Search

This paper examines the multi-temporal character of postwar Soviet development. By analyzing personal histories of the timber production workers' settlement of Muezerka in northwest Karelia, the author argues that industrial development did not entirely standardize social space and time, but it initially served as a vehicle of disintegration in newly developed areas. She shows that, in order to start the development of a new territory, it was necessary to create a symbolic starting point - "zero time." Each time a new settlement emerged, the entire path to progress had to be traversed anew, and the production of a special temporality of development, which implied a temporary withdrawal from modernity, was an essential working element in this path.

The othering and exclusion of religious minority groups in Georgia is often understood through the prism of religious nationalism, which is argued to have developed as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the respective need to fill up the leftover systemic void. Ethno-national and religious identity markers were used to create the image of true, pre-Soviet Georgian – Christian, ethnically Georgian group. Although, this understanding offers an explanation for the current social position of religious minority groups of the country, it fails to account and understand the link with and the impact of the Soviet regime, and how the collapse of a secular system produced highly religious discourses. Therefore, the work presented here seeks to understand the role and impact of Russian/Soviet colonization on the current social position of religious minority groups in Georgia. In order to answer the research aim, this thesis employs a decolonial approach and situates Soviet Russia as a colonial power, a successor of Tsarist Imperial Russia and its colonial practices of subjugation, classification, and social hierarchies. The empirical focus of the study is Adjarian Muslims, as they constitute ethnically Georgian religious minority, therefore holding a peculiar place of intersection of identities. The primary sources of the research are dialogical interviews with self-identifying Adjarian Muslims, while the secondary sources, such as the existing publications and research surrounding the social position of the group are analyzed by utilizing the ethnographic content analysis method. The findings of the study suggest that the remnants of colonial past still have an effect on the current social structures and social developments. The exclusion and othering of Adjarian Muslims in Georgia is similar and can be traced back to the practice of ethnicization of Islam, which is rooted in the Soviet/Socialist modernity and the enactment of Muslim groups as the inherent others to the civilized Russians. Due to this, Adjarian Muslims are marked by Islam notwithstanding their personal religious affiliation, and are thus excluded from the dominant understanding of Georgianness and the respective discussions. In addition, the study findings suggest that the region of Adjara is often regarded as the orient to the capital, and Adjarian Muslims are viewed as objects to be saved and civilized, rather than the equal subjects of the state.

