, , ,

<<


 >>  ()
Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 31 | 32 ||

...

-- [ 33 ] --

Setting the formation of a new man as one of its main goals the Soviet state attempted at creating a new type of identity, different from national conscious ness shaped in the previous century. Lenin and his followers built their project of new man on rejection of national identity. Implementation of Lenins Plan of monumental propaganda was a key moment. New monuments and new holi days became signs of a new, horizontal identity based on class solidarity. The idea of creating a hybrid of the two memory practices was promising but in real ity introducing new values into peoples lives through holidays proved to be more fruitful.

Revolutionary monuments were the first attempt to shape new memory.

Monuments were ascribed new nature: no more they were accumulators of the SUMMARY memory that had existed and now was materialized in space but rather were to generate new memory, to become a sign of what was to be remembered. Thus the whole meaning of the practice had changed. Real experience of 1918-19 did not bring results. But the sense of the monuments potential remained. Desire of true monuments would lead to the search of an image of liberated labour and then would result in the philosophy of the monument of a leader articulated dur ing the first years after Lenins death.

In 1938 the Central Committee of Russian Communist Party approved the Short course. A written version of new history, less ambiguous than artistic one appeared to be preferable instrument to work with the past in order to create the memory of what had not existed phantom memory.

Historical culture of Soviet society inherited key myths of the pre revolutionary historical consciousness and its ambivalence.

The Soviet Unions ideological basis was found in the idea of communism that would open the period of true history. The course towards the building of communist society was proclaimed during the first years of Soviet regime. At that time the expectation of bright future was strongest since many did not doubt quick victory of world revolution. Later expectations ceased to be imme diate but communism remained an important part of Soviet discourse. The XXII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union approved the 3rd pro gramme of the party that defined a date of completing the building of commu nism. The idea of communism was adapted to a particular situation in order to mobilize Soviet people to build the bright future. But Soviet reality had many unpleasant moments;

facing them in their everyday life did not help to accept communist utopia. Ordinary people felt the impossibility to reach the goal, especially after the crisis of the early 1960s.

A certain role in the process of making believe in communism was played by a human desire of an ideal, dreams and hopes of better future that could be set off against reality. Mythologization of communism as the bright future began in the first years of the Soviet regime and created a basis for offi cial policies. As a result of transformation of Leninist ideas in peasant mentality a pseudo-religious type of world view was created: Marxist terminology was re interpreted in traditional Christian sense. Socialism, communism and para dise appeared identical. A theme of Communism earthly paradise, Gods Kingdom on earth appeared in the letters by peasants in implicit and explicit forms. If one compared the contents of the letters of peasants in the 1920s and the correspondence produced as a result of popular debates on the project of the Communist party programme one could find a number of coincidences. Some projects were referring to the utopias of the past, including the City of the Sun.

Open scepticism could have negative consequences in the Soviet Union so the people expressed it through folklore, jokes in particular that laughed at main SUMMARY dogmas of state ideology. It was a kind of defence mechanism that protected one against the ideologys excessive pressure. In the late 1950 early 1960s there was more than one image of communism in the Soviet Union. These images were heterogeneous so that it was unrealistic to unite them within the framework of the bright future prescribed by official discourse.

The concept of temporality is a key both to understanding of historical process and to its describing by means of contemporary historical discipline since the category of time is a base for all theories of history. The reasons for changes in perception of historical time could not be understood without refer ring to Christian theology. Even at the first glance it becomes evident that Chris tian history continues in time. Furthermore, as a result of broadening of world space the differences of discovered nations were interpreted as chronological, as it were, that is, variety of nations was not explained by variety of possible cultures but in fact as their being at various stages of one culture, or in different historical times. This idea that underlined all theories of stages in history later contributed to the destruction of linear temporality. For as soon as we get out of the limits of national history and begin comparative research we face the prob lems of perception of time, and even synchronic tables do not help.

The key aspect of the problem of multi-temporality, or rather of temporal polymorphism of historical studies typical of various epochs is in character of historical knowledge. Each paradigm of historical knowledge contains a set of theoretical and social precepts for studying the past;

it has normative character and thus provides social dialogue. Binary of the perception of time could be seen in original link between generic and individual memory, and later between mythological views of the Tree of life and sacral time, on the one hand and indi vidual time and profane human time, on the other. Evolution of this pair could be analysed both within the logic of academic paradigms and within the context of social and cultural transformations of European nations, of civilizations self identification and of professional historical knowledge.

Staying within the framework of the problem of historical time we would get three versions of an answer to a question what a historian looks for in the past: the past for the sake of the past, the past for the sake of the present and the past for the sake of the future. Each version leads to a certain system of historical knowledge.

Historical time is perceived in continuity (i. e., we can talk about temporal continuity) only when the aim of historical knowledge is the present viewed as a result of previous historical development. From practical point of view people are interested in the present and the past (since these are temporal spheres one can act in order to achieve a goal and to choose a line of behaviour), and an in terest to the past should correlate either with the task of understanding the pre sent, or with predicting the future, and ideally with both.

