Academician Alexander Ilyich Akhiezer: The Theory of Cyclic Development of Russia. Alexander Samoilovich Akhiezer: biography

On October 12, 2007, at the age of 79, a leading researcher at the Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy Alexander Samoilovich Akhiezer, suddenly died.

Alexander Samoilovich Akhiezer was born on September 29, 1929 in Moscow, where, with short breaks, he lived all his life. He was a versatile educated person, he went through a great school of life. He received his higher education at the Moscow State Economic Institute of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, from which he graduated in 1953. He began his career as a chairman of the planning commission of the Zaoksky district executive committee of the Tula region, then worked as the head of the planning and financial department of the Research Institute of Agricultural Construction, while simultaneously replenishing his education. He studied at the evening department of the Faculty of Mathematical Methods of Planning at the Moscow Engineering and Economic Institute (1960-1962), then - in the graduate school of the Research Institute of the State Planning Committee of the USSR with a degree in national economic planning, which he graduated in 1964. In 1967 he completed another graduate school, this time with a degree in philosophy.

The actual scientific career of Alexander Samoylovich began at the Research Institute of Urban Planning of the Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture of the USSR, where he worked from 1962 to 1968. In 1967, after graduating from his second postgraduate course, he defended his Ph. senior researcher. In 1991, fate brought him to the Center for Human Demography and Ecology, which until 1993 was part of the Institute of Employment of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation and the Russian Academy of Sciences, and since 1993 - part of the Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences. All these years, he was a leading researcher at the Laboratory for Analysis and Forecasting of Migration of this Center, which was preserved at the INP RAS even after the transfer in early 2007 of most of the staff of the Center for Human Demography and Ecology to the Institute of Demography of the Higher School of Economics. In recent years, A.S. Akhiezer also worked part-time at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1998, Alexander Samoilovich defended his doctoral dissertation in philosophy.

All these formal milestones in A.S. Akhiezer does not give, however, a true idea of his scientific path. Working in this or that institute, he took his official duties quite seriously. While working at the Research Institute of Urban Planning, he wrote very interesting works on the theory of urbanization. When he participated in the studies of the migration laboratory, although migration was not the core of his interests, even his touch on this topic raised its understanding to a new level. But all these were only peripheral digressions from the main theme, which he had been working on since the mid-1970s, when he began writing a book that made him one of the greatest philosophers in Russia.

Here it is appropriate to quote from the introductory article to the second edition of his main book. This introduction was written by a colleague of Alexander Samoylovich, who became his second wife, Susanna Matveeva.

"This book came to us from the world of unofficial underground science. It took a long time to reach the reader... its fate is part of the common fate of independent thought in Russia and is just one of countless illustrations of society's fear of self-knowledge, criticism of its own illusions, and understanding of its historical experience.

The author is "inside" the situation, but is also able to look at it as if "from the outside". His own life satisfies many of the conditions that had to be present in order to realize this type of both explanatory and understanding reflection. A resident of the capital, the son of intelligent parents (his father graduated from Kiev University as a lawyer, worked in Germany, then in the editorial office of Pravda, spoke eleven languages), but lived in terrible poverty, in fact, in poverty. Childhood and youth were spent in the famous Moscow communal apartments with their motley population and fantastic way of life. Fate threw him into the Russian hinterland, which he knew firsthand: during the war he lived on a collective farm, in the Urals, in Vasilsursk among the Mari, his mother wore a city coat with a fashionable astrakhan collar and bast shoes. For three years he worked in the Zaoksky district of the Tula region as the chairman of the district planning commission, settled in a hut, from morning to night the people who came to the reception crowded, and the most mundane issues were resolved - firewood, distribution of hayfields, mixed fodder. He studied at the Faculty of Agricultural Economics of the Moscow Institute of Economics - he chose it himself, the election of any other faculty and institute would not have been particularly difficult. He was not interested in degrees and positions, and even now, having worked in one of the small prestigious academic institutions for more than twenty years, he is only a candidate of sciences. To a rather frequent surprise - why don't you defend your doctoral thesis? - answered the same way: "There is no time." There really was no time. There is no office, a sick mother in her arms, kids, a wife torn between work and home, an eternal lack of money. And the book that I began to write since 1974, constant inner concentration - and work, work, work. In 1982, a catastrophe occurred - a search at one of my acquaintances, a complete typewritten copy of the manuscript was seized, more than 1000 pages at one interval. Crazy night and day - he walked around the city with a preserved copy and did not have where, did not know to whom, did not dare to hide it from someone. Burnt drafts - everything burned down - and the worst thing - the entire huge reference apparatus, an indication of hundreds of sources, pages, all footnotes. Considering the size of the manuscript, this is a loss that, despite the subsequent hard labor, it was not possible to completely make up for.

Alexander Samoilovich is the author of about 20 monographs and brochures and over 500 articles. A scientist of the broadest erudition, a deep methodologist, a true thinker, he became the creator of the cyclic theory of the socio-cultural dynamics of Russia's development. The author of the three-volume work "Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience", which received a wide response, was discussed more than once at specially organized seminars and round tables, in discussions on the pages of scientific journals, at international conferences. He was a theoretician, but his theory was never divorced from life. He was always interested in the most burning problems of the country: the fate of recent reforms, the specifics of Russian society, the prospects for our state.

Philosopher by the grace of God, Alexander Samoilovich did not look like a celestial at all. He was a very modest, benevolent, gentle and tactful person, unmercenary. Despite the huge scientific heritage, he worked without fuss, never drawing attention to himself, without creating any problems around him.

For all of us, his sudden death is a very heavy loss. We deeply mourn for Alexander Samoylovich together with his family.

Friends and colleagues

Alexander Samoilovich Akhiezer died. Huge grief. A great philosopher who created an era in cultural studies, an old faithful friend, a comrade in scientific work, a teacher, a knight of science, has died. Passionate about the research process to oblivion, he not only worked in science, he was its architect, artist, and singer. Every scientific discovery, every new original thought he rejoiced like a child. He created his own school. His students are in Moscow, Tyumen, Saransk, St. Petersburg, Kazakhstan.

