Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research <p><em>Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research </em>is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal produced by an international group of scholars. The journal comes out three times a year and publishes materials based on empirical qualitative social research in Russian and English. The journal is published with the financial support of the Centre for Independent Social Research (CISR), an independent nonprofit organization.*</p> en-US <span>Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:</span><br /><ol type="a"><br /><li>Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a <a href="" target="_new">Creative Commons Attribution License</a> that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.</li><br /><li>Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.</li><br /><li>Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See <a href="" target="_new">The Effect of Open Access</a>).</li></ol> (Oksana Parfenova) (Oksana Parfenova) Fri, 21 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0000 OJS 60 New Studies of Ukrainian Society <p>The 2013–2014 political protests and subsequent transformations of Ukraine’s political landscape, as well as the annexation of Crimea and military actions in the eastern part of the country, significantly changed Ukrainian society and also revealed new social phenomena and processes, thereby suggesting new topics and directions<br>for social research of Ukraine for scholars both inside the country and abroad. During this period the themes of political crisis, revolution, war, refugees and internal migration, social media and mobilization, information warfare, and memory policy were added to the more traditional Ukrainian studies topics of collective and cultural<br>memory, national identity, borders and borderlands, ethnonationalism, regionalism, and such.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-5-8</p> Yuliya Soroka, Anna Paretskaya ##submission.copyrightStatement## Thu, 20 Sep 2018 18:15:02 +0000 Integration of Women into the Armed Forces: Perspectives and Problems of Ukrainian Society <p>This article analyzes women’s integration into the Armed Forces of Ukraine from a liberal feminist point of view, incorporating sociological and gender perspectives. The phenomenon of vertical and horizontal gender segregation and gender discrimination in the Armed Forces is described as a problem of the labor market, based on<br>both the Soviet legacy and global trends of women’s participation in the military. However, the growing number of military women in the contract service is primarily associated with the reluctance of men to hold low-paid positions. Women in the Armed Forces of Ukraine participate mostly in the so-called feminized professions:<br>nursing, finance, logistics, and communications. Women in the military also face gender discrimination and prejudice. The infrastructure of the Ukrainian military is designed for the needs of men and thus excludes women with their specific needs from the army.<br>In this article we consider the opportunities and challenges around the implementation of the gender policy of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Formally, the Ukrainian army had developed a gender policy that meets the national gender policy and attempts to guarantee equal rights for all persons, regardless of sex, in military life. However, there<br>is resistance to the realistic implementation of the declared policy of equal rights and opportunities for women and men. The article is based on the findings of the “Invisible Battalion” project (conducted in 2015–2016), which ooked at the roles women played in the Antiterrorist Operation (ATO ) in the Donbas region and their fight for equal rights<br>and opportunities in Ukraine.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-13-33</p> Tamara Martsenyuk, Ganna Grytsenko, Anna Kvit, Maria Berlinska ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 06:27:34 +0000 Home without Walls, Walls without Home: Constructing Physical and Symbolic Transnational Locations in Ukrainian Women’s Migration to Italy <p>This article analyses Ukrainian women migrants’ strategies for constructing the concept of home during their long-term migration projects in Italy. Specifically, this article examines the symbolic resources through which the migrants construct the concept of the home as their own, as well as the combination of different homes in the context of<br>transnational migration. It further asks if women migrants always see their home through the dichotomy of physical and symbolic meanings and how the conflict between homes in different countries is resolved. The article is based on the analysis of 60 semistructured interviews conducted both in Italy and Ukraine with Ukrainian women migrants<br>and migration experts. The article shows how, depending on the type of migration project, migrants’ personal<br>trajectories are related to their understanding of their private domain and its realization<br>in time and space. Three models of home are formulated: the recreated home, the divided home, and the lost home.