N. Ya. Danilevsky is often mentioned as one of the predecessors of the Eurasian movement without the spheres of similarity and difference being clearly defined. This paper shows that both Danilevsky's theory of cultural-historical types and Eurasianism can be interpreted as philosophies of history based on anti-Darwinian models of thought. However, the idea of convergence through contiguity which constitutes the geographical, linguistic, and cultural unity of Eurasia is not found in Danilevsky. War against Europe as a unifying bond in Danilevsky's (...) Panslavic programme is discussed in Darwinian terms which is in opposition to his own theory of cultural-historical types, whereas self-sufficiency in foreign politics corresponds to the basic principles of Eurasian philosophy of history. (shrink)

N. Ya. Danilevsky is often mentioned as one of the predecessors of the Eurasian movement without the spheres of similarity and difference being clearly defined. This paper shows that both Danilevsky's theory of cultural-historical types and Eurasianism can be interpreted as philosophies of history based on anti-Darwinian models of thought. However, the idea of convergence through contiguity which constitutes the geographical, linguistic, and cultural unity of Eurasia is not found in Danilevsky. War against Europe as a unifying bond in Danilevsky's (...) Panslavic programme is discussed in Darwinian terms which is in opposition to his own theory of cultural-historical types, whereas self-sufficiency in foreign politics corresponds to the basic principles of Eurasian philosophy of history. (shrink)