Androsenko S. V. Nicholas Berdyaev’s Thoughts on Human Freedom in the Face of Contemporary Challenges: Technology, Civilization and “the Revolt of the Masses” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №4. P. 44-67.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-4-44-67
Annotation
The article reconstructs the ideas of one of the most famous Russian Christian thinkers Nikolai Berdyaev on the man’s relationship with technology, which became more complicated in the 20th century due to both the unprecedented growth of its power and the challenge that the philosopher called “democratization of culture”. On the one hand, technology reveals man’s creative power, and the growth of technology’s power to a certain extent makes man’s life easier. On the other hand, technology and technification in the broader sense mean a mediated and often alienated relationship of man with nature and other people, communities and ultimately to himself. Technification develops a specific engineering perception not only of nature but also of life in general, which carries the threat of dehumanization, i.e., turning of production, cognitive and cultural sphere, natural and urban environment and man himself into something similar to a machine. At the same time, Berdyaev considers the crisis generated by technology, the challenges posed by technification and automation, which tear man away from the mother-earth and cosmic rhythms, accelerate or slow down time, compress or stretch space, thus questioning the very natural order previously experienced as unshakable and given by God, as a positive phenomenon emphasizing the religious meaning of technology. The article shows how Berdyaev’s main intellectual ideas and philosophical-anthropological intuitions can be followed through the challenges of the 21st century.
Keywords
N. A. Berdyaev, man, philosophical anthropology, technology, nature, freedom, culture, civilization, peasants, mass culture, mass society, engineering.
About the author
Androsenko Sofia V., PhD Student, Philosophy Department, Moscow State University, Press Secretary, St Philaret’s Institute. Tokmakov per., 11, Moscow, 105066.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Gumenyuk I. S., Yustratova V. O. Rural agglomeration as a new form of spatial development of the rural-urban partnership (on the example of the Kaliningrad Region) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №4. P. 21-43.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-4-21-43
Annotation
Russian publications on the development of rural areas have increasingly used the term “rural agglomeration”. However, interpretations of this term and its relationship with more traditional geographical notions “territorial socio-economic system” and “rural-urban continuum” are still unclear. Moreover, rural agglomerations can be considered as local settlement systems identified by the activity method. Thus, practical application of the term causes difficulties due to the lack of clear quantitative and qualitative criteria for identifying rural agglomerations. On the example of the Kaliningrad Region, the authors developed and tested a methodology for identifying rural agglomerations based on the parameter of time accessibility, which also contributed to the theoretical clarification of the concept. The authors argue that in the economic-geographical perspective, rural agglomeration can be defined as a local rural-urban setlement system, in which the city is its core and rural settlements — its elements; intensive inter-village connections are spatially reflected in the transport infrastructure facilities. Rural agglomerations are normative systems identified with the activity approach, namely the isochronous method (20-minute interval from the center along public roads). Thus, the authors identified 8 rural agglomerations in the Kaliningrad Region with an average population of 12.7 thousand people, an average number of 40 settlements and a core in the form of a small city with an average population of 5.7 thousand people.
Keywords
Rural agglomeration, rural-urban continuum, territorial socio-economic system, small town, Kaliningrad Region.
About the authors
Ivan S. Gumenyuk, PhD (Geography) Associate Professor, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, A. Nevskogo St., 14, Kaliningrad, 236016, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Veronica O. Yustratova, PhD Student, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, A. Nevskogo St., 14, Kaliningrad, 236016, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Yanbykh R. G., Lerman Z. The future of agricultural cooperatives in Russia: Does theory matter? // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №4. P. 6-20.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-4-6-20
Annotation
The article aims at identifying theoretical and practical reasons for the failure of the agricultural cooperation development in Russia. Authors suggest that rural cooperatives in Russia do not develop due to the general features of the formation of social capital in the Russian countryside, the lack of necessary institutional conditions, and the wrong idea that cooperatives based on the classical principles of cooperation can operate successfully in the contemporary economy and society. The first theoretical barrier to cooperation is that in the contemporary high-technology agriculture, hybrid structures (cooperatives) are less efficient than the hierarchical one used by agroholdings. The second theoretical barrier is the inconsistency of seven classical principles of cooperation formulated at the time of Raiffeisen (i.e. outdated) with today’s economic realities and their transformations. The third practical barrier is the rapid degradation of rural areas and the low level of trust and interaction between members of agricultural cooperatives, which is why there are no trends of the bottom-up development of cooperation. The authors conclude that a high level of social capital is the necessary condition for cooperation: at the formation stage, this level is high due to interpersonal relationships developed from the informal social interactions of its members and a high level of trust among members and between members and management, but cooperatives start to lose their social capital as they enlarge — the sense of community, trust and mutual assistance disappears, the atmosphere becomes more business-oriented.
