UDC

130.3

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V394

Authors

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to generalize the problems of socio-historical memory based on the material of social philosophy, as well as to attempt a balanced assessment of the current situation and strategies for preserving the genetic foundations of Russian culture. The research methodology is based on the idea of the complexity of open social systems and on a theoretical analysis of politico-sociological and socio-philosophical literature. A socio-philosophical interpretation of the conceptual distinction between social and historical memory is provided. Further, the paper describes the fundamental features of sociohistorical memory, which originates in the mechanism of reproduction of the genetic foundations of culture on the one hand, and in the specifics of the social structure of society on the other. The results of the study demonstrate that historical and social memory are inextricably linked, acting in relation to each other, firstly, as the content of memory, and secondly, as a way of organizing it, i.e. storing and broadcasting its content. In addition, the paper presents a brief overview of the current socio-philosophical issues of various aspects of sociohistorical memory and identifies the key modern actors of social memory and the problems of their interaction: memorial groups, memorial legislation, memory wars and the war on memory, as well as dilemmas about the understanding of the nature of conflict between various memory systems based on different value foundations. The authors note that historical memory is faced with challenges, overcoming which it undergoes a significant transformation by getting involved in the agenda of modern digital communication associated with a variety of new information phenomena that emerge due to the nature of the Internet. Taking into account the new conditions for socio-historical memory in Russia, the authors point out the vulnerability of classical methods of preserving and broadcasting memory. Thus, studying the experience of memory preservation and its adaptation to the new conditions of disseminating information becomes relevant. The authors conclude by outlining ways to solve the aforementioned problems.

Keywords

social memory, historical memory, historical trauma, politics of memory, sovereignty of memory, memory wars

