¹ 4, 2017
The year of the centenary of the Russian Revolution is coming to an end. It is time to draw conclusions. The author’s key takeaway is that Russia in fact was unable to escape from the “captivity” of the October Revolution. Experts and the public focus their attention on the Bolshevik Revolution, whereas almost no one is interested in the February Revolution and almost everyone denounces it. The attitude to the Tsarist Russia remains super negative. The collective memory tends to ascribe all of the country’s historical achievements to the Soviet era. The author attempts to reveal the multifaceted nature of the Russian Revolution, its complex socio-psychological structure and nonlinearity of events. She asks whether the Russian Revolution can be considered on equal terms with the European revolutions of the late 18th — early 20th centuries, and her answer is negative. The year of 1917 opened a series of revolutions of a “new type” that literally were a reaction to modernity rather than locomotives of history. The historical end of the Russian Revolution is a country’s fail- ure in its centuries-long evolution towards greater freedom and modern social structure. Even today Russia has not overcome this legacy.
¹ 3, 2011
The article is devoted to proving a hypothesis that the specificity of the modern Russian state is best reflected in the metaphor of palace employed by V.O.Klyuchevsky for characterizing the Russian state that was formed after Peter I’s death. According to I.Glebova, a “Palace” represents a rather independent form of government that emerged as a response to new conditions and old state traditions rather than deviation from the “right” state (the soviet “nationwide” or western rule of law) or its perversion/ “worsening” that can be improved if someone is willing to do so. The second part of the article published in this issue (for the beginning see Politeia, 2011, ¹ 2) demonstrates that the main stabilizer of the “palace” order is a mass Post-Soviet human type – a direct and the closest inheritor of the Soviet person with his/her experience, values and norms, strategies of self-defense and social promotion, illusions, complexes and phobias.
¹ 2, 2011
The article is devoted to proving a hypothesis that the specificity of the modern Russian state is best reflected in the metaphor of palace employed by V.O.Klyuchevsky for characterizing the Russian state that was formed after Peter I’s death. According to I.Glebova, a “Palace” represents a rather independent form of government that emerged as a response to new conditions and old state traditions rather than deviation from the “right” state (the soviet “nationwide” or western rule of law) or its perversion/ “worsening” that can be improved if someone is willing to do so. The first part of the article published in this issue describes key parameters of the post-soviet state that makes it resemble a “Palace” and analyzes reasons that lead to the restoration of a similar type of state in Russia.
¹ 1, 2010
This article offers an interpretation of the events of the year 1917 as a sort of a counterrevolution. I.Glebova thinks that the decline of autocracy that was absolutely evident in the epoch of Nicholas II meant its deviation from monosubjectiveness, escape from the violent, despotic complex. At the same time the traditional algorithm of governing, that is the fusion of power and a person, was changing. Drawing a distinctive line between a person and power implied filling the power space with the law procedures. The revolution in the sphere of power occurred, within which the latter was transformed by the European example. It was high time autocracy had had to become more modern regarding its form as well as its content, and the last monarch, although being intuitively against it, materialized that tendency. The weakness of Nicholas’ power (by the Russian standards) did not foretell an inevitable death of the autocratic system. On the contrary, it provided a chance for its transformation. The revolution against the power buried this very chance having destroyed monarchy as well as the society at large in the forms they had existed by February 1917. The construction of the new power took place under the hardest pressure of the archaic public ideas, or in the direction being opposite towards that of Nicholas.
¹ 1, 2006
The author believes that in a certain sense Russian history including of the XX-th century may be viewed as a chain of fluctuations within the two poles – the Troubles and the Order. In her second article dedicated to the analysis of this rhythm of the national history I. Glebova follows it from “Stalin order” to the upheavals of the 90-ies. According to the author the time of troubles as a totality of anti-system movements traditionally starts with the discontent in the power. The political events of 1989-1991 and 1993 was in fact the form of social economic upheaval meaning the transfer from the shadow and the confirmation of mechanisms, processes and links shaped in the shadow sphere as socio-dominant. The public policy of the 90-ies which formalized this transfer became the factor of the prevention of the civil war for the distribution and redistribution of resources.
¹ 4, 2005
According to the author, in a certain sense, the Russian history including of the XX-th century may be viewed as a chain of fluctuations within the two poles - the Troubles and the Order. In one of the two articles I.Glebova analyses this rhythm of the native history covering the period between the revolution of 1917 and the establishment of "Stalin's order."
Turning to the twenties the author tends to regard the ideology of the new economic policy as an ideology of social compromise. Moreover, one of the most important conclusions of the article is the thesis that compromises and the reciprocal adaptation of the power and the society (and not their violence towards each other) are the characteristic features of Russian "transitions." In her article I. Glebova shows how rejecting Russian cultural historical heritage in general the new power makes attempts to find the link with the past and to formulate its version of the national idea.
¹ 3, 2004
The author tries to understand why the image of Grand Duchess Elizabeth is so popular in Russia at the beginning of the XXI-st century. I. Glebova studies what senses and feelings of Russian people it appeals to, what place it is called to hold in their picture of the world. It is noted that the instrumentalization of Saint Elizabeth’s image can be explained by the fact that it fulfills two functions – an uniting function and an identification function. The Grand Duchess is perfect for the symbol of reconciliation and unity. Being the incarnation of the Russian national ideal she is close to the representatives of different walks of the society. I. Glebova pays special attention to the factors, which make the image of Elizabeth appealing and convenient from the point of view of modern Russian power.
Main Page ~ Authors ~ Glebova Irina