Keywords
Cooperation, agricultural cooperatives, classical principles of cooperation, agroholdings, social capital, trust, rural development, rural areas.
About the authors
Renata G. Yanbykh, DSc (Economics), Institute for Agrarian Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics. Pokrovsky Blvr., 11, Moscow, 109028, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Lerman Zvi, PhD (Finance), Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel). 76100, Israel, Rehovot, 12.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Titarenko E. M. Peasant cosmos of the Russian avant-garde and N. F. Fedorov’s aesthetic supra-moralism // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №3. P. 105-118.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-105-118
Annotation
The author conducts a comparative analysis of the peasant cosmos representations in the Russian avant-garde art and of Nikolai Fedorov’s aesthetic supra-moralism based on the works of visual art, articles, treatises, autobiographies and letters of K. Malevich, N. Goncharova, P. Filonov and V. Chekrygin. Aesthetic supra-moralism as the highest morality or “Universal Synthesis” is Fedorov’s religious-philosophical doctrine promoting the idea of cosmism as a project of world order based on the all-unity and a synthesis of science, art and religion. Avant-garde artists expressed their understanding of the human involvement in the multifaceted and complex spatial relationships through images of the peasant world. By comparing the anthropological projection of the Russian avant-garde art with Fedorov’s project of aesthetic supra-moralism, the author shows the similarity between the artistic images of peasant cosmos and the cosmic ideas about the correlation between macrocosm (universe) and microcosm (individuals). In this context, the author explains Malevich’s return to figurativeness and anthropocentrism in his second peasant cycle. The article also considers cosmic intuitions of the Russian avant-garde as related to the perception and interpretation of the sacred church space and of the nature as a temple. Feodorov’s ekphrasis of the Orthodox church describes the liturgical image of all-unity and kinship, uniting the peasant world as a cosmos. Malevich reduces this description to a color image or a feeling, in which the temple’s objectivity dissolves.
Keywords
Peasantry, Russian avant-garde of the first quarter of the 20th century, peasant cosmos in art, suprematism, K. S. Malevich, analytical art, N. F. Fedorov’s aesthetic supra-moralism, cosmism.
About the author
Evgeny M. Titarenko, PhD (Philosophy), Associate Professor, Faculty of Philology, Saint Petersburg State University; Senior Researcher, Center for Cosmism Studies, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. Universitetskaya Nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Zvonova E. E. Animal immortality in Russian cosmism: Scientific and religious aspects // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №3. P. 92-104.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-92-104
Annotation
The article considers scientific and religious aspects of animal immortality in the Russian cosmism philosophy, showing its ideological connection with the Orthodox tradition, for which both “cosmic” and “resurrection”, Easter motifs with significant ecological potential are more typical than for Catholicism and Protestantism. The special place of man in the Christian picture of the world together with anthropocentrism specific to historically Christian cultures do not imply as a mandatory consequence a worldview characterized by the exaltation of man over the world and animals or ethically unjustified speciesism. The article focuses on the specific features of people and animals according to Christianity which emphasizes humanity’s guilt before our smaller brothers due to the fall (loss of the heavenly state) and the human moral non-superiority over animals, providing religious arguments for animal immortality. The author stresses the absence of gap between religious-philosophical and natural-scientific branches of cosmism, since the thinking of cosmists is filled with patterns of the Orthodox outlook and national mentality. Thus, V. I. Vernadsky’s ideas about the autotrophic humanity and its influence on the biosphere are considered as a manifestation of the trend of animal emancipation from the “natural” deadly order, V. F. Kuprevich’s immortalist views — as proving the appropriateness of the immortality-through-science perspective for animals, including the positive role of technology and the ‘animalistic immortalism” art of the Russian cosmism.
Keywords
Russian cosmism, immortality, animals, ecology, anthropocentrism, speciesism, autotrophic humanity.
