Russian intelligentsia as a phenomenon of the fatherland of culture. Abstract Russian intelligentsia as a phenomenon of Russian culture
INTRODUCTION
Relevance. The relevance of the research problem is due to the need to study phenomena and processes occurring in the conditions of modern social transformation in Russia. An active participant in these changes is the Russian intelligentsia, which played an important role in the transition to democratic transformations and occupies a leading place in reforming the socio-economic foundations of society. The ambiguous relationship of layers or “detachments” of the intelligentsia to evolutionary changes in society requires an analysis of their positions in the revival of the country’s national and cultural values. Turning to the history of the formation and development of the intelligentsia, studying the formation of the national intelligentsia meets the interests of modern Russian society and national science and contributes to understanding the role and place of the intelligentsia in modern processes.
A civilized society is built on the basis of advanced culture and science. New scientific solutions and spiritual searches are needed in all spheres of life - industrial, economic, social, moral. It is known that spiritual searches have always been the prerogative of the intelligentsia - the guardians of universal and national spiritual values. The work of the intelligentsia is important and socially significant, since it contributes to the creative solution of practical problems in a particular area. The more active its participation in social events, the faster and more organized the transition to civilized forms of social life is. To the selfless deeds of the best representatives of world culture, humanity owes remarkable epoch-making discoveries in science and technology, liberation from many diseases, and masterpieces of literature and art.
In the history of Russia, the intelligentsia has always occupied and still occupies the position of informal leader. Her activities have a tangible impact in all areas of life. It proactively expresses the views and moods of broad sections of the population, removes a person’s consciousness from the dramatic state of duality, confusion, and uncertainty in life. Through his extensive ascetic work he creates a spiritual, healthy moral state of society.
Based on the above, of particular interest is the analysis of what class, layer (classes, layers, groups) come to the fore in post-totalitarian Russia, what intelligentsia these layers bring to life, to socio-political activity, what culture comes to the fore plan. Answers to these questions require special multidisciplinary research. We will dwell on some of the processes that have affected the Russian intelligentsia in the conditions of a transforming society.
Thus, the relevance of the topic “Russian intelligentsia as a phenomenon of Russian society” is determined by its scientific, historical, educational, practical significance and consists in scientific coverage of the role and place of the intelligentsia in Russian sociology.
Purpose of the study. Based on the relevance and insufficient development of the problem, the purpose of the work is to study the role of the intelligentsia in Russian society at the present stage of development of our country.
The purpose of the study involves solving the following tasks:
- analyze the essence of the concept of intelligentsia;
- study the genesis of the Russian intelligentsia;
- characterize the current state of the Russian intelligentsia;
- identify the functions and purpose of the intelligentsia.
Object of study. The object of the study is the intelligentsia as a phenomenon of Russian society.
Subject of study. The subject of the study is the activity and role of the intelligentsia in the self-determination of Russian society, the formation and development of spiritual culture.
The degree of knowledge of the topic. The study of the spirituality of Russian society in all its diversity of content and forms in culture has a long tradition and is presented in the works of N.M. Karamzina, V.O. Klyuchevsky, V.S. Solovyov, in the studies of Russian philosophers P.Ya. Chaadaeva, N.A. Berdyaeva, S.N. Bulgakova, V.V. Zenkovsky, E.V. Ilyenkova, I.A. Ilyina, N.O. Lossky, V.V. Rozanova, G.P. Fedotova, P.A. Florensky, in the literary and journalistic works of A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogareva, V.G. Belinsky, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy and others, who tried to understand the essence and nature of the spiritual, to determine the leading features of the Russian character, to reveal the content of absolute spiritual ideals, the most typical for a Russian person and a Russian intellectual.
They trace the selfless work of representatives of the intelligentsia to involve the broad masses in the historical process, and highlight factual material. In the study by A.V. Ushakov shows the methods and forms of activity of the intelligentsia, methods of socialization of the individual and society. In the theoretical aspect, the ideology of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the problem of ideological struggle, of which the intelligentsia is an indispensable participant, is considered. The book by G.P. is of educational interest. Fedotov “New Russia: the fate and sins of Russia.” It reflects, albeit partially, issues related to the position and role of the intelligentsia in the public life of the country.
In the work of M.Yu. Lotman “Intellectuals and Freedom (towards the analysis of intellectual discourse)” notes that “the concept of an intellectual is shifting from the sphere of purely intellectual to the sphere of morality, which makes the Russian intelligentsia unlike the Western intellectual elite.” The leader of Russian liberalism P. Struve noted: “The Russian intelligentsia as a special cultural category is a product of the interaction of our cultural, economic and political development. Before the reception of socialism in Russia, the Russian intelligentsia did not exist, there was only an “educated class” and different directions within it.”
Researcher L. Gudkov made a certain contribution to the historiography of the problem by publishing the work “Educated Communities in Russia: Sociological Approaches to the Topic.” In it, he notes that the intelligentsia is to blame for the depletion of cultural, ideological, and human resources in the post-Soviet period. Doctor of Philosophy B.M. Firsov conducted a study on the topic "Intellectuals, power and communication."
The work of V.A. is devoted to the study of the social activities of the intelligentsia. Dmitriev "The need for cultural centrism." Along with theoretical aspects, the author also reveals the practical influence of the intelligentsia on the latest trends in public life. The work of V.V. is dedicated to the genesis of the Russian intelligentsia. Grigoriev “Imperial St. Petersburg University during the first fifty years of its existence.”
All these works can be classified as a certain level of general theoretical and cultural understanding of the role of the intelligentsia in the social life of the country. The analysis of transformations in the field of culture is accompanied by coverage of the consequences of the ongoing changes in the country, primarily in the spiritual sphere.
1. The essence of the concept of “intelligentsia”
The term “intelligentsia” can be characterized as quite stable in everyday consciousness and everyday use, although disputes about the definition of the concept “intelligentsia” have not subsided for many years.
All the variety of approaches to defining the intelligentsia can be reduced to two - cultural and sociological. The first puts informal, ideological and moral characteristics in first place. The second, ignoring these signs, highlights formal criteria, primarily socio-economic ones.
Some researchers base their definition of the intelligentsia on the nature of (mental) labor. However, this criterion cannot be considered correct, because scientific and technological progress has so increased the range of types of mental work - from uniquely creative to routinely auxiliary - that sociologists dealing with the identification of certain social groups in society and precise quantitative analysis have had to specify the definition intelligentsia, pointing out its special place in the structure of workers serving the spiritual life of society.
The intelligentsia is a complex, multifaceted and contradictory phenomenon of the Russian people and their culture. Discussion about the essence of this social group of society has been going on since its inception. The word "intelligentsia", which first acquired its modern meaning precisely in the Russian language, is associated in its origin with the Latin noun intelligentia - understanding, understanding, ability to explain ideas and objects; mind, mind. In the Middle Ages, this concept had a theological character. It was considered as the Mind of God, as the highest supramundane Mind, creating in itself the diversity of the world and distinguishing in this diversity the most valuable, leading it to itself. In this sense, this concept is also used by Hegel in “Philosophy of Right”: “Spirit is ... the intelligentsia.”
In Russia, the concept of “intelligentsia” began to be used as a term more than a hundred years ago, in the 60s of the 19th century, and subsequently passed from the Russian language into the languages of other peoples. The authorship of this term is attributed to the Russian writer P.D. Boborykin. In his novel “Solid Virtues,” published in 1870, the Russian fiction writer introduced the concept of “intelligentsia” into widespread use and defined its content as follows: “By intelligentsia we must understand the highest educated stratum of society, both at the present moment and earlier, throughout the 19th century and even in the last third of the 18th century." The main character of this novel believes that for the Russian intelligentsia the only morally justified path is the path to the people, to the social lower classes.
The original meaning of the concept of intelligentsia means, first of all, the social purpose of a person generated by society itself and for the development and self-knowledge of society.
In the mid-50s. J. Szczepanski proposed a sociological model, according to which all specialists with higher and secondary specialized education (criteria for educational qualifications) who invest individual creative and intellectual efforts in their work (criterion for creativity) should be classified as the intelligentsia itself. This set is further classified according to the type of functions performed in society (place in the social division of labor), in connection with which “creators of culture” were identified (scientists, writers, actors, artists, musicians, architects, library scientists); “organizers of social and economic life” (engineers, technicians, hotel workers, directors of institutes, senior functionaries of the state administration); “experts” (therapists, dentists, pharmacists, teachers, clergy, agricultural specialists, publishing workers). The incompleteness of the professional list and the fluidity of boundaries between groups are obvious here. The proposed working sociological model was criticized, but attempts to replace the concept of the intelligentsia with “knowledge workers” or “specialists” when studying this social group were not successful, because the use of the concept “knowledge worker” in the conditions of intellectualization of many types of physical work made it difficult to identify many intermediate borderline professions. The definition of “specialist” made it possible to include in this category both those who achieved the level of necessary competence through traditional professional training, and those who achieved this with many years of experience, a penchant for invention, innovation, etc. After a lengthy debate, sociologists returned to use the original term “intelligentsia”, as adequately denoting this social community, the mobility of which is associated with any transformations in the social structure of society.
If we start from the cultural approach (which is based on the concept of “intelligence”, “intellectuality”), then the situation becomes even more confusing, since operationally, at the empirical level, it is impossible to distinguish this social group. This is how the Polish researcher V. Markevich characterizes the group of intellectuals: “It includes the most outstanding scientists, not necessarily, however, humanitarian professions, famous writers, artists, and journalists. It is impossible to determine, at least roughly, the structure of this group, because in public opinion it is presented as an unformalized, disparate collection of outstanding individuals, carrying out independent activities, endowed with extraordinary knowledge, intelligence, enormous authority and speaking competently on issues that are of great importance to the Polish people and all humanity. The mechanism of influence on certain social phenomena by intellectuals is very complex. It most often functions in this way: a widely known creative personality acts in public opinion as a model for the people and their culture, and therefore this person begins over time to be considered an authoritative representative of his people, even in areas not covered by his professional competence. Thus, this person bears enormous responsibility (also political) for his actions and words, because his voice, as a rule, receives a wide public response.” It is obvious that this approach is based primarily on informal, ideological and ethical characteristics.
A. Sevastyanov distinguishes three main groups or layers within the intelligentsia. The first, largest group includes specialists in mass professions - doctors, teachers, engineers, lawyers, officers, priests, and some of the creative intelligentsia. The intelligentsia of the second circle - historians, philosophers, sociologists, literary critics, some writers, artists - provides the needs of the intelligentsia itself. Finally, the intelligentsia of the third circle is actually the intellectual elite, the generators of ideas that determine the activities of the entire intelligentsia as a whole. In sociological studies, the data of which we will refer to below, we are talking, first of all, about the first, most massive circle of the intelligentsia, whose representatives in sociological questionnaires are usually called engineering and technical workers, specialist employees, specialists with a diploma, managers specialists, etc. But for us, the main criterion is the educational qualification criterion, namely the possession of a higher education. It is on this basis that we identify in society a group of intellectuals or specialists with higher education, and all the quantitative characteristics set out below will apply to persons with higher education, regardless of the field of employment, position, power, income level, etc.
This approach, despite its limitations and vulnerability to criticism, makes it possible to quantitatively analyze the processes occurring both within this social group and the trends in changes in the intelligentsia itself in the context of the transforming socio-political system in Russia.
We have already noted the structural “layering” of the intelligentsia, the presence in it of various groups and layers. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of general, “tribal”, historically unchanged characteristics of the intelligentsia. These include ideological and ethical heterogeneity, manifested in differences in the spiritual world, material and social status, different priorities, etc. And since the intelligentsia is the most ideologized layer of society, the contradictions within it reach particular severity. Hence the second generic sign - intragroup antagonism, which is a consequence of the first. The third feature of the intelligentsia is individualism, because, despite the continuous method of training in a team, the process of maturing an intellectual is individual, since knowledge, skills, etc. are not so much given to him as taken, creatively and individually. Finally, the fourth feature (a consequence of the previous one) is a heightened love of freedom, a craving for independence. “But complete freedom to express one’s own personality is a requirement, the fulfillment of which is very strictly limited by social conditions, and awareness of this fact inevitably leads the intellectual to the public struggle for democratic freedoms. But the desire for freedom and the struggle for it require unity, which does not exist within the intelligentsia. This is the dialectical contradiction that fertilized the history of the intelligentsia, but also gave this history, especially in Russian conditions, a tragic character.”
The intelligentsia is not formed spontaneously; this process has its own laws. As the new system with its special political, economic and socio-cultural structure takes shape, the estates or classes that come to power create their own intelligentsia, which soon claims the role of social and cultural leader. Even Antonio Gramsci, comparing the experience of the Russian revolution with European history, noted in 1930 that every social group, emerging on the basis of economic production, creates for itself one or several layers of intelligentsia, “which give this group homogeneity and awareness of its own specific role.” both in economics and in the socio-political field. A. Gramsci calls this new intelligentsia “organizers of a new culture,” which brings a new social class into the public arena. Whether the class (stratum) entering the historical arena is aware of this or not, it does so because without mastering the sphere of culture, without mastering a certain space in this sphere, it is not able to recognize itself as a subject in the historical process, or its role in it. , nor to convince society of the legitimacy and necessity of fulfilling this role.
Any political power, no matter what moral values it proclaims, cannot follow them, because its actions represent the implementation of the values of a certain social group that brought the subject to power. Even in a developed democracy, people follow the groups or individuals that are most significant to them. Emerging democracy is burdened by attachments to the past or a complete anarchic denial of it, which cannot but affect the formation of group interests, their priority in the process of choosing the subject of power, its system and forms. Certain groups striving for power or their representatives, oriented towards the interests of the groups putting them forward, are forced, upon gaining power, to realize these interests, suppressing to one degree or another the groups opposing them.
Can any political power in its activities put universal human values at the forefront? History shows that so far not a single social group that has come to power has been able to do this. Is this why the implementation of the humanistic principle: man is an end, not a means, connects humanity either with the kingdom of God in heaven, or with utopian ideas about the kingdom of justice on earth? The impossibility of realizing humanistic ideals in their entirety leads to the concept of “lesser evil,” an idea that is quite dangerous due to the subjectivity of the interpretation of good and evil, the degree of evil.
Based on the above, of particular interest is the analysis of which class, layer (classes, layers, groups) come to the fore in post-totalitarian Russia, what kind of intelligentsia these layers call to life, to socio-political activity, what culture comes to the fore. Answers to these questions require special multidisciplinary research. We will focus on some of the processes that affected the Russian intelligentsia in the conditions of a transforming society.
2. Purpose and functions of the intelligentsia
The sociocultural mission of the intelligentsia is extremely complex and diverse. It covers various spheres of culture - from moral and artistic to political. This is education and enlightenment, artistic creativity and ideological struggle. Several main functions of the intelligentsia should be highlighted.
Function 1. The intelligentsia performs a special function as a direct subject of spiritual production.
Like other components of social life - economy, politics, social relations - culture embraces or affects in one way or another the whole society, all groups and all individuals. Therefore, already at the early stages of history, “specialists” were identified - shamans, fortune-tellers, soothsayers, priests, leaders, who could “accumulate wisdom” and concentrate in themselves spiritual power, experience, and knowledge inaccessible to other members of the collective.
At a more advanced level, in more complex conditions, the existence of culture is supported by the activities of the intelligentsia. Among the synonyms of this term one can find the words “scribes”, “sages”, “teachers”, “specialists”. For a long time, in all societies, the maintenance of culture coincided with religious functions carried out by the clergy as the highest intelligentsia. As spiritual activity becomes more complex, a secular culture appears, supported by the intelligentsia itself.
The character of the intelligentsia differs in many respects depending on the sociocultural type of a given society, the role of the state and the degree of independence of secular culture. Nevertheless, in its activities one can identify something in common that is present to one degree or another in every developed society. It is the intelligentsia that carries out the main functions of ensuring spiritual production, including the creative creation of new ideas, images, norms, knowledge, which then become the property of society.
The intelligentsia, as a subject of spiritual production, serves truth, truth, and ideal. It is on this path that she, together with the people, consciously expresses universal human values. The main role of the intelligentsia in society is to carry out a moral mission, to be, in any circumstances of life, the bearer of such social value as intelligence - the ability to perceive, preserve, disseminate and create spiritual values. This role of the intelligentsia is so great that the most authoritarian regime is forced to introduce the intelligentsia into its composition as specialists in various spheres of social life, to allow a certain distribution of functions, subordinating and adapting the spiritual sphere to its tasks, at least at the cost of sharply limiting this sphere and deforming its true public functions.
Function 2. Storage and broadcasting, organizing and disseminating cultural resources, maintaining norms and values, historical memory.
Without ensuring such a function, it is impossible to preserve society or adapt it to changing conditions. It is this responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the largest group of intellectuals - teachers, library and museum workers, editors, restorers, education workers, programmers, etc. Their role in the general process of cultural life may be mundane and almost nameless, but it is thanks to their constant work that society is provided with culture.
Function 3. The creative process of developing new ideas, images, models of action, political and social programs.
A distinctive feature of the carriers of this type of function is a high degree of individualization, since innovations are mostly the result of the creative efforts of individuals or small groups of teams. Therefore, the name of the author or group is usually assigned to the innovation. Such creativity inevitably flows through a break with unconditional prohibitions and ideas, a violation of accepted ideas, norms and rules. But such a process is often accompanied not only by mental experimentation on social constructs and doctrines, but also by experimentation on oneself and one’s destiny. Therefore, the fate of inventors and innovators is not always prosperous, in contrast to the guardians, who can count on a calmer, although often unnoticeable, life. However, it is precisely by the degree of society’s ability to accept the new that its development should be assessed.