The famous "Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience" by Akhiezer, published by the Philosophical Society of the USSR, immediately acquired a market value, was sold from hands in the days when Moscow, intoxicated in 1991 with freedom, took to the streets to sell and buy. The Soviet regime brought the country to ruin, the shops were empty, everything was taken out onto the streets. And I saw Akhiezer's book - a middle-aged man put a stool in front of him and was selling a book. One copy. The price was huge. I know that the book was not for sale. I ask: - "What is the book about?". - "About today, about freedom, about you and me." - "And how did she get to you?". - "I bought it from my hands." - Why are you selling? - "What else to read today? It says here why the USSR collapsed. Buy it if you want to know the truth about yourself."

Later, when the Yeltsin era was already drawing to a close, I heard the opinions of some scholars that the three-volume book had done its job in the early 90s and was becoming obsolete. No, gentlemen, he is just beginning his work. Thanks to Akhiezer, we can talk about the formation of Russian cultural studies as an independent science.

Both Alexander Samoilovich himself and I wrote many times in the press about how we took out the last volume of his three-volume edition from the printing house. Today it is appropriate to recall this again. We were picking up the book from the publishing warehouse on the day the tanks entered Moscow. For quite a long time they loaded the circulation into my Volga and, tired, were just getting ready to get into the car, when they heard on the car radio that troops had entered Moscow and that the State Emergency Committee was taking power into its own hands. I had a hunch - apparently, there was a political coup. Poor Russia. We were glad that we managed to snatch the circulation. Having left either on Ryazansky, or on Volgogradsky Prospekt, they ended up in the neighborhood with a column of armored vehicles and tanks. They were forced to either drive in a close stream of cars parallel to the convoy, not being able to overtake it, as the traffic police cars were ahead, or to join the convoy. I drove first into the gap between the first and second tanks - the distance between them was fifteen meters. But it was terrifying to be between two monsters for a long time, and I rather quickly jumped out of this space and climbed into another gap - between the first tank and the Zhiguli that were driving ahead of the column. We felt quite comfortable for a minute, except for the clanking tracks behind us, at least we were not disturbed by cars. Sasha even joked that we were either under guard or accompanied. But suddenly a fist stuck out of the window of the Zhiguli moving ahead and threatened us, then the loudspeaker on the roof of the car turned in our direction and shot us with the promise of something terrible if we did not immediately leave the column - this, as we understood, was a state security car leading a column of tanks. Overcoming huge traffic jams and a sea of people in the area of the Garden Ring along sidewalks, through courtyards and in the most unthinkable way, we did not quickly escape from the center and reached Akhiezer's apartment in Krylatskoye. When the Volga was unloaded and the books were taken to the 12th floor, the feeling of anxiety that did not leave us weakened, and there was a feeling of a small dissident victory. And when a circle of friends talks about how the book was created, I take out its first copy with the autograph of the author "Alyosha Davydov with best wishes" and the date of the GKChP coup 19/VIII/91 and tell this story.

Among the reflections on Akhiezer as a person, an important place is occupied by the story of how he wrote his three-volume book and his relationship with the Soviet state security agencies. I worked with him for quite a long time at the Institute of the International Labor Movement (then the Institute of Comparative Politics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and now one of the subdivisions of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences), but I did not suspect that he was writing a voluminous work. I later heard this story many times from him and I convey it from his words. Akhiezer was already finishing work on a three-volume book when one copy of the manuscript was confiscated by the KGB. No, the manuscript was not specifically hunted for, but in one of the Moscow apartments where this copy was kept, in 1982, during a search, samizdat literature was confiscated, as well as a copy of the manuscript. It was no longer possible to work in this apartment because of the possibility of a new search. It was also impossible to "substitute" daughter Lena, who retyped the text. At over 1,500 pages, containing thousands of references, the manuscript was a life's work, and its theft was a blow that not everyone is able to withstand. There was a break in work. But new times came, and Akhiezer restored the book. In essence, it was a new version of it. He later joked that he should be grateful to the KGB for forcing him to improve his theory. Without this rethinking, perhaps, there would not have been a three-volume work - the "Mendeleev's table" of Russian culture, as I. G. Yakovenko, one of the first reviewers of the book, put it.

An important place in the story of Akhiezer as a person should be occupied by his second wife and scientist colleague Susanna Yakovlevna Matveeva. I met her several times at Sasha's house, although I didn't know her closely. But it seems to me that today I learned much more about her from her extensive Introduction to Russia: A Critique of Historical Experience than from personal meetings with her. The first time I read the Introduction, it didn't impress me. But as I repeatedly referred to the book in the course of work, I saw many precise conclusions in the Introduction. It seems to me that I have studied Akhiezer's theory up and down. But even today I am discovering for myself those assessments of his theory that Susanna made back in 1990. What is worth at least her conclusion that Akhiezer turned some well-known scientific metaphors into scientific concepts. We can say that she was the first and today remains, perhaps, the most profound interpreter of Akhiezer's theory. One could not write about this, but, knowing Akhiezer's character, one can easily conclude that he would not trust everyone to write an introduction to his work, even if it is his closest friend or wife. Matveeva's introduction, approved and accepted by Akhiezer, is not just the work of his wife, it is a deep and still rare insight into the essence of Alexander Samoylovich's work today.

I must say about my experience. Satisfying Akhiezer as a scientific editor is extremely difficult, contact with him is specific, this is exactly the case when friendship is friendship, but the truth is more precious. Not once did Alexander Samoylovich cheat when he read my drafts, although he understood that his criticism would once again irritate me. How many times did it happen that I went to his house with the consciousness that I had made another ingenious scientific discovery, and returned with the feeling that I was a complete idiot, and wondered why I did not see the obvious lying on the surface. I say this because not everyone is always satisfied with his scientific adherence to principles. In the last years of his life, genuine recognition came to him in scientific circles, and, having started working in the sector of social philosophy of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, he finally plunged into the creative scientific atmosphere that he had long dreamed of. He published about five hundred scientific papers, but he received particular personal satisfaction from publications in the journal Voprosy Philosophy.

Now about the scientific achievements of Akhiezer. Alexander Samoilovich worked in those areas of science that he considered focal points for understanding the past, present and future of Russia.