About the author
Ekaterina E. Zvonova, PhD (Philosophy), Associate Professor, Institute of Social Sciences, I. M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University; Senior Researcher, Center for Cosmism Studies, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES). Trubetskaya st., 8, p. 2, Moscow, 119048, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Knorre (Konstantinova) E. Yu. Prishvin’s philosophy of land in the context of ecotheology // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №3. P. 73-91.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-73-91
Annotation
The article reconstructs the idea of land management in the ecophilosophy of Mikhail Prishvin. For the first time, the author shows parallels between Prishvin’s philosophy of land and H. Thoreau’s transcendentalism, T. Goricheva’s ecoliturgy and eschatological issues in J. Haught’s ecotheology. Prishvin’s motif of land hidden for man’s sins correlates with the myth of the Invisible City of Kitezh, which went under water. Such ideas were borrowed from the teaching of Aurelius Augustine about the City of God and the earthly city, Plato’s myth of the cave, and the return of fallen Sophia to the world in God (Blissful Being) in the philosophy of V. Solovyov. Prishvin uses the myth of the lost paradise land to criticize the rational-positivist worldview of the mechanistic civilization as based on the idea of earth and nature as inanimate objects subordinated to the will of man. Prishvin contrasts humanity that divides land into conflicting parts during wars and revolutions or reshapes it through land reclamation projects of the 1920s and 1930s with the economic behavior of Adam, the Russian Parsifal, Prishvin’s collective hero, who, in the light of “family attention” of “distinguishing love”, reveals the name of the creature “resurrecting from among” “the personal Russia” as the land that once went under water. The author concludes that the idea of economic behavior on land as distinguishing attention and the perception of land as a community of people, “community of creation” that restores the lost whole of the multifaced cosmos, the Whole Man, was proposed by Prishvin as an alternative to the objective thinking that does not distinguish “faces” and perceives land utilitarianly, as its possession. Thus, Prishvin’s Christian personalism is close to the tradition of spiritual resistance to a depersonalizing civilization in the Russian and foreign ecophilosophy of the 19th– 20th centuries.
Keywords
M. Prishvin, H. Thoreau, T. Goricheva, J. Haught, romanticism, transcendentalism, Christian ecology, ecotheology, ecoliturgy, Parsifal, Whole-Man, cosmic Eucharist, Christian personalism.
About the author
Elena Yu. Knorre (Konstantinova), PhD (Philology), Senior Researcher, А. M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Orthodox Saint Tikhon University for the Humanities. Povarskaya St., 25а, Moscow, 121069, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Nikulin A. M. Nikolai Setnitsky and Alexander Chayanov: On ideals, exploitation, non-capitalist systems and regulation of nature // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №3. P. 47-72.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-47-72
Annotation
The author conducts a comparative biographical analysis to consider the social-philosophical and political-economic views and the interdisciplinary intellectual heritage of the remarkable Russian scientists N. A. Setnitsky and A. V. Chayanov on the ideals of social development, features of capitalist and non-capitalist economic systems, issues of regulating the relationship between man and nature in the 1920s–1930s. The article identifies the fundamental worldview ideas of the “agrarian-relativist” Chayanov and the “apocalyptic cosmist” Setnitsky, which determined their theoretical-methodological approaches to the cognition and transformation of reality, focusing on the comparative analytical assessment of their utopian and futurological forecasts and projects. The author concludes about the significance of the intellectual heritage of Setnitsky and Chayanov for the study of contemporary political, economic and environmental issues in Russia and the world.
Keywords
N. A. Setnitsky, A. V. Chayanov, capitalism, non-capitalist systems, city, village, exploitation, nature, utopia, cosmism.
About the author
Alexander M. Nikulin, PhD (Economics), Head of the Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, 119571, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The fight against hunger in the philosophy of Russian cosmism: N. F. Fedorov and Universal Cause collections
Oct 25 2024Gacheva A. G. The fight against hunger in the philosophy of Russian cosmism: N. F. Fedorov and Universal Cause collections // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №3. P. 25-46.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-25-46
Annotation
The article is the first part of the study of the issues of hunger in the philosophy of Russian cosmism. Its representatives believed that we need to study natural processes and their management to solve the problem of hunger, emphasizing that regulation requires complete knowledge and universal solidarity. The article examines the ideas of N. F. Fedorov, who suggested to consider the issue of overcoming hunger in the Christian context, defining the regulation of nature as the fulfillment of the commandment to “possess land”. The author reconstructs the dynamics of the perception of the hunger problem in the first collection Universal Cause (1914) and in the draft of the second collection compiled by A. K. Gorsky and N. A. Setnitsky in 1920 during the devastation of the Civil War. The article also presents the results of the analysis of the one-day newspaper To the Rescue! published under the famine of 1921–1922.
Keywords
Philosophy of cosmism, problem of hunger, regulation of nature, legacy of N. F. Fedorov, A. K. Gorsky, N. A. Setnitsky, Universal Cause.
