Lev Gumilev, Ethnogenesis and Eurasianism

247 Pages·2005·8.818 MB·English

by  Alexander Sergeevich Titov

1
Lev Gumilev, Ethnogenesis and Eurasianism
ALEXANDER SERGEEVICH TITOV
University College London
School of Slavonic and Eastern European Studies
In fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
March 2005
UMI Number: U602440
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI U602440
Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
2
ABSTRACT
The thesis examines two central themes in the thought of L.N. Gumilev (1912—
92): the theory of ethnogenesis and Eurasianism.
A biographic survey of Gumilev’s life sets his work in a historical context.
Gumilev’s background, his personal interests in nomadic history, and the tragic
experiences of his life emerge as important factors for understanding his thought.
The three principal concepts of the theory of ethnogenesis are then examined;
passionamost’, ethnos, and phases of ethnogenesis. It is argued that the theory of
ethnogenesis at its core is a behaviourist concept of ethnic history.
A comparison with the theories of history of Arnold Toynbee and N.Ia.
Danilevskii shows that despite similarities such as a shared anti-cosmopolitan view of
history, there are also important differences. In particular, the distinction between social
and ethnic history and the emphasis on behavioural, long-term changes distinguish
Gumilev’s theory from those of Toynbee and Danilevskii.
Gumilev’s account of Russian history focused on a distinction between Kievan
Rus and Muscovite Russia, the role of the Mongols in the formation of the Russian
ethnos, and the interpretation of Russian history in terms of phases of ethnogenesis. His
views are dominated by a strong anti-Western bias and are not always compatible with
the theory of ethnogenesis.
Finally, there is a crucial distinction between Eurasianism and the theory of
ethnogenesis. In his works on Russian history, Gumilev developed various aspects of
Eurasianism. The theory of ethnogenesis is, however, a radical departure from Eurasian
views. It should be seen as a separate theory which stresses non-voluntaristic,
behaviourist motives in ethnic history.
3
Contents
1. Introduction 8
1. Previous works 9
2. The objectives of the thesis and an overview of Gumilev’s work 15
3. The structure of the thesis 18
4. Justification of the thesis 19
2. A Biographical Overview 20
1. Background and Early Life 20
2. The University Years 23
3. The Gulag 25
4. The Post-war Respite 28
5. Rehabilitation 32
6. The Theory of Ethnogenesis 36
7. Recognition 39
Conclusion 41
3. The Theory of Ethnogenesis 42
Introduction 42
1. Humankind, the biosphere, and passionamost’ 43
1.1 Vemadskii and the biosphere 43
1.2 The biosphere and ethnogenesis 47
1.3 Static and dynamic ethnoses 48
1.4 Passionamost ’ 52
2. Ethnos and ethnic identity 59
2.1 Rival theories of ethnos 59
2.2 Ethnos and ethnic identity 62
2.3 Komplimentarnost’ and the ethnic field 66
2.5 Ethnic groupings 70
3. Phases of ethnogenesis 72
3.1 Behavioural imperatives 73
4
3.2 Phases of ethnogenesis 75
4. Relations between ethnic and social, cultural, and biological factors 82
4.1 Social development and ethnogenesis 82
4.2 Relations between ethnogenesis and culture 84
4.3 Ethnic and biological factors 86
4.4 Free will and passionamost’ 87
Conclusion 89
4. The Theory of Ethnogenesis and the Philosophy of History 90
Introduction 90
1. Culture-historical types and ethnogenesis 90
1.1 Inspiration 91
1.2 Theoretical premises 92
1.3 Nature of history 95
1.4 Nature of development in history 99
1.5 Preliminary conclusion 104
2. Toynbee and Gumilev 105
2.1 Inspiration and premises 105
2.2 The cause of growth 114
2.3 The nature of growth 118
2.4 Breakdown and disintegration 120
2.5 Emergence of Christianity 123
2.4 Summary 131
Conclusion 132
5. Russian History and the Theory of Ethnogenesis 133
Introduction 133
1. The decline of Kievan Rus 134
2. Mongolian influence and the beginning of the Great Russian ethnos 136
2.1 Alexander Nevskii 138
2.2 The Mongol influence 140
5
3. The growth phase 144
3.1 The role of the Church 144
3.2 The ascent of Moscow 147
3.3 The battle of Kulikovo: the beginning of the open growth phase 151
3.4 The end of the growth phase 155
4. The acme phase 157
4.1 The first peak of the acme phase 158
4.2 The first passionary depression of the acme phase 163
4.3 The second peak of passionamost and the unification with Ukraine 165
4.4 The second passionary depression and Peter the Great’s reforms 170
4.5 The last peak of passionamost and the end of the acme phase 174
5. The crisis phase 175
5.1 The initial period of the crisis phase 175
5.2 The communist subethnos 178
5.3 The final period of the crisis phase 181
Conclusion 183
6. Gumilev and the Eurasians 184
Introduction 184
1. The concept of Eurasia 185
2. Gumilev’s views on Eurasia 191
3. Eurasian attitudes to Europe 197
4. Mongolian influence and Russian historical identity 203
5. The post-Soviet reception of Gumilev ’ s ideas 212
Conclusion 222
7. Conclusion 223
1. The theory of ethnogenesis 224
2. The theory of ethnogenesis in a historical perspective 226
3. Russian history 227
4. Eurasianism 229
6
Final Thoughts 231
Bibliography 232
List of Tables
Table 1. The differences between the static and dynamic states of ethnos 50
Table 2. Passionary ideals 55
Table 3. Phases of ethnogenesis 80
Table 4. Changes of passionary ideals in Russian history 181
7
Acknowledgements
Many people in England and abroad helped me with my work on this thesis. First
