ORIENTALISTS ABOUT ORIENTAL STUDIES:

(1) Introduction to Oriental Studies. General course.

E. I. Zelenev, V. B. Kasevich, St. Petersburg: KARO Publ., 2011;

(2) Concepts of modern Oriental studies.

E. I. Zelenev, V. B. Kasevich, St. Petersburg: KARO Publ., 2013

Two books, prepared mainly by the staff of the Faculty of Oriental Studies of Saint Petersburg University1, are materials for courses taught at this faculty. The responsible editors and true inspirers of both books are E. I. Zelenev and V. B. Kasevich. The books do not bear the label "Study guide", but the annotations say that they are intended mainly for students: one for bachelor's degree, the other for master's degree. The first of them is equipped with the work program of the discipline "Introduction to Oriental Studies", intended for first-year students of the Faculty of Oriental Studies and designed for 18 classroom sessions, i.e." back-to-back " for the first semester. Of course, the staff of the Faculty of Oriental Studies has the right to decide on the scope of this course and its place in the educational process. But this book shows that the course is extremely rich and has a high level of complexity.

Looking ahead, I would say that for students of other humanities majors, such courses analyzing the meaning of the relevant science would be extremely useful. The second book, judging by the abstract, is also a "course of lectures", but it remains unclear whether this means teaching all undergraduates, regardless of specialization, or selectively. Some of the materials in this book will be difficult for non-specialists.

The books, according to the editors, "conceptually continue" one another. Therefore, they should be considered separately and together. For the sake of brevity, we will call one " Introduction "(1), and the other "Concepts" (2).

The main impression of these books is that Orientalists have finally begun to think about their science and realized that students should be introduced to a broader perspective, introduced to the meaning of the science they have decided to master, and not just taught languages, history and other "country studies" disciplines. Such books are really necessary if we consider Oriental studies to be a science, if the concept of "Oriental studies" carries a semantic load, if we continue to think in terms of "West" and"East".

The books are built according to a fairly clear plan. Both open with articles (chapters) devoted to the fundamental question - what is Oriental studies? Then this question is concretized in a series of chapters that deal with the Oriental component of general scientific disciplines: philology, history, economics, psychology, etc. Then the books contain brief essays that tell about the history and current state of studying certain regions of the East, certain literatures, and certain religions. These chapters should provide students with an Oriental education, not a Sinological, Indological, or Arabic one. Finally, information is given about the main stages of the history of Russian Oriental studies. It is good that we talk separately about "applied" Oriental studies, that is, about the practical application of knowledge about Eastern countries in our country's foreign policy. It can be noted that the role of St. Petersburg University and St. Petersburg scientists in promoting our science is not very intrusive, but consistently runs through the whole book.

1 Several specialists from other institutions in St. Petersburg, as well as from Moscow, participated in the project.

page 162
From this brief list of subjects covered, it is clear that fundamental work has been conceived that cannot be done "in one sitting". The issues raised are often controversial, the material used is diverse and may not fit into one or another concept. The book is polemical in a good way, which suggests discussing the problems raised and creating alternative books of the same direction.

So, let's start with the questions: what is Oriental studies? This is the study of countries (societies) East in all aspects of their existence. Is it a science or a complex of sciences? In the Introduction, V. B. Kasevich admits that "a general theory of Oriental studies in any explicit form does not exist today," but believes that such a theory is "necessary" and should be "sought" (1, p.21). In" Concepts " V. B. Kasevich raises the same question from the standpoint of signs of science as a social phenomenon and gives arguments in favor of the fact that Oriental studies is a fundamental science that can also be applied (2, p. 33).

But other countries (societies) are also being studied. If you want, you can select the areas of "American studies", "Eurovision studies", etc. However, there is" orientalism", but there is no" occidentalism". What's the matter? The explanation is quite simple: modern sciences, including the humanities, emerged in Western Europe in the 17th century. The subject of their study was European realities - society, culture, art, religion (Christianity). And when European scientists turned to the study of the East, problems immediately arose that were not felt when it came to studying "their" history and "their" peoples. Eurocentrism, of course, remained (and it is still impossible to get rid of it), and the East began to be understood as an "exception", a "deviation" from the Western standard. If modern science (let's put a thought experiment) did not originate in the West, but in China or India, then the West would look like an" aberration". Hence, one of the cross-cutting themes of both books is the correlation of knowledge about the East with global science. Is the validity of the concepts of "Eastern linguistics" and "Eastern literature" still valid? Is the "history of the East" just a local process on one of the parts of the Earth, equal to the "history of Europe" or "history of Russia", or is it a specific "thing in itself" that requires special research techniques for its discovery?

The second stage in the theoretical identification of the East: how meaningful is the concept itself? Does the East represent a single "thing" or is it just a stereotype brought to life by the same Eurocentrism, the fact that in our view the countries of Asia and Africa are united by their difference from Europe? To what extent are the conclusions about the peculiarities of the "East" scientifically justified, based mostly on the scientist's acquaintance with only one country? The word "East" in the mouth of a Sinologist and an Indologist means different concepts. Observing colleagues makes one suspect that the brains of an indologist and a Sinologist are arranged differently. Sentences beginning with " such a phenomenon as the artistic creation of the East, in particular China..." (2, p.200) should not be used.

Sometimes the application of country knowledge to the " East "as a whole leads to elementary mistakes:" The countries of the East are characterized by a special respect for historical writing " (1, p.137). Only a Sinologist can write this way. Maybe an Islamic scholar, but not an indologist.

In some cases, the authors manage to show that the East is not monolithic, that the worldview, including aesthetic, views of the peoples of the Middle East, India and the Far East differed radically (Chapter "Features of world perception in Eastern societies" (1,p.150-157)).

But still, are there positive and not negative ("unlike") features that unite the entire East? In the Introduction, V. B. Kasevich postulates: "The foundation for the formation of cultural, socio-psychological and other specifics that distinguish the East as a special cultural and historical area, we propose to consider traditionalism" (emphasis added by the author (1, p.16)). "Oriental studies is the study of the spiritual and material culture of traditionalist communities in synchrony and diachronybased on the evidence of language and text" (2, p. 19; italics and bold by the author).