Innovative spiritual activity is a poorly controlled process, largely dependent on subjective personal factors and on the spiritual atmosphere in society, on the degree of dynamism of its culture and on the receptivity of society to innovation. Therefore, every developed society supports those specific institutions - foundations, centers, academies, in which a favorable environment is created for the emergence of creative discoveries and inventions. An important function of these centers is not only material support for creativity, but also recognition from colleagues (associates and rivals) and distribution of authority. Arbitrary interference and suppression of such internal mechanisms of self-esteem can lead to a weakening of the creative atmosphere and a decrease in spiritual potential.
Function 4. Analysis and selection through criticism of the most important and worthy achievements of spiritual life.
There is an inevitable gap, a distance, between the creative elite and society, the overcoming of which is necessary to recognize a new discovery, an act of spiritual creativity. In order for the results of an innovation to be transferred to the public, they must be sanctioned, approved and interpreted by another group carrying out criticism, that is, careful analysis and selection of the most important and worthy is necessary. This function is performed by the intelligentsia through criticism.
Criticism must correlate the new with the existing spiritual heritage and harmonize it with the existing spiritual life. In addition, criticism must correlate the new with recognized values and ideas, with the museum, university and school, with existing views and ideas. Criticism, by its very essence, appeals to authorities, models, names, tastes recognized in a given professional environment and various spheres of public life. It is criticism that “builds a pantheon” of classics of the past and present, without which it is impossible to separate the high from the mediocre, the original work from borrowed or trivial works. At the same time, popularization work is called upon to interpret complex works and discoveries, to convey them to the mass reader, the public, and the general public.
An intellectual bears the greatest responsibility for the fate of his Fatherland, of man, for what thoughts and feelings he instills, what morals he supports, and takes root. He is, of course, limited in his freedom, but the limitation itself must be the result of his free choice. This is the drama of the problem of the relationship between the intelligentsia and the authorities.
The government is called upon to create conditions and guarantee the possibility of independent existence and expression of the will of the intelligentsia. After all, the progress of a modern, civilized society is simply impossible without a flight of thought, the consolidation of the creative forces of society, with which it, the authorities, does not have to conflict even when it does not agree with something. Smart power seeks to find itself in the intellectual process, uniting with its participants on the basis of culture, the activity of public reason, and not naked power, relations of domination and subordination. By listening to an artist or philosopher or social scientist, the government gets the opportunity to see the world in all its diversity, diversity, and development prospects.
N.S. Khrushchev also did not favor the intelligentsia, underestimated the role of fundamental sciences, contrasted practitioners with theorists, and suffered from narrow-mindedness in his views on the intelligentsia and creative personality. Khrushchev's frequent interventions in cultural affairs were clearly negative. His subjective and incompetent categorical assessments of works of art caused great harm to the development of art and crippled the destinies of people.
The state power, demanding services from the intelligentsia and fulfilling state orders, paid for its existence, fed it, corrupted it with awards and handouts. As a result, a significant part of it has developed a sense of civic mercantilism and dependency that is dangerous for creative people. As a rule, this turned the creator into an administrator and gave rise to creative sterility. And there are countless examples of this, both in past and present times. Difficult times affected the moral character of the intelligentsia. A significant part of it lost its positive and noble, highly moral, cultural calling.
Dignity and moral fortitude, courage and courage, and a strong ability to hold on to the heights of ideals disappeared. In a well-known choice between calculation and truth, intellectuals, like all people, found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades.
Over the course of three Stalinist, one Khrushchevian, and almost two Brezhnevian decades, the social system transformed ideology and spirituality from symbols of public service into special forms of dependence and servitude, into a justification for any ideological and lackey mediocrity. Every dictatorship is inevitably a dictatorship of mediocrity. The intelligentsia was broken and lost the ability to unite and resist. And without personal spiritual independence, an intellectual ceases to be a moral example, a model of intelligence.
This is how the dramatic process of alienation of the intelligentsia took place:
- firstly, through totalitarian sociocultural conditions;
- secondly, through administrative, government management of it.
Such a cultural policy was aimed at constant and targeted pressure on the intelligentsia, subjected cultural masters to persecution and persecution, and pitted them against the people. At one time, Dmitry Merezhkovsky wrote in his article “The Coming Ham” that among all the sad and terrible phenomena that Russian society has to experience, the saddest and most terrible is the wild persecution of the intelligentsia. The ruling elite did not need the intelligentsia as a force; moreover, it was perceived as an alien and dangerous force. This was caused by the fact that the country's leadership, itself suffering from a lack of culture, opposed it to politics, feared it and its truth.
3. Genesis of the Russian intelligentsia
As a special social stratum, the intelligentsia began to form in Russia back in the feudal era, mainly from among the nobility and clergy. It took many years to form.
The prototype of the first Russian intellectuals, according to B.N. Miliukov, the author of "Essays on the History of Russian Culture", appeared under Peter I. He first gathered a circle of self-educated intellectuals called upon to help him in establishing a new statehood. Peter I attracted the Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and Germans, making them his own, Russians. They accepted and absorbed Russian culture, developed and enriched it.
After Peter’s reform, the country had to go a long way to create its own national, surprisingly bright intelligentsia, which gave birth to an outstanding phenomenon of world culture - Russian culture, and in it the names of Pushkin, Lobachevsky, Dostoevsky, Tchaikovsky and many others. Nikolai Berdyaev called Radishchev, the author of “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” the first Russian intellectual.
The process of formation of the intelligentsia accelerated significantly in the 40s of the 19th century. The autocracy could no longer prevent the process of democratization of education. Among the student youth, the number of commoners - people from different classes (clergy, merchants, philistines, bureaucrats), mainly engaged in mental work, who replenished the stratum of the intelligentsia - was increasing.
In the post-reform era, when the formation of this new social stratum is completed, the common element in its composition becomes predominant. This circumstance was extremely important in the democratic orientation of the activities of the Russian intelligentsia, its active social and civic position.
The Russian nineteenth century was placed by world public opinion next to the European Renaissance. The best representatives of the intelligentsia in Russia were distinguished by moral and ethical claims, noble and highly moral traits: compassion and humanity, honesty, a heightened moral vision of the world, mental development, the ability to think critically and independently and evaluate social life; faith in a social miracle, sacrifice, imbued with human suffering, associated with the deepest responsibility for the fate of the people.
A distinctive feature of the Russian intelligentsia has always been love for the people, sometimes reaching the point of people-worship. She has always thought and thinks about the people, she is capable of self-denial in the name of truth and the embodiment of her goals. The class of nobles and commoners “burned” themselves for the sake of the ideas of universal equality, for the sake of the abolition of serfdom, for the sake of freedom and social justice. The intense love of the intelligentsia for the people is largely determined by the origins of its origin. Pushkin called himself “the echo of the Russian people.” From the depths of the people came the comprehensive mind of Lomonosov, famous writers, artists, composers. The folk source allows the intelligentsia to subtly understand the mystery of human existence, the drama of human existence, which, in the words of F. Dostoevsky, “consists not only in living, but in what to live for.” The level of the intelligentsia that emerged from the people in our time remains high.
At the same time, a considerable part of the intelligentsia expresses extreme pessimism, disbelief in the spiritual powers of the Russian people, and gives a derogatory assessment of the Russian people. And this leads to contradictions in the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people.
The relationship between the intelligentsia and the people has never been unambiguous, clear, or straightforward. For the Russian peasant, the power of the Tsar was sometimes closer and more understandable than the calls of the intelligentsia. For example, the intelligentsia of the 60s of the 19th century deluded themselves in vain that they would be able to merge with the people, that their ideals coincided. Her “going to the people” failed; she was not understood. And when the Narodnaya Volya killed Alexander II, believing this to be the fulfillment of the “people’s will,” the peasantry unequivocally condemned and turned away from them.
The relationship between the intelligentsia and the people remained the most important problem of social and cultural life at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. Many of the cultural figures were aware and deeply worried about the fact that in life there was a divergence and misunderstanding of these two forces of Russian society. The question of the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people was “the most painful, the most feverish” for A. Blok. “My topic stands before me, the topic of Russia (the question of the intelligentsia and the people in particular). I consciously and irrevocably devote my life to this topic... Despite all my deviations, falls, doubts, repentances, I am going,” - he wrote in a letter to K.S. Stanislavsky in 1908. In Blok's view, the intelligentsia and the people are always opposed to each other. If the intelligentsia acted as the bearer of culture, then the people were the exponent of spontaneous, natural force, in which the poet saw a positive beginning.
In the same year, A. Blok gave a report at the Religious and Philosophical Society, “The People and the Intelligentsia,” in which he spoke about the need to find ways to connect the intelligentsia with the people. V.G. Korolenko, participating in the discussion of this report, also recognized the existence of a gap between the people and the intelligentsia, but, at the same time, argued that the people are moving further and further away from the three pillars - Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality.
Historical experience shows that the people of Russia have always had a spiritual mentor, they were drawn to him, they believed in him. He enlightened, inspired, instilled faith, hope, love, and spoke about such moral traits as honesty, conscientiousness, love of truth, and love for the Motherland. He built ideas of social welfare, unity, salvation of the state, and determined the goal to be achieved. The Russian writer, poet, chronicler, artist always remembered that he was doomed to public confession. And as a confession before the people and for the people, he regarded his creation, what he had done, what he had done. At the same time, this historical experience suggests that the intelligentsia needs to be careful in its hopes for the people, to be wiser, more honest with them, and not to imitate them. This is the guarantee of honest, harmonious relations between the intelligentsia and the people, which meet the interests of the progressive development of Russian society, the interests of the further integration of national culture into world culture.
The intelligentsia is very heterogeneous in its composition. Representatives of the intelligentsia are people with different education, spiritual world, and located at various levels of the social hierarchy. At the same time, the history of the intelligentsia shows that they are all united by a number of unchangeable essential features.
These primarily include:
- orientation towards universal human qualities, commitment to the idea of justice, critical attitude towards existing social forms of government of society, far from the ideals of humanism and democracy;
- the unity of the spiritual nature of the intellectual person and the people whose interests and needs he expresses;
- loyalty to the people, patriotism, active asceticism, creative obsession;
- a deeply developed understanding of one’s “I”, independence, sufficient independence, a heightened love for freedom, for freedom of expression. The personal principle is recognized by the intellectual as the highest value;
- courage, perseverance in defending one’s own positions, dictated by conscience and conviction;
- inconsistency, social and moral tension between various groups of the intelligentsia;
- a peculiar, dual awareness of reality, often leading to serious political fluctuations, manifestations of conservatism, and some impulsiveness to events in life;
- a frequent combination of spirituality with mercantilism, a high degree of self-awareness with egocentrism.
The Russian intellectual has always been characterized by duality of character: freedom of spirit is more an individual trait than a social one. Hence, at times he was more concerned about personal, individual leadership than the social movement of the people. Many intellectuals, on the one hand, demonstrate the independence of the idea, and on the other, the inability and inability to implement it.
Many ambiguous traits of the intelligentsia manifest themselves under the influence of circumstances, depend on the regime of power, the spiritual atmosphere in society, which they largely create themselves.
Intelligence is characterized by a certain degree of moral maturity of an individual, regardless of social class affiliation. This is the quality of thinking, impeccability in actions, the feeling of being a person in relation to any other person, the ability to put oneself in the place of another person.
Intelligence is manifested in a sober self-assessment of one’s personal activity, in understanding the humanity in a person, in the ability to feel him, to be sensitive to his oddities and weaknesses, to feel the tragedies experienced by humanity. It is associated with forgotten spiritual human qualities - mercy, the need to help one's neighbor, a sense of responsibility for the destinies of people.
Intelligence is nothing more than a fusion of mental and moral culture. At one time, academician D.S. Likhachev said that you cannot pretend to be intelligent. You can pretend to be kind, generous, even thoughtful, wise, finally, but never intelligent.”
4. The current state of the Russian intelligentsia
One of the main and quite alarming processes observed at present is the process of erosion of the intelligentsia. This process proceeds in the following directions.
The first is associated with the formation of a new Russian statehood, during which many representatives of the intelligentsia go into power structures, ceasing to be the intelligentsia themselves, becoming officials, bureaucracy, and nomenklatura. The second way of “departure” of the intelligentsia is caused by the fact that in the conditions of transition to the market, due to a sharp drop in wages in the public sector of the economy, not being able to provide for themselves and their families financially, many representatives of the intelligentsia change their profession, go into business, etc. structures, i.e. leaving the sphere of intellectual work. The third direction is external emigration, the departure abroad of specialists, scientists, writers, cultural figures, etc., i.e. We are talking about the country’s loss of talent, skill, professionalism, and competence.
The consequences of these processes are extraordinary - the destruction of Russia's intellectual and moral foundation, throwing it back many years.
On the one hand, the named trends and ways of “departure” of the intelligentsia are a consequence of economic and political transformations in our country, during which a new social structure is being formed, new social strata and groups are emerging, absorbing yesterday’s “budget” intellectuals. This is an objective process and it is impossible to prevent it. At the same time, some “anti-intellectual” and “anti-scientific” opinions and sentiments emerging both in society and in government policy are alarming.
Russian society, the Russian state is now experiencing a difficult, painful and protracted crisis. Recent years have been characterized not only by a craze for political problems, but also by a clear conflict between the former moral positions of Soviet society and new economic reforms. Crisis relations in society were aggravated by the collapse of the national economy and the complete collapse of the consumer market. Poverty, which was a serious problem during perestroika, steadily increased in the post-perestroika period as a result of a sharp decline in output and rising prices. With the transition to a policy of price liberalization, poverty becomes the most pressing problem for our people.
There is a process of transition from the relatively rich to the category of the poorest part of our population, to which such social groups as skilled and unskilled workers, agricultural workers and specialists with diplomas are especially susceptible, i.e. intelligentsia.
The fact that the financial situation of the intelligentsia is deteriorating is evidenced by data from six stages of the All-Russian monitoring conducted by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. When asked to evaluate their life in comparison with what it was six months ago, 73% of respondents with diplomas responded that life had become worse (May 2001); in December 2001, life had worsened over the past six months for 60% of the intelligentsia; in March 2002, 55% noted a decrease in their standard of living compared to December 2001, and in June 2002, another 38% of specialists with higher education noted a decrease in their financial situation (compared to March 2002), in February 2003. 50% of intellectuals indicated a deterioration in life over the past six months.
Thus, the above data indicate a stable trend of deterioration in the living standards of the intelligentsia. This social group records a deterioration in its situation in all spheres of life, with the “peak” of deterioration occurring in the satisfaction of primary needs. Things are a little better with opportunities for additional income, but in general the intelligentsia’s assessment of their own life prospects is quite deplorable. All six stages of monitoring confirmed the stability of the trend toward worsening life prospects for people with higher education.
Thus, sociological studies record a sharp deterioration in the social well-being of the intelligentsia, as well as their rather low assessments of both the economic and political situation in the country. Let us turn to the answers of respondents with higher education to some questions of Russian monitoring (May 2001; December 2001; March 2002; June 2002; February 2003). Comparing the data obtained, we see that the overall assessment of the economic situation changes little. The number of optimists who believe that the economic situation is improving remains at 9-10% (slightly less among Russians in general). The share of pessimistic assessments also changes little - from 80% in 2001 to 60% in 2003 indicating a worsening situation.
Thus, the Russian intelligentsia’s assessments of the economic situation in the country remain consistently negative.
As for assessments of the political situation in the country, there is a downward trend in positive assessments - that it is getting better was noted by 15.4% (May 2001); 6.3% (December 2001); 1.3% (March 2002); 5.6% (June 2002). If the number of respondents with higher education giving pessimistic assessments (the situation is getting worse) gradually increased over the course of three surveys (64.2%; 69.7%; 77.2%), then in June 2002 and February 2003 there were more pessimists less - a little more than half, mainly due to an increase in the number of respondents who found it difficult to answer, as well as those who considered the political situation to have not changed.
From the above data it is obvious that the intelligentsia is quite critical of both the political and economic situation in the country.
Therefore, it is not surprising that from survey to survey the number of people sharing the following point of view is decreasing: “Things in Russia are moving in the right direction (20.2%; 16.8; 9.1; 13.2; 9.7%). The prevailing opinion (slightly more than half of those surveyed) is that the country is moving in the “partly right” direction; the number of opponents of the chosen course has doubled - from 16.6% (May 2001) to 34% (February 2003). At the same time, more than half of the intelligentsia are confident in the need for a transition to a market economy (59.2%; 67.9; 54.8; 56.6; 52%) - the average for the mass of Russians is almost 10% lower. There are about 20% of the intelligentsia who are opponents of such an economic policy, and the same number found it difficult to determine their attitude towards a market economy.
However, it is necessary to note the following: the approach of Russians with higher education to individual elements of a market economy is becoming more and more conscious. Some euphoria about the transition to the market, which took place in previous years and was recorded in studies of the early 90s. replaced by more critical assessments. Most likely, this is due to the deterioration of the socio-economic situation of most of the intelligentsia itself. For example, the number of supporters of transferring property into private hands has decreased slightly over the past two years (63.4%; 62.4; 55.6; 54.0; 50%) (while every fourth opposes this act). Fewer respondents began to share the opinion that the improvement of the situation in the country will be facilitated by complete freedom of private entrepreneurship (55.5%; 51.7; 44.4; 46.6; 47%), attracting foreign capital (59.3%; 61.6; 54.3, 47.7; 45%). Similar trends are observed in other positions characterizing the state of economic consciousness of the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia's awareness of the complexity of the economic and political situation in the country causes an increase in the number of people who share the opinion that “the threat of losing Russia's political independence is great” (May 2001 - 28.1%; June 2002 - 36.2%).
