James: What do you think of the modern world?
Janet: I'm done with it.
James: You mean you're looking for an alternative to modernity?
Janet: Yes, I'm done with it.
James: How about liberal democracy? Are you done with that, too?
Janet: Yes, I'm done with it.
James: What do you think of the modern world?
Janet: I'm done with it.
James: You mean you're looking for an alternative to modernity?
Janet: Yes, I'm done with it.
James: How about liberal democracy? Are you done with that, too?
Janet: Yes, I'm done with it.
Podcast: Traditionalism &
Russian Orthodox Converts
Traditionalism and Russian Orthodox Converts – Laurie Taylor talks to Mark Sedgwick,
Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at Aarhus University, about the radical project for restoring sacred order. Traditionalism is founded on ancient teachings that, its followers argue, have been handed down from time immemorial and which must be defended from modernity. How has this mystical doctrine come to have contemporary sway on the political right, inspiring ex President Trump's former chief strategist, as well as the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, sometimes dubbed as “Putin’s brain”?
They’re joined by Sarah Riccardi-Swartz, Assistant Professor of Religion and Anthropology at Northeastern University, Boston, who has uncovered an extraordinary story of religious conversion in one corner of Appalachia. Here, a group of American citizens has embraced the Russian Orthodox Church and through it Putin’s New Russia. They look to Russian religion and politics for answers to Western secularism and the loss of traditional family values.
Producer: Jayne Egerton
Professor of Arab and Islamic Studies at Aarhus University, about the radical project for restoring sacred order. Traditionalism is founded on ancient teachings that, its followers argue, have been handed down from time immemorial and which must be defended from modernity. How has this mystical doctrine come to have contemporary sway on the political right, inspiring ex President Trump's former chief strategist, as well as the Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, sometimes dubbed as “Putin’s brain”?
They’re joined by Sarah Riccardi-Swartz, Assistant Professor of Religion and Anthropology at Northeastern University, Boston, who has uncovered an extraordinary story of religious conversion in one corner of Appalachia. Here, a group of American citizens has embraced the Russian Orthodox Church and through it Putin’s New Russia. They look to Russian religion and politics for answers to Western secularism and the loss of traditional family values.
Producer: Jayne Egerton
Ten Options
This page is prompted by the BBC podcast above, which features two kinds of anti-modernists: philosophers and ideologues (some of them fascist) advocating Traditionalism and American converts to Russian Orthodoxy who look to Russian religion and politics for answers to Western secularism and the loss of traditional family values. The converts are "done" with modernity and, for that matter, liberal democracy. I don't agree with them; I'm not yet done with modernity. But I understand their motivations, and I am indeed alienated from aspects of modernity.
How about you? Feeling a little alienated from the modern world? Perhaps especially Western modernity, with its emphasis on secular values, the isolated individual, a natural world seen only as a resource for human use, its dismissal of the idea that the universe itself has purpose, its neglect of beauty as an intrinsic part of the world, its rejection of all things sacred, its elevation of science as the only legitimate way of knowing, and its ways of thinking that reduce all values to money. Feeling also a little alienated from Western-style democracy when it's controlled by monied elites and overemphasizes individual preferences over the common good? Do you find yourself anti-modern, at least in some of these senses, and wishing for a different kind of future?
Below please find ten intellectual options alive in the world today, some of which you will appreciate and some not, all of which are non-modern or anti-modern in their ways, It is important to understand the motivations of people who espouse alternatives you find problematic and repugnant. There is not much hope for any of us if we understand only ourselves. Here are the twelve options.
- Constructive postmodernism: Advocates rebuilding and creating new thought and organizational systems after deconstructing traditional frameworks, emphasizing individual agency and a multiplicity of viewpoints, along with respect and care for the community of life.
- Communitarianism: A political and social ideology prioritizing community and collective responsibility over individual autonomy, aiming to balance individual rights with community needs.
- Earthism: A worldview that venerates the Earth and its ecosystems, promoting environmental stewardship, sustainability, and a sense of interconnectedness with nature.
- Spiritual revival: A cultural movement focused on reconnecting with spiritual or religious beliefs, often in response to a perceived spiritual void or detachment in modern society.
- Recovery of the primordial tradition: A movement aimed at rediscovering and revitalizing ancient wisdom, practices, and cultural traditions to address contemporary challenges and reconnect with cultural heritage.
