The Concept of the Ideal
A social ideal is a holistically meaningful idea of the best and most perfect structure of the state and society. The concept of the “ideal” in Russian comes from the Greek word ίδέα and is translated, as a rule, by a set of words such as “idea,” “sample,” “norm,” “prototype.” Sometimes, along with Greek, words from other languages are cited as primary: Latin, idealis, French, idéal.
In the history of social thought one can find various definitions of the concept of the “ideal,” but one common idea can be traced in them: the ideal is not static, but dynamic, it is not only a goal, but also a movement towards this goal. The ideal is the beginning that stimulates active human activity and creates reference points (beacons) for this activity. In the history of mankind there are practically no ideals, which to a greater or lesser extent would not have been tried to be realized.
The interpretations of the social ideal are based on the ideas about the ideal in general. Let us cite three definitions of the ideal from the most authoritative Russian encyclopedic editions of the pre-revolutionary period, in which accents on different aspects of the ideal are found:
V.S. Solovyov: “Ideal, a representation of the highest perfection in any respect; something that is the object of aspiration regardless of whether the possibility of realization is close or very remote.”
E.L. Radlov: “Ideal means what corresponds to the norm, perfection and what is a difficult to realize goal of activity.”
В. Dahl: “Ideal—a mental sample of perfection of something, in some kind; the first image, prototype, the beginning of the image; representative; a dream model.”
To compare with the pre-revolutionary formulations, let us cite the definitions of the ideal from the most authoritative modern encyclopedic editions:
1) R.G. Apresyan: “Ideal—in the commonly used sense: (a) the highest degree of something valuable or the best, completed state of any phenomenon, (b) an individually accepted standard (recognized model) of something, usually concerning personal qualities and abilities.”
2) O.N. Kozlova: “Ideal is an ideal image having a normative character, in social life—a perfect, reference form of a phenomenon or process, the highest, ultimate goal of activity, aspirations, orientations, determining the way of thinking and activity of a social subject.”
Comparing these definitions, which are a century apart, we see that the philosophers of the pre-revolutionary era emphasized the problem of attainability, practical feasibility of the ideal as a super-objective, a super-task (“object of aspiration,” “difficult to realize goal of activity,” “dream-model”) as the most important aspect of the nature of the ideal. This understanding of the ideal contains an incentive to activity, to action.
The above definitions provide a basis for reflection on the various aspects and characteristics of the social ideal.
IDEA as a Matrix of the Ideal
The ideal is always based on some basic IDEA. This is the Idea with a capital letter, the main, central Idea of social development at a given historical stage.
Such an idea can have both national and global scale. A national idea is the idea or meaning of existence of a certain nation (nation-state) at a particular historical stage of development, or, more precisely, in a given historical context of development. There cannot be many national ideas, not even two. It is always one, reflecting the main characteristic, the essential feature, the semantic core of a given national existence. By and large, it is a generally accepted idea of the unified, integral existence of a nation-state.
Moreover, the national idea of large and long-lived social systems also has a global dimension. And if the ideal at a certain stage becomes the property, the orientation of the nation, an important part of mass consciousness, the idea, as a rule, is the property of only the intellectual and political elite. But without a national idea, a nation cannot have a social ideal.
In Russia in the 19th-20th centuries, the national idea had a global scale, because it implied the achievement of national goals through the resolution of urgent world problems. In the 19th century, the “Russian Orthodox idea” as “the idea of God about Russia,” as the idea of “God’s chosenness of Russia” implied national development and strengthening of national prosperity through the realization of the messianic task of saving the Orthodox world and creating a world Orthodox empire centered in Moscow.
In the 20th century, the “Russian idea” was replaced by the “communist idea.” The Soviet communist Russia was seen as the advance squad of the world revolution, as a fuse for the world fire, which would lead to the communization of the world community. It was assumed that Russia (USSR) would be the leader of this process and this new community.
Nowadays, there is no national Russian idea of similar scale and goal-setting, and therefore, the intellectual matrix of the national ideal has not been formed yet.