Одним из ключевых принципов политики журнала «Koinon» является публикация оригинальных и никогда ранее не выходивших в свет статей современных авторов. И все же мы решили воспроизвести статью Марка Липовецкого «Трикстер vs. трикстер: “Учителя” и “ученики” у Эренбурга, Олеши, Булгакова и Бабеля», впервые появившуюся в 2018 году в сборнике в честь 80-летия А. К. Жолковского (A/Z: Essays in Honor of Alexander Zholkovsky / ed. by D. Ioffe, M. Levitt, J. Peschio, I. Pilshchikov. Boston : Academic Studies Press, 2018. P. 327–349). Мы делаем это в порядке исключения из общего правила ввиду выдающейся эвристической ценности статьи М. Липовецкого, сознавая необходимость познакомить с ней русскоязычных читателей, для которых первое издание статьи труднодоступно. Выражаем горячую благодарность первоиздателям статьи Липовецкого в лице Дениса Иоффе, любезно разрешившим ее публикацию в «Koinon». Рукопись поступила в редакцию:15.03.2021. Принята к публикации: 11.05.2021. Received: 15.03.2021. Accepted: 11.05.2021. Исследуется реализация тропа трикстера в советской культуре на материале 4 произведений («Собачье сердце» М. Булгакова, «Зависть» Ю. Олеши, «Хулио Хуренито» И. Эренбурга и «Одесские рассказы» И. Бабеля). Определены особенности советского трикстера: «интегральный» характер, плутовство являются иллюстрацией к его цинической философии, которая лишена свойственного цинизму прагматизма и тяготеет к тому, что П. Слотердайк называл «кинизмом», — бескорыстному и бесстыдному перформативному низведению и вышучиванию всех авторитетных дискурсов и символов. Выделены три черты советского трикстера как персонажа (Шарикова, Ивана Бабичева, Хулио Хуренито, Бени Крика): амбивалентное, трансгрессивное и лиминальное состояние, благодаря которым трикстер воплощает опасную свободу от социальных норм и границ и в то же время функционирует как медиатор; перформативность, превращающая любой жест и любое высказывание в спектакль; особые отношения с сакральным. Отмечено, что в прозе 1920-х годов сюжет о столкновении «отцов и детей», «учеников и учителя» выдвигает в качестве важной составляющей фигуру трикстера — как одного из центральных участников дебатов о новом человеке и новом мире. Доказано, что все вариации советских трикстеров тесно связаны с рецепцией ницшеанства. Анализ каждого из центральных персонажей произведений построен вокруг ответа на вопрос: что каждая из «ролей» трикстера говорит о становящейся советской модерности? Два типа трикстера трактованы как свидетельство расщепления советской модерности, рождавшейся в 1920-х годах. Хулио Хуренито и Иван Бабичев представляют собой тип трикстеров-учителей, через которых происходило усвоение модернистской концепции личности. Шариков и Беня Крик интерпретированы как тип «плебейской модерности» (Илья Герасимов). Все анализируемые тексты свидетельствуют о том, что трикстерский цинизм становится социальной нормой нового мира, и именно на этой почве возникает конфликт между трикстерами-отцами/учителями и их последователями в следующем поколении. The paper explores the fulfillment of the trickster trope in Soviet culture based on four works (The Heart of a Dog by M. Bulgakov, Envy by Yu. Olesha, Julio Jurenito by I. Ehrenburg and The Odessa Tales by I. Babel). The author defines the features of the Soviet trickster: the "integral" character, roguery are an illustration of its cynical philosophy, which is devoid of the pragmatism inherent in cynicism and tends to P. Sloterdijk’s estimation of cynicism — the selfless and shameless performative relegation and ragging of all reputable discourses and symbols. The author has also highlighted three features of the Soviet trickster as a character (Sharikov, Ivan Babichev, Julio Jurenito, Benya Crick): ambivalent, transgressive, and liminal states, thanks to which the trickster embodies dangerous freedom from social norms and boundaries and functions, at the same time, as a mediator; performativity, which turns any gesture and any utterance into a performance; a special bonds with the sacred. Notably, in the prose of the 1920s, the plot portraying the confrontation between fathers-children, students — teachers, puts forward the figure of the trickster as an essential component — as one of the central participants in the debate about a new man and a new world. There is evidence that all variations of the Soviet tricksters have a close linkage with the reception of Nietzscheanism. The analysis of each of the central characters of the works centers around the answer to the question: What does each of the trickster’s role say about the emerging Soviet modernity? The author interprets the two types of the trickster as evidence of the Soviet modernity’ splitting, that emerged in the 1920s. Julio Jurenito and Ivan Babichev represent the type of trickster teachers via whom the modernist concept of personality was adopted. The author offers the treatment of Sharikov and Benya Creek as a type of" plebeian modernity " (Ilya Gerasimov). All the analyzed texts indicate that trickster cynicism is becoming a social norm of the new world, and it is on this basis that the confl ict between trickster fathers/teachers and their followers in the next generation breaks out.

Remdamasi viena pamatinių prancūzų antropologo Marco Augé knyga „Bevietiškumas“ (1995), straipsnio autorė nagrinėja transformacijas, kurias patiria šiuolaikinis miestų kraštovaizdis. Apmąstant vietos ir bevietiškumo dialektiką, darbe siekiama parodyti, kaip bevietiškumas smelkiasi į mūsų kultūrinį kraštovaizdį, įsigalėdamas globaliame pasaulyje. Vietos ir bevietiškumo sąvokos padeda suvokti esminius pokyčius, kurie pastaraisiais dešimtmečiais keitė miesto dvasią bei urbanistinius ir architektūrinius sprendimus. Be to, Augé mokslinės mąstysenos principai ir priemonės suteikia galimybę kelti filosofinius klausimus apie viršmodernybės prigimtį, modernybės ir postmodernybės santykį globalių procesų fone. Straipsnyje antropologinės bei filosofinės vietos ir erdvės sąvokos taikomos lietuviškajam kontekstui tirti, lyginant bevietiškumo sklaidą sovietiniame modernizme bei šiuolaikiniame globaliame hipervizualios ir likvidžios (takios) kultūros kraštovaizdyje. Drawing on French anthropologist Marc Augé and his seminal book "Non-Places" (1995) the author pays attention to the transformation of contemporary urban landscapes. In thinking trough the dialectic of place and non-place, this paper aims to account for the apparent sense of placelesness in our cultural landscapes and in increasingly globalised world. If we want to ask fundamental questions about what has happened to our urban landscape and to the spirit of cities during the last decades then the concepts of place and non-place help us to describe the actual changes. Besides, Augé’s work gives us the methodological tools to address philosophical questions about the nature of supermodernity and the relationship between modernity and postmodernity moving toward new conditions of globality. This article will attempt to apply anthropological and philosophical concepts of place and space to the context of Lithuania, comparing the ways of spreading of non-places (non-lieu) in the Soviet modernity and contemporary global, hyper-visual and liquid cultural landscape.

