The article analyzes the problem of the representation of one of the greatest cultural traumas of the twentieth century — the Holocaust — in various Jewish museums (Washington, Berlin, Moscow). They are united by the important social function of perpetuating and edification, but each museum has its own context and creates its own form of representation, rhetoric and measure of the performance and memory about the events of Jewish history. Concepts and exposure of these museums are immersed in a context of general social debate about the trauma, its principal expressibility, mediatization and visualization. The research field of trauma contains an internal contradiction. This contradiction is inherent, on the one hand, the idea of which came from the psychoanalysis of inexpressible injury (T.Adorno, Jean-François Lyotard, Sh.Felman, D. Laub, Caruth C. et al.), and, on the other hand, the opinion of globalization and mediatization injury (V.Kansteiner, E.Kaplan, J.Aleksander, A.Hyussen). The discourse about the Holocaust is globalized, but the memory of the Holocaust victims is functioning glocal, taking into account the specific local context of traumatic events. As a consequence, museumfication of Holocaust generates diverse field of aesthetic representations. The article stresses the peculiarity of these museums focus on sensual work with the past called for the exchange of experiences and emotions in addition to rational knowledge, an invitation to identify. In comparison of museums, it becomes evident that modern museum exhibitions and performances to varying degrees provoke the visitor to identify with the collective subject of history through a simulated experience of the suffering of others, which is impossible without emotions, sympathy and working memory. But the therapeutically simulated traumatization through acquaintance with the phenomenon of the Holocaust is not justified in any socio-political and cultural context
This paper is a review of the recent Russian translation of Philip Pettit’s 1997 book “Republicanism”. The Russian translation comes to light on the wake of the global political shift, which compels to re-evaluate the shares of realism and idealism in the republican theory. The discussion of the book itself is preceded by a review of Pettit’s many contributions to analytic philosophy. In Russia, understanding of Pettit’ philosophical republicanism is complicated due to low familiarity of the audience with the normative approach to politics in general. This may result in overrating the republican criticism of liberalism; it is more appropriate to speak about republicanism correcting or upgrading, than refuting liberalism. A purely logical demonstration of the priority of the republican concept of freedom as non-domination over the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference is hardly possible. Rather the difference between liberalism and republicanism points to their disagreement over the nature of the underlying political reality: whereas liberalism distrusts the state and the “big government”, republicanism embraces it. Pettit’s version of republicanism is a normative theory, which strategically seeks to translate political agendas of various groups into the common republican language. The principle of nondomination functions as the touchstone of normalization for the political spaces. The pluralistic ontology of the republicanism excludes every kind of metaphysical unities, from the indivisibility of the sovereignty to the individuality of the isolated citizen, considering them to be potential sources of domination. The book remains silent about the role of philosophy in politics, as well as about the power of the normative reason in the community, where it enjoys prioritization over direct democracy and majority rule. Finally, “the people” itself emerges in the process of the appropriate republican education.
The article discusses the ambivalent phenomenon of the selfie - a self portrait taken with a digital camera and published on the web. It is argued that the selfie is a new languege of self-description in society which can be interpeted through the ideological background of the authors. The selfie is presented as a factor in democratization of media, but also as a possible tool for depresonalization and commodification of internet users. This is duscussed in context of femenist's narrative on selfies.
We analyze the Complaints and Suggestions Journals maintained at the dining cars in trains run by Soviet Railroads in the early 1930s. A certain level of hostilities has arisen between customers and the personnel following the emancipation of service employees, who started being viewed by consumers as an obstacle to be overcome rather than assistants in obtaining access to goods and services. Both sides armed themselves with numerous regulations, ordinances, instruction manuals, and booklets. One side was mastering the art of composing complaints, the other was improving the phrasing of formal replies and runaround response patterns. The complaints reveal daily life problems as well as eating habits and gastronomic preferences of some categories of passengers, also indicating their tolerance level beyond which they considered the situation unacceptable. Mostly written by members of the middle class emerging in the cities, lower levels of Soviet civil servants, bosses of various scales, and servicemen, the complaints represent an important source for every-day life and social history studies. They allow reconstructing a number of rules observed in communications between customers and stuff, and reveal the improvised ideological grounding invoked in an attempt to catch the attention of authorities. We claim that the widespread popularity of the genre of complaints was a side effect of mass literacy, and the ideological interpretations were the result of the struggle for justice. The paper is based on Materials of the People’s Commissariat of Supplies, previously unpublished, and the regulatory documents, manuals, and booklets of the 1930s–1940s specifying rules for the provision of passenger services and for the writing of complaints.
"How Many Bodies has the King?" is a critical essay on one of the most influential twentieth century medievalists, Ernst Kantorowicz. It was written in occasion of the recently published long-expected russian translation of his famous "The King's Two Bodies". The author proposes his own view on the role and place of Kantorowicz in the development of medieval studies in the past decades on today.
The article analyzes the formation of the language of the Stalinist cultural policy on the material of musical-ideological discourse of the 1920s — 1950s. The author attempts to disassociate herself from the Zhdanov’s narrative about the struggle of two schools in the Soviet music. This narrative is still dominates the historical-musicological research. The author interprets ideological definitions used to characterize the composer's work, — such as «formalism», «naturalism», «reactionary character», «cosmopolitism», «truthfulness», «sincerity», «simplicity», «nationality», «partisanship», — in a new, ethical perspective. The author demonstrates that the accusations of formalism, put forward by some musical ideologists from RAPM to Zhdanov and his followers, were in fact an appeal to a paradoxical ethical norm.
Analysis of various approaches to the study of everyday life shows the importane of literary texts as a source of not only facts from daily life of the past, but also of the views of the author's contemporaries on a variety of events. "Starik Khottabych", a tale by Soviet children's story writer L/Laguin, is discussed as an unconventional example of how changes in everyday life are reflected in the literature of the time. Similarities are also revealed between "Starik Khottabych" and the highly acclaimed satirical novels by Ilf and Petrov, "Twelve Chairs" amd "The Little Golden Calf". In both cases, a protagonist disconnected from Soviet realities serves to create an estrangement effect, which highlights some problems inherent in that reality and not necessarily articulated by the contemporaries.
In the 19th century there is an obvious increase of publications on the history of philosophy in German philosophy. According to the estimates of Schneider (Scheider 1999), from 1810 to 1899, 148 original works of 114 authors in German on the history of philosophy was published. The aim of this article is to analyze how evolved and changed the Canon of German philosophy of the 19th century, as documented in these publications. Based on the analyses of 55 tables of contents the number of mentions of names of philosophers of the 19th century is estimated, the proportion of pages given to each of them. The author comes to the conclusion that the current understanding of the key figures of the nineteenth century significantly differs from that which was recorded in the German histories of philosophy. So, it was revealed that the Herbart along with representatives of German idealism was included in the Canon of key philosophers of the 19th century. In addition, on the basis of empirical evidence it is shown how the century has changed the attention of authors of works on the history of philosophy such philosophers as, for example, Kant and Hegel. The study data helps to clarify how intensively first and second persons of the given historico-philosophical Canon were rotated.