Authors

Dmitry Biriukov¹;  ¹ Freie University Berlin,

Discussion

The concept of "sobornost" emerged within the circle of the Slavophiles in the second half of the 19th c., initially as philosophical and theological intuitions, and later as a term designating these intuitions. The philosophical intuition articulated by Kireevsky and Khomyakov posits that individual cognition is incomplete, whereas knowledge achieved collectively can be comprehensive. Khomyakov intertwined this philosophical intuition with an agapic rhetoric, suggesting that genuine knowledge is the collective matter reached by members of the community, the Church, through mutual love. Thanks to Samarin, the editor of Russian translations of Khomyakov's French pamphlets, these intuitions were encapsulated by the concept of "sobornost" which became established in Russian philosophying literature.
I aim to explore the totalitarian connotations associated with this concept throughout the history of its usage to the present day.The philosophical inertia inherent in the concept of "sobornost," where only collectively attained knowledge is considered complete, led to the dominance of the secular potential within the discourse of “sobornost”. This discourse extended from the Church to secular society. The concept of "sobornost" gradually lost its ecclesiological load, evolving to signify only a specific epistemological and social principle. In this context a totalitarian element of "sobornost" emerged, which, however, was embedded in it from the early stages of the concept's biography when it carried primarily ecclesiological implications. The totalitarian connotations of "sobornost" became evident, among others, when it was used by the Eurasianists who emphasized the inadequacy of truth attained by individuals compared to the truth achieved by a collective. This rhetoric among the Eurasianists was paired with the doctrine of ideocracy, advocating for the state to possess its own "ruling idea” around which all aspects of societal life should be organized. Ideocracy in the state implies the "requirement of state regulation of culture and civilization" as well as "protection against foreign capital intervention." This ideology, containing explicit totalitarian elements, continued to coexist in Russian culture with the rhetoric of “sobornost” and shaped its content until the present time.
So, in "Foundations of Russian Statehood: A Textbook for Students. Moscow, 2023," the specificity of the Russian state is described as rooted in collectivism. This principle of supra-individual collectivism, contrasted with Western individualism in the textbook, implies a "certain limitation of the personal in favor of the collective." The authors associate this principle with "sobornost". Thus, the totalitarian element of "sobornost," which presupposes the superiority of the collective over the individual, continues to manifest in contemporary Russia, serving as a tool of anti-Western rhetoric and propaganda.