The feeling of discomfort, the awareness of one’s position as “vulnerable, critical and impossible” (D. Granin) leads to the fact that people prefer to isolate themselves in a circle of direct communication, at the microenvironment level. This is evidenced by data on respondents’ self-identification. Thus, before the survey conducted in June 2002, most often (on the scale “often” - 3 points, “sometimes” - 2 points, “never” - 1 point representatives of the intelligentsia identify themselves with their own family, close friends (2 .58 points), with fellow students and workmates (2.26), people of their generation (2.15), with those who share the same beliefs and views (2.18).
The number of intellectual respondents who identify themselves with people of their own nationality has decreased (from 2.19 - May 2001 to 1.97 - June 2002), with Russians (2.01 - May 2001 to 1.80 - June 2002). At the same time, the number of intellectuals who consider themselves to be those who are not interested in politics has increased slightly (from 1.31 in May 2001 to 1.50 in June 2002).
Similar trends (judging by the average indicators for the Russian population as a whole) are observed in other social groups of the country’s population.
The same conclusions are confirmed by the All-Russian study “Social structure and living conditions”, conducted at the end of 2002 - beginning of 2003. (State Committee on Employment of the Russian Federation). The intellectuals surveyed state that they feel most connected to family members, relatives (79%), and work colleagues (44%). The correlation with other groups is low. For example, only 15% of respondents with higher education (the average for the array is 9%) identify themselves with people who have similar political views, 2% (the average is 3%) - with people of their own nationality.
Apparently, such trends in the self-identification of social groups (and individuals) are a consequence of the processes of social differentiation of various layers and groups taking place in society, when primary groups act as a necessary addition to impersonal social groups and formal associations (all kinds of political parties, etc.) , based on direct contact (family, circle of friends, etc.), which mediate the relationship between the individual and society. In Western countries, similar processes were accompanied by an increasing role of organized, united “ideologies,” disciplines, etc. all kinds of “formal” groups and associations, and thus the formation of civil society took place. We are currently observing the formation of an orientation toward the microenvironment, a small group, and the immediate environment, with the increasing apoliticality of the population as a whole, including the intelligentsia. These trends indicate: the gap between government and society is increasing, and the prerequisites for the formation of a full-fledged civil society as an element, an integral part of a democratic state are becoming fewer.
In connection with the total deterioration of the material and social situation of the “budget intelligentsia” - the most massive layer of the Russian intelligentsia, which could become the embryo of the “new middle class”, we note the following. In recent years, there has been a transition to a market economy, which should ensure the absence of restrictions on wages and a variety of forms of ownership and business activity. The consequence of these (and many other) processes is the overcoming or reduction of socio-economic polarization in society due to an increase in the “middle” in the social structure and the emergence of a “middle class”. Countries moving from totalitarian systems to market economies follow this path. And in countries with a market economy, the middle class includes the intelligentsia (except for the elite), highly skilled workers, middle and lower-level managers, while the incomes of the middle strata, employed primarily by the state, cannot be lower than the incomes of the middle and petty bourgeoisie. In Russia there is a completely different situation. Firstly, many people classify only the bourgeois strata as the middle class: traders, owners of small businesses, all kinds of businessmen, etc. Secondly, their incomes are many times higher than the average wage. Thirdly, the standard of living and income of those who should be part of the “middle class” (intelligentsia, highly skilled workers) is one of the lowest in the country.
This is, in brief, the general picture of the current social stratification in Russia, which does not fit with either the declarations about the emergence of a “middle layer” or the “transition to the market.” The most paradoxical in this situation is the situation of the intelligentsia, when the salary of professors, who in Western countries are part of the intellectual elite and in the system of social stratification are above the “middle class,” in our country corresponds to the salary of a cleaning lady in the Moscow metro. According to the Moscow City Hall, at the end of 2002, the lowest paid category of Muscovites were workers in science, while the highest paid were workers in the credit, financial and insurance sectors.
This situation is partly a consequence of the lack of demand for intellectual potential generated by the extensive form of its accumulation in previous years; and the “dumping” of unclaimed “ballast” occurs at the expense of people who are able to work successfully in other areas, perhaps who came to the field of intellectual work by accident. Thus, 90 thousand people left science for commercial structures in 2001 alone. Those who remain in science should be in demand and not be discriminated against, but the situation in Russian science is different.
However, despite the fact that recently, among the post-Soviet intellectual elite, discussions about the “end of the Russian intelligentsia”, that “the intelligentsia is leaving”, have become especially popular, it is necessary to outline the positive aspects of the current stage of development of our country.
Detailed and eloquent arguments are given in favor of the “verdict” of the intelligentsia: for example, in the collection of articles “At the Crossroads (New Milestones)”, published by a group of authoritative social philosophers in connection with the 90th anniversary of the notorious publication “Old Milestones”, which was published in 1909 Thus, one of the authors of the collection, N. Pokrovsky, in an article meaningfully entitled “Farewell, Intelligentsia!”, tracing the dramatic history of the Russian intelligentsia, comes to the following conclusion: “By the will of historical chance, we found ourselves witnesses and participants in the final destruction of the intelligentsia and its departure from the historical arenas... The intelligentsia is leaving. Along with the intelligentsia, the world of its ideals is leaving. There is no place for it in the new climate situation...”
At the same time, there is another point of view, set out in detail in the collection “The Formation of the Russian Intellectual at the University”: today Russia needs “a new type of personality - a moral intellectual, an educated person with a heightened sense of conscience. In a perfect, complete form, as an ethical ideal, this type of personality can be expressed by the concept of an intellectual.” In other words, the intelligentsia is understood not as a social group of educated people professionally engaged in highly qualified mental work (these are “cadres”, “intellectuals”, “specialists”), but as a specifically Russian socio-psychological type, possessing a special moral consciousness - altruistic and democratic , alien to selfish individualism and nationalism, petty-bourgeois acquisitiveness, violence, and rudeness.
A generational change is taking place: Soviet disappointed intellectual fathers are giving way to energetic sons and daughters. However, such a process cannot be called the end of the Russian intelligentsia; on the contrary, it is its natural continuation, reproduction at a new historical stage.
There is no need to direct young people to copy the wonderful models of the revolutionary (or any other) past.
The world has changed significantly, Russia has fundamentally transformed, so it is unlikely that representatives of the Silver Age can serve as guiding beacons for modern youth. The reproduction of the Russian intelligentsia is an objective natural-historical process, and the problem is what kind of participation higher education can take in it. It must be taken into account that the modern teaching corps belongs to the Soviet generation of intelligentsia, and students will never be exact reproductions of teachers. Therefore, the reproduction of the intelligentsia at the new historical stage will take a completely new path.
The transition from a post-industrial to an information society should objectively increase the role of intellectual workers. Already today, in developed countries, this part of the population constitutes the leading social stratum, both in number and in influence on the future of the nation. The intelligentsia is the main creative group of the information society. The preservation of the nation will depend on it. It is this part of the population that will ensure the level of progress in Russia.
Protecting the interests of the bearers of knowledge, culture and spirituality in Russia, returning them to government, i.e. determining the priorities and goals of its development, developing practical policies, including management and control of state resources, is a specific political task for Russia, without the solution of which it will not be able to enter a new period of human development among world leaders. National wealth should be managed by those who create it. This is not only a demand for social justice. This is a condition for the development of society and the economy in the transition period.
However, the state has actually withdrawn from participation in the development of the intellectual and spiritual potential of the nation. Neglect of the intellectual and spiritual development of the nation creates not only a potential, but also an immediate threat to national security, because economic, financial, and military factors in the policies of states are replaced by informational influence. The lag in the information field leads to the fact that the socio-economic inequality inherent in modern societies will be supplemented by information inequality.
CONCLUSION
The following key concepts were considered in the work: the essence of the concept of “intelligentsia”; the genesis of the Russian intelligentsia; the current state of the Russian intelligentsia; the essence and purpose of the intelligentsia.
The analysis of the main processes taking place among the Russian intelligentsia during the period of transformation of society allows us to draw the following conclusions.
1) Russia needs to expand the intellectual field, formed by three factors: the level of national security, the volume of knowledge (scientific and technical basis) and the level of environmental safety. In this aspect, intelligence is presented as a fusion of culture and education, as a symbol of humanism and citizenship.
2) One of the main and rather alarming processes observed at present is the process of erosion of the intelligentsia, which is proceeding in the following directions. The first is associated with the formation of a new Russian statehood, during which many representatives of the intelligentsia go into power structures, becoming officials, bureaucrats, and nomenklatura. The second way of “departure” of the intelligentsia is caused by the fact that in the conditions of transition to the market, due to a sharp drop in wages in the public sector of the economy, not being able to provide for themselves and their families financially, many representatives of the intelligentsia change their profession, go into business, etc. structures, i.e. leaving the sphere of intellectual work. The third direction is external emigration, the departure abroad of specialists, scientists, writers, cultural figures, etc., i.e. We are talking about the country’s loss of talent, skill, professionalism, and competence. The consequences of these processes are extraordinary - the destruction of Russia's intellectual and moral foundation, throwing it back many years.
3) An analysis of the objective situation of the state of affairs in science allows us to conclude that science and intellectual activity in today’s Russia do not enjoy either material or moral support, either from the state or from public opinion. There is a complete absence of a mechanism for interaction on scientific issues between the legislative and executive authorities, both among themselves and with representatives of science and technology and with society as a whole.
4) Research regularly records the deterioration of the financial situation of the intelligentsia in all spheres of life, with the “peak” of deterioration occurring in the satisfaction of primary needs.
5) With the growing apoliticality of the intelligentsia as a whole (as evidenced by research results), in the absence of elements of civil society (for example, various “formal” groups and associations connected by common “ideologies”, disciplines, etc.), the orientation of the intelligentsia (and the population in general) on the microhabitat indicate that the gap between government and society is increasing. Thus, the prerequisites for the formation of a full-fledged civil society as an element, an integral part of a democratic state are becoming fewer.
6) The term “intelligentsia” currently carries, first of all, ideas about the moral properties of a person (high moral qualities, tolerance, a high level of personal culture, a responsible attitude to any work performed). Objective characteristics (origin, education, nature of work) faded into the background.
7) The intelligentsia, which has never been a sufficiently homogeneous social group, is currently becoming even more differentiated.
Thus, we can conclude that the transition from a post-industrial to an information society objectively increases the role of knowledge workers. Already today, in developed countries, this part of the population constitutes the leading social stratum, both in number and in influence on the future of the nation. The intelligentsia can be the main creative group in the information society. The preservation of the nation will depend on it. It is this part of the population that ensures the level of progress in Russia.
However, it is necessary to raise the social status of knowledge carriers in Russian society. Protecting the interests of the bearers of knowledge, culture and spirituality in Russia, returning them to government, i.e. determining the priorities and goals of its development, developing practical policies, including management and control of state resources, is a specific political task for Russia, without the solution of which it will not be able to enter a new period of human development among world leaders.
Lecture 15. Russian intelligentsia
Of particular interest for the theoretical interpretation of the history of Russian culture is Russian intelligentsia, simultaneously acting as a unique phenomenon culture, with its inherent historical, national, moral and other characteristics (i.e. specific an object cultural studies), and how subject culture, which carries, comprehends and shapes it; after all, the uniqueness of the intelligentsia lies in the unity subject of reflection and herself reflexivity as such, and the specialized subject of reflection and the organic ability for it not only mutually determine and stimulate each other, but also fundamentally coincide in a single holistic phenomenon. For understanding the Russian intelligentsia, it is also important that its deep essence, as well as its various superficial manifestations, which received systematic (theoretical and journalistic) comprehension and explanation relatively recently (mainly at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries), are inextricably linked with the entire millennium history of Russian culture and immanent to it. Thus, consideration of the Russian intelligentsia as a phenomenon of national culture is at the same time an understanding of the entire culture of Russia as a whole, including some of its most fundamental layers and patterns.
Let's start with a conditional “dictionary” definition. The intelligentsia (lat. intelligentia, intellegentia - understanding, cognitive power, knowledge; from intelligens, intellegens - smart, knowledgeable, thinking, understanding) in the modern generally accepted (everyday) view means a social stratum of educated people professionally engaged in complex mental (mainly intellectual) labor. In accordance with this largely sociologized and schematized understanding of this term (which emerged relatively late, in the 19th century), it is customary today to speak, for example, about creative and scientific-technical, metropolitan and provincial, noble and bourgeois, urban and rural, “serf” ", "worker" and even "party" intelligentsia as special socio-cultural strata(with all the conventionality and even deliberateness of the latest division of the intelligentsia along class and political lines: after all, the Russian intelligentsia, for example, by definition, was an ideological and ethical formation that “removed” in itself all social divisions - hence its fundamental diversity, which was by no means formed in XIX century, when the term “raznochintsy” itself arose, and much earlier, back in Kievan Rus, when there was no very concept of “rank”, but the first Russian scribes had already appeared).
Genetically, the concept of intelligentsia is purely cultural and means, first of all, a circle people of culture, those. those whose knowledge and mental efforts create and support the values, norms and traditions of culture. The concept of the intelligentsia is not completely lost in its original meaning, contained in the Latin term: understanding, knowledge, cognitive power, intelligence - it is these properties inherent in a certain category of people that turn out to determine their activities, leading in their social meaning and sociocultural status, in their identity and prestige. It is these value-semantic attributes that are actually the main thing in the characteristics of the “circle of people”, a social group or socio-cultural stratum called the intelligentsia, and not their position among other estates or classes of society, which turns out to be derived from the place they occupy in one or another type of society, corresponding sociocultural values: knowledge, intelligence, understanding of processes occurring in society, cognitive activity, etc.
The concept of intelligentsia, by its origin, is a category of Russian culture, and most European languages (French, German, English, etc.) came from Russia in the 19th century. A certain analogue of the Russian word “intelligentsia” (but without the meanings of collectiveness, connectedness, integrity, which appeared later) in Western European culture became the term intellectuels (“intellectuals”), although the attempts of Western cultural figures (for example, O. de Balzac, F. Guizot ) to introduce words that are close and adequate to the future Russian concept of “intelligentsia” (French intelligentiels, intelligence; German die Intelligenz), never took root. In order to understand the specifically Russian meaning of the collective concept of “intelligentsia,” it is important to understand its original semantics, the very logic of its formation in Russian culture. In the second quarter of the 18th century, the scholarly V.K. Trediakovsky translated the Latin word intelligentia as “reasonableness”; later professor of St. Petersburg University A.I. Galich, one of Pushkin’s teachers at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, in his “Experience in a Philosophical Dictionary” (1819) explained the concept of the intelligentsia in the Schellingian spirit as “reasonable spirit” and “higher consciousness.” The word “intelligentsia” was used in a similar, philosophical sense back in the 1850s and 60s. such different, largely mutually exclusive figures of Russian culture as the democrats N.P. Ogarev and N.G. Chernyshevsky, aristocrats Prince V.F. Odoevsky and Prince P.A. Vyazemsky and others. The tradition of abstract philosophical interpretation of the intelligentsia turned out to be firmly rooted in Russian culture and was largely extended to the circle of educated people involved in the “higher consciousness” and “reasonable spirit”, definitely associated with philosophizing and scientific and theoretical activity.
There is no doubt that the formation of the concept of the intelligentsia as the intellectual elite of society in the first half of the 19th century was strongly influenced by classical German philosophy, the passion for which, especially Schelling, as well as Fichte and later Hegel, became prestigious and fashionable in the educated strata of Russian society. Few of the Russian thinkers of the first third of the 19th century passed by Schelling: D.M. Vellansky, A.I. Galich, M.G. Pavlov, M.P. Pogodin, S.P. Shevyrev, I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, A.I. Koshelev, D.V. Venevitinov, V.K. Kuchelbecker, P.Ya. Chaadaev, N.V. Stankevich, V.F. Odoevsky, F.I. The Tyutchevs began as devout Schellingians; many listened to the lectures of Schelling himself, communicated with him and corresponded with him. All representatives of the Russian intelligentsia of the 1830s–1850s emerged from Schelling’s “philosophy” (Russian copy of the Greek term “philosophy”). - Westerners, Slavophiles, conservatives, liberals, and indirectly radicals (many Decembrists, later V.G. Belinsky and M.A. Bakunin).
Of course, German philosophizing was translated into Russian, and at the same time into the language of Russian culture. In the German philosophical tradition, the concept of “intelligentsia”, which came from medieval Latin and Neoplatonic scholasticism, had the meaning of an abstract philosophical category - on a par with the concepts of “spirit”, “mind”, “intelligence”, “consciousness”, “thinking substance”, etc. .P. On Russian soil, this concept was concretized and “grounded” (primarily due to the underdevelopment of the specialized field of philosophy in the history of Russian culture): the bearers of the philosophical mind and spirit were this very “thinking substance.” It is not surprising that, on the one hand, many important shades of the meaning of the word “intelligentsia” in the Russian language clearly had a philosophical-idealistic origin and genetically went back to the categories of German philosophical culture; on the other hand, when translating into the language of Russian culture, various simplifications, specifications, and “forgetting” of purely philosophical categories occurred. Descending from the philosophical “heaven” of the thinking spirit, European philosophy on Russian soil acquired figurative-metaphorical and socio-practical equivalents: celestial philosophers became wise men, those. lovers of wisdom, amateur sages; the thinking substance has turned into a circle of people who are thinkers, or rather practical “thought workers”, by the nature of their service engaged, so to speak, substantiation thoughts. And reason itself (German: Vernunft) in the Russian interpretation was reduced to the semantics of folk phraseological units, simple sayings (“teach intelligence”, “mind has gone beyond reason”, etc., where the place of reason is given to the margins of “normal life” , as well as the erring mind).
