Нарративная логика историописания с точки зрения феноменологической концепции источниковедения
The article attempts to examine the background of the problematization of narrative in historical knowledge. It explores the transformation of narrative in situations of postmodern and postpostmodern. The problem of narrative is analyzed in correlation with the types of rationality / models of science and given the gap between historical science and socially oriented historical writing. The potential of the source studies approach to the analysis of narrative is demonstrated. Structural method of the source studies is proposed as opposed to a narrative logic in historical wtiting.
Discusses the problems of a museum object as a historical source in the system of information resources of historical science and space of “museum history” in the structure of actual historical knowledge. It also reveals the impact of the transformation of social and cultural situations, social change request to the historical knowledge and, accordingly, modification of the relationship between the “museum history” and historical knowledge in general. Examines the impact of the transformation of the epistemological situation to engage in scientific circulation of visual material as historical sources – museum objects. Analyzed the museum exhibition as a form of representation of history in the historical context of the relation of science and socially oriented research.
The article analyzes the practice of political use of the symbol of the Great Patriotic War by the Russian officials in the 2000-2010s basing on rhetoric of presidents V.Putin and D.Medvedev. It argues that Putin’s attempt to rehabilitate the Soviet past as a part of “the thousand years old Russian state” opened new opportunities for political use of the symbol of the Great Victory than Yeltsin’s formula “the victory of the people, but not of the Communist Party and the Soviet State”. The Victory over the German fascism and USSR’s development into a world superpower became the central elements of the new narrative of the Russian history. As a result of this transformation the symbol of the Victory was “divorced” from the tragic memory of Stalin’s regime. It makes possible its semantic inflation that is revealed by frame analysis of the presidents’ speeches in the Victory Day. But at the same time it hampers an integration of this symbol into a consistent narrative of the national past. Besides, in the context of a radical transformation of European memory regimes it makes the “apologetic” version of the Great Victory vulnerable before challenges from abroad.
This captivating volume brings together case studies drawn from four post-Soviet states—Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova. The collected papers illustrate how the events that started in 1985 and brought down the USSR six years later led to the rise of fifteen successor states, with their own historicized collective memories. The volume’s analyses juxtapose history textbooks for secondary schools and universities and explore how they aim to create understandings as well as identities that are politically usable within their different contexts. From this emerges a picture of multiple perestroika(s) and diverging development paths. Only in Ukraine—a country that recently experienced two popular uprisings, the Orange Revolution and the Revolution of Dignity—the people themselves are ascribed agency and the power to change their country. In the other three states, elites are, instead, presented as prime movers of society, as is historical determinism. The volume’s contributors are Diana Bencheci, Andrei Dudchik, Liliya Erushkina, Marharyta Fabrykant, Alexandr Gorylev, Andrey Kashin, Alla Marchenko, Valerii Mosneaga, Alexey Rusakov, Natalia Tregubova, and Yuliya Yurchuk.
The article analyzes practices of public commemoration of the centenary of the February and October revolutions in Russia. It reconstructs the symbolic strategies and historical narratives of the key mnemonic actors – the ruling elite, the Communists, the Russian Orthodox Church, the “Conservatives”, the Liberals etc. The analysis is based on recent texts of the politicians and public intellectuals from these groups. The research combines an analysis of discourses and commemorative practices. A commemoration of a historical event is considered as the political process the outcome of which depends on interaction of mnemonic actors who 1) have certain political aims and take particular position against the other actors, 2) selectively use the common repertoire of symbolic resources and take part in its transformation.
By the results of analysis, the commemoration of the centenary of the revolution(s) takes part in the context of a fragmented memory regime. This conclusion is based not only on significant discrepancy between the competing narratives, but also on the presence of several mnemonic warriors who use this symbolic chance for promotion of their own political agenda and seek to delegitimize their opponents. According to surveys, the same discrepancy about the revolution is revealed in the public opinion. However, the official project to celebrate “conciliation and concord” of the Reds and the Whites is facilitated by the fact that almost all major mnemonic actors (with exception of the Yabloko Party) share the “patriotic” and anti-Western discourse of the incumbent elite. Besides, the authority has as an influential ally as the Russian Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, in the context of the fragmented memory regime oppositional actors can impede a public demonstration of “conciliation and concord” even without large resources. This suggestion is well supported by the case of local opposition to a construction of the memorial to Conciliation in Crimea which was designed as a central event of the official commemoration.
The article analyzes the role of the Unified State Exam in History in forming the repertoire of the usable past, which determines the content of the national identity. The analysis of the examination tasks has revealed different commemorative density of the periods of Russian history. The author states that the exam is integrated into the official narrative of the millennial past and can serve as a tool for constructing the historical views of younger Russian citizens.
The book is a publication of a full text of M.Kh. Aleshkovskiy’s candidate of sciences (PhD) thesis defended in 1967 and previously available only in a shortened popular edition.