Logical and Historical Aspects of the Genesis of Russian Sociology (on the Example of N.Ya. Danilevsky and N.K. Mikhailovsky)

Introduction. In the article, the actual problem of the nationalization of modern Russian sociology is associated with the clarification of the logical and historical aspects of the genesis of Russian sociology.

Methodology  and sources. The  theoretical  sources  of  the  study  were  the  works  of representatives of the Russian tradition of the historiography of sociological doctrines  (N.I.  Kareev,  M.M.  Kovalevsky,  P.A.  Sorokin)  and  modern  Russian  historians  of  sociology  (A.I.  Golosenko,  Yu.N.  Davydov).  For  a  comparative  analysis  of  the  conceptual  and categorical apparatus of Russian sociology, the potential of the biographical method is used and the works of N.Ya. Danilevsky and N.K. Mikhailovsky are involved. The empirical base was made up of materials of public discussions in the Russian media on the nationalization of  science  and  education,  and  expert  assessments.  The  methodology  of  socio-cultural analysis, social constructivism, typological approach is used.

Results and discussion. The article deals with the connection of the theoretical constructions  of  the  first  Russian  sociologists  with  their  historical  vision  and  axiological consciousness. In the “paradigm personalities” of Mikhailovsky and Danilevsky, the splitting of  the  emancipating  social  thought  into  science  and  managerial  activity  and  moral  and pedagogical practice was expressed. Criticism of the evolutionist-progressive reading of the formula  “Russia and Europe” by  Mikhailovsky is  expressed  in  the  theoretical  distinction between types and stages of social evolution. The non-religious moral and dogmatic attitude of subjective sociology laid at the foundation reduces the content of these categories to the combinatorics  of  indicators  of  division/integration,  homogeneity/heterogeneity.  Her declared  orientation  towards  the  moral  ideal  aroused  the  sympathy  of  the  Russian intelligentsia, in contrast to the ideas of Danilevsky, a social thinker, an advanced official, and  a  macroeconomist. The relevance of the typological approach to world history developed  by  him  and  the  method  of  modeling  comparative  types  are  substantiated. Cultural-historical types are de-ideologized concepts designed to analyze historical events, build models and scenarios for the interaction of “historical individuals” and highlight the essential elements of the potential for their future development.

Conclusion. A new stage in the interaction between Russia and Europe is characterized by a crisis of Europe's political subjectivity, a decrease in its role in world economic relations. Turning to the origins of Russian sociology allows us to identify points of divergence in the formulation  of  the  question  of  the  type  of  subjectivity  in  Russia,  commensurate  with  its natural and cultural potential, and in the directions of the search for an answer.

1. Kravchenko, S.A. (2023), “Geopolitical Challenges and Russian Sociology”, Sociological Studies, no. 2, pp. 51–62. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250022096-8.

2. Volkov, Yu.G. (2012), “The book of Dobrenkov V.I. value-oriented sociology (book review)”, Moscow State Univ. Bulletin. Ser. 18. Sociology and Political Science, no. 2, pp. 30–36.

3. Filippov, A.F. (1997), “On the concept of “theoretical sociology”", Sociological J., no. 1–2, pp. 5–37.

4. Kozlova, L.A. (2022), “On the methodology of historiographies in the history of sociology”, Sociological Studies, no. 12, pp. 101–112.

5. “Address of the President to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” (2023), President of Russia, 21.02.2023, available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/70565#:~:text=http%3A//kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/70565 (accessed 15.03.2023).

6. Kareev, N.I. (1996), Osnovy russkoi sotsiologii [Foundations of Russian Sociology], Izd-vo Ivana Limbakha, SPb., RUS.

7. Kantor, V.K. (2010), "Vladimir Solovyov on the temptation of nationalism”, Solovyov Studies, no. 4 (28), pp. 35–47.

8. Baluev, B.P. (2001), “The book “Russia and Europe” – a new word in historiosophy”, Spory o sud'bakh Rossii: N. Ya. Danilevskii i ego kniga “Rossiya i Evropa” [Disputes about the fate of Russia: N. Ya. Danilevsky and his book “Russia and Europe”], ID “Bulat”, Tver, RUS, pp. 84–193.

9. Lee Hayan (2009), “The legacy of N.Ya. Danilevsky in China: a historiographical essay", Moscow Univ. Bulletin. Ser. 7. Philosophy, no. 4, pp. 18–26.

10. Baluev, B.P. (2001), Spory o sud'bakh Rossii: N. Ya. Danilevskii i ego kniga “Rossiya i Evropa” [Disputes about the fate of Russia: N. Ya. Danilevsky and his book “Russia and Europe”], ID “Bulat”, Tver, RUS.

11. Danilevskii, N.Ya. (1890), Sbornik politicheskikh i ekonomicheskikh statei [Collection of political and economic articles], Izdanie N. Strakhova, SPb., RUS.

12. Mikhailovskii, N.K. (1906), “From the literature and journal notes of 1872 and 1873”, Sochineniya N.K. Mikhailovskogo [Works of N.K. Mikhailovsky], vol.1, Knigoizdatel'stvo “Russkoe bogatstvo”, SPb., RUS, pp. 649–986.

13. Mikhailovskii, N.K. (1995), Literaturnaya kritika i vospominaniya [Literary criticism and memoirs], Iskusstvo, Moscow, RUS.

14. Yuzhakov, S.N. (1995), “Subjective method in sociology”, Antologiya russkoi klassicheskoi sotsiologii: teksty [Anthology of Russian classical sociology: texts], Izd-vo Mosk. un-ta, Moscow, RUS, pp. 30–50.

15. Gofman, A.B. (1999), Sem' lnetsii po istorii sotsiologii [Seven lectures on the history of sociology], Knizhnyi dom "Universitet", Moscow, RUS.

16. Danilevskii, N.Ya. (1991), Rossiya i Evropa [Russia and Europe], Kniga, Moscow, RUS.

17. Mikhailovskii, N.K. (1897), “Notes of a layman”, Sochineniya N. K. Mikhailovskogo [Works of N.K. Mikhailovsky], vol. III, Izdanie redaktsii zhurnala “Russkoe bogatstvo”, SPb., RUS, pp. 275–904.