N. N. Dyakov in" Concepts", referring to this postulate, specifies: "Oriental studies is a complex science based on the study of culture, history, traditional economy and law, traditional social and political institutions of Asia and Africa based on knowledge of Eastern languages and sources." "The main subject of Oriental studies can be briefly defined as 'languages and traditions of the East' "(2, p. 110; emphasis added. - L. A.).

page 163
There is no doubt that there is a rational grain in these formulations. The main Eastern cultures are concerned with preserving "antiquity", traditions, and strive for immutability. Hence the genre of commentaries on ancient texts and commentaries on commentaries (1, p. 20). But with this approach, modern institutions of civil society in the countries of the East, industrial forms of production, international relations, and much more are excluded from the object of study of Orientalists. Moreover, it has become a truism to observe that the modern Oriental lives as if in two worlds: he retains the traditional consciousness, but is forced to work in the modern world, and is also ready to take advantage of all the benefits that modern technology offers him. Does this mean that an orientalist can only study "half" of modern humans in Asian and African countries? In addition, with such an understanding of Oriental studies, a significant part of the materials included in the reviewed books is unnecessary! (See below.)

So, books introduce the student to the problems of our complex of sciences. Following the discussion of Oriental studies as a phenomenon, the rudiments of the sciences that make up this complex are given: linguistics, textology (V. B. Kasevich), literary studies (A.V. Obraztsov), folklore studies (O. Y. Zavyalova).

In the "Concepts", the problem of correlation of Oriental studies with philological sciences is developed even more in-depth. A. K. Ogloblin ("Eastern Philology. Source studies, comparative historical and typological linguistics") proves that Oriental linguistics contributes to linguistics in general. In my opinion, he is somewhat fond of special information, which is not always necessary for a master's student, if he is not a linguist. V. B. Kasevich then again takes the floor ("Oriental Studies and Linguistics") to justify the opinion that along with the general laws of the existence and development of languages, there is a category of "Eastern languages", which requires a special approach. However, "the question of the legitimacy of distinguishing a special class of Oriental languages has only just been raised and studied in the very first approximation" (2, p. 60).

A.V. Obraztsov in the chapter "Oriental Studies and Literary Studies" (2, pp. 61-71) considers the question of methods of studying Oriental literatures. He calls" equally erroneous " the positions of both denying the commonality of the fundamental laws of the evolution of Eastern and Western literatures and the inapplicability of even the terms of European literary studies to the East, and considering Eastern literatures as variants that only confirm world laws (2, p. 67). He also raises interesting questions about the contradictory interweaving of literary studies with history, linguistics, and anthropology.

The problems of correlation between world and Eastern literatures are also considered in the essay by M. L. Reisner "History of World Literature: an Orientalist's View".

V. V. Bocharov's chapter "Oriental Studies in Anthropological Discourse" introduces students to the discussion issues of studying Eastern societies in the context of, of course, general problems of anthropology. The author gives an idea of the theory of culture, the struggle between the "primordial" and "constructivist" directions in ethnology, the difference between the concept of "ethnos "in the Russian ethnological literature and" ethnicity " in the Western one, and the existing theories of modernization.

We must agree that " the theory of ethnos... it occupies a privileged place in Russian science" (2, p. 82). In our lives, the question of nationality, in my opinion, has attracted unseemly attention. All the more important is the accuracy of terminology. But in the previous book ("Introduction") The ethnos category is given two different definitions. On p. 158 (footnote):"An ethnos is usually understood as a group of people who have historically formed in a certain territory and have common features of language and culture, as well as a consciousness of their unity and difference from others (self-consciousness), expressed in a self-name." And on page 164: "An ethnos is a large social group of people united by common attitudes and dispositions, behavioral stereotypes and mutually consistent expectations of typical reactions to various life events." The second definition has been thoroughly purged of anything "ethnic". It is still necessary to coordinate the presentation of some basic concepts, especially in works intended for students who may be misled by discrepancies in the text. Or, on the contrary, emphasize the difference in understanding the term and sharpen the problem.

Chapter N. A. Samoilova in the" Introduction " introduces students to the basics of history as a craft (source studies, historiography, auxiliary historical disciplines), with

page 164
current theoretical approaches to the study of the history of the Eastern countries-formational and civilizational. Unfortunately, it falls out of a number of chapters aimed at finding the place of Oriental studies in science, in this case, its place in historical science.

As for the Marxist (formational) and civilizational approaches to the historical process, they are outlined, although briefly, but quite clearly. Due attention is paid to the latest trends in historical science, in particular its "anthropologization". It is shown that the so-called civilizational approach does not represent a single concept, and there is a rather large confusion of views among its supporters. However, it is in vain that the author included among the supporters of this approach V. P. Ilyushechkin, who was an uncompromising proponent of the one-line nature of world history: even from the excerpts from his writings given in the book (1, pp. 145-146), it is clear that he understood "civilization" in the spirit of G. L. Morgan and F. P. Blavatsky. Engels.

The "civilizational theme" continues to develop in the " Concepts "in the article by E. I. Zslenev and N. A. Samoilov"Regional-civilizational method in Oriental studies". It is disconcerting that the authors considered it possible to repeat verbatim several "general education" pages from the above-mentioned chapter of N. A. Samoilov, but in general this is still an independent work, in which the authors strive to combine (at least terminologically) the stadium and civilizational approaches and offer their own approach. They argue that "the regional-civilizational paradigm of historical research can become the conceptual basis of a non-traditional paradigm of scientific historical knowledge" (2, p. 254) and that " the modern Islamic world or the space of the Islamic world is entering the XXI century. with a new scientific paradigm of regional and civilizational historical science " (2, p. 256). These ideas require further clarification.

In the chapters of E. I. Zelensva "Cultural genesis in the light of the concept of geocultural space and field", A. G. Starozhuk "Rhythms and cultural codes: new in the Oriental method" and N. A. Samoilov "Theoretical foundations for studying the history of socio-cultural interaction and the formation of geocultural spaces", these ideas are not so much explained as complicated. A series of concepts is introduced, each of which requires a thorough explanation (which has no place in the book) and justification of their necessity for studying the East. Among such concepts are "geoculture", "civilization-empire", "geocultural imagination", "culture code", "ensembles of geocultural codes", "geocultural field", "geocultural environment", " rhythms "(observed, according to A. G. Starozhuk, in all manifestations of Eastern culture), "sociocultural space". interaction" (which is not at all the same as "cross-cultural interaction"), "phase space", "complexes of processes". "stages of sociocultural interaction" are introduced: "indifferent interaction", "identification", "activation", "adaptive stage" and, finally,"stage of sociocultural synthesis".