References

1. Khrapov S.A. Social Memory as a Cognitive and ‘Technogenic’ Phenomenon. Voprosy filosofii, 2020, no. 3, pp. 99‒106 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-3-99-106
2. Khazin M. Vospominaniya o budushchem [Memories of the Future]. Moscow, 2021. 463 p.
3. Golovashina O.V. How Did Memory Become Social? Voprosy filosofii, 2023, no. 1, pp. 29–39 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-1-29-39
4. Trufanova E.O. Individual and Collective Memory: Intersection Points. Voprosy filosofii, 2020, no. 6, pp. 18‒22 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-6-18-22
5. Yakovleva A.F. Collective and Communicative Memory of the Scientific Community: Features of Formation and Research. Voprosy filosofii, 2020, no. 6, pp. 23‒27 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-6-23-27
6. Chernyak A.Z. Knowledge, Memory, and the Boundaries of Subject. Epistemol. Philos. Sci., 2019, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 101–115 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.5840/eps201956110
7. Kabulniyazova G.T. Spontaneous-Figurative Memory in the Works of Henri Bergson and in Sufism (Comparative Analysis). Voprosy filosofii, 2022, no. 12, pp. 159–167 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2022-12-159-167
8. Yates F.A. The Art of Memory. London, 1966. 400 p. (Russ. ed.: Yeyts F.A. Iskusstvo pamyati. St. Petersburg, 1997. 479 p.).
9. Starikashkina D.A. Kontseptsiya pamyati v psikhoanalize: dekonstruktsiya individual’nogo/kollektivnogo [The Concept of Memory in Psychoanalysis: Deconstruction of the Individual/Collective]. Psikholog, 2016, no. 1, pp. 80–92. https://doi.org/10.7256/2409-8701.2016.1.18144
10. Emelyanova N.N. Politics of Memory and Trauma to Collective Memory Under Securitization Conditions. Voprosy filosofii, 2020, no. 7, pp. 30‒34 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-7-30-34
11. Kedrova M.O. Kritika Danom Shperberom memeticheskogo podkhoda k kul’ture [The Criticism by Dan Sperber of the Memetic Approach to Culture]. Filosofskie nauki, 2016, no. 3, pp. 119–127.
12. Alekseeva I.Yu. Management of Historical Memory as a Transdisciplinary Problem. Philos. Sci. Technol., 2019, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 82–95 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/2413-9084-2019-24-2-82-95
13. Romanova A.P. Collective Memory and Generation Gap. Voprosy filosofii, 2020, no. 6, pp. 33‒37 (in Russ.).
14. Kozolupenko D.P. Shereshevsky’s Case: A Reflection on the Peculiarities of Human Memory. Voprosy filosofii, 2021, no. 11, pp. 23–34 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2021-11-23-34
15. Vlasova O.A. Karl Jaspers and Paul Ricœur: The Work of Memory as a Work of Self-Consciousness. Voprosy filosofii, 2023, no. 5, pp. 108–118 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-5-108-118
16. Stychinskii M.S. Identity Crisis: Mechanisms of Oblivion and Memorialization in the Context of Globalization. Voprosy filosofii, 2020, no. 7, pp. 35‒39 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-7-35-39
17. Spirova E. “Mumifikatsiya kul’tury”: sovremennye podkhody k memorial’nym praktikam [“Mummification of Culture”: Modern Approaches to Memorial Practices]. Filosofskaya antropologiya, 2021, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 110–118. https://doi.org/10.21146/2414-3715-2021-7-2-110-118
18. Anikina A. Paul Ricoeur’s Concept of Memory as a Matrix of History. Idei i idealy, 2021, vol. 13, no. 2, pt. 2, pp. 351–368 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17212/2075-0862-2021-13.2.2-351-368
19. Letnyakov D.E. Agonistic Memory and Its Prospects for the Post-Soviet States. Casp. Reg. Polit. Econ. Cult., 2023, no. 1, pp. 52–58 (in Russ.).
20. Kodan S.V. § 1. Sotsial’naya pamyat’ v strukture nauchno-poznavatel’noy deyatel’nosti: ponyatie, osnovnye kharakteristiki, podkhody k klassifikatsii [§ 1. Social Memory in the Structure of Scientific and Cognitive Activity: Notion, Main Characteristics, and Approaches to Classification]. Bochkarev S.V. (ed.). Yuridicheskie formy perezhivaniya istorii: praktiki i predely [Legal Forms of Experiencing History: Practices and Limits]. St. Petersburg, 2020, pp. 12–26.
21. Rozov M.A. Poznanie kak predmet epistemologii. Osnovnye tezisy i problemy [Cognition as a Subject of Epistemology. Main Theses and Problems]. Lektorskiy V.A. (ed.). Epistemologiya vchera i segodnya [Epistemology Yesterday and Today]. Moscow, 2010, pp. 31–50.
22. Markov B.V. Rossiya i Evropa v kul’turnoy pamyati sovremennosti [Russia and Europe in the Cultural Memory of Our Time]. Voprosy sotsial’noy teorii, 2019, vol. 11, pp. 110–117.
23. Severin M.A. Diskussiya o sub”ekte i sub”ektivnosti (“ya”) v sovremennykh issledovaniyakh soznaniya: komparativnyy podkhod [Subject and Subjectivity (Self) in Contemporary Studies of Consciousness: Comparative Approach]. Istoriya filosofii, 2013, no. 18, pp. 268–290.
24. Nora P. Rasstroystvo istoricheskoy identichnosti [Historical Identity Disorder]. Mir istorii, 2010, no. 1. Art. no. 3. Available at: http://www.historia.ru/2010/01/nora.htm (accessed: 17 April 2024).
25. Ginzburg C. Il formaggio e i vermi: Il cosmo di un mugnaio del ’500. Torino, 1976. 196 p. (Russ. ed.: Ginzburg K. Syr i chervi. Kartina mira odnogo mel’nika, zhivshego v XVI v. Moscow, 2000. 269 p.).
26. Usmanova A.R. Kant i utkonos... v epistemologicheskikh debryakh [Kant and the Platypus... in the Wilds of Epistemology]. Usmanova A.R. Umberto Eko: paradoksy interpretatsii [Umberto Eco: Paradoxes of Interpretation]. Minsk, 2000, pp. 173–184.
27. Openkov M.Yu. Khakni budushchee: vvedenie v filosofiyu obshchestva znaniy [Hack the Future: Introduction to the Philosophy of Knowledge Society]. Moscow, 2007. 127 p. Available at: http://www.ifap.ru/library/book251.pdf (accessed: 17 April 2024).
28. Chaadayev P.Ya. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy i izbrannye pis’ma [Complete Works and Selected Letters]. Moscow, 1991. Vol. 1. 798 p.
29. Ivashevskiy S.L. Pamyat’ o sotsial’nom poryadke i poryadok sotsial’noy pamyati [The Memory of Social Order and the Order of Social Memory]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii, 2022, no. 1, pp. 236–239.
30. Sharova V.L. Nepostoyannoe proshloe: istoricheskaya pamyat’ kak politicheskiy instrument v elektronnykh mass-media sovremennoy Rossii [The Unstable Past: Historical Memory as a Political Tool in the Electronic Media of Contemporary Russia]. Elektronnyy nauchno-obrazovatel’nyy zhurnal “Istoriya”, 2020, vol. 11, no. 9. Art. no. 22. https://doi.org/10.18254/S207987840012292-0
31. Huntington S. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, 1996 (Russ. ed.: Khantington S. Stolknovenie tsivilizatsiy. Moscow, 2003. 603 p.).
32. Shreyder Yu.A. Chelovecheskaya refleksiya i dve sistemy eticheskogo soznaniya [Human Reflection and Two Systems of Ethical Consciousness]. Voprosy filosofii, 1990, no. 7, pp. 32–41.
33. Fedorova M.M. Istoriya/pamyat’: “trudnaya” dilemma [History/Memory: “Difficult” Dilemma]. Istoriya filosofii, 2018, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 108–121. https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-5869-2018-23-1-108-121