Russia's World Order: A Civilizational View

Paul Robinson, a professor at the University of Ottawa, recently discussed his book, "Russia’s World Order," exploring the growing emphasis on civilizational discourse in Russia. This perspective challenges the idea that Russia should simply fit into a Western liberal order, instead proposing that Russia is a distinct civilizational state with its own values, identity, and path.

Key Takeaways

Civilizationism vs. Universalism: Russia’s approach rejects the Western idea of a single, unilinear path of historical progress, where all nations eventually adopt Western institutions and values. Instead, it posits a multiplicity of civilizations, each progressing along its own unique trajectory.
Historical Roots: This civilizational thinking has deep roots in Russia, dating back to 19th-century debates between Westernizers and Slavophiles, though its modern articulation has gained prominence in recent years.
Challenging Western Hegemony: The concept of a multi-civilizational world order serves to counter Western dominance by questioning the universal applicability of Western models and asserting Russia’s right to an independent path.
Ideology as Justification: While the Russian state may not be deeply ideological in its core motivations, ideology is increasingly used as a framework to justify actions to both domestic and international audiences, particularly in framing its conflict with the West.
Critique of the West: A common theme is the critique of the West’s perceived spiritual weakness and abandonment of traditional values, contrasting it with Russia’s perceived cultural conservatism and spiritual grounding.
Multipolarity and Great Power Status: The push for a multipolar world order is rooted in both Russia’s desire to be recognized as a great power and its assertion of itself as a distinct civilization that should not be dictated to by others.

The Rise of Civilizationism in Russia

Professor Robinson explains that the concept of "civilizationism" offers a different view of history and progress compared to the prevailing Western model. The Western perspective, often associated with Francis Fukuyama’s ideas, suggests a single, forward march of history where all societies eventually converge on Western institutions and values. Civilizationism, however, argues for a plurality of civilizations, each with its own distinct path and destination. This idea, while present in Russian thought for over 150 years, has become more prominent in recent policy documents, educational curricula, and the rhetoric of senior Russian politicians over the last decade.

This shift aligns with the idea of a multipolar world, one not dominated by a single bloc like the West. By challenging the notion that Western values are universally applicable, Russia seeks to resist Western hegemony and assert its right to follow its own course. This perspective is increasingly being used to justify Russia’s actions on the international stage.

Radicalism and Discontent with Universalism

The discussion touches upon how different models of universalism can lead to different approaches. A conservative version might acknowledge a shared direction but allow for diverse paths, while a more radical version insists on rapid, uniform progress. Russia’s experience with both the utopianism of communism and the radical free-market liberalism of the 1990s has led to a disillusionment with such radical universalist models. This disillusionment has fueled a search for alternative models of historical progress, which have now found their way into the discourse of those in authority.

Historical Debates: Westernizers vs. Slavophiles

The intellectual debates about Russia’s identity and its relationship with Europe are not new. Tracing back to the mid-19th century, the divide between Westernizers and Slavophiles grappled with whether Russia should emulate Europe or forge its own unique path. Even the Slavophiles of that era believed in universal progress but didn’t associate it with the West, which they felt had become materialistic and lost its spiritual core. Later thinkers, like Dostoevsky and Leontiev, moved further, suggesting that Russia and the West had fundamentally different civilizational goods, not a shared universal one.

Today, there’s a complexity in how these ideas are articulated. While denying a universal good, there’s also a tendency to speak of "civilization" in the singular, highlighting the inherent contradictions within civilizationist ideology.

The West’s Decline and Russia’s Path

Many scholars of civilization envision cycles of rise and fall. In the context of Russia and the West, this often translates into a view of Western civilization as decadent and nearing its end, while Russia, with its cultural conservatism and spiritual traditions, offers an alternative. Some thinkers, like Alexander Dugin, advocate for Russia to completely decouple from the West to secure its future. This perspective suggests that as long as Russia seeks Western recognition, it will face conflict. The idea is that separation is for the good of both, likening Russia and the West to porcupines needing a specific distance to coexist comfortably.

However, there’s a difficulty in clearly articulating how Russia is distinct, with arguments sometimes appearing unconvincing. This suggests that constructing an image of difference might be more prominent than actual, practical divergence.

State Power and Ideological Messaging

Robinson notes that the current Russian state is not fundamentally ideological, with the constitution even prohibiting a state ideology. However, operating without underlying principles is impossible. The ideological discourse has become clearer, though it’s debated whether this reflects genuine conviction or instrumental usefulness. The state increasingly uses ideology as a framework to justify actions, rather than being driven by it. Decisions are largely based on realist, interest-based reasons, but they are then packaged with ideological justifications. The conflict with the West, for instance, is framed not just as a clash of interests but also through civilizational discourse, anti-colonial rhetoric, and Russia’s position as a successor to the Soviet Union, appealing to global South audiences.

The "New" Europe and Cultural Conservatism

A recurring theme among conservative Russians is a critique of what the West has become, rather than a rejection of Europe itself. They distinguish between the Europe of the past, which they saw as Christian, traditional, and hierarchical, and the "new" Europe, which they perceive as spiritually weak, individualistic, and embracing values like LGBTQ+ rights and "cancel culture." Some argue that they are the true inheritors of European civilization, which they believe has died or is dying. This perspective positions Russia as a potential preserver of traditional values that the West has abandoned.

Multipolarity vs. Civilizational Identity

The push for a multipolar world order is seen as serving two intertwined purposes: accommodating Russia as a great power and recognizing it as a distinct civilization. Civilizationism provides a justification for rejecting certain Western norms (like LGBTQ+ rights) and for its centralized political system, arguing that Russia’s unique history and society necessitate a different governmental structure. Internationally, it justifies resistance to Western hegemony and the perceived bending of rules by Western powers within global institutions. The demand for a multipolar order aims for a more equitable distribution of power globally.

The Soviet Legacy and Counter-Hegemonic Coalitions

While the Soviet Union promoted a universalist ideology of Marxism to mobilize global opposition to the West, modern Russia, with its emphasis on Christian traditional values, presents a different kind of distinctiveness. Despite this shift, Russia continues to engage with the East and the Global South, pushing back against Western universalism. This forms a counter-hegemonic coalition, but the basis has changed from a competition between two universalisms (communism vs. capitalism) to a competition between Western universalism and an anti-universalist stance that rejects any single model of history or development.

Misinterpreting the Competition

There’s a tendency in the West to frame the competition as democracy versus autocracy, which simplifies the situation and makes the West appear as the "good guy." However, Robinson argues that this misinterprets the core of the civilizational discourse, which doesn’t necessarily push for autocracy but rather rejects the idea of a single, universal path, allowing for diverse forms of governance. This misreading, he suggests, could lead to significant errors and consequences.

The Ukraine War and Civilizational Choice

The conflict in Ukraine is also framed through a civilizational lens. For many post-Soviet intellectuals in Eastern Europe, "returning to civilization" meant aligning with Western Europe. This aspiration inherently defines Russia as the "non-civilization" or "barbarism." The overthrow of Yanukovych and Ukraine’s subsequent political direction are seen as ontological objectives, a vital need to be recognized as part of the Western community. This rejection of the "other" is perceived as a threat by Russia. While Western universalism claims a single path, the use of civilizational language by both sides, though with different meanings, highlights the deep divisions.

On the battlefield, the symbolism reflects this civilizational framing, with the use of Soviet, Russian imperial, and Orthodox Christian flags illustrating Russia’s attempt to integrate its complex past into a national narrative, contrasting with Ukraine’s post-Maidan model of decommunization and a fresh start.