Book
Russian Thought in Europe. Reception, Polemics, Development
Original Russian thought came into existence fairly late - as late as the 18th and 19th centuries. Creating their own conceptions, Russian thinkers readily referred to various philosophical traditions: the Eastern Christian one as well as the schools and currents that emerged in the West. At the same time, one can observe a reverse phenomenon: Western intellectuals too - philosophers, theologians, men of letters - in one way or another would refer to the oeuvre by Russian writers. This process, which in its broadest sense can be described as the reception of Russian thought in the West (above all in Europe), was begun still in Vladimir Solovyov's lifetime (19th century) and has continued till this day. The notion of reception, employed in this publication, is quite broad in its sense. It means both the influence of Russian philosophy on the works by Western fellow writers, and the criticism and polemics undertaken by the latter, as well as the development, study and research into the thought created in the Russian milieu. All these aspects have come to be reflected in the book hereby presented for the Reader.
Since the twenties of the last century in various fields of the Greek culture (in the works of A.Papadiamandis in bélles-léttres, of Ph.Kontoglou and N.Pentzikis in iconography and painting, D. Pikionis in architecture, B.Tatakis, Ch.Yannaras, J.Romanides, J.Zizioulas and others in philosophy and theology) one may see development of a tendency which may be characterized in a first approximation as “Neo-Byzantinism”.
In a measure this movement might be connected with a failure of the political project that had its beginning in the Greek revolution of 1821 and its tragic result in the destruction of Greek communities in Asia Minor in 1923 (after – in Constantinople too). In general the principle of “Neo-Byzantinism” might be formulated as following: Greece is not an ordinary nation and cannot build its identity according to the model of a neo-European national state (in spite of just this process actually proceeds in 20th c.). Paradoxically the fundamental principle of Greek culture is recognized in Byzantine Orthodoxy as supra-territorial and moreover supra-ethnic cultural model.
Many of mentioned Greek authors find the detailed development of philosophical, theological, artistic aspects of this model in the writings of Russian religious philosophers and byzantinists of 19 and 20th c. – from the early Slavophiles (like I.Kirejevsky and A.Khomyakov) up to Russian emigrate authors (mainly in Paris) – like G.Florovsky, V.Lossky, L.Ouspensky. It’s very meaningful that Greek intellectuals “recognize” in writings of representatives of “the Third Rome” the image of “the Second Rome’s” culture; they receive it as own (unlike to, for example, the “western” one). So Basil Tatakis discovers the Byzantine type of spirituality in the works of I. Kirejevsky, F. Dostoevsky, N.Berdiaeff (the last chapter of his famous “Byzantine Philosophy” – “Byzantium after Byzantium” – is devoted to Russian culture that has preserved the spiritual tradition of Byzantium). So Ch. Yannaras recognizes the Byzantine type of sociality in a Russian Orthodox parish in Paris.
The article is devoted one of the main problem of description image of Russia in modern Western and American slavisics thought. Our Russian literature is important context of intellectual dialogue between different countries. The article is considered reaction to modern Western and American Slavistics in the context of inellecyual dialogue and communication between different countries.
The book discusses the principal aspects of description of the East in the Western scholarly discourse as well as in art and literature. An analysis of the interpretations of the East by the West (and vice versa) and their historical evolution has emerged as especially important in the light of ongoing globalization, which has triggered the intensifi cation of ideological, religious, economic and cultural differences between the East and the West. The goal of the book is to distill a critical understanding of Orientalist / Occidentalist discourses and to question cross-cultural assumptions.
The textbook consists of two sections. In the first section the socio-psychological and personal factors of ethnic tolerance of intolerance, development stages of ethnic identity, ethnic stereotypes and prejudices among children and adolescents are analysed. The second section presents a program for development of practical skills for constructive intercultural dialogue for high school students in multiethnic schools of Russian Federation.
