Проблема коммеморации: метанарратив – места памяти – ренарративизация
Analyzed the transformation of the mechanisms of formation of historical memory and commemorations at the change of rationality types / models of science. The problem is considered in the context of source studies of historiography and the study of narrative. Hypothesis: for the classical model of historical science peculiar to the meta-narration and coupled with the hierarchical structure of narratives, that forms the basis of “natural” commemorations; for non-classical science in the history of history is a landmark occurrence that contributes to the destruction of the “natural” commemorations, in postnonclassical science problematization of narrative is accompanied by destruction of the commemorations, which a new construction begins in a situation of postpostmodern and is accompanied by a process of renarration.
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.
This paper discusses the legacy of Nikolai Antsiferov (1889–1958), a Russian historian who suggested a unique approach to urban studies in which literature played the key role. In the first section of this paper, the genesis of Antsiferov‘s conceptions of the study of urban history and the image of the city are outlined. The second section provides an analysis of his ideas on the literary image of St. Petersburg and the theory of literary-themed guided tours, which were articulated in his works of the 1920s. The finalsection of the article sheds light on the reception and legacy of Antsiferov‘s intellectual ideas in the modern humanities and assesses its significance in the modern context of interdisciplinarity.
The author discusses the meaning of zhe term "the Middle Ages".
The historiography of the XXIst c., which had been shaped by the influence of the so-called cultural turn, created a new field of research 'the history of historical culture'. This book presents a study of historical culture where the latter is approached through the synthesis of social, cultural and intellectual history. Intellectual phenomena have been placed in broad context of social experience, historical mentality and general intellectual processes. How did people view events (of their own lives, or of the life of their groups, but also of History) which they took part in? How did they evaluate them? How did they record and transmit information about those events while interpreting what had been seen or lived through? These questions are of great interest. Subjectivity combined with this information reflects views of a social group or of the society as a whole, but at the same time it shows cultural and historical features of its time.
The special issue explores the manifold relations between history, memory, and anthropological research. Explicitly or not, history has always been a particular reference for anthropological research. First of all, anthropologists most often deal with the past not only when attempting to reconstruct past events and conditions, but rather to look at social change, innovation, and transformation, enabling then to position their findings in larger theoretical perspectives. Moreover, many anthropologists are primarily interested in the ways in which people perceive societal changes, experience and represent them and relate them to their various world-views at large. In these endeavors, the notion of history itself became the center of debate, which shifted the attention of many scholars away from an absolute or etic frame of reference to primarily an emic understanding of its meaning with regard to local issues and life-worlds. Thus, the interaction between History and Anthropology was not simple in the past and is not so today. Whatever the particular interest or approach to history for anthropologists may be, history is therefore not just a neutral domain. From a social-constructivist perspective, history is a part of a distinct local cultural and symbolic universe and represents the result of social processes of selection, remembrance and oblivion. The ‘memory boom’ in anthropology triggered many studies in Africanist scholarship as well, for example, on the way in which historical memories were used by both protagonists of colonialism and national-liberation movements; or as a means of state propaganda by postcolonial regimes.
Zambian students are more tolerant first of all because of the existence since precolonial time of the Swahili culture in Tanzania and lack of such a background for national unity in Zambia. Besides, the memory of this is consciously used and abused by governments for the sake of nation-building.
The paper examines the history of dissemination in 14th-17th centuries in different european countries (especially in Eastern Europe), of one curious text, known as the "Privilege of Alexander the Great for the Slavs." Particular attention was given to the specifically Russian version of this text appeared in the latter half of the XVI century.