Ольга Михайловна Фрейденберг. Письма 1911–1940 гг.
In the Foreword to the publication of excerpts from the Freienberg's Memoirs on Russian Revolution the author quotes letters written by Olga Freidenberg in 1917-1918. And makes a comparison of the three points on the chronological axis: the letters are from 1917-1918 and memoirs from 1937 and 1947 The comparison provides a picture of rethinking and reviewing of the February and October revolutions implemented by outstanding scholar and B.Pasternak's cousin and correspondent Olga Freidenberg.
The essay about Olga Freidenberg, an outstanding Russian scholar, who was a theoretician of myth and culture of the calibre of Claude Lévi-Strauss and Ernst Cassirer. Her proud stance defied the Stalinist regime of crime and repression. She left behind twelve monographs, unpublished in life, twenty articles and the immensely valuable memoirs Race of Life (which counts 2,300 pages of typescript).
The paper discusses the scholarly biography of Olga Freidenberg; a concise exposé of her major achievements in scholarship is accompanied by the questioning, how she managed to create new theories under the pressure inside the country and isolation from the world science.
Analytic survey of the papers presented at the conference concentrated on the scholarly legacy of the prominent Russian scholar a correspondent of Boris Pastermak and an author of the Memoirs encompassing first half of the XXth century. The place of her ideas in nowadays scholarship and new researches inspired by her theoretical works.
The article examines a problem besetting social theory and theory of culture: the problem of using postmodernism as a language for describing the 21st century. The author resorts to the umbrella term “post-postmodernism” to indicate the more complex theories that focus mainly on the analysis of the latest forms of capitalism rather than the concepts that offer themselves as direct alternatives to postmodernism even though they ignore the link between postmodernism and capitalism. The author takes up the idea, first argued for by the American Marxist philosopher Fredric Jameson, that postmodernism is the cultural logic of late capitalism and then uses Jameson’s approach in an attempt to retrace the continuity of new concepts of capitalism. The discussion begins with the theory of capitalist realism developed by leftist British thinker Mark Fisher. Fisher recognizes Jameson’s merits but takes exception to the term “postmodernism,” although the entire philosophical apparatus that Fisher uses is borrowed from Jameson’s work. The article then bridges the gap between capitalist realism and the latest left-wing theories such as accelerationism and post-capitalism. After tracing the close connection between the work of Mark Fisher and Nick Land, who worked together in the 1990’s at the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) and the ideas of Nick Srnicek, the author asks why Srnicek and his colleagues are put off by Fredric Jameson’s postmodern theory. The answer is that postmodernism does not permit contemporary leftists to speculate about the future. However, as the author points out, Jameson’s ideas about postmodernism at the “genetic level” are implicit in Srnicek’s concept of post-capitalism, which makes Srnicek’s theory “post-postmodernist,” although as a negative variation (in contrast to Mark Fisher’s positive one).
Forword to publication of the selected letters from the period from 1911 to 1940 addressed to friends, teachers and students and uncle Leon Pasternak.
The current paper investigates the relation between values and modernization applying some elements of the method proposed by Inglehart and Welzel (the authors of the Human Development Sequence Theory) to the data of Shalom Schwartz. The values survey by Schwartz specifies two main value axes, namely conservation vs. openness to change and self-transcendence vs. self-enhancement. Our research has revealed that the correlation between these two value axes differs in its direction when estimated for “macro-Europe” (that includes Europe and former settlement colonies of North and South America and Oceania) and “Afroasia” (that includes Asia and Africa). In “macro-Europe” we deal with a significant positive correlation between openness to change and self-transcendence, while in “Afroasia” this correlation is strong, significant, and negative. We investigate the possible impact of modernization on this difference. To do this, we approximate modernization through such indicators as GDP per capita and the proportions of the labor force employed in various sectors of economy. We find that in both megazones modernization is accompanied by increasing openness to change values. As for the self-transcendence/self-enhancement axis, we propose two possible explanations of the different dynamics observed in Europe and in “the East” (Asia and North Africa), namely 1) that Eastern and Western societies find themselves at different modernization stages, and 2) that this difference is accounted for by different civilizational patterns. Further analysis suggests that the latter explanation might be more plausible.
Within a brief historical period, BRICS as an inter-State association has become an influential player in the world economy and politics. BRICS is a primarily political entity, and in that regard, the BRICS grouping correlates with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). However, not all the expectations placed on the SCO by the founding countries at the time of its creation in 2001 have been met so far. The question is to what extent expectations may be fulfilled in case of BRICS.