This article examines intercultural relations in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania (RNO-A). The research is based on the theory of acculturation of J. Berry and uses the hypotheses and measures developed in the Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies project. The RNO-A is the most favorable place for Russians living in the North Caucasus because attitudes toward the Russian minority in the RNO-A are not discriminatory. Our goal was to test three hypotheses in the RNO-A: the multiculturalism hypothesis, the integration hypothesis, and the contact hypothesis. We conducted a sociopsychological survey. The sample included members of the ethnic majority, the Ossetians (N= 318), and members of the ethnic minority, the Russians (N= 327). Data processing was carried out using structural equation modeling (SEM) separately for the ethnic minority and for the ethnic majority, and the models were compared with each other. The results show that perceived security among the Russians (the ethnic minority) as well as among the Ossetians (the ethnic majority) promoted support for a multicultural ideology, tolerance, and mutual integration. The number and frequency of friendly intercultural contacts had a positive and significant impact on a preference for integration among both the Ossetians and the Russians. An integration strategy and the expectation of integration promoted life satisfaction in both groups. Because the results of the study confirmed all three hypotheses, we conclude that interethnic relations between the Russians and the Ossetians in the RNO-A are based on the principles of multiculturalism.
This chapter presents the results of testing the three hypotheses of intercultural relations in the group of Russian ethnic minority in Lithuania. Participants were 290 ethnic Russians aged from 15 to 84 years (mean age 27.3): 103 males (35.5%) and 187 females (64.5%). Hypotheses were tested using path analysis. The study showed that integration was the prevalent strategy among Russians. Multiculturalism hypothesis was not supported. The contact hypothesis was partially supported: positive relationships were found between intercultural contacts and integration strategy, between intercultural contacts and separation strategy; but relationship between intercultural contacts and ethnic tolerance was not found. The integration hypothesis was also supported only partially: integration strategy promoted higher self-esteem but did not relate to life satisfaction of Russians. The results are discussed from the perspective of the context of acculturation of Russians in Lithuania.
-
When acculturation strategies of migrants and acculturation expectations of a host society do not coincide, psychological outcomes for members of the groups in contact can differ significantly. Berry (2013) proposed that intercultural relations can be understood on the basis of three hypotheses: the multiculturalism hypothesis, the integration hypothesis, and the contact hypothesis. Our goal was to test these three hypotheses in Russian majority and Asian minority groups. Migrants from Central Asia (N=168; 88 ethnic Uzbeks and 80 ethnic Tajiks) and ethnic Russians (N=158) were surveyed using a self-report questionnaire that included measures developed by the Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies project. Data processing was carried out using Structural Equation Modeling with the Russians and the migrants separately. We found significant and positive relationships between perceived security and multicultural ideology in both groups. We found a positive relationship between intercultural contacts and the integration strategy among the migrants from Central Asia. Intercultural contacts in the group of Russians was positively related to the expectation of integration and negatively related to the expectation of assimilation. The integration strategy of the migrants was positively related to their self-esteem, while the assimilation strategy was positively related to their sociocultural adaptation and life satisfaction. Among the Russians, the integration expectation promoted their better life satisfaction and self-esteem. The multiculturalism hypothesis was partially supported with both the migrants from Central Asia and the Russians: perceived security promoted an acceptance of multicultural ideology but didn’t promote ethnic tolerance. The contact hypothesis was partially supported in both groups: interethnic contacts were positively linked to the integration strategy of the migrants and the integration expectations of the Russians. The integration hypothesis was fully supported in the sample of Russians and partially supported in the sample of migrants. The migrants’ adoption of the assimilation strategy promoted their life satisfaction and sociocultural adaptation.
This chapter presents the results of the study devoted to mutual adaptation of migrants and Russian ethnic majority in the Central Federal district of Russia. Participants were migrants from Middle Asia (N = 227) and South Caucasus (N = 274), and Russians (N = 261). Using structural equation modeling we tested the three hypotheses of intercultural relations: multiculturalism hypothesis, integration hypothesis and contact hypothesis. The multiculturalism hypothesis was partially supported among all the three groups. The contact hypothesis was not supported among migrants from the South Caucasus and was partially supported among migrants from Middle Asia and Russian ethnic majority. Integration hypothesis was fully supported among migrants from South Caucasus and Russians, and partially supported among migrants from Middle Asia. The results obtained in different groups are compared with each other.
In 2006, Russia amended its competition law and added the concepts of ‘collective dominance’ and its abuse. This was seen as an attempt to address the common problem of ‘conscious parallelism’ among firms in concentrated industries. Critics feared that the enforcement of this provision would become tantamount to government regulation of prices. In this paper we examine the enforcement experience to date, looking especially closely at sanctions imposed on firms in the oil industry. Some difficulties and complications experienced in enforcement are analysed, and some alternative strategies for addressing anticompetitive behaviour in concentrated industries discussed.