著者

浜 由樹子

出版者

静岡県立大学

雑誌

国際共同研究加速基金(国際共同研究強化(A))

巻号頁・発行日

2019

---

本研究は海外の研究機関での国際共同研究を計画の基本としているが、新型コロナ・ウィルス感染症の世界的な拡大を受け、予定していた期間中の渡航が叶わず、また、所属予定の機関でも海外からの研究者の受け入れを停止しているため、2020年度はほとんど進展をみることができなかった。参加を予定していた国際学会もすべて延期・中止となったので、学会での成果の発表やフィードバックを受けることもかなわなかった。渡航前にできることとして、共同研究者へのプロポーザルとして、英語での論文執筆を進めているが、ロシアでの(公文書を含む)一次資料の補強ができない状況であるため、基課題で収集済みの二次資料に大きく依拠するものとなっている。新たに入手した二次資料を整理し直す過程で、書評を1本、論文を1本執筆したが、これらは掲載待ちの状態で、未刊行である。今後、渡航の目途がいつ頃立つのかがまったく不透明だが、オンラインでも実施可能な海外の研究者との共同研究の形態、内容の修正を考えていく必要があるだろう。また、ネオ・ユーラシア主義とも地政学とも関係の深い「ファシズム」概念を、ロシアの地域的文脈の中で再検討するという方向に研究テーマを展開させており、研究の重層化を試みているところである。これは、アジア、とりわけ日本においても重要なトピックであるため、本研究の目的の基本路線は同じでありながらも、より広がりと厚みを持たせることにつながると見込んでいる。この研究成果は、2021年度中に刊行予定である。

著者

浜 由樹子

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.51, pp.63-96, 2004

---

The aim of this paper is to revaluate Eurasianism from a historical perspective. It was precisely Eurasianism that defined Russia as "Eurasia," neither Europe nor Asia, for the first time in the intellectual history of Russia. Up to this time, Russian thinkers had identified "Asiatic" elements of Russia with "backwardness" or something "barbarous." They had not admitted its "inner Asia." In other words, Eurasianism can be regarded as a new self-identification of Russia. This change in the Russian view of Asia has attracted much attention among scholars and there is a good deal of discussion on this topic. Usually, however, Eurasianism has been regarded as a branch of Slavophiles, and very few attempts have been made to provide any convincing answer to the question of why Eurasianism emerged during the Inter-war period in a particular group of Russian emigres. Much work remains to be done to elucidate the historical origin of Eurasianism. There are some difficulties in studying Eurasianism: Eurasianists differ from each other in terms of both approach and specialty; the development of Eurasian movements has a complicated history; Eurasianism, in general, is characterized by the lack of coherence in political views. Riazanovsky was correct in stating that "the full answer could be given only after a detailed study of each individual case." In order to overcome these problems, this paper focuses on N. S. Trubetskoi, one of the founders of Eurasianism and a famous linguist. It considers the formation and development of his ideas, referring to a brief biography and the historical background of this period. Viewed from such a perspective, this paper will shed light on the significant aspects of Eurasianism and try to find out its historical origin. Trubetskoi began his discussion by criticizing Western civilization, saying it would destroy national and cultural diversity due to its "egocentrism." He assumed that every national culture was equally valuable in its own uniqueness. He developed this notion as a result of his life work on the cultures and languages of the Caucasus. From his viewpoint, a "top-down" Europeanization of non-European society leads to the destruction of uniqueness, whether it is compulsory or voluntary. The fact that he blamed the Russian Revolution for the Europeanization of Russia deserves attention, because he regarded Communism as a Europe-made idea, which was not suitable for Russia. While Europe encouraged uniformity, Russia, by contrast, preserved its ethnic and cultural diversity. This feature of Russia should be maintained, he said. Thereby, diversity lies at the core of his Eurasianism. It seems reasonable to suppose that he reached this conclusion through searching for the identity of Russia and considering how it should be even after his exile. Generally, Trubetskoi's Eurasianism reflected contemporary historical circumstances. He denied "self-determination" without proper self-recognition of each nation and also any "internationalism" which essentially revealed "egocentrism." At the same time, he warned that any intolerant nationalism might cause antagonism. In this respect, Eurasianism can be interpreted as a criticism of the modern "nation-state," which presupposes the homogeneity of the nation in its territory. Actually, the new states born in Central and Eastern Europe aimed at nation-building modeled after Western Europe and it inevitably caused serious problems among those states. Eurasianism intended to overcome this "false nationalism" by subsuming the whole. It may be said that Eurasianism was certainly a design proposed by emigres, who were alienated by the "nation-state." There is another aspect worth remarking: Trubetskoi's concept of "ideocracy" emerged as a criticism of Western political system. "Ideocracy" was a kind of system that the ruling party governs people on the basis of certain demotic and moral ideas. As he admitted, it had much similarity to Socialism and Fascism in terms of the political system. Of particular relevance here was the so-called "crisis of democracy." In Europe during the Inter-war period, people suffered from the devastating damage of World War I. The parliamentary democracy, which turned out to be meaningless for the people, encountered a serious challenge: the rising tide of the labor movement and the emergence of Fascism. While the colonial peoples rose up to achieve independence, the impact of the Russian Revolution was tremendous there. Except for the above remarks, which may certainly clarify some background of "Ideocracy," it must be particularly mentioned that Trubetskoi blamed racism, to which Fascism appealed, as the most inadmissible "egocentrism." When considered in this light, it is understandable why Trubetskoi's view of the Soviet relatively and gradually improved. Indeed, the matter is not as simple as preceding scholars have tended to conclude with descriptions of "Pro-Soviet" or "Anti-Soviet." Certainly, Trubetskoi's Eurasianism evolved under the conditions of the inter-war period.

