‘Start Working on Your Articles from the Very Beginning of Your PhD’

Photo courtesy of Andrés Castañón Rincón

Andrés Castañón Rincón, from Spain, is a doctoral student at the HSE School of Philosophy and Cultural Studies in Moscow working on the history of Soviet Marxism philosophy. In his interview with the HSE News Service, he explains why studying Soviet Marxism is relevant today, talks about the advantages and challenges of his work in Moscow as an international researcher, and gives some advice to beginner PhD students.

Andrés Castañón Rincón

— What is your dissertation about?

— My dissertation focuses on the history of Hegelian ideas in Soviet Marxism. More specifically, it studies the concept of Soviet Hegelian Marxism and analyses how Hegel’s philosophy was received in Russia during the nineteenth century, how it began to intertwine with Marxism from the 1880s onward, and how, beginning with Lenin and later Abram Deborin, this tradition was institutionalised as a current within Soviet philosophy.

My research is structured in three main chapters: one conceptual and two historical.

The first problem I address is conceptual: What exactly is Soviet Hegelian Marxism?

I follow a methodological principle formulated by Evald Ilyenkov, who affirmed that one cannot study a historical phenomenon without a concept—that is, we cannot find something in history if we do not first know what that something is.

If we consider Soviet philosophy as a whole, despite the preeminence of the politically dominant version of Marxism (Diamat, in the strict sense), it is undeniable that during this period there existed a plurality of philosophical systems: Empiriomonism, Lunacharsky’s ‘God-building,’ Proletkult’s proletarian philosophy, liquidationism, sociologism, mechanicism, cybernetics, physicalism, culturology, Husserlianism, the Moscow Methodological Circle or the Bakhtin Circle, the Stepin–Shvyrev–Rozin School, and others. Therefore, the first task is to identify the specific difference of Soviet Hegelian Marxism among these diverse forms of philosophical production.

After reviewing dozens of definitions in the literature, I found that some were too abstract and incomplete (for example, Marcuse defined Soviet Marxism as a whole without distinguishing its different currents), while others were richer (eg, whether it was politically dominant or dominated). I argue that the most concrete and fruitful definitions are philosophical, and I propose a definition that encompasses all the others: Soviet Hegelian Marxism should be understood as a current that carries out an immanent critique of Marxism itself through classical philosophy; in other words, beginning with Hegel—but also with Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, and others—it criticises the Marxist method in order to surpass it.

In the historical chapters of my dissertation, I study its origins in the reception of Hegelianism in nineteenth-century Russia, starting with the Stankevich Circle. Authors such as Gogotsky, Chicherin, Samarin, and later Ilin could be associated, more or less precisely, with a right Hegelianism that moved from moderate conservatism to anti-Soviet positions. Meanwhile, Belinsky, Herzen, Mikhail Bakunin, and Chernyshevsky were influenced, to varying degrees, by a left Hegelianism. Plekhanov, considered the father of Russian Marxism, read several of these left Hegelians before even studying Marx and Engels, and this led him to consider the role of Hegelianism in Marxism—a question that continued to shape Russian and Soviet Marxism.

As for the specifically Soviet development of Hegelian Marxism, Lenin played a key role.

Photo courtesy of Andrés Castañón Rincón

He began to familiarise himself with Hegel in the late nineteenth century, though he especially deepened his study of Hegelian logic in his Philosophical Notebooks (1914–1915). His interest in Hegelianism was so strong that in 1923 he even proposed dedicating material and human resources to the systematic study of Hegelianism from a Marxist perspective, and called for the creation of a ‘Society of Materialist Friends of Hegelian Dialectics.’ I consider this to be the institutional origin of Soviet Hegelian Marxism, a project continued by Deborin, who made Hegelian Marxism the dominant current until the hegemony of Diamat in the 1930s. Later figures include Mikhail Lifshitz in aesthetics, the Hungarian György Lukács—who spent around thirteen years in the USSR—and, after the Thaw, Evald Ilyenkov and his school, who developed dialectical logic in a systematic way.

Even Vygotsky, although dedicated to psychology, was deeply influenced by Hegel and could be included in this movement.

— Why did you choose this topic?

— I chose this topic because I believe it is now possible to carry out more systematic research on Soviet philosophy, which has often been lacking.

My aim is to write a history of the philosophy of Soviet Hegelian Marxism as a philosophical current, not simply a sequence of intellectual biographies.

Moreover, I consider it important to renew contemporary Marxism, and for that it is necessary to know our own history.

— How has collaborating with colleagues at HSE helped your research?

— Above all, I am very grateful to have such a distinguished scientific advisor as Alexey Rutkevich. His recommendations and our discussions have profoundly shaped my research; indeed, some of the most important works in my bibliography come directly from his suggestions. He even speaks Spanish very well—my native language—thanks to having taught Cuban students, although we usually communicate in Russian.

— How is life in Moscow as a foreigner?

— My social experience has been very positive.

Most of the Russian people I have met have been hospitable and eager to share their culture—from food to celebrations—and equally curious about learning from a foreign culture such as Spanish.

In this regard, I have also greatly enjoyed conversations with my Spanish students.

On a different note, the climate has been a real challenge for someone from the subtropical Canary Islands, and I have only in Russia truly learned to appreciate the spring! Of course, my girlfriend’s support has also been essential, making the experience both easier and happier.

— Have you attended any international or academic conferences related to your research?

— I would highlight one international conference I attended remotely, held in Lima, Peru: the First International Congress on the Critique of Law. There, I presented a paper on the contributions of Soviet Hegelian Marxism to the critique of philosophy of law. It was a very valuable experience, not only because of the academic exchange, but also because it allowed me to connect with researchers from the Spanish-speaking world interested in my topic, with whom I have stayed in contact.

— What challenges have you faced during your PhD, and how did you overcome them?

— The main challenge has been the language. During the first year I devoted much of my time to studying Russian intensively, until I reached a sufficient level of reading to work with complex philosophical texts. This meant learning thousands of words, grammatical structures, and the stylistic features of philosophical writing.

Another challenge was practical adaptation: finding housing, working as a Spanish teacher at a university and later at the Cervantes Institute, and dealing with Russian bureaucracy, which can be complicated for foreigners.

In addition, my doctoral research is not a continuation of my master’s thesis, which was on Analytical Marxism, and this meant I had to start almost from scratch. All of this delayed my preparation of the required journal articles, which is why I advise new doctoral students, especially foreigners, to begin working on their articles from the very start of their PhD.

— What are your plans after completing your PhD?

— My plan is to return to Spain and work as a university professor in the field of philosophy or political science. I will need to validate my degree, but I trust this will not present major problems. Furthermore, Spanish is the second most widely spoken native language in the world, and in Latin America there is a strong tradition of interest in Marxism, even in Soviet Hegelian Marxism; I therefore hope to be able to contribute to this academic space.