Телевидение как агент социальной политики: Борис Дубин о специфике российского зрителя.
The paper deals with the theory of collective trauma, which is built within the framework of the “strong program” in cultural sociology by Jeffrey Alexander. The theory highlights the importance of the trauma in the shaping of contemporary Western collective identities. The central message of the theory is the avoidance of the “naturalism fallacy”, i.e. of such a vision of the trauma, which doesn’t differ seriously the fact of collective perception from the objective event. Following Alexander, sociologically valid way to explain collective trauma should focus on the symbolic mechanisms of the creating trauma, and is driven by such a notions as code, master narrative, drama, ritual, etc. The power of developed explanation is illustrated by numerous historical cases.
The television audience measurement (TAM) system in Russia has three main characteristics. First, Russia remains a huge, widely spread country with a variety of populations and cultures. This means that the "national" TAM system had tyo make hard choices in order to produce a "national" Russian public. Second, the Russian media model has evolved into something unique, different both from democratic media systems and from the old "totalitarian" incarnation of Soviet times. A strong authoritarian aspect has been discernible throughout the leadership of Vladimir Putin, since 2000, as have a number of neoliberal market economy practices. The short history of TAM in Russia is also related to the globalization of this particular kind of technology and knowledge. Two key players can be identified here: international advertisers, who exported the need for ratings, and the international measurement companies (today TNS), which tried to enter a new but, as we will see, encountered difficulty in this endeavour, which requires both neutrality and a balancing of conflicting interests not easily reconciled.
Jeffrey Olick is one of the most prominent researchers in the field of memory studies nowadays. Yet, none of his works have been translated into Russian. “Figurations of memory” as the author himself states is one of his most important texts. It is dedicated to the process-relational methodology. J. Olick criticizes traditional approaches as they see collective memory as a static thing, whereas it should be studied as a process. On the other hand author criticizes a mainstream understanding of memory as a unified object. Instead he suggests that there are multiple mnemonic forms and practices that should be investigated. As a result he presents a new methodology that is based on analysis of the four essential aspects of memory work: field (mostly in a sense in which Bourdieu used it), medium, genre and profile. This method of analysis leads to emergence of additional empirical categories, such as official, vernacular, public, and private memory; affective, aesthetic-expressive, instrumental-cognitive, and political-moral media; the normal legitimation, German traditions, German victimhood, and German guilt genres; and the reliable, moral, and normal profiles. Though in the end the model may seem rather complex, author claims that it is by far more clear and precise that other models of research of collective memory. More than that, he claims that this methodology can be universal for studying a large number of sociological topics.
The article considers a problem of the relationship of television preferences and value orientations of the Russians. The results of concrete sociological research, conducted by the author in 2013, are presented. This research, based on a nationwide survey on a representative sample of 1,600 people, was realized in frame of the project "Social and Cultural Role of the Russian TV in the National Information Space" under the auspices of the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communication of the Russian Federation.
This book is a collection of chapters about emerged during last 15 years international television channels and their impact on international global media configuration. During this periode some new global channels emerged in non-western world, such as in Russia, Middle East etc. This book examines geopolitical strategies of such channels, theirs content and define new spaces for the future research in field of internationalization of media.
Ron Eyerman is one of the authors of the cultural theory trauma, that was introduced by him and Jeffrey Alexander. This text may be seen as a case-study, that underlines and illuminates some of the main features of the theory. Using the example of three significant social theory texts, Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, Freud’s Moses and Monotheism and Bauman’s Modernity and the Holocaust, this article illustrates the difference between personal, collective and cultural trauma. All of those texts are connected to the same event – Holocaust – and are also the outcome of this event. The authors of these texts could have become the victims, but instead survived bearing the trauma, conceptualizing it and thus becoming predecessors of the cultural trauma theory. Ron Eyerman shows the complexity of relationship between personal trauma, collective trauma and the construction of social theory. Analyzing these texts he goes into history of their creation, finds evidence for the traumatic experience of authors. He also analyzes aesthetic characteristics of the texts, showing those texts as not only pieces of social theorizing but also as personal experiences, trying to find meaning in gaps, voids and inconsistency. The aim is also to illustrate how personal trauma can impact the construction and representation of social theory.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.