The history of phenomenological philosophy in Russia goes back more than a hundred years. However, the general phenomenological movement emerged just in 1988 - 1989. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the interest in the European culture in general and in the European philosophy in particular started to grow significantly accompanying of socio-political and cultural transformations the Soviet Union was undergoing.
Our philosophers turned minds towards Germany due to the fact that German philosophy has been having influence upon elaborating of Russian philosophy since the 19th century. However, in the late 80s and early 90s, it was not the traditional current of German thought, which drew attention our philosophers, but the relatively new phenomenological philosophy, and, in particular, the works of its eminent representatives E. Husserl und M. Heidegger. And it was not coincidental.
As the keynote of the socio-political and cultural transforming of that period was “Russia’s return to the European way of developing”, the comprehending of Europeanization of the society and culture, as well as the fate of Europe itself was of great importance. It was a real work which the phenomenological philosophy of the West was seriously and deeply engaged in. We believe that it is possible to speak of four periods in the elaborating of phenomenological philosophy in Russia: 1) From the beginning of the 20th century till the 1920s. The first acquaintance, the fundamental comprehending, the immanent criticism and the elaborating of phenomenological philosophy on Russian ground, without exterior involvement. The outstanding figures of this period are G. Shpet and B. Jakovenko. 2) From the 1930s till 1950s. The period of hard times for phenomenology in Russia. The phenomenology was regarded under the aspect of dialectic materialism, as a bourgeois philosophy, i.e. a degenerating thought of the capitalist world leaving the historical scene. 3) From the 1960s till middle 1980s. A new historic-philosophical justification of phenomenological philosophy and then philosophical justification in general. The most influential representatives of this period are P. Gaidenko, M. Mamardashvili, N. Motroshilova, E. Solovjev. 4) From the middle 1980s till nowadays. Growing intensity of historic-philosophical studying of phenomenology. The emergence of general phenomenological movement in Russia. The major representatives of this period including mentioned above are V. Molchanov, V. Bibichin, A. Chernyakov and A. Achutin. This period will be the subject of future our in-depth study.
However, we should acknowledge that a new generation of researchers of phenomenology became really known in the latest 10 or 15 years. Its formation fell on the late 1990s and the 2000s, i.e. the years of the new opportunities, appearing to science, culture and philosophy in Russia. This “new” generation made a real difference comparing to an old one because, it was not represented by a number of successful (more or less) efforts made by single specialists any more, but a serious bid coming from the entire formed and united philosophical school. At least it is possible to talk of the scientific community working together quite efficiently and having formed its own system of criteria of truth, own value hierarchy and so on. It is possible to talk of the scientific school within the meaning of “phenomenological youth” evolving on some translations and studies which were conducted for more than 10 years by an older generation of phenomenologists the late Soviet era: A. Molchanov, N. Motroshilova and A. Chernyakov.
All mentioned implies the formation of normal academic science which has left behind the stages of “genius dilettantism” or forced isolation. The elaboration of phenomenological traditions the modern philosophical community in Russia is working on took the development two main directions. The first one is represented by more fundamental study of original sources of phenomenology itself and its main heirs, successors and critics. This kind of work is being done on the basis of studying Husserl’s archives and a lot of historiographical literature which implies a solid research of such core topics of phenomenology as, for instance, the problem of time and subjectivity in the transcendental phenomenology of Husserl and in the fundamental ontology of Heidegger (V. Kalinichenko, J. Orlova, N. Artemenko, M. Belousov, G. Chernavin and others). The second one is represented by an attempt of applying the very phenomenological method to the analysis and comprehending of topics which don't hold the central position in the phenomenology itself such, for instance, as the theory of image (D. Razeev, I. Inischev) or anthropology of ache (V. Lechzier). In fact we talk of the reconstruction of phenomenological version of theory of signs, the symbolic, corporality and sensuousness, which partly brings into play the prestructural potential and takes into consideration the achievements of poststructuralism and modern media-theory. In the same context it is possible to consider the interest of contemporary Russian authors to the problematic fields of modern phenomenological research worldwide. This is, for example, the problematic of genetic phenomenology (A. Savin), regional ontology (A. Patkul), phenomenological psychology (A. Shiyan), the problem of memory (A. Kozyreva), theological overtones of thought by Heidegger (S. Konacheva) and others. Some authors (A. Yampolskaya, S. Gashkov) give a particular attention to the postphenomenological research and criticism of phenomenology, first of all in France, and to the comparative analysis of particular problems of philosophical hermeneutics and Anglo-American analytic philosophy (E. Borisov). As a productive provocation one can consider the criticism of psychologism by Husserl in the socio-cultural context of the epoch from the standpoint of sociology of knowledge and history of ideas (V. Kurennoi). It is significant that such an ambiguous, traditionally facultative topic as the analysis of connection between phenomenological philosophy and the tradition of the Russian religious philosophical thought is being reestablished with confidence due to the efforts of the recognized authority of the modern Russian phenomenology V. Molchanov.
One research strategy starts to become evident in the modern “phenomenological department” in Russia. This strategy implies the comprehending of the place of phenomenology not only within the history of transcendental philosophy as such, but also in the sphere of todays anthropological experience and modern humanitarian knowledge. On the one hand, we talk of applying of transcendental method to the transcendental-phenomenological tradition itself as a clarification of conditions for its genesis in history; on the other hand, it is the seeing of possibilities for the being of the original phenomenological knowledge in the practical experience of the present. Of course, some distortions on this way are possible. They are dictated by some degree of risk which is aligned with the “sallies” to the underexplored fields, to the “non-transparent zones” of ourselves and philosophical practice in the broad sense of this word. The stakes are extremely high here. It is a question of the existence of philosophy itself as a way of thought and life in the modern times. In his time M. Mamardashvili formulated a statement that “phenomenology is a moment of any philosophy” and meant it put in place conditions for philosophizing as such.