INTERVIEW WITH ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHER YURIJ REZNIK
Abstract
The interview discusses the prospects for building an ecological civilization in Russia. One of the important angles of analysis is the idea of the opposition between different tendencies in Russia's civilizational development, the ideological and technological. Overcoming this opposition will require a third, ecological tendency. In the interview, the eco-integral approach to the study of the prospects ‘for the development of Russian civilization is substantiated, based on the strategy of the harmonious unity of people with the socio-natural environment. An ecological civilization is a human-sized, technologically-advanced, socially-sustainable and spiritually-oriented civilization, the development of which is aimed at maintaining and developing all forms of life. This is how Yurij Reznik imagines the civilization of the future Russia, the contours of which are outlined in the interview.
Keywords: Russia, ecological civilization, ecophilosophy, eco-integral approach, ecology, ideological, technological
Brief information about the interviewee:Yuri Mikhailovich Reznik – Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Chief Researcher, Head of the Center for Philosophical Communications at the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow).
Alexander Kopytin (A.K.): When considering the phenomenon of ecological civilization, you, as it seems to me, pay considerable attention to the analysis of the specifics of eco-civilizational progress, characteristic of Russia. Taking into account that the development of Russian society was and is carried out in situations of a rather difficult choice between different tendencies, could you explain what you see as the specifics of the Russian path of eco-civilizational progress and what it is conditioned by? It would probably also be useful to explain how you define such key concepts as “civilization” and “progress.”
Yuri Reznik (Yu. R.): Different authors have different understandings of the possibilities and conditions of eco-civilization development. Félix Guattari in his work "Three Ecologies" (Guattari, 1985), for example, states that "the true answer to the ecological crisis can be found only on a planetary scale and under the condition that a real political, social and cultural revolution takes place, reorienting the goals of production of material and non-material values." I agree that overcoming the ecological crisis is possible only under the condition of very large-scale, truly revolutionary changes affecting the very way of existence of humanity, its material and spiritual culture. But I do not agree with him that a revolutionary movement, including an ecological revolution, is possible only on a global or planetary scale. In my opinion, they can first occur in large countries or regions of the world (USA, Russia, China, India, etc.) and, possibly, then spread to other corners of the planet.
Before continuing the conversation about the ecophilosophical understanding of civilizational development, I will first say how I understand civilization in Russia. In scientific literature, when considering the features of the Russian civilizational context, in addition to the common natural climatic and geographical conditions, such features as multi-ethnicity, multi-faith, synthesis of cultures and the determining role of the state are also considered. Such civilizational features of Russia as the "unifying" mission of Russian culture, Orthodoxy and other traditional religions, imperial statehood are discussed. As a rule, Russian culture and the moral foundations of its existence are recognized as the "core" of such a civilization.
At the same time, I do not believe that Russian civilization is a historically determined reality today. From my point of view, it should be considered rather as a process, or as an "unfinished project" of civilizational construction. The formation of civilization in Russia, in addition to its own territory, also occurs in vast trans-border spaces, where it actively interacts with different cultures, countries and peoples. Successful civilizational integration of Russia with these cultures, countries and peoples can occur in the case of their "counter-movement."
If we try to give a working definition of Russian civilization, II see it as an extremely broad and historically developing form of transcultural, supra-national and supra-state, non-political interweaving or interpenetration that has been taking place over many centuries in the course of an incessant struggle between the immanent-materialistic and transcendent-ideocratic vectors in the lives of peoples living both on the territory of Russia and in the zones of its trans-border influence and united, firstly, by a common historical destiny, secondly, by strong cultural ties (primarily, similar values and traditions), thirdly, by similar ideas about the world, fourthly, by the desire to implement a common strategy of harmonious unity of people with the surrounding natural and social environment.
I would like to especially emphasize the trans-cultural character, and the supra-state and non-political civilizational status of Russia. In this way, it differs fundamentally from a nation as a political community associated with a specific state. In addition, a nation, unlike a civilization, can be monocultural and monoethnic (like, for example, the Japanese nation).
A.K.: What significance do you attach to its "ecologicality" when considering the category of civilization, in particular the special Russian civilization, taking into account its development strategy aimed at the harmonious unity of people with the surrounding natural and social environment? To what extent can we talk about the ecological nature of civilization? Is "ecologicality" a measure or criterion of the quality of civilization that should be used as a guide?
Yu. R.: To begin with, it would be necessary to determine which civilization can be considered "ideal" or "good" from the point of view of certain criteria. Probably, such a civilization, like a society, does not exist in principle, although there are numerous concepts of them, for example, the liberal model of J.K. Galbraith, the communitarian model of A. Etzioni and others.
