Евразийство, "Восток" и "Азия": "восточные" устремления в трудах евразийцев (часть 1)
In the recent years, it is often heard of the turn of Russia to the East, its attention given to Asia, processes of constructing of a sustainable Eurasian space. However, the Eurasianist vector of Russia has started to be conceptualized much earlier. «Exodus to the East» proclaimed by the Eurasianists in the early 1920s, caused a lengthy debate. In order to understand the essence of these disputes, their influence on the present, it is important to see and understand the aspirations to the East in the works of Nikolai Trubetzkoy and his associates. The Eurasianists were not the first to write about the importance of Asia for Russia, but for the first time, in fact, to comprehend non-european grounds of Russian culture. The author problematizes Eurasianists’ attitude to the «East», insisting on their research, not ideological interest in Asia and the non-slavic peoples of Russia.
The book discusses a little-studied aspect of the history of the Russian émigré Eurasianist movement of the 1920s and 1930s: namely, an attempt to develop holistic “Eurasianist” jurisprudence and political theory. The task proved to be much more complex than merely applying Eurasianist ideology to the field of law, as the latter was not a single phenomenon, and had different institutional and especially conceptual dimensions. Eurasianists themselves differed in their approaches to law and state. These distinctions were based on metalegal grounds, whether in phenomenological sources of the works of Nikolai Alekseev, who argued for legal individualism, or alleinheit theory in the writings of Leo Karsavin, or positivist theory informing the approach by Nikolai Dunaev. Based on Eurasianists’ published works and unpublished archival materials, this book argues for the fundamentally contradictory legal and political views by members of the Eurasianist movement. These contradictions suggest that it was impossible to create a particular “Eurasianist” legal and political theory on the basis of their writings.
Is Orientalism on outcome of the academic scholarship studying the Orient, its peoples, their history and culture? Or, as the American literary critic of the Palestinian origin Edward Said argues, it rather justifies colonialism in the past and the modern expansionist policy of the Western powers? This collection of articles written by Russian and foreign orientalists aims to help readers to understand this multifaceted problems. It includes arguments for both "for" and "against" the famous concept of E. Said. The object of the study of most of the authors of the collection are Muslims - the population of regions traditionally practicing Islam, and migrants, as well as the orientalists studying the era of the colonial empires and the Soviet period that followed it in Russia. A thoughtful reader should form his own opinion on this issueeader will find it reliable arguments in this matter.
The concept of legal structure is important for the commucative legal theories, because it helps to find out basic elements in Law, which cannot be reformed intentionally by governmental activity. The paper focuses on the model of legal structure in the writings of Russian legal scholar Nicholas Alexeyev (1879–1964), which affected the communicative theory of Andrei Polyakov. The article analyses structural method in the Eurasianist writings, “legal structure” in the legacy of Alexeyev and the development of this concept in the context of Russian Eurasianism during 1920s and 1930s. The transpositive “legal structure” reveals new sides in prism of views on the Eurasia’s uniqueness.
Alexeyev, who turned to the Eurasianism in 1926th is not Eurasianist sensu stricto. However, the “spaceness” of this “structure” is similar to Eurasinist views on Russia-Eurasia as a specific place. Eurasianists also favoured Alexeyev’s rejection of reduction of Law to other basis. They denied the attempts to reduce Eurasia to Europe or Asia; Alexeyev did the similar things according to Law; he refused the reduction of Law to “sovereign’s command”, “form of freedom” or “social experience”. These similarities could be explained by the closeness between Eurasianist protostructuralism and phenomenological method of Alexeyev. This closeness influenced the development of Alexeyev’s legal views in frames of the Eurasian movement.
The article is devoted to a detailed analysis of the work of Bryan Stanley Turner, famous expert on Islam, the author of the original theory in the sociology of Islam. The fundamental point of the majority of his articles is a consideration of the phenomenon of Orientalism, its history and present, as well as its consistent criticism. Beginning with a critique of the sociology of Max Weber, which founded, according to B. Turner, the basics of modern false paradigm of Islamic studies, he methodically identifies not only obvious, but hidden forms of Orientalism, demonstrating the possibility of avoiding it in their studies. In the article the elements of the theory B. Turner are discussed, its strengths are demonstrated, a number of criticisms is presented.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.