<br>The second model—the divided home— turns out to be the most common. The majority of migrants from Ukraine who came to Italy in the early 2000s tend to combine the social contexts of both countries. They invest in the receiving country and continue to maintain close social relations with their country of origin, creating different concepts<br>of home and narrativizing them depending on their own migration trajectory. Despite the fact that these are long-term (more than 15 years) migrations that entail a radical transformation of their social ties and statuses, most women are not ready to weaken their ties with Ukraine. On the contrary, migrants invest very actively in their country of<br>origin, rather than in Italy, partly due to their age and low assessment of their personal social capital. Moving through space, these women are also moving in time, due to the differences in cultures and their social roles in both countries. Migration for many women is also a way of distancing from or avoiding conflict with the traditional social order in Ukraine: for example, migration to Italy is often a way to leave a nonfunctional family (home) without severing the relationship legally. For many migrants the conceptualization of the place as their own is closely related to the Ukrainian national project.</p> <p>Article in Russian.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-34-51</p> Svitlana Odynets ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 06:40:32 +0000 From Soviet to Post- or Anti-Soviet: Two L’viv Museums of War in Search of a New Ukrainian Narrative of World War II <p>While most of the historical events that took place in L’viv, Ukraine, during and after World War II are being successively researched, less attention has been paid to their representation throughout the Soviet period and its transformation afterwards. This article looks at two war museums in L’viv representing the most prominent competing<br>historical perspectives on World War II in Ukraine today: the Soviet narrative of heroism and liberation, as put forward by the Museum of the History of the Carpathian Military District, and the Ukrainian narrative of a no less heroic fight for freedom and self-determination, as presented by the Museum of the Liberation Struggle of Ukraine. The first<br>was the state narrative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, is still supported by many Ukrainian citizens and politicians, and continues to influence ideas about how war should be commemorated; the promoters of the second have hoped to make it the new Ukrainian master narrative, but they encounter a variety of difficulties, which will be<br>addressed in this article. The article examines the circumstances, motives, and goals of the museums’ creators, of the exhibitions’ narratives (and silences), and their design. The analysis is based on empirical research conducted in L’viv between August 2015 and October 2017 as part of the interdisciplinary research project “L’viv: Museum of War,” a<br>collaboration between the artist Ekaterina Shapiro-Obermair and the historian Alexandra Wachter.</p> <p>Article in English.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-52-79</p> Alexandra Wachter, Ekaterina Shapiro-Obermair ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 07:17:33 +0000 Reform in Ukraine and the Influence of Foreign Actors after Euromaidan <div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="section"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column">As the mounting protests from Maidan Square in Kyiv led to the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukrainians found themselves at an unavoidable fork in the road in their history. For years the country had become a new frontier of Western influence, forcing a decision between tightening economic and cultural ties with the West or with<br>Russia. The basic question many Ukrainians faced included choosing between their Soviet past or a potential liberal democratic future. Furthermore, the Russian takeover of Crimea became the first major invasion of a European country since 1968. The goal of this article is to examine how Western versus Russian institutions and agents influence a third actor, Ukraine, in the postcommunist world. The following discussion will peel back the various layers of government, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and people, both domestic and foreign, in the area of reform in order to<br>establish how policymaking in Ukraine has been shaped. I consider the competing uses of hard and soft power in Ukraine’s reform movement, focusing on democratization and the role of specific anticorruption initiatives. Democratization concerns the liberalization of politics, loosening restrictions on policies, and developing responsive institutions. Anticorruption efforts target illegal activity propagated by an entrenched graft culture that undermines democratization efforts. I interviewed Ukrainian political elites, examining their perceptions of the ways in which foreign actors shaped reform policies. I contend that Moscow has used both hard power and soft power to undermine<br>reform efforts. The West has relied on financial aid to bolster civil society groups and a new generation of civil servants to promote institutional capacity to further reform initiatives.</div> <div class="column">&nbsp;</div> <div class="column">Article in English.