Nothing exposes the artificiality of this construction more than the examples given by the author. There are two of them: Russia's interaction with Byzantium and China. According to A. G. Starozhuk, " Russia ... managed to adopt and master a huge layer of the Byzantine cultural tradition" (2, p. 327), "The general cultural images characteristic of the Byzantine geopolitical and general cultural space, naturally, along with the entire cultural heritage of Byzantium, moved to Russia" (2, p. 331; emphasis added-L. A.). In my opinion, However, very much has not "moved" and very much Russia has not" adopted " and "mastered". For better or worse.

There is also a casual mention of Alexander Nevsky's "alliance" with the Golden Horde in order to more effectively counter the expansion of the West " (2, p. 332). The union of the rider and the horse? Was it effective? Did the Tatars help Alexander defeat a small detachment of the Livonian Order on Lake Peipsi?

As for Russia's relations with China, the author tries to fit their history into his own scheme of "stages". It successfully overcomes the stages of "indifferent interaction", "identification", "activation" and reaches the "adaptation stage". He somewhat exaggerates the importance of relations with China for Russia in the second half of the 19th century, but still, thank God, he does not reach the "stage of socio-cultural synthesis" (2, p.338). However, maybe everything is ahead?

The already rather boring arguments about the verbal definition of "culture" and "civilization" continue, which are confused with each other. For example, N. A. Samoilov suggests "taking into account" the definition of culture by Pitirim Sorokin ("an aggregate that is created or modified as a result of conscious or unconscious activity

page 165
two or more individuals") and immediately gives its own definition ("a reservoir of spiritual resources that accumulate as a result of conscious human activity" (2, p. 321; emphasis added by me. L. A.). At the same time, it contrasts "culture" and "the actual social activity of people", which already completely confuses the matter.

Returning to the chapter by N. A. Samoilov in the Introduction, it should be recalled that formation theory is only one of the derivatives of the stadium-universalist approach to history, which reigned supreme in Europe from antiquity to the 19th century. That the Marxist theory of stages of history grew directly out of the concepts of Saint-Simon and Hegel. That the" liberal paradigm", as N. A. Samoilov calls it, does not go back to the teachings of Max Weber (1, p. 143; 2, p. 240), but to much more distant times.

In addition, the chapter is unsuccessfully titled "Asian and African countries in world History". If you follow the title, then in this chapter you could talk about the role of the peoples of the East in the birth of human civilization (in the Morgan-Engels sense); about the contribution that the countries of the East made to the emergence of European civilization (in a different sense, as a variant of the "civilizational approach"); about how it is now worth The question is about the reasons for their subsequent stagnation or lag; about their contribution to the world process during the period when they fell into colonial or semi-colonial dependence on the West; and finally, about their role in the modern world. By the way, a chapter with such content would look very good in a book. It would be possible to pay tribute to the East as the overwhelming majority of humanity.

In " Concepts "the problem of the link between history and Oriental studies is raised in the chapter of E. I. Zelenev"The image of the world in historical knowledge and Oriental studies". Here is a very succinct and interesting sketch of the evolution of understanding the historical process. This essay will be very useful, and not only for students of Oriental studies, but also for historians of any other regions.

Essay by E. I. Zelenev in the same place, in "Concepts", supplemented by the chapter of N. N. Dyakov " Oriental Studies and History (Middle East)". It's a bit eclectic (in keeping with its name). Here we talk about theories of culture and civilization, about Arabic science in the Middle Ages, about the activities of the Faculty of Oriental Studies of St. Petersburg State University, about the study of the history of the Middle East in European and American science, and about the book by E. Said "Orientalism" (1978). It is only in vain that the author calls what E. Said says his "theory" (2, p.124). Said doesn't have any theory. There is a very accurate observation of one of the built-in features of Western Oriental studies.

The chapter " The Economy of the East in an anthropological perspective "(author - V. V. Bocharov) gives an idea of the main economic theories of recent times. It is noted that the content of the concept of "economic activity" is not the same in different societies, both in the historical (traditional and modern societies) and in the cultural (developing and developed countries) plans. It is clearly stated what the "Islamic economy" is. The author highlights aspects of economic life that usually do not attract the proper attention of economists: the role of corruption, informal relations, and the shadow economy, and the author sees in these phenomena not only their negative side, but also the "stable order" that contributes to capitalist development: "it is the" shadow workers "who establish a truly democratic economic order" (1, p. 191). The material in this chapter also casts some light on the situation in our country, which the author quite transparently hints at. However, in an effort to emphasize the specifics of the Eastern countries and identify the latest trends in the global economy, the author goes too far: "It is here (in the East. - L. A. for the first time, concepts based on the principles of classical and neoclassical economics failed completely" (1, p. 211). This is tantamount to saying that after the advent of relativity, Newton's theory "failed completely".

Sometimes the author takes a cultural approach. For example, he attributes the predominance of small businesses in China to the cult of ancestors and the strength of clan ties; he believes that memorizing Confucian texts, which was practiced in traditional China, "developed the habit of persistent intellectual work among the population" (1, p. 204).

The "Concepts" includes a chapter devoted to the problems of combining the science of economics and studying the economy and socio-economic development of the Eastern countries in general (authors S. F. Sutyrin, L. V. Popova and M. N. Samoilova). Here, too, it is suggested that after the liberation of the Eastern countries from colonialism, their economic policies, in particular the predominant development of the public sector in the economy, are supposedly based on "the revival of traditional values and approaches in economic activity" (2, p.131). This, of course,

page 166
a stretch, explained by the fashion for replacing the economic factor in reasoning with a "spiritual" or cultural one. The purely economic reasons for the flourishing of state entrepreneurship (in short, the weakness of local private capital) have been analyzed quite convincingly by Soviet Orientalists and economists, and there is no need to reject their conclusions, especially since these are the conclusions of not only Marxist scientists, but also "bourgeois"ones.