- Creative anarchy: A philosophy that champions individual freedom and expression without strict adherence to conventional rules or systems, encouraging innovation and spontaneity within society. (Can be viewed as ultra-modern, in its emphasis on individual autonomy.)
- Cultural Nationalism: A political ideology stressing the importance of preserving and promoting a specific culture or cultural identity within a nation, often advocating for policies that favor the interests of the dominant cultural group.
- Religious Nationalism: A political ideology that combines religious beliefs with nationalist aims, frequently advocating for the dominance of one religion within a nation-state and marginalizing or excluding religious or cultural minorities.
- Restoration of hierarchical social order: A societal paradigm that champions reestablishing clear social hierarchies and structures, typically based on traditional values and authority.
- Fascism: A far-right authoritarian ideology characterized by dictatorial power, extreme nationalism, the suppression of opposition (often through violence), and advocacy for a strong centralized government led by a single leader. Fascist regimes usually promote militarism, totalitarianism, and the subjugation of individual rights to state interests.
It is also important to mention more personal options to modernity that lack a political force, but that are taken by many people.
- Mystical withdrawal: Withdrawing from worldly concerns and immersion in transformative mystical states,
- Aesthetic Retreat: rejecting political engagement and seeking solace or inspiration in art, music, poetry, film, and nature walks.
- Focusing exclusively on Personal Relationships: A disengagement from political concerns in favor of focusing solely on personal relationships and interactions, disregarding broader societal issues and responsibilities.
- Awaiting the end of time: A passive approach to the future, anticipating the eventual end of human civilization or existence as a potential solution to contemporary problems or a source of meaning.
For my part, I am not entirely non-modern or anti-modern. I appreciate the western Enlightenment ideas of individual rights, evidence-based reason, individual freedom, and liberal democracy. And when it comes to antidotes to the darker sides of modernity, I lean toward constructive postmodernism, communitarianism, earthism, spiritual revival, and a recovery of the primordial tradition - combined with the spirit of liberal democracy and individual rights. I go for the first five alternatives, combined with aspects of western modernity.
However, I live in a state of the United States where many people are keen on cultural nationalism, one dimension of which American exceptionalism; and some may lean toward religious nationalism, and more specifically Christian nationalism. I have neighbors who speak of the need to recover hierarchical social values, too, especially what they call "family values." They want the patriarchal family to return.
I don't know anyone who vocally favors fascism, but there are certainly some who want a very strong leader who will make our country great (again). Mine is a very red state.
And I certainly know people who turn to the more personal options - mysticism, aesthetic retreat (especially music and films), a focus on personal relationships, and, in a few instances, awaiting the end of time and/or heaven.
Here's my point. The ten options are very much alive today, and I want to at least understand the motivations behind them. I am a Christian. Jesus calls us to love even our enemies: that is, to love those who do things we find morally suspect or even repugnant because they harm others if not us. And, of course, also love those who just confuse us with their priorities. A love of enemies does not mean liking them, but it does mean understanding what motivates them and recognizing that they, like us, are humans among humans. Aren't we all?
- Jay McDaniel
Joel and Martha: American Converts
to Russian Orthodoxy
Imagine Joel and Martha, recent converts to Russian Orthodoxy living in West Virginia. They feel completely alienated from Western modernity: its individualism, its self-centeredness, its neglect of community, its lawlessness, and what they took to be its rejection of divine authority. They also feel that American foreign policy has been totally co-opted by wealthy elites who want to rule the world in the name of "liberal democracy," but who really want to preserve their wealth. They find hope in a tradition that, to their minds, is much more rooted in life's true purposes, which are to serve God and live lovingly with one another and the earth. They look to Russian religion and politics for answers to Western secularism and the loss of traditional family values. When they hear that the dissident Alexei Navalny's funeral took place on March 1, 2024, at the Mother of God Quench My Sorrows Church in Moscow, they are glad. They understand why he, formerly an atheist, felt drawn to the Church. They, too, are drawn. Contrary to Navalny, they have some sympathy for Putin's Russia. Still, they admire Navalny. They are still thinking about how to reconcile Putin's Russia with their own Orthodox beliefs. "Is it authoritative in a good sense or authoritarian in a bad sense," I ask. They say they're not sure, and still thinking about it.
