This article discusses the history of large-scale Soviet boarding schools at the start of their existence. Her basic hypothesis is that the boarding schools were meant to provide answers to some of the most pressing questions of the time: what are the limits of the Soviet citizen’s personal and political freedom, what are his/her basic obligations to the state, what is the state prepared to offer in return for fulfillment of these obligations, what kind of resources exist for the country’s accelerated economic development, given the anticipated arrival of mature communism within twenty years, etc. Maiofis suggests that Nikita Khrushchev thought of the boarding schools as an unprecedented act of liberation of Soviet citizens, who had borne the burden of war and the immediate post-war troubles; at the same time, the boarding schools were meant to be an equally unprecedented act of en-serfment (or enslavement) of Soviet children. And though Khrushchev’s project was realized only in part, today’s Russian boarding schools still show a family resemblance to their predecessors.
In his article "The Party Organization of the Stalin Plant Has Been Gripped by Psychosis..." Oleg Leibovich (Perm State Institute of Art and Culture) uses archival materials to reconstruct the conflict between an engineer/Communist Party member, on the one hand, and the authorities, on the other. The place of the conflict: a brand-new enterprise for the manufacture of aviation motors, Plant No. 19in Perm. The subject of the conflict: the right to a personal inter¬pretation of people and events, contested by the Party organization. The time of the conflict: the repressive ideological campaign in August1936 (the Trial of the Sixteen in Moscow). The content of the conflict was determined by a clash of two cultures: rational and individualistic, on the one hand, and patrimonial, on the other. Common sense confronted ideological formulas and was defeated.
In the context of the historical concepts of the ensla vement and emancipation of social groups (S.M. Solovyov — A.D. Gradovsky), Kabatskov and Leibovich examine the evolution of the social status of the university lecturer in Russia over the past century. They use the term ‘slave’ [nevol’nik] to descri be the dependent position of the assistant professor; the word encapsulates administrative tyranny, the spread of ‘subject’ mentality in university contexts and the curtailment of opportunities for professional self-realization. The authors present the university administration as the main agent of assistant professors’ enslavement — administrators simultaneously represent bureaucratic power and their own social ambitions.
Levchenko examines the problem of domination and subjugation in the specific way it manifested in films about Stalinism and its consequences as shot by the Lenfilm studio, which enjoyed a period of cre- ative blossoming in the 1980s. These examples of working with totalitarian experience demonstrate the expected adherence to contemporary norms, but also systematic attempts to overcome the fixed boundaries of Soviet cinematic language, including by questioning the workings of the mechanisms of memory and forgetting in post-Soviet culture.
The article considers an episode when we find Leskov mythologizing the circumstances of his literary debut. By omitting in his autobiographical notes the first and the patronymic names of a local landlord and a neighbor of his relatives, Feodor Ivanovich Selivanov, who found Leskov’s letters worthy of publication, Leskov thereby opened a possibility of ascribing all that praise to Ilya Vassiljevitch Selivanov, a famous writer of his time.
The present paper is devoted to the transformations of Russian Formalist Theory of Literature just after its declared cancelling in the well-known odious article "A Monument for Scientific Error"published by Victor Shklovsky in the December, 1930. Many researchers (from Richard Sheldon to Alexander Galushkin) share the opinion that the article was an ostensible gesture which permitted the former formalists to remain faithful for their previous research and ethical principles. The author of the present paper insists that Victor Shklovsky has realized even more provocative project, having turned his theoretical statements into multiple genres of literature (i. e. belle-lettres, manuals for creative writing, children's tales, etc). The paper considers these "transponing" examples in detail.
The article is devoted to the moratorium on the death penalty, which was secretly introduced in Russia in 1741 and strictly observed throughout the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna. The paper examines the reasons and circumstances of the Empress's decision not to use death penalty, the ritual of the theatrical political death, the conditions of keeping convicts sentenced to capital punishment, but pardoned. The phenomenon of a 20-year moratorium on the death penalty in Russia in the mid-18th century is explored on the basis of a representative collection of published and archival sources and is included in the wide socio-cultural and political context of Europe's public life of the period, which allows us to understand its significance in the historical perspective.
The object of this article is to discuss the problematics of the attractiveness of literary images in N.P. Antsiferov’s theory of literary excursions. At the heart of the idea of literary excursions lies the idea of the experience of the connection of a literary image with a concrete spatial locus. Describing how a literary excursion utilizes various aspects of the aesthetics of realism and actualizes definite types of readerly experience, Antsiferov anticipates the research of literary imagination in popular culture.
In this review the book "Historical Culture of the Russian Empire: Formation of Representation of the Past / Ed. A. N. Dmitriev. Istoricheskaya kul'tura imperatorskoi Rossii: formirovanie predstavlenii o proshlom / Otv. red. A.N. Dmitriev. M.: ID VShE, 2012" is examined. Author considers it as contribution to the studies of historical culture and discusses relevance of the different approaches for the description of this subject.
Through an analysis of the Boris Yeltsin Presidential Center, a memorial complex opened in Yekaterinburg in 2015, Boltunova examines the formation of memory of Russia's first president Boris Yeltsin and, more broadly, of the 1990s. The new museum's collection is interpreted in the context of American and Russian cultural and historical traditions. Boltunova pays particular attention to the memorial strategies that emerged during Russia's imperial period. She demonstrates how imperial-era standpoints became the foundation for the creation of the Soviet formation of memories about leaders, and addresses the question of how useful they proved for the formation of memories about Yeltsin.