В статье на примере монографии Эгле Риндзевичуте «Власть систем: как науки об управлении растопили лед холодной войны» рассматривается интегральный подход к иучению интеллектуальной истории позднесоветских научно-технических сообществ. Здесь история научных идей встречается с исторической социологией, культурными исследованиями и даже с историей повседневности. Результатом такой междисциплинарной «сборки» становится новый тип истории науки и научных сообществ. Речь уже идет не об автономной сфере производства чистого знания, а о сетях, связывающих ученых, инженеров, политиков, управленцев, идеологов и сотрудников спецслужб. Более того, эти сети включают в себя и нечеловеческих акторов. Анализируя деятельность Международного института прикладного системного анализа, Риндзевичуте убедительно демонстрирует как западная и советская технонауки отражали социокультурные нормы своих обществ, и, сотрудничая, формировали новые представления, институты и материальные практики., The article is devoted to the contemporary intellectual history of the late Soviet scientific-technical communities. Using the example of Egle Rindzeviciute's monograph "The Power of Systems: How Policy Sciences Opened Up the Cold War World", the integral approach to research that marks the actual work in this field is considered. Here the history of scientific ideas meets with historical sociology, cultural studies and even the history of everyday life. The result of this interdisciplinary "assembly" is a new type of history of science and scientific communities. This is not about a closed, autonomous sphere of pure knowledge production, but about networks linking scientists, engineers, politicians, managers, ideologists and intelligence officers. Moreover, these networks include not only human, but also non-human actors. Analyzing the activities of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Rindzeviciute convincingly demonstrates how Western and Soviet techno-sciences simultaneously reflected the sociocultural norms of their societies, and, cooperating, formed new ideas, institutions and material practices., №63(63) (2018)

Pastarųjų dviejų dešimtmečių Lietuvos šeimos raida rodo, kad šeimos instituto struktūra artėja prie būdingos antrajai modernybei, tačiau kolektyviniai vaizdiniai atkartoja būdinguosius pirmajai modernybei. Straipsnio tikslas – paaiškinti šią struktūros ir kultūros prieštarą atsižvelgiant į Lietuvos šeimos modernėjimo socialinę istorinę raidą. Teigiama, jog Lietuvos šeimos raidą ir prieštaras galima paaiškinti trijų lygmenų veiksnių schema, kuri inkorporuoja bendruosius, regioninius ir socialinius istorinius specialiuosius veiksnius. Pastarieji atskleidžia šiuolaikinės šeimos prieštaras kuriančius veiksnius, susijusius su modernybei būdingo „normalios šeimos“ konstrukto raida tarpukario, sovietinėje ir dabartinėje Lietuvoje. In the past two decades, the institute of the family in Lithuania acquired the structural features that are constitutional to the family of the second modernity. Nevertheless, in the realm of the family culture, society reproduces the beliefs and opinions that are typical of the first modernity. The article considers the social and historical development of the Lithuanian family in the interwar and the soviet modernity and explains the social mechanism that reproduced the developmental inconsistency during these two periods of the Lithuanian modernisation project. It is argued that the key role belongs to the cultural concept of the national "normal family" that was constructed in the interwar period and has sustained its power during the soviet period and in contemporary society.