Nevertheless, the positions of these three authors regarding the role of traditional values in modern industrialization seem to be more balanced: "attempts to link the modern economic success of China with the influence of the Confucian tradition seem incorrect" (2, p. 130).

V. V. Bocharov also refers the fashion for the so-called Islamic economy to the problem of the role of traditions in economic policy. I think these are two different questions that are deliberately mixed up by the apologists of the"special path". The ideological attempts of the "return to true Islam" with its hostility to bank interest are presented as part of the problem of the specific path of the Eastern countries. In fact, there is no such thing as an "Islamic economy", as V. V. Bocharov admits (1, pp. 207-208), but the slogan is good.

The topic of economics is continued and developed in " Concepts "in P. M. Nureyev's article"Economic concepts of Modern Oriental Studies". This is a highly qualified review of the views of foreign and Soviet economists on the evolution of the world economic system and on the prospects for the development of lagging countries in this system. In part, the article echoes the aforementioned article by V. V. Bocharov from the Introduction.

It is necessary to note an annoying negligence. The "brief results" that P. M. Nureyev sums up at the end of section 2 ("Institutional prerequisites for industrialization"), he repeats verbatim in the conclusion of section 3 ("The role of external factors in the genesis of the market economy"), where this text is completely superfluous (cf.pp. 359 and 366).

Chapter "Law in the East" (V. V. Bocharov) The "Introduction" contains a number of valuable observations and helps to clarify many of the realities of former and modern life in the East. But even here we can see an overestimation of the specifics. In fact, a dichotomy is proposed: in the East, customary law prevails, in the West, official law is enshrined in laws. The role of customs, informal relations, and "concepts" in many Eastern countries is indeed great, but still there is a religious law, which is quite official and often recorded in tablets. These are not state laws, but they are not common law either. It is enough to recall that Sharia and adat are often in conflict. In addition, it is impossible to present the case as if the Western European norms of law in the East are simply ignored or rejected, but imposed by the West with the help of economic, political, and even military pressure (1, p. 214). There is even an implicit idea that the countries of the East do not need to switch to the European legal system, but rather follow their civilizational customs and continue to live "according to the concepts". No, very significant progressivist forces in developing countries are trying to get rid of antediluvian forms of relations and build a life according to the laws. This is difficult, but it will succeed.

The author's ideological orientation pushes him to attract highly odious sources. For example, with reference to G. S. Maine, it is stated that a British judge in colonial India " carefully weighed the exact amount of spiritual benefits received by the deceased from the sacrifices of his direct or lateral descendant... the amount of those benefits that descend on a relative who brings "sacred water and sacred cake" " (1, p. 223). It's fantastic. Maine was not an expert on India and set himself the task not to talk about this country, but to support his scheme of rural community development, which was popular in Europe at that time, with Indian material. In fact, the British judge judged according to one or another code and never dealt with the spiritual benefits of the dead.

It also says that the British developed their colonial policy "based on the theoretical views of B. Malinovsky" and therefore " included customary legal norms in the colonial legal codes." This refers, apparently, to the attempts of the British in the second half of the XVIII century. to create in India codes of local law based on the dharmashastras. But, first of all, the dharmashastras are not ordinary law, not popular informal "concepts", but sacred books that, in particular, pay attention to legal issues. And secondly, where is the formation of colonial policy (XVIII century) and where is B. Malinovsky (1884-1942)?

page 167
L. R. Syukiyainen's chapter" Legal problems in Russian Oriental Studies "is included in the"Concepts". This essay is quite lapidary, but, in any case, it contradicts the thesis stated in the Introduction about the rule of customary law in the traditional East. And the proof of the groundlessness of this thesis is obvious: at least the works of V. M. Rybakov on the legislation of the Tang Empire, one of which is included in the same book.

But the problem of the attitude to law in the traditional East is really important and, perhaps, cardinal. Since antiquity, Europeans for some reason sought to formalize all public relations in the form of written, state laws. In the East, however, many social relations were regulated by " concepts." Once again, this is not a primitive "customary law".

The Introduction does not include a chapter on the study of the philosophy of Eastern societies and the relationship of this study to the history of philosophy in general. This is unfortunate. But there is such a chapter in Concepts (by R. V. Svetlov). It contains several plots. First, the question of the fundamental difference between what is called "philosophy" in the West and the East. This difference is emphasized by the repeated mention of the pair " Western theoretical thought "and" Eastern wisdom " (2, p.146, 147, 149, 154). Secondly, it is the problem of the influence of Eastern religious and ideological ideas on European thought. Here the key word for describing the situation is the word "fashion" (2, p.148, 149, 152). Third, an outline of the scientific study of Eastern thought in Europe, America, and Russia is given. In the latter case, with a clear bias towards the contribution of St. Petersburg to this branch of Oriental studies. This chapter, like the rest of the book, is intended as a textbook for all students of Oriental studies, not just those specializing in a particular discipline. From the point of view of this problem, the chapter on philosophy is difficult to understand. At the same time, it plays an important role along with chapters on linguistics, showing young readers the peculiarities of our science.

Three chapters of the Introduction, designed to reveal the "soul" of the East, should be recognized as innovative in their subject matter: "Features of World Perception in Eastern Societies" by A. G. Starozhuk, "Ethnocultural Features of the peoples of Asia and Africa" by N. V. Grigorieva, and "Ethnopsychological features of the peoples of Asia and Africa" by N. A. Speshnev. Unfortunately, N. V. Grigorieva and N. A. Speshnsv became interested in theoretical, largely scholastic, constructions of the model of "ethnic culture" and categories of ethnopsychology, which pushed into the background the specific features of the Eastern peoples. The content of the chapter on ethnopsychology is expressed in its last phrase:" ... it can be concluded that knowledge of the ethnopsychology of the peoples of the East is extremely important for the correct perception and understanding of the peculiar cultures of the countries and regions studied " (1, p.169). Thus, "cognition of ethnopsychology" is referred to the future.

