Information about the author: 

Abstract:

The article examines the “Caucasian discourse” of Russian literature, which is implicitly associated with the complementarity of “communicativeness” and “sovereignty” and, as a result, with a predisposition to a holistic perception of the world. Literature, being sensitive to the ‘in-group — out-group’ dichotomy (of identifying ‘others’), tends to positively synchronize dissonant states, as exemplified by Leo Tolstoy’s legendary novella “Hadji Murad.” His first stories about the Caucasus stimulated a radical reevaluation of values that anticipated the pathos and principles of Tolstoy’s philosophy of all-unity. The artistic discovery of the Caucasus emphasized the non-peripheral significance of this theme in shaping the values of Russian literature and in the development of outstanding literary and scientific careers, as exemplified by the remarkable two-volume work ‘The Latest Geographical and Historical Information About the Caucasus’ (1823) by S.M. Bronevsky. The author of the article not only articulates the key symbols and conventional images, but also explores the experience of belonging to a foreign world and, consequently, to the historical and cultural encounter of the “two truths” — patriarchal self-sufficiency and cultural universalism, which was personified by Russian literature. The article presents an intra-literary debate between two popular iconic models of the Caucasian discourse: the Bestuzhev and Tolstoy models. If the creator of ‘Ammalat-Bek’ supported a narrative strategy based on romantic predestination and the glorification of battle scenes, Tolstoy’s aesthetics and ethics were guided by the principles of ‘reducing dissent’ and demythologizing the image of the Caucasus, bringing it into the horizon of human existence. The non-European roots, ethno-cultural, and religious factors lost their confrontational logic of mutual misunderstanding. The civilizational choice of Russian culture in favor of preserving diversity would be called unprofitable today, but in the long run it turned out to be far-sighted. The presumption of respect for cultural differences can hardly be considered a virtue in an unstoppably globalizing world, but it remains ontologically significant for our multi-ethnic country.