This thesis is a comparative work that tries to break out of the background dogma in order to find a new way, another way of understanding intellectual culture in Russia. This research is part of the comparative epistemology, the main objective of which is to avoid oppositional work and to highlight differences and similarities between knowledge systems in two intellectual worlds: Russia and the French-speaking world. The question asked in this work concerns the philosophy in Russia, more specifically the dominant way of seeing and theorising it, which plays an important role in shaping the intellectual waiting horizon. The impact of this particular intellectual expectation can be found in the “cultural” transfer of theories and ideas when some of them pass and others cause resistance. What then defines the threshold and what obstacle (invisible?) is the cause of misunderstandings? The answer found is simple in its complexity: the device of the full person. It is a set of rhetoric and practices that valorises and makes possible certain behaviours that promote the ideas of fusion and collectivism at different levels of social life, in relation to man and his relations in society, and discouraging ideas of individualism in the broad sense of the terme.The full person’s system has enabled us to see and explain a certain continuity of values and doxa in the theories of Sujet in the 19th century in Russia, in the Soviet era and after the dissolution of the USSR, which at first sight might seem paradoxical. The major ideological breaks in Russia should have brought about changes in the vision of the Subjet. Surprisingly, both slavophiles, anarchists and Soviet marxists sought to build a Sujet theory based on the principles of organicism, integrity and ontologism. In other words, the materialist conception of the Sujet in Soviet times was not fundamentally different from that which the 19th century gave it to it. That is why the post-Soviet period is so much of interest in the values of the whole, of living organisms and of ontologism, which find their place in a large part of the criticisms of ‘post-modern’ ideas announcing a completely different way of seeing things: decentment, deconstruction, multiple and heterogeneity, which can only cause a serious conflict of valory.There was an enigma to resolve: what hinders acceptance of the subjet theories? This enigma, we tried to elucidate it by patiently bringing together the intertwined bribes of a huge fabric, trying to show the paradoxical coherence. Further work remains to be done, which would consist of building a different hardy hypothesis, which could explain why such a system was put in place in Russia at that time and not elsewhere.