</div> <div class="column">&nbsp;</div> <div class="column">DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-80-103</div> </div> </div> </div> Ryan Barrett ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 07:27:03 +0000 Islands of one Archipelago: Narratives about the Solovetskie Islands and the Memory of Soviet Repressions <p>In this article we consider the importance of the Solovetskie Islands for understanding of the memory of the Gulag in Russia. To better explain our argumentation we take a program we have developed for the Center for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding, which in July 2017 organized a summer school for PhD students from Poland and<br>Russia on the Solovetskie Islands. By showing the assumptions and goals of the course we explain the complexity of the memory of Soviet repressions on Solovki in particular and in Russia in general. We describe the different memory narratives of Solovki’s repressive past that are present on the islands. We show that to understand the memory of<br>Soviet repressions, it is important to recognize these diverse narratives produced by different memory actors, such as activists with the nonprofit Memorial Society and the staff of the local museum, but also various representatives of the local community. It is important not only to grasp what these narratives are about but also the interrelationships<br>between them.</p> <p>Text in English.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-104-121</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Tatiana Voronina, Zuzanna Bogumi ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 07:43:52 +0000 Victims’ Categorizations: Making Sense of Purges in Karelia and on Solovki <p>During the ”Archipelago of Common Memory” Summer School our group traveled through Karelia to the Solovetskie Islands. Participants of the school visited museum exhibitions dedicated to the White Sea–Baltic Sea Canal in Medvezh’egorsk (the former center of the canal’s construction) and Povenets (the canal’s current administrative headquarters); the Solovetskii museum, including exhibitions about the “new martyrs” and the history of the Solovetskii camp; Sandarmokh, the site of mass executions of Soviet victims; and memorial sites on Solovetskie Islands. This essay presents preliminary results of my research in which I focus on the narratives presented in different memory sites, including museums and memorials. I show how the victims of Soviet purges are portrayed at the different sites. One of the issues that became apparent during the summer school is that narratives about purges represent victims of these purges differently. A categorization of victims is often present. On Solovki, in the monastery exhibition, the<br>victims are categorized by their religion, and Orthodox victims are made more visible than others. On the Avenue of Remembrance on Solovki and on Sandаrmokh victims are categorized by their nationality: diasporas have put up memorials to their compatriots. At the White Sea–Baltic Sea Canal Museum in Povenets, on the other hand, victims are<br>represented through the eyes of the canal administration as either hard working or lazy. The categorization of victims illustrates some issues surrounding Russian memory of the Soviet purges more broadly—the lack of a single national narrative about the Soviet past and the drive to make sense of this difficult past.</p> <p>Text in English.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-122-133</p> Daria Khlevnyuk ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:23:35 +0000 One Past, Two Memories: Comparing the Exhibitions at the Museum of the White Sea–Baltic Sea Canal and the Museum of the Solovki Prison Camp <p>The essay discusses two exhibitions featuring camps in the Soviet Union: the Museum of the Solovki prison camp (located on the Solovetskie Islands) and the Museum of the White Sea–Baltic Sea Canal (in the town of Povenets, Karelia). The purpose of this study was to explore differences in memory of the White Sea–Baltic Sea Canal and the Solovetskii Special Purpose Camp (SLON) through an analysis of two exhibitions. To achieve this goal, I developed my own methodology for working with museum exhibitions. One of the subjects of the analysis was the traditional division of actors in museum exhibitions about state violence and atrocities into executioners, victims, heroes, and observers.<br>This study reveals that the same phenomenon—such as forced labor—existing in neighboring regions at the same time can generate different memories and different kinds of commemoration. These differences may concern the very fact of the existence of the camps, the size of the camp network, the goals and consequences of camps’ establishment,<br>the role of Josef Stalin in the creation of the camps, evaluations of the prisoners and of representatives of authorities in camps. Both exhibitions recognize the existence of camps in the Soviet Union. However, other elements of the past are represented in different ways: In Povenets there is a heroic Soviet past and the canal is a symbol of the courage of Soviet citizens. On the Solovetskie Islands the camp is but one element in a larger camp system and the memory of SLON and Gulag is a tragic one. In a broader context, the significant differences in the two memories of Gulag testify to<br>an ambivalent attitude to the past that exists in contemporary Russia. The Museum of the Solovetskii Special Purpose Camp follows the international discourse on totalitarian regimes. The museum in Povenets demonstrates complete isolation from modern approaches to the study of the Gulag. Thus, the two museums, whose narratives are concerned with the same phenomenon of the same period, show the camp past in very different ways.