RU 
The Concept of Dialogue by G.S. Batishchev in the Tradition of Russian Communication Studies
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.37816/2073‑9567‑2026‑79‑75‑84
- УДК / UDC: 130.2
- Publication Type: Research Article
- For Citation:
Chadaeva, A.G. “The Concept of Dialogue by G.S. Batishchev in the Tra‑ dition of Russian Communication Studies.” Vestnik slavianskikh kul’tur, vol. 79, 2026, pp. 75–84. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37816/2073‑9567‑2026‑79‑75‑84
- Abstract: The paper reveals the specific features of the formation of the problematic field of Russian communication studies as a field of knowledge, which includes not only a set of approaches, principles, and methods of Western European communication theory, but also methodological developments of Russian researchers: Y.M. Lotman's “autocommunication”, D.S. Likhachev's concept of the “dialogue of cultures”, and the concepts of dialogue by M.M. Bakhtin and G.S. Batishchev. The philosophical approach to communication problems involves, on the one hand, M. Buber's philosophy of dialogue and J. Habermas's theory of communicative action as representatives of the Western European tradition of communication studies, and, on the other hand, the concept of dialogue of the Russian philosopher G.S. Batishchev, who traversed a complex path from humanistic Marxism to religious philosophy. The transformation of Batishchev's philosophical thought makes the Soviet scholar an heir to Russian religious philosophy, which allows us to consider the issues of the philosophy of communication from the broader spiritual and moral horizon of Russian spiritual culture. A comparative analysis of the two traditions' understanding of the philosophy of dialogue leads the author to the conclusion that Batishchev demonstrated the overcoming of the Cartesian “subject‑ object” model in intersubjective interactions by shifting the focus from the subject‑ centric Western European communicative paradigm, oriented towards “egocentrism”, to an intersubjective meaning‑activity field, followed by the construction of subject‑ subject relations based on the priority of the “dominant focus on the other” and an unconditionally valuable attitude towards each other, as co‑creation with a socio‑ generating function. Batishchev's concept of “profound communication” significantly expands the philosophical approach in communication studies enabling one to overcome the limitations of the Western European subject‑object communicative paradigm and create a full‑fledged subject‑subject system of social communications.
- Keywords: culture of deep communication, own‑measurement, psycho‑communication, onto‑communication, universals of deep communication, activity approach, anthropological revolution, Cartesian subject‑object model, conciliarity, ascending man, creative anthropology
- Страницы / Pages: 75–84
- Received: July 18, 2025
- Approved after Reviewing: November 20, 2025
- Publication Date: March 25, 2026
1 Bakhtin, M.M. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of Verbal Creativity]. Mos‑ cow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1986. 445 p. (In Russ.)
2 Genrikh Stepanovich Batishchev: sbornik statei [Genrikh Stepanovich Batishchev 2009: Collection of Articles]. Moscow, ROSSPEN Publ., 2009. 333 p. (In Russ.)
3 Gorelov, A.A. “A.S. Khomiakov: uchenie o sobornosti i russkaia obshchina” [“A.S. Khomyakov: The Doctrine of Conciliarity and the Russian Community”]. Kultura i obshchestvo, no. 2, 2017, pp. 79–97. (In Russ.)
4 Gurevich, P.S. Propaganda v ideologicheskoi borbe [Propaganda in the ideological storm]. Moscow, Vysshaia shkola Publ., 1987. 263 p. (In Russ.)
5 Darenskii, V.Iu. “Filosofsko-antropologicheskaia kontseptsiia Batishcheva: che‑ lovek voskhodiashchii” [“Batishchev's philosophical and anthropological concept: ascending man”]. Izvestiia Saratovskogo universiteta, Series: Filosofiia, psikhologiia, pedagogika [Philosophy, Psychology, Pedagogy], vol. 17, no. 2, 2017, pp. 135–139. (In Russ.)
6 IIlenkov, E.V. Filosofiia kultury [Philosophy of Culture]. Moscow, Politizdat Publ., 1991. 464 p. (In Russ.)
7 Kreig, R.T. “Teoriia kommunikatsii kak oblast znaniia” [“Communication Theory as a Field of Knowledge”]. Komparativistika-III: Almanakh sravnitelnykh sotsiogumanitarnykh issledovanii 2003: sbornik statei [Comparative Studies-III: Almanac of Comparative Social and Humanitarian Research 2003: Collection of Articles]. St. Petersburg, M.M. Kovalevsky’s Sociological Society Publ., 2003. 408 p (In Russ.)
8 Likhachev, D.S. “Bibliografiia trudov D.S. Likhacheva” [“Bibliography of Likh‑ achev's Works”]. Izbrannye trudy po russkoi i mirovoi culture [Selected Works on Russian and World Culture]. St. Petersburg, Saint‑Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions Publ., 2006. 416 p. (In Russ.)
9 Lotman, Iu.M. “O dvukh modeliakh kommunikatsii v sisteme kultury” [“On Two Models of Communication in the Cultural System”]. Stati po semiotike i tipologii kultury [Articles on Semiotics and Typology of Culture]. Tallin, Aleksandra Publ., 1992. 472 p. (In Russ.)
10 Lotman, Iu.M. Semiosfera [Semiosphere]. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo-SPB Publ., 2000. 704 p. (In Russ.)
11 Marks, K., Engels, F. Iz rannikh proizvedenii [From Early Works]. Moscow, Gos‑ politizdat Publ., 1956. 700 p. (In Russ.)
12 Perevozchikova, L.S. “Stanovlenie subieektnosti kak osnovopolagaiushchego print‑ sipa zapadnoevropeiskoi filosofii” [“The Emergence of Subjectivity as a Fundamental Principle of Western European Philosophy”]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, Series: Lingvistika i mezhkulturnaia kommunikatsiia [Linguistics and Intercultural Communication], no. 3, 2008, pp. 253–262. (In Russ.)
13 Shalina, I.V. Sovremennaia kommunikativistika: praktikum [Modern Communication Studies: A Workshop]. Ekaterinburg, Ural Federal University Publ., 2016. 128 p. (In Russ.)