Ориентализм в геополитических представлениях военных и дипломатических элит Российской империи (на материалах обсуждения «армянского вопроса» в конце XIX – начале XX в.)

Abstract

Introduction. Edward W. Said’s Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient introduced the category ‘Orientalism’ into scientific and political discourse. So, the article focuses on the Armenian question that became a remarkable part of the Eastern question at the turn of the 20th century — to illustrate features of ‘Russian Orientalism’. The decline of the Ottoman Porte, difficulties faced by ethnic Armenians in Turkey, and the political unrest among Armenians of the Caucasus resulted in that the Russian military and diplomats were paying close attention to those events, which was reflected in related reports. Materials and methods. The published sources examined are those authored by N. Ivanov, A. Nelidov, D. Putyata, P. Tomilov, I. Vorontsov-Dashkov, R. Termen. The archival documents involved (State Archive of Russian Federation) are A. Nelidov’s reports of 1882 and 1896, both addressed to V. Lamsdorf. The theoretical basis is shaped by concepts of Orientalism, Occidentalism, and critical geopolitics, the latter viewing geopolitical ideas of elites as an independent phenomenon referred to as ‘high geopolitics’. Results. After the Treaty of Berlin (1878) the Armenian question became a new domain for interaction between the great powers. The analysis conducted herein confirms that ‘Russian Orientalism’ — in geopolitical ideas of the elites — had an anti-Western shade. Paradoxically, in Eastern contexts Russian imperial elites were positioning themselves as representatives of European civilization. However, when it came to defend national interests, their reasoning would obtain anti-Western tones. Occidentalism presupposes a unification of the Western world, which, for example, can be observed in the reports of Ya. Lundekvist and A. Nelidov. The views and shades of Orientalism were determined by practical job tasks. For instance, Governor-General I. Vorontsov-Dashkov was rather a bearer of ‘internal Orientalism’ suggesting a patronizing concern for the Caucasian Armenians. Therefore, there were certain differences in attitudes of capital-based executives and those articulated by ones in the colonized periphery of the Empire. Conclusions. So, the study concludes as follows. Firstly, how the elites tended to perceive the essence of the Armenian question and its Turkish contexts proves the legitimacy of the category ‘Russian Orientalism’ — directed both outside and inside — the latter covering the Caucasus with a certain portion of Armenian population. Secondly, features of Orientalism in geopolitical representations of Russian elites were determined by practical tasks of their service. Thirdly, ‘Russian Orientalism’ is more heterogeneous and its aspects outnumber those presented in Edward W. Said’s study.