Scholarlink

<p>This article attempts to thematize a certain trend in Russian reflection on history that manifested itself at various times throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (although it did not become a stable intellectual tradition), which is defined here as “radical historicism.” This concept is borrowed from the Anglo-American philosopher Mark Bevir, who proposes to distinguish between two main types of historicism: <i>developmental</i>, which assumes a deterministic view of the historical process and its unidirectional perspective, and <i>radical</i>, which arose during the critical rethinking of developmental historicism that occurred in the years after the First World War. Radical historicism refuses to perceive the present as the result or logical stage of previous development and considers its <i>contingent</i> temporal configuration with an open ending. Ignoring the difference between the present and the past as between what exists and what does not, radical historicists prefer to talk about the difference between possibilities that have already been realized and those that have not yet been realized. In the Russian intellectual context, developmental historicism became predominant, especially thanks to the works of Georgy Plekhanov and Joseph Stalin, who laid the foundations of Soviet historical materialism. However, an alternative type of historical thinking, examples of which can be found in the works of the theorists of populist socialism Alexander Herzen, Pyotr Lavrov, and Nikolai Mikhailovsky, was not completely supplanted, but has reemerged thanks to the activities of Mikhail Gefter, whose legacy has attracted considerable interest in Russia in recent years. The article proposes methodological approaches that could help assess Gefter’s significance as an original theorist of history. Particular attention is drawn to Gefter’s interest in history as a kind of practical thinking. This interest can be explained by the influence of Antonio Gramsci, whom Gefter often refers to in his works. The connection with Gramsci and Gefter’s constant interest in Herzen helps to see his thought against the backdrop of an old tradition, which partly goes back to left-wing Hegelianism and partly to the Italian philosophy of praxis, and that can be defined as the philosophy of (historical) action (<i>Die Philosophie der Tat</i>, <i>Filosofia della Praxis</i>).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Radical historicism in the Russian intellectual context

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月10日

查看全文
  • Andrey Oleynikov

摘要

This article attempts to thematize a certain trend in Russian reflection on history that manifested itself at various times throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (although it did not become a stable intellectual tradition), which is defined here as “radical historicism.” This concept is borrowed from the Anglo-American philosopher Mark Bevir, who proposes to distinguish between two main types of historicism: developmental, which assumes a deterministic view of the historical process and its unidirectional perspective, and radical, which arose during the critical rethinking of developmental historicism that occurred in the years after the First World War. Radical historicism refuses to perceive the present as the result or logical stage of previous development and considers its contingent temporal configuration with an open ending. Ignoring the difference between the present and the past as between what exists and what does not, radical historicists prefer to talk about the difference between possibilities that have already been realized and those that have not yet been realized. In the Russian intellectual context, developmental historicism became predominant, especially thanks to the works of Georgy Plekhanov and Joseph Stalin, who laid the foundations of Soviet historical materialism. However, an alternative type of historical thinking, examples of which can be found in the works of the theorists of populist socialism Alexander Herzen, Pyotr Lavrov, and Nikolai Mikhailovsky, was not completely supplanted, but has reemerged thanks to the activities of Mikhail Gefter, whose legacy has attracted considerable interest in Russia in recent years. The article proposes methodological approaches that could help assess Gefter’s significance as an original theorist of history. Particular attention is drawn to Gefter’s interest in history as a kind of practical thinking. This interest can be explained by the influence of Antonio Gramsci, whom Gefter often refers to in his works. The connection with Gramsci and Gefter’s constant interest in Herzen helps to see his thought against the backdrop of an old tradition, which partly goes back to left-wing Hegelianism and partly to the Italian philosophy of praxis, and that can be defined as the philosophy of (historical) action (Die Philosophie der Tat, Filosofia della Praxis).