</p> <p>Text in Russian.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-134-148</p> Olga Lebedeva ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:36:09 +0000 Memorial Inscriptions to Commemorate Repressions: The Solovetskie Islands and Sandarmokh <p>This essay analyzes texts of memorial plaques and inscriptions on monuments commemorating victims of political repressions of the 1920s and 1930s at Sandarmokh in Karelia and on the Solovetskie Islands. The erection of these memorial tokens on the sites of mass graves is seen as one way to approach the historical memory of political<br>repressions in Russia. Inscriptions on monuments not only testify to the special attention given to certain social groups of victims but also create distinct hierarchies and interpretative models reflecting attitudes towards the persecution of the diverse social groups that erected the monuments. The author suggests that the practice of installing<br>memorial plaques to commemorate the repressed is rooted in the tradition of placing memorial plaques in urban spaces. Both types of memorials are relatively easy to install (especially as compared to constructing a memorial complex) and both are transient by nature, always ready to be turned into a monument, museum, or a memorial complex— or to vanish altogether. However, in contrast with urban memorial plaques marking sites of birth, work, or major life events, memorial signs on mass grave sites refer to places of death. For this reason, creators of these commemorative texts are compelled to go beyond biographical details, such as dates of birth and death, and to articulate their attitude to the deceased’s violent death. Consequently, the memorial inscriptions at Sandarmokh<br>and the Solovetskie Islands are less formal than the more standardized texts of urban memorial signs, bearing witness to interpretations typical of the groups that erected the monuments. The relative ease of installation explains the popularity of this particular kind of commemoration of mass grave sites. Along with influential public organizations and<br>religious and ethnic communities, local residents also make their presence known in the memorial spaces of Sandarmokh and the Solovetskie Islands by mounting photographs of their repressed family members onto trees and crosses. As a result, the many memorial plaques all along Avenue of Remembrance on the Solovetskie Islands and at the site of Sandarmokh constitute a specific feature of commemorating Soviet repressions and illustrate the diversity and heterogeneity of this memory.</p> <p>Text in Russian.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-149-156</p> Anton Liutynskii ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:45:31 +0000 "Stena skorbi", muzei GULAGa i drugie praktiki memorializatsii zhertv sovetskikh repressii. Interv'ui Zuzanny Bogumil s Romanom Romanovym <p>В 2017 году Россия отметила 100-летие Революции 1917 года и 80-летие начала Большого террора 1937–1938 годов. Важным событием этого года, имевшим символический смысл, было открытие «Стены скорби» – мемориала жертвам политических репрессий – в Москве 30 октября 2017 года, в государственный День памяти<br>жертв политических репрессий. Открывал «Стену скорби» президент России Владимир Путин, который в 2015 году поддержал инициативу правозащитников и издал указ о возведении памятника.<br>Руководитель Фонда памяти, специально созданного для строительства мемoриала, Роман Романов – директор Государственного Музея истории ГУЛАГа, один из наиболее влиятельных агентов памяти о политических репрессиях в России. Интервью с ним, взятое Зузанной Богумил в июле 2018 года, дает представление о том,<br>как юбилейный год повлиял на память о политических репрессиях и какую роль в новых проектах памяти, широко поддерживаемых российскими властями, занимает Соловецкий архипелаг. Романов – ключевая фигура в создании Ассоциации российских музеев памяти, сохраняющих память о советских репрессиях. Кроме того, он является членом рабочей группы по координации деятельности, направленной на реализацию выработанной в 2015 году концепции государственной политики по увековечению памяти жертв политических репрессий.</p> <p>Interview in Russian.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-157-163</p> Zuzanna Bogumił, Roman Romanov ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:54:24 +0000 Marina Sobolevskaya. The Order of the Discourse of Order: Neofunctionalism and Poststructuralism in Modern Social Theory . : Kyiv, Logos. – 20014. – 246 p. In Ukrainian. ISBN 978-966-171-784-7. <p class="p1"><span class="s1">Обращение к концепциям неофункционализма и постструктурализма в книге Марины Соболевской стало ответом на потребность осмыслить их в перспективе украинской социологии. Такая рефлексия в свою очередь востребована для изучения плюральности социального мира: признание принципиальной множественности социальных порядков требует как концептуального обеспечения, так и осмысления способов конструирования концептов и теорий. Предложенный автором подход отвечает также задаче определения социологией своего места в обществе. В условиях либерального капитализма, когда эмансипативный потенциал социологической науки все меньше востребован государством, сама социология нуждается в понимании характера своей связи с действительностью и полем социокультурных отношений, а также способов формирования этих отношений и управления ними.