In all definitions of the early 19th century, the concept "intelligentsia" appears as the unity of consciousness and conscious objects, thinking and conceivable content, a reasonable world order and pure spirituality, receiving mental, moral and aesthetic pleasure from both the knowledge of the rationality of the world and self-consciousness, especially the latter (acting as self-contemplation of the mind). The preservation of this abstract philosophical (Neoplatonic, and then German) meaning in the word “intelligentsia” is indicative of Russian (namely Russian, and not ancient or Western European) culture.
Thus, in the Russian usage of words of the New Age, the idea of the intelligentsia as a semantic unity of cognizable ideas and a selected community of intelligent people living by these ideas, as the identity of bearers of higher consciousness and spirituality, capable of reflecting culture and self-reflection, and the very forms of spiritual culture, has developed and become entrenched. , reflected by the mind - as a spiritual formation that embodies the intrinsic meaning of reality, correlated in self-consciousness with itself. Such intellectual semantics were extrapolated to ideas about the corresponding estate (class or stratum) of Russian society, specializing in spiritual production, cognitive activity and self-awareness (especially the latter).
There is no doubt that the history of Russian culture is inextricably linked with the history of the Russian intelligentsia. The intelligentsia acted at the same time as a carrier, a creator, a theorist, and a critic of culture - in fact, they were its concentration, embodiment and meaning. The dramatic, often tragic fate of the Russian intelligentsia was not just an integral part of the history of Russian culture, but seemed to concentrate its own fate, also very dramatic (self-given meaning). Internal contradictions of the Russian intelligentsia (including the notorious problem of “guilt” and “misfortune”, raised either by A.I. Herzen in the novel “Who is to Blame?” and his essays of the same time, or by N.G. Chernyshevsky in “Russian Man on Render- vous" and the novel "What is to be done?", then V.I. Lenin in "In Memory of Herzen" and other articles), which greatly complicated her inner life, self-awareness and self-realization in activity, in cultural creativity, lay at the basis of her own self-development and development of the entire culture of Russia. The historical experience of Russian culture was deposited in the self-awareness and activities of the intelligentsia, giving rise to corresponding contradictions and conflicts.
The originality of the Russian intelligentsia as a phenomenon of national Russian culture, which has no literal analogues among the “intellectuals” of Western Europe, people engaged primarily in mental work, representatives of the “middle class”, “white collar” workers, etc., is generally recognized today (as is known , in all dictionaries of the world the word “intelligentsia” in a sense close to us is used with the note: "rus."- as a specific formation of Russian history, national social life). In this respect, the phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia coincides with the national mentality of Russian culture and turns out to be to the same extent the source, the reason for its formation and development, as result, the fruit of Russian cultural history.
The universality of the meaning that the Russian intelligentsia contains explains the diversity of claims for the representation of the intelligentsia in Russian society from different classes and estates: the nobility and clergy, the peasantry (including even serfs) and the urban philistinism, commoners and officials, the bourgeoisie and the worker class, Soviet party state nomenklatura and dissidents, technical (ITR) and humanitarian intelligentsia, scientific and “creative”, members of official creative unions and the underground. Belonging to the intelligentsia in different cultural and historical eras was prestigious in its own way, but exclusively in the spiritual and moral sense: membership in the intelligentsia never gave any socio-political, economic, or power privileges, but continued to be an incentive for replenishing the ranks of the intelligentsia even then, when the name of the intelligentsia was tantamount to political unreliability or opposition to the authorities, and its financial situation was simply deplorable in comparison with other social groups.
For a long time it was believed that the words “intelligentsia”, “intellectual” and “intelligent” were introduced into everyday use of the Russian language and domestic journalism by the prose writer, critic and publicist P.D. Boborykin (1866), who himself declared himself the “godfather” of these words (in articles of 1904 and 1909). The writer, who back in 1875 used the word “intelligentsia” in the philosophical meaning: “reasonable comprehension of reality,” at the same time defined the intelligentsia (in the social meaning) as “the most educated, cultural and advanced layer of society,” or as “the highest educated layer of society." However, a similar meaning of the concept of intelligentsia is revealed today in various, and much earlier, sources. S.O. Schmidt recently proved that the word “intelligentsia” was first used almost in its modern meaning by V.A. Zhukovsky in 1836 (in the context: “the best St. Petersburg nobility,” representing “the entire Russian European intelligentsia”). At the same time, the influence on the worldview and speech of Zhukovsky, as well as the people of his circle A.I., cannot be ruled out. Turgenev, who closely communicated and corresponded with Schelling (the latter himself recognized the spiritual closeness of his Russian correspondent).
It is significant that Zhukovsky associates the concept of intelligentsia with: belonging to a certain sociocultural environment; with European education; with a moral way of thinking and behavior, i.e. With "intelligence" in the later sense of the word. Thus, ideas about the intelligentsia as a sociocultural environment, moral character and type of behavior took shape in Russian society already in the 1830s, among Karamzin and figures of Pushkin’s circle, and were associated primarily with the ideals of “moral existence” as the basis of enlightenment and education and noble duty to serve Russia. In the 1860s. this idea was only rethought in a new semantic and social context (primarily in connection with the tasks of self-awareness of the common, democratic intelligentsia, focused on serving the people and directly the peasantry, on social asceticism, sacrifice, and then on the selfless heroism of serving the revolution), which received will soon become more active and widespread in society.
The semantic connotation of mental, spiritual selectivity, elitism, moral or philosophical superiority, conscious claims to the “highest” in intellectual, educational, ethical and aesthetic terms was preserved in the words “intelligentsia”, “intelligent” even then (in the 1860s), when in Russian society views on the predominantly raznochinsky, democratic character, behavior and beliefs of the Russian intelligentsia (in this regard, consistently opposed to the nobility and aristocracy) began to circulate, and at the same time an ironic, mocking and contemptuous attitude appeared towards those “intellectuals” who are such , in essence, were not, although they claimed this prestigious self-designation (this is evidenced by the correspondence of V.P. Botkin, I.S. Turgenev, diary entries of A.V. Nikitenko, V.O. Klyuchevsky, articles in periodicals by A. I. Herzen, P. A. Lavrovsky, P. D. Boborykin, “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V. I. Dahl, vocabulary of L. N. Tolstoy, I. A. Goncharova, etc.).
In fact, from this time on, the struggle among the intelligentsia began for the separation of the true values of the intelligentsia from the imaginary, real representatives of the intelligentsia and its external imitators, for the “purity of the ranks” of the intelligentsia, the crystallization of its norms, traditions, and ideology. The intelligentsia itself made the distinction and separation of meanings intelligentsia, constantly entering into a semantic relationship with itself in the process of historical self-development and self-reflection and striving for its qualitative self-improvement, intensive self-development and growth. This is the polemic between Westerners and Slavophiles, and the relationship between conservatives, liberals and radicals, and the first confrontations between “natural scientists” and humanists, representatives of religious and philosophical thought and atheism, science and art, etc. It was about spiritual, value-semantic superiority intelligentsia over other layers and classes of society, including, for example, over the nobility (distinguished by the nobility of the family, historical genealogy, political, legal and economic privileges), over the bourgeoisie (notable for its wealth, entrepreneurial initiative, practicality, and sometimes moral promiscuity in relation to the used means of financial and economic self-affirmation in society) and over the peasantry (which makes up the bulk of the Russian population, living by their labor and embodying people as the main force of history, but in most cases unable to rise to a meaningful and verbally formalized way of life, to conscious protest and a scientific worldview). Meaning spiritual chosenness the intelligentsia thus turned out to be closely connected not only with the strengthening of social differentiation of society and the decomposition of the clear estate-class structure of the feudal (or similar) socio-political system (primarily with the emergence of a typically Russian phenomenon rarities, those. with the loss of the estates and classes of Russia of their semantic and social boundaries and the emergence of mixed, marginal groups and layers of society), but also with the tradition of naive-enlightenment ideas about the progressive nature of the socio-economic, political and cultural progress about the direct determination of historical development by the emergence and spread of philosophical, political, moral and aesthetic ideas, produced by the bearers of the higher Mind - thinkers, writers, cultural figures.
Hence the easily explainable claims of the intelligentsia to express the highest historical and moral meaning of social reality, to understand and formulate the objective laws of socio-cultural development, to express the “voice of the people”, to express the national will, to directly contemplate the truth that is not observed by the rest of society. These intentions of the Russian intelligentsia, with all their ethical and socio-psychological originality, undoubtedly contain many semantic attributes of the philosophical category intelligentsia, gleaned by Russian thinkers from classical German philosophy - from Fichte, Schelling, Hegel. True, the apology of the people and the desire to be a spokesman for their interests, to become the voice of their thoughts and feelings, to move them with their own power of conviction to practical (creative or destructive) action - all this is purely Russian semantics of ideas about the intelligentsia and its social, national-historical mission.
Standing apart among the ideologists of the Russian intelligentsia (Belinsky, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky, Pisarev, Mikhailovsky, etc.) is K.N. Leontiev, who openly opposes not only the intellectual ideals and moral authority of the intelligentsia, but also the very idea of “bringing it closer to the people” (which was not alien to either L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, or very consistent conservatives - M.N. Katkov , K.P. Pobedonostsev, etc.). Behind this paradoxical judgment of Leontiev was, on the one hand, recognition of cultural strength the intelligentsia, capable of “infecting” the people with “alien” European influence, leading them along a disastrous path, drawing them into revolution; on the other hand, a statement low cultural values the spiritual content of the Russian intelligentsia as a secondary, imitative, uncreative product, gravitating toward egalitarianism and vulgar well-being.
According to K. Leontyev, it turns out that the Russian intelligentsia as a social substance organically and deeply alienated from the intelligentsia as philosophical reflection, as a mental substance, is in tragic contradiction with it. It’s not for nothing that “intelligentsia” (in Leontiev’s quotes!), i.e. estate, class, is not identical to the intelligentsia, i.e. reasonableness.
Culture, according to Leontyev, is interpretation knowledge and information, and not knowledge and information themselves. Culture is created by the people (carrying tradition, the “wisdom of centuries”, and therefore capable of a “living” and “original”, natural understanding of any information, including cultural innovations), and not by the so-called intelligentsia (at best, only burdened with “ mass of knowledge”, and therefore capable of interpreting knowledge using the same “ready-made” knowledge, i.e. secondary, formal, artificial).
In fact, the Russian conservative thinker and intelligentsia proved to his readers Russian reality(in the Schellingian-Hegelian sense) takes shape and develops among the common people, and not in the consciousness of the intellectual elite; hence Leontyev’s undisguised contempt for the “intelligentsia”, incapable of understanding and expressing their own, national intelligentsia, incapable of deep and organic self-reflection. (Later, in the same way, A. Solzhenitsyn will despise and denounce the “educated”, not recognizing the right of only the educated part of Soviet society to be the spiritual successor of the Russian intelligentsia, filled, in addition to knowledge and information, also with the pathos of ideology, responsibility, adherence to principles, etc.) p.) The “intelligentsia” (as an educated class) is not only removed from the truly national and original intelligentsia (mental content), but also, from this point of view, is capable of perceiving only the “alien” or non-national semantics of culture. The nature of the “intelligentsia”, unable to penetrate its own intelligentsia, turns out to be completely distorted.
Let us note that in Leontyev we are not talking about the love of the intelligentsia for the people or the love of the intelligentsia for the people, we are not talking about the rapprochement of the intelligentsia with the people or the people with the intelligentsia in social, legal, business or any other respect, we are not talking about teaching or imitating one another. The educated class is called upon only to “restore” and subtly “develop” that original, but “roughened” in “poor hands” national intelligentsia, which unconsciously lives among the common people, expressing their unconditional understanding of reality, moreover yours, unique peculiar understanding of any reality.
In a sense, even more paradoxical than the concept of the soil scientist and reactionary K.N. Leontyev, there was an explanation of the phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia by the Westerner and liberal V.O. Klyuchevsky. The paradoxicality of “Thoughts on the Intelligentsia”, recorded by the great Russian historian in 1897, lies in the fact that the Russian intelligentsia, comprehended by him from positions that are completely opposite to Leontief’s, is also perceived as a negative, flawed phenomenon, fundamentally at odds with its purpose and name . If, according to Klyuchevsky, the purpose of the intelligentsia is to understand their surroundings, reality, their position and their people, then we have to admit that the Russian intelligentsia did not fulfill precisely this purpose and did not live up to its name.
Russian national identity, according to Klyuchevsky, developed among educated and enlightened representatives of the Russian nation, either as borrowed, "alien" intelligentsia, inadequate to the surrounding reality; or as an artificial, forced phenomenon brought to life by rampant violence or external shocks, i.e. non-intelligentsia (a mental formation that is devoid of organicity and arose suddenly, spontaneously, and not as a result of spiritual self-development).
The fundamental problem of the Russian intelligentsia, as Klyuchevsky presented it, is that in the minds of educated Russian people an insoluble contradiction has developed between knowledge and understanding of reality between knowledge and its application in practice between ordinary consciousness oriented towards tradition, and mind, requiring an understanding of their goals and objectives, between faith in dogmas and authorities and thinking, rational in nature. This cross-cutting contradiction of the Russian intelligentsia, as V. Klyuchevsky interprets it, is a form of alienation of the intelligentsia as a social substance from the intelligentsia as a thinking substance, as a result of which the awareness of reality becomes formal, not delving into the meaningful value-semantic layers of reality, not penetrating into the essence of being .
Since the 1880s. (in fact, on the eve and especially after the act of regicide on March 1, 1881), a new stage in the meaning-difference of the intelligentsia was taking shape in Russian educated society. Independently from each other, A. Volynsky in a series of articles, later combined in the book “Russian Critics”, V. Rozanov in a series of articles about the inheritance of the 60s and 70s (“Moskovskie Vedomosti” 1891–1892) and D Merezhkovsky, in a public lecture “On the causes of decline and new trends in Russian literature” (1892, published as a separate brochure the following year, 1893), raised the question of the limited political and moral ideals of the “sixties” intellectuals, the inferiority of their materialistic and atheistic philosophy, which represents man not as a goal, but means social development. Criticized, from the point of view of “eternal truths,” the views of the late Belinsky, Chernyshevsky, and Dobrolyubov, Pisarev and others, who were considered in public opinion as martyrs in the struggle for an idea, fighters for the liberation of the people, brave innovators and freethinkers, appeared in the interpretation of thinkers of the Silver Age dangerous simplifications and misconceptions, amateurism in science and philosophy, tendentious propaganda bordering on political demagoguery, i.e. as a huge temptation for Russian society.
From that time on, the intelligentsia, like its spiritual leaders, began to be viewed in Russian culture as a kind of intellectual “sectarianism,” characterized by a specific ideology and morality, a special type of behavior and way of life, physical appearance and radical mentality, inseparable from ideological and political intolerance. The corresponding appearance of the intelligentsia was formed as a result of its ideological opposition (in the person of radical advocates of democracy in Russia) to the Russian autocracy. The intelligentsia was no longer associated with the accumulation of all the achievements of domestic and world culture, not with the concentration of the national spirit and creative energy, but rather with political “clubism”, with underground, conspiratorial activity, ethical radicalism, gravitating towards revolutionism (even terror), propaganda activity and “going to the people.” Belonging to the intelligentsia thus meant not so much spiritual selectivity and universality as political purposefulness - a fanatical obsession with social ideas, a desire for a violent reorganization of the world in the spirit of bookish-utopian ideals, a readiness to make personal sacrifices in the name of the people's good.
Intelligentsia- Russian phenomenon. The writer and poet D. Merezhkovsky, assessing the phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia, wrote: “I do not undertake to decide what the Russian intelligentsia is... I only know that this is, in fact, something unique in modern European culture.” Intelligentsia- a product of the Russian people, Russian civilization. This concept is purely Russian, untranslatable into other languages and has no analogues.
In Russia, despite the relatively small number of intelligentsia, it was an authoritative and influential democratic social stratum, generating the role of creator, ascetic and preacher of culture. It was she who managed to raise the moral culture of the country to the heights of the universal human spirit. Hence, it is quite natural to consider it as the main bearer of spirituality.
Intellectual and intellectual. The word “intellectual”, widely used in the West, is not its equivalent at all. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, the dictionary chapter on the concept of “intellectual” has a special section - “Russian intellectual”. It is highlighted because in Western traditional usage, “intellectual” is a mainly professional concept, but as for the Russian intellectual, it is rather a spiritual, moral definition.
Intelligentsia- the spirit of the nation, the property of society, these are people of high mental and ethical culture who are able to rise above personal interests, are able to think about what does not directly concern them. Therefore, not every intellectual can rise to the level of an intellectual, and, on the contrary, one can meet an intellectual among people of non-intellectual professions. intelligentsia sociological culture
Analyzing in detail the history of the intelligentsia, its characteristic features, the Russian religious philosopher N.A. Berdyaev noted that in the West they mistakenly imagine the Russian intelligentsia, identifying it with that category of society called intellectuals.
Intellectuals- these are people of intellectual work and creativity, primarily scientists, writers, artists, professors, teachers. The Russian intelligentsia is a completely different phenomenon. N. Berdyaev draws attention to it, “... people who are not engaged in intellectual work and who are not particularly intellectual in general could belong to it. And many Russian scientists and writers could not at all be counted among the intelligentsia in the strict sense of the word... The intelligentsia was among us an ideological, rather than a professional and economic group, formed from different social classes, first mainly from the more cultured part of the nobility, later from the sons of priests and deacons, from minor officials, from the bourgeoisie and, after liberation, peasants.This is the heterogeneous intelligentsia ", united exclusively by ideas and, moreover, ideas of a social nature. In the second half of the 19th century, the layer, which is simply called cultural, turns into a new type, called the intelligentsia."
