The pressure valve. Russian nationalism in late Soviet society
The article addresses to the mixed methods strategy applying to the modern Russian nationalist organizations studying. This strategy matches to solve simultaneously the several scientific problems: i) the low degree of the mentioned organizations exploration, ii) the difficulty in studying these organizations by means of qualitative methods (i.e. which results may be verified by means of mathematics) because they are informationally and culturally closed, iii) the mismatching between the defining latent causality purpose and qualitative methods (i.e. which results may NOT be verified by means of mathematics) applying opportunity. The research, which results comprised the basement for this article, fulfilled the “qual->QUANT->qual” variant of the mixed methods strategy. The report depicts a design and a result of the research’s each step. Thus, it depicts the identified components of the exploring organizations ideologies: standpoints regarding the USSR, organizations’ perception regarding those who threats Russia, type of nationalism (including racism), organizations’ preferences regarding the Russia’s territory, organizations’ preferences regarding religion, organizations’ preferring economic models. Then, it depicts these components hierarchy and mathematic arguing that the basic component is the standpoints regarding the USSR.
There are many puzzles facing the analyst trying to understand the trajectory of Russian politics. Why did democracy fail in the 1990s? How was a small, corrupt elite able to seize control of the commanding heights of the economy, becoming fabulously wealthy in the process? Among the puzzles is also the failure of Russian nationalists to capitalise on the public’s deep dissatisfac- tion with the performance of the Russian economy in the 1990s. Then, after the accession to power of Vladimir Putin in 2000, the new, patriotic leader confounded the nationalists by sticking with many of the policies of the liberal market reformers: eschewing protectionism and trying to maintain and deepen Russia’s integra- tion into the global economy.
Putin concluded that Russia’s viability as a great power required him to accelerate economic modernisation and deepen global integration. Other leaders of developing countries, such as the populist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and the nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India, came to a similar conclusion, and tried to adopt select elements of the neoliberal policy package without alienating their domestic con- stituencies. These international comparisons are an important reminder that Russia’s dilemma of embracing the global economy while preserving national identity is not unique.
This book emanates from the research project ‘Nation-building, nationalism and the new “other” in today’s Russia’ (NEORUSS) funded by the Research Council of Norway under the Russia and the High North/Arctic (NORRUSS) programme, project number 220599. It is a sequel to The New Russian Nationalism: Imperialism, Ethnicity and Authoritarianism, 2000–15 (2016), edited by Pål Kolstø and Helge Blakkisrud, likewise published by Edinburgh University Press. Since our research project commenced, major events have taken place that affect Russian nationalism, in particular the annexation of Crimea and the war in Eastern Ukraine. The first volume was well underway when these momentous developments unfolded and we were able to refl ect on them only to a limited degree. In this second volume, with more distance to these events, we are better able to incorporate the effects of the Ukrainian crisis on Russian nationalism.
This article examines V. V. Bibikhin‘s recently published series of lectures, “Property. Philosophy of the self,” which he delivered at Moscow’s Lomonosov University in 1993–1994. In it, he creatively develops Heidegger’s project of “phenomenological destruction”: a critical analysis of the traditional arsenal of classical ontology and modern European philosophy (substantialism and subjectivism) guided by the question of being and working through a new reading of classical thought (Alcibiades I). The command “Know thyself” demands we address the question of one’s own, that which is proper to the self, selfhood—a direct a priori given of human existence. In Bibikhin’s definition of “one’s own,” primary importance is allotted not to the “private self” (with its engagement with innerworldly things), but to the relationship with the whole world, out of which relationship the emergence of the subject is for the first time made possible. The article analyzes the original interpretations of such concepts as “property,” “world,” and “capture” put forth in Bibikhin’s philosophy.
The articles examines the nationalistic and imperial imagination of three Russian writers (Apollon Maikov, Ivan Goncharov and Alexei Pisemsky), who proposed their own versions of the so-called "Russian Idea" during the Crimean War (1853-56). Exploring the misture of various discourses in their lyrics, journalism and sketches, the article offers the new understanding of the nationalization of patriotism in the literary realm.