Non-Marxist theories of the nation in Georgia in 1893-1917

Abstract

The study examines the nation's non-Marxist theories (Archil Jorjadze, Mikhako Tsereteli, Alexander Janelidze, and Dimitri Uznadze), which were imported from abroad and modified in Georgia between 1893 and 1917. We used two methods to comprehend these theories: content analysis and comparative analysis.   The events of 1893–1917 were characterized by various mutually exclusive ideas, the spread of Marxist ideology, a heated ideological debate, and, as a result, an intensification of the national question. The social and political events that occurred in Georgia between 1893 and 1917 directly mirrored those events that occurred in Russia during the same period (1893–1917).   In Georgia, the process of forming political parties began in 1893. Because of the national question, political elites were radically opposed between 1893 and 1917. Some politicians saw the restoration of state independence as unfavorable. For this part, the concept of a newly established cosmopolitanism was more acceptable. In the early twentieth century, the dominant view was about a nation's duty to humankind, focusing on what nations create for mankind and the "profits" that world history derives from their actions. Marxism defined the nation as a "temporary" historical event and mankind as a reality formed by socioeconomic relations. In opposition to this notion of the nation and the prevalent nihilism, Georgian political and public figures developed non-Marxist theories of the nation, the primary goal of which was to solve the national problem created in Georgia between 1893 and 1917. National leaders have done their best to emphasize the importance and urgency of the national issue to the public. Supporters of this viewpoint argue that national challenges undermine the state as a whole since national knowledge is developed to a high level in a strong state. At the time, the best way to convey their thoughts and beliefs was the print media, which addressed the public to enlist diverse social groups in the national cause. Attempts to raise national consciousness were great, but Georgia's internal and external political situations prevented a large proportion of the population from discussing the national question as a priority problem. As a result, the socialist-federalist party's popularity was low, especially compared to the social democrats. The supporters of the national position revealed significant efforts as they attempted to make practical changes in the national issue, as evidenced by attempts to develop programs based on Ilia Chavchavadze's national views.   When discussing the nation's non-Marxist theories between 1893 and 1917, it is necessary to distinguish some political and public figures whose influence on society was particularly significant. Archil Jorjadze, Mikhako Tsereteli, and Aleksander Janelidze were among those who defended national interests. With their definitions of the nation, each of them presented us with an interesting theory on the national question. Their analysis revealed the influence of popular national European theories, but their perspectives were more based on reality created in Georgia. Let's consider some aspects of the studied non-Marxist Georgian theories of the nation.  Mikako Tsereteli's "Nation and Mankind" (1910) is Georgia's first sociological study, allowing us to study European theories about the nation disseminated in Georgia at the turn of the twentieth century. The author discusses and criticizes popular European theories of nation, such as those of Ernest Renan, Salomon Reinach, Ernest Nys, Pasquale Stanislao Mancini, Johann Kaspar Bluntschli, De Greef, René Worms, Tard, Otto Bauer, and Rudolf Springer. Mikako Tsereteli, on the other hand, defined the concept of a nation himself. A nation can create a state. While the state can produce a nation, he emphasizes that the nation creates the state for the most part. This viewpoint was not shared by Archil Jorjadze, the author of Georgia's second non-Marxist national theory, who proposed a completely different vision influenced by various European theories.   Archil Jorjadze explained the origins of nationality by stating that it refers to the moment when a state is formed and established. There must have been several reasons for nationality to emerge, but the process of nationality emergence is visible in state emergence. According to the research, Ludwig Gumplowicz's and Gustave Herve's theories about a nation influenced Archil Jorjadze.   Despite their ideological similarities and theoretical-philosophical agreement, Alexander Janelidze considered Archil Jorjadze's and Mikhako Tsereteli's definitions of the nation flawed because they defined it as a social organism with the same spiritual set. Language, according to Alexander Janelidze, is not recognized as a distinguishing feature of a nation here. A nation, according to him, is a "super-organism" whose distinctiveness is expressed through language. Regarding defining nationality, Ernest Renan had a significant influence on Alexander Janelidze. Attempts to understand the concept of a nation continued between 1893 and 1917. Although European thinkers' perspectives on the national question heavily influenced Georgian authors, Georgian thinkers were able to analyze various aspects of the national question in unique ways. After studying the nation's non-Marxist theories, we were convinced that Georgian thinkers developed original and distinct theories from one another to overcome the prevalent nihilism toward the national problem and explain the importance of the national question to the public.