According to N. Berdyaev, the Russian intelligentsia is most likely a monastic order or a religious sect with its own special morality, its own obligatory worldview. It is united by ideas of a social nature. And this is due to the fact that the autocratic monarchical layer contributed to the development of the most radical socialist and anarchist ideas with their extreme dogmatism. And Russians, Berdyaev believed, are prone to totalitarian and dogmatic ideas. This is a feature of the Russian religious soul, which predetermined the ideological character of the Russian intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia and intelligence. Intelligentsia is a socio-professional category, while intelligence is a spiritual and moral concept associated with the social and personal qualities and traits of people. This is a synthesis of spiritual subtlety, moral principles and human civilization. Although the concepts of “intelligentsia” and “intelligence” are etymologically related and come from the same root, in reality they are not the same thing. The lack of intelligence among the intelligentsia is painfully experienced by society.
When speaking about intelligence, one should keep in mind not so much a person’s erudition or education as the state of his soul, his general moral attitude and spiritual beauty, manifested in goodwill and sensitivity to people, in intolerance to any deviations from high ethical standards.
Intelligence- This is a special type of human perception of the world. Having become intellectually richer, a person does not automatically become better, more moral, or more intelligent. Intellectual development brings a lot of good to a person, but it also creates opportunities for evil, hypocrisy, and betrayal. Intelligence involved in culture begins with a person’s high demands on himself and his spiritual world, his involvement in the highest moral laws.
Intelligence is by no means connected only with the nature of a person’s professional employment and the work he performs. It also operates beyond the scope of his official duties, includes a complex of civil, moral, and ideological qualities, and forms the cultural and personal appearance of a person.
Belonging to the ranks of people who do mental work does not make a person intelligent. Genuine intelligence is not a “privilege” or a profession, but a state of mind. It is inherent in a person, regardless of whether he works in a laboratory or in an artist’s studio, at a machine or in the field. A person of high culture - and this is what is most combined with a broad understanding of intelligence - can often be found among people of various professions. An indispensable feature of intelligence is the internal freedom of a person who consciously subordinates his behavior to the defense of good. Hence high spirituality, multiplied by a person’s demands on himself.
Intelligence is manifested in a sober self-assessment of one’s personal activity, in understanding the humanity in a person, in the ability to feel him, to be sensitive to his oddities and weaknesses, to feel the tragedies experienced by humanity. It is associated with forgotten spiritual human qualities - mercy, the need to help one's neighbor, a sense of responsibility for the destinies of people.
The concept of the intelligentsia and its psychological portrait. The main historical milestones of the spiritual activity of the intelligentsia. Specifics of self-awareness of the Russian intelligentsia.
INTRODUCTION
Relevance. The relevance of the research problem is due to the need to study phenomena and processes occurring in the conditions of modern social transformation in Russia. An active participant in these changes is the Russian intelligentsia, which played an important role in the transition to democratic transformations and occupies a leading place in reforming the socio-economic foundations of society. The ambiguous relationship of layers or “detachments” of the intelligentsia to evolutionary changes in society requires an analysis of their positions in the revival of the country’s national and cultural values. Turning to the history of the formation and development of the intelligentsia, studying the formation of the national intelligentsia meets the interests of modern Russian society and national science and contributes to understanding the role and place of the intelligentsia in modern processes.
A civilized society is built on the basis of advanced culture and science. New scientific solutions and spiritual searches are needed in all spheres of life - industrial, economic, social, moral. It is known that spiritual searches have always been the prerogative of the intelligentsia - the guardians of universal and national spiritual values. The work of the intelligentsia is important and socially significant, since it contributes to the creative solution of practical problems in a particular area. The more active its participation in social events, the faster and more organized the transition to civilized forms of social life is. To the selfless deeds of the best representatives of world culture, humanity owes remarkable epoch-making discoveries in science and technology, liberation from many diseases, and masterpieces of literature and art.
In the history of Russia, the intelligentsia has always occupied and still occupies the position of informal leader. Her activities have a tangible impact in all areas of life. It proactively expresses the views and moods of broad sections of the population, removes a person’s consciousness from the dramatic state of duality, confusion, and uncertainty in life. Through his extensive ascetic work he creates a spiritual, healthy moral state of society.
Based on the above, of particular interest is the analysis of what class, layer (classes, layers, groups) come to the fore in post-totalitarian Russia, what intelligentsia these layers bring to life, to socio-political activity, what culture comes to the fore plan. Answers to these questions require special multidisciplinary research. We will dwell on some of the processes that have affected the Russian intelligentsia in the conditions of a transforming society.
Thus, the relevance of the topic “Russian intelligentsia as a phenomenon of Russian society” is determined by its scientific, historical, educational, practical significance and consists in scientific coverage of the role and place of the intelligentsia in Russian sociology.
Purpose of the study. Based on the relevance and insufficient development of the problem, the purpose of the work is to study the role of the intelligentsia in Russian society at the present stage of development of our country.
The purpose of the study involves solving the following tasks:
- analyze the essence of the concept of intelligentsia;
- study the genesis of the Russian intelligentsia;
- characterize the current state of the Russian intelligentsia;
- identify the functions and purpose of the intelligentsia.
Object of study. The object of the study is the intelligentsia as a phenomenon of Russian society.
Subject of study. The subject of the study is the activity and role of the intelligentsia in the self-determination of Russian society, the formation and development of spiritual culture.
The degree of knowledge of the topic. The study of the spirituality of Russian society in all its diversity of content and forms in culture has a long tradition and is presented in the works of N.M. Karamzina, V.O. Klyuchevsky, V.S. Solovyov, in the studies of Russian philosophers P.Ya. Chaadaeva, N.A. Berdyaeva, S.N. Bulgakova, V.V. Zenkovsky, E.V. Ilyenkova, I.A. Ilyina, N.O. Lossky, V.V. Rozanova, G.P. Fedotova, P.A. Florensky, in the literary and journalistic works of A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogareva, V.G. Belinsky, F.M. Dostoevsky, L.N. Tolstoy and others, who tried to understand the essence and nature of the spiritual, to determine the leading features of the Russian character, to reveal the content of absolute spiritual ideals that are most typical for a Russian person and a Russian intellectual.
They trace the selfless work of representatives of the intelligentsia to involve the broad masses in the historical process, and highlight factual material. In the study by A.V. Ushakov shows the methods and forms of activity of the intelligentsia, methods of socialization of the individual and society. In the theoretical aspect, the ideology of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the problem of ideological struggle, of which the intelligentsia is an indispensable participant, is considered. The book by G.P. is of educational interest. Fedotov “New Russia: the fate and sins of Russia.” It reflects, albeit partially, issues related to the position and role of the intelligentsia in the public life of the country.
In the work of M.Yu. Lotman “Intellectuals and Freedom (towards the analysis of intellectual discourse)” notes that “the concept of an intellectual is shifting from the sphere of purely intellectual to the sphere of morality, which makes the Russian intelligentsia unlike the Western intellectual elite.” The leader of Russian liberalism P. Struve noted: “The Russian intelligentsia as a special cultural category is a product of the interaction of our cultural, economic and political development. Before the reception of socialism in Russia, the Russian intelligentsia did not exist, there was only an “educated class” and different directions within it.”
Researcher L. Gudkov made a certain contribution to the historiography of the problem by publishing the work “Educated Communities in Russia: Sociological Approaches to the Topic.” In it, he notes that the intelligentsia is to blame for the depletion of cultural, ideological, and human resources in the post-Soviet period. Doctor of Philosophy B.M. Firsov conducted a study on the topic "Intellectuals, power and communication."
The work of V.A. is devoted to the study of the social activities of the intelligentsia. Dmitriev "The need for cultural centrism." Along with theoretical aspects, the author also reveals the practical influence of the intelligentsia on the latest trends in public life. The work of V.V. is dedicated to the genesis of the Russian intelligentsia. Grigoriev “Imperial St. Petersburg University during the first fifty years of its existence.”
All these works can be classified as a certain level of general theoretical and cultural understanding of the role of the intelligentsia in the social life of the country. The analysis of transformations in the field of culture is accompanied by coverage of the consequences of the ongoing changes in the country, primarily in the spiritual sphere.
1. The essence of the concept of “intelligentsia”
The term “intelligentsia” can be characterized as quite stable in everyday consciousness and everyday use, although disputes about the definition of the concept “intelligentsia” have not subsided for many years.
All the variety of approaches to defining the intelligentsia can be reduced to two - cultural and sociological. The first puts informal, ideological and moral characteristics in first place. The second, ignoring these signs, highlights formal criteria, primarily socio-economic ones.
Some researchers base their definition of the intelligentsia on the nature of (mental) labor. At the same time, this criterion cannot be considered correct, because scientific and technological progress has so increased the range of types of mental work - from uniquely creative to routinely auxiliary - that sociologists dealing with the identification of certain social groups in society and precise quantitative analysis have had the need to specify definition of the intelligentsia, indicating its special place in the structure of workers serving the spiritual life of society.
The intelligentsia is a complex, multifaceted and contradictory phenomenon of the Russian people and their culture. Discussion about the essence of this social group of society has been going on since its inception. The word "intelligentsia", which first acquired its modern meaning precisely in the Russian language, is associated in its origin with the Latin noun intelligentia- understanding, understanding, ability to explain ideas and objects; mind, mind. In the Middle Ages, this concept had a theological character. It was considered as the Mind of God, as the highest supramundane Mind, creating in itself the diversity of the world and distinguishing in this diversity the most valuable, leading it to itself. In this sense, this concept is also used by Hegel in “Philosophy of Right”: “Spirit is ... the intelligentsia.”
In Russia, the concept of “intelligentsia” began to be used as a term more than a hundred years ago, in the 60s of the 19th century, and subsequently passed from the Russian language into the languages of other peoples. The authorship of this term is attributed to the Russian writer P.D. Boborykin. In his novel “Solid Virtues,” published in 1870, the Russian fiction writer introduced the concept of “intelligentsia” into widespread use and defined its content as follows: “By intelligentsia we must understand the highest educated stratum of society, both at the present moment and earlier, throughout the 19th century and even in the last third of the 18th century." The main character of this novel believes that for the Russian intelligentsia the only morally justified path is the path to the people, to the social lower classes.
The original meaning of the concept of intelligentsia means, first of all, the social purpose of a person generated by society itself and for the development and self-knowledge of society.
In the mid-50s. J. Szczepanski proposed a sociological model, according to which all specialists with higher and secondary specialized education (criteria for educational qualifications) who invest individual creative and intellectual efforts in their work (criterion for creativity) should be classified as the intelligentsia itself. This set is further classified according to the type of functions performed in society (place in the social division of labor), in connection with which “creators of culture” were identified (scientists, writers, actors, artists, musicians, architects, library scientists); “organizers of social and economic life” (engineers, technicians, hotel workers, directors of institutes, senior functionaries of the state administration); “experts” (therapists, dentists, pharmacists, teachers, clergy, agricultural specialists, publishing workers). The incompleteness of the professional list and the fluidity of boundaries between groups are obvious here. The proposed working sociological model was criticized, but attempts to replace the concept of the intelligentsia with “knowledge workers” or “specialists” when studying this social group were not successful, because the use of the concept “knowledge worker” in the conditions of intellectualization of many types of physical work made it difficult to identify many intermediate borderline professions. The definition of “specialist” made it possible to include in this category both those who achieved the level of necessary competence through traditional professional training, and those who achieved this with many years of experience, a penchant for invention, innovation, etc. After a lengthy debate, sociologists returned to use the original term “intelligentsia”, as adequately denoting this social community, the mobility of which is associated with any transformations in the social structure of society.
If we start from the cultural approach (which is based on the concept of “intelligence”, “intellectuality”), then the situation becomes even more confusing, since operationally, at the empirical level, it is impossible to distinguish this social group. This is how the Polish researcher V. Markevich characterizes the group of intellectuals: “It includes most prominent scientists, not necessarily, however, humanitarian professions, famous writers, artists, and journalists. It is impossible to determine, at least roughly, the structure of this group, because in public opinion it is presented as an unformalized, disparate collection of outstanding individuals, carrying out independent activities, endowed with extraordinary knowledge, intelligence, enormous authority and speaking competently on issues that are of great importance to the Polish people and all humanity. The mechanism of influence on certain social phenomena by intellectuals is very complex. It most often functions in this way: a widely known creative personality acts in public opinion as a model for the people and their culture, and therefore this person begins over time to be considered an authoritative representative of his people, even in areas not covered by his professional competence. Thus, this person bears enormous responsibility (also political) for his actions and words, because his voice, as a rule, receives a wide public response.” It is obvious that this approach is based primarily on informal, ideological and ethical characteristics.
A. Sevastyanov distinguishes three main groups or layers within the intelligentsia. The first, largest group includes specialists in mass professions - doctors, teachers, engineers, lawyers, officers, priests, and some of the creative intelligentsia. The intelligentsia of the second circle - historians, philosophers, sociologists, literary critics, some writers, artists - provides the needs of the intelligentsia itself. Finally, the intelligentsia of the third circle is actually the intellectual elite, the generators of ideas that determine the activities of the entire intelligentsia as a whole. In sociological studies, the data of which we will refer to below, we are talking, first of all, about the first, most massive circle of the intelligentsia, whose representatives in sociological questionnaires are usually called engineering and technical workers, specialist employees, specialists with a diploma, managers specialists, etc. But for us, the main criterion is the educational qualification criterion, namely the possession of a higher education. It is on this basis that we identify in society a group of intellectuals or specialists with higher education, and all the quantitative characteristics set out below will apply to persons with higher education, regardless of the field of employment, position, power, income level, etc.
This approach, despite its limitations and vulnerability to criticism, makes it possible to quantitatively analyze the processes occurring both within this social group and the trends in changes in the intelligentsia itself in the context of the transforming socio-political system in Russia.
We have already noted the structural “layering” of the intelligentsia, the presence in it of various groups and layers. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of general, “tribal”, historically unchanged characteristics of the intelligentsia. These include ideological and ethical heterogeneity, manifested in differences in the spiritual world, material and social status, different priorities, etc. And since the intelligentsia is the most ideologized layer of society, the contradictions within it reach particular severity. Hence the second generic sign - intragroup antagonism, which is a consequence of the first. The third feature of the intelligentsia is individualism, because, despite the continuous method of training in a team, the process of maturing an intellectual is individual, since knowledge, skills, etc. are not so much given to him as taken, creatively and individually. Finally, the fourth feature (a consequence of the previous one) is a heightened love of freedom, a craving for independence. “But complete freedom to express one’s own personality is a requirement, the fulfillment of which is very strictly limited by social conditions, and awareness of this fact inevitably leads the intellectual to the public struggle for democratic freedoms. But the desire for freedom and the struggle for it require unity, which does not exist within the intelligentsia. This is the dialectical contradiction that fertilized the history of the intelligentsia, but also gave this history, especially in Russian conditions, a tragic character.”
The intelligentsia is not formed spontaneously; this process has its own laws. As the new system with its special political, economic and socio-cultural structure takes shape, the estates or classes that come to power create their own intelligentsia, which soon claims the role of social and cultural leader. Even Antonio Gramsci, comparing the experience of the Russian revolution with European history, noted in 1930 that every social group, emerging on the basis of economic production, creates for itself one or several layers of intelligentsia, “which give this group homogeneity and awareness of its own specific role.” both in economics and in the socio-political field. A. Gramsci calls this new intelligentsia “organizers of a new culture,” which brings a new social class into the public arena. Whether the class (stratum) entering the historical arena is aware of this or not, it does so because without mastering the sphere of culture, without mastering a certain space in this sphere, it is not able to recognize itself as a subject in the historical process, or its role in it. , nor to convince society of the legitimacy and necessity of fulfilling this role.
Any political power, no matter what moral values it proclaims, cannot follow them, because its actions represent the implementation of the values of a certain social group that brought the subject to power. Even in a developed democracy, people follow the groups or individuals that are most significant to them. Emerging democracy is burdened by attachments to the past or a complete anarchic denial of it, which cannot but affect the formation of group interests, their priority in the process of choosing the subject of power, its system and forms. Certain groups striving for power or their representatives, oriented towards the interests of the groups putting them forward, are forced, upon gaining power, to realize these interests, suppressing to one degree or another the groups opposing them.
Can any political power in its activities put universal human values at the forefront? History shows that so far not a single social group that has come to power has been able to do this. Is this why the implementation of the humanistic principle: man is an end, not a means, connects humanity either with the kingdom of God in heaven, or with utopian ideas about the kingdom of justice on earth? The impossibility of realizing humanistic ideals in their entirety leads to the concept of “lesser evil,” an idea that is quite dangerous due to the subjectivity of the interpretation of good and evil, the degree of evil.
Based on the above, of particular interest is the analysis of which class, layer (classes, layers, groups) come to the fore in post-totalitarian Russia, what kind of intelligentsia these layers call to life, to socio-political activity, what culture comes to the fore. Answers to these questions require special multidisciplinary research. We will focus on some of the processes that affected the Russian intelligentsia in the conditions of a transforming society.
2. Purpose and functions of the intelligentsia
The sociocultural mission of the intelligentsia is extremely complex and diverse. It covers various spheres of culture - from moral and artistic to political. This is education and enlightenment, artistic creativity and ideological struggle. Several main functions of the intelligentsia should be highlighted.
Function 1.The intelligentsia performs a special function as a direct subject of spiritual production.
Like other components of social life - economy, politics, social relations - culture embraces or affects in one way or another the whole society, all groups and all individuals. Therefore, already at the early stages of history, “specialists” were identified - shamans, fortune-tellers, soothsayers, priests, leaders, who could “accumulate wisdom” and concentrate in themselves spiritual power, experience, and knowledge inaccessible to other members of the collective.