In " Concepts "this topic is continued and developed in the chapter of O. Y. Zavyalov"Oriental Studies and Psychology". The main idea of the author that the European and non-European personalities differ from each other and require different methods for their study is supported by two sets of arguments. On the one hand, these are the reflections of some Eastern sages on the essence of "man" or "soul", on the other hand, the data of sociopsychologists (or ethnopsychologists) on the difference in the reaction of modern representatives of different civilizations. I think that these two data series should not be combined. They refer to different planes and even different "buildings" in the field of Oriental studies. Modern data from sociopsychology is a science, however unreliable its conclusions may be. And the "structure of the psyche", according to the Sankhya, Upanishads, or Nei-ching, is speculative philosophizing that has no basis in experience. On the basis of their constructions, it is impossible to build a "concept of the African personality", however, as well as the Hindu and Chinese ones. They are useless for a modern scientist who is busy studying the mentality and psychology of real people.

It seems to me that the desire to identify the difference between Europeans and non-Europeans often pushes scientists to exaggerate and emphasize this difference. For example, "in individualistic cultures (i.e., in Europe, L. A.), behavior is more regulated by social attitudes than by group moral norms" (2, p.163). I think that in both cases the regulator is "social attitudes". Another thing is that they operate through a more or less extended group. The "individualism" that seems to permeate Western society is very relative and clearly exaggerated in our view. This also applies to the" materialism "of Western society, or to its "pursuit of profit", etc. We must not forget that the whole world is not held only to the West-

page 168
but also on Western law (so-called international law) and Western culture.

And in the chapter on psychology, there are overlaps in the effort to identify Eastern specifics. For example, "in Japanese, the position of the verb at the end of a phrase allows a speaker who sees a reaction to their first words to soften the phrase or even completely change its original meaning" (2, p. 163). In Hindi, for example, or in German, the predicate is also at the end of the sentence. Do the Germans and Indians also want to "soften the meaning"?

The author's proposal to introduce European young people to Eastern folklore, and Eastern children to Western folklore, in order to increase mutual understanding and reduce aggressiveness, looks utopian.

The chapter " Oriental Studies and Religious Studies "(author-V. V. Yemelyanov) should occupy one of the key positions in determining the place of Oriental studies in the group of humanities. Here the trend of development of science in general is particularly clearly visible: the emergence of a discipline (in this case, religious studies) based on virtually one religion - Christianity; its saturation with non-European material, which is initially analyzed by analogy with Christianity; the transformation of the discipline into a global science, in which Christianity occupies a noticeable, but at the same time modest place.

The author believes that with the introduction of non-European religions, the concept of stages of development of religions emerged, i.e., in fact, we are talking about the fact that Christianity began to be understood as the highest stage of development of religion, which in principle seems to be the only one for all people. Then there was a tendency to see the unity of all religious beliefs, that is, to equalize all religions according to their significance or truth.

The chapter is a brief outline of the history of religious studies, mainly the study of Mesopotamian religious views and the conclusions that researchers came to when comparing them with Christianity. The question of the role of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese ideas derived from Confucianism is not raised. So this chapter should at least be expanded in future editions.

The chapter " Oriental Studies and Cultural Studies "(author-A. G. Starozhuk), of course, should be present in the book: cultural studies has recently become a noticeable phenomenon and has begun to claim universality, to study all aspects of social life, since culture began to be understood as "everything that is not nature". It also draws attention to the fact that when studying Eastern societies, there are cultural phenomena similar to Europe, but they are not identical. It is pointed out that the West and the East have different understanding of such categories as "fiction" and "fine arts", as well as a different place in the nomenclature of "arts" of such areas as calligraphy, poetry, etc. But in general, the content of this chapter seems incomplete, which is explained, as I have already said, by too broad requests from the so-called " art " group. cultural studies that wants to be everything.

Finally, the chapter " Oriental Studies and Art Studies "(authored by N. V. Alferova) is devoted to " excluding two widespread polar approaches that developed in the XX century: when it was believed that Western and Eastern art do not have any common positions; and the opposite-when the development of Western and Eastern art seems to be a single stream of the history of the world." arts" (2, p. 207).

A new direction that has become part of Oriental studies in recent years - the study of the East in the context of international relations-is covered in the chapters "Asian and African Countries in the History and theory of International Relations" (E. I. Zelenev, N. A. Samoilov)., "Geopolitical and geostrategic research methods in Oriental studies "(E. I. Zelenev). They can be welcomed, since today's university graduate needs to be oriented in international relations and understand the modern political science language.

However, the text most likely reveals, contrary to the author's intentions, that geopolitics is, first of all, scholasticism. For it, what is essential is not reality, but the forging of categories: "force fields", namely "endemic field", "border field", "cross field", "total field"; "middle space"; "axial region", "heartland", "rimland"; "territory", which is not at all the same as "space"; "geopolitical paradigm", "geopolitical code", "frontier concept". A whole section of the theory is devoted to defining the "boundary". It turns out that this is not what you thought, but "one of the most important tools of geopolitical analysis" (1, p.512). The following phrase is an excellent example of political science thinking:

page 169
"The supremacy of the corresponding state power in a particular territory is the main feature of the state territory" (1, p. 511).

Secondly, the author essentially proves that geopolitics as a research field has literally outlived its time. "Geopolitics and geostrategy are different qualities of political thinking related to different epochs of human political development. If the 20th century can rightly be considered the century of geopolitics, the 21st century promises to be the century of geostrategy " (1, p. 523). Geostrategy in his understanding is "a new political thinking that develops in line with political idealism "(1, p.523), when "the profitability of conquests is steadily falling" (1, p. 522). This is a stage of political thinking that "does not allow force methods as a tool for solving interstate problems" (p. 524) and takes into account six "geostrategic dimensions": politics, culture, national security and the balance of state and political forces in the world, geoeconomics, information technology, and ecology (1, p.525).

With this understanding, the presentation of the geopolitical doctrines of F. It would seem superfluous to consider Ratzel, J. Parker, S. Rado, K. E. Sorokin, W. J. Fulbright, K. Haushofer, and others as some relative truths. It is useful to introduce them to students, they could be presented as monuments of the thought of bygone times.

However, the author will most likely disagree with this suggestion. He believes that "in the conditions of the multipolar and multi-vector nature of the world political system, geopolitics and geostrategy remain not only areas of scientific knowledge, but also a formidable weapon in the struggle for political domination" (1, p.525).