Joel and Martha are comfortable with traditional, patriarchal gender roles. They know that many Americans will find this crazy. Still, Martha doesn't seem to mind. She has a strong role in family life and runs a small business as well. Joel says that most of their decisions are mutual. Politically, they are neither Democrat nor Republican and are revolted by the way that both parties operate. They think America is on its last legs and that, in time, its imperial rule will be history. They love their American friends, but they think the end of American imperialism is a good thing. They don't think America should rule the world. They think it should cooperate with other nations and learn from them, including Russia. When I ask them what draws them to Russian Orthodoxy, they offer fourteen reasons.
Most of my friends, who think of themselves as "progressives," will react quite negatively to the last five: critique of liberal democracy, a preference for monarchy, return to traditional values, an emphasis on divine sovereignty, and a reclamation of patriarchy. My sense, however, is that open and relational (process) philosophers and theologians might appreciate many among the first nine, especially the critique of atomized and self-centered individualism and the affirmation of a world filled with beauty and purpose.
Indeed, open and relational (process) theologians might even appreciate their idea of God as King, although the language may be a little off-putting. I ask Joel and Martha what they mean: "Does this mean that God dominates the world as a controlling power? Does this mean that God is a mean-spirited dictator?" They say No. They say that, for them, the sovereignty of the divine King is love, not power. "What makes God sovereign is that, no matter what happens on earth, no matter how terrible, love wins." Where does this victory happen, I ask. They say that it happens in heaven. I am reminded of Whitehead's idea that everything that happens on earth becomes part of heaven, transformed into love, and these energies are then recycled back to earth as lures for love and creativity. "Is this what you mean by sovereignty," I ask them. They weren't sure and said they wanted to think about it.
Joel and Martha are comfortable with traditional, patriarchal gender roles. They know that many Americans will find this crazy. Still, Martha doesn't seem to mind. She has a strong role in family life and runs a small business as well. Joel says that most of their decisions are mutual. Politically, they are neither Democrat nor Republican and are revolted by the way that both parties operate. They think America is on its last legs and that, in time, its imperial rule will be history. They love their American friends, but they think the end of American imperialism is a good thing. They don't think America should rule the world. They think it should cooperate with other nations and learn from them, including Russia. When I ask them what draws them to Russian Orthodoxy, they offer fourteen reasons.
Most of my friends, who think of themselves as "progressives," will react quite negatively to the last five: critique of liberal democracy, a preference for monarchy, return to traditional values, an emphasis on divine sovereignty, and a reclamation of patriarchy. My sense, however, is that open and relational (process) philosophers and theologians might appreciate many among the first nine, especially the critique of atomized and self-centered individualism and the affirmation of a world filled with beauty and purpose.
Indeed, open and relational (process) theologians might even appreciate their idea of God as King, although the language may be a little off-putting. I ask Joel and Martha what they mean: "Does this mean that God dominates the world as a controlling power? Does this mean that God is a mean-spirited dictator?" They say No. They say that, for them, the sovereignty of the divine King is love, not power. "What makes God sovereign is that, no matter what happens on earth, no matter how terrible, love wins." Where does this victory happen, I ask. They say that it happens in heaven. I am reminded of Whitehead's idea that everything that happens on earth becomes part of heaven, transformed into love, and these energies are then recycled back to earth as lures for love and creativity. "Is this what you mean by sovereignty," I ask them. They weren't sure and said they wanted to think about it.
- The Sacred Side of Life: Desire for a re-enchanted world infused with mystery and a sense of the sacred.
- Tradition: Desire for a recovery of tradition. Note: This can take two quite distinct forms: (1) shallow traditionalism, as happens in America with the “Make America Great Again” movement, which is a return to the 1950s, or (2) deep traditionalism, as in the perennial philosophy movement, which is a return to the timeless wisdom of classical Hinduism, Sufism, and Russian Orthodoxy.
- Liturgy and Ritual: Desire to reclaim a liturgical view of the world, where rituals are means of making contact with the sacred.
- Beauty: Understanding that the universe is not simply a shuffling of matter in motion but a dance in the presence of the divine, with the natural world participating in different archetypes of beauty residing in heaven.
