The Phenomenon of Totalitarianism: The Discourse on Methodology and Essence

The unformed term “totalitarianism” is a serious problem for researchers. The article raises the question about the reasons behind the lack of clarity in the definition, and attempts to discover the recipe for the renewal of a constructive discussion. The basic point seems to be the mismatch between the methodology of social sciences and the object of study. The aggravating factor is the numerous inconsistencies in the available body of evidence relating to the totalitarian era, which makes sociological methods and statistical techniques inapplicable. The dominant current presentation of totalitarianism is based on the structural and institutional approaches of political science and sociology, being thus just a rationalization of the totalitarian actuality, in need of considerable revision and correction. Many solutions, crucial for gaining an adequate perception of the complex social and cultural phenomenon “totalitarianism”, have been already made available in humanities or are potentially contained in their approaches. In the course of analyzing the special features of the phenomenon under investigation, the author comes to the conclusion that clear understanding of the concept of “totalitarianism” is impossible without calling for the notions of “personality”, “inner self”, “soul”, “psyche”, “good and evil”, “living and dead”, “culture”. The article establishes the importance of totalitarianism’s examination within the philosophic, cultural, literary and psychological discourses at the current stage of the term development. The expected positive contribution of the article to the subject matter may be gradual evolution of the interdisciplinary view on totalitarianism into the condition of non-contradiction, as well as bridging the growing gap separating from the eyewitness testimony of the era.

1. Maslakov A.S. Totalitarizm kak problema sotsial’noi filosofii [Totalitarianism as a Problem of Social Philosophy], Nauka i obshchestvo v epokhu tekhnologii i kommunikatsii. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii 03 dek. 2015 [Science and Society in the Era of Technology and Communications. The Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference of 03 Dec. 2015], Moscow, Moskovskii Universitet im. S.Yu. Vitte Publ., 2016, pp. 218—231.

2. Ivanov V. Formy pravleniya i politicheskogo rezhima. V poiskakh novogo soderzhaniya [The Forms of Government and Political Regime. In Search of New Content], Logos, 2008, no. 6, pp. 121—155.

3. Fromm E. Escape from Freedom. Moscow, AST MOSKVA Publ., 2009, 284 p. (in Russ.).

4. Böll H. Über mich selbst [About Myself], Zolotoi fond mirovoi klassiki [The Golden Collection of World Classics]. Moscow, Pushkinskaya Biblioteka Publ., AST Publ., 2004, pp. 15—17 (in Russ.).

5. Arendt H. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Moscow, TsentrKom Publ., 1996, 672 p. (in Russ.).

6. Brachet-Marquez V. Undemocratic Politics in the Twentieth Century and Beyond, Logos, 2008, no. 6, pp. 156—190 (in Russ.).

7. Chernov A.V. Dvoistvennost’ ponyatiya “totalitarizm”: ot total’noi diktatury k total’nomu edinstvu [Dual Interpretation of the Totalitarianism: from the Total Dictatorship to the Total Unity], Vestnik Severo-Osetinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. K.L. Khetagurova [Bulletin of the K.L. Khetagurov North Ossetian State University], 2016, pp. 101—105.

8. Roguleva A.S. „Totalitarizm“ kak termin gumanitarnykh nauk [“Totalitarianism” as a Term Used in Humanities], Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, Seriya 19, lingvistika i mezhdunarodnaya kommunikatsiya [Moscow State University Bulletin, Series 19, Linguistics and Intercultural Communication], 2012, no. 4, pp. 100—105.

9. Marcuse H. Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory. St. Petersburg, 2000, 540 p. (in Russ.).

10. Solzhenitsyn A. Arkhipelag GULAG [The Gulag Archipelago], Maloe sobranie sochinenii [Collected Works]. Moscow, INKOM NV Publ., 1991, vol. 5, 541 p., vol. 6, 574 p.

11. Karpov A.A. Sovremennyi totalitarizm i ego raznovidnosti [Modern Totalitarianism and its Versions], Leningradskii yuridicheskii zhurnal [Leningrad Legal Journal], 2016, pp. 52—58.

12. Kapustin B. O predmete i upotrebleniyakh ponyatiya “revolyutsiya” [About the Subject and Usages of the “Revolution” Concept], Logos, 2008, no. 6, pp. 3—47.

13. Khusikhanov A.M. Zhestokost’ i nasilie kak kharakternye priznaki totalitarizma v romane A.I. Solzhenitsyna “Krasnoe koleso” [Cruelty and Violence as Characteristic Signs of Totalitarianism in the Novel by A.I. Solzhenitsyn “The Red Wheel”], Znanie [Knowledge], Kiev, 2017, no. 3—2 (43), pp. 66—72.

14. Dombrovsky Yu.O. Fakul’tet nenuzhnykh veshchei [The Faculty of Useless Knowledge], Khranitel’ drevnostei. Fakul’tet nenuzhnykh veshchei: romany [The Keeper of Antiquities. The Faculty of Useless Knowledge: Novels]. Moscow, Eksmo Publ., 2005, 736p.