Book
Культура. Политика. Понимание (философско-политические проблемы идентичности: Россия и современный мир)
-
The concept of "Russian Europeans" appeared in the 19th century, Vl.S. Solovyov gave him the first definition in "Three Conversations on War, Progress and the end of world history." In modern philosophical discourse the concept was returned by V.K. Kantor, who defined the "Russian Europeans" as the builder of the Great Russia, based on the European-Christian values. Thus, the line was held from Alexander Pushkin, who called Russian state as the first European, through Vl.S. Solovyov to F.A.Stepun, S.L.Frank, N.A.Berdyaev and G.P. Fedotov.
The A.A. Kara-Murza’s article «Russian Northernship» of the Princes Vyazemsky (to the Question of National Identity) explores the little-studied question of the role of the princes Vyazemsky in the creation of the concept of «Russian Northernship» – a rich «identification matrix», which played a big role in the philosophical and ideological polemics of the 18th and the first third of 19th centuries and pushed back into the distance in the middle of the 19th century, with the beginning of the «classical» Russian dispute between «Westerners» and «Slavophiles». According to the author of the article, the main ideological inspirer of the rurikoviches Vyazemsky was N.M. Karamzin, who lived and worked in Vyazemsky’s «family nests» in Moscow and Ostafievo, and whose «History Of the Russian State» is a classical text of the «Russian Northernship».
The subject of this book is the study of various national and cultural stereotypes that existed in Japan and Russia concerning each other in the historic past in in our days.
This chapter analyses the image of Japan in the late Soviet mentality and its role in the intelligentsia's world-view.
The chapter traces the historical background of the Jewish Autonomous Ollast and analyses its contempoirary position in the Russian Federation.
During the XXth century South Koreans art has being developing under the influence of Western art movements, first modernism and later postmodernism. Korean artists began to study western avant guard mevements in 1950s on a full scale. In 1960s they started to face the need to resolve the issue of finding national in arts, they started to combine traditional aesthetics with Western technology.
In the 1990s, after Koreans were allowed to visit foreigh contries, some artists went to study in the West, where they were swept by the wave of conceptual art and the ideas of postmodernism. This generation has brought Korean art to the world level. Over the past two decades, South Korea has made a breakthrough in the field of contemporary art, the country became one of the centers of Asian contemporary art. South Korean art is successfully integrated into the global art world. Artists speak on the general topics of the world art, such as, for example, the criticism of the consumer society and the prevailing stereotypes and people in today's global world. In this paper, taking as example ouvre of the most influential Korean artists we will see how today an issue expressing national ideas and aesthetics in arts is solved and what are the distinctive features of contemporary South Korean art.
The identity discourse has a tragic history in Europe (both inside frontiers and outside our own geographic space). The first part of this reflection will try to present an overview about some of the most important literary, political and philosophical theories of this concept which is particularly connected to the understanding of the Other in Contemporary Europe. In a second part we will aim to discuss the importance, the need and the utility of such a concept in our multicultural Europe that has ambiguous and contradictory discourses about its own cultural identity/ies. We also will try to compare European Contemporary European perspectives on this issue with other ways of understanding identity in other continents as Africa, America or Asia, in order to develop and bring more complexity, ductility and also theoretical and practical deepness to this concept. Finally we underline the main contributions of the essays that compose this book, each one contributing to draw a complex, wider and deeper picture of the possibilities that the concept, theory and history of identity may raise in different European cultural, historical and geographical contexts.
The current crisis between the EU and Russia is influenced by much more serious factors than political tensions over Ukraine or the US political agenda. We suppose that to some extent it has represented a consequence of the crisis of national identity in Russia during the post-Soviet period. And the ongoing crisis clearly reflects that unclear social, political and national identities allow some stakeholders to substitute an objective stimulus for sustainable cooperation with cultural and economic partners that have been historically close, i.e., Russia and European countries, by negative propaganda. The current perception of Europe and Europeans, which is widely shared by the majority of the Russian population, has switched from a thousand years of joint history, development and cultural enrichment to ‘irreconcilable divergences’. This dramatic process develops both in the EU and Russia nowadays but in this paper we focus on the challenge to Russian identity, its roots and modern aspects. The analysis we provide within this paper demonstrates some fundamental preconditions of the political crisis between the EU and Russia that started in 2014, related to identity challenge rather than to international relations per se or value conflict. The concluding part of this paper is dedicated to a search for new approaches to identity policy that might be implemented in Russia and would positively influence a political dialogue between Europe and Russia by making it more predictable.