1) This is the development of socio-cultural theory and methodology for analyzing the dynamics of society. His method is based on combining the subjects of sociology and cultural studies. Akhiezer considers the mass ability of people, groups, communities to make effective decisions that can ensure their survival as the basis, the substance of society. The theory and methodology of Akhiezer is a theory of transitional processes, in which, based on the historical experience of Russia, the dependence of survival, the viability of culture and society on the historically established ability of people to continuously form meanings, comprehend the world is shown. This ability is realized through a dialogue between the established meanings of culture, between the poles of dual opposition. This process coincides with the search for a new semantic space, which is necessary to solve increasingly complex problems as a response to the dangers associated with the growing complexity of human reality. Thus, Akhiezer proposed a new theory of the development of society as a socio-cultural process, where each innovation should be understood as an attempt to overcome the contradiction, the threat of a split between the poles of the dual opposition. The dual opposition is considered not only as the initial cell of the organization of culture, necessary for the formation of a new meaning, but also as a form of organization of human reality. Understanding the world is a prerequisite, an aspect of dialogization, in particular, the dialogization of traditional and liberal supercivilizations.

Akhiezer introduced into scientific circulation the concepts of "inversion" and "mediation" as ways of moving thought between the poles of the dual opposition. According to Akhiezer, inversion is the logic of throwing between poles-absolutes, ignoring the meaning-forming "middle" and characteristic of the dynamics of Russian culture, mediation (media - lat. middle) is the logic of finding a new meaning in the sphere between the poles, weakly expressed in Russian culture. These logics constitute the contradictory unity of the thought process of the Russian person. The difference between the "mediation" of Akhiezer and the "mediation" of K. Levi Strauss, who first introduced this concept into scientific circulation, is enormous. Levi Strauss, who studied the thinking of primitive tribes, understood mediation as a static semantic alternative to static poles in the sphere between them. Akhiezer, who studied the thinking of a Russian person, understood mediation as a dynamic process, alternative to the historically established static poles in the dynamics of Russian culture. The result is impressive: inversion + mediation + "non-logical thinking", which I deduce from Bibler's dialogue, make up a holistic set of concepts that can be used to penetrate the most difficult thing for analysis - the logic of dialogue.

2) This is the theory of the cyclical development of Russia, which explains the patterns of the pendulum development of cycles, starting from Kievan Rus and to the present. Akhiezer revealed the specific historical content of each stage and period. He also showed the nature of the split in Russian culture and society, the mechanism of adaptation of Russian culture to the split, which he sees as a "historical trap" in which Russian culture finds itself. Today it is the only theory of Russia's development in Russian science based on sociocultural methodology. Akhiezer predicted the logic and timing of the collapse of the USSR.

3) This is a new interpretation of philosophizing at its present stage in the specific conditions of Russia. In articles in the journal "Problems of Philosophy" and the book "Proceedings" Akhiezer substantiates the need for philosophizing "immersed in culture." He aims at the understanding of the fact that human reality is based on the ability expressed in the culture and organization of human relations to dialogize society, to constantly increase its viability on this basis.

4) This is the development of a typology of moral ideals as the basis for forms of activity. He singled out moral types in Russian culture: veche (cathedral, authoritarian), utilitarian (moderate utilitarianism, developed utilitarianism), liberal, introduced the concept of "moral hybrid". This typology makes it possible to understand the changes in the cultural foundations of economic decisions, of all human activity.

Akhiezer worked at the very cutting edge of Russia's socio-cultural issues, so polite academicians, cautious donors and smart media avoided him, he was clearly deprived of prizes and titles.

I ask myself - what is the main thing in Akhiezer as a scientist and a person? Many people knew him - scientists, politicians, administrators. Men remember him as a knight of science, women - as a real man, friends - as a surprisingly sympathetic and disinterested person. Akhiezer is an unusual phenomenon and, I dare say, not yet fully understood in our scientific and cultural life. This is a representative of the type of people whose work Russia is alive.

Alexey DAVYDOV

The death of a loved one sets the starting point. The present of living, mobile human relations instantly turns into a story in which nothing can be added or subtracted. When the first shock of the news of the death of Alexander Akhiezer passed, and I wondered how many years we had known each other, I found that I could not remember the moment of our acquaintance. There was a strange belief in my mind that we had always known each other.

I came to cultural studies in 1978. The peak of the Brezhnev era; the scientific life inscribed in official forms did not indulge in events. I - not the first youth, a graduate student of the Academic Institute of Philosophy - was looking for something alive. At the very end of the 70s, with the energy and efforts of Elna Orlova, an employee of the Institute of Philosophy, a discussion platform arose, where current sociocultural processes were discussed. I think it was called the "Round Table" and it existed under the roof of the Artist's House. Humanities of various profiles gathered here, from art historians and architectural theorists to demographers. All these people were united by the ability to see the world through the prism of culture. Here I met Alexander Akhiezer. A couple of years later, the round table moved under the roof of the Philosophical Society. Everything was much more modest there, but the core of the seminar was preserved. The site lasted until the mid-eighties. Akhiezer and I were among the regular participants in these cultural gatherings.

By this time, Alexander Samoylovich was an established scientist. Today it is difficult to answer the question - what hooked him in my reasoning? Apparently, we were united by the Russian studies aspiration of cognitive interests and the closeness of interpretations of traditional culture. One way or another, since the beginning of the 80s, Alexander Akhiezer has been present in my life as an interesting interlocutor, colleague, and then a close person.

In Akhiezer's personality, the scale of thinking, the ability to hear another, benevolent naturalness and, finally, absolute, boundless absorption in the profession happily converged. In rare situations, when nothing distracts, and there is no opportunity to sit down at the computer - on the train or in a hotel room - one could talk with him for hours; at the same time, extraneous topics did not arise or broke off at the second phrase. If there were plots related to current politics or a sensational TV series, then they fit into a broad theoretical context, turned into material for comprehension. The same thing happened at the festive table. Small talk, or chatter about anything simply did not fit with Alexander Samoilovich.

For people of my generation, words about the simplicity of a great man (and Akhiezer is undoubtedly a great thinker, whose true scale will be highlighted over time) are forever uttered by agitprop Leniniana. And yet, stepping over the rejection of official clichés, I cannot but say about the rare naturalness, the absolute absence of any pose, a look at myself from the outside. He lived in the original benevolence, inner openness to the other. Alexander Samuilovich did not look at the world through rose-colored glasses and did not idealize those around him, however, his judgments about people were somehow soft, reconciling with being.

