Dugin Eurasianism: a window on the minds of the Russian elite or an intellectual ploy?

Shlapentokh, Dmitry

doi:10.1007/s11212-007-9030-y

Cited by 38 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This development should not, however, require the acceptance of Western attitudes and lifestyles (which is often expressed as modernization without Westernization). In such a way, Russian political and intellectual elites aim to demonstrate that it is possible to scientifically and technologically develop without abandoning one's ethical, axiological, and spiritual dimension (Shlapentokh , 223; Matsaberidze , 84). The question is, however, whether this task is feasible under current political and religious circumstances.…”

Section: Orthodox Tradition and The Dilemmas Of Russian Modernizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Devil in Technologies: Russian Orthodox Neoconservatism Versus Scientific and Technological Progress

Składanowski¹

2019

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the interesting aspects of Russian self-definition in opposition to the West is its attitude toward Western science. Russian distrust of scientific and technological progress in the West is an important force shaping contemporary Russian identity. This article touches on these issues in four parts. The first section characterizes two main conservative circles that are active in today's disputes over the significance of scientific development for Russian identity. The second demonstrates certain Russian contemporary concerns related to scientific and technological progress, which will enable us to explain the position of the Russian Orthodox Church. The third section presents the political, religious, and identity context for the suspicion toward science expressed by Russian conservatives. The final section, on the other hand, discusses the way in which Russian Orthodox neoconservatism uses Orthodox anthropology to raise suspicion toward scientific and technological achievements.

show abstract

Section: Orthodox Tradition and The Dilemmas Of Russian Modernizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Devil in Technologies: Russian Orthodox Neoconservatism Versus Scientific and Technological Progress

Składanowski¹

2019

Zygon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, scholarship on Russia, India, and China demonstrates the existence and significance of exceptionalism with Russian, Indian, and Chinese characteristics. Analysts report and/or represent conceptions of unique and/or primordial Russian, Indian, and Chinese (state-) civilizations (Pye 1992;Shlapentokh 2007;Tsygankov 2008;Chacko 2012;Dugin 2014). Indeed, exceptionalist thinking seems predominant around the world, making it somewhat hard to find exceptions to this seemingly universal way of thinking.…”

Section: Beyond European Eurocentrismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Problematizing Global Challenges: Recalibrating the “Inter” in IR-TheoryInter Alia: On Global Orders, Practices, and TheoryThe Inter as Liminal Spaces: Prudence, Transience, and AffectionDialoguing about Dialogues: On the Purpose, Procedure and Product of Dialogues in Inter-National Relations TheoryInterpreting International RelationsThe Narrative of Academic Dominance: How to Overcome Performing the “Core-Periphery” Divide

Hellmann

Valbjørn

2017

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a prepublication draftIn contrast to science, it is fairly common in science fiction to encounter and explore parallel worlds. In IR, we tend to shy away from the possible existence of parallel worlds. According to a widespread worldview in the field, there is, as Stephen Walt (1998) has put it, "one worldmany theories." In this brief essay, I will explore three parallel worlds arguing that they are not at all fictional but very real and should become the subject of a six continents social science that we with a well-established misnomer call IR (Jørgensen 2003). Hence, the 'inter' I focus on is thus foremost ontological and concerns relations between these parallel worlds as well as relations between the multiple units we can identify in these worlds. More specifically, I aim at making three points. First, I argue that the conceptual triptych (state/empire/civilization) provides a helpful guide to the parallel worlds, their inter-relations, and how the units are intertwined. Because conceptualization helps us to know the parallel worlds the triptych establishes an 'inter' between ontological and epistemological dimensions. The extended conceptual repertoire allows for a broader understanding of identity politics that goes beyond default (state) understandings of self and other. Second, the triptych allows for the inclusion of non-Western IR-theories that despite rumors about the opposite do exist and do provide insightful guides to things inter-national/-state/-empire/-civilization. These theories are not only insightful, but also innovative in their conceptions of global orders and thus most suitable for global reflexive dialogues. Third, I argue that the non-Western theories demonstrate, inadvertently, that Europe or 'the West' no longer enjoys monopoly of ethnocentrism, exceptionalism, or universalism, making criticism of Eurocentrism both relatively less relevant and-in its generic form-more relevant than ever. A Promising Triptych: State, Empire, Civilization

show abstract

“…However, when Buriatskii began to quote Gumilev in 2008, the public perception of him had changed dramatically: by that time Gumilev had come to be embraced by a new generation of intellectuals who in one way or another defended imperial positions. Since the 2000s, Eurasianism has been no longer a dissident trend but close to the ideology of the current holders of power (Shlapentokh 2007). To this group belongs, first, the renowned Aleksandr Dugin, but also various representatives of the intellectual elite of the national republics within the Russian Federation, including in Tatarstan.…”

Section: Why Gumilev?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Jihad as Passionarity: Said Buriatskii and Lev Gumilev

Garaev

2017

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses Russian elements in the texts of Said Buriatskii , who in the late 2000s was one of the main ideologists and symbols of the internationalist Islamist resistance in the North Caucasus. Trying to explain the importance and validity of jihad, Buriatskii referred to the concepts of the famous Soviet historian and anthropologist Lev Gumilev and brought Islamic radicalism closer to a Russian-speaking audience by using Gumilev's terminology. Indeed, he found some appreciation among Russian radical journalists, and even among oppositionists from a background close to the Russian Orthodox Church. This article therefore argues that, in spite of his Islamic rhetoric, Buriatskii can also be understood as aspiring to achieve the status of a Russian public intellectual, particularly as a representative of a broader movement that emphasizes values such as sincerity and passion. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Dugin Eurasianism: a window on the minds of the Russian elite or an intellectual ploy?

Cited by 38 publications

References 3 publications

The Devil in Technologies: Russian Orthodox Neoconservatism Versus Scientific and Technological Progress

The Devil in Technologies: Russian Orthodox Neoconservatism Versus Scientific and Technological Progress

Jihad as Passionarity: Said Buriatskii and Lev Gumilev

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About