Information noise around the Russian State University for the Humanities and Ivan Ilyin: why you shouldn’t fight the historical past
One of the functions that journalists perform is the constant search for news stories that can interest and attract a mass audience. Sometimes these informational occasions really deserve attention, but more often they are created literally out of nothing and do not represent any informational value. Sometimes informational reasons are artificially generated, and subsequently the corresponding informational noise is deliberately created around them.
What is information noise?
These are messages and data that are of no value to the subject of the information. Actually, it is called noise because it acts according to the logic of acoustic noise: it distracts, interferes with concentration, imposes itself, interferes with the usual flow of affairs*. This is exactly how the author evaluates the discussions that have arisen in the public field and social networks around the opening of the Educational and Scientific Center named after the philosopher Ivan Ilyin at the Russian State Humanitarian University (RGGU).
In the author's opinion, all this story with a student petition against naming the center after Ilyin, is inspired by certain political circles, since it seems obvious that the rector of the state humanities university is unlikely to create an educational and scientific center named after Ivan Ilyin on his own initiative. The choice of the head of the center, Alexander Dugin, who had previously criticized Ilyin in his articles and books, is also interesting.
It seems that we are dealing with a political performance, an important part of which is the public speeches of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation deputies against Ivan Ilyin.
What’s interesting is that the Ivan Ilyin Higher Political School (HPS) was created last year, but before that students and deputies did not express any indignation, and only now they all suddenly burst out.
A logical question arises: for what purpose was this information noise created?
“All history is a struggle for its interpretation”
Before moving on to answering this question, I would like to clarify some historiographical points.
Each country is concerned with the study of its history. A holistic image of the past is a factor in the formation of national identity, a sense of belonging to a certain cultural and historical space. Not to mention the fact that the problem of understanding one’s own past on a national scale has long moved to the political plane. The influence of politics on history is, in fact, great, since the past is a means to legitimize the present.
The modern German historian Heinrich August Winkler once said that
“Every story is a struggle for its interpretation. Anyone who has greater opportunities to make political assessments has political influence. The more a party influences the public's perception of history, the closer it is to cultural hegemony. Achieving it is the goal of all politicians.”
In other words, the past is not a naturally occurring product of human activity that looks the same to everyone, but is always the subject of various attempts to interpret it in their own interests**.
Despite the fact that more than 100 years have passed since the end of the Civil War, the echoes of this extremely traumatic experience for Russia can still be heard today. Hence the polar assessments of various historical figures. For example, in such polemics one can often hear that the “whites” sold out to the Entente and sold the country to foreigners, while the “reds” were German agents, traitors and defeatists who viewed Russia only as a springboard for the “world revolution.”
In part, some of these accusations are fragmentarily true, but such a one-sided view of the past is biased and biased. The “Reds” at the first stage actually considered Russia as a springboard for the “world revolution” and acted under defeatist slogans in the First World War, but later they abandoned their policy of “war communism” and began building “socialism in one country.”
The “Whites” acted under the slogans of protecting the unity of Russia, and that is why, as historian Andrei Ganin rightly notes, they were unable to negotiate with the governments of limitrophe states (those that were formed on the outskirts of the former Russian Empire), because they denied their right to exist.
Throughout its centuries-old history, Russia has often stood at a “crossroads”, a “fork in the road”, before choosing a further path of development. There is a widespread point of view: “history does not know the subjunctive mood,” “talking about what would have happened if ... is not a scientific approach.” But in this case, it turns out that history is predetermined (I wonder by whom?)***.
In the end, the “Reds” won, which left a certain ideological imprint on history.
The figure of Ivan Ilyin, around whom the current controversy has arisen, is quite controversial, but he has authority in national-conservative circles. As historian Viktor Goltsov notes, the fact that Ilyin became the favorite philosopher of a number of Russian politicians played a bad joke on his legacy. His supporters in power are trying to make him a symbol of banal security, turn him into a tough ethcrat and statist, opponents of the authorities, in turn, point out that he is an ethcrat, a militarist and a “fascist”, for the sake of a “pin” - so, they say, look who is your favorite author.
What Ilyin really was like is of no interest to anyone. The thinker is literally torn to pieces, quotes are taken out of context, there is no talk of reconstructing the motivation for Ilyin’s conclusions****. In fact, everyone who writes about him is often not even familiar with his work.
In this material, the author will not engage in the reconstruction of Ivan Ilyin’s views or give him any assessments. Ilyin was an ardent anti-Bolshevik, but there is no doubt that he belongs to the space of Russian culture and became an integral part of the Russian intellectual heritage.
