Turn to archaism: is it a setback or build-up for a new breakthough?

Abstract

The turn to archaism in contemporary political development has been at the centre of recent debates in Dostoyevsky Library in Moscow, forming part of the Rejoinders in a dialogue series. It seems that the enthusiastic interest for the effects of globalization us being succeeded by the dominance of a new traditionalism. If in the past archaism in politics manifested itself mostly at local level, today it is becoming a universal phenomenon, which is due to to both intrinsic and global factors, such as the crisis of the Western model of modernization. What drives this tendency and where is it leading? Does it unavoidably result in political conflicts or, on the contrary, could it help to open new forms of intercultural dialogue and understanding? Is it right to equate 'Global' and 'Western' in politics? What is common and what is specific in the process of restoring 'traditional values' in the West, in Russia, and in such countries as Iran and India? What are the main distinguishing indicators of modernism and archaism in politics? Participants in the discussion, while observing the parallels between the archaist trend in today's Eastern countries and the Old Believers movement in 17th-20th century Russia, on the one hand, and between the European Reformation and the reformative processes outside the borders of the Christian world, on the other hand, agreed that the question, how the new rise of traditionalism should be dealt with, can be answered in three possible ways. The first way is to treat tradition as a museum artifact, to use it for legitimation of obsolete political relations. The second, ‘post-modern’ approach implies a deep disappointment with tradition and total rejection of any connections with past. The third way, promoted by scholars participating in the present dialogue, is to make use of the tradition as a starting point for new modernizing efforts and the basis for promoting intercultural understanding.