SUMMARY Since the late 18th century history had not been seen as a coherent process, past events could have been placed into one historical space, therefore they could not help to understand the present or to predict the future. History provided di dactic examples that existed outside of time. In the 19th c. historians tried to ori ent their discipline on the past, to separate it from the present, although unlike the 18th-century historians they did it consciously, in contradiction to the at tempts to actualize historical knowledge.

The third type suggests that the aim of historical knowledge is the future. It is evident that it is impossible to predict it without discovering laws of the devel opment of societies. Numerous attempts to do so during the last two centuries did not get much result. At least, it is impossible to do using only the instruments of historical discipline. Since a law could only be called so when it is applied uniformly and continuously in the past, present and future, it does not permit to differentiate between these components of historical time.

A juxtaposition of various models of historical time became characteristic at the time of the crisis of the ideas of Enlightenment and the birth of Romanti cism. The trend continued in the 19th century: historiography combined the ideals of progress and traditions, freedom and order, dynamic movements and unique ness in history within one scheme. At the early 20th century for Positivist histori ans the image of history was divided into the time of politics, the time of eco nomics, the time of society, the time of culture. The problem of historical time was actualized when national history was analysed in world context since in this case a historian faced a problem of synchronization.

Mass consciousness as well as professional one is build mostly on the base of linear narrative logic. The importance of this way of history writing remains since it works for the type of identity important in the 19th and 20th cc. and partly even now that of national and state identity.

After the emergence of historical anthropology a new configuration of his torical knowledge evidently contradicts traditional linear historical meta-narrative.

Separation of history from memory happens as a result of integrating of the members of traditional societies into a society with historical type of social mem ory. Similar process affects historical knowledge when historical discipline knowledge of the society with historical type of social memory started to as similate ethnological material knowledge of traditional societies, i. e., the socie ties with other types of social memory and with non-linear temporality.

Longue dure, a concept introduced by F. Brodel, a concept that influenced historical thought of the second half of the 20th century, has an antipode fast time as short dure. At the late 20th century the rhythm of civilization acceler ated. Super-fast time of the early 21st century differs from quick time. It is a pe riod of fast information flows;

extreme and catastrophic events pouring from TV SUMMARY and computer screens enable one to re-formulate a question of correlation of individual and historical dure. Once human reactions, actions and sensual per ceptions were the fastest measures of culture, but now it has changed dramati cally: events follow so fast that a witness could only see some details and traces of them but the whole picture is outside of his scope of perception. Sequence of social process is being dissolved since the correlation of the life of individuals and civilizations is lost.

Historical consciousness in strict (Modern) sense of the word was de stroyed at the post-modern period. A crisis of trust to historical meta-narrative is in fact a crisis of the historical type of social memory, and also the crisis of linear temporality. At least the question of whether mass consciousness now remains historical in its basic characteristics should be problematized. If we still talk about mass historical consciousness it is in any case another historical con sciousness, different from both historical consciousnesse of great national and state meta-narratives of the 19th century and from non-linear historical con sciousness of the 20th century.

Traditional basic concepts got an addition a notion of the places of mem ory that is important both for noting the transformation of professional historical knowledge and for explaining its relation to mass consciousness. Accepting the lawfulness of constant re-writing of history, and, therefore, of constant re evaluation of the range of events one should admit that only the places of mem ory provide some stability/continuity of historical knowledge;

it is important when construing a memory that claims to offer some kind of unity within a society.

Integrative tendencies of post-postmodern period are in obvious dissonance with de-construing work of professional historical knowledge. Providing of iden tity in current social and cultural situation should be reinterpreted as interaction between professional historical knowledge and mass consciousness, or as posi tioning of professional historical knowledge in mass consciousness.

In the 19th c. historical discipline distanced itself from memory as the latter was subjective and selective form of representation of the past. The concept of history as objective discipline that, unlike memory, told what had really hap pened. Now history-writing is often interpreted as a form of a societys memory that reflects social, political and cultural contexts of its time in the images of the past. The History of memory has emerged;

it studies the processes of model ling of the past in the memory of social group. It does not ask a question of truth fulness or falsity of a memory but rather about the reasons of creating, preserv ing or transforming of a certain image. Memory studies makes one think about social limits of a historians memory, about social and cultural determination of what and how he would remember of the past.

.

, .

, , .

, . .

, , .

.

, . . . .

, .

, - .

, .

, .

, .


, - .

958 , .

, . .

, . . . .

, .

. . . .

, .

, .

, . . . .

, .

, - .

, , .

, . . . .

, , , .

, .

, , . - .

, , - .

, .

, .

, .

, .

, - .

, .

, , .

, , XIX .

, - .

, .

. . . . - . . 066332 23. 12. 15. 06. 6090/16. 1.

. . . . 60. 1000.

. / : (495) 729 72 e-mail: krugh@yandex.ru http://www.krugh.ru -

121099, , -99, ., 6.



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 31 | 32 ||
 
 >>  ()





 
<<     |    
2013 www.libed.ru - -

, .
, , , , 1-2 .