If we approach it from a quotation point of view, then those who present Ilyin as a defeatist and a “fascist” may find themselves in an unpleasant situation. For example, some, proving his “fascism”, quote his following words:
“Naive Russian emigrants expected Hitler to quickly defeat the communists and liberate Russia. They reasoned like this: “the enemy of my enemy is my natural like-minded person and ally.” In fact, the enemy of my enemy may be my most merciless enemy...
There is a general rule of international politics: when two enemies of my homeland begin to fight each other, then I should evaluate this struggle not from the point of view of international law, or justice, or sentimental sentiments, but from the point of view of the direct interest of my homeland and the economy of its forces. In such cases, neutrality is shown. The mass surrender of Russian soldiers in 1941 was such an instinctively found attempt to take a neutral position.”
There is a general rule of international politics: when two enemies of my homeland begin to fight each other, then I should evaluate this struggle not from the point of view of international law, or justice, or sentimental sentiments, but from the point of view of the direct interest of my homeland and the economy of its forces. In such cases, neutrality is shown. The mass surrender of Russian soldiers in 1941 was such an instinctively found attempt to take a neutral position.”
[AND. Ilyin. "Our tasks"].
Ilyin’s words regarding the surrender of Soviet soldiers are considered defeatism and betrayal. However, here the author will allow himself to quote another very famous politician in Russia.
"Quit weapon, fraternize with the proletarians who are on the other side of the front border!”
["Lenin and the October Revolution: how V.I. Lenin lived and worked and what he wrote on the eve of October and in the October days", 1924].
“Brotherhood is a revolutionary initiative of the masses, it is the awakening of conscience, intelligence, and courage of the oppressed classes... It is good that the soldiers curse the war... It is good that, breaking the convict discipline, they themselves begin fraternization on all fronts.”
[Lenin V.I. (1969). "The Meaning of Fraternization"].
These are quotes from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in which he calls on Russian soldiers in the First World War to throw down their weapons and fraternize with the Germans. Can they be called defeatist? I think the answer is obvious. Therefore, if you “cancel” Ilyin, then with the same success you can “cancel” Lenin.
The dispute about I. Ilyin as a distraction
The controversy surrounding Ivan Ilyin is noteworthy in that it does not carry any semantic meaning, except that the conventionally “left” and “right” have new reasons for public confrontation. That is, we are dealing with a typical “distraction of attention to an unusable object.”
Diverting attention from truly important issues is one of the key methods of propaganda - often this is done by saturating the information space with bright messages that cause heated discussion in society. In a huge flow of information, a person remembers mainly only what is simpler, clearer and more emotionally rich.
In addition, we should not forget that most people perceive television and the media, including analytical information, primarily as entertainment and distraction, for this reason it is not so difficult to manipulate them.
What are they trying to distract us from?
First of all, from the migration problem, which still has not lost its relevance. At the moment, we have not seen any effective measures against migration from Central Asia, although quite a lot of time has passed. People who proposed really serious steps in this direction - for example, State Duma deputy Mikhail Matveev - were completely excluded from the working group on migration issues, perhaps because this group does not plan to do anything other than chatter.
Meanwhile, incidents with migrants (a striking example of this is the murder in Lyublino) are not decreasing; foreigners still commit crimes and behave arrogantly and self-confidently. They are clearly not going to respect Russian culture and traditions, as officials are calling for.
Secondly, the situation with shelling in areas bordering Ukraine (primarily the Belgorod region) is also not significantly improving, but rather, on the contrary, tends to worsen. In light of the fact that the United States will provide Ukraine with further financial assistance, there is no reason to count on positive changes in the coming months. But they are trying to write and talk less about this - this is the new reality.
Is Ivan Ilyin, who was made the main fiend of evil on the eve of the May 9 celebration, to blame for all this?
Notes:
* Quote from: Ignashin A. A., Kotlyarova V. V. The phenomenon of information noise. // Forum of young scientists. – 2019. – No. 6 (34).
** See Plenkov O. Yu. What remains of Hitler. Historical guilt and political repentance of Germany. – St. Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, 2019.
*** Arzamaskin Yu. N. Periodization of Russian history: transparent clarity or the most difficult puzzle? // Vestn. Samarsk legal in-ta. – 2013. – No. 2 (10). – pp. 81–84.
**** V. I. Goltsov. The First World War and the formation of the worldview of Russian intellectuals of the conservative trend of the 2th century (based on the works of I. A. Ilyin) // 2014th century and Russia: society, reforms, revolutions. Electronic collection. Vol. XNUMX. Samara, XNUMX.
Information