著者

浜 由樹子

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2017, no.189, pp.189_114-189_129, 2017-10-23 (Released:2018-12-19)

参考文献数

44

---

As is frequently argued by scholars of international politics, particularly in the school of constructivism, identities and national interests are cognitive phenomena and are socially constructed. A state’s collective, regional identity constitutes recognition of threats, opportunities, enemies, and allies. However, theoretically, there remains ambiguity about endogenizing identity change or transformation. Case studies concerning Russia’s new identity formation after the collapse of the Soviet Union can contribute to strengthen this point.Under the Putin administration, Russia has vigorously attempted to get involved in the regional cooperation in Asia. Especially in the past three years after the Ukraine crisis, perhaps in response to the deterioration of Russia’s relations with the “West”, not a few specialists have observed its “pivot to the East.” Russia’s Eurasian identity plays an essential role in this attempt. The study examines how Russia’s Eurasian identity was formed, how it developed, and how the concept of “Eurasia,” referring to the region bridging Europe and Asia, has been argued in the discourse of diplomacy.In the author’s view, there are several groups of “Neo-Eurasianists” currently. Some scholars speculated the influence on Russian politics of ideologues who claimed Russia to be an anti-Western, Eurasian power; however, most of them focused too much on some extremists, such as Alexandr Dugin. To explain the association between the Eurasian idea and diplomacy, more attention should be paid to the specialists of or working in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.Leading Russian scholars and specialists in East Asian studies took considerable time to conceptualize Russia’s new regional identity. Some of them rediscovered the old idea of “Eurasianism” which originated in the 1920s–30s among the émigré intellectuals. To consolidate the ties of the Russian nation with states in the post-Soviet space and its regional integration with Asia, those who were searching for a new regional identity found it and modified it into “Neo-Eurasianism.” In several respects, the updated version of Eurasianism is relevant to the present situation of Russia.In their recent discourses, “Eurasia” has the following two features. (1) It represents a “mega region” in the ongoing project to connect several regional architectures such as EAEU, SCO, Chinese SREB project, and ASEAN. In the project, Russia characterizes itself as a hub of Eurasian regional powers, and (2) as an intermediary concept to legitimize cooperation with China, it subsequently appeals its orientation to multipolarity in the world, which has been the vision as well as the goal of Russia’s diplomacy since the mid-1990s. In brief, Eurasian identity motivates Russia’s policies and behaviors during the “Pivot to the East”.

