Тайная жизнь деревьев. Что они чувствуют, как они общаются — открытие сокровенного мира. 4-е изд.
The article is devoted to the problem of or- ganization of a productive dialogue between represent- atives of different sciences during the comprehensive interdisciplinary research of man in the context of tra- ditional culture. The prerequisites to the given prob- lem statement have been formed during a long-term experience of joint field studies made by the authors in Russia (Adygea, Russian North, Bashkiria, Buryat- ia, Kabardino-Balkaria, North Ossetia, Khakassia, Ya- kutia and other regions) and Mexico, as well as through the analysis of relevant results of academic and re- search work. As a solution of the given task, the authors develop the methodological construction “metaposi- tion” that allows to approach to complexity and inter- disciplinarity of research through the principle of dia- logue in the common sociocultural field. Metaposition as a technology of organization of polyprofessional co- operation of different experts in a common research space is aimed at development of scientists’ skills of fix- ation, systematization and representation of the re- sults of their work taking into account positions of their colleagues from other subject areas. Realization of this technology leads to creation of a metalanguage and to widening of researcher’s scientific culture (theoreti- cal frames of each expert, style of their scientific reason- ing and personal qualities). The development of meta- position as a stable system of cooperation between different positions of researchers suggests three inter- related stages: defining the research’s common field; re- vealing the borders of scientific positions; constructing the interpositional dialogue. Opportunities of applica- tion of the methodological construction “metaposition” at different stages of field research (before the field, at the field, after the field, during analysis of the field data) are concretized through a relevant algorithm and sup- ported by examples from the field practice.
The article considers four approaches to the interpretation of images and mythologems from the sphere of Western esotericism in mass culture. The first approach is based on the depth psychology of C. G. Jung and aims to identify archetypes common to the whole culture. The second is based on the reductionist theories of Marx and Freud, its main task is to reduce religious imagery to social and psychological realities. The third approach is represented by C. Partridge theory of occulture, in which the emphasis is made on tracing the historical genesis of esoteric imagery in modern culture. The fourth approach is expressed in the writings of J. Kripal, it synthesizes the historicism of the theory of occulture with the understanding of mass culture as a way of self-knowledge, revealing the deep spiritual essence of man
In the book, the bilingual community of Mariupol (coastal Azov) Russian G reeks serves as an example on the role of the language in the process of ethnic identity. Urums, one part of the community, speak Urum language (one of the Turkic languages), whereas the native language of another part of the community is Rumei language (the G reek group of the Indo-European Family). The monograph for the first time undertakes the analysis of the identity of this group according to the constructivist approach to ethnicity, and language preservation is considered in the context of language-loyalty of this group. The analysis of the self-identity of Turkic-speaking G reeks helps better understand ethnic processes, including those in stable communities which have consistent characteristics. The study is based on the author’s field research as well as archive sources and presents a considerable amount of new data for the scientific review.
This book is intended for ethnologists, linguists, sociologists, and anyone interested in ethnic processes in the post-Soviet territories and preservation of endangered languages.
This article examines the role of archivists in shaping the capacity and the structure of a university’s memory. Drawing on sources such as laws and ministerial instructions, the authors analyze the government’s archive policy with regard to universities and how professors and archivists were taking part in its implementation. Their participation included sorting documents and attributing them to individual ‘cases’, destroying some of the ‘unnecessary’ documents and preserving others that were designated for destruction. Based on information from service records and university reports, the article tracks changes in the corporate status of university archivists in nineteenth-century Russia.