At a more advanced level, in more complex conditions, the existence of culture is supported by the activities of the intelligentsia. Among the synonyms of this term one can find the words “scribes”, “sages”, “teachers”, “specialists”. For a long time, in all societies, the maintenance of culture coincided with religious functions carried out by the clergy as the highest intelligentsia. As spiritual activity becomes more complex, a secular culture appears, supported by the intelligentsia itself.
The character of the intelligentsia differs in many respects depending on the sociocultural type of a given society, the role of the state and the degree of independence of secular culture. Nevertheless, in its activities one can identify something in common that is present to one degree or another in every developed society. It is the intelligentsia that carries out the main functions of ensuring spiritual production, including the creative creation of new ideas, images, norms, knowledge, which then become the property of society.
The intelligentsia, as a subject of spiritual production, serves truth, truth, and ideal. It is on this path that she, together with the people, consciously expresses universal human values. The main role of the intelligentsia in society is to carry out a moral mission, to be, in any circumstances of life, the bearer of such social value as intelligence - the ability to perceive, preserve, disseminate and create spiritual values. This role of the intelligentsia is so great that the most authoritarian regime is forced to introduce the intelligentsia into its composition as specialists in various spheres of social life, to allow a certain distribution of functions, subordinating and adapting the spiritual sphere to its tasks, at least at the cost of sharply limiting this sphere and deforming its true public functions.
Function 2.Storage and broadcasting, organizing and disseminating cultural resources, maintaining norms and values, historical memory.
Without ensuring such a function, it is impossible to preserve society or adapt it to changing conditions. It is this responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the largest group of intellectuals - teachers, library and museum workers, editors, restorers, education workers, programmers, etc. Their role in the general process of cultural life may be mundane and almost nameless, but it is thanks to their constant work that society is provided with culture.
Function 3.The creative process of developing new ideas, images, models of action, political and social programs.
A distinctive feature of the carriers of this type of function is a high degree of individualization, since innovations are mostly the result of the creative efforts of individuals or small groups of teams. Therefore, the name of the author or group is usually assigned to the innovation. Such creativity inevitably flows through a break with unconditional prohibitions and ideas, a violation of accepted ideas, norms and rules. But such a process is often accompanied not only by mental experimentation on social constructs and doctrines, but also by experimentation on oneself and one’s destiny. Therefore, the fate of inventors and innovators is not always prosperous, in contrast to the guardians, who can count on a calmer, although often unnoticeable, life. At the same time, it is by the degree of society’s ability to accept the new that its development should be assessed.
Innovative spiritual activity is a poorly controlled process, largely dependent on subjective personal factors and on the spiritual atmosphere in society, on the degree of dynamism of its culture and on the receptivity of society to innovation. Therefore, every developed society supports those specific institutions - foundations, centers, academies, in which a favorable environment is created for the emergence of creative discoveries and inventions. An important function of these centers is not only material support for creativity, but also recognition from colleagues (associates and rivals) and distribution of authority. Arbitrary interference and suppression of such internal mechanisms of self-esteem can lead to a weakening of the creative atmosphere and a decrease in spiritual potential.
Function 4.Analysis and selection through criticism of the most important and worthy achievements of spiritual life.
There is an inevitable gap, a distance, between the creative elite and society, the overcoming of which is necessary to recognize a new discovery, an act of spiritual creativity. In order for the results of an innovation to be communicated to the public, they must be sanctioned, approved and interpreted by another group carrying out criticism, that is, careful analysis and selection of those most important and worthy are necessary. This function is performed by the intelligentsia through criticism.
Criticism must correlate the new with the existing spiritual heritage and harmonize it with the existing spiritual life. In addition, criticism must correlate the new with recognized values and ideas, with the museum, university and school, with existing views and ideas. Criticism, by its very essence, appeals to authorities, models, names, tastes recognized in this professional environment and various spheres of public life. It is criticism that “builds a pantheon” of classics of the past and present, without which it is impossible to separate the high from the mediocre, the original work from borrowed or trivial works. At the same time, popularization work is called upon to interpret complex works and discoveries, to convey them to the mass reader, the public, and the general public.
An intellectual bears the greatest responsibility for the fate of his Fatherland, of man, for what thoughts and feelings he instills, what morals he supports, and takes root. He is, of course, limited in his freedom, but the limitation itself must be the result of his free choice. This is the drama of the problem of the relationship between the intelligentsia and the authorities.
The government is called upon to create conditions and guarantee the possibility of independent existence and expression of the will of the intelligentsia. After all, the progress of a modern, civilized society is simply impossible without a flight of thought, the consolidation of the creative forces of society, with which it, the authorities, does not have to conflict even when it does not agree with something. Smart power seeks to find itself in the intellectual process, uniting with its participants on the basis of culture, the activity of public reason, and not naked power, relations of domination and subordination. By listening to an artist or philosopher or social scientist, the government gets the opportunity to see the world in all its diversity, diversity, and development prospects.
N.S. Khrushchev also did not favor the intelligentsia, underestimated the role of fundamental sciences, contrasted practitioners with theorists, and suffered from narrow-mindedness in his views on the intelligentsia and creative personality. Khrushchev's frequent interventions in cultural affairs were clearly negative. His subjective and incompetent categorical assessments of works of art caused great harm to the development of art and crippled the destinies of people.
The state power, demanding services from the intelligentsia and fulfilling state orders, paid for its existence, fed it, corrupted it with awards and handouts. As a result, a significant part of it has developed a sense of civic mercantilism and dependency that is dangerous for creative people. As a rule, this turned the creator into an administrator and gave rise to creative sterility. And there are countless examples of this, both in past and present times. Difficult times affected the moral character of the intelligentsia. A significant part of it lost its positive and noble, highly moral, cultural calling.
Dignity and moral fortitude, courage and courage, and a strong ability to hold on to the heights of ideals disappeared. In a well-known choice between calculation and truth, intellectuals, like all people, found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades.
Over the course of three Stalinist, one Khrushchevian, and almost two Brezhnevian decades, the social system transformed ideology and spirituality from symbols of public service into special forms of dependence and servitude, into a justification for any ideological and lackey mediocrity. Every dictatorship is inevitably a dictatorship of mediocrity. The intelligentsia was broken and lost the ability to unite and resist. And without personal spiritual independence, an intellectual ceases to be a moral example, a model of intelligence.
This is how the dramatic process of alienation of the intelligentsia took place:
- firstly, through totalitarian sociocultural conditions;
- secondly, through administrative, government management of it.
Such a cultural policy was aimed at constant and targeted pressure on the intelligentsia, subjected cultural masters to persecution and persecution, and pitted them against the people. At one time, Dmitry Merezhkovsky wrote in his article “The Coming Ham” that among all the sad and terrible phenomena that Russian society has to experience, the saddest and most terrible is the wild persecution of the intelligentsia. The ruling elite did not need the intelligentsia as a force; moreover, it was perceived as an alien and dangerous force. This was caused by the fact that the country's leadership, itself suffering from a lack of culture, opposed it to politics, feared it and its truth.
3. Genesis of the Russian intelligentsia
As a special social stratum, the intelligentsia began to form in Russia back in the feudal era, mainly from among the nobility and clergy. It took many years to form.
The prototype of the first Russian intellectuals, according to B.N. Miliukov, the author of "Essays on the History of Russian Culture", appeared under Peter I. He first gathered a circle of self-educated intellectuals called upon to help him in establishing a new statehood. Peter I attracted the Dutch, Danes, Swedes, and Germans, making them his own, Russians. They accepted and absorbed Russian culture, developed and enriched it.
After Peter’s reform, the country had to go a long way to create its own national, surprisingly bright intelligentsia, which gave birth to an outstanding phenomenon of world culture - Russian culture, and in it the names of Pushkin, Lobachevsky, Dostoevsky, Tchaikovsky and many others. Nikolai Berdyaev called Radishchev, the author of “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” the first Russian intellectual.
The process of formation of the intelligentsia accelerated significantly in the 40s of the 19th century. The autocracy could no longer prevent the process of democratization of education. Among the student youth, the number of commoners - people from different classes (clergy, merchants, philistines, bureaucrats), mainly engaged in mental work, who replenished the stratum of the intelligentsia - was increasing.
In the post-reform era, when the formation of this new social stratum is completed, the common element in its composition becomes predominant. This circumstance was extremely important in the democratic orientation of the activities of the Russian intelligentsia, its active social and civic position.
The Russian nineteenth century was placed by world public opinion next to the European Renaissance. The best representatives of the intelligentsia in Russia were distinguished by moral and ethical claims, noble and highly moral traits: compassion and humanity, honesty, a heightened moral vision of the world, mental development, the ability to think critically and independently and evaluate social life; faith in a social miracle, sacrifice, imbued with human suffering, associated with the deepest responsibility for the fate of the people.
A distinctive feature of the Russian intelligentsia has always been love for the people, sometimes reaching the point of people-worship. She has always thought and thinks about the people, she is capable of self-denial in the name of truth and the embodiment of her goals. The class of nobles and commoners “burned” themselves for the sake of the ideas of universal equality, for the sake of the abolition of serfdom, for the sake of freedom and social justice. The intense love of the intelligentsia for the people is largely determined by the origins of its origin. Pushkin called himself “the echo of the Russian people.” From the depths of the people came the comprehensive mind of Lomonosov, famous writers, artists, composers. The folk source allows the intelligentsia to subtly understand the mystery of human existence, the drama of human existence, which, in the words of F. Dostoevsky, “consists not only in living, but in what to live for.” The level of the intelligentsia that emerged from the people in our time remains high.
At the same time, a considerable part of the intelligentsia expresses extreme pessimism, disbelief in the spiritual powers of the Russian people, and gives a derogatory assessment of the Russian people. And this leads to contradictions in the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people.
The relationship between the intelligentsia and the people has never been unambiguous, clear, or straightforward. For the Russian peasant, the power of the Tsar was sometimes closer and more understandable than the calls of the intelligentsia. For example, the intelligentsia of the 60s of the 19th century deluded themselves in vain that they would be able to merge with the people, that their ideals coincided. Her “going to the people” failed; she was not understood. And when the Narodnaya Volya killed Alexander II, believing this to be the fulfillment of the “people’s will,” the peasantry unequivocally condemned and turned away from them.
The relationship between the intelligentsia and the people remained the most important problem of social and cultural life at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. Many of the cultural figures were aware and deeply worried about the fact that in life there was a divergence and misunderstanding of these two forces of Russian society. The question of the relationship between the intelligentsia and the people was “the most painful, the most feverish” for A. Blok. “My topic stands before me, the topic of Russia (the question of the intelligentsia and the people in particular). I consciously and irrevocably devote my life to this topic... Despite all my deviations, falls, doubts, repentances, I am going,” - he wrote in a letter to K.S. Stanislavsky in 1908. In Blok's view, the intelligentsia and the people are always opposed to each other. If the intelligentsia acted as the bearer of culture, then the people were the exponent of spontaneous, natural force, in which the poet saw a positive beginning.
In the same year, A. Blok gave a report at the Religious and Philosophical Society, “The People and the Intelligentsia,” in which he spoke about the need to find ways to connect the intelligentsia with the people. V.G. Korolenko, participating in the discussion of this report, also recognized the existence of a gap between the people and the intelligentsia, but, at the same time, argued that the people are moving further and further away from the three pillars - Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality.
Historical experience shows that the people of Russia have always had a spiritual mentor, they were drawn to him, they believed in him. He enlightened, inspired, instilled faith, hope, love, and spoke about such moral traits as honesty, conscientiousness, love of truth, and love for the Motherland. He built ideas of social welfare, unity, salvation of the state, and determined the goal to be achieved. The Russian writer, poet, chronicler, artist always remembered that he was doomed to public confession. And as a confession before the people and for the people, he regarded his creation, what he had done, what he had done. At the same time, this historical experience suggests that the intelligentsia needs to be careful in its hopes for the people, to be wiser, more honest with them, and not to imitate them. This is the guarantee of honest, harmonious relations between the intelligentsia and the people, which meet the interests of the progressive development of Russian society, the interests of the further integration of national culture into world culture.
The intelligentsia is very heterogeneous in its composition. Representatives of the intelligentsia are people with different education, spiritual world, and located at various levels of the social hierarchy. At the same time, the history of the intelligentsia shows that they are all united by a number of unchangeable essential features.
These primarily include:
- orientation towards universal human qualities, commitment to the idea of justice, critical attitude towards existing social forms of government of society, far from the ideals of humanism and democracy;
- the unity of the spiritual nature of the intellectual person and the people whose interests and needs he expresses;
- loyalty to the people, patriotism, active asceticism, creative obsession;
- a deeply developed understanding of one’s “I”, independence, sufficient independence, a heightened love for freedom, for freedom of expression. The personal principle is recognized by the intellectual as the highest value;
- courage, perseverance in defending one’s own positions, dictated by conscience and conviction;
- inconsistency, social and moral tension between various groups of the intelligentsia;
- a peculiar, dual awareness of reality, often leading to serious political fluctuations, manifestations of conservatism, and some impulsiveness to events in life;
- a frequent combination of spirituality with mercantilism, a high degree of self-awareness with egocentrism.
The Russian intellectual has always been characterized by duality of character: freedom of spirit is more an individual trait than a social one. Hence, at times he was more concerned about personal, individual leadership than the social movement of the people. Many intellectuals, on the one hand, demonstrate the independence of the idea, and on the other, the inability and inability to implement it.
Many ambiguous traits of the intelligentsia manifest themselves under the influence of circumstances, depend on the regime of power, the spiritual atmosphere in society, which they largely create themselves.
Intelligence is characterized by a certain degree of moral maturity of an individual, regardless of social class affiliation. This is the quality of thinking, impeccability in actions, the feeling of being a person in relation to any other person, the ability to put oneself in the place of another person.
Intelligence is manifested in a sober self-assessment of one’s personal activity, in understanding the humanity in a person, in the ability to feel him, to be sensitive to his oddities and weaknesses, to feel the tragedies experienced by humanity. It is associated with forgotten spiritual human qualities - mercy, the need to help one's neighbor, a sense of responsibility for the destinies of people.
Intelligence is nothing more than a fusion of mental and moral culture. At one time, academician D.S. Likhachev said that you cannot pretend to be intelligent. You can pretend to be kind, generous, even thoughtful, wise, finally, but never intelligent.”
4. The current state of the Russian intelligentsia
One of the main and quite alarming processes observed today is the process of erosion of the intelligentsia. This process proceeds in the following directions.
The first is associated with the formation of a new Russian statehood, during which many representatives of the intelligentsia go into power structures, ceasing to be the intelligentsia themselves, becoming officials, bureaucracy, and nomenklatura. The second way of “departure” of the intelligentsia is caused by the fact that in the conditions of transition to the market, due to a sharp drop in wages in the public sector of the economy, not being able to provide for themselves and their families financially, many representatives of the intelligentsia change their profession, go into business, etc. structures, i.e. leaving the sphere of intellectual work. The third direction is external emigration, the departure abroad of specialists, scientists, writers, cultural figures, etc., i.e. We are talking about the country’s loss of talent, skill, professionalism, and competence.
The consequences of these processes are extraordinary - the destruction of Russia's intellectual and moral foundation, throwing it back many years.
On the one hand, the named trends and ways of “departure” of the intelligentsia are a consequence of economic and political transformations in our country, during which a new social structure is being formed, new social strata and groups are emerging, absorbing yesterday’s “budget” intellectuals. This is an objective process and it is impossible to prevent it. At the same time, some “anti-intellectual” and “anti-scientific” opinions and sentiments emerging both in society and in government policy are alarming.
Russian society, the Russian state is now experiencing a difficult, painful and protracted crisis. Recent years have been characterized not only by a craze for political problems, but also by a clear conflict between the former moral positions of Soviet society and new economic reforms. Crisis relations in society were aggravated by the collapse of the national economy and the complete collapse of the consumer market. Poverty, which was a serious problem during perestroika, steadily increased in the post-perestroika period as a result of a sharp decline in output and rising prices. With the transition to a policy of price liberalization, poverty becomes the most pressing problem for our people.
There is a process of transition from the relatively rich to the category of the largest poor part of our population, to which such social groups as skilled and unskilled workers, agricultural workers and specialists with diplomas are especially susceptible, i.e. intelligentsia.
The fact that the financial situation of the intelligentsia is deteriorating is evidenced by data from six stages of the All-Russian monitoring conducted by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. When asked to evaluate their life in comparison with what it was six months ago, 73% of respondents with diplomas responded that life had become worse (May 2001); in December 2001, life had worsened over the past six months for 60% of the intelligentsia; in March 2002, 55% noted a decrease in their standard of living compared to December 2001, and in June 2002, another 38% of specialists with higher education noted a decrease in their financial situation (compared to March 2002), in February 2003. 50% of intellectuals indicated a deterioration in life over the past six months.
Thus, the above data indicate a stable trend of deterioration in the living standards of the intelligentsia. This social group records a deterioration in its situation in all spheres of life, with the “peak” of deterioration occurring in the satisfaction of primary needs. Things are a little better with opportunities for additional income, but in general the intelligentsia’s assessment of their own life prospects is quite deplorable. All six stages of monitoring confirmed the stability of the trend toward worsening life prospects for people with higher education.
Thus, sociological studies record a sharp deterioration in the social well-being of the intelligentsia, as well as their rather low assessments of both the economic and political situation in the country. Let us turn to the answers of respondents with higher education to some questions of Russian monitoring (May 2001; December 2001; March 2002; June 2002; February 2003). Comparing the data obtained, we see that the overall assessment of the economic situation changes little. The number of optimists who believe that the economic situation is improving remains at 9-10% (slightly less among Russians in general). The share of pessimistic assessments also changes little - from 80% in 2001 to 60% in 2003 indicating a worsening situation.
Thus, the Russian intelligentsia’s assessments of the economic situation in the country remain consistently negative.