著者

浜 由樹子

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2022, no.51, pp.41-56, 2022 (Released:2023-04-21)

参考文献数

32

---

Russia’s ideology concerning the invasion of Ukraine mainly comprises five components: the criticism of the “West,” historical unity of the East Slavs, self-portrait as a great multi-national/multi-religious nation, staging of the “Great Patriotic War” redux, and traditional gender and religious norms. Based on the three presidential speeches that officially explained the “special military operation” (February 21, February 24, and September 30), this study examines the origins and development of the five components of the Putinesque ideological construction, which is characterized by its haphazardness. The main body of the alleged motivation of the “operation” is the security threat posed by the “West.” In this context, Russia repeatedly criticized the double standard of the “West” as well as its neo-colonialism. More broadly, the September 30 speech expanded the accusation into a criticism of the so-called liberal international order, implying that Russia recognizes the cleavage between the “North” and the Global South and is attempting to use it as a wedge issue. The idea that the East Slavs were originally single “narod” long before the modern notion of “nation-state” emerged from Western Europe was popular in the imperial period and continues to affect parts of the contemporary Russian society. With Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn as an intellectual reference point, it was revived in post-Soviet Russia and developed with the “Russkii mir” ideology. The present administration recycled it as a justification of Russia-Ukraine “historical unity.” Despite emphasizing its Slavic element, Russia still holds a multi-national nature. Its self-portrait as a huge multi-national/multi-religious state grew along with its Eurasian identity. In the 1990s, the newly born Russia rediscovered the legacy of classic Eurasianism. Since then, groups of diplomats and practitioners, as well as influential public intellectuals such as Aleksandr Panarin, have contributed to its spread in the political circle. Given the present situation of an increasing number of ethnic minorities being sent to the frontlines in Ukraine, it is essential for the Putin administration to emphasize its pride of the multi-national identity. On one hand, President Putin severely criticized the Soviet nationalities policy. On the other hand, the administration devoted much energy to choreographing the redux of the Second World War. The historical memory and family story of the “Great Patriotic War” is a valuable asset shared by the Russian society, which can unite the nation and create a patriotic atmosphere. Moreover, a considerable number of political elites maintain continuity with the Soviet period―it is no wonder the administration attempts to appeal to the Soviet nostalgia. The final ideological element comprises the traditional values of gender and religion. Since its third term, Putin administration has adopted it both as a tool to obtain support from the conservatives as well as the Orthodox Church and as an outreach strategy abroad. With anti-liberalism as the core based on strong antagonism toward the “West,” which behaves as “the winner of Cold War,” these ideological branches have been bound together in an eclectic manner. As a result, the current ideological production contains contradictions and seems complex at first glance.

著者

浜 由樹子

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2008, no.37, pp.17-31, 2008 (Released:2010-05-31)

---

During the interwar period, several thinkers and politicians intellectually challenged the so-called “Western state system”—an international order comprising nation-states. Some of the ideas, such as Coudenhove-Kalergi's “Pan-Europe” or Aristide Briand's “the United States of Europe” bore fruit later on in the form of regional integration. Other ideas failed or simply vanished into oblivion.In this paper, I examined and reevaluated Russia's Eurasianism as one of those challenging ideas that advocated the significance of a “region” to overcome the antagonism derived from the nation-state system.Eurasianism, which emerged among Russian émigrés in the 1920s, is usually regarded as a variation of Slavophiles in Russian intellectual history. However, on the basis of Eurasianists' various descriptions of contemporary international relations, one can elicit their critical view toward the nation-state system. As is often said, the concept of a nation-state which originated in Western Europe presumed national homogeneity within a particular territory. However, many other parts of the world such as Russia are actually multinational regions. According to Eurasianism, Europeanization (nation-building modeled on Europe) leads to the destruction of the inherent diversity in the region. Therefore, they attached considerable importance to Russia's national and cultural diversity. Moreover, this is the reason why they named Russia as “Eurasia”: Russia's vast region had served as a place of exchange between Europe and Asia through its history. They believed that, as a result, it fostered a multicultural character. In their viewpoint, “Europe” meant homogeneity and “Eurasia” meant diversity in contrast.With this notion as a background and focusing on the ideas during the interwar period, it can be stated that there are many similarities between Eurasianism, Pan-Europeanism, and even Asianism in Japan. Regardless of the differences in the context, they all emerged as a criticism to the concept of a nation-state and to modern international relations.Of course, Eurasianism was different from Pan-Europeanism in some respects. For example, mentioning a map (an appendix of the book Pan-Europe), one Eurasianist criticized that Coudenhove-Kalergi's “Pan-Europe” was an expression of colonialism, because his “Pan-Europe” included colonies in Asia and Africa. Another Eurasianist pointed out the practical difficulties in European integration. In short, Pan-Europeanism reflected the interest of victorious European states after World War I.With regard to the criticism of the modern nation-state, the Soviet Union also appeared as a challenger. Eurasianism held a positive opinion on the federalism which could be a suitable governing system for the multinational region. However, on the other hand, they found internationalism and the rule by the Communist Party to be equally dubious.During the 1990s, immediately after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we witnessed Eurasinism being revived in Russia. It was certainly the consequence of an “identity crisis”; however, at the same time, a reexamination of the regional concepts was a simultaneous phenomenon worldwide. “Eurasia” as well as “Europe” and “Asia” were reconsidered under the new circumstances that arose in the transitional period.