The Authorship of the Ideal
An ideal is a thought construction, a product of the thought activity of a certain human thinker or, if we consider the evolution of social thought, of several thinkers. It is initially a product of personal, individual creativity.
Pre-revolutionary statesmen believed that the evolution of political thought (ideas about the state and power) reflected the most important social and state ideals. It is not by chance that Pavel I. Novgorodtsev, for example, called his textbook on the history of the philosophy of law (history of political doctrines), Political Ideals of the Ancient and New World (Moscow, 1910). Another university lecturer of that period, A.M. Ladyzhensky, similarly named his book, Social and Political Ideals of the Ancient World, Middle Ages and New Times (Kharkov, 1919). But the history of political doctrines is the history of ideas and concepts, which always have specific authors; it is an endless discourse, and often a direct polemic of specific thinkers, creators of political doctrines.
The development, enrichment of the ideal with new provisions, concepts can be the result of collective efforts. But this is still only the initial, rudimentary state of the ideal; it turns into its complete state only when it becomes a collective value, that is, when it becomes a reference point for mass consciousness and behavior.
The Metaphysics of the Ideal
The ideal is associated with human dreams, and sometimes with dreams of a better world. According to Novgorodtsev’s apt remark, it is philosophical reflection, rather than a practical view of the world, that “in these illusions and dreams… often sees that higher and more valuable reality, which does not yet exist, but which must be and which will be.” Such philosophical “insight” into the future, according to the Russian thinker, is possible because the social ideal is also the most important criterion that allows us to distinguish “eternal shrines” from “temporary idols and cults.”
Modern politicology (political science) with the help of mathematized, scientometric models and methods tries to calculate the future development of the world. And it should be said that it has not succeeded so far, as no major political cataclysm in recent decades (e.g., the collapse of the USSR, “color revolutions” in the former socialist camp, catastrophic wars and revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East, etc.) has not been scientifically predicted. Philosophy of politics, while not abandoning modern scientometrics, still focuses on metaphysical methods of analyzing reality and trends of modern development, thus trying to see into the future. And maybe it is “illusions” and “dreams” (according to Novgorodtsev) that will prove to be more reliable than mathematical models. And maybe a synthesis of “calculation” and “insight” is needed.
The modern ideal of the future society is an image of a new, unknown world, a world that does not yet exist and that will be fundamentally different from the present. Therefore, it is always a breakthrough into other meanings, into other dimensions. And this, of course, cannot be calculated on a rational level; there is a lot of irrationality, a lot of intuition, and, consequently, metaphysical reflection.
The Embodiment of the Ideal
For the thinkers of the past, the ideal was not just a set of general ideas about the future. For them, the problem of translating these ideas into reality was always important, which inevitably implies going beyond the meta-physical essence of the ideal to the plane of practical politics. This approach had two forms: 1) the ideal implies not only general ideas, but also a project (model, social construction) of the ideal structure of society, and sometimes even ways and means of achieving this structure; in this case, such concepts as “model,” “strategy of actions,” “construction of social reality,” etc. are applicable to the ideal; 2) the ideal (and only it) is the basis for the state ideology (officially established and legislated system of goals and values of development of a particular state and society at a given historical stage).
The second form of actualization of the social ideal remains important and topical for modern Russia. Thus, the actual semantic chain (system) of the superstructure of any state and social organism is built: national idea—national ideal—national (state) ideology. One determines the other exactly in such a sequence in terms of meaning and time. In another sequence, everything turns into fruitless constructions.
The Ideal and Cycles of History
The creation of an ideal is usually motivated by scientific search and the desire to discover the truth, which is determined, in turn, by actual social and intellectual demands. Even the most brilliant thinker cannot sit down at a desk and “compose” an ideal if there is no acute need in society to improve the living conditions of people, if there are no mass and real aspirations to “improve” social life. Therefore, the social ideal always carries a critical potential, as it is determined by dissatisfaction with the existing reality. Moreover, according to Irina N. Sizemskaya, “the construction of a social ideal is associated with such a level of criticism, when a person becomes capable of criticizing not only the reality around him, but also his practical actions—and not in search of “evil demons,” but in search of ways out of the current historical situation.”
