Miller Alexei

Growth of the Significance of Institutional Factor in Politics of Memory — Causes and Implications

The beginning of the 21st century was marked not only by the change in the common European narrative of memory, but also by the rethinking of the very nature of the cultural memory. This sphere came to be 

seen as an integral part of politics rather than a space for eradication of the political. As a result, the previous approach that focused on overcoming disagreements both within and between individual countries gave way to an antagonistic approach, in which memory turns out to be a field of irreconcilable conflicts. These shifts resulted in the intensive institutionalization of the politics of memory. Other important consequences include change in the methodology of studying politics of memory; the focus on the interaction of actors and commemoration as a way of constituting groups; a different understanding of the role of a researcher as a participant in the processes that he/she analyzes.

In Russia, the institutionalization of politics of memory started with some delay. The turning point was 2012 that witnessed the creation of the Russian Historical Society and the Russian Military Historical Society, the start of the elaboration of the Historical and Cultural Standard and the project that later developed into the theme parks Russia — My History, as well as the adoption of the law on foreign agents. In the same year, the Immortal Regiment initiative was born, and a year later, the Last Address initiative was created. The article discusses the role of various actors in the process of institutionalization of the politics of memory in the Russian Federation and the new conditions, under which historians and researchers of the cultural memory find themselves today.

DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2019-94-3-87-102

Pages: 87-102

POLITICS OF MEMORY IN POST-COMMUNIST EUROPE AND ITS IMPACT ON EUROPEAN CULTURE OF MEMORY

Having carefully reviewed the processes occurring today in the politics of memory, A.Miller concludes that in the 21st century the European politics of memory as a whole undergone a radical transformation as a result of interaction between the Western and the Eastern European cultures of memory. According to the author’s assessment, the Eastern European model that focuses on the sufferings of its nation and the motive of the existential threat, prevailed over the West-European, in which the theme of self-blame and responsibility played the main role. Explaining such turn by both the unwillingness of the elites of the leading Western countries to enter into a tough confrontation with the EU new members regarding their politics of memory, as well as by the “old Europe’s” loss of self-confidence and trust in the success of the EU as a project of integration, Miller shows that the Eastern European mechanisms of collective memory and identity construction prevailed when the Western Europe comprehended the growing tensions in the relationships between Russia and its neighbors.

DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2016-80-1-111-121

POLITICS OF MEMORY IN RUSSIA: YEAR OF DASHED HOPES

Having documented the deepest crisis in the politics of memory in Russia, A.Miller turns to the analysis of the events and circumstances that led to the destruction of the emerging areas and forms of dialogue and cooperation in the field of historical consciousness between government and society as well as between the individual segments of the latter. The article compellingly shows that the crisis over Ukraine that gradually evolved into the crisis of relations between Russia and the US and the EU is a key factor contributing to the radical change of the situation with the politics of memory in the country. According to the author's assessment, if the present trend in Russia continues, what is happening today can signal the start of a long process of mobilizing civil society not just on an anti-liberal, but ignorant nationalist platform.

DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2014-75-4-49-57

Role of Expert Communities in Memory Politics in Russia

Having carefully analyzed the evolution of public strategies in relation to the past in the post-Soviet Russia, A.Miller stresses a sharp increase in the number of more or less organized expert groups that are concerned with memory politics as well as significant changes in the content of the public agenda in this area. The fact that in many national republics memory politics is in harsh contradiction with the task of forming All-Russian national identity places the problem of historical myth unity on the territory of Russia to the foreground. The author thinks that in the near future a serious fight will unfold around this aspect of memory politics, in which expert communities may play an important role.

DOI: 10.30570/2078-5089-2013-71-4-114-126