Can Russia Withdraw from Civilization?
W.W. KULSKI, Minister at the Polish Embassy in London, 1940-45; former Polish delegate at many meetings of the League of Nations; now Professor of International Law and European Government, University of Alabama
IN HIS book, "Civilization on Trial," Arnold Toynbee begins the chapter entitled "Russia's Byzantine Heritage" with the quotation from Horace: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. You may drive out Nature with a pitchfork, but she will always come back. For Professor Toynbee the saying exemplifies Russia's ineradicable Byzantine heritage. Indeed, in his still better known "Study of History," this distinguished British historian goes so far as to find in Europe two separate "civilizations"--the Western and the Russian Greek Orthodox--both of them descended from the Graeco-Roman but each an independent cultural unit, and presumably as distinct from one another as the Hindu, the Far Eastern, the Arabic or the Mayan civilizations are separate and distinct from them both.
One is tempted to believe that Professor Toynbee has drawn his classifications too neatly in this instance, as one is compelled to doubt the success of the present furious effort of the Soviet rulers to pull the Russian nation out of the European civilization of which it is so inextricably a part. What is a civilization? For Professor Toynbee it is "an intelligible field of study." He explains this definition by saying that the culture of a nation cannot be understood apart from the culture of the whole civilization to which the nation belongs. For him, in other words, a "civilization" is a self-sufficient cultural unit which can be understood by studying its own development (though Professor Toynbee would not exclude consideration of sporadic influences from other civilizations). By implication, therefore, a cultural entity may not be classified as a distinct civilization if one constantly has to refer to ideas from outside that field in order to understand it...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
THE recent evolution of the Soviet Union has been overwhelming in its surprises. These surprises have recently become so disconcerting that many Russians, Communists and non-Communists alike, as well as many foreign observers accustomed to speak with assurance on all things Russian, are abandoning attempts to find a rational explanation for them, to discover in them an inner logic, a sense of direction. Yet certain definite theories exist about the cataclysmic events which have so perturbed the Communist movement in recent months and so perplexed the most self-satisfied foreign observers.
TWO trials that took place in Soviet Russia, one in August 1936, and the other in January 1937, engaged the attention of the world. The first resulted in the immediate execution of the sixteen defendants; the second, in the execution of thirteen out of seventeen defendants and the condemnation of the other four to long terms of imprisonment.
THE conflict within the Russian Communist Party has entered upon a new phase. For the first time all the groups of the Opposition have made an attempt to unite and to create a common platform. At the head of this Opposition bloc are nearly all of the most prominent names in the Bolshevik Party: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Radek, Sokolnikov, Shliapnikov, Kollontai, Piatakov, Preobrazhensky, Osinsky, and others. As against these names the party majority can set only those of Bukharin, Stalin, Rykov, and Tomsky.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.