Nikolai Biryukov
Sobornost in the Russian
Philosophical and Political Tradition
(Theses)
1.
Introduced
by Alexei Khomyakov and further elaborated by the thinkers of the so called
Russian religious renaissance of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century,
the notion of sobornost emerged in the writings of migr philosophers
of the 1920s and 1930s as the central concept, almost a trade mark of Russian
philosophical and political culture. Like Jewish priests of old in the
Babylonian captivity, these thinkers (Nikolai Berdyaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Semyon
Frank, Nikolai Lossky and others) set to conceptualise what they cherished as
Russias legacy to humanity.
2.
In
the Russian philosophical jargon the notion of sobornost (in its
present abstract form) is used to express a vision of some kind of mystic unity
that presumably characterises the Church and, by analogy, the social body and
(ideally) all of humanity. In this use the concept of sobornost has had
a profound impact on the Russian political mentality.
3.
The
word, which has no English equivalent, is a derivative of the Russian sobor,
which means both cathedral and [ecclesiastical] council. It was also used
as the name for representative institutions of medieval Muscovy (Zemskie
sobory). (Students of Balkan politics will recognise it in the official
names of the Slovenian and Croatian parliaments of today.)
4.
The
sustaining myth (to apply R. Tuckers term) of the culture of sobornost
is the idea of consensus that is no ones particular achievement, but arises
spontaneously out of some primary unity of the social group. In this, sobornost
is a gift of grace rather than a mundane property. As a model virtue preserved
within the Eastern Orthodox tradition, it was repeatedly opposed to authoritarianism
and individualism seen as characteristic features of respectively Catholicism
and Protestantism.
5.
When
applied to political life, sobornost is basically a demand to make
decisions and act all in common. The demand implies the community in question
is an intrinsically integral entity. It is also the only legitimate
political agency. Autonomous actions of any other agency within the community
are seen and condemned as a violation of unity and an outrage against sobornost.
6.
When
viewed from this perspective, society does not appear as a product of human
interaction (whether of individuals or groups) and its internal structure is
not a result of their efforts and conventions. The whole is a primary reality
and within that primary unity the constituent parts are legitimate only
inasmuch as they contribute to the general goal.
7.
There
is no reason to believe that societies that adhere to this creed are in
themselves any more homogeneous than any other. However, the ontology of sobornost
implies a tacit restriction on any speculation concerning social structure
and social stratification. The priority of the whole is so pronounced that all
internal distinctions appear irrelevant, which creates a specific egalitarian
attitude that, after it has been incorporated in the value system, affects both
political decision-making and political behaviour.
8.
But
this is an egalitarianism of a peculiar, totalitarian kind: while presuming
that all individuals and groups that constitute a society are equal vis--vis
the social whole, it does not infer that they must therefore enjoy the status
of free political agencies. The pluralism implied by that inference would
obviously contradict the ideal of sobornost. It is not surprising under
the circumstances that this pseudo-egalitarian system of values proves a weak
barrier when it comes to establishing elitist political institutions and
promulgating the corresponding operational experience.
9.
Moreover,
this model of hypertrophied holism depicts society as so amorphous a unity that
within it no single structure may legitimately claim an independent status, at
least on a lasting basis. Ideally, even such vital functions as security and
governance are presumably spontaneous and require no specific institutions. Naturally
enough, reality and ideal are at odds in this, but it is precisely because the
social ontology of sobornost is anti-institutional in principle, that
the institutions created to perform these functions in a society that professes
the ideals of sobornost have the paradoxical mark of permanent
extraordinariness: they are established as if ad hoc and retain this
character for decades. (Cf. the pledge concerning a near and inevitable
withering of state that formed an important part of the official ideology of
one of the most statist regimes in human history).
10.
No
less paradoxical, though by no means any less unnatural, a consequence of this
attitude is the hypertrophy of institutions of power. Their
anti-institutionally minded subjects can neither think of a reasonable
alternative to them, nor bring them under effective control. Contrary to the
initial anti-institutionalism and egalitarianism of its prevailing ideology, a
society of the sobornost type quickly develops oligarchic bureaucratic
structures and invests them with extraordinary powers. These oligarchies excel
in behind-the-scene decision-making: like pluralism, openness and glasnost
would immediately destroy the illusion of sobornost.
11.
Sobornost
power is extraordinary and unrestricted. Russian political thinkers have
suggested various explanations (justifications) for this which varied from the
sinful nature of all politics and all power (whence the Slavophiles inferred
autocratic monarchy as a means to minimise the number of persons involved in
this evil, albeit indispensable job) to Lenins doctrine of the revolutionary
vanguard (meaning the Bolshevik Party) that, having mastered the only true
science of social development, is entitled to supervise that development, i.e.
to rule.
12.
Assimilation
of Marxism, first by a part of the Russian intellectual elite and later by the
traditionally minded masses, does not appear as incredible as it might seem. For
what was adopted was not the doctrine of Marxism (alien, indeed, to the
traditional Russian culture), but the Marxist myth that was tied to the
doctrine artificially enough. Whereas the Marxist paradigm of social analysis
is based on the ideas of social stratification and class struggle, the Marxist
vision of the communist future emphasises social homogeneity and unity. Class
differences are viewed as a social evil, inevitable, perhaps, at some stages of
historic development, but sure to be eliminated in the long run. The Marxist
ideal would thus reaffirm the ontological pattern that the Marxist theory
mocked and refuted. Classless society may be seen as a Marxist equivalent for
the ideologically alien term of sobornost.
