Authors

Dmitry Biriukov¹;  ¹ University of Southern California, United States

Discussion

Inquiries into the antecedents of the militaristic narrative propagated by contemporary Russian propaganda often refer, generalizing, to Russian thinkers such as Ivan Ilyin, Nikolai Danilevsky etc. I believe, however, that this narrative represents a near replication of one prevalent among numerous Russian intellectuals during World War I. The following features characterize this wartime narrative: 1) a conception of Russian civilization as messianic, destined to play a crucial role in global affairs; 2) the demonization of the enemy—the German nation (ranging from absolute demonization to a more modest one that acknowledges past German contributions) and the West more broadly; 3) a notion of war as possessing a certain inherent benefit, insofar as it a) exposes the truth hidden beneath the surface and b) mobilizes the best qualities of the populace. This narrative, with varying iterations, was advanced by such Russian thinkers as Evgeniy Trubetskoy, Sergey Bulgakov, Pavel Florensky, Vladimir Ern, Sergey Durylin, Dmitry Muretov, Grigory Rachinsky, et al.
           

Intense debates regarding the meaning of World War I, and of war in general, took place in the milieu of the journal Russkaya Mysl’, with which Semyon Frank had been affiliated since 1913. Between 1914 and 1916, Frank published a series of polemical articles in Russkaya Mysl’, challenging the narrative I mentioned above.
In this context, Frank lays out his reflections on the specific historical circumstances of Russia's involvement in World War I, as well as the philosophical meaning of war itself. Frank deliberates on a path to peace in a situation of war. These are: 1) Recognition by each side that the enemy nation, in its essence, is as much a manifestation of the Absolute as their own nation. 2) Demonstrating the rightness or wrongness of each side based on universal human values. Such values, being inherent to human nature, should be common ground for both warring parties. 

Fifteen years later, Frank developed his social philosophy, which resonates strongly with his earlier views on war and reconciliation. Pavel Florensky's attitude towards World War I and Russia's role within it also correlates with his social philosophy. Comparing Frank and Florensky in these respects reveals a fundamental difference in their thinking. Florensky rejects the notion that citizens might adopt a universal perspective and acknowledge the wrongfulness of their own nation's position. According to Florensky, citizens must remain obedient to the authorities and should not possess their own subjectivity. However, it is precisely the inherent subjectivity of citizens that forms the basis for reconciliation in a situation of war, according to Frank.