Problematic Aspects of the Development of Russian Politics of Memory: A Summary of Expert Opinion

Abstract

This study is devoted to problematic aspects in the implementation of the Russian politics of memory. The methodological basis of the work is a descriptive analysis of expert interviews. The eff ectiveness of the politics of memory is evaluated by the experts from a pragmatic point of view: its main tasks are seen as the creation of a positive Russian image in the domestic and foreign policy arenas; the formation and strengthening of nation-state identity; and the consolidation of Russian society. Attempts to use politics of memory as an instrument for settling international relations via concessions are assessed negatively by the experts. The building of a national politics of memory is assumed solely on the basis of the “memory of the winners.” An appeal to a discourse on “the memory of the vanquished” is seen as a destructive approach fraught with serious political risks. Among the latter are the erosion of Russian identity; the particularization of society; the growth of social anomie; and an increase in the infl uence of political and religious radicals. The article further emphasizes the principal “sore points” of Russian politics of memory: its opportunistic nature; the controversial, complex nature of the content side; a disregard for foreign experience; and the presence of outdated elements among the tools for infl uencing the target audience. Another problem is the presence in Russian mass culture of such patterns as the theme of the hero’s victory “in spite of the system” and the physical and moral anti-esthetics in demonstrations of “our own” [svoi] being passed off as realism.

References

1. Achkasov, V. A. “ ‘Politika pamiati’ kak instrument stroitel’stva postsotsialisticheskikh natsii,” Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noi antropologii, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2013, pp. 106–123. 
2. Beliaev, E. V., and Linchenko, A. A. “Gosudarstvennaia politika pamiati i tsennosti massovogo istoricheskogo soznaniia v sovremennoi Rossii: problemy i protivorechiia,” Studia Humanitatis, No. 2, 2016, p. 21. 
3. Boikov, V. E. “Sostoianie i problemy formirovaniia istoricheskoi pamiati,” Sotsis, No. 8, 2002, pp. 85–89. 
4. Evgen’eva, T. V. “Obrazno-simvolicheskie reprezentatsii sovetskogo proshlogo v sovremennoi politike,” Politicheskaia ekspertiza: POLITEKS, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2015, pp. 16–31. 
5. Evgen’eva, T. V., and Titov, V. V. “Obrazy proshlogo v rossiiskom massovom politicheskom soznanii: mifologicheskoe izmerenie,” Politicheskaia nauka, No. 1, 2017, pp. 120–137. 
6. Gorin, D. G. “Politika pamiati v usloviiakh sotsial’no-politicheskoi transformatsii: osobennosti Rossii,” Srednerusskii vestnik obshchestvennykh nauk, No. 2, 2012, pp. 98–104. 
7. Karzubov, D. N., and Ponomarev, N. A. “Sotsial’nyi protest v Pugacheve: rezul’taty konfl iktologicheskogo analiza,” Izvestiia Tul’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye nauki, No. 2, 2016, pp. 22–36.
8. Malinova, O. Iu. “Aktual’nost’ proshlogo: istoriia, pamiat’ i politika identichnosti,” Diskursologiia: metodologiia, teoriia, praktika, Vol. 1, No. 10, 2016, pp. 156–166. 
9. Miller, A. I. “Rol’ ekspertnykh soobshchestv v politike pamiati v Rossii,” Politiia: Analiz. Khronika. Prognoz: (Zhurnal politicheskoi fi losofi i i sotsiologii politiki), No. 4, 2013, pp. 114–126. 
10. Petrone, K. The Great War in Russian Memory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011. 
11. Prizel, I. National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. 
12. Rastimeshina, T. V. “Kul’turnoe nasledie v rossiiskoi politike gosudarstvennoi pamiati,” Vlast’, No. 10, 2012, pp. 60–64. 
13. Samsonova, T. N., and Titov, V. V. “K voprosu o stanovlenii natsional’no-grazhdanskoi identichnosti rossiiskoi molodezhi v usloviiakh global’nykh sotsiokul’turnykh transformatsii nachala 21 veka,” Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 18. Sotsiologiia i politologiia, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2017, pp. 156–173. 
14. Snyder, T. “Memory of Sovereignty and Sovereignty over Memory: Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine, 1939–1999,” Memory and Power in Post-war Europe: Studies in the Presence of the Past, ed. J.-W. Müller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 39–58. 
15. Vasiutin, Iu. S., and Panova, E. S. “Istoricheskaia pamiat’: institutsionalizatsiia v obshchestvennom soznanii i v gosudarstvennoi politike,” Srednerusskii vestnik obshchestvennykh nauk, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2016, pp. 104–112. 
16. Viazemskii, E. E. “Istoricheskaia politika gosudarstva, istoricheskaia pamiat’ i soderzhanie shkol’nogo kursa istorii Rossii,” Problemy sovremennogo obrazovaniia, No. 6, 2011, pp. 89–97. 
17. Zavershinskii, K. F. “Simvolicheskie struktury politicheskoi pamiati,” Simvolicheskaia politika: Sbornik nauchnykh tredov, Vol. 1: Konstruirovanie predstavlenii o proshlom kak vlastnyi resurs, ed. O. Iu. Malinova. Moscow: INION RAN, 2012, pp. 149–163.