Akhiezer was distinguished by complete indifference to ranks, statuses, and the blessings of life. He later, at an advanced age, defended his doctoral dissertation. He did not fuss, did not hustle, did not climb into the eyes of the authorities, did not seek to please the powerful of this world, he earned a penny.

The life of Alexander Samoylovich developed in such a way that for the last ten years he lived alone, in an empty, neglected apartment littered with books. Memory has kept one episode: Somehow, I went; according to Russian tradition, they sat down in the kitchen. Sasha invited me to pour myself a glass of tea. Taking a faience cup off the shelf, which no one had washed clean for the past five years, I asked if he had any baking soda. There was no soda. I remember standing at the sink with this cup and rubbing off a layer of brown plaque with table salt. Akhiezer simply did not see all this. He lived in another dimension.

The key event in the life of Alexander Akhiezer is the publication of the main work "Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience". This book was written in the seventies, when there was no chance of its publication. Akhiezer worked for the future. Perestroika made its own adjustments. In 1991, the Philosophical Society of the USSR published a three-volume monograph. In autumn, Sasha presented me with his work and offered to write a review. I always work with a book with a pen in my hands, but I have never covered any of the hundreds of books I have read so densely and so violently with underlining, exclamation marks, comments in the margins, extended comments (for which there was no room in the margins), placed on the back footer and book cover.

The magic of great talent lies in the fact that it tends to formulate something that the reader recognizes as the truth. The truth about himself, about the world. He - the reader - feels exactly the same, only he did not have to find such precise, deep, amazing formulations. The reader discovers something new and at the same time recognizes himself, the world around him, the Truth, the meeting with which is confirmed existentially, by the whole integrity of the personality. Akhiezer's book was amazing. It was obvious that this was an event. After the Critique of Historical Experience it was impossible to remain in the rut of well-worn interpretations. Curiously, I was not able to quickly write a review. Despite the fact that I fully agreed on the main point and accepted the author's position, the theory proposed by Akhiezer had to be digested and mastered. Respect for myself and for the author did not allow me to write a review formally, and it took about a year for a substantive response. Instead of a review, I wrote a series of articles in the journal Znanie-Sila, which was then published in a hundred thousand copies.

In the first half of the 1990s, Akhiezer's book turned into an intellectual bestseller. It is commented on the pages of magazines, discussed at round tables, the author is invited to make a presentation in a wide variety of communities. I remember how at the beginning of 1993 Viktor Militarev, sensitive to intellectual fashion, then still a handshake man, asked at a meeting - Well, have you already read Akhiezer? With all this, the environment of professional historians for the most part fell silent on the Critique of Historical Experience. There are a number of reasons for this. First, Akhiezer worked in the space of cultural studies and civilizational analysis, and not in classical history. Secondly, the ideologically muzzled Soviet historical science ran like hell from large conceptual models. Finally, the scope of this theory does not imply its rapid acceptance. This takes time.

Since then, we have often worked together - in seminars, scientific councils, expert communities, and have repeatedly acted as co-authors. If it was easy and interesting to talk and argue with Akhiezer, then it was difficult to write in co-authorship (each of us has his own style of thinking), but each time it was a grateful work.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the scope of Alexander Akhiezer's scientific interests was much wider than the space in which our scientific interests coincided with him. He dealt with urban studies, demography, philosophical problems of thinking and a host of other things, remaining, above all, a broad-minded humanist. Alexander Akhiezer was a philosopher...

Igor YAKOVENKO

I knew Sasha since 1964. Then I was finishing my Ph.D. thesis related to urban transport, and I often visited the Central Research Institute of Urban Planning. There he met him and Oleg Nikolaevich Yanitsky. Both of them dealt with the problems of urbanization and ecology, but at heart they were sociological philosophers. I remember that Akhiezer's idea about the need to take into account people's motivations when forecasting passenger traffic made an impression on me and crashed into my mind.

Our next crossing took place during the period of his work at the Institute of Theory and History of Architecture. I was invited to discuss articles in the collections of this institute.

Friendship began later, for real - with a geographical conference on resettlement in Perm in 1973. It was attended by many major geographers, urbanists, demographers. I remember we were photographed on the ship on the Kama - together with the demographer A. Vishnevsky and the geographer Yu. Pivovarov. Then Sasha and I spent a couple of days in nature, talking a lot about our childhood, personal life, the direction of creativity, dreams, etc., for some reason I remember visiting the local zoo.

Then Sasha moved to IMRD and immediately began to write a book. It was dedicated to the working class. In the late 70s, I also worked on a book - about transport and resettlement. We often talked on the phone - who will overtake whom with the release of the book from the press. When his book came out, he said that it would be nice to write a review on it - then it was important. I tried, but I realized that this was too far away from my area, and, to my shame, I refused. Later, he agreed with the editor of the prestigious almanac "Competition of two systems", for which we began to write a joint article on cross-country comparison of the level of education and its impact on the macroeconomics of countries. The work went well, but the almanac itself suddenly ceased to exist.

Our relations revived again after I settled in Matveevsky, in a round house. His house was nearby, of course, I often visited him. I was struck by his personal library, it seemed to me that he knew all of K. Marx by heart. In any case, it happened that he would point to this or that volume on the shelf and comment on what was said there.

At that time, he wrote several articles on economic geography and even thought about defending his doctoral dissertation at the Institute of Geography, but something went wrong there. Then he went headlong into the semiotic school in Tallinn - it was already too far away from me, it was difficult for me to keep up conversations with him on scientific topics, and we became somewhat distant.

A new rapprochement occurred when, in 1989, in Leninka, he told me that he was preparing to publish a book on the philosophical understanding of the history of Russia. For me it was a complete surprise and I was very interested. When the book came out, he immediately gave it to me and asked me to write a review in the Book Review. I remembered the past failure, got myself together and literally in a few hours managed to sketch out a note, which appeared in this newspaper. This was the very first, albeit a small, review of the now famous book, many future readers drew attention to it.

Since then, we often met at his house, in Krylatskoye. They discussed current life when he moved to the Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, showed his three-volume book to the director and editor-in-chief of the journal "Problems of Forecasting". Again there was a problem with the review. I said bluntly that it is very difficult for me to master three thick volumes for in-depth analysis, because I am not a philosopher. In the end, Sasha helped me, and the review was published in this magazine.

