DEVELOPMENT AND LEGACY OF EURASIANISM:HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

ABSTRACT

This article investigates the evolution and enduring legacy of Eurasianism, a Russian
ideological movement originating in the early 20th century and resurging in the late 20th
century. Utilizing historical and socio-political analysis, the study examines the factors
contributing to Eurasianism’s emergence and its core tenets, including the rejection of
Eurocentrism, emphasis on geographical determinism and cultural pluralism, and the
centrality of spiritual values. The development of classical Eurasian thought in the 1920s and
1930s is traced, highlighting the contributions of key figures like Peter Savitsky and Nikolai
Trubetskoy. The resurgence of Eurasianism in the late 20th century is then analysed, focusing
on the impact of Lev Gumile’s theory of ethnogenesis and its implications for Russian
identity and foreign policy. The article concludes by assessing Eurasianism’s broader social
and political impact, examining its role in shaping contemporary discourse and policy debates
in Russia and the wider Eurasian region.

Keywords: Eurasianism, Russian identity, Cultural pluralism, Geopolitics, Nationalism

1. Introduction

Emerging from the Russian Revolution and the tumultuous early Soviet period, the Eurasian
movement represented a distinctive intellectual and philosophical response to the identity
crises and political upheavals faced by Russian émigrés. Disillusioned with both Western
liberalism and Soviet communism, these intellectuals sought to forge a new path for Russia
that would overcome the perceived limitations of both the European and Asian models. At its
core, Eurasianism rejected the dominant Eurocentric worldview, which they saw as inherently
biased and exclusionary, and sought to redefine Russia’s place in the world by emphasizing
its unique Eurasian identity (Laruelle, 2008).
This Eurasian identity was deeply rooted in the vast geographical expanse of Eurasia, a
territory stretching from Eastern Europe to Central Asia and encompassing a diverse mosaic
of cultures, languages, and religions. Eurasianists, such as Nikolai Trubetskoy in his seminal
work Europe and Mankind (1927), argued that this geographical expanse contributed to the
formation of a common historical experience and a distinct cultural identity for the peoples of Eurasia that differed significantly from that of Western Europe. They imagined Eurasia as a
unique civilization with its own values, traditions, and destiny.
Although Eurasianism initially flourished among Russian intellectuals in exile in the 1920s
and 1930s, its influence spread far beyond this initial period. The revival of Eurasian thought
in the late twentieth century, led by figures such as Lev Gumilev, whose controversial
theories of ethnogenesis and the biosphere sparked renewed interest in Eurasian identity
(Gumilev, 1989), further strengthened its importance in shaping contemporary political and
social discourse in Eurasia.
This article aims to analyse the evolution of Eurasian thought over the course of the twentieth
century, looking at both its classical phase and its subsequent revival. It will examine the key
elements of Eurasian ideology, the critique of Eurocentrism, the emphasis on geographical
determinism and cultural pluralism, and the affirmation of spiritual values. In addition, the
socio-political impact of Eurasianism is assessed, emphasizing its role in shaping intellectual
debate, cultural expression, and political decision-making in Russia and beyond, especially in
the context of contemporary geopolitical shifts and the rise of new regional powers.