Modernios valdžios institucijos grindžia savo institucinius pamatus bei legitimaciją universaliu racionaliu žinojimu, o šis žinojimas neatsiejamas nuo kontroliuotinos ir apskaičiuotinos rizikos, – neatsiejamo visuomenės pažangos atributo. Iš Apšvietos laikotarpio kildinama racionalaus pažinimo, objektyvaus, racionalaus mokslo ir progreso samprata buvo pasitelkiama modernių valstybių, siekiant pateisinti jų vykdomą politiką, sprendimus bei prievartą individo atžvilgiu. Vėlyvuoju modernybės laikotarpiu sparti mokslo raida ir intensyvi industrinė plėtra sąlygojo naujų rizikų atsiradimą, kurių modernusis mokslas nepajėgė išspręsti. Daugialypė modernybės rizika ir neapibrėžtumai, su kuriais susidūrė šiuolaikinių valstybių valdžia, ėmė ilgainiui kelti jų legitimumo stoką bei tam tikrą institucinę krizę, kurią kai kurie autoriai (Hajer, 1995) pavadino instituciniu vakuumu (tuštuma). Savo ruožtu, į politinės viešosios raiškos erdvę ėmė kilti nauji veikėjai, naujos politinės terpės, kuriose per naujas legitimacijos paieškas, naują socialinių veikėjų raišką, ėmė rastis naujo pobūdžio socialinių arba institucinių naujovių – inovacijų – prielaidos ir galimybės. Dėl daugialypių modernizacijos rizikų ir neapibrėžtumų, iš esmės keičiasi politinis landšaftas: galia jau nebėra sukoncentruota formaliose valdžios institucijose, o plėtojama pilietiniu įvairių suinteresuotų grupių dalyvavimu grindžiamais sprendimų priėmimo procesais. Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjami du sovietinio laikotarpio paskutiniųjų metų atvejai: Černobylio katastrofos bei Ignalinos atominės elektrinės dilemos, atspindinčios tiek institucinės tuštumos (ar bent neįgalumo) tezę, taip pat naujo pobūdžio socialinių bei institucinių erdvių, kuriose galima įžvelgti naujo pobūdžio pilietines naujotvaras, užuomazgas. Straipsnyje Černobylio ir Ignalinos atvejai nagrinėjami remiantis moderniomis bei postmoderniomis socialinėmis teorijomis, kurių interpretacijai pasitelkiama gana gausi, ypač lietuviškosios realybės, empirinė medžiaga. The modern governments are conceived as to draw their legitimacy based on universal rational knowledge and the concept of controllable and calculable risks as a tool for ensuring progress and welfare of society. The multiple risks and uncertainties of modernisation that the governments were incapable to deal with caused a deficit of legitimacy and institutional ambiguity (or the institutional void as Hajer suggested calling it). Consequently, new actors and new political arenas or spaces have emerged and are expected to lead to institutional innovation. The Soviet system represents the version of the modern state which based its legitimacy on the principle of rationalism applicable towards external nature and was challenged by multiple risks and side effects of its industrial development that led to the deficit or even absence of legitimacy. The crisis of legitimacy of the Soviet state and institutional void, this paper argues, was a key premise for the former Soviet republics such as Lithuania to restore its' statehood and independence in search of new democratic participatory modes of governance. The theoretical perspective based on governance transformations induced by the crisis of legitimacy, uncertainties of modernisation and institutional void in the former Soviet system of governance is illuminated by two empirical cases rooted in the nuclear energy sector, namely the accident at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine in 1986, and public controversy around the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in Lithuania.

This dissertation deals with the concepts glasnost and perestroika during the Gorbachev era 1985–1991. It offers an explanation to the rise and fall of these concepts and casts light on their modern and postmodern implications, as well as their historical and generational preconditions. In light of the Soviet and Russian conceptual history, Gorbachev’s articulation of glasnost and perestroika is contrasted with the reception of these concepts in what at that time came to be called Russian postmodernism. Glasnost and perestroika both confirm and transcend Soviet modernity. They are both future-oriented but at the same time possess retrospective anchorage. The present study reconstructs the experience encapsulated in the concepts, the expectations they unleashed and the tensions they triggered. The Gorbachev era signaled a rupture in the temporal order of modernity. During this time Soviet modernity lost confidence in its self. With glasnost and perestroika a suppressed past opened up which blocked the futurist potential inherent in the present. The concept-theoretical perspective assumed in the dissertation helps explain essential aspects of the dramatic turn of events. Postmodernism’s relationship to the concepts is mainly antagonistic. At the same time glasnost and perestroika were essential to the self-identity creating process of postmodernism and its development of an understanding of a specific late Soviet postmodern situation. Beneath the surface a conflict evolves, constituted in intergenerational terms. The vast differences in deployment of the two key notions appear related to generation specific historical experiences. This is apparent in the glasnost- and perestroika discussions of the 19th and 20th centuries. In several respects the 20th century discourse reflects that of the 19th century. The analysis in the present dissertation demonstrates how Gorbachev, on the basis of his generation-specific experience as a man of the 1960s actively sought to articulate an alternative reconstruction (perestroika) and did so with a distinct ideological accent. The postmodernists, the last Soviet generation, bore the imprint of the stagnation of the Brezhnev era and had no ideal past to resuscitate. Instead of reconstructing social reality they tried to place themselves outside it. This apolitical stance however embodied both anti-political and political implications.