Challenges to humanity: climate, pandemic, inequality
The book was written a month after the start of Russian aggression against Ukraine. Some of her predictions did not come true, but in the main, Alexander Etkind turned out to be right: this is a war not against Ukraine, but against modernity. The 21st century has posed new challenges for humanity, which have only become aggravated before the threat of global warming and after the pandemic, which drew attention to the problem of remote work. Nature itself has given humanity a choice to make.
In one of the interviews, Professor Etkind emphasized: “Why is Russia opposed to modernity? Because it is completely dependent on the export of its hydrocarbon raw materials. Any energy transition programs deprive the Russian Federation of its usual sources of income. This is the essence of this confrontation, everything else is its various consequences.
Two worlds: the past and the future of mankind
Professor Alexander Etkind adheres to the concept of two civilizational projects: “The World of Leviathan” (the world of the so-called “paleomodern”) and “The World of Gaia” (“gayamodern”). The Gaia hypothesis was put forward by the British climatologist James Lovelock, who believed that the Earth is a kind of superorganism, “a dynamic physiological system that includes the biosphere and maintains our planet for more than three billion years in harmony with life.” In its final form, it was formulated by the philosopher Bruno Latour.
In the modern “world of Leviathan” progress is seen “in even greater burning of energy, in even greater use of fossil raw materials.” But in the world of Gaia, “everything is exactly the opposite: progress is measured by reducing energy costs through the use of renewable sources that are in harmony with nature.” Thus, gayamodern is a process of transition to new renewable energy sources, new interstate relations, new ideas about social hierarchies, to a reduction in the consumption of material and energy resources and greater harmony with nature.
There is nothing wrong with the collapse of an empire
Russia in Etkind’s book is presented as a classical paleomodern state: it depends on the export of fossil fuels, and its leadership in the field of social inequality is based on this. Most of the profits went to the elite, which controlled the extraction and sale of oil and gas. Any energy transition programs are deadly for her system. According to the logic of the book “Russia Against Modernity”, the war against Ukraine became a kind of strike by the elite, who want to maintain the status quo against the Western world, with which Ukraine was moving towards integration. “The war, or ‘special operation’, is being waged not only against Ukraine, the Ukrainian people, culture, but also against the modern world,” Professor Etkind said during a meeting in Riga.
According to Alexander Etkind, the desire of the West for Russia to remain united is a consequence of the inertia of the thinking of political scientists in the early 1990s. The collapse of the Soviet Union has not been properly investigated. But the future disintegration of the Russian Federation, or its “defederalization”, should be discussed now. The professor believes that the collapse of empires is not necessarily accompanied by wars and cataclysms. As an example, he cites the collapse of the Habsburg Empire, on the territory of which the now democratic states of Hungary, Romania, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia arose. Etkind is not sure that Kaliningrad and Grozny will have the same form of political organization, but it is still better than Moscow domination.
Did Russia have a chance?
In a conversation with Rus.nra.lv, Professor Alexander Etkind expressed his conviction that Russia had a fork in the early 2000s, when it could choose a different civilizational path and follow the path of the “world of Gaia”, instead of the paleo-modern “world of Leviathan”.
“People close to the government, and even members of the government, proposed modernization, diversification and the fight for a sustainable economy, all sorts of green reforms. For example, Russia has a strong point – this is the territory, it could trade in quotas for carbon dioxide emissions. There were similar projects, but this was not done, and what was done turned out to be just the opposite,” said Etkind.
At the same time, it is important to understand that two civilizational models will be present simultaneously in the same space for a long time to come. As, for example, in the countries of the Global East, where much attention is paid to ecology, climate, sustainable development and interreligious dialogue, but at the same time illiberal political models can be preserved and the rights of women and minorities are limited.
“They will definitely be combined for a long time to come. The process of coexistence of one ecological and economic order with another is all projects for decades to come,” emphasizes the professor, answering a question from Rus.nra.lv.
But post-Russia, or the “Beautiful Russia of the future”, which has returned to the present, is, unfortunately, unlikely. “I think that the matter will not do without the collapse of the Russian Federation, which should not be so much to be afraid of. These will be completely self-sufficient strong countries, such as Tatarstan, Siberia or St. Petersburg, my hometown. Somewhere, economic problems will begin, even border wars may happen or unresolved conflicts will wake up. But nothing worse than what is happening now will not happen again,” Professor Alexander Etkind is sure.
Pavel Leshchinskiy
nra.lv
