Class, culture and political representation of the native in Russia and East Central Europe: Paving the way for the New Right?

IF 1 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE New Perspectives Pub Date : 2021-10-21 DOI:10.1177/2336825X211052974
V. Morozov
{"title":"Class, culture and political representation of the native in Russia and East Central Europe: Paving the way for the New Right?","authors":"V. Morozov","doi":"10.1177/2336825X211052974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the current Russian political landscape, there are no political forces that would fully qualify as part of the New Right. The political regime that took shape during Vladimir Putin’s presidency cannot be described as populist without major reservations (for a range of positions, see Casula, 2013; Matveev, 2017; Oliker, 2017; Laruelle, 2020). After the ideological transformation that it underwent starting in 2011–12, it can be described as conservative and traditionalist, but it still hesitates to fully embrace xenophobic nationalism, so characteristic of the politics of the New Right. What it shares with the New Right is its claim to directly represent the common people, bearers of the genuine national spirit, allegedly incompatible with the principles of liberal democracy and individual rights (Yudin, 2021). My interest in Putinism in the context of the debate on the New Right is driven by more than those similarities. I believe that Russia, as a subaltern empire (Morozov, 2015), offers a unique opportunity to discuss some of the basic structural preconditions for the emergence of the New Right in the former SecondWorld. A country that still strongly identifies with Europe but has always stood apart, Russia has an intellectual class that has for centuries tried to make sense of the double divide: one external, between Russia and Europe, and one domestic, between the elites and the masses. This article focuses on one particularly important manifestation of this interstitial identity – the fixation of the national debate on the figure of the peasant and, more broadly, uncivilised native, who serves as the embodiment of Russia’s uniqueness both for the advocates of Europeanisation and for the proponents of a Sonderweg. I interpret this phenomenon as an outcome of uneven and combined development of global capitalism (see Rosenberg, 2006, 2016 for a contemporary take on the concept). Combination manifested itself in Russia’s internal colonisation, which created a deep cultural divide between the educated class and the common people (Etkind, 2011; see also Hosking, 1997). This divide that is experienced as such until this day, by a society that is much more homogenous than it was as recently as one hundred years ago.","PeriodicalId":42556,"journal":{"name":"New Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2336825X211052974","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the current Russian political landscape, there are no political forces that would fully qualify as part of the New Right. The political regime that took shape during Vladimir Putin’s presidency cannot be described as populist without major reservations (for a range of positions, see Casula, 2013; Matveev, 2017; Oliker, 2017; Laruelle, 2020). After the ideological transformation that it underwent starting in 2011–12, it can be described as conservative and traditionalist, but it still hesitates to fully embrace xenophobic nationalism, so characteristic of the politics of the New Right. What it shares with the New Right is its claim to directly represent the common people, bearers of the genuine national spirit, allegedly incompatible with the principles of liberal democracy and individual rights (Yudin, 2021). My interest in Putinism in the context of the debate on the New Right is driven by more than those similarities. I believe that Russia, as a subaltern empire (Morozov, 2015), offers a unique opportunity to discuss some of the basic structural preconditions for the emergence of the New Right in the former SecondWorld. A country that still strongly identifies with Europe but has always stood apart, Russia has an intellectual class that has for centuries tried to make sense of the double divide: one external, between Russia and Europe, and one domestic, between the elites and the masses. This article focuses on one particularly important manifestation of this interstitial identity – the fixation of the national debate on the figure of the peasant and, more broadly, uncivilised native, who serves as the embodiment of Russia’s uniqueness both for the advocates of Europeanisation and for the proponents of a Sonderweg. I interpret this phenomenon as an outcome of uneven and combined development of global capitalism (see Rosenberg, 2006, 2016 for a contemporary take on the concept). Combination manifested itself in Russia’s internal colonisation, which created a deep cultural divide between the educated class and the common people (Etkind, 2011; see also Hosking, 1997). This divide that is experienced as such until this day, by a society that is much more homogenous than it was as recently as one hundred years ago.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
俄罗斯和中东欧地区本地人的阶级、文化和政治代表性:为新右翼铺平道路?
在当前的俄罗斯政治格局中,没有任何政治力量完全有资格成为新右翼的一部分。在弗拉基米尔·普京(Vladimir Putin)担任总统期间形成的政治体制不能被描述为没有重大保留的民粹主义(关于一系列立场,见Casula, 2013;Matveev, 2017;Oliker, 2017;Laruelle, 2020)。在经历了从2011-12年开始的意识形态转型之后,它可以说是保守主义和传统主义的,但它仍然犹豫是否完全接受仇外的民族主义,这是新右翼政治的特征。它与新右派的共同之处在于,它声称直接代表普通民众,真正的民族精神的承担者,据称与自由民主和个人权利的原则不相容(Yudin, 2021)。在新右翼辩论的背景下,我对普京主义的兴趣不仅仅是出于这些相似之处。我认为,俄罗斯作为一个次等帝国(Morozov, 2015),提供了一个独特的机会来讨论新右翼在前第二世界出现的一些基本结构性先决条件。俄罗斯仍然强烈认同欧洲,但一直与欧洲格格不入。几个世纪以来,俄罗斯的知识分子阶层一直试图理解这种双重分化:一种是外部的,在俄罗斯和欧洲之间,另一种是国内的,在精英和大众之间。这篇文章关注的是这种间隙性身份的一个特别重要的表现——全国辩论对农民形象的关注,更广泛地说,是对未开化的当地人的关注,他们既是欧洲化的倡导者,也是Sonderweg的支持者,都是俄罗斯独特性的体现。我将这种现象解释为全球资本主义不平衡和综合发展的结果(见罗森伯格,2006年,2016年对这一概念的当代看法)。这种结合体现在俄罗斯的内部殖民化中,这在受过教育的阶级和普通人之间造成了深刻的文化鸿沟(Etkind, 2011;参见霍斯金,1997)。直到今天,这个比一百年前更加同质化的社会仍然经历着这种分化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
New Perspectives
New Perspectives POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: New Perspectives is an academic journal that seeks to provide interdisciplinary insight into the politics and international relations of Central and Eastern Europe. New Perspectives is published by the Institute of International Relations Prague.
期刊最新文献
The spatial repercussions of Russia’s war in Ukraine: Region(alism)s, borders, insecurities Understanding the grain deal and its pitfalls: Going beyond food security? The grammars of globalisation and the languages of regionalism: The war in Ukraine as a milestone and a test Polling to vaccination stations: Brexit’s influence on immunisation uptake Russian war, Estonian exceptions: Sovereignty, governmentality, biopolitics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1