions” of the era posed by the Decembrists, and was able to awaken public opinion about the fate of Russia. But unlike official politicians and ideologists (A.H. Benckendorf, S.S. Uvarov), Chaadaev assessed the history of Russia nihilistically , looked pessimistically at its present, and saw the future only in joining European civilization on the basis of the Catholic religion. It was precisely the thesis - only through Catholicism is the path to social and cultural revival possible - that was rejected by virtually the entire thinking Russian society.

However, Chaadaev’s “Letter” became a catalyst for mental movement and made us think about the questions he posed. Chaadaev created philosophical concept Russian history, and his ideas were adopted and tried to be interpreted by many of the subsequent Russian thinkers.

The idea of ​​the need for socio-political transformations is firmly embedded in the public consciousness; The currents of social thought that formed in the 30-40s - Westernism, Slavophilism, utopian socialism - differing in the degree of radicalism and philosophical basis, proceeded from the inevitability of social transformations for the further movement of society forward.

40s of the XIX century. were a “wonderful decade” in the development of social thought and spiritual culture in general. From secret organizations, discussion of pressing issues was transferred to the wider environment of the intelligentsia, university students, and to the pages of magazines. One of the “conditions of public life,” as Sovremennik wrote, was public lectures at universities; Literary salons in the capital and some provincial cities were unique social and cultural centers. In one of these well-known salons - in the house of A.P. Elagina in Moscow, the famous disputes between Slavophiles and Westerners about the paths of development of Russia took place.

Westernism and Slavophilism were currents of early Russian liberalism and marked the formation of liberal-bourgeois ideology in Russia. Historians and jurists T. N. Granovsky and S. M. Solovyov, B. N. Chicherin and K. D. Kavelin, publicists V. P. Botkin, P. V. Annenkov and etc. Together with the Westerners, V. G. Belinsky and A. I. Herzen spoke in ideological disputes with the Slavophiles, who developed their own in these discussions revolutionary concept. Westerners were supporters of a constitutional monarchy and bourgeois transformations in Russia, which, in their opinion, could be achieved through reforms.

Slavophiles (A.S. Khomyakov, K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs, P.V. and I.V. Kireevskys, Yu.F. Samarin and others) advocated, in contrast to Westerners, a fundamentally different path development of Russia rather than Western Europe. It was based on the original moral and religious principles of pre-Petrine Rus', the revival of which was called for by the Slavophiles. They were staunch opponents of the revolution, but, like Westerners, they defended the peaceful path of social transformation, primarily the abolition of serfdom. During the preparation of the reform of 1861, Westerners and Slavophiles formed a single liberal camp.

Essential for the development of national self-awareness were the ideas of the Slavophiles about the national character of culture and an uncritical attitude towards foreign influences. (A. S. Khomyakov “On the Possibility of a Russian Art School.” 1847).

The development of the ideas of utopian socialism dates back to the 1930s. In Russia, it spread in the form of peasant or communal socialism (A.I. Herzen), its feature was the recognition of the priority of revolutionary methods of struggle. It was here that the search for ways to overcome the limitations of noble revolutionism (struggle for the people, but without the people) and educational ideas of general prosperity took place. In the 40-50s of the 19th century. revolutionary democracy is being formed. Remaining within the framework of utopian socialism, it was an ideology that expressed the interests of the peasantry.

The views on education as a means of updating and improving life continued to live in the public consciousness. Decembrist N.A. Kryukov testified at the investigation: “Feeling the completely disastrous state of slavery and ignorance, he became more and more convinced that general education alone could make the state prosperous.” Belinsky in the late 40s of the 19th century. in his famous letter to Gogol, he continued to assert that “Russia sees its salvation in the successes of civilization, enlightenment, and humanity.”

Many defenders of the idea of ​​educating the people did not at all advocate radical changes in Russia. The Moscow Society of Agriculture, for example, also raised the question of the need to provide peasants with basic agricultural education; on its initiative, a Literacy Committee was created in 1845. But its members were not supporters of either political or social change. Revolutionary democrats considered social transformations necessary, and saw their path not only in enlightenment, but also in the revolutionary overthrow of the existing social system.

Everything we considered determined the artistic culture of the first half of the 19th century.

The industrial society that emerged in the 19th century raised the most pressing problems of social existence. Neither the enlighteners nor the revolutionary upheavals of the previous century were able to resolve the contradictions in society that deepened at the dawn of the industrial era. In the new conditions, currents formed in different strata of society and embodied in socio-political thought proposed their own ways of solving the problem.

Thus, throughout the 19th century, a polarization of forces occurred in the Russian socio-political movement. The government, carrying out reforms in the socio-economic sphere, avoided transforming the medieval autocracy into a feudal monarchy. The weak and unformed liberal opposition was not in demand by the authorities, which made it possible for revolutionary elements to take over the consciousness of the masses.

Revolutionary populism, turning to terror tactics, was provoked by counter-reforms that put an end to populism. The tsarist government, unwittingly, cleared the way for the Marxists, who at the beginning of the next century put the Russian Empire on its hind legs.

Socio-political movements are a product of the industrial revolution

In Western European countries, there has been a demand from social groups to translate their aspirations into specific programs for transforming the state and society. The thinkers who responded to the request developed socio-political teachings in five main directions. Each of these movements had a special view on the path of social development and provision of individual rights.

The profound transformation of the worldview of Europeans was a consequence industrial revolution XIX century. All directions of socio-political thought that took shape during this period reflected significant changes in views on the state, politics and the role of the individual in history.

Features of the development of socio-political thought in Russia

Throughout the 19th century, attempts were made in the Russian Empire to first correct and then fully reform social order and the age-old foundations of society. In the first quarter of the century, social movements and the main directions of national socio-political thought began to take shape.

In the middle and subsequent second half of the 19th century, domestic socio-political thought reached its peak. The coming industrial era brought colossal socio-economic changes, which prioritized the problem of reorganizing state power in the country.