Religion and Religious studies in Russia. Saint Petersburg: Publishing House of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy, 2013. - 365 p.

Religion and the science of religion in Russia-this is the topic of a new monograph by Mikhail Yuryevich Smirnov. The preface "From the author" outlines in detail the stages of its development.

more than thirty years of religious studies service and organically leads to a deep and significant self-reflection on the national religion and its scientific research. The range and depth of this confessional reflection is quite impressive, and the format of the brief review allows us to touch only on certain aspects of the book. Actively stimulating interest in scientific knowledge about religion, it will undoubtedly receive a lot of feedback.

A solid author's idea is strictly equipped theoretically and is based on the representative domestic empiricism of pre-revolutionary, Soviet and post-Soviet times. First of all, the book is addressed to colleagues in the religious studies "workshop". Philosophically and sociologically rich, methodologically clear reflections of the author are well ordered and laconic. The generalizations and conclusions are sufficiently well-reasoned. The scientific apparatus is very scrupulously equipped (more than a thousand footnotes on domestic and foreign sources). At the same time, the theoretically condensed text is presented in a clear, distinct (sometimes even figurative) language, and therefore is quite accessible to an inquisitive reader. The author strives for a meaningful, realistic and panoramic view. The monograph is divided into three main and rather voluminous parts: 1. " Religion in Russia: perspectives of history and modernity"; 2. "Religious Studies and sociology of Religion in Russia"; 3. "Personalia".

In the first two chapters, the Russian religion in its various confessions (Orthodoxy first of all) is subjected to a historical analysis and appears to the reader in an organic complex - with its mythological and theological component, the dynamics of its own institutions, as well as the attitude of the Russian consciousness towards it. However, its very important and contradictory value potential is only affected in silhouette. But to get into this, let's say, "intra-cultural" aspect of religion, the researcher would have to move to a different, "axiological platform", that is, beyond the limits of his chosen panoramic philosophical and sociological survey.

A thorough and original interpretation of the religious and mythological complex in the Russian consciousness is very interesting. In particular, the analysis of the notorious domestic "double faith". The author states that for thousands of years, the AU was implemented by an authoritarian state.-

the simile of the Orthodox Church has formed a special type of religious organization that is able to adapt to any political system and to any prevailing ideology, (p. 40). So, to be Orthodox, according to the official understanding, means first of all to be loyal to the authorities. The long presence of Orthodoxy in Russian history raised it to the level of a national symbol (pp. ^49-50). The author's thoughts on the modernization of the social concept of leading confessions in post-Soviet society are relevant and accurate. In our opinion, the generalizing judgment is especially significant and relevant: "The general consideration about religion in Russia will be the statement of the inescapable nationalization of its inherent institutions and practices, as a necessary factor that organically complements the arsenal of other large-caliber means of achieving and maintaining the integrity of a huge country" (p.28). Then, in a selective but at the same time representative historical and statistical analysis, readers are presented with the dynamics of religious "infrastructure" in pre-revolutionary Russia.

The next angle of scientific analysis is the attitude to religion in the modern Fatherland. "For Russia," the author states, "attitude to religion is not only a spiritual issue with a mystical and soteriological sound, but also a significant aspect of social search for the path of national development" (p. 153). The topic of the population's attitude to the phenomenon of "religious revival"is especially popular in post-Soviet journalism. The factors of this unique event of world culture are described in some detail by Russian researchers. In addition to this, M. Y. Smirnov notes: "The current return to religion is also mostly institutional in nature - as finding an effective means to organize the space of Russian society, disorganized by "perestroika" and subsequent hard times. Moreover, the doctrinal content of religions remains practically unaffected; the fact of their presence and the possibility of referring to them as a self-evident guarantee of future well-being are more important" (p.104). The book describes and comprehends quite thoroughly the sociological data concerning many diverse and variegated variations of the new Russian religiosity, in which, along with the predominance of religious beliefs, there are many different types of religious beliefs.-

giving traditionalists-neophytes formed many previously unknown and bizarre types of religion. The phenomenon of non-traditional religions and new religious movements (NSDS) is considered particularly closely here. The ordinary consciousness of Russians reacted to the phenomenon extremely cautiously. In some places, communities of so-called "anti-cultists" have even sprung up, supported by the leading traditional religions, demonizing NSD by calling them "alternative", "destructive", "totalitarian", "quasi -", "pseudo -", "false -", etc., up to the sacramental term "alternative".sects." "Representatives of the vast apparatus of different levels of government, employees of state and municipal government bodies, and the so - called bureaucracy also contribute to stimulating "anti-cultism" (pp. 142-143).

