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. 

Gacheva 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. 

Krasilnikov S. A. Repressive de-peasantization in the USSR as a research question: Approaches and search for new solutions // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №1. P. 6-22.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-1-6-22

Annotation

When considering the peasant component of special settlements in Stalin’s epoch, the author proposes to combine the repressive paradigm with the socially transformative one, which leads to the idea of repressive de-peasantization. This term focuses on the peasantry and peasant families deportation to special settlements as a state policy based on coercion, violence and discipline through punishment, which resulted in the loss of the most basic values (including religious ones) by the peasantry, the deformation of labor incentives and ethos, the transformation of family models and intergenerational ties. These issues are considered in the article through their study since the late 1980s (historiographical approach). Thus, the conceptual “breakthrough” (N. A. Ivnitsky, V.Ya. Shashkov, V.N. Zemskov) limited this analysis to the records of the central authorities, and the dictate of such sources affected the historical discourse, determining the dominance of quantitative characteristics (numbers, dislocations, spheres of labor application, living conditions, etc.) and the ignorance of the implicit qualitative aspects of the exiles’ life (marginality, adaptability, excessiveness, everyday activities). Having noted the presence of terminological ‘relics’ in contemporary historical works (“raskulachivanie”, or de-kulakization, “legal status”, etc.), the author emphasizes the need to consider such qualitative concepts as “regulation of special settlements”, “hierarchy of exiles”, “intergenerational ties and conflicts”, and “the price of repression”. As the basis of de-peasantization, the social-professional mobility of the exiled peasantry, including to other strata (workers, employees), was generally leveled by its regime status.

Keywords

Forced de-peasantization, dynamics of research, peasant family, exile, special settlement regime, mobility, marginalization.

About the author

Krasilnikov Sergey A., DSc (History), Chief Researcher, Institute of History, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Nikolaeva St., 8, Novosibirsk, 630090.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Ershov A.M. International typologies of rural areas // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №4. P. 41-53.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-4-41-53

Annotation

The article presents international, mainly European, typologies of rural areas, focusing on the features and differences in the criteria for identifying ‘rural’ territories in the European Union. The author explains the reasons for the need for more comprehensive typologies based on the transport accessibility of the territory, trajectories of its transformation, and macro-regional characteristics. The article considers the main methodological difficulties in developing a universal typology of rural areas for all regions of the world and emphasizes differences in the indicators and their threshold values used for typologies and in the levels of administrative-territorial analysis. The author provides references that reflect the methodological foundations of contemporary national typologies and mentions scientific innovations used in such research works. Finally, the article identifies the main common features of the presented typologies, focusing on their methodological limitations.

Keywords

Rural areas, international typologies, spatial differentiation, types of rural areas, assessment methods, rural-urban continuum, transition zones, identification criteria.

About the author

Ershov Alexey M., PhD Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninskie Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Nikulin A.M., Trotsuk I.V. Utopias of Alexander Bogdanov and Alexander Chayanov: The choice of rural-urban development and its consequences for rural human capital and social differentiation // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №4. P. 23-40.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-4-23-40

Annotation

A science-based conversation about the current state of rural areas, prospects for rural human capital and trends in rural differentiation is impossible without the conceptual approaches and futuristic projects of great Russian agrarian scientists. The article presents an attempt of comparing such ideas of two outstanding social thinkers of the early 20th century — Alexander Bogdanov and Alexander Chayanov, focusing on their utopias as representing the essential features (proletarian and peasant) of their social-economic and cultural-ethical views. Bogdanov and Chayanov had extensive encyclopedic knowledge and brilliant organizational skills; they wrote original works on social philosophy and political economy; both were prominent leaders of alternative social-political directions of the Russian Revolution. Moreover, Bogdanov and Chayanov wrote several famous utopias: Bogdanov’s utopia develops Marxist ideas of proletarian revolution and construction of socialism not only on earth but also in space; Chayanov’s utopia of moderate cooperative socialism defends the new revolutionary significance of the peasantry. The proletarian ideologist Bogdanov was skeptical about the political potential of the peasantry, arguing that opponents of proletarian revolution would use peasant conservatism against socialist revolution. The peasant ideologist Chayanov was skeptical about the creative potential of the working class, predicting that in the coming social revolution it would be used to build authoritarian-bureaucratic socialism. However, both thinkers sought prospects for rural-urban development through the analysis of possible ways of interaction between man and nature. Despite the ignorance of the positive revolutionary potential of the proletariat (Chayanov) and the peasantry (Bogdanov), both thinkers made huge contributions to the theory and practice of the Russian Revolution, and their utopian ideas still inspire the search for a new just, humane and happy world.

Keywords

A.V. Chayanov, A.A. Bogdanov, utopia, proletariat, peasantry, Marxism, corporatism, colonialism, human capital.

About the authors

Nikulin Alexander M., PhD (Economics), Head of the Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; ViceRector for Research, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

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.