of all I would like to thank Prof. Geoffrey Hosking, my principal supervisor, for his
guidance. I am also grateful to the stuff of the SSEES Library, London, for their help. I
would also like to thank Dr M.G. Kozyreva, the director of L.N. Gumilev Memorial
Museum, St. Petersburg, for her help and, particularly, for allowing me to see Gumilev’s
private correspondence kept at the museum. In addition, I would like to thank the staff of
the Slavonic Library, Prague, particularly Dr Vacek, for their help and assistance during
my work in their archives. Also, I would like to thank E.V. Maslova, the director of
Gumilev Centre, St Petersburg University, for introducing me to people in St Petersburg
connected with Gumilev studies and providing me with rare material valuable in my
work.
Special thanks are to Dr V.Iu. Ermolaev for the time and effort he spent on
interviews and in correspondence with me. Without his help, I would not have reached
the level of understanding of Gumilev’s thought that I have.
Dr Luke O’Sullivan proof-read the final draft and offered general help and
suggestions. Michael Bloch and Dr Simon Williams also read and commented on parts of
the thesis. Special thanks are due to the Holmes family for their support during the work
on my thesis.
Above all, I am grateful to my father, Sergei Titov, for his moral and financial
support without which I would not have been able to carry out this project.
8
Chapter 1
Introduction
In twentieth century Russia political battles were mirrored by disputes about
Russian identity and its place in world history. An original view about Russian national
identity was advanced by the intellectual movement known as Eurasianism which first
arose in the wake of the national crisis brought about by the Civil War of 1918-21.
Eurasian ideas had a new lease of life after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 when
questions about Russia’s historical destiny acquired a fresh importance. In this context,
the thought of Lev Gumilev assumed special significance as the only link between the
original Eurasian movement of the 1920s and the neo-Eurasianism of the 1990s.
Gumilev, however, is not only important as a link between these two strands of
Eurasianism; he is a significant figure in twentieth-century Russian thought for a number
of distinct reasons. First, he created a theory of ethnogenesis, which shifts the focus of
historical analysis from class to ethnic factors, and from a rationalist to a behaviourist
explanation of history. Second, his work on Russia’s relations with nomads forms a basis
for a re-examination of popular views about Russian medieval history and strengthens a
Eurasian view of Russian history. The popularity of Gumilev’s views and their
implications for debates about national identity in the former Soviet Union means that his
intellectual heritage has more than a strictly academic interest. A study of Gumilev’s
work can, therefore, lead to a better understanding of the modern history of Russia and its
future.
9
1. Previous works
There has been a wealth of publications on Eurasianism in recent years, in both
Russia and the West. There is, however, little literature specifically on Gumilev; even in
Russian there is only a single monograph and a handful of conference proceedings, as we
shall see shortly. In English, Naarden is the only scholar to date who has published an
article exclusively about Gumilev.1 Naarden summarises the main areas of Gumilev’s
work, pointing in particular to the importance of his arguments about the role of nomads
in Russian history. Naarden argues that a change of perspective regarding this aspect of
Russian history has important repercussions for the whole of Russian history. He also
shows that Eurasianism is important in contemporary Russia as a potential alternative to
Marxist ideology, making Gumilev’s work important outside the academy as well as
within it. Naarden’s article is therefore an important contribution to the study of
Gumilev’s thought. As an article, however, it is necessarily lacking in detail.
Marlene Laruelle has published two articles in French on Gumilev. Her first
article2 gave an overview of Gumilev’s thought and was similar in format to Naarden’s
work. Laruelle, however, conducts a more detailed study of Gumilev’s theory of
ethnogenesis. In particular, she criticises Gumilev’s theory on a number of points, and
links it with nationalist ideological projects of the 1990s.
A number of Laruelle’s arguments are disputed in this thesis. First, she wrongly
identifies Gumilev’s project with those of Soviet social scientists. Their respective
approaches were mutually exclusive because Gumilev emphasised the emotional aspects
of ethnic behaviour while the Soviet view was based on a materialist conception of
history which maintained the supremacy of rational acts. Because of this
misidentification, Laruelle also claims Gumilev’s theory is a deterministic theory of
history, another point that I disagree with.
It is true that Gumilev’s view of human nature, particularly in its ethnic aspects,
presupposes a degree of non-voluntarism, but as I argue later, this by no means entirely
1 B. Naarden, “‘I am a genius, but no more than that.” Lev Gumilev (1912-1992), Ethnogenesis, the
Russian Past and World History’ (hereafter, ‘I am a genius’), Jahrbiicherfur Geschichte Osteuropas, 1,
1996, pp. 54-82.
2 Marlene Laruelle, ‘Lev Nikolaevic Gumilev (1912-1992): Biologisme et Eurasisme dans la pensee
Russe’ (hereafter, ‘Biologisme’), Revue des Etudes Slaves, 72,2000, 1-2, pp. 163-89.