The Problem of Perception of Chinese Civilization by Russian Publicists of the 19th Century: The Clash of the Civilizational Approach and Universalism

This research examines the perception of Chinese civilization in Russian philosophical discourse of the second half of the 19th century, as well as its conceptual expression in the debates between authors such as V.S. Soloviev, K.N. Leontiev, N.Ya. Danilevsky, and F.M. Dostoevsky. This research examines how the attitude toward China as a cultural and historical type reflects the clash of two fundamental paradigms—the idea of multipolarity and Western universalism. The paper identifies persistent ideological clichs and stereotypes about China characteristic of Russian journalism of the time, and analyzes the metaphysical and political foundations of V.S. Soloviev's critique of Chinese tradition. Particular attention is paid to the projection of this historical debate onto contemporary geopolitical debates about multipolarity, globalism, and civilizational sovereignty. The research methodology is based on historical-philosophical, comparative political science, and discourse analysis of journalistic texts. The study's novelty lies in its examination of the controversy not only as a historical-philosophical episode but also as a conceptual clash of two political-philosophical paradigms—universalism (globalism) and civilizational particularism (multipolarity), whose projections are found in the contemporary geopolitical agenda. The study draws parallels between the debate between Solovyov and Danilevsky and the later debate between F. Fukuyama and S. Huntington, revealing the relevant philosophical and political potential of these classic Russian texts. The study demonstrates that attitudes toward Chinese civilization served as an indicator of the thinkers' ideological positions in the debate over the development paths of Russia and humanity. The authors conclude that Danilevsky's ideas about the equivalence of cultural-historical types receive empirical confirmation in the formation of a polycentric world order, while Solovyov's universalism reveals the internal contradictions inherent in attempts to combine Christian universalism with faith in Western progress.