Великая Отечественная война как символический ресурс: Эволюция отображения в официальной риторике 2000-2010-х гг.
The article analyzes the practice of political use of the symbol of the Great Patriotic War by the Russian officials in the 2000-2010s basing on rhetoric of presidents V.Putin and D.Medvedev. It argues that Putin’s attempt to rehabilitate the Soviet past as a part of “the thousand years old Russian state” opened new opportunities for political use of the symbol of the Great Victory than Yeltsin’s formula “the victory of the people, but not of the Communist Party and the Soviet State”. The Victory over the German fascism and USSR’s development into a world superpower became the central elements of the new narrative of the Russian history. As a result of this transformation the symbol of the Victory was “divorced” from the tragic memory of Stalin’s regime. It makes possible its semantic inflation that is revealed by frame analysis of the presidents’ speeches in the Victory Day. But at the same time it hampers an integration of this symbol into a consistent narrative of the national past. Besides, in the context of a radical transformation of European memory regimes it makes the “apologetic” version of the Great Victory vulnerable before challenges from abroad.
Discusses the problems of a museum object as a historical source in the system of information resources of historical science and space of “museum history” in the structure of actual historical knowledge. It also reveals the impact of the transformation of social and cultural situations, social change request to the historical knowledge and, accordingly, modification of the relationship between the “museum history” and historical knowledge in general. Examines the impact of the transformation of the epistemological situation to engage in scientific circulation of visual material as historical sources – museum objects. Analyzed the museum exhibition as a form of representation of history in the historical context of the relation of science and socially oriented research.
The article analyzes practices of public commemoration of the centenary of the February and October revolutions in Russia. It reconstructs the symbolic strategies and historical narratives of the key mnemonic actors – the ruling elite, the Communists, the Russian Orthodox Church, the “Conservatives”, the Liberals etc. The analysis is based on recent texts of the politicians and public intellectuals from these groups. The research combines an analysis of discourses and commemorative practices. A commemoration of a historical event is considered as the political process the outcome of which depends on interaction of mnemonic actors who 1) have certain political aims and take particular position against the other actors, 2) selectively use the common repertoire of symbolic resources and take part in its transformation.
By the results of analysis, the commemoration of the centenary of the revolution(s) takes part in the context of a fragmented memory regime. This conclusion is based not only on significant discrepancy between the competing narratives, but also on the presence of several mnemonic warriors who use this symbolic chance for promotion of their own political agenda and seek to delegitimize their opponents. According to surveys, the same discrepancy about the revolution is revealed in the public opinion. However, the official project to celebrate “conciliation and concord” of the Reds and the Whites is facilitated by the fact that almost all major mnemonic actors (with exception of the Yabloko Party) share the “patriotic” and anti-Western discourse of the incumbent elite. Besides, the authority has as an influential ally as the Russian Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, in the context of the fragmented memory regime oppositional actors can impede a public demonstration of “conciliation and concord” even without large resources. This suggestion is well supported by the case of local opposition to a construction of the memorial to Conciliation in Crimea which was designed as a central event of the official commemoration.
The article is devoted to analysis of discursive practices of public representation and discussion of the political course of “modernization” announced by president Dmitry Medvedev. It is focused at interpretations of the idea of modernization by the leading Russian politicians as well as at the role of the notions about collective past, present and future in its ideological justification and contestation.
This captivating volume brings together case studies drawn from four post-Soviet states—Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova. The collected papers illustrate how the events that started in 1985 and brought down the USSR six years later led to the rise of fifteen successor states, with their own historicized collective memories. The volume’s analyses juxtapose history textbooks for secondary schools and universities and explore how they aim to create understandings as well as identities that are politically usable within their different contexts. From this emerges a picture of multiple perestroika(s) and diverging development paths. Only in Ukraine—a country that recently experienced two popular uprisings, the Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity—the people themselves are ascribed agency and the power to change their country. In the other three states, elites are, instead, presented as prime movers of society, as is historical determinism. The volume’s contributors are Diana Bencheci, Andrei Dudchik, Liliya Erushkina, Marharyta Fabrykant, Alexandr Gorylev, Andrey Kashin, Alla Marchenko, Valerii Mosneaga, Alexey Rusakov, Natalia Tregubova, and Yuliya Yurchuk.
The article attempts to examine the background of the problematization of narrative in historical knowledge. It explores the transformation of narrative in situations of postmodern and postpostmodern. The problem of narrative is analyzed in correlation with the types of rationality / models of science and given the gap between historical science and socially oriented historical writing. The potential of the source studies approach to the analysis of narrative is demonstrated. Structural method of the source studies is proposed as opposed to a narrative logic in historical wtiting.
The article analyzes the role of the Unified State Exam in History in forming the repertoire of the usable past, which determines the content of the national identity. The analysis of the examination tasks has revealed different commemorative density of the periods of Russian history. The author states that the exam is integrated into the official narrative of the millennial past and can serve as a tool for constructing the historical views of younger Russian citizens.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.
The article is devoted to the study of the authoritarianism prevalent in the mass consciousness of Russians. The article describes a new approach to the consideration of the authoritarian syndrome as the effects of the cultural trauma as a result of political and socio-cultural transformation of society. The article shows the dynamics of the symptoms of the authoritarianism, which appear in the mass consciousness of Russians from 1993 to 2011. This paper proposes a package of measures aimed at reducing the level of the authoritarianism in Russian society.
This work looks at a model of spatial election competition with two candidates who can spend effort in order to increase their popularity through advertisement. It is shown that under certain condition the political programs of the candidates will be different. The work derives the comparative statics of equilibrium policy platform and campaign spending with respect the distribution of voter policy preferences and the proportionality of the electoral system. In particular, it is whown that the equilibrium does not exist if the policy preferences are distributed over too narrow an interval.
The article examines "regulatory requirements" as a subject of state control over business in Russia. The author deliberately does not use the term "the rule of law". The article states that a set of requirements for business is wider than the legislative regulation.
First, the article analyzes the regulatory nature of the requirements, especially in the technical field. The requirements are considered in relation to the rule of law. The article explores approaches to the definition of regulatory requirements in Russian legal science. The author analyzes legislation definitions for a set of requirements for business. The author concludes that regulatory requirements are not always identical to the rule of law. Regulatory requirements are a set of obligatory requirements for entrepreneurs’ economic activity. Validation failure leads to negative consequences.
Second, the article analyzes the problems of the regulatory requirements in practice. Lack of information about the requirements, their irrelevance and inconsistency are problems of the regulatory requirements in Russia.
Many requirements regulating economic activity are not compatible with the current development level of science and technology. The problems are analyzed on the basis of the Russian judicial practice and annual monitoring reports by Higher School of Economics.
Finally, the author provides an approach to the possible solution of the regulatory requirements’ problem. The author proposes to create a nationwide Internet portal about regulatory requirements. The portal should contain full information about all regulatory requirements. The author recommends extending moratorium on the use of the requirements adopted by the bodies and organizations of the former USSR government.