About the author
Anastasia G. Gacheva, DSc (Philology), Leading Researcher, A. M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Head of the Center for Cosmism Studies, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences; Chief Librarian and Researcher, N. F. Fedorov Library No. 180 in the South-West Administrative District of Moscow. 25A, bld. 1, Povarskaya st., Moscow, 121069.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Onosov A. A. Peasant question in the common cause philosophy // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №3. P. 7-24.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-7-24
Annotation
The article presents the results of the explication and analysis of the “peasant question” as one of the semantic centers of N. F. Fedorov’s common cause philosophy. In its various formulations and analytical sections, the peasant question is an ideologically complex issue of cosmism, which combines multiple antinomies of being — urban and rural, present and due, secular (universal-philistine) and sacred (cosmic-peasant). The cause-and-effect analysis of the peasant question shows that its polysemantic nature is determined by the extreme ontological tension of the main nerve of the cosmism philosophy — issues of “life and death” in its moral-family form as issues of mortal sons who lost brotherhood and universal fatherland, and as issues of fathers awaiting bodily resurrection, a rebirth. The article identifies the supra-moralistic significance of the “bread labor” — various subject-life, planetary-cosmic expressions of agriculture in civilizational practices and projective goal setting of cosmosophy. The author emphasizes that in his deep retrospective and prospective historical analysis Fedorov clearly realized the peasant essence of the question of life and was a pure pragmatist of life as immortal and perfect for all sons of men, psychocratically integrated into the “adult society”.
Keywords
N. F. Fedorov, common cause philosophy, cosmism, supra-moralism, peasantry, peasant question, agriculture, village, regulation of nature, resurrection.
About the author
Alexander A. Onosov, PhD (Philosophy), Leading Researcher, Faculty of Philosophy, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Senior Researcher, Center for Cosmism Studies, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences; Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, RUDN University. Lomonosovsky Prosp., 27–4, Moscow, 119991, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Trotsuk I. V. A few methodological notes based on the field observations of rural human capital in the Russia’s Non-Black Earth Region // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №2. P. 6-19.
DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-2-6-19
Annotation
The article presents some methodological considerations on the possibilities and limitations of the qualitative approach (repeated case studies in the specific Russian region) for the sociological assessment of human capital. In the first part of the article, the author considers the Russian tradition of rural studies as combining two analytical ‘optics’ — sociological/ethnographic observations of local realities based on various combinations of qualitative techniques and a strong anthropological/ peasant-studies emphasis with large-scale social surveys aimed at macro-descriptions of agrarian reforms, rural social/human capital and agro-industrial complex under the persistent trends of social-spatial differentiation. In the second part, the author mentions the key possibilities and limitations of case studies for assessing the state and prospects of rural human capital in the most depressed rural region of Russia, focusing on the role of entrepreneurs in formal and informal support of the local rural economy and communities in cooperation with municipal and regional authorities. In the final part, the author emphasizes typologies as the analytical result of rural case studies (especially the repeated ones) and provides examples — ‘types’ of the local agricultural producer relationships with the rural settlement’s authorities and community (as the basis for preserving rural human capital) and ‘types’ of the rural entrepreneurs’ biographical trajectories (as the basis for the generational continuity of this differentiated rural stratum).
Keywords
(Repeated) case study, field research, typology, analytical generalizations, rural entrepreneur, rural human capital, positive and negative trends, local authorities, rural community, formal and informal interaction.
About the author
Trotsuk Irina V., DSc (Sociology), Professor, Sociology Department, RUDN University; Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Intercenter, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Russian Peasant Studies. Scientific journal
Center for Agrarian studies of the Russian Presidental Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA)
- Publisher: Delo Publishing, RANEPA
- Editor-in-Chief: Nikulin Alexander
- ISSN 2500-1809 (Print), ISSN 2949-2564 (Online)
- Founded in 2016
- Frequency: four issues per year (March, June, September, December)
- Open Access: All volumes and articles can be downloaded for free in the PDF format by Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)..
- Author fees: free of chagre
- Indexation: Russian Science Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index Core, List of Journals approved by Russian Hihger Attestation committee (Ministry for Sciende and Education), Scopus, UlrichWeb Global Serials Directory, European reference index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIHPLUS), CNKI scholar, Sherpa Romeo , AGRIS
- Russian registration number: PI FS77-65824 27-May-2016
Hard copies of the journal can be purchased at the Delo e-store or by subscription in the "Press of Russia" Agency (subscription index - Т81017).
e-issn