It can be assumed that an ideal or "good" civilization can be a civilization that is human-sized ("convenient for human life"), socially sustainable, technologically developed, and also one that is spiritually oriented, aimed at supporting and developing all forms of life, that is, ecological. At the same time, ecology as a criterion for the development of civilizations presupposes diversity, not unification of life-forms and value-systems.
The ecological paradigm of civilizational development opposes the "paradigm of exclusivity" with its principle of anthropocentrism, proclaiming humans as the crown of creation. Such an ecological paradigm is based on the recognition of the value of all living things on Earth and in space, moderation in the consumption of natural resources, mutual tolerance and peacefulness of all peoples. But the main thing that distinguishes this paradigm is its “binding” to the place, the territory (locality) where such a civilization was born and grew. This also applies to those people who do not currently live in the country. However, the place of being is not just a point in geographic space. It is a “territory of being” where a unique natural, socio-cultural and spiritual landscape has developed, mastered and “appropriated” by people. Therefore, they, wherever they are, also retain the rights of collective authorship for the socio-cultural design of their civilization. I emphasize once again that from an ecological point of view, a civilization is a “place of being” (or a “house of being”, as M. Heidegger put it) – a comfortable and safe environment for life, regardless of whether we consider it on a global scale or as a local entity.
A.K.: What other criteria related to the system-forming features of an ecological civilization could you name, and what views, characteristic of ecologically-oriented philosophical or anthropological concepts, determine this?
Yu. R.: Of course, human-dimensionality, social sustainability, a high level of technological development, as well as an orientation toward the maintenance and development of all forms of life do not exhaust the signs of an ecological civilization. An ecological civilization is also characterized by the fact that it is based on the idea of "joint development" - that is, the interconnection of all living beings and inanimate objects and their inclusion at the local or global levels in a single ecosystem. But humans are endowed with the ability to spiritualize life. Human beings contain the self-awareness of life.
Ecological civilization is also associated with the recognition that human activity and needs should be, to one degree or another, depending on the circumstances, limited by ecological laws - the principle of natural limitations imposed on everyday life by the environment - natural or social.
The ecological view of society and civilization is opposed to the technocratic approach and the model of consumer culture. It should be noted that many researchers of civilizational processes recognize the need to overcome the culture of consumption, and some of them offer their own concepts of the self-limitation of needs and moderate consumption.
Without the formation of ecological culture, it is difficult to imagine the civilizational future of Russia. Ecological culture is, first of all, what people use to inhabit and "domesticate" a particular territory, to make it their "home." Such a place can be considered a specific region or Russia as a whole, taken together with spiritually- related peoples. An ecological civilization is made by people united in large groups to implement a common strategy aimed not only at achieving a certain level of comfort, safety and efficiency, but also at the self-limitation of needs in the name of the life of human and biotic communities, at harmonizing relations between humans and the socio-natural environment. At the same time, the goal of civilizational development is conservation and development, and not just the use of the country's resources.
A. K.: Previously, you were engaged in the eco-integral interpretation of some civilizational ideas and projects. You studied civilizational development from an eco-philosophical point of view, carried out meta-modeling, that is, established extremely broad value frameworks and rules necessary for modeling civilizational processes. Could you tell us a little about the results of such research?
Yu. R.: The eco-integral approach is based, in my understanding, on the concept of ecologism, including social ecologism, as an integral research strategy and a method of metamodeling, on the one hand, and meta-ideology, according to E. Heywood, with the help of which it is possible to describe and critically evaluate private ideologies, extracting from them all that is most valuable and useful. In methodological terms, ecologism is a research approach or paradigm through the prism of which the world is viewed. And in terms of content, it orients the researcher to identify the criteria of “vitality” or “viability,” including the ability of an ecosystem to create conditions for the successful life of different species, to be a safe and comfortable “home” for all its inhabitants and their inclusion in a broader context of life. My first research task is to apply the method of step-by-step reconstruction of civilizational ideas of some Russian and foreign philosophers, and a reconstruction that allows us to recreate the ecological image and design of civilization in Russia. The second task of my research is to identify the possibilities of constructing a model of Russian civilization based on the eco-integral approach. As is known, an ecological project is based on the requirements of environmental friendliness, implemented in the given conditions of existence of a specific ecosystem. To be environmentally friendly means in practice to join being, to take root in it or to become related to it. However, one should not confuse environmental friendliness as a practical requirement with environmentalism as an ideological and research doctrine. Also, one should not ignore the aesthetic side of an environmental project. This applies both to the environmental design of a specific cultural or geographical region, and to the design of civilization as a whole.
A.K.: Based on the results of the eco-integral interpretation, could you concretize some civilizational ideas taking into account ecological parameters and the possibilities of their application in the practice of civilizational construction in Russia?