Later, with the growth of his popularity and stardom, the tone of our conversations changed a little, we often exchanged critical remarks. He constantly told me that I write poorly in literature, but it seemed to me that he began to repeat himself often, wrote and published too much. But it was impossible to tear him away from the computer, he sat at it day and night. Literally three days before his departure, I sent him material about the impasse in the development of transport in Moscow, I was waiting for his response, I intended to write a joint article ...

Grigory GOLTS

A solid volume of works by the recently deceased famous Russian philosopher Alexander Akhiezer has been published, including trimonographs. All of them are devoted to the study of the dynamics of Russian society on the basis of the socio-cultural methodology developed by the author of the knowledge of social processes. It can be regarded as a kind of dialectical method, which has absorbed the experience of the development of science, especially the study of culture, the philosophy of culture. A. Akhiezer develops a sociocultural methodology, the meaning of which is to move the center of gravity of the study of society into the sphere between culture and relations of people, into the sphere of interpenetration - mutual repulsion of these processes. This already shows the novelty of the concept of A. Akhiezer, which is aimed at revealing the essence of social phenomena through the analysis of transitions between them, which reveals themselves transition mechanisms thinking and activity between culture in society and the specifics of the culture of the individual, society, between part and whole, between conditions, means and ends this process. This ability of a person to transition underlies the ability to form sufficiently effective solutions, thereby ensuring their reproduction and survival.

The unique theoretical nature of A. Akhiezer's work lies in the fact that he presents his concept from three perspectives, through three monographs placed in his works, each of which, it would seem, considers a special range of problems. However, they all ultimately focus on a single problem, that is, the ability of a person at all levels of his community to formulate and implement their solutions in an increasingly complex world. The value of the author's methodological approach is determined by a significant contribution to the development of social science, which consists not only in a logically consistent, systematic analysis of the sociocultural mechanisms of the dynamics of Russian society, but also in the development of the categorical and conceptual apparatus necessary for this, penetration into the logic of this approach, begun in the author's capital monograph "Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience", published back in 1991 in three volumes. Three monographs of the "Proceedings" are united by the problem of socio-cultural reproduction, ensuring socio-cultural survival in a modern society that is becoming more complex, carrying specific real and potential dangers. The complication of society, which is steadily growing in the modern world, is measured by the complication of the problems that a person must form and solve. All materials in the book are published for the first time, with the exception of several articles from the journals "Problems of Philosophy" and "World of Psychology". Their successful selection is the third monograph. On the basis of sociocultural methodology, the author reveals the specifics of the mechanisms of the history of Russian society.

Akhiezer defines the key to understanding the specifics of the dynamics of Russian society as the result of three types of culture, three moral ideals, and relations between them that have historically developed in the history of the country. This is first of all archaic culture, including a corresponding moral ideal aimed at statics. Utility culture carries a moral ideal that contains the ability to turn all the elements of reality available to the corresponding subject into a means for previously established goals. And finally liberal modernist ideal, focused on development and progress. Despite the limited social base of this culture in the country, even people who are hostile to it turn to it due to the fact that the world potential of this culture carries the possibility of solving more and more complex problems. Each of the identified cultures contains a specific program of action, the dynamics of society, although significantly different.

The author reasonably shows that historically the main problem of the development of society developed in conditions of insufficient mass ability for dialogue for the normal development of society. This circumstance led to the fact that sharp conflicts constantly arose between the bearers of these types of cultures, moral ideals, and the corresponding programs of social life. Insufficient dialogue between them disorganizes all social phenomena, real, free human activity, the development of the ability to make more or less effective complex joint decisions.

This typology makes it possible to describe the history of Russia as a change in the prevailing moral ideals. In fact, the author formulated a new concept of a person as a subject of socio-cultural creativity, a subject of his own development, based on various forms of culture, moral ideals. The philosopher states the development of new human capabilities to comprehend new realities, new perspectives of being on the basis of the ability to critically reproduce oneself, change one's cultural foundation.

The moral aspect of the author's concept is a pivotal vector in explaining the dynamics of socio-cultural processes, penetrating all the works of A. Akhiezer. This approach is based on the recognition of the growing role in this process of criticism of culture, criticism of the existing relations of people, without which the development of reproduction is impossible. At the same time, philosophizing itself is interpreted as the ability to generalization, to the synthesis of socio-cultural processes, as a critical search for new ways of meaning formation, to the result of the synthesis and the prerequisite for its deepening. The author draws attention to the insufficiently realized need in an increasingly complex society of the need to get ahead of the synthesis, the constant striving for ever deeper generalizations.

In accordance with the general intention of the author, in the first book "The specifics of Russian history" the reader is brought to the idea of the possibility of disorganization of the life of society and even a national catastrophe as a result of mass inefficient solutions to increasingly complex problems.

catastrophes, more precisely, their special form - immanent catastrophes, that is, those that arose without significant external interference, A. Akhiezer elevates it to the level of a socio-philosophical category, defining it as “the collapse of a large society as a whole, the collapse of statehood, its inability to perform the functions of integration” (p. 172). A. Akhiezer lists four such national catastrophes in Russia: the death of Kievan Rus, the Great Troubles that began at the end of the 16th century, and the catastrophes in 1917 and 1991. (p. 45).

The analysis of the national catastrophes that have befallen Russia is aimed at drawing attention to the future of the country. A legitimate question is put forward: what is the reason for this strange tradition, is there a threat of its continuation? One cannot but agree with the author that Russian immanent national catastrophes were the result of internal strife, insufficient capacity for cultural and organizational unification, insufficient cultural integration of the whole through dialogue. The author bitterly points out that the general nature of these catastrophes has not been studied. The complication of society urgently requires an intensive analysis of the most important, if not the most important, problem of reproduction, the survival of the country.

This formulation of the question allows us to consider the historical process not only as a change of historical events, but as an opportunity for the maturation of new socio-cultural contradictions, dangers that require a significant, perhaps radical change in mass behavior, a radical increase in the effectiveness of decisions at all levels of society. Thus, the meaning of the whole book as a whole is revealed: it draws the attention of readers to the ability of each and every one to constantly resist the danger of another immanent catastrophe, which is possible only under the condition of continuous development of the sociocultural abilities of people. At the same time, the author draws attention not only to the ability of the authorities or the elite to do this, but also to all people, any person. In other words, we are talking about the development of appropriate mass abilities on the scale of the whole society.

