Коммеморация столетия революции(й) 1917 года в РФ: Анализ стратегий ключевых мнемонических акторов
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 author, the candidate of philosophy, the associate professor of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, suggests first in Russian language the entire historical and conceptual description of the state award system of the socialistic Cuba. In this connection, he disclosures its unique feature: the enormous number of the awards named for the Cuban national heroes. The attempts to find a similar phenomenon in the award systems of the another states all over the world are failed. The analysis of the Cuban personificated awards in light of the historical sociology results in a typology of the persons of the national heroes of the socialistic Cuba symbolically represented in their awards. The comprehension of this unusual phenomenon from the sociological, social-psychological, cultural-scientific and political-scientific standpoints leads to the conclusion that a cult of hero personality historically formed in the socialistic Cuba is reflected in its state award system. The author argues that this cult not barely memorizes the fighters for the liberty and the independence of the Cuba but is an essential component of a civil-patriotic religion which the ruling power created on the basis of the national political culture traditions with the purposes of the consolidation and the development of the Cuban society.
El autor, doctor de filosofía, docente de la Universidad Nacional de Investigación «Escuela Superior de Economía», ofrece por primera vez una completa descripción histórica y conceptual del sistema de condecoración de la Cuba socialista. Fue revelada su característica principal: una cantidad extremadamente grande de premios nombrados en honor a los héroes nacionales cubanos. Los sistemas de condecoración de otros países no presentan este fenómeno. El resultado del análisis de las condecoraciones personalizadas, en lo que a sociología histórica se refiere, es una tipología de la personalidad de los héroes nacionales de la Cuba socialista, representados simbólicamente en las condecoraciones. La comprensión de este particular fenómeno desde los puntos de vista sociológico, socio-psicológico, cultural y político, ha llevado a la conclusión de que en el sistema de condecoración de la Cuba se reflejaba en el culto a los héroes en este país socialista. El autor sostiene que este culto no sólo perpetúa la memoria de los luchadores por la libertad y la independencia de Cuba, sino que además es un elemento esencial de la religión civil-patriótica, creado por el gobierno en base a las tradiciones nacionales de la cultura política con el fin de consolidar y desarrollar la sociedad cubana.
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 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.
The article analyzes the frames of representation of collective identity of macro political (national) community the “constitutes” the Russian state in electoral rhetoric of Vladimir Putin. Following the patterns of representation of Us and Others in the seven articles, published during the campaign in the major newspapers, the author reveals the dynamics of the campaign. A special attention is devoted to the public reaction to the article about “national question”.
This article couples framing analyses with social identity issues to provide a critical discourse analysis of the Sochi Olympics opening ceremony, along with the various media depictions surrounding it. Moreover, it explores the idea of 'derzhava' as a rediscovered political narrative/frame in Russian symbolic politics. We argue that images and symbols alluding to different events in the past and present play significant roles in the social construction of people’s identities. Our lives are largely dependent upon what we tend to forget, and what we still remember. As the first impressions of the Sochi Olympics Games pass away, we are finally able to see what stayed hidden, and what was deliberately left in light. Relying upon the research on the connection between collective memory and social identity, we examine several Sochi Olympics events, seeking to identify what the organizers of the Games wanted us to remember, and what was meant to be forgotten. What symbols and signs were deliberately and repeatedly manifested to evoke Russian national pride? What was left behind the scenes in order not to revive traumatic collective memory of the past? An analysis of two frames – “the frame of commemoration” and “the frame of obliteration” - helps to shed light on the veiled elements of new Russian social identity construction today. In addition, our analysis helps to explain how the Sochi Olympics became a springboard for launching a more forceful symbolic politics commensurate with new Russian power ambitions.
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.
In chaper 6 Olga Malinova focuses on the interface between macro-political identity and official symbolic policy in post-Soviet Russia. Identity policy is an integral aspect of symbolic politics and Malinova describes such identity construction in Russia from the start of the century to the present through a reading of the presidential addresses of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
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.