From the subjects of these chapters, I would like to focus on the category "interests". I would raise the question of the false interests that often guide nations, and also sharply contrast the interests of the state (no matter how we understand it: as one of the corporations or as an instrument of the ruling class) and national interests, i.e. the interests of the people. E. I. Zelenev points out the differences between these two categories, but then seeks to Their difference should be minimized: "In fact, we are talking about a single problem block with only a slight shift in emphasis towards ethno-political or military-political interests, respectively" (1, p. 509). It seems to me that Russian literature pays insufficient attention to the divergent interests of the ruling elite and broad strata of the people, starting from ancient Russia and up to the present day ("If the country were native, there would be no other worries..."). Meanwhile, the examples when the authorities, driven by ambition, sacrificed people and the future of the country are too numerous in the history of the world, to list them.

I would also like to object to the interpretation of the Soviet period of Russian history. E. I. Zelenev proceeds from the idea that "under totalitarian regimes, public opinion of the population is often ignored, which leads to acute crises when the national, i.e. state, interests declared by the authorities do not find support among the population of the country" (1, p. 510). It seems to me that when considering totalitarian regimes, the emphasis should be placed on the fact that the authorities shape public opinion by declaring false "national interests". And for some time they find support among the population. It would be possible to elaborate on the political doctrine of Soviet Russia. According to the author's fair observation, it "retained its imperial character and was fed by the ideas and principles of geopolitics formulated on the eve and during the First World War "(1, p.520), but it significantly modified this doctrine, adding to it the concept of the struggle for a world revolution and the creation of a world Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The author further asserts that " the purges and repressions of the 1930s finally interrupted the continuity in the development of geopolitical thought in Russia "(ibid.). In my opinion, it was the other way around. The Soviet Union under Stalin returned to the imperial doctrine, pushing the idea of world revolution into the background. It is not true that " the official state geopolitical doctrine was absent even in the post-Stalin period." The "struggle for peace and socialism" and the struggle against imperialism fully served as the official doctrine, having been transformed in the Brezhnev period into "everything for the good of man".

By the way, when considering "interests", it would be good to clearly distinguish between official foreign policy doctrines and the real goals of the policies of certain regimes. It is more than doubtful that " the struggle for the rights of the Christian population of the South Caucasus was one of the most important factors in the Russian-Ottoman and Russian-Iranian rivalry.",

page 170
which led to a whole series of wars between Russia and Turkey and Iran" (1, p.480). Taking care of Christians "suffering under the yoke of the Ottomans" was proclaimed, of course, as a "super task" of the tsarist government, but the real goals were different from the propaganda slogans. Otherwise, why was it necessary to seize, say, Azerbaijan?

In "Concepts", the topic of studying international relations is continued by the chapter" Oriental Studies and Conflictology " by V. I. Kolotov. This chapter is clearly a failure. The main idea of this chapter is that the authorities should listen more carefully to the opinions of orientalists when conducting their foreign policy. Some examples of how failure to take into account the real situation led to defeat are given. First of all, to the defeat of the United States in Vietnam and to the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. "This is how big countries pay for the incompetence of their politicians and their inability to attract professionals to cooperate" (2, p. 180). One might think that the involvement of professional scientists would help the United States and the USSR win these wars!

The author nevertheless separates Oriental studies, which knows everything about the East, and conflictology, which is developed on the basis of material from all over the world and therefore is not applicable to the East. To a greater extent, the chapter would meet the objectives of the book if it were looking for a common field of research for these two sciences. By the way, A. D. Bogaturov, a quote from which the author cites in support of his position, writes exactly the opposite: he complains that Orientalists do not take into account the achievements of theoretical conflictology poorly (2, p. 170).

I would also like to note that V. N. Kolotov, out of touch with his main topic, attacks Christian missionaries with harsh criticism (2, pp. 171-176). They, it turns out, are almost the main colonizers, "the most dangerous messengers of the West." "It was considered economically reasonable to send missionaries to the country first, not soldiers, who would study its weaknesses and strengths, find allies and co-religionists, and then it was already possible to start capturing, and partly by the hands of its own inhabitants, whom the missionaries had already managed to convert to Catholicism" (2, p.171). Well, just like saboteurs behind enemy lines! There is no desire or place to make arguments showing that all this escapade is the fruit of a feverish fantasy. I will mention, however, that the British first expelled Catholic missionaries from India, and allowed their Anglican missionaries to start working in India only in 1813.And the Sepoys who conquered India for the British were not Catholics at all, but Hindus and Muslims.

Let me put it figuratively: at present, the East is a conflict. The problem of Orientalists ' mastering the terminology and apparatus of conflictology exists and will continue to worsen. This chapter should be replaced in the next edition of the book.

The "Concepts" includes A. D. Bogaturov's chapter "Orientalist perspective of International Studies", which can also be attributed to a series of materials on the relationship between Oriental studies and political science. A.D. Bogaturov, first, highlights those modern phenomena that make the study of non-Western countries especially unavoidable. Some of the wording in this part of the chapter can be argued, but the general meaning of it is indisputable: "The basic weakness of the theory of international relations, as well as of the social sciences in general, consists in not taking into account those phenomena and social processes that take place in the non-Western part of the world and set the specifics of the world perception of non-Western countries and their behavior in world politics" (2, p.262).

Secondly, the author formulates (in fact, as if summing up the statements on this topic in the previous chapters), what is the specificity of these countries? In a brief retelling, they will look even harsher than in the author's text, but by doing so, I want to emphasize that these are exactly the problems that deserve further discussion. So, the main differences are:

1) priority of the value of democracy in Western countries and sovereignty and territorial integrity in non - Western countries;

2) focus on personal success in the West - and on group success in the East;

3) in Western countries, the law rules, and in non-Western countries-interpretations of the law and the regime of its application, determined by the "leader";

4) the emphasis on individual human rights and the value of human life in the West - and the predominance of the value of the idea and sacrifice in its name in non-Western countries;

5) the ritual of elections in the East - and the real possibility of changing power through voting in the West;

6) individual competition and individual responsibility for their decisions and the individual's desire to avoid responsibility and shift it to one or another "leader" (2, pp. 267-268).

page 171
At the same time, L. D. Bogaturov is inclined to present this dichotomy as equal civilizational features, without giving preference to either set of values. However, he is also tormented by doubts about this: "This type of thinking was probably inherent in Europeans in the Middle Ages and was later almost eliminated in the Euro-American tradition" (2, p. 268). He agrees that this is precisely "archaic" (2, p. 265). But if this thinking is characteristic of the Middle Ages, if it is archaic, then, therefore, these are not innate features (since they can be "eliminated"!), but stadium signs? And then it turns out that those in the West and in the East who set as their goal the maximum Westernization of the whole world are right?