We will focus on the analysis of the second part of the monograph - "Religious Studies and Sociology of Religion in Russia". Russian religious studies are known to be much younger than their Western scientific (especially comparative) counterparts. Nevertheless, according to the author's estimates, the level of knowledge about religion achieved by Russian scientific thought by 1917 already suggested quite an optimistic prospect for the further development of our discipline. However, under the rule of militant atheism, religious studies were replaced by "scientific atheism", and extremely rare, really valuable research about religion was forced to hide under the camouflage of other branches of knowledge. The author legitimately asks: "Did the science of religion continue in our country during the time of 'mass atheism'?" Only since the 1960s-70s, " something similar to the resuscitation and even the rise of domestic religious sciences has been taking place." There is a noticeable increase in religious studies in various fields, dozens of religious studies professionals are appearing, a system of training specialists in "scientific atheism" is being developed, dissertations are being defended, and an Institute of Scientific atheism is being created with strong points in a number of regions. "As a result, the phenomenon of "Soviet religious studies" became established and institutionalized... The only thing missing was the main thing, without which a normally organized religious study cannot exist, namely, the reference to religion as a subject of research, with a corresponding reference to the State of the Russian Federation.-

appropriate conceptualization of views and development of a methodology adequate to scientific knowledge of this subject" (p. 157). The subject of "scientific atheism" consisted only of "two aspects" - the refutation of religious beliefs and the establishment of a scientific understanding of reality.

According to M. Y. Smirnov, Russian religious studies as such began to be truly established only in the mid-1990s. A thorough, systematic, truly objective and self-critical analysis of its current state ("self-reflection") - it is extremely important for the further, more productive evolution of our discipline. Gradually, it becomes free from ideological and confessional bias. Scientific research of religion "does not exclude personal religiosity, but it does not oblige to be a follower of any religion. The requirement of objectivity puts the content of such an activity outside of any cult practice. The scientific and cognitive attitude to religion has an undoubted priority in religious studies" (p. 166).

"The volume of scientific publications on religious studies is growing reassuringly; the quality of many of them shows that current Russian researchers are not inferior in competence to their foreign colleagues" (p.164). But, unfortunately, "at present, religious studies in Russia does not have a fixed status, its institutional characteristics are unstable and blurred" (p. 171). The author makes a number of constructive considerations that clarify the subject area, composition, and conceptual framework of Russian religious studies and its integration into the solid arsenal of foreign countries. Interesting considerations are made about the general criteria of professional affiliation of religious scholars and their consolidation in Russia, as well as about their own attitude to the "religious factor". M. Y. Smirnov calls for understanding the mythological manifestations in our discipline and for its more effective inclusion in the dialogue between religious and secular cultures. However, while calling for such a dialogue, the author, in our opinion, still does not take into account the growing opposition to this from influential domestic clerics and unjustified leniency towards them on the part of the secular state authorities.

Religious studies self-reflection is continued by ob-

an interesting essay on the stages of evolution of the Russian sociology of religion. Describing the Soviet stage of studying religiosity and atheism, the author puts some "emphasis" on Leningrad studies. In general, assessing this stage, he states: "The prevailing desire was to demonstrate the steadfastness of the Soviet people's departure from religion... However, even the "crafty figures" could not hide the fact that a considerable part of the population of the country as a whole, and in some regions - a very significant one, remained committed to traditional religious orientation" (p.227).

Turning to the modern period, M. Y. Smirnov states that "the most labor-intensive field of modern Russian sociology of religion remains the issues of methodology, the creation of a theoretical apparatus for systematization and generalization of the rich empirical material of specific research" (p.204). In his opinion, sociological research now exaggerates attention to religious institutions to the detriment of the study of the social meaning of religious practices. The tendency to isolate confessionally engaged researchers from the emerging community of sociologists of religion is scientifically incongruous and particularly disturbing. "The main problem, the author states with bitterness, remains the lack of a stable need for objective ideas about the religious life of Russian society among the priorities of public consciousness in Russia" (pp. 207-208).

In the final part of the book "Personalia", a particularly characteristic phrase stands out: "There is an invisible" overflow" of the moral state into scholarship and vice versa " (p.236). The phrase especially emphatically confirms the thesis that personal decency and moral responsibility are absolutely necessary for a humanitarian scientist. Especially, in our opinion, these qualities are necessary for a religious scholar-a researcher of the most subtle sphere of culture. M. Y. Smirnov's story about his teachers-famous Leningrad scientists N. S. Gordienko and R. P. Shpakova-clearly confirms this thesis. The comments on the little-known data on Lenin's attitude to religion and the Bible, which successfully conclude M. Y. Smirnov's valuable monograph, are ethically weighed and theoretically weighty.

Permanent link to this publication: