The Eurasian Vector of Russia's Development
The paper touches on original propositions of ‘Eurasianism’ as a theory of certain historic modality, and argues that it has to be taken more seriously than in its merely discursive aspect if it is to be related to current political and economic developments. It particularly focuses on Russia being a historical core of Eurasian world after the Mongol invasion. The essence of Eurasia is captured through Russia’s particular societal and economic organization, as well as its relationships with other peoples of Eurasia. The paper also contains reflections about the inherently statist mode of Eurasian societies and their sociocultural foundations, which cannot be neglected in projecting any future economic policies and reform.
The article deals with the issue of historical self%understanding of contemporary Russian society. A nation’s civilization%wise self%determination is formed through mastering national history and learning the lessons of the social catastrophes of the 20th century. It is possible to transmit the social experience of the past to new generations by actualizing cultural values originally born within Russia’s religious, artistic and political traditions. Russian society should expand its discursive practices of cultural and historical knowledge, together with the sphere of public discussion of history and culture. This article looks at two potential implications (educational and cultural) of the current state of affairs.
The chapter is concerned with questions of civic values and civic identity as they are experienced by Russian people in the context of political-economic transformations of the last years, and especially during global economic crisis 2008-2010. Empirical findings from Russian Public Opinion Research Centre, Levada-Centre, Edelman Trust Barometer surveys are used to outline how tensions, distrust and civic irresponsibility expressed by respondents in the context of financial instability may amplify understandings of ‘citizenship’ and ‘civic identity’. There are several trends characterizing citizenship and civic identity in modern Russian society. The first is transformation of the common sense of ‘we-ness’ in case of individualism’s growth and increasing reduction of trust to economic, political and low institutions. The second is the problem of new values formation: while the ‘official’ political discourse admits more and more inclusive patriotic ideologies, ‘everyday-life’ and ‘network’ discourses develop estimative and ironical judgments of the official discourse. The third is citizens’ emigration intentions and the ‘status of citizenship’ characterizing self-perception of people as ‘citizens’ in relation to ‘non-citizens’, which is particular relevant to labour migration problem.
The subject of this article is the culture of acceleration in present-day world. The author analyzes some of grave social consequences provoked by the cult of speed and by the uncontrolled acceleration of various domains of life, such as “presentism”, i.e. the absorption of the past and future by the present time; social amnesia; superficial character of social changes; growing difficulties of selection of necessary information; danger of loss of culture acquisitions, etc. Some aspects of widespread “Slow Movement”, resisting this uncontrolled and total acceleration are analyzed. Finally, the problems of acceleration are considered in Russian context.
EBES Anthology is an international scientific book that is published once a year and includes selected papers from the EBES Conferences. The book accepts any theoretical or empirical papers in business or economics fields such as (but not limited to) management, ethics, marketing, finance, investment, organizational behavior, macroeconomics, microeconomics, econometrics and etc. The aim of EBES Anthology is to increase and enrich academic research on these fields. All papers from related fields on any region or country are highly encouraged. The book invites all papers that are presented in one of the EBES Conferences and are not published or not being considered for publication elsewhere. The publication of submitted manuscripts is subject to a standard refereeing process before publication.
The authors examine how the social status of the university professor has evolved in Russia in recent centuries in light of the historical concepts about the enslavement and emancipation of social groups proposed by Sergey Solovyov and Aleksandr Gradovsky. They use the metaphor of the “slave” [nevol’nik] to describe the dependent position of the professor in the university. The word encapsulates administrative tyranny, the spread of subordinate and submissive mentality in the university environment, and the curtailment of opportunities for professional selffulfillment. The authors present the university administration as the main agent responsible for enslaving professors. Administrators represent bureaucratic power and act to advance their own social ambitions.
This article represents an attempt to explain why Eurasianism, despite its seeming popularity, was not chosen by the Russian elites to lay conceptual foundations for Russia's new foreign policy. In order to answer this question the author develops a classification of Russian geopolitical discourse based on how the ideas of classical Eurasians are interpreted and applied in the post-Soviet context.