Атлантида. Краткая история платоновского мифа
The author discusses an idea of composing a list of «100 books of Higher School of Economics» as a university canon for a reader and analyzes a long-term publishing project of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute called «The Russian way».
This book is based on materials from the conference 'The USSR: Life after Death', and the round table 'The Second Crash, from the Collapse of the Soviet Union to the Crisis of Neo-liberalism', held in December 2011 and January 2012, respectively. The two events brought together different generations of experts and researchers. For some, Soviet life was part of their personal experience, while for others it was just part of their country’s history. To what extent and in what form have Soviet socio-cultural practices and everyday life patterns survived in the capitalist post-Soviet society? Is the 'Soviet legacy' an obstacle to the development of a new bourgeois society in Russia or, conversely, does it serve to stabilize the new system? Does a 'Soviet mentality' create resistance or help adapt to the neoliberal reality? The answers to these questions, which seemed quite obvious to the mass consciousness back in the 1990s, need to be reconsidered today.
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.
Russia has not “fallen out of the history” in the 20th century. This century has been the time of a long overdue historical leap for our country: it was modernized and transformed from an agrarian and rural to an industrial and urban state. The Soviet era modernization was a “conservative”, “instrumental” one: to hammer it added a sickle, but it relied on outdated social mechanisms and conserved them, which did not facilitate the development of modern institutions of market economy and political democracy, and therefore it remained incomplete.
That is the main idea of Anatoly Vishnevsky. A well-known Russian sociologist and demographer offers his own interpretation of the lessons of the recent past, reflects on the social history of the Soviet Union as the stalled conservative modernization project, and cautions against its repetition.