This article investigates the semiotic and general-teoretical aspects of Nikonova's poetic system in the context of avant-garde and neo- (post-)avanf-garde practices.
This article examines the role of fear motifs in the construction of author’s subjectivity in the “fighting” memoirs (published in 2001—2002) of two Soviet medievalists: the leader of the so called non-official medieval studies, A. Gurevitch, and a representative of the Soviet historical establishment, E. Gutnova. Whereas both authors see fear as the product of the repressive Soviet regime, engendering silence and slavery, Gutnova uses the discourse of fear to victimize and justify the “hers” collectively suffering under the regime’s pressure, while Gurevitch contrasts the “his” as active agency to “silent majority”. Links with the romantic ideals of the non-official Soviet humanities, the structure of the dissidents’ memoirs, and general vision of history are discussed.
In Plato’s Laches an apparently insignificant remark appears: “the law places the soothsayer under the general, and not the general under the soothsayer” (199a). However, Socrates pronounces this phrase in conversation with the military commander Nicias, and it was known in Athens that Nicias had followed, in a critical situation, the suggestion of the soothsayers, which resulted in a military disaster and the death of Nicias himself (he was sentenced to death by the victors). Nicias made an incorrect decision in nontrivial circumstances on account of not having a correct understanding of the situation, and Plato hints at this event in order to show that philosophy, which nourishes the ability of a correct understanding of any question, is not an idle exercise. In essence, he constructs an apology for philosophy–and first of all an apology for the philosophy of Socrates. At the same time, Plato enters into an unannounced polemic with Thucydides, who held Nicias’ virtue in an exceptionally high estimation (VII, 86, 5): from Plato’s point of view, it is Socrates rather than Nicias who deserves such an evaluation.
The article examines the history of Soviet and early post-Soviet film between the late 1980s and early 1990s with attention to the assimilation of codes of sexuality, methods for showing the naked body and the motivations behind this. The concept of the “pornographic imagination,” which brings together the approaches of Susan Sontag and Jacques Lacan, enables Levchenko to trace a change in attitudes toward representations of the body in film, which had been liberated from the need to adhere to the norms of both “high art” and “societal morals.” Between the perestroika period and the mid-1990s, sex in (post-)Soviet film was transformed from a set of stigmatized and taboo practices into a universal resource of interpretation, and subsequently into a commodity that spurred the growth of self-sufficient consumption
The article analyzes the Hegelian subtext in the novels of the émigré poet, writer, and amateur philosopher Boris Poplavsky (1903–1935). In the novel Apollon Bezobrazov, dialectical consciousness, described by Hegel in the fourth chapter of The Phenomenology of Spirit, organizes the text not only on an ideological level, but also on the level of its narrative structure. This is proof that Poplavsky was familiar with Hegel’s philosophy before he became a “diligent student” of the subsequently famous seminars on The Phenomenology of Spirit led by Alexandre Kojève from 1933 to 1939 at the École pratique des hautes études in Paris. Poplavsky officially attended Kojève’s classes during the 1934–1935 academic year, which allows for a new reading of his second novel, Homeward from Heaven, which he worked on at the same time as he was participating in the seminar.
The review essay is devoted to the book by A. Kelly "The Discovery of Chance: The Life and Thought of Alexander Herzen" (Cambridge, 2016).