2. Genesis of classical Eurasianism (1920s-1930s)

The birth of classical Eurasianism in the 1920s and 1930s was inextricably linked to the
tumultuous historical and social context of life in the Russian émigré community. Displaced
by the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing civil war, these intellectuals, many of
whom had been prominent figures in pre-revolutionary Russia, found themselves in an alien
world. They struggled with the loss of their homeland, a deep sense of cultural unsettlement,
and a longing for a new identity that could reconcile their Russian heritage with the realities
of exile (Glebov, 2017).
Peter Savitsky, a geographer and economist, played a key role in shaping the Eurasian
worldview. In his seminal work The Continent of Eurasia (1921), he challenged the dominant
Eurocentric view by emphasising the geopolitical significance of the Eurasian ‘heartland’.
Savitsky argued that this continent, with its unique geographical features and diverse ethnic
groups, had contributed to a common historical experience and cultural identity that
distinguished Eurasia from Western Europe (Savitsky, 1921). He also developed the concept
of ‘place development’ (mestorazvitie), which emphasised the importance of the natural
environment in shaping cultural development.
After the split of the Eurasianist movement, Lev Karsavin withdrew from the mainstream
branch of Eurasianism, while Peter Savitsky began to develop his own structural theological
geosophy (periodic system of being, as Savitsky also called it) based on ontological
structuralism in co-authorship with Nikolai Trubetskoy and Roman Jacobson. The basic idea
of Savitsky’s concept was the notion that all levels of being are permeated by organisational
ideas, or eidos, which allows us to consider action in the universe as a manifestation of a
general periodic law. Savitsky’s ideas were deeply developed in the context of ontological
structuralism and the influence of the ideas of nomogenesis of the anti-Darwinist Lev Berg,
which was consonant with Eurasian views on the relationship between landscape and culture.
Nikolai Trubetskoy, a linguist and ethnographer, further strengthened the framework of
Eurasianism by emphasising the cultural unity of Eurasia. In works such as Europe and
Mankind (1927) and The Legacy of Genghis Khan (1939), he argued that the diverse
languages and cultures of the region shared common roots and historical interaction, forming
a coherent Eurasian cultural sphere. Trubetskoy’s linguistic research, especially his work on linguistic typology, provided a strong intellectual foundation for the Eurasian movement,
emphasising the interconnectedness of language, culture and identity.
Other prominent figures have also contributed to the development of Eurasian thought.
Georges Florovsky, a religious philosopher, emphasised the spiritual foundations of Eurasian
identity, often linking it to the traditions of Orthodox Christianity and the concept of
collective symphonicity (sobornost), or spiritual community (Florovsky, 1937). Peter
Suvchinsky, an art historian, focused on the artistic manifestations of Eurasian culture,
emphasising its unique aesthetic traditions and their connection to the broader Eurasian
worldview (Suvchinsky, 1992).
The concept of Eurasia emerged as the result of the collective work of scholars from various
fields of knowledge, including history, music, geography, linguistics, religious and
philosophical teachings, cultural studies, economics and the analysis of civilisations.
Important sources for the development of this concept were the works of historians Sergei
Soloviev, Afanasy Shchapov and Vasily Klyuchevsky, who emphasised the role of landscape
and geographical factors in Russian history, as well as the theory of cultural-historical types
of Nikolai Danilevsky and the ideas of the Slavophiles of the early 19th century. The founders
of the Eurasian concept also looked to classical European scholars, including the works of Sir
Mackinder, French linguistics and a civilizational approach close to the views of Oswald
Spengler. Patrick Serio pointed out the relationship of the concepts of Nikolai Trubetskoy and
Roman Jacobson to Platonic and Hegelian scholarship.
A sense of displacement and disillusionment with both Western liberalism and Soviet
communism, as Bassin (2016) argues, created fertile ground for the emergence of Eurasian
thought. Eurasianism offered an alternative, rejecting the perceived limitations of the
European and Asian models and proposing a unique path for Russia based on its distinctive
Eurasian heritage. At its core, Eurasianism was a complex and multifaceted concept that
encompassed a wide range of ideas and perspectives

3. Main elements of Eurasian ideology

Eurasianism has coalesced around several core ideological tenets that distinguish it from
prevailing Western and Soviet ideologies, offering a unique perspective on identity, culture
and geopolitics.

3.1 Rejection of Eurocentrism

A fundamental tenet of Eurasianism was a strong rejection of Eurocentrism, the belief in the
superiority and universality of Western European culture and values. Eurasians such as
Nikolai Trubetskoj argued in his work Europe and Mankind (1927) that Western civilisation,
with its emphasis on individualism, rationalism and material progress, was not only
inappropriate to the unique historical and cultural context of Eurasia, but actively harmful to
its development. Instead, they advocated a Eurasian path of development that would draw on
the diverse cultural traditions and historical experiences of the region, emphasising the
importance of communal values, spirituality and harmonious relations with nature.

3.2 Geographic determinism

Eurasianism placed a strong emphasis on the role of geography in the formation of political
and cultural identity. The Eurasian ‘heartland’, a vast expanse stretching from Eastern Europe
to Central Asia, was seen as the geographical core of a distinct Eurasian civilisation. This
centre, with its unique climate, topography and natural resources, was believed to have contributed to the formation of a common historical experience and cultural identity among
the various people inhabiting it. Peter Savitskij, in his seminal work The Continent Eurasia
(1921), developed this concept, arguing that the vast steppes and harsh climate of the central
region had formed a nomadic culture characterised by stability, adaptability and a strong
sense of community.