- Rejecting Isolated Individualism: Critiquing the idea that the individual is the arbiter of all values.
- Living for the Common Good: Desire to live in and serve the common good.
- Beyond Consumerism: Desire to move past consumerism, with its emphasis on appearance, affluence, and marketable achievement as what makes for “success” in life.
- Living with a Sense of Purpose: Recognizing the need for individuals to live with a sense of purpose, rooted in a deeper understanding of their place in the world and their responsibility towards others, driven by principles that transcend individual desires and encompass the greater good of society.
- Order and Stability: A desire for order and stability.
- Rejecting “Liberal Democracy” Rejecting "liberal democracy" when grounded in the worship of the individual at the expense of social well-being and the common good.
- Monarchical Governance: Belief that a strong ruler, a monarch, can help conservative Christianity and politics work together, Make America holy.
- Traditional Morality: A return to traditional morality, including traditional gender roles. Emphasis on social, sexual purity.
- Patriarchy: A return to patriarchal family life and governance.
- Divine Sovereignty: A sense that God is sovereign over all: God the King.
Interviews with Sarah Riccardi-Swartz
|
|
|
Three Controversial
Voices against Modernity
René Guénon, Julius Evola, Aleksandr Dugin
The podcast above troubles me. I hope you will listen to it and assess it for yourself. I learn about three thinkers who have influenced a traditionalist worldview critical of Western modernity: René Guénon, Julius Evola, and Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin. Dugin leans toward fascism and seems to have a voice in Russia today.
I also learn about connections between their general way of thinking and right-wing politics in America today, including Steve Bannon's style of politics, which influences other right wing thinkers.
Three things trouble me. First, aspects of what I hear can also be found in Christian Nationalism, which I oppose. I do not want a Christian America; I want a multi-religious America safeguarded by freedom from religious authoritarianism. Second, aspects of what I hear are radically anti-democratic, while I am pro-democratic. I want everyone to have a voice, not just the "Christians" or the populists.
And third, perhaps most troubling of all, I have something in common with them. I, too, am critical of western secular individualism, its corrosive effect on community life, its neglect of the spiritual side of life, and its reduction of all things to commodities in the marketplace. I am on the left and they, especially Evola and Dugin, are on the right; but I think there is something "right" about their critique of western modernity. Those of us on the "left" need to hear what is right, even if we disagree with some, and perhaps much, of what they say.
They argue that secularism severs humanity from timeless spiritual roots, while individualism prioritizes isolated self-interest over interconnectedness and the common good. Interestingly, Western communitarians like Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, and Charles Taylor also critique Western individualism. They believe that the idea of self-centered individualism is at the heart of many problems in the West today. And so do process philosophers such as John Cobb and Herman Daly in their work "For the Common Good; Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future."
Typically, Western communitarians do not ground their appeals for community-mindedness in traditionalist language. They do not appeal to timeless, perennial truths; their orientation is more, as it were, "process" in ethos. They speak of the intrinsic value of all life, including human beings, and emphasize that humans are persons-in-community not persons-in-isolation. Human beings are "relational" not "atomistic." And they emphasize that the value of life, including people, is by no means reducible to monetizable criteria or consumer choices. Moreover, they typically link communitarianism with democratic ideals, preferring democratic socialism to, say, hierarchical traditionalism.
Thus, we have two critiques of Western individualism alive today, coming from different directions but with a common enemy, so to speak: western individualism. The traditionalist speaks of a higher power by which life can be guided, and the process communitarians speak of the intrinsic value of life, albeit enfolded within a sacred whole. One is vertical in spirit and one is horizontal in spirit. One is at home with a structured, hierarchical society; one holds on to dreams of democracy but with communitarian leanings.