The concept of an increasingly complex society, which requires the development of the mass ability to take on the burden of increasingly effective decisions to ensure survival, certainly goes beyond the study of Russia, can affect any society, which indicates a powerful theoretical potential of the study.

Second book "Disasters in nature and society as a moral problem" is devoted to social understanding, analysis of each of the national catastrophes mentioned above that took place in Russia. A. Akhiezer considers the specifics of the mechanism of their occurrence. Conceptually, these mechanisms emerged from a gap between the complexity of the problems to be solved and the ability, sufficient or not, to be the basis for their solution. The further development of society must be seen as the result of this decision, as the result of a constant ability to correct it.

Representing in a generalized form the main cause of the occurrence of catastrophes as insufficient development of abilities for cultural integration, the philosopher puts forward an important general philosophical, general methodological idea about the category of measure as a result of generalization, synthesis. “To overcome the split, it is necessary not only to maneuver between the poles of moral ideals, but also the ability to find measure of synthesis between them” (p. 150). Analysis of time-sequential changes of this type opens the way to studying the dynamics of culture, the dynamics of changes in the effectiveness of significant decisions.

In the conclusions to the book “Disasters in Nature and Society as a Moral Problem”, A. Akhiezer emphasizes that “the complexity of confronting catastrophes is not least in the fact that this confrontation includes criticism of morality, that is, it requires intense qualitative improvement of the moral schematism of society” ( p. 328), that is, it is necessary to shift the relationship between the forms of morality from the pole of mutual repulsion to the pole of mutual penetration, from conflict to dialogue.

Tracing the historical possibilities of preventing immanent national catastrophes, the threat of their transformation into a tradition, the author pays special attention to archaization. It is understood as the activation of the ancient archaic pre-state culture. A. Akhiezer convincingly shows that archaic culture "entered into an increasing destructive contradiction with the complication of the problems to be formulated and resolved" (p. 472). The author for the first time in Russian philosophical thought not only goes back to archaization as a socio-philosophical category, but also shows that archaization can reach extremely destructive power. The merit of A. Akhiezer is that the problem of archaization, which, it would seem, is becoming a thing of the past, can actually intensify. The author reasonably tries to draw the attention of readers to the fact that the threat of archaization is constantly present in society, that the culture of the Manichaean type that came from antiquity is especially tempted to solve problems based on archaic values, based on the fact that sociocultural reality can be considered as a clash of two opposite principles - good and evil, problems are not solved through compromise, but through violence. It was the Manichaean idea of an absolute conflict of personified good and evil that was adopted by the revolutionaries in 1917. A country in the 21st century, experiencing powerful internal pressure of archaization, which has not gone through the school of dialogue necessary for a state, for a large society, carries enormous risks of another immanent disasters.

The idea of identifying more effective programs for the development of society through increasing the importance of culture on a social scale is very relevant and has not been developed in science. An attempt to fill this gap increases the value of the peer-reviewed work. Based on the analysis of the experience of Russian history, A. Akhiezer makes an important conclusion that there was a general disintegration of forces in the country, when one part of the population was in favor of social changes, for general development, and the other was against, defending stagnation. In this, the author sees the main contradiction of Russian society. The author describes society through a dual opposition: mutual repulsion - mutual penetration between the people and the authorities, between the intelligentsia and the people, between the values of the archaic and the values of development, etc. Moreover, the first pole often comes to the fore, that is, strikes can lead to the destruction of consequences attempts to form a state. Thus, A. Akhiezer raises the most important problem - the ability of people to seek ways of synthesis between their mass ability to change and the need to ensure their survival. Thus, the concept of A. Akhiezer points to the vital importance of a person's intense orientation to his own abilities, to the potential of a person that a person can exist, reproduce himself only by self-developing, critically looking for ways to develop his own abilities.

Third book "On the Peculiarities of Modern Philosophizing" is a theoretical philosophical part, where A. Akhiezer gives a general philosophical formulation of his approach, the methodological foundations of sociocultural theory and methodology. The author puts forward the thesis that the main task of the individual as a subject of the process of developing one's culture and activity is to constantly overcome the gap between the complexity of decision-making and the level of personal culture and human abilities. Akhiezer focuses on personality as the basis for resolving contradictions. The fact is that a person does not work within the framework of chaotic crowds of people, but in united communities, states, institutions, etc. Communities develop their own subcultures, within which there is a focus on overcoming dangers, solving problems on an appropriate scale. If the subject, contrary to this tendency, is dominated by the desire to dissolve in dangerous circumstances, then he turns out to be the carrier of a program that does not ensure the adoption of an effective decision. If the subject directs his efforts to oppose negative processes, then his program helps to increase his own abilities, to resist the split of society. Thus, the main problem is located between the poles of the dual opposition. One pole is the orientation towards the values of statics. The second pole is an orientation towards dynamics, development. The essence of solving the problem, as mentioned above, the author sees in the search for a measure between opposites.

Within the framework of the proposed methodology, A. Akhiezer develops an original categorical apparatus, where each category is defined through each other, that is, a system of categories is formed. The focus of consideration of sociocultural theory and methodology is put forward the central methodological category between, dating back to M. Buber, although its interpretation is significantly different from Buber's. In the interpretation of A. Akhiezer, one can see the continuation of the traditions of dialectical philosophy, which originates in antiquity. An important merit of A. Akhiezer is that he was the first to combine the dialectical and scientific methods of working with culture in accordance with the tradition of K. Levi-Strauss into a single whole. In other words, the narrowly understood method of K. Levi-Strauss was interpreted and raised to a generalizing method of understanding culture in its general forms. Thus the categories dual opposition A. Akhiezer gave a new sound. Through dual opposition, the author opened the way for comparison between the essential unity of the method of forming a new meaning through overcoming the opposite of the poles of dual oppositions and the purely dialectical method of opposing opposites. In essence, the author uses two types of categories: conceptual, illustrating social reality (decision, catastrophe, archaization, etc.), and methodological, with the help of which sociocultural analysis is carried out (sphere between, dual opposition, duality, measure, interpretation, etc. .). Each category is explained and justified in detail. Thus, the author makes a valuable contribution to solving the actual problem of applying analysis methods speakers public relations in the development of society.

