러시아ㆍ유라시아

This study is a comparative analysis on the perceptions and evaluations of the Orient in various Eurasianistic perspectives in the Post-Soviet Era. The interest of those perspectives in the Orient cannot be properly explained by any single term of the followings such as orientcentrism, instrumentalistic interpretation of the Orient against the Occident, antipathy of Asian peoples against the Russian rule, expression of national self-consciousness. It is rather, this article argues, a reasonable reflection on the Asiatic elements in Eurasia and a manifestation of well-balanced views on the true nature of Eurasianness. The two most important tasks that Eurasianism faces are 1) to establish dialogical relations based on the multiplicity of Eurasianism, 2) to create the so-called 'idea-ruler' as a linkage for the relations, or a metalanguage as a basis for mutual dialogue. The former has been fettered by the prevalence of the so-called ethnocentric nationalism, whether in Russia or in the Orient, while the latter by messianism of Russian Orthodox Church as well as by the series of Islamism. These tendencies have resulted from consequential oblivion or even dismissal of the essential premise of Eurasia, that is, multi-ethnicity, multi-religion, and multi-culture. This article argues that Eurasianism is not 'the truth of answer' to the historical past, but 'the truth of question' with contemporary resonance. The approach required in Eurasianism would be respect for differences as hope for justice and tolerance as a basis for solidarity to overcome heterogeneity. With this approach, the Orient could be placed properly as a 'real' rather than 'imaginary' geography in the Eurasianistic perspective and Eurasianism could become the alternative project towards the Eurasian community.