Danilevsky’s Double Paradox: On the Contradiction between National Egoism and the National Idea

Abstract

In this article another attempt is made to revise the civilizational theory of N. Y. Danilevsky. The author dwells in detail on the fundamental contradiction of Danilevsky’s theory: on the one hand, the thinker adheres to a civilizational approach in historiosophy, which presupposes historical pluralism, on the other hand, the most important component of his rhetoric is the metaphysical concept of Providence, organizing the various destinies of peoples into a single and universal path of humanity. It is argued that this basic methodological contradiction manifests itself at several levels at once. Firstly, it creates difficulties in Danilevsky’s description of the Slavic cultural and historical type. As the key features of this type, the thinker notes gentleness, lack of propensity to violence, and at the same time criticizes this trait, pointing out its political and pragmatic inexpediency. As the author shows, Danilevsky’s thought should be considered in the context of discussions about the ‘‘Russian idea’’, and, in particular, focusing on the concept of «universal responsiveness» by F. M. Dostoevsky. Secondly, the methodological contradiction affects Danilevsky’s attitude to Christian ethics: recognizing it as adequate for the level of interpersonal relationships, the thinker denies it at the level of interstate relations. Based on the theory of «conservative liberalism» by B. N. Chicherin and researches of Robert E. MacMaster, the author suggests a possible solution to this problem: the very possibility of Christian morality is conditioned by the fact of the existence of state sovereignty, which in turn is based on political realism and pragmatism.