What A.D. Bogaturov is absolutely right about (and what he convincingly argues) this is the need to take into account the "archaic" when defining policy and not hope that the archaic will be quickly finished. "Ignorance, lack of understanding of non-Western realities, and disregard for them reduces the explanatory power of many Western concepts of international development, and does not allow us to make adequate generalizations about the nature of processes occurring in the non-Western world and, consequently, in the world system as a whole" (2, p.266).

Foreign policy issues are also covered in several other materials of the "Concepts". O. B. Ozerov in his essay "Oriental Studies and the processes of globalization" presents his rather original view of the" tides " of globalization, which he begins with the Roman Empire. He complains that transnational corporations are " not accountable to anyone "(2, p. 281), that there is an "accelerated transfer of national powers to supranational bodies, again not elected by anyone and accountable to anyone" (2, p. 282), that the predominance is "not discussed and not agreed with anyone, born in the depths of opaque structures... the proposed model of a monopolar world " (2, p. 283). The author stands up for democracy and pretentiously exclaims: "And who chooses the Wall Street bankers and the leadership of TNCs? At best, the holders of shares and peoples have nothing to do with this" (2, p. 281). Perhaps corporate directors should be elected by universal secret and direct voting? And who will "discuss" the company's policy, with whom it needs to be "coordinated"? O. B. Ozerov says that it is necessary to apply to the UN in order to make this process "under the control of national states" (2, p. 283) and even "to return to the foundations of the Westphalian system" (2, p. 284).

All this is not only impossible, but also extremely outdated. After all, V. I. Lenin recorded the beginning of this process and considered it objective, natural-historical. When he spoke of the division of the world between multinational corporations (which he called "monopolies"), he did not refer to the Morgan-Rockefeller collusion, but considered it a stage in the evolution of capitalism.

What about the" birth trauma " of Oriental studies? Does Oriental studies have a future in the process of specialization? At the end of the first book, E. I. Zelenev and N. A. Samoilov introduce a special designation for our craft: "integrating science", i.e. "connecting other sciences (or their key, basic elements) on its own methodological basis" (1, p. 494). But is there such a basis? As we recall, V. B. Kasevich believes that the "general theory of Oriental studies" still needs to be sought.

A significant volume of the project is occupied by introductory texts intended not for those who specialize in the country or region, but for orientalists of other specialties. In the Introduction, these are essays on the literatures of the Ancient East (Yu. N. Prorubshchikova), India (SO. Tsvetkov), the Arab peoples (M. N. Suvorov), Persia (M. S. Pelevin), China (A. G. Starozhuk), Japan (L. Yu. Khronopulo), and the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa (A. S. Pelevin).V. Lyakhovich).

The same task - to give students a general idea of the diversity of the East - is subordinated to the chapters "The East as the homeland of world and major national religions", " Buddhism "(both by V. B. Kasevich), "Eastern Christianity", " Islam "(both by M. A. Rodionov), "Judaism" (I. R. Tantlevsky)., "Hinduism" (M. F. Albedil), "Zoroastrianism" (V. Y. Kryukova). I can only comment on these chapters within the scope of my competence.

For example, there are some comments on the chapter on Hinduism. In general, this complex phenomenon is described rather convexly. The classification of Hinduism as a mythological religion is a find. But a number of inaccuracies should be corrected. Thus, the Persians did not have the opportunity to "construct" the term "Hinduism", because they were not familiar with it, and in addition, they do not have the suffix "-ism" (1, p.295).

It is not clear how they managed to read in the inscriptions of the Indian civilization that the deity with buffalo horns "is called the' Great Star '" (1, p.297). Have these inscriptions already been read?

page 172
It is hardly correct that the "birth of the bhakti movement" was "the result of the meeting of two different religious ideologies "( meaning Hinduism and Islam) (1, p. 301). The author immediately writes that the bhakti movement was born "in the Dravidian south in the VII-XI centuries." and, therefore, Islam has nothing to do with it. It can be added that bhakti is one of the oldest trends in Hindu religious thought and flourished, in particular, under the Guptas (IV-V centuries).

On the same page, the author first states that "The Bhakti movement basically completed the formation of Hinduism in its modern form", and then reports that in the XIX-first half of the XX century, Hinduism underwent a "reformation", "transformation". It seems to me that Hinduism continues to develop and may completely change its appearance in the near future.

The question of the three paths to "liberation" is confused, because the Hindus themselves present it in a contradictory way. They apply two systems of classification of paths to moksha. One triad ("three paths") is dharma (piety), artha (achievement of benefits or benefits) and kama (love, including carnal). In it, the first path is considered preferable. The other triad represented in the Bhagavad Gita is jnana-marga (the path of knowledge), karma-marga (the path of deeds), and bhakti-marga (the path of love for the deity). In this triad, the third path is preferred. There are many other interpretations of the"three paths". Hindus are never confused by the contradictions that are inherent in their religious and mythological ideas.

The chapter on Buddhism also raises a few comments. First, it is not clear why out of the 33 pages devoted to this topic, 5 are devoted to the Vedic religion. They would be more appropriate in a chapter on Hinduism, but even there they are probably not needed in such a volume.

Secondly, it is unlikely that the god Indra has any "guarantor functions"in Buddhism. In the Indian sacred books, you can read almost anything (for example, that the Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu), but for Buddhists all these scriptures do not matter.