As for assessments of the political situation in the country, there is a downward trend in positive assessments - that it is getting better was noted by 15.4% (May 2001); 6.3% (December 2001); 1.3% (March 2002); 5.6% (June 2002). If the number of respondents with higher education giving pessimistic assessments (the situation is getting worse) gradually increased over the course of three surveys (64.2%; 69.7%; 77.2%), then in June 2002 and February 2003 there were more pessimists less - a little more than half, mainly due to an increase in the number of respondents who found it difficult to answer, as well as those who considered the political situation to have not changed.
From the above data it is obvious that the intelligentsia is quite critical of both the political and economic situation in the country.
Therefore, it is not surprising that from survey to survey the number of people sharing the following point of view is decreasing: “Things in Russia are moving in the right direction (20.2%; 16.8; 9.1; 13.2; 9.7%). The prevailing opinion (slightly more than half of those surveyed) is that the country is moving in the “partly right” direction; the number of opponents of the chosen course has doubled - from 16.6% (May 2001) to 34% (February 2003). At the same time, more than half of the intelligentsia are confident in the need for a transition to a market economy (59.2%; 67.9; 54.8; 56.6; 52%) - the average for the mass of Russians is almost 10% lower. There are about 20% of the intelligentsia who are opponents of such an economic policy, and the same number found it difficult to determine their attitude towards a market economy.
At the same time, with all this, it is necessary to note the following - the approach of Russians with higher education to individual elements of a market economy is becoming more and more conscious. Some euphoria about the transition to the market, which took place in previous years and was recorded in studies of the early 90s. replaced by more critical assessments. Most likely, this is due to the deterioration of the socio-economic situation of most of the intelligentsia itself. For example, the number of supporters of the transfer of property into private hands has decreased slightly over the past two years (63.4%; 62.4; 55.6; 54.0; 50%) (at the same time, every fourth person opposes this act). Fewer respondents began to share the opinion that the improvement of the situation in the country will be facilitated by complete freedom of private entrepreneurship (55.5%; 51.7; 44.4; 46.6; 47%), attracting foreign capital (59.3%; 61.6; 54.3, 47.7; 45%). Similar trends are observed in other positions characterizing the state of economic consciousness of the intelligentsia. The intelligentsia's awareness of the complexity of the economic and political situation in the country causes an increase in the number of people who share the opinion that “the threat of losing Russia's political independence is great” (May 2001 - 28.1%; June 2002 - 36.2%).
The feeling of discomfort, the awareness of one’s position as “vulnerable, critical and impossible” (D. Granin) leads to the fact that people prefer to isolate themselves in a circle of direct communication, at the microenvironment level. This is evidenced by data on respondents’ self-identification. Thus, before the survey conducted in June 2002, most often (on the scale “often” - 3 points, “sometimes” - 2 points, “never” - 1 point representatives of the intelligentsia identify themselves with their own family, close friends (2 .58 points), with fellow students and workmates (2.26), people of their generation (2.15), with those who share the same beliefs and views (2.18).
The number of intellectual respondents who identify themselves with people of their own nationality has decreased (from 2.19 - May 2001 to 1.97 - June 2002), with Russians (2.01 - May 2001 to 1.80 - June 2002). At the same time, the number of intellectuals who consider themselves to be those who are not interested in politics has increased slightly (from 1.31 in May 2001 to 1.50 in June 2002).
Similar trends (judging by the average indicators for the Russian population as a whole) are observed in other social groups of the country’s population.
The same conclusions are confirmed by the All-Russian study “Social structure and living conditions”, conducted at the end of 2002 - beginning of 2003. (State Committee on Employment of the Russian Federation). The intellectuals surveyed state that they feel most connected to family members, relatives (79%), and work colleagues (44%). The correlation with other groups is low. For example, only 15% of respondents with higher education (the average for the array is 9%) identify themselves with people who have similar political views, 2% (the average is 3%) - with people of their own nationality.
Apparently, such trends in the self-identification of social groups (and individuals) are a consequence of the processes of social differentiation of various layers and groups taking place in society, when primary groups act as a necessary addition to impersonal social groups and formal associations (all kinds of political parties, etc.) , based on direct contact (family, circle of friends, etc.), which mediate the relationship between the individual and society. In Western countries, similar processes were accompanied by an increasing role of organized, united “ideologies,” disciplines, etc. all kinds of “formal” groups and associations, and thus the formation of civil society took place. We are currently observing the formation of an orientation toward the microenvironment, a small group, and the immediate environment, with the increasing apoliticality of the population as a whole, including the intelligentsia. These trends indicate: the gap between government and society is increasing, and the prerequisites for the formation of a full-fledged civil society as an element, an integral part of a democratic state are becoming fewer.
In connection with the total deterioration of the material and social situation of the “budget intelligentsia” - the most massive layer of the Russian intelligentsia, which could become the embryo of the “new middle class”, we note the following. In recent years, there has been a transition to a market economy, which should ensure the absence of restrictions on wages and a variety of forms of ownership and business activity. The consequence of these (and many other) processes is the overcoming or reduction of socio-economic polarization in society due to an increase in the “middle” in the social structure and the emergence of a “middle class”. Countries moving from totalitarian systems to market economies follow this path. And in countries with a market economy, the middle class includes the intelligentsia (except for the elite), highly skilled workers, middle and lower-level managers, while the income of the middle strata, employed primarily by the state, cannot be lower than the income of the middle and petty bourgeoisie. In Russia there is a completely different situation. Firstly, many people classify only the bourgeois strata as the middle class: traders, owners of small businesses, all kinds of businessmen, etc. Secondly, their incomes are many times higher than the average wage. Thirdly, the standard of living and income of those who should be part of the “middle class” (intelligentsia, highly skilled workers) is one of the lowest in the country.
This is, in brief, the general picture of the current social stratification in Russia, which does not fit with either the declarations about the emergence of a “middle layer” or the “transition to the market.” The most paradoxical in this situation is the situation of the intelligentsia, when the salary of professors, who in Western countries are part of the intellectual elite and in the system of social stratification are above the “middle class,” in our country corresponds to the salary of a cleaning lady in the Moscow metro. According to the Moscow City Hall, at the end of 2002, the most low-paid category of Muscovites were workers in science, and the most highly paid were workers in the credit, financial and insurance sectors.
This situation is partly a consequence of the lack of demand for intellectual potential generated by the extensive form of its accumulation in previous years; and the “dumping” of unclaimed “ballast” occurs at the expense of people who are able to work successfully in other areas, perhaps who came to the field of intellectual work by accident. Thus, 90 thousand people left science for commercial structures in 2001 alone. Those who remain in science should be in demand and not be discriminated against, but the situation in Russian science is different.
At the same time, despite the fact that recently, among the post-Soviet intellectual elite, discussions about the “end of the Russian intelligentsia” and that “the intelligentsia is leaving” have become especially popular, it is necessary to outline the positive aspects of the current stage of development of our country.
Detailed and eloquent arguments are given in favor of the “verdict” of the intelligentsia: for example, in the collection of articles “At the Crossroads (New Milestones)”, published by a group of authoritative social philosophers in connection with the 90th anniversary of the notorious publication “Old Milestones”, which was published in 1909 Thus, one of the authors of the collection, N. Pokrovsky, in an article meaningfully entitled “Farewell, Intelligentsia!”, tracing the dramatic history of the Russian intelligentsia, comes to the following conclusion: “By the will of historical chance, we found ourselves witnesses and participants in the final destruction of the intelligentsia and its departure from the historical arenas... The intelligentsia is leaving. Along with the intelligentsia, the world of its ideals is leaving. There is no place for it in the new climate situation...”
At the same time, there is another point of view, set out in detail in the collection “The Formation of the Russian Intellectual at the University”: today Russia needs “a new type of personality - a moral intellectual, an educated person with a heightened sense of conscience. In a perfect, complete form, as an ethical ideal, this type of personality can be expressed by the concept of an intellectual.” In other words, the intelligentsia is understood not as a social group of educated people professionally engaged in highly qualified mental work (these are “cadres”, “intellectuals”, “specialists”), but as a specifically Russian socio-psychological type, possessing a special moral consciousness - altruistic and democratic , alien to selfish individualism and nationalism, petty-bourgeois acquisitiveness, violence, and rudeness.
A generational change is taking place: Soviet disappointed intellectual fathers are giving way to energetic sons and daughters. Moreover, such a process cannot be called the end of the Russian intelligentsia; on the contrary, it is its natural continuation, reproduction at a new historical stage.
There is no need to direct young people to copy the wonderful models of the revolutionary (or any other) past.
The world has changed significantly, Russia has fundamentally transformed, so it is unlikely that representatives of the Silver Age can serve as guiding beacons for modern youth. The reproduction of the Russian intelligentsia is an objective natural-historical process, and the problem is what kind of participation higher education can take in it. It must be taken into account that the modern teaching corps belongs to the Soviet generation of intelligentsia, and students will never be exact reproductions of teachers. Therefore, the reproduction of the intelligentsia at the new historical stage will take a completely new path.
The transition from a post-industrial to an information society should objectively increase the role of intellectual workers. Already today, in developed countries, this part of the population constitutes the leading social stratum, both in number and in influence on the future of the nation. The intelligentsia is the main creative group of the information society. The preservation of the nation will depend on it. It is this part of the population that will ensure the level of progress in Russia.
Protecting the interests of the bearers of knowledge, culture and spirituality in Russia, returning them to government, i.e. determining the priorities and goals of its development, developing practical policies, including management and control of state resources, is a specific political task for Russia, without the solution of which it will not be able to enter a new period of human development among world leaders. National wealth should be managed by those who create it. This is not only a demand for social justice. This is a condition for the development of society and the economy in the transition period.
At the same time, the state has actually withdrawn from participation in the development of the intellectual and spiritual potential of the nation. Neglect of the intellectual and spiritual development of the nation creates not only a potential, but also an immediate threat to national security, because economic, financial, and military factors in the policies of states are replaced by informational influence. The lag in the information field leads to the fact that the socio-economic inequality inherent in modern societies will be supplemented by information inequality.
CONCLUSION
The following key concepts were considered in the work: the essence of the concept of “intelligentsia”; the genesis of the Russian intelligentsia; the current state of the Russian intelligentsia; the essence and purpose of the intelligentsia.
The analysis of the main processes taking place among the Russian intelligentsia during the period of transformation of society allows us to draw the following conclusions.
1) Russia needs to expand the intellectual field, formed by three factors: the level of national security, the volume of knowledge (scientific and technical basis) and the level of environmental safety. In this aspect, intelligence is presented as a fusion of culture and education, as a symbol of humanism and citizenship.
2) One of the main and rather alarming processes observed today is the process of erosion of the intelligentsia, which is proceeding in the following directions. The first is associated with the formation of a new Russian statehood, during which many representatives of the intelligentsia go into power structures, becoming officials, bureaucrats, and nomenklatura. The second way of “departure” of the intelligentsia is caused by the fact that in the conditions of transition to the market, due to a sharp drop in wages in the public sector of the economy, not being able to provide for themselves and their families financially, many representatives of the intelligentsia change their profession, go into business, etc. structures, i.e. leaving the sphere of intellectual work. The third direction is external emigration, the departure abroad of specialists, scientists, writers, cultural figures, etc., i.e. We are talking about the country’s loss of talent, skill, professionalism, and competence. The consequences of these processes are extraordinary - the destruction of Russia's intellectual and moral foundation, throwing it back many years.
3) An analysis of the objective situation of the state of affairs in science allows us to conclude that science and intellectual activity in today’s Russia do not enjoy either material or moral support, either from the state or from public opinion. There is a complete absence of a mechanism for interaction on scientific issues between the legislative and executive authorities, both among themselves and with representatives of science and technology and with society as a whole.
4) Research regularly records the deterioration of the financial situation of the intelligentsia in all spheres of life, with the “peak” of deterioration occurring in the satisfaction of primary needs.
5) With the growing apoliticality of the intelligentsia as a whole (as evidenced by research results), in the absence of elements of civil society (for example, various “formal” groups and associations connected by common “ideologies”, disciplines, etc.), the orientation of the intelligentsia (and the population in general) on the microhabitat indicate that the gap between government and society is increasing. Thus, the prerequisites for the formation of a full-fledged civil society as an element, an integral part of a democratic state are becoming fewer.
6) The term “intelligentsia” today carries, first of all, ideas about the moral properties of a person (high moral qualities, tolerance, a high level of personal culture, a responsible attitude towards any work performed). Objective characteristics (origin, education, nature of work) faded into the background.
7) The intelligentsia, which has never been a sufficiently homogeneous social group, is today becoming even more differentiated.
Thus, we can conclude that the transition from a post-industrial to an information society objectively increases the role of knowledge workers. Already today, in developed countries, this part of the population constitutes the leading social stratum, both in number and in influence on the future of the nation. The intelligentsia can be the main creative group in the information society. The preservation of the nation will depend on it. It is this part of the population that ensures the level of progress in Russia.
At the same time, it is necessary to raise the social status of knowledge carriers in Russian society. Protecting the interests of the bearers of knowledge, culture and spirituality in Russia, returning them to government, i.e. determining the priorities and goals of its development, developing practical policies, including management and control of state resources, is a specific political task for Russia, without the solution of which it will not be able to enter a new period of human development among world leaders.
Introduction
Section 1. The nature of the intelligentsia. The essence of the concept and its genesis pp. 13-46
Section 2. Dynamics and content of the sociocultural function of the intelligentsia P. 47-85
Section 3. Imperatives of Russian culture as a prerequisite for the emergence of the Russian intelligentsia P. 86-126
Conclusion
List of used literature.
pp. 127-134 pp. 135-144
Introduction to the work
Relevance of the research topic.
The problem of the intelligentsia is one of those problems that have been at the epicenter of Russian social thought for almost a century. There is not a single major Russian philosopher, sociologist or culturologist who, in his works, would not touch upon the question of what the intelligentsia is, what is its historical mission, what role it plays in the formation of national identity.
The close attention that has been and is being given to this problem is determined by a number of circumstances. Among them, it is necessary, first of all, to mention that the intelligentsia, from its inception to the present day, plays a special role in the socio-political, cultural, and moral life of Russian society. The new and recent history of Russia convincingly demonstrates that the intelligentsia not only creates, preserves and disseminates spiritual values, but also forms a certain spiritual climate.
Pessimistic and optimistic sentiments among the intelligentsia, after a certain period of time, inevitably become mass sentiments and influence the formation of that spiritual component, thanks to which one cultural and historical era distinguishes itself from another.
During the XIX-XX centuries. the intelligentsia spoke more than once in
role as a catalyst for the liberation movement in Russia and will not
It is an exaggeration to say that representatives of this social
groups played a decisive role in the turnaround that our
Society over the past decade.
The relevance of the topic is due to one more circumstance.
Acquaintance with the scientific literature shows that the entire range of works
written on the problems of the intelligentsia, characterize this
phenomenon from the standpoint of socio-philosophical, sociological or
historical approaches. In a cultural sense and, moreover,
as a “derivative” from the Russian type of culture, a phenomenon
the intelligentsia was practically not considered by anyone. This idea sounded in the works of G.P. Fedotov, but he only briefly outlined his position, without giving a detailed justification for this particular idea, which from our point of view seems very rich.
The enormous importance of solving this problem lies in the fact that it will resolve a dispute that has been going on for several decades and answer the question: “Is the intelligentsia a purely Russian phenomenon or appears at a certain stage of development of any society.”
Such an approach allows us to make a scientific forecast regarding the fate of the intelligentsia, to show its place and role in a changing world, and finally, it allows us to clarify the question that has not been raised by any of the cultural scientists regarding the functions of the intelligentsia.
It should be emphasized that the importance of studying the problems of the intelligentsia increases sharply at turning points in history, when questions about the driving forces of historical progress, models of social development and the ways of further movement of social systems arise with particular urgency. This is precisely the period Russia is going through today, which over the past decade has been persistently seeking a path to transition from a traditional to an information society. In the context of the search for their own identity, a change in the system of basic values, the intelligentsia faces a number of difficult tasks, the solution of which
no other social group is capable of taking on. Today, the intelligentsia is expected to provide clear, unambiguous answers to questions about what direction the country should take next, what awaits Russia in the 21st century, how to preserve cultural identity in the process of modernization, and a number of other equally pressing questions that are of fundamental importance for the destinies of the nation. and states.
These are the main reasons that determined the relevance
problems that prompted the author of this dissertation to take up the development of a topic that, in his opinion, is one of the most pressing problems of cultural knowledge, having a pronounced theoretical and practical aspect.
The degree of scientific development of the problem.
The literature on the problem of the intelligentsia is wide and varied. If we talk about those who stood at the origins of its development, then first of all, we should remember Turgenev and Chernyshevsky, who in their famous novels “Fathers and Sons” and “What to Do” gave vivid artistic images of Russian intellectuals, revealed socio-psychological and the moral characteristics of the “new people” who emerged in Russia in the post-reform era.
Scientific and theoretical understanding of the problem begins in the 60s of the 19th century with an article by D.I. Pisarev “The Thinking Proletariat” (1865) Analyzing the images of Bazarov and Rakhmetov, the critic notes that they fundamentally differ from representatives of the “educated class”. The author calls them nihilists, whose whole life is devoted to the struggle for the happiness of the people. The work of D.I. Pisarev opened a very important topic and served as the basis for further research into the problem of the intelligentsia as a special phenomenon in the life of society.
Subsequently, the study of the intelligentsia was carried out by representatives of Narodnaya Volya and Marxist thought. In the works of I.K. Mikhailovsky, P.L. Lavrova, P. Tkacheva, G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Lenin reveals the historical roots of the intelligentsia, gives a description of the specific intellectual consciousness, and shows its social heterogeneity.