Three monographs represent the process of ascent, the movement of thought according to the principle from the abstract to the concrete and vice versa, that is, from the concrete to the abstract. The methodology of A. Akhiezer seeks to avoid the danger of dissolving important social problems in general abstractions and at the same time seeks to enrich knowledge through the analysis of the logical space between the whole and the part. In the methodological aspect, the work is an original, innovative theoretical synthesis important social categories, some of which are developed by the author. For example, the author introduces a fundamentally new central conceptual socio-cultural category "solution", reveals it as “a rethinking of human reality. It gives rise to a new meaning, a new element of culture, a new cultural program, it is a prerequisite for changes in all elements of human culture” (p. 178). He uses this category as a tool for studying the dynamics of social relations in their historical development, which is also necessary for assessing human abilities, for example, the ability to withstand immanent catastrophes.

A. Akhiezer's research makes a significant contribution to the theory and methodology of society. The author can be called the founder of the methodology of socio-cultural analysis of the dynamics of society. Thanks to the clarity and accessibility of the presentation, the imagery and brightness of the "Akhiezer" style, involvement in what is happening is undeniable. The volume "Proceedings" will attract the attention of a growing circle of readers who are concerned about the prospects for the development of Russian society.

Ecology of knowledge: Perestroika had not yet begun, and the historian Akhiezer already in 1979 predicted not only its inevitable appearance, but also its inevitable failure. He correctly predicted that after liberalization, Russia would return to authoritarianism, and its culture would become Latin Americanized.

Perestroika had not yet begun, and the historian Akhiezer already in 1979 predicted not only its inevitable appearance, but also its inevitable failure. He correctly predicted that after liberalization, Russia would return to authoritarianism, and its culture would become Latin Americanized. But this archaization will become the gravedigger of the system.

Historian and philosopher Alexander Akhiezer is one of the most interesting and underestimated figures in the Russian academic world. He made the concept of "archaization" one of the main ones in his large-scale sociocultural theory of the history of Russia. Akhiezer in Soviet times was a recognized specialist in urbanization, but at home for almost three decades the philosopher wrote his most important work - "Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience". He began work on it back in the early 1970s. In the 1980s, the manuscript was confiscated by the KGB, and the scientist had to rewrite the work again. The first three-volume edition of the book was published in 1991 (the second - expanded and supplemented - in 1997-1998).

But already in the 2000s, not only the works of Akhiezer, but he himself were forgotten. The philosopher spent the last ten years of his life in solitude and poverty, and died almost in obscurity.

His theory of the cyclic development of Russia explains the laws of the pendulum development of cycles, starting from Kievan Rus and to the present. He also showed the nature of the split in Russian culture and society, the mechanism of adaptation of Russian culture to the split, which he considers as a "historical trap" in which Russian culture is located. Today it is the only theory of Russia's development in Russian science based on sociocultural methodology. Akhiezer predicted the logic and timing of the collapse of the USSR, as well as its successor Russia (in the 2020s, when utilitarianism will finally be able to defeat archaization).

Alexander Solomonovich was also a political futurologist. He very correctly predicted back in 1979 that the USSR would face perestroika, which would turn out to be unsuccessful - it would again be replaced by archaization in the form of totalitarianism and neo-paganism. We give “abstracts from this forecast of his about the future of Russia (from the book “Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience (Social and Cultural Dynamics of Russia). Vol. I: From the Past to the Future).

“The system will again be of a hybrid nature, since the split, the existence of hostile value systems, with a weak development of a culture of dialogue, leaves no other possibility. Apparently, once again ideology will have the character of a kind of "pseudo", i.e., it will fix its certain claim to be what it is only in part. This may be a pseudo-soil ideology in connection with the growth of Russian national identity.

It can be stated that there is a high probability of an inversion turn from an international official ideology to a national one. This trend, however, is characterized not only by nationalism up to its extreme forms, but above all by the desire to create an ideology based on a return to archaic values. This will be an attempt to return society from an intermediate civilization to the path of traditionalism.

This ideological trend defends its position by citing the need to develop national culture and national identity. At the same time, it is ignored that this undeniable necessity, this important aspect of the growth of national self-consciousness, can develop in an infinite number of ways. One of them is chosen - one that opposes pluralism, dialogue, the specifics of the modern world and, regardless of the subjective intentions of ideologists, pushes for the violent suppression of pluralism and dialogue.

There is no threat of "the introduction through television and other media of the American way of life", cultivating the idea that "man is the blacksmith of his own happiness." If there is anything that attracts us to America, it is not the way of life, but the results of it - wealth, comfort, the cult of health. We are closer to the Latin American way of being - sitting by the sea waiting for the weather and goldfish. The Latin Americanization of our culture is indeed the real threat we face today.

The determining nature of the economic system of the monopoly on scarcity, the struggle between different levels of monopoly entities as the most important content of economic life, the awareness by society of the need to protect elements of the market economy from monopolies means that there are powerful factors in society that will constantly stimulate the resolution of problems on the way to strengthening authoritarianism. The very struggle of different levels of monopoly on the deficit includes the struggle of the highest authorities for their monopoly, that is, the appeal to authoritarianism on the scale of society.

The possibility of the growth of an uncomfortable state as a result of mass conciliar localism also carries the threat of authoritarianism. The growth of the uncomfortable state is obvious. There is a massive shock. The old life collapsed. She became the "former", and we became the former. The shock arose as a result of the need to quickly rebuild their entire psychological decision-making apparatus. The collapse of the whole old life is obvious, with not too great hopes of adapting to the new life. The people feel deceived in all aspirations. This inevitably leads to the accumulation of the potential of a new inversion. Sooner or later, the inversion wave of localism will exhaust itself, and the mass wave may turn to authoritarianism, which, as many believe, is capable of suppressing chaos and “fairly” distributing resources.

Another driving force may be the activation of imperial values, initiated by psychological and other forms of pressure from peoples who have taken the path of national development and movement towards independence. The pressure of these two forces can give rise to a very reactionary form of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is driven by the cardinal inability of society to instantly create some qualitatively new, fundamentally more effective political, economic and other mechanisms.

