Book
Lithuanian and Belarusian National Identity in the Context of European Integration
This monograph was developed as part of a larger research project entitled Peculiarities of National Identity of Lithuania and Belarus in the Context of European Integration, the aim of which was to conduct a comparative analysis of national identity in these two proximate but very different nation-states. The work was carried out by researchers at Belarusian State University (Minsk, Belarus), Vytautas Magnus University (Kaunas, Lithuania) and the University of St. Thomas (St. Paul, Minnesota, USA). The research was conducted in accordance with an agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on matters regarding cooperation in science and technology as determined by the State Committee on Science and Technology of the Republic of Belarus and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania.
The ambiguous term identity essentially refers to the capacity of individuals and social groups to retain their specificities and qualitative characters, despite historic, territorial and political changes and transformations. It was not until the 20th century that this term became widely used in academic language. In the last decades of the 20th century, this concept became one of the most important categories within the social sciences. The phenomenon of identity is the main factor that describes and differentiates contemporary societies (Dziubka 2008, 286-289). This explains the increased attention paid by researchers to the problems of identity formation and meaning.
This chapter examines the nature of national identity found in Belarusian and Lithuanian youth through a micro-level analysis of survey data – a departure from the primarily macro-level analyses in a number of the preceding chapters. With the use of this survey instrument, we hope to determine the level of saliency of given identity markers, both ethnolinguistic and civic, apparent in the individuals surveyed.
“Empire Speaks Out” is a result of the collaborative international research project whose participants aim to reconstruct the origin, development, and changing modes of self-description and representation of the heterogeneous political, social, and cultural space of the Russian Empire. The collection offers an alternative to the study of empire as an essentialized historical phenomenon, i.e. to those studies that construe empire retrospectively by projecting the categories of modern nation-centered social sciences onto the imperial past. It stresses dynamic transformations, adaptation, and reproduction of imperial patterns of sociability and governance. Chapters of the collection show how languages of rationalization derived from modern public politics, scientific discourses of applied knowledge (law, sociology, political economy, geography, ethnography, physical anthropology) and social self-organization influenced processes of transformation of the imperial space.
The diverse and contested nature of the contemporary skinhead scene makes it impossible to identify a single common body regime, or set of gender norms, characteristic of the skinhead (sub)culture. This chapter explores one example of how these fraternal bonds and spaces are constituted. It pays particular attention to practices of the body (individual and collective) within the group and how these practices were enacted to confirm its skinhead identity while shaping a particular regime of closeness and intimacy. It considers, firstly, the group as a particular form of fraternity based on homosocial bonds of friendship, closeness and (dis)trust. Secondly, the aesthetics and the ethics of intimacy within the group are discussed. In particular practices of displaying the – naked and bare – body of the skinhead are considered as well as tests of, and conflicts over, the meaning of the intimacies that these practices forge. Finally, the chapter explores these practices in the context of the wider and competing masculinities through which they are enacted.
This article responds to the question of whether the tensions and conflicts in international relations today are only a repetition of the Cold War, or the international community observes a different process. Advancement in the discussion on this topic would prompt the modern generation of politicians and experts on the usefulness of the Cold War experience dating back to 1947–1989 for interaction between the great powers. It may be also helpful for analyzing the perspectives of the resolution of this conflict as well as for finding the solutions which will be at least partly acceptable to the participants. The article compares the main features of the «old» and «new» cold wars according to the number of participants, the role of ideology, degree of military tensions, concentration of economic and other resources for the victory over the opponent. The article relies on a qualitative approach and does not resort to quantitative arguments. Although the new conflict differs from the old Cold War by many parameters, its nature has not changed from the nature of the conflict in the past.
In the late XIX - early XX centuries we see active search for the national characteristics of the Japanese. This article analyzes the book of the famous expert of Japanese literature Haga Yaichi (1867-1927) “Ten Essays on National Character” (1907). This book was controversial with regard to the work of Kishimoto Nobuta "Five Features of the Japanese" (1902) who was a Christian. A number of similarities are observed in these works (they value highly cleanliness of the Japanese, their cheerfulness and activity, ability to adapt borrowings, the sense of beauty, politeness and etiquette behavior). However, there are radical differences, too. For Kishimoto “The Japanese” was an independent entity, and Haga viewed the Japanese in its relation to the state and as its function. Kishimoto talked about the character of the peaceful Japanese, and Haga Yaichi interpreted the peculiarities of the national character primarily from the point of the readiness for war and death for the emperor and the motherland. Kishimoto's writing was not popular and was well forgotten. As for the views of Haga Yaichi, they were adopted by propaganda institutions and became one of the main sources for “Kokutai no Hongi”, the fundamental text of Japanese totalitarianism.
