«УКРАИНСКИЙ ВОПРОС» В РУССКОЙ ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЙ МЫСЛИ ВТОРОЙ ПОЛОВИНЫ XIX В
Рассматривается отношение различных течений русской общественной мысли к так называемому украинскому вопросу. Отмечается, что до конца 1860-х гг. малорусы (украинцы) рассматривались только как объекты борьбы с полонизмом. Показана трансформация восприятия в русской публицистике деятельности малорусской интеллигенции по развитию народной культуры и языка. Выделяются существенные различия в видении перспектив национальных процессов в западных и юго-западных регионах Российской империи: негативное отношение славянофилов и имперцев к признанию самостоятельности украинской этничности и готовность либералов и народников-реформаторов признать украинцев состоявшейся нацией, но без претензий на политическую самостоятельность. ; ''Ukrainian question'' formed in the Russian social thought of the 19th century as derived from the ''Polish question'' and originally accented fighting Polonism in the Western Territory. Western suburbs were the focus of the Russian social thought. In the 1850s-1860s, of course, the Polish problem was dominating. It was perceived as a confrontation between two mutually exclusive national projects. At the end of the 1860s the Little Russian question separated from the Polish question. Prior to that, Little Russians were regarded only as objects to combat Polonism. Initially even the Slavophiles welcomed the work of the Little Russian intelligentsia on the development of traditional culture and language seeing them as allies in the confrontation with the Poles. But as soon as the claim for recognition of independence of the Little Russian ethnicity, not derived from the Great Russian but equal to it, the Slavophiles' and the Imperials' attitude to the Little Russian intelligentsia became hostile. They were not ready to perceive Ukrainians as a nation formed separately from Russians perceiving this idea as the work of the Poles and Germans who wanted to split a single Russian nationality. In the 19th century nationalist literature established a view on the fate of the indigenous western suburbs of the Russian Empire that were stable and universal both for the Slavophiles and for the Imperials. In this aspect, the Slavophiles and the Imperials thought alike. These lands were considered not only as a part of the Russian state, but also as part of the historical area of residence of the Russian nationality. Little Russians were perceived as a part of the Russian people, and for them Russification meant a return to the historical roots, i.e. rejection of national languages in favor of Russian, return to Orthodoxy (for Catholics and Uniates). Liberal journalism, as well as the Slavophiles, saw the problem of Russification of the Western and Southwestern region as a confrontation with Polonism. But liberals thought it was not right to produce a simple replacement of the Polish language and culture with the Great Russian. They develop an understanding of self-sufficiency of the Little Russian ethnicity which was considered a branch of an all-Russian people tantamount to the Great Russians. At the same time Russian liberals were not ready to talk about any political autonomy of Ruthenia. Populist reformers were close to the liberal discourse in addressing the challenges of the western suburbs of the Russian Empire. At the same time they placed an increased emphasis on the socio-economic aspects, suggesting to smooth National Resistance in the development of capitalism, with its supranational universal values. In addition, they drew more attention to the formation of their own national interests of the peoples of the Western Region which had to be taken into account in the national policy of the state.