3.3 Cultural pluralism

While recognising the cultural diversity of Eurasia, Eurasians also emphasised the common
historical experience and cultural interaction that unites different ethnic and religious groups.
They favoured a model of cultural pluralism that would respect and celebrate the unique
traditions of each group while fostering a sense of shared Eurasian identity. This approach
contrasted with both Western assimilationist models that sought to impose European cultural
norms on other societies and Soviet attempts to homogenise cultural differences within a
single communist ideology. Trubetskoj’s linguistic studies, especially his work on linguistic
typology in The Legacy of Genghis Khan (1939), provided a solid intellectual foundation for
this cultural pluralism, emphasising the interconnectedness of language, culture and identity.

3.4 Spiritual values

Spirituality, often associated with Orthodox Christianity, played a central role in Eurasian
identity. Eurasians believed that spiritual values such as communalism, compassion, and
honouring traditions were essential to the well-being and prosperity of Eurasian society. They
saw Orthodox Christianity as a unifying force that transcended ethnic and cultural differences,
providing a common spiritual foundation for Eurasian unity. This is evidenced in the writings
of Georges Florovskij, who explored the spiritual foundations of Russian culture and identity
in works such as Ways of Russian Theology (1937). However, Eurasianists also acknowledged
the importance of other religious traditions in Eurasia, such as Islam and Buddhism, and
stressed the need for interreligious dialogue and cooperation. The emphasis on spirituality
also extended to a broader sense of reverence for nature and a rejection of the materialistic
values of Western capitalism.

3.5 Historical Mission

Eurasians believed that Eurasia had a unique historical mission in the world. They saw the
region as a bridge between East and West, a place where different cultures and traditions
could meet and interact. They believed that Eurasia had the potential to create a new
civilisation that would overcome the limitations of the European and Asian models. On a
philosophical basis, drawing mainly on geography, ethnography, linguistics and religion, the
Eurasians created their own concept of Central Eurasia, in which the countries of the former
Russian Empire had a natural unity. In their opinion, the period of the Tatar-Mongol yoke was
positive for the development of the state and the preservation of Orthodoxy. In other words,
they viewed such historical events as the Mongol invasion or the reign of Genghis Khan as
the development of a unique “steppe civilisation” within Central Eurasia.

4. Revival of Eurasianism (late 20th century)

The end of the 20th century was marked by a significant revival of Eurasian thought, largely
fuelled by the controversial ideas of Lev Gumilev. A historian and ethnologist, Gumilev
developed a theory of ethnogenesis that attempted to explain the rise and decline of ethnic
groups through a combination of biological, geographical and cultural factors (Gumilev
1989). He postulated that the Eurasian steppe, with its unique ecological conditions and cyclical climate, played a crucial role in the formation and development of Eurasian ethnic
groups, influencing their social structures, cultural practices and historical trajectories.
Gumilev’s ideas, although often criticised for their lack of scientific rigour, reductionist
tendencies and the possibility of ethnocentric interpretations (Shnirelman, 1995), resonated
with a growing sense of disillusionment/dissatisfaction with the Soviet ideology and a
yearning for a new national identity in the late Soviet era (Laruelle, 2008). His emphasis on
the historical and cultural uniqueness of Eurasia, as well as his attention to the role of
charismatic leaders (‘passionaries’) and collective identity in shaping historical events,
appealed to those seeking an alternative to the dominant Marxist-Leninist narrative, which
was increasingly perceived as sterile and uninteresting.
In the post-Soviet era, Eurasianism gained new relevance as Russia faced the challenges of
political and economic transformation. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the
subsequent loss of superpower status led to a search for new ideological foundations for
Russian identity and foreign policy. Eurasianism, with its emphasis on Russia’s unique
Eurasian heritage, rejection of Western dominance, and emphasis on regional integration,
offered a compelling alternative to the Western-centred liberalism that dominated the early
post-Soviet years (Bassin, 2016). Eurasian thinkers such as Alexander Dugin developed these
ideas, advocating the creation of an “Eurasian empire”, that would challenge the unipolar
world order dominated by the United States (Dugin, 1997).
However, the revival of Eurasianism has also raised concerns about its ability to fuel
nationalist and authoritarian tendencies. Some critics have argued that Gumilev’s theories,
with their emphasis on the biological and geographical determinants of ethnic identity, could
be used to justify exclusionary and discriminatory policies (Shnirelman, 1995). Others have
expressed concern that Eurasianism could be used by political forces seeking to legitimise
authoritarian rule and expansionist foreign policy, as seen in the rhetoric of some Russian
nationalist groups and politicians (Laruelle, 2015). Despite these criticisms, Eurasianism
continues to have a significant influence on contemporary Russian political discourse.

