N.M. Yadrintsev and G.N. Potanin: the liberalism-conservatism dialogue in the Siberian oblastnichestvo

The historical works on the Siberian oblastnichestvo have been greatly enlarged in recent years by philosophical reflection concerning studying of main socio-philosophical and cultural-philosophical ideas of Siberian oblastniki. This article presents an attempt to analyze the existing liberal-conservative divide in the Siberian regionalist movement (using primary materials connected with the intellectual heritage of the Siberian oblastnichestvo’s leaders - N.M. Yadrintsev and G.N. Potanin) on the basis of Bakhtinian dialogism. For M.M. Bakhtin, truth of being can’t be adequately perceived in a monologi-cal way; truth needs to be explicated by means of a dialogue that creates the “polyphony” of mutually addressed and contradictory voices. According to such methodology the analysis was carried out on two interrelated levels - on the one hand, microdialogue within the philosophy of each thinker separately and, on the other hand, external dialogue between Yadrintsev and Potanin. In spite of evident similarities arising from sameness of philosophical origins (their Siberian patriotism was a unique embodiment of the enlightener purposes and simultaneously had an accented liberal-nationalist character), the trajectories of Yadrintsev’s, and Potanin’s philosophical thought essentially diverge in some aspects. First, if Yadrintsev’s philosophy of history is subject to progressist monism leading him actually to liberal eurocentrism, Potanin in his turn comes to Eurasian regionalism that is firmly rooted in the conception of cultural relativism. As for the problems of social ontology, the researcher also found out considerable divergences between two thinkers. It is specified that Yadrintsev’s social theory has been affected by positivism and utilitarianism. As a consequence, he justifies liberal individualism, although the conservative voice of his microdialogue insists on the necessity of communitarian values in Russian peasant community. Trying to solve this conflict, Yadrintsev demonstrates a utopian scenario according to which the spirit of solidarity and ethical motives of “common good” could be actualized after the negative period of individualization and power of selfish interests. On the contrary Potanin, sharply criticizing the private practices of capitalist arrivistes, finally establishes an antiindividualist social theory of initially conservative type.

Keywords

Authors

References