13.
In
the culture of sobornost acts of government are identified with those
of the community. Indeed, a community that exalts its own shapelessness as a
realisation of an ideal is virtually unable to act otherwise than through its
one legitimate institution, i.e. the Government. The mythology of sobornost
knows of only one political agency, the Community as a whole. The reality of sobornost
identifies the former as the Government. The apparent inconsistency is
overcome by presuming a fundamental innate affinity between the two agencies. (As
numerous posters once displayed throughout the Soviet Union used to claim, The
People and the Party are one!) The lack of conflict this presumed affinity
implies, is by no means sheer illusion: a community that is denied a capacity
to act on its own cannot enter a conflict with those in power, even if such
conflict appeared long overdue to an external observer.
14.
Representative
institutions of sobornost are modelled after the same pattern of
totalitarian holism that forms the bed-rock of the culture of sobornost.
This culture reduces all functions of political representation to a single one:
the representative body is expected to represent the community as a whole in
its intercourse with the Authority. Naturally, the body must be a replica of
the society it represents not of the actual society, but of its
ideal model, of what its members believe it to be. In true accord with the
prevalent understanding of the community, the representative body is also seen
as a kind of unstructured unity that permits no internal divisions. If these appear,
they are treated as temporary flaws soon to be removed.
15.
Strictly
speaking, no representative institutions are necessary, if the idea of an
intrinsic affinity that unites all the members within the community and ties
the latter to the Government is taken seriously. Under normal conditions the
administration (the only legitimate decision-making body and the only real
political agency) has no use for them, and even if they exist, they operate in
a demonstration mode. Crises of legitimacy alone can make them influential
politically, but even at times of crises their sole task is to provide new
legitimisation for new (or old) institutions of power. (Was it by chance alone
that, historically, truly powerful, i.e. responsible, representative bodies only
appeared in Russia during times of troubles and revolutions? And is it
surprising under the circumstances that a common mind instinctively associates
the very idea of representative power with a major crisis, or even with a
national catastrophe?)
16.
One
of the most striking features of the representative institutions of the sobornost
type is their anti-procedural bias. The obligation to abide by the rules of
the game is invariably renounced in favour of political expediency. This fits
the pattern: a mind that believes in intrinsic unity between the rulers and the
ruled sees no sense in trying to restrict the former with rules (whatever
these may be). Such restriction must, moreover, be regarded as an attempt on
the governments raison dtre, potency. In an atmosphere like this,
even raising a point of procedure would normally bring one under suspicion as
to ones real (presumably dubious) motives.
17.
The
models other idiosyncrasy is intolerance toward factions or, to put it in
broader terms, toward any particularistic stand that dares to manifest itself
within the representative institution. In an institution modelled after the
pattern of sobornost, all internal differences must appear abnormal. The
sobor members belong to some groups (classes, estates, strata,
factions or parties), but the sobor is, by no means, considered an
appropriate place for voicing and defending their particular interests. In
its capacity as the representative of the society in general, of the entire
land the sobor can be an arena of debate, but not of negotiations and
voting. What has to be done in that respect, must be done elsewhere, and if not
elsewhere, then at least behind the scenes.
18.
Despite
the fact that under the communist rule the term sobornost was never to
be heard due to its obvious religious connotations (its objectionable
semantics were made even less agreeable by the fact that sobornost
became the catchword of the exiled idealistic philosophers) the ontological
and axiological attitudes it stood for remained paramount in Soviet political
culture. The Soviet regime may thus be seen as an attempt, even if futile, to
realise the national political Utopia.
19.
The
collapse of the Soviet regime let sobornost emerge out of the cultural
underground. Hermeneutic analysis of debates at the Congresses of Peoples
Deputies of the USSR revealed the predominance of sobornost as
underlying the mental processes, parliamentary rhetoric and political behaviour
of the bulk of the deputy corps: anti-procedural bias, rejection of pluralism
(styled as factionalism), assumption of innate affinity between the
electorate and the deputy corps, the realistic (in the sense implied by
medieval scholasticism) understanding of the nature of political issues and the
respective expectations concerning their solutions. The conflict between the
President and the Supreme Soviet of Russia in 1993 unfolded as a controversy
about who, more properly, had the right to speak on behalf of the people as a
whole (meaningless, indeed, outside the conceptual framework of sobornost)
and demonstrated that neither party was ready to accept the principle of separation
of powers as the working basis of democratic institutionalism.
20.
On
the other hand, the culture of sobornost (both in its traditional form
and in the form of syncretism created by the Communist revolution) is obviously
in crisis, as is Russian society in general. Whether the Russian political
elite will once again opt for the traditional patterns of sobornost as
a means of reconsolidating the social body and overcoming the present crisis or
will look for other alternatives, remains to be seen.