Criticism of reality cannot be in the course of the historical process. This criticism has a cyclically recurring character. Nonlinear (cyclic, spiral-shaped) conceptions of the historical process necessarily imply the emergence of approximately identical social ideals at different stages of social development. The repetition of social conditions determines the repetition of thought constructions of the present and the future. In Russian political thought, as is known, Hegelian Boris N. Chicherin inclined to such a position. These nonlinear theories, the origins of which we find in the Russian thought of the 19th century (although there are older analogs), are gaining popularity in modern science.
At the same time, of course, it is necessary to realize that the repetition of thought constructions in history cannot be absolute. This is the repetition of the Hegelian spiral, when at a new upward spiral of history, we find models of society that are similar in meaning, but radically different in forms, mechanisms, and tendencies. The interpretation of the idea of the repetition of historical processes, which came to modern science from the class doctrines of the past, remains a very complex and poorly developed scientific problem.
Transformation of the Social Ideal in Western Social Science
It has already been stated above that the understanding of the ideal has undergone a certain transformation over the last century. During this period of time, social ideals ceased to be real projects of the future social structure, and turned more into a dream of the future. The emphasis was primarily on the normative side of the problem. There were no incentives for activity and action; there were only interpretations, understandings, and reflections. The reason for this difference is clear: a hundred years ago, the realization and achievement of ideal social forms seemed to be an elusive but still practical task. In our age, for many (if not most) people, such goals seem to be a utopia and illusion.
The comparison of the ideal and utopia is a litmus test of people’s faith and conviction (first of all, elites) in the feasibility and even the necessity of the ideal(s) in different historical epochs of human social development. In the history of social thought, the ideal and utopia coincided in many respects, but also had serious differences, while at the modern stage of development of society and social thought this coincidence has actually turned into identity. The ideal for modern man is a utopia that can never be realized, a peculiar way of thinking that has no relation to real life. Perhaps this is one of the most tragic and most dangerous consequences of modern breakdowns and cataclysms for public consciousness.
One of the first thinkers who, at the beginning of the 20th century, did not even realize, but felt the reality of such a semantic change, was H. G. Wells. In his science fiction book A Modern Utopia (1905), he coined the metaphor of the “ship of state” to express the ideal. He wrote: “We build now not citadels, but ships of state. For one ordered arrangement of citizens rejoicing in an equality of happiness safe and assured to them and their children for ever, we have to plan ‘a flexible common compromise, in which a perpetually novel succession of individualities may converge most effectually upon a comprehensive onward development.’ That is the first, most generalised difference between a Utopia based upon modern conceptions and all the Utopias that were written in the former time.”
The creation of ideal “citadels,” in which all the details of structures have already been invented, all the mechanisms that ensure life, etc., are completely fruitless. What is needed is an ideal “ship” that has a compass (goals) and a flag (values) that ensure its navigation in the stormy currents and waves of history, and which is no longer “assigned” to specific national shores.
Later (1919), systematizing the evolutionary development of political ideals from Antiquity to the end of the 19th century, the above-mentioned Russian statesman A.M. Ladyzhensky expressed H. G. Wells’ thought more clearly. He came to the following conclusion: “Now the socio-political ideal is placed not at the end of history, as its goal, but above history as a guiding general principle. It is not a concrete image of any social order, but only a guiding idea for the realization of possible social and political justice and individual rights, which must be protected in every possible way. As a matter of fact, it is not even an absolute socio-political ideal (there can be no such thing), but a supreme principle, a guiding moral and political principle for social activity.”
Thus, instead of a “project of the future,” in which national and world values are crystallized, we go to a “set of principles of a better future,” in which national values are blurred and not identified. Is there no trace here of the loss of Western society’s faith in a better future?
Social Ideals and the Modern Clash of Civilizations
We should not forget that the above-mentioned tragic evolution of the nature of social ideals reflects the historical path of the so-called “Western civilization” (Western Europe, North America), which in the 16th-18th centuries, due to objective reasons, was able to make a powerful breakthrough in economic and cultural development, leaving the rest of the world system far behind.