5. The social impact of Eurasianism and its political implications

The influence of Eurasianism was deeply intertwined with both the social and political
spheres, leaving an indelible mark on intellectual debates and policy decisions throughout the
twentieth century and beyond.
5.1 Social impact:
In the early stages of its development, Eurasianism resonated primarily with Russian émigré
intellectuals and cultural figures disillusioned by the consequences of the revolution. It
provided them with a basis for understanding Russia’s unique historical and cultural
trajectory, different from both Western Europe and Soviet communism (Glebov, 2017). By
emphasising a shared Eurasian identity, it fostered a sense of community and purpose among
these displaced intellectuals. Eurasian ideas also found some support in the Soviet Union,
especially among those who felt alienated by official ideology and sought a deeper connection
to their cultural roots, although this was often met with suspicion or outright hostility by the
Soviet authorities.
The revival of Eurasianism in the late 20th century greatly broadened its social appeal. Lev
Gumilev’s theory of ethnogenesis, with its emphasis on cultural identity and historical
destiny, resonated with a broad audience searching for meaning and purpose amid the collapse of the Soviet Union and the social and political upheaval that followed (Bassin,
2016). Eurasianism has been the subject of lively debate in intellectual circles, influencing
discussions about history, culture and national identity. It was also reflected in popular
culture: Eurasian themes began to appear in literature, art and music, reflecting a broader
interest in exploring and reclaiming Russia’s Eurasian heritage.
5.2 Political implications:
The political implications of Eurasianism were complex and varied. In the early twentieth
century, its influence was largely confined to intellectual and cultural circles, and its direct
political impact was limited. However, its critique of Western domination and emphasis on
Russia’s unique Eurasian identity laid the foundation for subsequent political movements that
sought to challenge the Western-centred world order (Laruelle, 2008).
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, Eurasianism became increasingly influential in
Russian political discourse. Its emphasis on regional integration, multipolarity and the
Eurasian sphere of influence resonated with those who sought to resist Western hegemony
(Laruelle, 2015). Eurasian ideas have been used to justify closer ties with Central Asian states,
promote cultural and economic co-operation within the Eurasian Economic Union and argue
for a tougher Russian foreign policy. In particular, Alexander Dugin, a prominent
contemporary Eurasian thinker, openly advocated the creation of a ‘Eurasian empire’ that
would challenge the existing world order (Dugin, 1997).
However, the revival of Eurasianism has also raised concerns about its potential to foster
nationalist and authoritarian tendencies. Some critics argue that the emphasis on cultural
identity and historical destiny can be used to justify isolationist policies and aggressive
actions abroad, especially towards neighbouring countries with significant Russian
populations (Shnirelman, 1995). The appropriation of Eurasian ideas by some political figures
and movements, such as the nationalist Eurasian Party founded by Dugin in 2002, has further
reinforced these concerns, leading to debates about the potential dangers of Eurasianism as a
political ideology.
Overall, the social and political impact of Eurasianism has been significant and lasting. It has
shaped intellectual debates, influenced cultural expression, and informed/ignited/reinforced
political decision-making in Russia and beyond. Its legacy continues to be the subject of
ongoing debate and analysis, highlighting its complex and multifaceted role in shaping the
social and political landscape of Eurasia.

6. Conclusion

Born in the crucible of the turbulent events of the early 20th century, the Eurasian movement
left an indelible mark on the intellectual, social and political landscape of Eurasia. As this
article argues, Eurasianism is not just a political ideology, but a complex and multifaceted
worldview that has evolved and adapted to changing historical conditions, demonstrating
remarkable resilience and adaptability.
From its origins among Russian émigrés seeking a new identity in the 1920s and 1930s, as
elaborated in works such as Sergei Glebov’s From Empire to Eurasia (2017), to its revival in
the late twentieth century, fuelled in part by the controversial theories of Lev Gumilev
(Bassin, 2016), Eurasianism has consistently challenged dominant Western narratives. It
offered an alternative vision of Russia and its place in the world, based on the unique geographical, cultural and historical context of the region and emphasising a ‘third way’ route
from both Western liberalism and Soviet communism.
The basic tenets of Eurasianism – the rejection of Eurocentrism (Trubetskoy, 1927), the
emphasis on geographical determinism (Savitsky, 1921) and cultural pluralism (Trubetskoy,
1939), and the centrality of spiritual values (Florovsky, 1928) – resonated with various social
groups, from intellectuals to political leaders, and influenced political discourse throughout
the twentieth century and into the present day. This enduring appeal emphasises the
movement’s ability to tap into deep-seated anxieties and aspirations related to identity,
belonging and historical destiny.
The importance of Eurasian thought for understanding the historical and contemporary
political landscape of Eurasia cannot be overemphasised. As Marlene Laruelle argues in In
the Name of the Nation (2008), Eurasianism allows us to understand the motivations behind
various political movements, from nationalist and pan-Slavist groups to more recent
geopolitical strategies such as the Eurasian Economic Union. It also sheds light on the cultural
foundations of national identity in Russia and other Eurasian states, as well as the ongoing
debate about Russia’s relationship with the West. By examining the evolution of Eurasianism
and its impact on the social and political spheres, we gain a deeper understanding of the
complex forces that have shaped the Eurasian region in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries.
Looking ahead, there are several potential directions for future research on Eurasianism and
its legacy. These include:
 Further explore the intellectual debates within the Eurasian movement, investigating
the different perspectives and disagreements among Eurasian thinkers.
 A more nuanced analysis of its social impact on different groups/classes, examining
how Eurasian ideas were perceived and interpreted by different social groups in
Russia.
 A critical examination of its appropriation by contemporary political actors, analysing
how Eurasianism has been used in the modern world.
Comparative studies of Eurasianism with other regionalist and nationalist movements provide
valuable insights into broader global trends related to identity formation, nationalism and
regionalism in the face of globalisation and Western hegemony. By continuing to engage with
the rich and complex legacy of Eurasian thought, we can deepen our understanding of the
historical and contemporary forces shaping Eurasia and contribute to a more nuanced and
informed dialogue about its future.

References

Bassin, M. (2016), The Gumilev Mystique: Biopolitics, Eurasianism, and the Construction of
Community in Modern Russia, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, USA.

Dugin, A. (1997), Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia, Arktos,
Moscow, Russia.

Florovsky, G. (1928), “The Eurasian Temptation”, Contemporary Papers, Vol. 34, pp. 312-
346.

Florovsky, G. (1937), The Ways of Russian Theology, Paris, France.

Glebov, S. (2017), From Empire to Eurasia: Politics, Scholarship, and Ideology in Russian
Eurasianism, 1920s-1930s, Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, USA.

Gumilev, L.N. (1989), Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of Earth, Leningrad State University
Press, Leningrad, USSR.

Laruelle, M. (2008), In the Name of the Nation: Nationalism and Politics in Contemporary
Russia, Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK.

Laruelle, M. (Ed.). (2015), Eurasianism and the European Far Right: Reshaping the
Europe–Russia Relationship. Lexington Books, Lanham, USA.

Savitsky, P.N. (1921), “Continent Eurasia”, Russian Thought, Vol 1.

Savitsky, P.N. (1931), “The Eurasian Idea as a Historical Perspective”, Petrenko E.,Rossmen, Moscow, Russia, pp. 479-494.

Shnirelman, V.A. (1995), “The Eurasian concept of culture: N.S. Trubetskoi and L.P.
Karsavina”, in Slavonic Library in Prague (Ed.), The proceedings of the International
Conference «The Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian emigration in Czechoslovakia between
the two world wars», August 14-15, 1995, Prague, Czechia, Slavonic Library In Prague,
Czechia, pp. 448-467.

Suvchinsky, P.P. (1992), “From the letter to Trubetskoy, N.S. on 27 th of February, 1923.”
Ponomareva, L. (Ed.), Eurasia: historical views of Russian emigrees, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Moscow, Russia.

Trubetskoy, N.S. (1927), Europe and Mankind, Sofia, Bulgaria.

Trubetskoy, N.S. (1939), The Legacy of Genghis Khan, Eurasianist Press, Paris, France.

BACK ON TOP

Copyright© 2020 – WCSA Journal WCSA Journal by World Complexity Science Academy is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.