Yu. R.: Firstly, I highlight civilizational concepts based on the ideas of the spiritual organization of life, characteristic, for example, of G. Hegel and A. Schweitzer. They are close to ecophilosophy, which deals with the categories of "spirit", "life", "evolution", "environment", "population", etc. Thus, Hegel's idea of life served as the starting point of the project of reconstruction, which I tried to apply to the study of the civilizational development of Russia. Following this logic, we can assume that the spirit as the highest manifestation of life finds its expression at all levels of the structural organization of civilization from the family to the state. The latter is considered as the other being of the objective spirit. From this point of view, Russia in its civilizational movement must go through the stage of development of the objective spirit and be embodied in its own moral idea - family, civil society and state, thereby overcoming the contradiction between egoistic subjectivity, on the one hand, and the objective need for self-ascension of the spirit - on the other.
I have not chosen the model of "civilization for life" by A. Schweitzer by chance. It suits Russia by its type, taking into account the original attachment and love of the Russian people to their native land. But for its implementation in the logic of Schweitzer, they will need significant efforts - to develop in themselves the ability for self-denial and self-improvement.
I also analyzed concepts that emphasize ideas of a unifying, essentially messianic nature, associated, for example, with the concepts of sophianism, all-unity and integralism, which were used by Russian researchers at the beginning of the last century, as well as later concepts that appeared in the post-Soviet period.
Sorokin's concept of civilization is based on the idea of the interconnection of three civilization types - sensory, ideational and idealistic. Each of them has its own logic of culture. The idealistic system combines the advantages of the other two types. Russia (then the USSR) can travel the path to it through convergence. It has the necessary prerequisites for this: a great culture, a stable social structure, as well as the moral and creative qualities of the people. But in order to implement such a project, it is necessary to combine the advantages of all types of civilizations and, above all, the sensible and ideational. Sorokin's ideal is an ideal civilization that combines the advantages of different types of civilizational development. It is quite possible that in Russia it will acquire the features of an ecological civilization.
Another group of Russian civilizational projects is associated with the idea of pan-humanity. Thus, at the heart of N. Ya. Danilevsky's concept of Slavic civilization is the idea of Pan-Slavism, which rejects European expansion and Europe's desire for domination. He proposes to create a Pan-Slavic Union similar to the Holy Alliance in Europe and unite all the Slavic peoples in it. The latter possess, from his point of view, a special spirituality, innate humanity, the ability to obey and resistance to revolutionary changes. However, it is unlikely that the idea of Slavism and any ethnic idea in general can unite the peoples of Russia.
In turn, the Eurasian project is an open manifesto declaring the need to confront European civilization, the borrowing of its benefits and Europeanization as a whole. N.S. Trubetskoy calls this European civilization an absolute evil, and regards European egocentrism and chauvinism antisocial principles leading to the destruction of any other culture. Not all the insights of the classical Eurasians have been confirmed in reality. At the same time, they certainly contain ecological potential.
A. K.: What are the most general conclusions concerning the construction of an ecological civilization in Russia that you can formulate, taking into account the eco-integral analysis of various eco-civilizational concepts that you conducted?
Yu. R.: Instead of preliminary conclusions, I would like to formulate several assumptions or suppositions.
The first supposition is as follows: probably, the indicated civilizational ideas do not convey the entire diversity of prospects for the civilizational development of Russia. However, they allow us to determine the main trend: for many centuries, the civilizational movement of Russia has been accompanied by a confrontation between two vectors of development - transcendental-ideological, oriented towards the dominance of the world of ideas - paganism, Orthodoxy, communism, liberalism - and immanent-technocratic, aimed at the dominance of the world of things and technologies as methods of their production - material goods, scientific and technical achievements, etc. Therefore, their struggle did not cease at all stages of Russian history, and could only lead to temporary success for one of the parties.
This leads to the second assumption: apparently, it is the ecological vector of Russia’s civilizational development that represents the “third way,” which not only combines the advantages of both vectors, but also introduces a new quality into its civilizational model – environmental friendliness, which is primarily connected with the criterion of location, that is, civilization as a “common home.” The third assumption is that the structure of an ecological civilization is determined by the historically established relationship between the following spheres of life: the “geosphere” (terrestrial and water resources), the “biosphere” (all living things), the “anthroposphere” (people and their activities mediated by culture), the “sociosphere” (social relations and institutions), the “technosphere” (a set of material objects, technical means or structures created by people with the help of technology), the “noosphere” (the sphere of reason that has concentrated all spiritual and intellectual resources). A civilization, considered in a generalized form, acts as an area of intersection of all these spheres in specific conditions of place and time.
The fourth assumption: depending on which sphere of life becomes dominant at a given stage of development of a country or group of countries, the civilizational movement can move from one stage to another, becoming consistently anthroposphere, sociosphere, technosphere or noosphere. Each subsequent level of civilizational development absorbs all the previous ones. The noosphere as the dominant paradigm of civilizational development is considered the highest stage of civilizational evolution.