In the same chapter, I. Kant's opinion is given that three ideas are essential for any religion: the idea of God, the idea of an immortal soul, and the idea of free will. "Without them, the corresponding system of beliefs cannot be considered a religion in the proper sense of the word" (p. 320). It is customary to believe a great philosopher, but in this case Buddhism is not a religion "in the proper sense of the word", because there is no God in it, and the soul, of course, lives for a long time, but its goal is nirvana, i.e., the cessation of existence. The author even claims: "Orthodox Buddhism denies the existence of the soul", which is clearly too much (p. 327). And Islam, it turns out, is not a religion, because it teaches that everything is done according to the will of Allah.

It is necessary to note one typo, because it is extremely annoying. "Island" in Sanskrit and other Indian languages means dvipa, not deepa. And India, therefore, cannot be a "Jambudipa". Moreover, it is not necessary to give this word in the English plural (dipas, mahadipas) (1, p. 332-333). This unfortunate typo gives the entire presentation of Buddhist cosmology an anecdotal touch of unprofessionalism.

Regional essays are also included: "The Ancient East "(N. V. Kozyreva), "The Middle East: the Evolution of Historical and cultural space in the world of Islam" (N. N. Dyakov), "East Asia" (N. A. Samoylov), "South-East Asia" (V. N. Kolotov, B. N. Melnichenko), "South Asia" (N. V. Gurov, Yu. G. Kokova), "Central Asia", "South Caucasus (Transcaucasia)" (A. A. Yushchenko).K. Alekseev), "Sub-Saharan Africa" (A. S. Zdanevich).

The chapter on the development of Tibetology and Mongolian studies (V. L. Uspensky) appears only in Concepts. It would be more logical to place it among the regional essays, but the good thing is that it is included in the second book. It seems to "close" an important lacuna among the essays on the regions and in the chapter "Buddhism", namely, it tells about the peculiarities of Tibetan-Mongolian Buddhism, the so-called Lamaism.

These essays are very necessary so that students do not lock themselves in the boundaries of their narrow specialty. The lack of regional studies chapters (and country studies essays within them) can be considered a discrepancy in their construction. The Middle East is represented by a historical and cultural essay (generally successful, giving an idea of the region), mainly dealing with the past and completely distancing itself from the current acute contradictions that are characteristic of this region. The section on South Asia explicitly recognizes that" special attention " is paid to antiquity and the Middle Ages (1, p. 420).

Indeed, the problems of Indian civilization are covered quite sensibly. The only confusing thing is that it includes some of the subjects already covered in the chapters on Hinduism and Buddhism.-

page 173
disma. It is necessary to note annoying typos: it is hardly possible to call the Janapads of the middle of the 1st millennium BC "states", and even "independent" (1, p. 422), The conquest of Sindh by the Arabs did not take place in the VII century, but in 712 (1, p. 425); Vasco da Gama sailed for the first time However, the "penetration" of European colonialists into the countries of South Asia did not begin in the 15th, but in the 16th century (1, p. 426).

The chapter "South Caucasus (Transcaucasia)" completely omits the current issues. At the same time, it smacks a little of Armenian nationalism (Urartu is presented as the forerunner of Armenia, emphasizing the antiquity of the Armenian people and the new arrival of the Turks). In contrast to this chapter, the East Asia region is given along with its recent history. Briefly, dotted, but probably the right way. The chapter on sub-Saharan Africa is compiled as an encyclopedic reference.

The essay on South-East Asia, on the contrary, is overloaded, as it seems to me, with modern foreign policy topics, which are also presented in a confrontational way, in the spirit of the "cold war". The economic success of some Southeast Asian countries in recent decades is presented in the genre of detective stories. It turns out that the" rapid economic growth "of these countries was "unplanned" (by whom?) and "disliked by some major non-regional powers" (guess what!). Therefore, in 1997, attacks were launched on the currencies of these countries, but "the West failed to bring the political elites of the Southeast Asian countries to their knees" (1, p.413). The USA and the IMF shat on the Southeast Asian countries, but the PRC and Mahathir Mohamad defended the independent course and defended it.

Unfortunately, not all chapters in this series are provided with chronological tables.

Comments are called up by maps attached to chapters. Maps are needed, but in this case they are extremely sketchy and, in fact, not loaded. And most importantly, they are given at different scales, which are also not marked, which is generally considered necessary for any cartographic material. So Cambodia, for example, turns out to be larger than Vietnam, Myanmar, and Thailand; India is equal in area to Bangladesh, and Bhutan has become larger than Nepal.

In "Concepts", the theme of the Ancient East is revealed more broadly and deeply in the chapter by V. V. Yemelyanov"New concepts in the study of the culture of the Ancient East". This chapter is primarily of interest to specialists, as well as postgraduates and undergraduates specializing in this topic. It is true that the author covers the existing approaches to the study of Egypt and Mesopotamia, but it seems that he is mainly concerned with presenting his own scientific findings. This is still more of a scientific article than a research review. The chapter is difficult for Orientalists of other specialties and therefore, I think, does not quite fit as one of the topics of this course.

The works of N. N. Telitsyn "Basic concepts of writing development among the Turkic peoples in ancient times" and V. M. Rybakov "Experience of sociopsychological interpretation of criminal laws of the Chinese Tang Dynasty (618-907)" have the same character of scientific articles that do not work on the main idea of books, although they are interesting in themselves.

Finally, the book includes introductory chapters "The main stages of the history of Russian Oriental Studies", "Eastern Faculty of St. Petersburg State University" (N. A. Samoilov) and "Applied Oriental Studies" (E. M. Osmanov). As is clear from the above, the problems of the history of Russian Oriental studies are also discussed in a number of other chapters of the publication. Such materials, as is usual in such cases, are collections of names, institutions and published works without any analysis. But in the context of these chapters, I would like to quote from a completely different chapter, which is bold and can cause a fierce protest: "In Russia, science has never been seriously considered by the authorities as an important resource for optimizing social and managerial practices" (1, p.171).

Summing up, we must emphasize once again that our colleagues in St. Petersburg raised fundamental issues of our profession. In essence, they called for a discussion on the status of Oriental studies and its constituent disciplines among other sciences; on the role in the development of world humanitarian knowledge, which objectively belongs to its Oriental component. A more mundane task has also been set - how to train orientalists. I think that discussions on all these issues could be developed on the pages of the magazine.

page 174

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: