HOLISM AS THE KEY CODE OF RUSSIAN MENTALITY: BETWEEN TOTALITARIANISM AND COSMISM

International independent scientific journal №80/2025 36 SOCIAL SCIENCES HOLISM AS THE KEY CODE OF RUSSIAN MENTALITY: BETWEEN TOTALITARIANISM AND COSMISM Shmerlina I. Doctor of Sociological Sciences, Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17940498 Abstract The modality in which today's Russian society has revealed itself to the world community and history has raised many questions, including those for Russian intellectual reflection. In seeking answers to these questions, the author turns to the deep foundations of Russian mentality, which, in her view, provide a cognitive background to the ongoing processes characteristic of the current state of Russian public consciousness, and hold the key to understanding the socio-political and spiritual-moral catastrophe that has unfolded across the post-Soviet space. Among the most crucial mental-historical frameworks, the cultural-worldview principle of holism stands out— regarded by the author as the key code of Russian mentality. It manifests in corresponding ideas, perspectives, assumptions and presuppositions within both philosophical and everyday consciousness. The direct focus of this article is the expression of this principle in Russian social philosophy, particularly in the works of the Slavophiles (especially A.S. Khomiakov) and S.L. Frank. In their writings, the idea of holism is embodied in the concept of sobornost’ (conciliarity). First articulated by the Slavophiles, it finds its most comprehensive sociological formulation in Frank’s work. The article explores the ontological, epistemological, anthropological and axiological dimensions of holism/sobornost’. It demonstrates that the worldview-and-value-based significance of holism resists a definitive assessment. Its philosophical-worldview extremes are represented, on the one hand, by totalitarianism—embodying the principle of total suppression of the individual by the societal whole—and on the other, by cosmism, the idea of human unity whose horizon extends beyond the limited world of everyday existence into the infinite universe of time and space. Keywords: Russian mentality, cultural code, Slavophiles, Semyon Frank, holism, conciliarity (sobornost’), totalitarianism, cosmism. Introduction The subject of this article is holism as a totalising principle of grasping existence—specifically, in its manifestation within Russian religious-philosophical thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As a fundamental methodological premise of Russian religious philosophy, it is present in it as ontology, epistemology, anthropological approach and a value. Here we consider holism in the specific concentrated expression it has been granted within the concept of sobornost’ (conciliarity). A few preliminary remarks are necessary. First, regarding the selection of sources for this discussion. A full reconstruction of holism as an ontological/epistemological/anthropological/axiological idea that shapes the cultural code of Russian mentality would require material of a broader scope than that used here for reference. The choice of works for this article is determined by two factors. Firstly, both the Slavophiles and S.L. Frank rank among the most prominent figures in Russian socio-philosophical thought, their works regarded as its pinnacle achievements. Secondly, their writings not only offer the most vivid and systematic development of the idea of sobornost’ but also mark its beginning and endpoint in Russian philosophy: the Slavophiles introduced it into the intellectual corpus of Russian thought, while Frank most explicitly articulated its societal and anthropological dimensions. 1 1 Subsequent vulgarised / ideologised projections of the conciliarity concept remain beyond the scope of our consideration. A second preliminary issue concerns the extent to which the ideas developed by the Slavophiles and Frank can be considered an embodiment of the cultural code of Russian mentality—and thus relevant to the processes unfolding within the broader layers of public consciousness. This is a separate, complex theoretical and methodological question. While a full discussion thereof exceeds the scope of this article, we outline the conceptual premises guiding our approach. In our view, the concept of "mentality" reflects the deep, essential mental strata characteristic of a collective social subject. This foundational level is not immediately accessible through empirical observation but requires hermeneutic interpretation and analytical reconstruction using appropriate abstract categories. At this level, there exists a certain unity in how the collective social subject perceives the world —expressed in shared attitudes, perspectives, models and cognitive codes. As Le Goff wrote, mentality is ‘what Caesar and the last soldier in his legions have in common, St. Louis and the peasant from his domains, Christopher Columbus and the sailor on his caravels’ (quoted from: Krom 2003: 181). These codes shape the historical and contemporary profile of public consciousness. Holism is presumably one such code. In Russian religious philosophy, this idea is embodied in the concept of sobornost’. While often seen as an original contribution of Russian socio-philosophical thought, this is International independent scientific journal №80/2025 37 not entirely accurate. Without delving deeply into this issue, we note two key points for understanding how sobornost’ is accommodated in the history of global thought. First, as demonstrated by Ch. Taylor (Taylor 2007), in a common worldview perspective a holistic (conciliar) perception of reality —with its tight interweaving of social and religious aspects of life —is characteristic of traditional societies, and its dominance signals insufficient maturity in the analysed societal consciousness. Moreover, it is well-established that, historically, the Slavophile idea of sobornost’ emerged from German Romantic philosophy, particularly Schellingian thought, as emphasised by many scholars. 2 In this article, however, our primary interest lies not in the degree of originality of sobornost’ but in its philosophical manifestations, which hold significant implications for understanding the entire framework of Russian social mentality. Below, we examine the interpretations of sobornost’ in the works of the Slavophiles and S.L. Frank, highlighting those aspects of the concept that carry social connotations —provoking extreme, even polarised, attitudes toward the place of a human in society and the cosmos. Sobornost’: A Brief Historical-Philosophical Overview Authentic interpretation of the sobornost' concept presents significant difficulties. This idea emerged within Slavophilism —a Russian religious-philosophical school of thought that took shape in the 1830s-40s around the notion of Russia's spiritual uniqueness and superiority over the West. The author of the idea is considered to be A.S. Khomiakov, the founder and pillar of Slavophilism, who nowhere articulated it as a nounconcept but used it only once as an adjective in his article ‘Letter to the editor of 'L'Union Chrétienne' on the meaning of the words “catholic” and “sobornyi”. In relation to the speech of father Gagarin, iezuit’ (see in Khomiakov 1886: 319-328). Derived from the word sobor (assembly/cathedral), the adjective sobornyi embodies the idea of gathering, unification —that is, unity, the emergence of shared existence. Importantly, for Khomiakov this referred exclusively to spiritual and mystical togetherness as a specific manifestation of divine providence in earthly life. Sobornost' represents the emanation of Divine Spirit upon a congregation of believers, relating not to persons but to the Church as a holistic subject of faith. Here, the Church is not merely an empirically distinct gathering of worshippers but rather a mystical unity of believers transformed by the Holy Spirit. Sobornost’ understood as above, lacks sociological dimensions. Contrary to established interpretations framing sobornost' as a category describing social community, Khomiakov's formulation contains sociological connotations of the concept only as potential, logical valency. Nevertheless, the sociological potential of this concept cannot be denied, and its secularisation occurred rapidly. This was reflected in the very emergence of the noun sobornost' after Khomiakov's death 2 Of course, the topic of the place of conciliar philosophy in the history of world culture is not exhausted by pointing out the direct connection between Schelligianism and Slavophilism. In particular, researchers have noted the proximity of conciliar ideas to the basic concepts of oriental philosophical and religious systems in the works of his follower Yu.F. Samarin. This term morphologically echoes obshchinnost' (communality); the latter being a principle of social organization where an individual's life is deeply interwoven with rural community life. The immense significance Slavophiles, including Khomiakov, attached to the commune is well known —they saw it as Russia's distinctive social form that in their view preserved spiritual purity and social harmony. The subsequent reception of sobornost' in Russian intellectual history contains serious distortions caused by sociologisation and significant ideologization/vulgarisation of the concept. Our focus, however, lies not in these metamorphoses but primarily in the concept's ontological foundations. Holism as Ontology The ontology of sobornost’ is mystical spiritual unity. According to Khomiakov, the ‘sobornaia Tserkov'’ (conciliar Church) represents ‘the unity of God's grace living in a multitude of rational creatures who submit to grace’ (Khomiakov 1994: 5), and this is practically all we can say about the ontology of holism in Slavophilism. Such an interpretation leaves almost no room for sociological research. Frank developed the ontology of sobornost' much more thoroughly, particularly in the socio-philosophical dimension. While Khomiakov viewed sobornost' as mystical communion and, despite his reverence for the peasant commune, hesitated to directly correlate these phenomena, Frank radically sociologised this category, declaring society a mystical whole. Frank's socio-philosophical concept postulates the two-layered nature of human social existence and the ‘discrepancy between the empirical reality of (social being – I.Sh.) and its ontological essence’ (Frank 1992: 54). Sobornost' is precisely the ontological essence of society that transforms it into ‘a special, distinctive realm (...) a specific form of being’, it represents the ‘inner organic unity’ that lies ‘at the foundation of all human communication, all social unification of people, ‘from family and economic cooperation to its highest spiritual functions’ (Frank 1992: 64, 58, 53). This is the deep and true essence of human social being where social relations appear in their ideal form and necessity. As for the empirical world (in Frank's terminology - obshchestvennost'), this is the external and imperfect layer of social reality, in relation to which Frank is prepared to recognise the validity of sociological nominalism. Frank, apparently, did not have complete clarity in understanding the nature of the conciliar basis of sociality. In his works, sobornost' appears in three projections —phenomenological, religious-mystical and systemic. On the one hand, Frank seeks to overcome the traditional religious consciousness's division between the heavenly and earthly worlds and outlines a phenomenological perspective where man is directly given, primarily at an intuitive level, the fullness of being, including its absolute foundations. 3 However, transferred to 3 Here there is an undoubted parallel with M. Heidegger's phenomenological ontology, but this issue is beyond the scope of this article. International independent scientific journal №80/2025 38 the sphere of social being, this phenomenological perspective largely falls apart. We see its "fragments" in the concept of "we," interpreted by Frank as a primordial sense given to man along with the sense of "I" 4 , but overall, the phenomenological perspective remains with Frank as a separate subject, clearly contradicting the basic concept of the two-layered nature of social being. Much more logical in this regard is the understanding of sobornost' as divine grace sanctifying the joint existence of people. The very existence of society is, according to Frank, evidence of the initial presence of God, and the presence of divine in human affairs. At the same time, however, the question arises about the reasons for the imperfection of earthly, real society (the problem of theodicy). Frank adheres in this regard to the traditional explanation by referring to human sinfulness, which rather veils this problem than provides a realistic solution to it. Finally (and this, in our opinion, is the most original and strong philosophical approach to the topic of the nature of sociality), Frank develops an understanding of society as a systemic unity, the necessity of which is determined by the initial parameters 5 of its being, including biological ones: ‘In fact, man exists only through physiological connection with other people. (...) Human is not just man but man and wife, —as the Bible says’ (Frank 1992: 58). Society appears here as a product of systemic selforganization arising due to logical and in this sense a priori necessities. This theoretical framework well accommodates Frank's reasoning about the logical necessity of such social phenomena as power, hierarchy, law, state and ethics: ‘From the very essence of society it follows, (...) that society is a unification of many people for joint life, that in any society there must exist some kind of organization, some order, that in any society there is some kind of power or some kind of authority, (...) that in society some general rules apply (...) and so on’ (Frank 1992: 32). It is important to note that, according to Frank, ontologically, society is not just a systemic, but a spiritual whole. Elaborating this idea, Frank introduces the concept of the ‘third kind’ of being —ideally-objective, existing alongside the material and psychical being (please note the connotations of this subject with K. Popper's concept of the Third World — see Popper 1979, ch.3, 4, pp. 106-152; 153-190). Insisting on the existence of objective, extra-psychic, timeless ideas, ‘independent of the sphere of human mental life, (…) regardless of whether people are aware of them or not and even —whether people exist in the world or not’ (Popper 1979: 70-71), which he sees primarily in the fields of mathematics, logic and ethics, Frank suggests that such ideas determine, among other things, the content of social life. 4 This is a topic discussed by E. Husserl, whose influence on Frank is undoubted and is confirmed, inter alia, by the biographical circumstances of Frank's intellectual formation. We note on the margins that at the end of the 20th century such phenomenological intuitions were supported by neurophysiological evidence. 5 Such parameters of human (as well as any other living beings') social existence include, in our opinion, (1) discrete principle of orEnclosed in religious-mystical frameworks, the systemic and ideally-objective lines of reasoning lead directly to the ontologization of power. Frank does not fear this —on the contrary, he formulates the following with programmatic certainty: ‘The principle “non est potestas nisi a Deo” expresses an ontological relation immanent to any social order’ (Frank 1992: 96). Frank’s texts do not merely exemplify the sacralisation of power characteristic of traditional societies; more significantly, they reveal the psychological mechanisms by which a society operating within the framework of modernity—and thus having lost its naïve perception of authority figures as ‘metaphysical Realities’ (Taylor 2007: 192) (along with, for the most part, the disappearance of such figures themselves —kings and tsars who authentically embodied such notions) — nonetheless retains this very mental disposition in essence. The sacralisation of power here no longer occurs through reference to an absolute —divine - -source, but rather through its reinterpretation in the concept of ‘authority’ as the bearer of ‘higher truth’. Access to this truth is guaranteed merely by one’s position at the apex of the socio-political system and remains inaccessible to ordinary mortals. The mental history of Russian society —both in its Soviet and, as recent events have demonstrated, contemporary iterations —reveals the remarkable resilience of this very disposition. Any large-scale survey touching upon Russian citizens’ attitudes towards the authorities invariably reproduces the mantra ‘the authorities know best’. And this is no mere platitude, but a deeply ingrained mindset rooted in the codes of Russian political culture. Certain passages from Frank’s text capture this worldview with such precision that they might as well be direct quotes from focus group discussions: ‘Power belongs to (…) the one who knows the truth (…) better than we do’ (Frank 1992: 79). Frank imbues not only power —as society’s supreme authority —but effectively all core social institutions with a mystical force. This entirely forecloses any pragmatic perspective on institutions as mere mechanisms designed to regulate human relations within society. Instead, through this alternative —religious —lens, institutions acquire intrinsic value as embodiments of mystical collective unity, while the state emerges as the bearer of a higher, sobornaia (conciliar) truth. The sobornaia truth —the only and absolute truth —is not merely granted exclusively to those in power but demands unconditional acceptance by all members of society. It becomes the foundation for the spiritual totalisation of society. This conception of sobornaia truth is well articulated in A.S. Khomiakov’s interpretation of the Zemskii Sobor 6 instituted by Ivan the Terrible. Khomiakov saw their significance not in reconciling individual or factional opinions —which rest on ganisation of life on Earth in the form of separate organisms; (2) active (selective) nature of interaction of living organisms with the environment; (3) limited resources of the latter. 6 The Zemskii Sobor was an institution of national estate representation under the monarch with legislative-advisory functions in the Russian state in the middle of the 16th – 17th centuries. International independent scientific journal №80/2025 39 ‘personal, unstable and arbitrary notions’, but in affirming unanimity grounded in ‘ancient custom, shared by all Russians, and the direct Divine law, binding for all Orthodox’ (Khomiakov 1900_ c: 34-35). A precise commentary on this passage would be an analysis of the meaning of medieval Russian representative bodies, undertaken by modern researchers. These institutions evolved from ecclesiastical councils and, like their predecessors, were oriented towards the ‘ideal of the highest truth’: ‘Sobor (a council) is convened not in order to work out a balanced solution through joint efforts, (...) not in order to reach a compromise through negotiations and mutual concessions, and not in order to put a controversial issue to a vote or to protect the interests of its members. None of these procedures, corresponding to the egalitarian standards of modern democracy, is or can be the task of a council. For the purpose of a council is not to represent the interests of the church or society, or of its members, but to reveal the truth of a sacred nature. It personifies the spiritual unity of its members, and not the diversity of their interests’ (Biryukov, Sergeyev 1995: 57). The mystical ontologisation of power inevitably raises the problem of reconciling the horizon of the conciliar Absolute —granted to humanity through mystical revelation - -with the tangible earthly realm in which people live. Frank, who rejected the "Russian Revolution" and was expelled from Soviet Russia in 1922 aboard the "philosophers' ship," could not, of course, recognise the legitimacy of any empirically constituted authority. He denounced as utopian all attempts to establish the ‘Kingdom of God on Earth’ (see Frank 1992: 97,106). However, his explanations for the unattainability of the conciliar ideal —which appeal to humanity's inherently sinful nature —are scarcely original and lead to a lopsided, oversimplified interpretation of Frank's socio-philosophical framework. The central thesis itself —that society constitutes a spiritual reality —becomes vulnerable. The ideal world of conciliar principles appears contingent upon human agency. Herein, Frank identifies the distinctive feature of social ideas, setting them apart from mathematical, logical, or ethical truths: ‘Social being (...) unlike abstractly ideal timeless being —is nevertheless something belonging to human life in general and inseparably connected with it’ (Frank 1992: 72). This represents a definite departure from the sociological realism underpinning Frank's conceptual framework. Epistemologically, it stems from disregarding his own ontological distinction between the objectively-ideal and the psychic, coupled with an absolutisation of the objective status of mathematics, logic and ethics. These ideal complexes, while existing in the realm of potentiality as logically —‘absolutely (“a priori”) necessary’ (Frank 1992: 32) and thus "timeless" essences —remain in their concrete manifestations just as dependent on human activity as do the ideas of social being. However, the inconsistency in Frank's social-ontological conception appears to have a more pragmatic foundation. As I.I. Evlampiev astutely observed, ‘having accepted the idea of a pre-existing and 'complete' Absolute, Frank is subsequently compelled to retreat from it in order to accord greater significance to human activity in the empirical world’ (Evlampiev 2000: 59). Indeed, without this concession of human agency, Frank's social ontology would inevitably become an unconditional justification for any political authority, no matter how grotesquely despotic its manifestations might be. This naturally raises the question of humanity's proper place within the universe of sobornost’. Frank's anthropological framework proves somewhat inadequate for such an inquiry as it remains, against the logic of his conceptualizations, permeated by his emphatic defence of individual freedom. To comprehend humanity's true position within the conciliary whole, we must return to the Slavophiles and their foundational conception of sobornost. Anthropology of Sobornost’: The Human Being Before the Face of the Conciliary Whole The question of sobornost’-based anthropology typically unfolds within the "individual versus society" framework, where —from the original perspective of sobornost' —the peasant commune serves as the embodiment of this relationship. Slavophile thought is saturated with an idealised, almost folkloric perception of the commune, which they regarded as evidence of Russia's social superiority over the West. As a metaphysical category, sobornost' undoubtedly corresponds to this social ideal. However, an authentic reading of sobornost compels us to frame this question not in terms of human relationships, but rather in terms of humanity's relationship to God. From this perspective, it becomes evident that sobornost’ and the peasant commune represent fundamentally different anthropological models. The commune concept is constructed as a model of collectivist individuals existing within natural —indeed almost organic —social bonds; essentially, it constitutes a readily recognizable version of Ferdinand Tönnies' Gemeinschaft. The anthropology of sobornost’ bears no relation to this collectivist model. The anthropology of sobornost’ presents a vision of humanity standing before God —of human beings transfigured by divine love. The socio-worldview implications of this anthropological model differ radically from those derived from collectivism: unlike the latter, the sobornost’- based model lacks immediate horizontal bonds. Yet crucially, both the collectivist and sobornost’- based anthropological models reject the notion of individual self-worth. The sobornost’-based model does so because divine grace descends not upon individuals but upon the community; the collectivist model because the individual is itself conceived as derivative of the social whole. Across cognitive, psychological, ethical, economic and theological-soteriological dimensions, Slavophile thought frames the individual human unit exclusively in negative terms: severed from the social whole, one becomes ‘fruitless and powerless’ epistemically, doomed to ‘irreconcilable inner discord’ (Khomiakov 1900_ a: 88; 1900_ b: 161), economically vulnerable and incapable of attaining higher spiritual values or authentic existential freedom. Thus, sobornost’ culminates in extreme sociocentrism — a conclusion Slavophilism demonstrates with unmistakable clarity. International independent scientific journal №80/2025 40 The anthropology of sobornost’ poses the question of individual freedom in a profoundly distinctive manner —framing it as ‘self-realisation in truth’ (Khoruzhii). Truth is singular, and like freedom itself, ‘belongs to the Church as a whole, not to its individual members separately’ (Zen'kovskii 2001: 189). Within this conceptual logic, individual freedom can only be understood as voluntary submission to the whole — whether a spiritual-mystical or earthly social unity. This constitutes a fundamental conceptual substitution. Freedom in sobornost’ is ‘something profoundly distinct from conventional notions of free will or freedom of choice in Western philosophy and theology. The element of choice plays no role here; it concerns the expression of a specific and singular truth’ (Khoruzhii). A coherent formulation of sobornost’-based (conciliary) freedom in established philosophical terms reveals that sobornost’ sacrifices individual freedom to achieve harmonious personal existence. It would be reductive to interpret this as mere dissolution of personality within the total whole. Conciliary “freedom" rather implies the individual's self-discovery within that totality. Yet while in an ideal spiritual horizon — whether conciliary or Buddhist — such an approach may facilitate liberation, elevating the personality above earthly imperfections, its social implementation degenerates into conformism and abdication of personal responsibility (as evidenced by contemporary Russia's uncritical, "instinctive" support for SVOI 7 ). Epistemology of Sobornost’ Focusing on our research's central concern (the holistic paradigm dominating Russian social thought), we identify the following defining characteristics of conciliar epistemology: - Transcendentalism - Ontologism - Anti-intellectualism - Cognitive subject decentring Transcendentalism. The transcendental nature of conciliar epistemology stems from its religious foundations, finding direct expression in mysticism. Its object of cognition resides in higher spheres and in its fullness remains "incomprehensible," unknown and inexpressible. Importantly, the ‘inexpressibility of the Divine sphere relates not only to the limited capacities of human cognition and language, but to the very essence of God’ (Obolevitch 2012: 236). Absolute being is metalogical and can only be approached through ‘docta ignorantia —’"wise (…) ignorance" ("learned unknowing")’ (ibid.: 232). While these epistemological themes extend beyond this article's scope, we must highlight the broader worldview position positing that true knowledge, genuine truth resides not "on earth" within immediate reach of the subject, but in certain higher, transcendent spheres inaccessible to the uninitiated. This constitutes one of the fundamental "load-bearing structures" of totalitarian consciousness. 7 A play on words: the war in Ukraine in the language of official propaganda is called Special’naia Voennaia Operaytsia (a special military operation). The abbreviation of this term sounds like SVO, which is consonant with the pronunciation of the Russian pronoun ‘svoi’, meaning ‘your own (people)’. Ontologism. Here, ontologism denotes recognition of external, objective essences preceding cognition —a methodological position we might term ‘ontological objectivism’ (Berdiaev 1989: 35) or ‘ontological realism’ (Obolevitch 2021: 160; cf.: Frank 1992: 478). Contemporary philosophy understands ontologism exactly as described above, though Russian religious philosophy employed the term more specifically —denoting an approach viewing cognition not as opposed to being, but as part of it. As noted by V.V. Zenkovskii, ‘Russian ontologism expresses not the primacy of “reality” over cognition, but the embeddedness of cognition in our relationship to the world, in our “acting' within it”’ (Zenkovskii 2001: 21). Before Zenkovsii, S.L.Frank interpreted "ontologism" similarly — as ‘the perspective where consciousness is internally connected with being and grounded in it —where each movement of consciousness, each deepening and enrichment of cognition constitutes real action, a process within being as such’ (Frank 1996: 182) 8 . This cognitive orientation connects fundamentally with an "antiintellectualist" understanding of cognition itself. ‘Anti-intellectualism’ (Berdiaev 1997: 107) is the affirmation of the vital, existential nature of cognition, closely uniting knowing and being while asserting life's primacy over cognition in all respects —epistemological, anthropological and ethical-pragmatic. The specifically epistemological aspect of anti-intellectualism is tied to the assertion of the primacy of ontology over epistemology. This is not merely about ontological objectivism — the recognition of things-in-themselves, their existence independent of cognition — but rather about an ‘ontological epistemology’ (Berdiaev 1989: 114), which implies that cognition is predetermined by being. While the previously discussed ontological objectivism stands in opposition to idealism, the ontological epistemology examined here contrasts with constructivism. It is worth noting that the thesis of cognition being predetermined by being echoes well-known Marxist aphorisms such as: ‘Life (…) determines consciousness’ (Marx and Engels 1998: 42), ‘Existence (…) determines consciousness’ (Marx 2010: 263). Conciliar epistemology does indeed resemble the Marxist theory of reflection, yet it constitutes a more intricate metaphysical model in which cognition is permeated by being, and being by cognition. Here, knowledge is not merely an ‘option’ of the human mind (or any other sentient being) but rather a function of being itself: ‘Knowledge itself is being, the living function of being (…) the function of universal development (…) the self-revelation of being (…) being itself is enlightened and formed in the act of self-knowledge. I would call this perspective creative realism, and further, I would term it mystical realism. (…) The knowledge of a tree is the development, the perfecting of a tree’ (Berdiaev 1989: 80) 9 . 8 However, the first of these interpretations of ontologism can also be found in Frank's work (see Frank 1992: 478). 9 This position, if we set aside its mystical veneer, proves remarkably close to what modern philosophy terms evolutionary epistemology (with K. Popper, K. Lorenz, U. Maturana and F. Varela as its most prominent exponents). Here too, we encounter the notion of an International independent scientific journal №80/2025 41 The anthropological aspect of anti-intellectualism asserts the complex nature of cognition, which unfolds not merely at the cognitive level (through reason) but through the entire human being —encompassing both physical and spiritual dimensions. This existential embeddedness of the knowing subject within the known being —what Zenkovsky, following Frank, termed ‘ontologism’ —reflects the idea that ‘cognition is woven into our relation to the world, into our active engagement within it’ (Zenkovskii 2001: 21). We further specify this stance as anthropological ontologism or epistemological syncretism. In the history of Russian humanities, this epistemological position finds its most explicit manifestation in the Slavophiles, who advocated for the necessity of integral knowledge —‘the unification of all cognitive faculties into a single force, the inner wholeness of mind essential for apprehending integral truth’ (Kireyevskii 1979: 300). The epistemology of integral reason, while not rejecting reason as such, diminishes its cognitive capacities. Particular emphasis is placed on pre-rational aspects of cognition —- immediate, “naïve” perception of the world, intuition and faith. We shall omit discussion of these elements here as they fall beyond the immediate scope of our inquiry, though we shall return to their philosophical and sociological implications later in the section concerning the decentring of the knowing subject. The ethical aspect represents one of the most remarkable facets of conciliar epistemology and, it would seem, of Russian social thought as a whole. Sobornost’-based epistemology proceeds from the moral dominance of cognition. Its moral-ethical foundation consists in faith, that is, spiritual-religious motives. Here we should distinguish two aspects —the anthropological and the axiological-worldview dimensions. In the first case, we observe that cognition becomes a function of an individual’s moral stance. It is precisely the moral and spiritual capacities inherent in a person that govern their cognitive engagement with the world and determine the results which the person accepts. The second aspect —the worldview-axiological one —concerns the recognition of life's primacy over cognition. Within this value framework, ‘the theory of knowledge is (relegated —I.Sh.) to a secondary position’; according to it, ‘cognition is neither the primary nor the determining principle in man’, but rather ‘is (merely —I.Sh.) an event within the process of life’. Consequently, ‘its meaning, tasks and its possibilities are determined by our general relationship to the world’ (Zenkovskii 2001: 21). This distinctive feature of Russian social thought is aptly described by the term ‘ethical pragmatism’ (Shmerlina 2023: 77). This is not, of course, a crude pragmatism oriented toward utilitarian ends, but rather a ‘pragmatism’ that ascends to the ethical ideal as the practical aim of theorizing about the world. organic fusion between being and cognition. The synonym Berdiaev proposes for "mystical realism" —“creative realism”—aligns precisely with evolutionary epistemology’s understanding of cognition The most crucial ethical category within conciliary epistemology is love. This complex, multifaceted concept appears here in a distinctly holistic refraction. It bears little resemblance to individual moral sentiment and even less association with the notion of "love for one's neighbour". Critically, it proves unproductive to interpret this love as a moral emotion emanating from the individual. Within the philosophy of sobornost', love operates rather as grace —a divine emanation of mercy. Equally unproductive would be to conceptualise this grace-love as a gift bestowed directly upon the individual. The true "subject-recipient" of divine love is not a solitary individual, but the Church understood as the communion of persons transfigured into a conciliar personality. The decentring of the cognizing subject —yet another important aspect of conciliary epistemology, and it is also refracted in several facets. Decentralization of the personality of the cognizing subject. As demonstrated earlier, epistemological syncretism diminishes the role of reason —traditionally identified in Western thought with the knowing subject —in favour of the human being’s holistic existence. Within sobornost’-based epistemology, cognition occurs through the entirety of one’s being, including those faculties (aspects, organs of perception) that remain unconnected or only weakly tied to self-awareness and the ego-centric personal core. The decentring of cognitive activity. Cognitive activity itself undergoes decentring, being reconceived as a modality of being that dissolves the subject into the latter, thus effectively eliminating the subject-object dichotomy. The subject, as one pole of this opposition, ceases to exist as such; what remains is rather ‘being's relation to being, one life-function's interaction with other functions of worldly life’ (Berdiaev 1989: 104). The displacement of the cognitive centre beyond individual reason. Let us pay attention to the specifically sociological turn of sobornost’-based epistemology. While ‘the abstract consciousness of discursive reason’ (Kireyevskii 1979: 307) constitutes an individual subject's 'option', the subject in his unmediated relation to the world —saturated with intuition and faith —is organically connected with his social environment. From a sociological (rather than mystical-religious) analytical perspective, this social milieu functions as the ‘guarantor’ of both the validity and moral purity of individual impressions and reactions, providing them with a solid foundation of consensus. Whereas previous arguments diminished the role of individual reason in favour of human existence as a unified whole and rejected its opposition to being, here we encounter its subordination to the collective. Cognition thus becomes a function not of an individual but of a collective subject. Frank —whose work bears evident traces of Husserlian influence —proposes that the knowing individual and the epistemological subject do not coincide (see Frank 1992: 48). This develops Husserl's distinction between the empirical I and transcenas a process of active interaction of the subject with the environment, triggering evolutionary processes (see Lorenz 1977). International independent scientific journal №80/2025 42 dental ego. In Slavophile epistemology, as noted earlier, the knowing subject is the Church —a mystical communion of believers transfigured by divine grace. Parallel to this philosophical view stands the notion of the people as bearers of higher truth, deeply rooted in Russian collective consciousness, and epitomised by the proverb ‘The voice of the people is the voice of God’. Discussion Having examined the manifestations of holism as a totalising principle in Russian social thought—across ontological, epistemological, anthropological and axiological-ethical domains—we now turn to its broader worldview consequences. These exert a tangible influence on both the mental profile of Russian society and the distinctive features of its socio-political organisation. This theme is typically examined through the lens of collectivist foundations in Russian social consciousness, contrasted with the individualist mentality of Western societies. While this subject boasts extensive scholarly tradition both in Russia and the West, we will forgo elaboration of its specific sociological component limiting ourselves to a generalised observation: throughout its historical development, Russian society has exhibited varying degrees of equilibrium between collectivist and individualist traits. What interests us here is rather the logical model of social mentality, based on holism as a fundamental principle of worldview. This logical model indeed contains a distinctive combination of collectivist and individualist elements. It is important to note that the term "collectivism" carries two semantic dimensions. The first asserts the priority of group interests over individual interests, while the second denotes the dominance of positive social attitudes toward group members, manifested through solidarity, selfless assistance, altruistic behaviour and so on. Both of these characteristics found distinctive manifestations in Russian mass consciousness. There was little questioning of the fundamental socio-ethical value ascribed to group formations —whether the peasant commune, artel, school, work collective, factory team, sports team, or similar entities. However, an important nuance existed: such groups were perceived not as self-contained associations of free social agents or products of collaborative social creativity, but rather as components of some larger and more significant whole (Christendom, the Motherland). It was precisely through their connection to this greater whole that they derived their full legitimacy. As for relationships within the group, they were largely disciplinary in nature: the collective, as a group entity, exercised control over individuals across all spheres of life, including strictly personal matters, and was vested with the authority to impose moral-administrative sanctions for inappropriate behaviour. Such social practices correspond to the sobornost’ model with its distinctive horizontal-vertical configuration. What makes this configuration unique is that horizontal social bonds within it are formed not directly, 10 ‘The periphery of the circle is the unwinding of the center’ (latin). but rather through mediation by a supreme sanctioning authority. This model finds geometrically precise expression in Lev Karsavin's ‘Philosophy of History’ (Karsavin 1993). In Karsavin’s theory this model serves to analyse connections between historical phenomena. According to Karsavin, these phenomena relate not through direct lines of cause and effect, but through mediation by an ideal: ‘History is directed towards the ideal, but not in such a way that it lies at the beginning, middle or end of it, but in such a way that it embraces and contains it all, and every moment of it is directed towards its perfection in the ideal. If we symbolize historical development as an infinite straight line or (what is the same) as a curved circle with an infinite diameter, then the ideal will be the centre of this circle. Any point reaches the centre not through movement along the circumference, but through movement along the radius, in order to find itself in the centre and coincide with other points. In the limitations of empirical experience, a point only approaches the centre (or its perfect being) from the periphery (…), and one point is larger, another smaller. And a point does not directly pass into its neighbour, not through movement along a circle, (…) but through movement toward the centre (…). “Circumferentia est exgiomeratio centri” 10 ’ (Karsavin 1993: 247). S.S. Khoruzhy notes the profound originality of this model, both in terms of the philosophy of history and formal systems analysis. In the former case, Khoruzhii writes, Karsavin provides ‘the key to solving the important question of the nature of connections between historical phenomena. … The true (internal, essential) connection between two moments is not their direct connection, but the combination of two vertical connections linking these moments to the supreme allunity (…). But a direct horizontal connection between phenomena is, obviously, the usual cause-and-effect relationship; and Karsavin's scheme in the realm of historical phenomena entails a cardinal thesis: the denial of causality in history. This is one of the main propositions of his metaphysics of history’ (Khoruzhii). But the Karsavin's model has also general scientific significance. This model ‘anticipated the concepts of systems analysis’, revealing ‘a new kind of connections, correlations between the elements of a complex hierarchical system: a connection induced by wholeness, mediated by a common center. (…) This is a significant generalization of the linear cause-and-effect relationship, which was later rediscovered and studied in systems analysis’ (ibid.). What's interesting for us here is that this model provides an excellent framework for understanding the essence of sobornost’-based unity. If we imagine individuals as points lying on a circle, then the conciliar connection between them occurs through the spiritual center of being. A similar model — the tree model — appears in Frank's work 'The Object of Knowledge,' where he writes: ‘The thread that connects the individual entities A, B, C lies not on their plane, but passes through the depths of that primordial unity from which they grow and in which they are strengthened, just as the leaves of International independent scientific journal №80/2025 43 a tree are connected to each other not on the surface (where, on the contrary, they are detached from each other), but only through their common connection with a single trunk and root’ (Frank 1995: 193). Frank's image of a tree may well have served as the foundation for Karsavin's model (Frank's 'The Object of Knowledge' was published in 1915, while Karsavin's 'Philosophy of History' was published in 1923). Particularly revealing in this regard is the choir metaphor proposed by the Slavophile K.S. Aksakov to characterise the peasant commune: ‘The community represents ... a moral choir, and just as the voice is not lost in a choir, but, submitting to the general order, is heard in the harmony of all voices, so the individual is not lost in a community, but, renouncing its exclusivity for the sake of the mutual concordance, it finds itself in a higher, purified form, in the consonance of equally selfless individuals; just as each voice gives its sound in the consonance of voices, so each individual is heard in the moral consonance of individuals, not alone, but in harmony, —and a high phenomenon of the friendly collective existence of intelligent beings (consciousnesses) appears, brotherhood, community appear —the triumph of the human spirit’ (Aksakov 1861: 292). According to this metaphor, someone praying nearby ("singing") matters not in themselves, but only as a participant in shared prayer and faith ("choral singing"). Within this centred ontology, a person connects not directly with others, but stands before God in divine relation — only through God do they relate to their fellow human beings. The path from I to Thou passes through a unifying Centre. This centre might be the Holy Spirit, the Party, or the sacralised concepts of "Motherland" or “SVOI”. This constitutes a totalitarian model of collectivism that excludes democratic and humanistic interpretations of the term. It is precisely within this centred model that the concept of Sobornaya Lyubov (conciliar love) becomes comprehensible. As previously noted, this love descends upon the conciliar personality (the mystical unity of worshippers) as Divine Grace, rather than emerging as a product of individual moral development through social interaction. Existing as a distinct state of religious exaltation, it is directed toward one's fellow worshipper, not toward the neighbour in an unqualified sense. These are the totalitarian foundations deeply embedded in the concept of sobornost’ as a cultural-historical variant of holism. Yet holism —as a multidimensional and existentially profound principle -- opens two mutually exclusive perspectives. The totalitarian potentialities we have examined above represent only one of these perspectives. The second perspective elevates human existence beyond the horizon of everyday life. This outlook might aptly be termed an ethics of distance or perhaps cosmism —understood in the broadest sense of this multidimensional concept, specifically as perceiving human existence through the prism of its connection to the universe, universal being, the Cosmos. This perspective features prominently in Russian philosophy and at times cast its reflected light upon Soviet society’s life during its more enlightened periods. Cosmism constitutes an extensive subject, and within the scope of this article we shall outline only certain fundamental parameters of the cultural phenomenon denoted by this term. Conventionally, two principal strands of Russian cosmism are distinguished: the natural-scientific and the religio-mystical. Following the thematic focus of our study, we would propose alternative dimensions of this phenomenon - existential, historical-scientific-philosophical and socio-historical. The existential dimension relates to humanity's need for higher values. This theme is masterfully explored in Taylor's A Secular Age as the ‘yearning for transcendence’ —a longing lost with the waning of religious sentiment (see Taylor 2007). The ‘yearning for transcendence’ emerges in modern philosophy through Nietzsche's theme of ‘love for the distant’. Frank examines this concept in his early work ‘Friedrich Nietzsche and the Ethics of “Love for the Distant”’ (Frank 1990_ a: 33, 56), where he analyses a key proposition from ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’: ‘Higher than love of the neighbor is love of the farthest and the future; higher still than love of human beings is love of things and ghosts’(Nietzsche 2006: 86). Building upon Nietzsche's ideas, Frank argues that the antithesis between the ‘near’ and the ‘distant’ represents more than a mere opposition between ‘small people’ (ibid.: 135) ‘with all (their —I.Sh.) mundane, trivial virtues and interests’ and those ‘distant and future beings’ who embody ‘the triumph of human spiritual nature’ (Frank 1990_ a: 17, 33, 56). In developing this antithesis, Frank directly correlates the concepts of the ‘distant’ and ‘ghosts’: ‘The “distant” refers not to human beings and their happiness, not to the “near” — even when temporally, spatially or psychologically remote —but rather to certain moral “ghosts”, that is, objective ideals possessing absolute and autonomous moral value’ (ibid.: 55). These ‘ghosts’ include concepts such as ‘truth, justice, beauty, harmony, honour’, as well as progress: ‘The ethics of love for the distant (…) constitutes the ethics of progress’ (ibid.: 36, 18). In Russian religious philosophy with its ideas of Godmanhood (bogochelovechestvo), all-unity (vseedinstvo) and conciliarity (sobornost'), we see the embodiment of this ethics of distance, which carries both symbolic and spatial dimensions. The symbolic dimension lies in how it introduces a value-based framework into society's life —those ‘ghosts’ of abstract categories and ideals whose importance surpasses the value of individual human life. The spatial dimension manifests in how it directs society's gaze beyond earthly confines: in religious terms —toward transcendent being, in secular terms —toward the cosmos, the boundless expanse of the Universe. The historical-scientific-philosophical dimension of Russian cosmism encompasses an entire stratum of visionary ideas and projects, ranging from Nikolai Fedorov's project for resurrecting the dead to Vladimir Vernadsky's doctrine of the noosphere. While leaving this aspect beyond the scope of the present article, we International independent scientific journal №80/2025 44 should note that both the Slavophiles 11 and particularly Frank can be fully considered precursors of cosmism. In his cosmic worldview, Frank departs from understanding the cosmos as a blind natural force, yet counterposes this notion with the idea of cosmic meaningfulness. In ‘The Unknowable’, this conception of being's inner tension —where behind the appearance of chaos lies profound harmony, a ‘cosmic sobornost’ (Frank 1992: 58) - develops into the following proposition: ‘Worldly reality —the 'cosmos' —is not simply and solely a blind, chaotic, discordant force. The cosmos also bears traces of unity, inner harmony and the organic and thus teleological belonging and interconnection of its parts; this is evidenced (...) if only by its 'beauty'. In all this, it serves as a reflection and symbol of the absolute unity and meaningfulness of the Divine’ (Frank 1990_ b: 464). However, Frank's cosmism relates not to his particular use of this term, but to his overarching philosophical stance - the metaphysics of All-Unity (vseedinstvo): ‘Alongside Godmanhood (bogochelovechestvo) as an indivisible-yet-distinct unity —and through its mediation —we simultaneously discover the “God-worldness”, the theocosmism of the world’ (ibid.: 527). It should be acknowledged that religious consciousness, by its very nature, cannot but be cosmic. Even the most primitive forms of religion outline an ethic of distance, in one way or another. It expands the boundaries of an individual's separate, closed existence, placing him within a dense network of connections with some transcendent external entities. The Christian religion extends these boundaries to infinity, to cosmic All-Unity, and the philosophy of sobornost’ is one of the most profound interpretations of the latter. According to the sobornost’ metaphysics of AllUnity, the cosmos does not just surround an individual from without, forcing him feel himself like something more than a mere mortal creature, the trace of whose presence on earth is instantly and completely washed away by blind nature. His personal short-lived earthly existence is enriched by ‘a sense of belonging to a whole that does not surround the human personality from without, but unites and fills it from within.’ The individual becomes a part of a great spiritualized universe, ‘a universal sobornost’ of being’ (Frank 1992: 59). According to Frank, ‘the mystical religious feeling of one's own affirmation in the mysterious depths of being that embrace our personality’, permeates the most intimate human relationships, up to ‘the erotic-marital relationship, the relationship between parents and children and any relationship of blood connection in general.’ All these relationships are sanctified from within by ‘the consciousness of conciliar unity (...), a mystical feeling that leads a person from the external, empirical isolation of his being into the mysterious depths of cosmic and supracosmic unity’ (ibid.). 11 Khomiakov's conception of sobornost’ as timeless unity fundamentally aligns with the philosophy of cosmism, though in our view, Slavophile thought generally gravitates more toward a totalitarian model. 12 The periods in Soviet history spanning from Joseph Stalin's death in 1953 to the launch of Mikhail Gorbachev's Perestroika reforms in 1985. The ethics of distance, most authentically embodied in mystical religious consciousness, may, however, have more than just a religious dimension. The sociocultural experience of Soviet society is, apparently, unique in this regard, despite —or rather, precisely because of —the utopian nature of the socio-economic and political goals associated with it. In socio-historical terms, this ethics of distance substantially shaped Soviet society's mentality, particularly during the ‘Thaw’ (Ottepel') and ‘Stagnation’ (Zastoi) periods. 12 This ethics of distance established corresponding value orientations; behind the pressing concerns of daily existence, a ‘cosmic horizon’ emerged vividly, generating bold, audacious dreams of the future. Traces of such aspirations were discernible at all levels, from ideological rhetoric brimming with pathos to the widespread childhood dream of becoming a cosmonaut. The conquest of space ignited tremendous public enthusiasm that was only partially attributable to competition with the West. The themes of extraterrestrial life and encounters with alien civilizations provoked particularly intense fascination. The cosmic theme elevated humanity beyond the confines of immediate earthly existence, redirecting its gaze from mundane survival to profound being. This represented a means to transcend the ‘yearning for distance’, to locate oneself within the horizon of eternity without recourse to a religious model thereof. Needless to say, there were many other facets to the life of Soviet society of that period, including some very dark ones, but the presence of the ethics of distance in that life was undeniable. This ethics embraced the cosmic dream, the belief in progress in general 13 , the conviction in the higher purpose of human existence, which ‘breaks through our self-absorption in a too narrow mode of gratification’, ‘the heroic dimension of human life’ (Taylor 2007: 344, 372), and ‘the love of ghosts’, be it a particular ‘religious or moral ideal, the raising of the moral level, the realisation of justice, the defence of truth, freedom, or human dignity’ (Frank 1990_ a: 37). All this voluminous philosophical and worldview complex is well described by the term ‘transcending’ (see Semenova 1993: 6), which means going of man and humanity beyond the narrow confines of everyday existence and the pursuit of higher, non-utilitarian goals, stemming from belonging to the world cosmic order. Conclusion This article is based on the hypothesis of holism as the key code of Russian mentality. This hypothesis requires extensive and comprehensive testing. The article implements only a part of this extensive programme related to the reconstruction of the principle of holism in the works of prominent representatives of Russian religious philosophy —Slavophiles and S.L. Frank. The 13 Natal’ia Kozlova, a researcher of Soviet mentality, writes: ‘Soviet society had its own mode of legitimisation —a reference to the inexorability of progress. This is a mode that today we are clearly deprived of’ (Kozlova 2005: p. 19).