No description available.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Alabama at Birmingham, 2009. / Title from PDF title page (viewed Jan. 25, 2010). Includes bibliographical references (p. 63-68).

During the 19th century, nationalism was generally connected to ideas of democratisation and the contestation of power and status quo. In Russia, there was an ongoing struggle between Official Nationalism, aimed at preserving the empire, and cultural nationalism. This essay is an inquiry into the differences and similarities between how the 19th century Slavophiles and contemporary Russian national democrats, exemplified by Aleksei Naval’nyi, view the Russian nation. The focus is on how the Russian nation is defined, how the two nationalist visions relate to competing views of the Russian nation, and how the idea of a Russian nation is used as part of a vision for social and political change. The essay finds that although “the Other” against which the Russian nation is defined differs in the two historical cases, the use of nationalism to frame an opposition against the regime and to advocate social and political change is persistent across time. However, because of its excluding tendencies, in the cases studied here cultural nationalism is found to be wanting as a basis on which to build a democratic form of government.

L’Ukraine, indépendante depuis peu, traverse une période de transition et s’efforce de réhabiliter son héritage culturel, philosophique et religieux. Dans la première partie nous présentons l’état du phénomène spécifiquement ukrainien qui est un double enracinement religieux et culturel : tradition byzantine et uniatisme avec son influence occidentale. La deuxième partie contient l’étude des trois périodes de l’évolution de la pensée ukrainienne : pré-skovorodienne, skovorodienne et post- skovorodienne. Skovoroda est la figure centrale de la pensée philosophique ukrainienne. Influencé par la culture occidentale, il fut formé dans la célèbre Académie Pétro Mohyla. Son concept de la philosophie cordocentrique montre l’originalité de sa pensée. Il distingue le cœur supérieur sublimé par les pensées auquel il oppose le cœur commun, celui des désirs. Skovoroda arrive à la conclusion suivante : « lorsque tu te connaitras bien, du même regard tu connaitras aussi le Christ ». Dans la troisième partie, nous présentons un entrecroisement des traditions orientale et occidentale dans les domaines religieux, philosophiques et culturels, ce qui permet de mettre en valeur la spécificité de l’Ukraine. / Ukraine, recently independent is going through a transition period and tries to bring back into favour his cultural, philosophical and religious heritage. In the first part of this study we deal with the ukrainian specificité made of religious and cultural roots : byzantine tradition and uniatism with its occidental influence. The second part is about the study of the three periods of the evolution of the ukrainian thought : pre-Skovorodian, Skovorodian, past-skovorodian. Skovoroda is the central figure of the ukrainian philosophy. Influenced by the occidental culture, he was educated at the famous Academy Petro Mohyla. His concept of the cordocentrique philosophy shows the originality of his ideas. He distinguishes the upper heart sublimated by the ideas to which he opposes the ordinary heart, the heart of desires. Skovoroda arrives at the following conclusion : When you know yourself well, you know the Christ as well. In the third part we deal with the criss-cross of oriental and occidental traditions in the religious, philosophical and cultural fields, allowing to highlight the specificity of Ukraine.

In this thesis I compare the views of Joseph de Maistre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky with regard to the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem. I integrate this comparison within the general context of the reflection concerning modernity and the theologico-political problem, as well as within the context of two Christian theological traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, on the basis of which the two authors develop their religious and political thought. In particular, I analyze the views of the two authors with regard to the origins and the defining traits of modernity. Likewise, I present their opinions concerning the consequences which are inherent in the modern project. Viewing modernity first and foremost as an attempt to build a secular world that would define itself by its opposition to what both authors regard as authentic Christianity, Maistre and Dostoyevsky emphasize the fact that, having theological origins that mark the totality of its becoming, modernity should be understood on the basis of a theologico-political reflection. Associating the modern ambition to build a secular world with the fate of the biblical Tower of Babel, both authors adopt a prophetic posture, announcing the collapse of the modern project as well as the ultimate eschatological resolution of the modern crisis. Yet, the two authors are differentiated by their interpretations of the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem, identifying differently the theological origins of the modern crisis. In this sense, while according to Maistre modernity originates in the Protestant Reformation, for Dostoyevsky, modernity’s origins must be located in the transformations of Western Christianity that have finally lead to the latter’s separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences of interpretation lead to the articulation of two different responses to the modern crisis, which are rooted in two different Christian theological traditions. Consequently, if in reaction to the modern crisis Maistre affirms the Catholic principle of authority, whose highest expression is the concept of papal infallibility, Dostoyevsky opposes to this crisis the Orthodox principle of brotherhood in Christ. The critique of modernity culminates in the thought of the two authors with an approach of the complex and troubling problem of theodicy, which, Maistre and Dostoyevsky believe, stands at the origin of the modern opposition to Christianity and its traditional institutions.

In this thesis I compare the views of Joseph de Maistre and Fyodor Dostoyevsky with regard to the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem. I integrate this comparison within the general context of the reflection concerning modernity and the theologico-political problem, as well as within the context of two Christian theological traditions, Catholic and Orthodox, on the basis of which the two authors develop their religious and political thought. In particular, I analyze the views of the two authors with regard to the origins and the defining traits of modernity. Likewise, I present their opinions concerning the consequences which are inherent in the modern project. Viewing modernity first and foremost as an attempt to build a secular world that would define itself by its opposition to what both authors regard as authentic Christianity, Maistre and Dostoyevsky emphasize the fact that, having theological origins that mark the totality of its becoming, modernity should be understood on the basis of a theologico-political reflection. Associating the modern ambition to build a secular world with the fate of the biblical Tower of Babel, both authors adopt a prophetic posture, announcing the collapse of the modern project as well as the ultimate eschatological resolution of the modern crisis. Yet, the two authors are differentiated by their interpretations of the relation between modernity and the theologico-political problem, identifying differently the theological origins of the modern crisis. In this sense, while according to Maistre modernity originates in the Protestant Reformation, for Dostoyevsky, modernity’s origins must be located in the transformations of Western Christianity that have finally lead to the latter’s separation from Eastern Orthodoxy. These differences of interpretation lead to the articulation of two different responses to the modern crisis, which are rooted in two different Christian theological traditions. Consequently, if in reaction to the modern crisis Maistre affirms the Catholic principle of authority, whose highest expression is the concept of papal infallibility, Dostoyevsky opposes to this crisis the Orthodox principle of brotherhood in Christ. The critique of modernity culminates in the thought of the two authors with an approach of the complex and troubling problem of theodicy, which, Maistre and Dostoyevsky believe, stands at the origin of the modern opposition to Christianity and its traditional institutions.

The question of Russia's geopolitical affiliation has been a cause of centuries long debate, whether Russia belongs to Europe or to Asia. From the geographical point of view, Russia is predominantly situated in Asia. From cultural and civilisational points of view, Russian people tend to lean towards Europe, even though they capture elements of both civilizations. By examination of the most prominent Russian schools of thought, mainly of geopolitical nature (Slavophilism, Westernism, Atlantisms, Eurasianism, etc.) the work seeks to systemize the answers to this question. At the same time, it seeks to determine through analysis of the contemporary Russian foreign policy, which of these ideological leanings plays a dominant role in foreign policy discourse in Russia since 2000. Thanks to identification of this priority direction and by determining the primary orientation of Russian foreign policy in a particular region, the aim of this work is finally to answer the following question: What is Russia: Europe, Asia, or a separate continent of Eurasia?