*
As a process thinker, I want to find a balance between individualism and communitarianism, affirming the rights of individuals to determine their destinies while, at the same time, recognizing that individuals are always, to quote John Cobb, persons-in-community. But I also know that the kind of individualism found in many western societies is toxic, leading to all kinds of problems: community breakdown, political dysfunction, economic disparities, and epidemics of selfishness and loneliness. Surely there is a way to be an individual that is rooted in community, not isolation. This is why I want to understand the traditionalists, even with what some might perceive as their fascist leanings, especially Evola and Dugin,
René Guénon, a French metaphysician and author, laid the foundation for his critique of the modern world in his work "The Crisis of the Modern World." He scrutinized various aspects of Western modernity, including materialism, individualism, secularism, scientific reductionism, and the loss of tradition. Guénon argued that materialism led to spiritual decline and disconnected humanity from higher truths. He viewed excessive individualism as detrimental, advocating for the recognition of interconnectedness over isolated self-interest. Guénon lamented the separation of spiritual and temporal realms, advocating for a holistic worldview that integrates both dimensions. Moreover, he criticized the reductionist approach of modern science and mourned the erosion of traditional wisdom in favor of rationalism and material progress.
Similarly, Julius Evola, an Italian philosopher and esotericist, engaged with similar themes, critiquing aspects of Western modernity such as decadence, democracy, equality, consumerism, and mechanization. Evola perceived Western civilization as in decline, losing touch with its heroic and transcendent roots. He criticized democratic systems for promoting mediocrity and emphasized hierarchy over universal equality, advocating for the importance of spiritual elites. Additionally, Evola condemned consumer culture for distracting people from higher pursuits and saw the mechanization of life as dehumanizing, eroding authentic human values.
Both Guénon and Evola sought a return to timeless principles, spiritual wisdom, and a holistic understanding of existence. Their critiques continue to provoke thought and debate about the direction of Western civilization, challenging prevalent ideologies and encouraging a reevaluation of modern values and priorities.
*
Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is the most timely today. A Russian far-right political philosopher, he was born into a family with ties to military intelligence. Emerging as an anti-communist dissident during the 1980s, Dugin's intellectual journey evolved into a fusion of geopolitics, philosophy, and ideological activism.
In 1997, Dugin published "Foundations of Geopolitics," laying out his vision for Russia's resurgence through strategic alliances and conquest, positioning it against the United States-led Atlanticist empire. Expanding on this, he developed the ideology of neo-Eurasianism, emphasizing Russia's unique role as a bridge between Europe and Asia. This led to the founding of the Eurasia Party in 2002 and the authorship of influential works like "The Fourth Political Theory."
However, Dugin's political views have stirred controversy, often being labeled as fascist or neo-fascist. Despite lacking official ties to the Kremlin, he has advised prominent Russian politicians, including Gennadiy Seleznyov and Sergey Naryshkin during their tenure as Chairman of the State Duma. While some dub him "Putin's brain," the true extent of his influence on the Russian government, particularly President Vladimir Putin, remains a subject of debate.
Dugin's rhetoric often delves into conspiracy theories, such as equating fascist ideology with Western liberalism and framing Russia's actions, like the invasion of Ukraine, as part of a divine struggle against the perceived evils of Western civilization and Ukrainian Nazism. Despite the controversies surrounding his ideas, Dugin remains a significant figure in contemporary Russian conservative thought, sparking discussions and debates about the country's direction and global role.
I also learn about connections between their general way of thinking and right-wing politics in America today, including Steve Bannon's style of politics, which influences other right wing thinkers.
Three things trouble me. First, aspects of what I hear can also be found in Christian Nationalism, which I oppose. I do not want a Christian America; I want a multi-religious America safeguarded by freedom from religious authoritarianism. Second, aspects of what I hear are radically anti-democratic, while I am pro-democratic. I want everyone to have a voice, not just the "Christians" or the populists.
And third, perhaps most troubling of all, I have something in common with them. I, too, am critical of western secular individualism, its corrosive effect on community life, its neglect of the spiritual side of life, and its reduction of all things to commodities in the marketplace. I am on the left and they, especially Evola and Dugin, are on the right; but I think there is something "right" about their critique of western modernity. Those of us on the "left" need to hear what is right, even if we disagree with some, and perhaps much, of what they say.
They argue that secularism severs humanity from timeless spiritual roots, while individualism prioritizes isolated self-interest over interconnectedness and the common good. Interestingly, Western communitarians like Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, and Charles Taylor also critique Western individualism. They believe that the idea of self-centered individualism is at the heart of many problems in the West today. And so do process philosophers such as John Cobb and Herman Daly in their work "For the Common Good; Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future."