The fifth assumption: apparently, is that an ecological civilization develops like a pendulum, rolling back each time - to the biosphere or anthroposphere, as soon as contradictions in them become more acute, and immediately running forward - to the noosphere, in order to find reasonable and innovative solutions there. This gives it advantages compared to, for example, a technosphere civilization, which often ignores problems arising at the lower levels of civilizational organization, including in the biosphere.
A.K.: What are the possibilities of the eco-integral "assembly" of the Russian project of civilizational development?
Yu. R.: To begin with, I would like to note once again that modern Russia is still in a state of confrontation between two vectors of civilizational development - immanent-technocratic and transcendent-ideocratic. I will now move on to some provisions of the eco-integral approach, which allows us to substantiate or refute the possibilities of implementing the ecological vector of development of Russian civilization. From this point of view, I consider ecocivilization as a comfortable and safe place for people to live (“home”), as a favorable “existential territory” (F. Guattari) and “a habitable environment”, “a human-sized and culture-appropriate space of existence”, “a space of social solidarity”, “a sphere of sustainable technological development” and “a place for the application of environmental technologies”, etc.
Russia has every chance of becoming an ecological civilization, if, of course, the appropriate conditions are created, including that its ordinary citizens and subjects of governance will manage to make a “turn in consciousness” and not only form an environmental worldview, but also move on to practical actions, including the creation of new institutions and organizations. Today, Russia, as before, faces two civilizational dilemmas, each of which corresponds to alternative models of civilizational development: a traditional or modern model in the present and a digital or environmental model in the future. Behind each of them there is a large and influential group: subjects of management and agents of a specific civilizational project. Their clash with each other can lead to an even deeper civilizational crisis of the country.
However, it should be honestly admitted that the desire for greening in Russian society is not so strong that new forces capable of jointly taking care of our common home will appear in the near future. Unfortunately, we have not yet developed the conditions and traditions for the emergence of strong environmental movements and parties in the political arena. The environmental personality type (eco-activist) capable of resisting the ego-activist as an aggressive and egoistic consumer has not been fully formed.
Civilization is not only a spiritual category, but also a material one. Any civilization "begins" with the design of the geo- and biosphere. The socio-cultural design of civilization also begins with this. Its "body" - land and water resources (geosphere), diverse biological species and populations (biosphere), people and their ways of life, constituting culture (anthroposphere), as well as technologies and infrastructure objects built by people (technosphere) - requires the participation of social subjects.
The emergence of civilization is primarily influenced by natural factors, such as river basins, land areas, mountain ranges, and other natural phenomena that play the role of "territories for life". As is known, the formation of any civilization begins with the development and "settling" of a geographical space, the connecting threads of which could be considered great rivers. From this point of view, the cradle of civilization in Russia is the Dnieper and the entire Dnieper basin. It was on its banks that the proto-civilization - Kievan Rus - arose. Then the civilizational space of Russia gradually expanded from West to East, gradually mastering the basins of the largest rivers of Eurasia - the Volga, Ob, Yenisei, Lena, Amur, etc. Our ancestors, step by step, sometimes for a century, mastered these territories, adapting to natural and climatic conditions, and also establishing, where possible, peaceful relations with the indigenous peoples. The civilizational uniqueness of Russia is largely determined by the special, organic connection between life and land in the existence of its people.
The existential territory of Russia as a civilization is a unique and not yet fully developed socio-techno-natural landscape, adapted to the needs of people and having become one related whole with them. And this space has not been fully developed by us and has not yet become a “territory for life”. It still contains many “alienated zones”, “bleeding ulcers” and “black holes” that are the result of natural disasters, environmental pollution and harmful industries. Overcoming them will require long-term and collective efforts from society and the state. But all this can be done only by adopting an ecological strategy for civilizational development, which allows us to promptly recognize and solve acute problems. Russia has the opportunity to create a human-sized and culture-consistent civilization and make it not only “human-preserving”/“culture-preserving”, but also “human-developing”/“culture-creating”). Despite the identified contradictions that slow down the course of civilizational development, Russia still remains one of the most unique socio-cultural formations in the modern world, which can in the future take shape as an ecological civilization that affirms life and creates an ecologically and morally healthy environment for existence.
A.K.: Thank you very much for such informative and detailed answers. The general contours, content and prospects for creating an ecological civilization in Russia, taking into account its place in the global ecosystem and world history, become more understandable after your explanation.
Interviewed by:
Kopytin, Alexander
Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor, Department of Psychology, St. Petersburg Academy of Postgraduate Pedagogical Education (St. Petersburg, Russia)
Reference for citations
Kopytin, A.I. (2020). An interview with environmental philosopher Yuriy Reznik. Ecopoiesis: Eco-Human Theory and Practice, 6 (2). [open access internet journal]. – URL: http://ecopoiesis.ru (d/m/y)