There are many puzzles facing the analyst trying to understand the trajectory of Russian politics. Why did democracy fail in the 1990s? How was a small, corrupt elite able to seize control of the commanding heights of the economy, becoming fabulously wealthy in the process? Among the puzzles is also the failure of Russian nationalists to capitalise on the public’s deep dissatisfac- tion with the performance of the Russian economy in the 1990s. Then, after the accession to power of Vladimir Putin in 2000, the new, patriotic leader confounded the nationalists by sticking with many of the policies of the liberal market reformers: eschewing protectionism and trying to maintain and deepen Russia’s integra- tion into the global economy.
Putin concluded that Russia’s viability as a great power required him to accelerate economic modernisation and deepen global integration. Other leaders of developing countries, such as the populist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and the nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India, came to a similar conclusion, and tried to adopt select elements of the neoliberal policy package without alienating their domestic con- stituencies. These international comparisons are an important reminder that Russia’s dilemma of embracing the global economy while preserving national identity is not unique.
Russia’s Skinheads: exploring and rethinking subcultural lives provides a through examination of the phenomenon of skinheads, explaining its nature and its significance, and assessing how far Russian skinhead subculture is at the “lumpen” end of the extreme nationalist ideological spectrum. There are large numbers of skinheads in Russia, responsible for a significant number of xenophobic attacks, including 97 deaths in 2008 alone, making this book relevant to Russian specialists as well as to sociologists of youth subculture. It provides a practical example of how to investigate youth subculture in depth over an extended period – in this case through empirical research following a specific group over six years – and goes on to argue that Russian skinhead subculture is not a direct import from the West, and that youth cultural practices should not be reduced to expressions of consumer choice. It presents an understanding of the Russian skinheads as a product of individuals` whole, and evolving, lives, and thereby compels sociologists to rethink how they conceive the nature of subcultures.
This article is devoted to the comparison of two Armenian protest coalitions: the 2016 coalition of Sasna Tsrer supporters and Nikol Pashinyan’s My Step coalition of 2018. The analysis shows that Pashinyan’s coalition, unlike the coalition of Sasna Tsrer supporters, was not a liberal-nationalist alliance, but rather a liberal-bureaucratic one. This difference turns out to be crucial, as the Sasna Tsrer polemic was heavily polarized by the clash between the statist and counter-statist frames of the Armenian nation, with none of the sides possessing enough symbolic or political resources to win. The generally successful outcome of Pashinyan’s protest can thus be explained by the fact that it was not so strongly framed by a counter-statist understanding of the Armenian nation.
In this article, the "Cold War" is understood as a situation where the relationship between the leading States is determined by ideological confrontation and, at the same time, the presence of nuclear weapons precludes the development of this confrontation into a large-scale armed conflict. Such a situation has developed in the years 1945-1989, during the "first" Cold War. We see that something similar is repeated in our time-with all the new nuances in the ideological struggle and in the nuclear arms race.
In 2006, Russia amended its competition law and added the concepts of ‘collective dominance’ and its abuse. This was seen as an attempt to address the common problem of ‘conscious parallelism’ among firms in concentrated industries. Critics feared that the enforcement of this provision would become tantamount to government regulation of prices. In this paper we examine the enforcement experience to date, looking especially closely at sanctions imposed on firms in the oil industry. Some difficulties and complications experienced in enforcement are analysed, and some alternative strategies for addressing anticompetitive behaviour in concentrated industries discussed.
This article is talking about state management and cultural policy, their nature and content in term of the new tendency - development of postindustrial society. It mentioned here, that at the moment cultural policy is the base of regional political activity and that regions can get strong competitive advantage if they are able to implement cultural policy successfully. All these trends can produce elements of new economic development.