The Yeltsin Era in the Light of Russian History 519 The cyclical conception of Russian history was elaborated most eloquently by a wide-ranging intellectual of the Silver Age

P. Reddaway

Abstract:n Russian and Western debates about developments in the post–Soviet world, the term “reforms” has become a kind of magic fetish. The mere mention of reforms, like a shamanistic incantation, unleashes a storm of passions across the spectrum of public opinion. However, the specific meanings of the term are often as murky and diverse as the interests and goals of those who invoke the word. Profound and substantive differences exist over what is meant by “Russia’s reforms”—differences between Russians and Westerners, as well as between various intellectual and political camps in Russia itself. Thus, in the view of most present-day Western observers, as well as old-style Westernizers inside Russia (including most of the orthodox Marxists in the early twentieth century), reform has been deterministically linked to the idea of modernization and more generally to a belief in the linear progress of civilization. In this conception of history, all nations are perceived as developing, perhaps at different speeds, in the direction of a single universal standard. One of the popularizations of this doctrine was the much advertised essay by Francis Fukuyama on “the end of history.”1 However, it is clear that in late Soviet and post–Soviet Russia the number of proponents of the optimistic view of modernization and a linear perception of history has been shrinking. By contrast, an increasing number of Russian historians and social scientists have embraced variations of the cyclical paradigm of change. The roots of this approach go back to Heraclitus and, in modern times, to Giambatista Vico, whose teaching about the corsi e ricorsi, the ebbs and flows of history, was the first in modern Western thought to challenge the doctrine of universal and irreversible historical progress. Although few serious scholars would interpret the historical cycles as mere repetition without development, establishing parallels between distant periods of Russian history has long been characteristic of Russians’ view of their past, present, and even future. Note the widespread use of such terms as “Bolshevism” and “revolution from above,” which were coined in the twentieth century but are used to describe earlier as well as recent periods. I