Typically, Western communitarians do not ground their appeals for community-mindedness in traditionalist language. They do not appeal to timeless, perennial truths; their orientation is more, as it were, "process" in ethos. They speak of the intrinsic value of all life, including human beings, and emphasize that humans are persons-in-community not persons-in-isolation. Human beings are "relational" not "atomistic." And they emphasize that the value of life, including people, is by no means reducible to monetizable criteria or consumer choices. Moreover, they typically link communitarianism with democratic ideals, preferring democratic socialism to, say, hierarchical traditionalism.
Thus, we have two critiques of Western individualism alive today, coming from different directions but with a common enemy, so to speak: western individualism. The traditionalist speaks of a higher power by which life can be guided, and the process communitarians speak of the intrinsic value of life, albeit enfolded within a sacred whole. One is vertical in spirit and one is horizontal in spirit. One is at home with a structured, hierarchical society; one holds on to dreams of democracy but with communitarian leanings.
*
As a process thinker, I want to find a balance between individualism and communitarianism, affirming the rights of individuals to determine their destinies while, at the same time, recognizing that individuals are always, to quote John Cobb, persons-in-community. But I also know that the kind of individualism found in many western societies is toxic, leading to all kinds of problems: community breakdown, political dysfunction, economic disparities, and epidemics of selfishness and loneliness. Surely there is a way to be an individual that is rooted in community, not isolation. This is why I want to understand the traditionalists, even with what some might perceive as their fascist leanings, especially Evola and Dugin,
René Guénon, a French metaphysician and author, laid the foundation for his critique of the modern world in his work "The Crisis of the Modern World." He scrutinized various aspects of Western modernity, including materialism, individualism, secularism, scientific reductionism, and the loss of tradition. Guénon argued that materialism led to spiritual decline and disconnected humanity from higher truths. He viewed excessive individualism as detrimental, advocating for the recognition of interconnectedness over isolated self-interest. Guénon lamented the separation of spiritual and temporal realms, advocating for a holistic worldview that integrates both dimensions. Moreover, he criticized the reductionist approach of modern science and mourned the erosion of traditional wisdom in favor of rationalism and material progress.
Similarly, Julius Evola, an Italian philosopher and esotericist, engaged with similar themes, critiquing aspects of Western modernity such as decadence, democracy, equality, consumerism, and mechanization. Evola perceived Western civilization as in decline, losing touch with its heroic and transcendent roots. He criticized democratic systems for promoting mediocrity and emphasized hierarchy over universal equality, advocating for the importance of spiritual elites. Additionally, Evola condemned consumer culture for distracting people from higher pursuits and saw the mechanization of life as dehumanizing, eroding authentic human values.
Both Guénon and Evola sought a return to timeless principles, spiritual wisdom, and a holistic understanding of existence. Their critiques continue to provoke thought and debate about the direction of Western civilization, challenging prevalent ideologies and encouraging a reevaluation of modern values and priorities.
*
Aleksandr Gelyevich Dugin is the most timely today. A Russian far-right political philosopher, he was born into a family with ties to military intelligence. Emerging as an anti-communist dissident during the 1980s, Dugin's intellectual journey evolved into a fusion of geopolitics, philosophy, and ideological activism.
In 1997, Dugin published "Foundations of Geopolitics," laying out his vision for Russia's resurgence through strategic alliances and conquest, positioning it against the United States-led Atlanticist empire. Expanding on this, he developed the ideology of neo-Eurasianism, emphasizing Russia's unique role as a bridge between Europe and Asia. This led to the founding of the Eurasia Party in 2002 and the authorship of influential works like "The Fourth Political Theory."
However, Dugin's political views have stirred controversy, often being labeled as fascist or neo-fascist. Despite lacking official ties to the Kremlin, he has advised prominent Russian politicians, including Gennadiy Seleznyov and Sergey Naryshkin during their tenure as Chairman of the State Duma. While some dub him "Putin's brain," the true extent of his influence on the Russian government, particularly President Vladimir Putin, remains a subject of debate.
Dugin's rhetoric often delves into conspiracy theories, such as equating fascist ideology with Western liberalism and framing Russia's actions, like the invasion of Ukraine, as part of a divine struggle against the perceived evils of Western civilization and Ukrainian Nazism. Despite the controversies surrounding his ideas, Dugin remains a significant figure in contemporary Russian conservative thought, sparking discussions and debates about the country's direction and global role.
