Information on the thesis

Research is dedicated to the publicism of Russian philologist Sergey Averintsev and
Ukrainian philosopher Serhiy Krymsky. They were well-known authors who have
received professional recognition, and at the later stage of theirs creative career in the
moment of crucial social changes in the former Soviet Union, were active as publicists.
The main theme of their articles caused by institutional and value transformations that are
still experiencing in post-Soviet states. Competence of both scholars in the humanities
(human sciences) and their high public authority gave them grounds to offer the most
relevant values to the post-Soviet situation ‒ wisdom, spirituality and dialogue. Scientific
novelty lies in the fact that this is the first analysis of Sergey Averintsev’s and Serhiy
Krymsky’s publicism. The author examines them not as polemicists, but rather as those
who wrote on similar themes and complement each other in the understanding of the key
post-Soviet and international challenges.
The paper attempts to summarize the different approaches to the study of the
phenomenon of publicism. The author proposes to consider it as a discursive phenomenon,
i.e. as a sphere in which author and audience interact. This interaction affects the choice of
theme and style of publicistic text because the author, trying to be understood, must
consider the «vernacular voices» (D. Hauser) and be aware of the relevance of the subject.
However, given the multiplicity of concepts in the discourse of the humanities, the term
“publicism” can be used in the narrow journalistic sense (V. Zdoroveha) to describe the
assemblage of texts on current social and political issues.
Articles, essays and interviews of S. Averintsev and S. Krymsky the author proposes
to define using the term “worldview publicism”. This term was brought by Ukrainian
philosopher Mykola Shlemkevych to draw a distinction between classic journalistic texts
and works written on the verge of philosophy and publicism. It has been found that M.
Shlemkevych’s considerations fit into the context of global trends blurring boundaries
between academic and public spheres. This leads to such phenomena as “public
philosophy”, “public history” and “new philosophy” (“nouvelle philosophie”).
Speaking as publicists, they proposed a holistic approach to the consideration of
events. They combined expertise in relevant areas with life experience, broad erudition
and religious faith. This enabled to define their public role (R. Sennett’s term) by the term
“sage” as opposed to the role of “expert” who has a narrow specialization. “Sage” is
opposing “expert” because for the first ethical and human dimensions are important, while
the latter is responsible to those who ordered the expertise, so it can lead to manipulation.
Consideration of the works of these authors in the context of the public role of the sage is
appropriate not only because they were known publicist in a rather advanced age, but also
because the audience felt that they are carriers of universal, “infused with conscience” (S.
Krymsky) knowledge.
The author examines S. Averintsev and S. Krymsky as publicists in the context of
discussions on the appointment of intelligentsia and public intellectuals. Traditionally,
representatives of Western European and American academic segments called intellectuals
and Eastern European ‒ intelligentsia. Some authors tend to distinguish between these
concepts, giving them different ideological connotations. Intellectuals stereotypically
charged with conformity and adherence to government and intelligentsia credited with
skepticism and leftist views. S. Averintsev and S. Krymsky absented themselves into the
ranks of the intelligentsia, protecting it from the attacks of those who stoned it lack of
practicality or maintaining conservative “non-progressive” views. Unlike public
intellectuals who were often engaged in party struggle, Ukrainian and Russian publicists
belonging to segments of the intelligentsia has led to what they consider a policy
especially in term of values, so their position does not fit the classic ideological spectrum.
Emphasized value orientations of S. Averintsev’s and S. Krymsky’s publicism are
considered not only in the context of the works of both authors, but also against the
backdrop of crucial social changes of the 1990s–2000s. The paper stated that it was a
problem of actualization of values for both scientists that driven them to act in the press. In
S. Averintsev’s and S. Krymsky’s texts wisdom as value orientation takes additional
meanings of prudence, avoiding extreme pseudo-alternatives, intolerance, bigotry, and
fidelity to tradition and common sense. When considering specific issues the public role of
the sage embodied in the “middle position” (S. Averintsev) and the “position of third
truth” (S. Krymsky). The words of publicist sound convincing because they saw the
wisdom not as speculative category, but as a guide for daily activities. S. Averintsev
actualized religious roots of wisdom, and S. Krymsky, engaging experience of Socrates
and Gregory Skovoroda, examined its philosophical aspects.
While writing about spirituality as one of the key concepts of the post-Soviet period
S. Averintsev and S. Krymsky used explanatory approach. The authors interpret its
meaning to clean it from the layers of manipulation, especially in the political field. Both
authors focused on the personalistic understanding of spirituality, emphasizing that it must
be realized not only on the declarative, but on a practical level. Collective manifestations
of spirituality are possible when each person is ready for it. S. Krymsky assigned to
spirituality the role of “axiological house-building of personality” and service to other
people. S. Averintsev argued about spirituality in a Christian perspective and emphasized
that the family is the primary sphere of its formation.
Publicist’s reasoning about the dialogue can be reduced to the thesis that this is one
of the most effective methods of overcoming manipulation during the communication.
Dialogical communication involves discarding misconceptions about interlocutor and
accepting his otherness. S. Averintsev stressed that this feature of dialogue is important in
communication both with people and with God. S. Krymsky emphasized cognitive weight
of dialogue, denying the adequacy of the phrase “the truth is born only in a dispute”.
Dialogue for both publicists is an antidote against hatred and one of the essential
conditions for overcoming the totalitarian legacy.
Key words: publicism, Sergey Averintsev, Serhiy Krymsky, value orientations,
discourse, post-Soviet, intellectuals, intelligentsia, wisdom, spirituality, dialogue.