In an attempt to find a measure between the development of the market and the preservation of historically established monopolies on scarcity, it is necessary to focus on the development of those forms of the market that, in the complex and chaotic conditions of modern devastation, are less involved in the complex system of economic relations. This is primarily trade, extraction of raw materials, agriculture. This is a small business, small enterprises. It is necessary by all means to avoid that path of development of industry, which began long before the end of the first period, before 1917 - the development of monopoly production, which suppresses handicraftsmen, artisans, small-scale production, i.e., mass soil initiative, which undoubtedly played a fatal role in the economic development of the country.

It should be expected that society will seek a way out, first of all, in the struggle of various monopolies for subsidies, while the authorities will frantically seek funds for them, and last but not least, in inflation. The struggle for subsidies and against them, around their distribution is the most important element of economic and political life.

This inversion path will lead to a new extreme authoritarianism, an attempt to restore order by extreme measures. It is then that the whisper of the mass consciousness will reveal its secret meaning - "there is no order." Then the smoldering widespread longing for the new Stalin will splash up, who knows everything and takes responsibility for himself, freeing everyone from overwhelming responsibility, and will streamline chaos.

A return to Stalinist serfdom will be possible only as a result of exceptional circumstances, i.e., mass disasters, the devastation of cities, the struggle for bread as the main economic task of the country. At the heart of this turn will be the desire to eliminate chaos by returning to the ancient forms of organization. If a society is oriented towards narrowly understood national values, it can take on very unattractive forms. One can hope, however, that the positions won by this time by private initiative, the needs of organizations, will put a certain limit on arbitrariness.

Authoritarianism cannot persist indefinitely and will be swept away by a new wave of inversion. The fall of extreme authoritarianism is inevitable, since it will prove to be an obstacle to further socio-economic and cultural development. The weakening or fall of the dictatorship may open the way for liberalism, but at the same time it will cause a new anti-liberal outburst.

It is impossible to foresee what the results of such a development will be. It is possible that society will not endure the endless fluctuations between the two types of civilizations: the fate of the once mighty ancient empires can provide some analogies for predicting the fate of Russia. This can lead to the collapse of Russia, and the reason for it will not be someone’s villainous plan, but the country’s historically exceptionally weak cultural and economic integration, which in the country’s history was replaced by administrative integration.”ABOUT published

In 1953 he graduated from the Moscow State Economic Institute of the State Planning Committee of the USSR. Then he worked as chairman of the planning commission of the Zaoksky district executive committee of the Tula region, head of the planning and financial department of the Research Institute of Agricultural Construction. In 1960-62, he studied at the evening department of the Faculty of Mathematical Methods of Planning at the Moscow Engineering and Economic Institute, then - at the graduate school of the Research Institute of the State Planning Committee of the USSR with a degree in national economic planning. In 1967 he completed another graduate school in the specialty "philosophy". In 1967 he defended his Ph.D. thesis and since 1969 he worked at the Institute of the International Labor Movement of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. In 1991-2007 he worked at the Center for Human Demography and Ecology.

Scientific activity

The author of the concept of sociocultural evolution, according to which the moral ideal prevailing in society develops through several stages - “syncretism”, “moderate utilitarianism”, “developed utilitarianism”, “liberal moral ideal”. According to A. Akhiezer, sociocultural evolution is carried out in a spiral (although there may be rollbacks with a “lowering of the level”), when the prevailing moral ideal passes (within one stage) through the stages of “authoritarian ideal”, “ideal of universal consent”, etc. .

In 1991, A. S. Akhiezer’s book “Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience” was published, in which he made an attempt at a systematic analysis of Russian history and Russian mentality. The book gained wide popularity in scientific circles (“In the first half of the 90s, Akhiezer’s book turns into an intellectual bestseller. It is commented on in magazines, discussed at round tables, the author is invited to make a presentation in a wide variety of communities,” wrote Igor Yakovenko ). AS Akhiezer began writing this book in the 1970s without any hope of publication. In 1982, the manuscript was confiscated by the KGB of the USSR, after which A. S. Akhiezer actually wrote the book again.

In 2005, the book "History of Russia: the end or a new beginning?" with a systematic analysis of the historical path and sociocultural dynamics of Russia (written in a simpler, more understandable language and intended for a wide range of readers).

Biography

In 1953 he graduated from the Moscow State Economic Institute of the State Planning Committee of the USSR. Then he worked as chairman of the planning commission of the Zaoksky district executive committee of the Tula region, head of the planning and financial department of the Research Institute of Rural Construction. In 1960-62 he studied at the evening department of the faculty on mathematical methods of planning in, then - in the graduate school of the Research Institute of the State Planning Committee of the USSR, specializing in "national economic planning". In 1967 he completed another graduate school in the specialty "philosophy". In 1967 he defended his Ph.D. thesis and since 1969 he worked at the Institute of the International Labor Movement of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. In 1991-2007 he worked at the Center for Human Demography and Ecology.

Scientific activity

In 1991, A. S. Akhiezer’s book “Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience” was published, in which he made an attempt at a systematic analysis of Russian history and Russian mentality. The book received wide recognition in scientific circles ( “In the first half of the 90s, Akhiezer's book turns into an intellectual bestseller. It is commented on the pages of magazines, discussed at round tables, the author is invited to make a presentation in a wide variety of communities,”- wrote Igor Yakovenko). AS Akhiezer began writing this book in the 1970s without any hope of publication. In 1982, the manuscript was seized by the KGB of the USSR, after which A. S. Akhiezer actually wrote the book again.

Links

Categories:

Philosophers of Russia
Russian sociologists
September 29
Born in 1929
Born in Moscow
Deceased in 2007
Deceased October 12
Personalities in alphabetical order

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Akhiezer, Alexander Samoilovich" is in other dictionaries:

- (b. 09/29/1929) special. in philosophy culture, social philosophy; Dr. philos. Sciences. Genus. in Moscow. Finished mine. state economy in t (1953), In t management im. Ordzhonikidze (1962), asp .: "Planning of the national economy" (1964), "Philosophy" ... ... Big biographical encyclopedia

- ... Wikipedia