著者

浜 由樹子

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2005, no.34, pp.122-132, 2005 (Released:2010-05-31)

被引用文献数

1 1

---

The purpose of this paper is to revaluate Petr N. Savitskii's Eurasianism from a historical perspective.Eurasianism was an intellectual and, at the same time, political movement of Russian émigré scholars in the 1920's which defined Russia as “Eurasia, ” neither Europe nor Asia, for the first time in Russian intellectual history. Savitskii is said to be one of the founders of this movement.Recently, many researchers have begun to re-examine Eurasianism, particularly relating to the political and social situation of Russia in the 1990's right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In their discussions on Eurasianism, some scholars have mentioned Savitskii as an important figure in the movement. However, since most of them showed only partial understanding of the subject on the basis of a few limited materials, much work remains to be done to grasp his entire ideas and evaluate his originality and his way of thinking. This paper will contribute to a better characterization of Savitskii's ideas and their background, as well as his biography. This work is a partial fulfillment of my project to elucidate the historical origins of Eurasianism.Savitskii's Eurasianism emerged under the international circumstances soon after World War I, reflecting his concern of how post-revolutionary Russia could survive in hostile surroundings. Besides, the Bolshevik revolution followed by the civil war carried the whole of Russia to a crisis of disruption. On the one hand, to demonstrate the unity of multinational Russia, and on the other, to find out its unique character, Savitskii, an émigré scholar, developed his notion of “Russia-Eurasia”which, as he expected, would contribute to an identification of the vast multinational region, supposed to bridge Europe and Asia.Savitskii's arguments over “Russia-Eurasia” took various forms, such as the studies of geography, cultures and civilizations, geopolitics, and history. At first sight, they may seem to be different kinds of argument in different disciplines, but once light is shed on the essence, they may well reveal a coherent question of what Russia is, what its unique character is and how it should be. In this sense, it is reasonable to interpret his arguments as an interdisciplinary attempt to give some answers to these questions.The very uniqueness of his thought lies in the view regarding the relationship between geography and history. Savitskii considers geography, not only as a factor which retards human activities, but also one that serves as an opportunity for them. In other words, interactive processes between geography and human activities form history. In this regard, the geographical world “Russia-Eurasia” has been a place for economical and cultural exchanges which binds Europe and Asia together in itself. Savitskii found it a symbol of regional, cultural “integration” and “unity, ” overcoming the segmentation which Russia had faced at that time. As a result, he assumed that this historical role showed the significance of “Russia-Eurasia, ” an idea which turned out to be the core part of Savitskii's Eurasianism.

著者

浜 由樹子

出版者

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会

雑誌

国際政治 (ISSN:04542215)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2022, no.205, pp.205_180-205_183, 2022-02-04 (Released:2022-03-31)

著者

浜 由樹子

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラヴ研究 (ISSN:05626579)

巻号頁・発行日

no.51, pp.63-96, 2004

著者

松浦 正孝 山室 信一 浜 由樹子 土屋 光芳 中島 岳志 高橋 正樹 宮城 大蔵 WOLFF David 大庭 三枝 吉澤 誠一郎 姜 東局 大賀 哲 酒井 哲哉 後藤 乾一 都丸 潤子 関根 政美 矢口 祐人 高原 明生 遠藤 乾 松本 佐保

出版者

立教大学

雑誌

基盤研究(A)

巻号頁・発行日

2008

---

本研究は、アジア各地における多様なアジア主義のビジョンと構造を解明し相互比較すると共に、アジア主義ネットワークの生成過程を解明した。方法としては、国内外から選ばれた各地域の専門研究者と各事例を議論することで、アジア主義に共通の構造と地域それぞれに固有の特徴とを明らかにした。そうすることで、各地域におけるアジア主義を相対化して民族中心的なバイアスから解放し、アジアにおける共同体の可能性と条件、各民族・国家の共生の可能性を探ろうとした。