At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, the topic of the intelligentsia became a priority for representatives of Russian idealistic thought. The result of their theoretical developments was the famous collection “Milestones” (1909), the authors of which were N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, S.L. Frank, P.B. Kistyakovsky, A.S. Izgoev, M.O. Gershenzon. The Vekhi people approached the assessment of the phenomenon of the intelligentsia from the standpoint of a socio-ethical approach, defining this community not through education and social status, but through a common worldview, characterized by an open and active focus on protecting the interests of the people.
Among the authors who made the greatest contribution to the development of problems of the intelligentsia, it is necessary, first of all, to note P.N. Milyukova. His work “The Intelligentsia and Historical Tradition” became the basis for the collection “The Intelligentsia in Russia” (1910), the authors of which criticized Vekhi’s understanding of the intelligentsia.
In the post-revolutionary years, the problems of the intelligentsia were highlighted in the works of major political figures, among whom should be named A.V. Lunacharsky, Yu.M. Steklova, V.V. Vorovsky, L.D. Trotsky.
In the literary aspect, the problems of the intelligentsia and revolution were raised by M. Gorky, A. Blok, I. Bunin, V. Korolenko.
By the end of the 20s, the study of this topic was curtailed due to established ideas about the role of the intelligentsia as
a social stratum that did not produce material goods, but performed the function of ideologically serving the interests of the proletariat. In a few works, the intelligentsia was called “specialists”; the main attention was paid to studying the role of the CPSU in the formation of the socialist intelligentsia and the fight against bourgeois ideology.
The curtailment of developments on the problems of the intelligentsia in Soviet Russia went in parallel with the intensification of interest in the study of the problem of the intelligentsia among the Russian emigration. In the interval between the 20s and the end of the 30s-40s, a number of fundamental works devoted to the intelligentsia and written by N.A. appeared. Berdyaeva, G.P. Fedotova, I.A. Ilyina, S. Frank.
The revival of interest in the problem of the intelligentsia in the Soviet Union dates back to the late 50s and early 60s. During this period, the first sociological studies appeared - the works of K.G. Barbakova, V.A. Mansurova, M.N. Rutkevich; the number of historical and philosophical works devoted to this issue is growing, the object of their analysis is expanding; the first generalizing studies on the history of the intelligentsia V.R. appear. Leikina-Svirskaya, A.V., Kvakina, A.V. Ushakova, S.A. Fedkzhina, P.P. Amelina, V.I. Astakhova; generalizing collective works are published: "The Soviet intelligentsia: History of formation and growth. 1917-1965" (M., 1968), "Soviet intelligentsia. A brief outline of history (1917-1975)" (M., 1977) "Intelligentsia and revolution" ( M., 1985) and others.
The disadvantages of these works were sociological
approach to the study of intelligentsia and the tendency to
embellishment of reality. The intelligentsia was considered only as a bearer of communist consciousness and did not receive
lighting its oppositional orientation.
Somewhat later (in 1969) the work of V.F. Cormer's "Double Consciousness of the Intelligentsia and Pseudoculture", which became a continuation of the Vekhov traditions in understanding the problems of the intelligentsia.
Five years later, an article by A.I. was published. Solzhenitsyn's "Education" (1974), which became a notable phenomenon among the works devoted to the analysis of the intelligentsia as a special social phenomenon.
A new stage in history, which began in the 90s, the elimination
ideological control by the CPSU made it possible
a comprehensive objective understanding of the phenomenon of the intelligentsia. This
period is characterized by the appearance of a huge number, before
everything, journalistic works. However, they also came out
fundamental works written by V.M. Mezhueva, A.I. Utkina, V.G. Fedotova, N.E. Pokrovsky, V.I. Tolstykh, A.S. Panarina, B.A. Uspensky B.S. Memetova, O.Yu. Oleynik, G. Pomerantz, G.G. Guseinov, S. Kara-Murza, L. Kogan, G. Chernyavskaya, R.D. Mamedova, etc. Thanks to their efforts, it was possible to synthesize the layer of knowledge that was accumulated by thinkers of the pre-revolutionary era and Soviet authors.
Among foreign researchers, the problems of the intelligentsia were considered by Karl Manheim, Charles P. Snow, Bertrand Russell, D. Bayrau and others.
Thus, an analysis of the scientific literature devoted to the problem of the intelligentsia shows that the layer of scientific knowledge on the problems of the intelligentsia is very impressive, however, practically none of the monographs or articles published to date touch upon the problem that
stated in the title of the dissertation. An exception is an article by B. A. Uspensky, published in the collection “Russia. Materials of the Russian-Italian symposium” in 1999.
Understanding the specifics of Russian culture was begun 170 years ago by representatives of the Slavophile movement A.S. Khomyakov, I.P. Kireevsky, Aksakov brothers. In polemics with P.Ya. Chaadaev came up with an idea about the specifics of Russian civilization and that Russian culture represents a special type of culture.
A.I. paid serious attention to this topic. Herzen, D.I. Pisarev, V.G. Belinsky. Among those who left special works devoted to the specifics of Russian culture, N.A. should be noted. Berdyaeva, N.G. Fedotova, I.A. Ilyin, whose works have become classics.
A significant contribution to the coverage of issues related to the peculiarities of the cultural and historical development of Russia was made by P.N. Miliukov, who created the fundamental work "Essays on the History of Russian Culture".
In the 20-30s of the 20th century, Eurasians studied this problem very thoroughly. The ideologists of the movement represented by N.S. Trubetskoy, V.I. Vernadsky, L.P. Karsavina, P.N. Savitsky and others substantiated the thesis about the existence of a special Eurasian civilization, which has a special type of culture based on a synthesis of the values of the cultures of the West and the East.
During the Soviet period, the study of Russian culture took place mainly in a historical vein. A significant contribution to the study of the history of Russian culture was made by B.A. Rybakov, A.M. Panchenko, B.I. Krasnobaev, N.Ya. Eidelman, A.I. Klibanov and others.
aspect it is necessary to note the work of Mich. Lifshitsa, Yu.A. Lotman, S.S. Averintseva, A.S. Akhiezera, B.A. Uspensky, V.N. Toporova, D.S. Likhacheva I.V. One of the latest works in which the author’s concept of the specifics of Russian culture is presented is “Introduction to the History of Russian Culture” by I.V. Kondakova.
Thus, the source base of the dissertation research is quite rich, however, various aspects of the phenomenon of the intelligentsia are disclosed with an insufficient degree of completeness. The main problem that interests us has remained outside the field of view of domestic and foreign researchers.
The purpose of the dissertation research
is the substantiation of the position about the originality of the Russian intelligentsia, as a “derivative” of the Russian type of culture.
The implementation of the research objectives is expected in the process of solving the following tasks:
clarifying the idea of the essence and genesis of the concept of intelligentsia;
identifying criteria to determine the boundaries of the intelligentsia;
research into the content and dynamics of the sociocultural function of the Russian intelligentsia;
definitions of specific features of the type of Russian culture;
Establishing a relationship between the type of Russian culture and
the appearance of the domestic intelligentsia;
Object of study is the domestic intelligentsia, which arose at a certain stage in the development of Russian culture, occupies a certain place in the social structure of society and performs a number of specific functions.
Subject of study - a set of specific features
11 Russian culture, which determined the emergence and originality of the phenomenon of the intelligentsia and the content of its sociocultural function.
Theoretical and methodological basis of the study
is the method of dialectical materialism. The basic principle of scientific thinking is historicism, which requires consideration of each phenomenon in its development.
The author was also guided by the methods of complexity, comprehensiveness, determinism, and objectivity in studying the phenomena of social life, which makes it possible to consider the subject of research in the diversity of its connections and relationships.
Scientific novelty of the research is as follows:
In formulation and consideration from the perspective of cultural
theory of the problem of the intelligentsia, which in the absolute majority
works are considered in a sociological or ethical manner;
In substantiating the idea that understanding the essence
intelligentsia is possible only by combining sociological,
historical, philosophical, cultural approaches;
In identifying a set of criteria to determine
the intelligentsia, as a group distinct from others;
In the study of the content and dynamics of sociocultural
functions of the Russian intelligentsia;
In substantiating the idea that the modern domestic intelligentsia, despite the changed conditions of existence, has retained a number of generic traits and, in this sense, is the heir of the Russian intelligentsia, which arose at the turn of the 30-40s. XIX century;
In revealing the contradictory spiritual appearance of modern
intelligentsia, which, feeling itself the heiress of certain
traditions, at the same time exhibits traits that were clearly condemned
representatives of the intelligentsia of the pre-revolutionary era;
in identifying fundamentally new features inherent in the Russian type of culture, including: a combination of openness and receptivity, multi-layeredness, a fundamentally different structure of culture, anti-philistinism, literary centrism, etc.;
in substantiating the idea that only in the bosom of Russian culture can the phenomenon of the Russian intelligentsia be born.
Scientific and practical significance of the work
is that the materials and conclusions of the dissertation can be used for further research of a wide range of problems related to the study of the phenomenon of the domestic intelligentsia, as well as in the process of teaching a number of courses studied in domestic higher education. They can be used in the analysis of national culture, in the development of teaching aids, lecture courses on the theory and history of culture.
The nature of the intelligentsia. The essence of the concept and its genesis
The nature of the intelligentsia is complex and dialectical; it is determined by both objective and subjective criteria. The exceptional versatility of this phenomenon was the reason that the authors of numerous sociological, philosophical, historical studies cannot come to unity in defining the essence of the concept, the social role and historical roots of the intelligentsia.
P.B. Struve, in his article “Intelligentsia and Revolution,” stated: “The word intelligentsia can be used, of course, in different senses. The history of this word in Russian everyday and literary speech could be the subject of an interesting special study” [117, pp. 191-192].
The question of a special group of society, possessing certain generic characteristics and differing from the bulk of the population, arose in the 30-40s of the 19th century. This was due to the fact that representatives of Russian socio-political thought for the first time consciously approached the choice of their paths for the development of Russia and the assessment of its place in the world process, and, consequently, the characteristics of that layer of society that generated and implemented advanced ideas. Until a certain period, this layer did not yet have its name.
For a long time it was believed that the very concept of “intelligentsia” in Russia was introduced into widespread use by the Russian publicist and critic of the 19th century P.D. Boborykin, who wrote in the 70s. The 19th century novel “Solid Virtues”, where the intelligentsia designated a group of people who personified the progressive ideals of social development and human dignity, existing outside and regardless of belonging to a certain class or bureaucratic rank.
In articles of 1904 and 1909, P. D. Boborykin himself declares himself the “godfather” of these words.
However, research in recent years has shown that a similar meaning of the concept is revealed in earlier sources. According to SO. Schmidt, the term intelligentsia was first used by V.A. Zhukovsky back in 1836: “the best St. Petersburg nobility, which here represents the entire Russian European intelligentsia.” Under the intelligentsia V.A. Zhukovsky, first of all, meant:
1. belonging to a certain sociocultural environment;
2. European education;
3. moral way of thinking and behavior. Thus, already in the 30s of the 19th century, ideas about the intelligentsia were associated with the ideals of “moral existence” as the basis of enlightenment and education and the noble duty of serving Russia.
The intelligentsia is interpreted in a similar vein by Westerners and Slavophiles represented by V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, A.S. Khomyakova and others.
By intelligentsia they understood a fairly broad layer of people, consisting of representatives of all classes. Both considered personal characteristics to be the most important for determining the criteria of the intelligentsia, but they differed on the understanding of the characteristic features of the intelligentsia. If Westerners considered education to be the basis for human development, freedom and independence, then Slavophiles considered morality.
Dynamics and content of the sociocultural function of the intelligentsia
The definition given in the first section allows us to conclude that the intelligentsia, as a special group, emerged in the 30-40s of the 19th century
Until this time, in Russia there was only a small layer of educated people who saw their destiny in serving the Tsar, in strengthening the autocracy and performing purely utilitarian, mainly managerial functions.
It is appropriate to call representatives of this layer “pre-intelligentsia” or “proto-intelligentsia.”
Individual representatives of the “proto-intelligentsia” - A.I. Radishchev, A. Novikov, some deputies of the laid down commission, already in the 18th century criticized serfdom and raised the question of the welfare of the people, not the state. However, these speeches were isolated and cannot be regarded as evidence of the intelligentsia’s entry into the historical arena. In addition, these people were still quite closely connected with their environment: cultural, secular.
"Source material" for formation
The nobility served as the “proto-intelligentsia.” Freedom-loving journalism, familiarization of the Russian military-political elite with the European order during the anti-Napoleonic wars, lead to the emergence of fairly stable liberal and democratic sentiments in this environment. A new type of nobles is emerging, aware of their guilt before the people, at the cost of whose enslavement and oppression the freedom and enlightenment of the upper stratum was ensured. A characteristic feature of the “repentant nobles” was, according to P.N. Miliukova, critical attitude to the surrounding reality.
Gradually, the idea of compulsory service and strengthening the Russian state in their minds is transformed into a desire to change it and thereby ease the fate of the people. The discontent of the “repentant nobles” results in an open armed uprising against autocracy and serfdom. For the first time, representatives of the layer that would later form the intelligentsia spoke out with the people against the tsar. The uprising was defeated, but the worldview of the Decembrists had a huge impact on the formation of the consciousness of the various intelligentsia.
In conditions when the nobility gradually lost the ability to express the urgent needs of the country's development, and the bourgeoisie, due to the weakness of capitalist relations, was still in the process of formation, a layer of people had to emerge ready to take upon themselves the expression of social needs in the political, social, cultural life of the Russian Federation. society.
There were certain prerequisites for the formation of such a layer. Already in the 18th century, the proportion of the non-noble element in higher educational institutions was quite high, but representatives of this educated part of society did not always find use for their abilities and knowledge. The quantitative increase in commoners and the closing of access to the nobility for them due to the increase in the class of positions that gave rights to it could not but put the young educated part of society in opposition to state power, which in every possible way emphasized their second-class status. By the 40s. In the 19th century, a social stratum was formed, which was officially called “raznochinsky”, but in fact it was precisely the intelligentsia. The “repentant nobles” are being replaced by a large detachment of critically thinking individuals from the commoners.
In Russia, bright hopes were associated with commoners. This social stratum was free from both the prejudices of the philistinism and the privileges of the nobility. The commoners came out “from under the yoke of theological academies, from the homeless bureaucracy, from the dejected philistinism... denying the nobility and, renouncing the bourgeoisie, it leaves the city and the landowner’s estate for the countryside, joins the peasantry, goes to the people,” wrote N. .P. Ogarev in 1863.
Coming from the lower strata of society, this class, according to V.G. Belinsky, most disappointed the hopes of Peter the Great. “It always learned to read and write on pennies, it turned its Russian intelligence and sharpness to the prejudiced craft of interpreting decrees, having learned to bow and approach the hands of ladies, it has not forgotten how to carry out ignoble executions with its noble hands.”
Imperatives of Russian culture as a prerequisite for the emergence of the Russian intelligentsia
Most authors studying the phenomenon of the intelligentsia actually adhere to the Marxist point of view, according to which the intelligentsia arises at a certain stage in the development of society, in the process of deepening the social division of labor, when the need for this group of people arises.
This approach seems quite reasonable when applying the socio-economic approach to defining the intelligentsia as a group of educated people professionally engaged in mental work. However, in our understanding, in addition to the above criteria, representatives of the intelligentsia must also possess a number of valuable spiritual properties, specific self-awareness, and also perform special functions.
The complexity of the problem lies in the fact that in this case the emergence of the intelligentsia becomes the result of not only socio-economic factors, but also a combination of certain socio-cultural prerequisites.
In other words, the emergence and formation of the intelligentsia is associated with a certain type of culture. In our opinion, the intelligentsia, as a special phenomenon, is a derivative of only one - the Russian type of culture, could not be formed within the framework of any other national culture and is, therefore, a unique, original phenomenon.
The type of Russian culture allows us to unambiguously determine what the sociocultural phenomenon that represents the subject of our research is, therefore this section will be devoted to the analysis of the Russian type of culture. The study of the specific features of Russian culture has always aroused great interest. Clarifying the meaning, content, and prospects of the Russian cultural type in the context of its interaction with the West and the East for two centuries is the main problem of Russian philosophical and cultural knowledge. There is not a single major Russian thinker who would not address this issue in his work, regardless of his political and moral principles. Slavophiles and Westerners, populists and Marxists, Russians and Hegelians, representatives of Russian idealistic philosophy tried to determine that special and unique thing that creates the idea of the national identity of the Russian people and their culture.
Most often, Russian culture was deduced through the specific features of the Russian soul, the peculiarities of the Russian national mentality. The range of characteristics of the “Russian spirit” is quite wide. In the most general terms, it can be covered from admiration for openness, sincerity, gullibility, to accusations of irresponsibility, deceit, etc. It is important to note that it is not so much the psychological, national characteristics of the Russian soul that are of fundamental importance, but rather their “derivatives” in the sphere of culture, which constitute its originality, defining the culture of Russia as a religious, spiritual and artistic integrity, with its origins going back to the depths of time.
One of the first attempts at a theoretical understanding of the problem of “Russia and the West” and, in connection with this, the characteristics of Russian culture was “Letters on the Philosophy of History” or “Philosophical Letters” (1829-1831) by P.Ya. Chaadaeva. The author defines the contrast between Russia and Europe as a difference in religious destiny. For Chaadaev, the fate of any nation and its culture was determined by religion. The basis of Western European culture was Catholicism, Protestantism with its activity principle, orienting a person towards activity in earthly life. “The ideas of duty, justice, law, order,” characteristic of Western European culture, in Chaadaev’s opinion, rest on the spirit of the strict organization of the Catholic Church.