But at the beginning of the 21st century the situation is changing dramatically. These backward countries and peoples, which for centuries existed on the periphery of the civilized world, at the present stage directly and firmly declare that they also have a full right to the benefits of modern society.
The scientific problem is that the catastrophic clash of civilizational flows observed today cannot be explained by classical (formational or worldwide) schemes and models of social dynamics.
In social and humanitarian knowledge, two main types of social development are distinguished: evolutionary and revolutionary. The first involves a systematic, phased and non-violent transformation of various spheres of the social organism. The second is carried out through a sharp and painful rupture, a radical transition of society to a different system of relations and priorities. World history knows many examples of social transformations of both the first and second types.
The regularities in the alternation of these types of social trans-formation, in their overlapping, in their interaction are interpreted and defined differently in the paradigms of the historical process existing in the history of social thought. In the 17th-18th centuries, the transition from evolution to revolution was interpreted as a process of “ordering order” (linear progress); in the 19th century such a transition was explained by the need to resolve the inevitable conflict of productive forces and production relations (Karl Marx’s formation theory); in the 20th century—by the inevitable change of the leader of the world political-economic system (Fernand Braudel’s world-system theory). Each of the above-mentioned classical models of social dynamics developed the previous one, did not negate, but “removed” and synthesized it.
An adequate interpretation of the modern civilizational bifurcation requires a new paradigmatic synthesis that would holistically interpret not only political and economic trends, but also the action of value-civilizational forces. The current conflict or even the battle of civilizations, the main field of which has become Europe, is in fact a battle for the future of the world, a battle between different and even opposite ideas about the best arrangement of this future world.
There is no scientific explanation of these processes, yet. Thus far, only one thing can be said with certainty: any transformation of society, both nationally and on a broader scale, is carried out by powerful social movements striving to achieve certain social goals or social ideals.
If we analyze the current situation in the world from this angle, we must state that vast regions of the world community have now entered the stage of social turbulence (or bifurcation), which is fraught with changes of a revolutionary type. The main challenge to the modern world comes from radical Islam, which, as its social ideal of the future, has openly proclaimed the creation of a world caliphate, the geographical space of which is planned to include regions of the world that traditionally do not belong to Islam (for example, Western Europe). This is a kind of new-age embryo of a permanent world revolution, the communist version of which was very popular in the early 20th century (“a single world space bound together by a common ideological and state idea”). This Islamic project of the future, in addition to the general idea, includes quite specific ideas about the principles and structures of the state structure, the system of social, economic and domestic relations, cultural and ideological values, etc.
Today, such a project seems fantastic to many people. But we should not forget that the leaders and ideologists of the “all-world caliphate” do have a clear and spectacular idea today, which forms the semantic core of a clear and understandable state ideology. This ideology conceptualizes a system of values and mental and everyday priorities that are shared and supported by millions of people of the Muslim faith. In fact, the new terrorist forces (especially ISIS) have presented to the rest of the world a spiritual and ideological alternative, in which the Western tradition of freedom and permissiveness, the cult of money and things are opposed to the Islamic values of justice, social hierarchy, and self-restraint. And it turned out that there are many supporters of this alternative in the world, including the Western world.
All this seems very serious against the background of the catastrophic decline of ideological and cultural values, political and socio-economic cataclysms that Western civilization, and primarily the European community, is currently experiencing.
The original Russian, to access references:
This article originally appeared in Философия политики и права: Ежегодник научных работ. Общественные идеалы и реальное общество. К 150-летию со дня рождения П.И. Новгородцева. Под общ. ред. проф. Е.Н. Мощелкова и проф. О.Ю. Бойцовой; научн. ред. А.В. Никандров, МГУ имени М.В. Ломоносова. Философский факультет (М.: Издатель Воробьев А.В., 2015).
Featured: The Ideal City, anonymous, Florence, ca. 1400-1484.
