A report on the conference "History of Russian uncensored literature: persones, communities, production of newforms and canons". MSTTU, March 22, 2014
The article responds to Mark Lipovetsky’s discussion of how the term “postmodernism” is used in contemporary Russian cultural and political discourse, calling for a broader, macro-historical perspective. As distinct from the more dialectical practice of “shimmering,” associated with Moscow conceptualism, the radical stiobpracticed by Timur Novikov’s New Academy is fundamentally post-critical, reflecting a global cultural trend that accompanied the neoliberal revolution of 1989—91. It is this avant-garde moment — the last avant-garde — that ushered in the shift in thinking Lipovetsky describes, a shift that begins in late/post-Soviet art, far in advance of similar tendencies now observable in western culture.
The first English-language conference on the work of Vladimir Sorokin, "Vladimir Sorokin's Languages: Mediality, Interculturality, Translation," was held in the Danish city of Aarhus 31 March — 1 April 2012. The articles in this section, which was compiled by Mark Lipovetsky (University of Colorado), are based on the papers read at the Aarhus conference and are united by their shared approach to the work of Sorokin. They examine the question of how this writer methodically overcomes the boundaries of the literary aesthetic itself, tearing apart the fabric of literature and transforming his texts into performative, ritual or bodily acts. These articles examine Sorokin's "method" through specific texts: A novel in Nariman Skakov's (Stanford University) "The word in "A novel"," "Target" in an article by Ilya Kukulin (Higher School of Economics), "The technogenic uterus of history (Notes on the origins of a key image in A. Zeldovich and V. Sorokin's film "Target"), "Blue Lard" in Manuela Kovalev's (University of Manchester) "Empty words? The function of non-normative language in V. Sorokin's Blue Lard." The conclusions reached in all of the scholars' articles coincide in terms of a new conceptualisation of Sorokin — not only as a critic of authoritative discourses, but also as a trailblazer into unknown semiotic spaces hidden behind discourse — anthropological, cultural, political spaces — paths to which are blown open by the dynamite of Sorokin's deconstructions.
The authors analyze public discussions of higher education and the academic world in contemporary Russia, examining the confrontation between the ideological positions of the new managerialism and academic professionalism. Using analyses by foreign and Russian researchers, the authors highlight key features of these ideologies and reconstruct the historical framework of the antagonism between them (in an international context). They also reveal three peculiarities observed in the recent managers vs. professionals debate in Russia: the oppositions of past and future, local and global, and also reciprocal mistrust. In conclusion, they discuss possible ways out of this discursive confrontation.
The modern university, and with it the academic profession itself, are facing new challenges: first, the increasing complexity of labor markets and globalization are undermining the structure of the academic profession, and secondly, the rise in cost of university research calls into question the autonomy of the university. The internationalization of the academic labor market encourages rethinking the structure of academic professions that have historically been focused on national (regional) contexts. The university is too expensive for the state and/or for students. One way to keep the autonomy of the university is to offer society, the state and businesses a wide range of services. Demin seeks to answer the following questions: can bureaucratic (self-)management effectively regulate the growing body of the university? Is it necessary to relinquish part of the university’s autonomy to a hired manager? Can “soft managerialism,” using economic instruments to reveal the possibilities of the university to society, become a new defense of university autonomy?
This paper examines the book reviews published in Soviet journals in 1930–1950. The paper reveals the norms and functions of scholarly reviewing in that period, determines the influence of state ideology on this genre, and analyzes the difference of reviewing strategy in multi- and monodisciplinary journals.