Музейно-выставочный центр "Рабочий и колхозница": трансформация политики памяти
“Worker and Collective Farm Girl” as a significant symbol of the Soviet past and the “standard of socialist realism” has its complicated biography in Moscow urban space. In this article, author examines the performance and perception of the monument “Worker and Collective Farm Girl”, based on the concept of the politics of memory. Author analyses some changing vectors symbolic loading of the monument over the past decade, as well as the mismatch of meanings generated by the monument and located beside it the museum and exhibition centre.
New Holland Island is a remarkable quarter in St. Petersburg not only for its central location and historical roots (it was created in 1720), but also for the fact that it has recently been given a new life in urban contexts. The story of New Holland is a story of transformation from ship-building constructions to perfect space for in-door and open-air cultural activities – with lawns and sun beds, leisure areas for adults and children, and residential areas for artists. One of the main features of the project is private ownership meaning that regeneration development strategy is formed by an investor.
The article is dedicated to the review of ways of looking at social space in the sociological theory. Basing on works of those authors, who paid special attention for this question, in the text there is considered the variety of theoretical interpretations and instrumental using the category of social space. The accent is made on application of space in the context of urban sociology. All the material is systematized according to division into three aspects of looking at social space: 1. the space of social actors's interactions; 2. the structure of status positions; 3. the connection of geographic space and social meanings that are attached to it.
This edited collection offers an empirical exploration of social memory in the context of politics, war, identity and culture. With a substantive focus on Eastern Europe, it employs the methodologies of visual studies, content and discourse analysis, in-depth interviews and surveys to substantiate how memory narratives are composed and rewritten in changing ideological and political contexts. The book examines various historical events, including the Russian-Afghan war of 1979-89 and World War II, and considers public and local rituals, monuments and museums, textbook accounts, gender and the body. As such it provides a rich picture of post-socialist memory construction and function based in interdisciplinary memory studies.
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.
Public history (PH) as a concept and movement emerged in the United States in the 1970s. It has become an academic field that provides opportunities for the representatives of the Humanities, academic community and the museum staff to establish communication ties. With the help of PH, historians became able to communicate with the society and, as a result, came into the public sphere. Public history is a relatively new area of knowledge in Russia - it appeared in 2012–2013 with the emergence of the first Master's program in the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences and, in what follows, conferences and round tables. The article discusses the development of public history in Russia. It is based on a review and analysis of academic literature and is aimed at understanding and exploring this new academic field. After analyzing the academic discourse on the current problems of historical science and the role of public history in the process of developing new ways of communication, the author comes to the following conclusions. The contemporary academic community is facing the problems of understanding how the audience showing today an increasing interest in history looks like. Besides, the field struggles with the problems of the “academic vs popular” languages and difficulties with the translation of historians’ texts. There is also a lack of direct communication between those creating a variety of historical products, such as teachers, employees of museums, filmmakers, media, etc., on the one hand, and historians, on the other hand. The result of the analysis, along with the post-Soviet “hereditary” problems of confidence in the subject of history, allows us to speak about the crisis of professional historical community as an expert in public sphere.
Scientific and educational project "Culture of Reconiliation: New historical consciousness in Ukraine" was held in autumn 2015 with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany and the society "Bochum - Donetsk" (Germany). The project brought together the experts studying the problems of historical memory and the collisions of historical narratives, problems of healing the wounds of the past. How can we exclude the exploration of historical knowledge as a instrument of war propaganda? How can we turn history into space of coexistence and the retention of the human dignity. Historians, philosophers, sociologists and culture experts from several European states combined their efforts in this book.
The book is aimed at the audience of specialists in philosophy of history and all those who are interested in the nature of past and historical memory.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.