</span></p> <p class="p1"><span class="s1">DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-164-166</span></p> <p><span class="s1">&nbsp;</span></p> Yuliya Soroka ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:06:13 +0000 Marian J. Rubchak, ed. New Imaginaries: Youthful Reinvention of Ukraine’s Cultural Paradigm. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2015 <p>Работ, посвященных непосредственно Украине, среди англоязычных исследований гендерных проблем восточноевропейских стран очевидно немного (Hankivsky and Salnikova 2012; Rubchak 2014; Solari 2017). Ряд событий, связанных с протестами на «Евромайдане» (с ноября 2013 по март 2014 года) и последующим вооруженным конфликтом на территории Восточной Украины, активизировал интерес исследователей к процессам, происходящим в украинском обществе, в том числе к вопросу активного участия в них женщин, а также к трансформации гендерных смыслов в контексте войны. Рецензируемая книга, хотя и была подготовлена до начала упомянутых драматических событий, успешно заполняет пробел в англоязычных гендерных исследованиях постсоветских трансформаций в Украине.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-167-170</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Elena Strelnik ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:17:23 +0000 Oleksandr Rakhmanov. Vlasniki velikogo kapítalu yak sub'êkt sotsíal'no-yekonomíchnikh peretvoren' v Ukraí̈ní. Kiyev: Ínstitut sotsíologíí̈ NAN Ukraí̈ni, 2012 <p>Рецензируемая монография «Собственники крупного капитала как субъект социально-экономических преобразований в Украине» посвящена анализу одной из наиболее интересных и противоречивых социальных групп, вышедших на арену общественной жизни в период кардинальной трансформации постсоветских обществ, – собственников крупного капитала. Социологическое исследование данной группы затрагивает ряд фундаментальных научных проблем современности. В частности это трансформация социальной структуры и системы социальной стратификации, появление новых форм и факторов социальных неравенств, изменения экономического уклада и политического ландшафта, легитимация данных изменений в массовом сознании. Перечень проблем можно продолжать, но главное – исследование каждой из них предполагает обращение к тем или иным аспектам формирования и деятельности собственников крупного капитала.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-171-176</p> Viacheslav Nikulin ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:23:34 +0000 Gasan Gyseynov. Yazyk mot - Wrack may. Kronika ot Romula do Leninopada. Kiiv, Laurus, 2017 <p>Отражению социального в языке и роли языка в изменении и переструктурировании социальной системы общества посвящено уже много работ – начиная от классических работ Вильгельма фон Гумбольдта (1984) до сравнительно недавних Эдварда Сепира ([1929] 1993) и Бенджамина Ли Уорфа (Whorf 1956). Исследователи, анализируя функционирование языка, обращали внимание на то, как именно язык конструирует социальную реальность, а Джордж Лакофф (Lakoff 1987) в своем классическом труде по языку продемонстрировал, как миф создает языковые категоризации и в конечном счете определяет картину мира австралийских аборигенов. Исследования славянских языков Анны Вежбицкой (2001) продолжили традицию изучения различных языковых культур через анализ функционирования и семантики разных «ключевых слов», опираясь на которые, выстраивается своего рода grand narrative той или иной культуры.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-177-180</p> Dmitry Dubrovsky ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:44:16 +0000 Andy Bruno. The Nature of Soviet Power: An Arctic Environmental History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016 <p>Книга американского историка Энди Бруно посвящена индустриальным преобразованиям, произошедшим в XX веке на Кольском полуострове, и природе как участнику коммунистического проекта, ее роли в сталинской модернизации и более поздних событиях в описываемом регионе. Перед читателем результат длительной работы (как пишет автор – трети его жизни), начало которой связано с диссертационным исследованием Бруно (Bruno 2011) и с предшествующей этой диссертации работой в России.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-181-185</p> Nataliya Kosyak ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:50:54 +0000 Sergei Antonov. Bankrupts and Usurers of Imperial Russia: Debt, Property, and the Law in the Age of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016 <p>Со времен Александра I известен такой анекдот: в Петербурге существовало две комиссии: одна – для составления законов, другая – для погашения долгов; вывески их были расположены на трех досках, и однажды ночью «шалуны переменили последние доски» так, что получилось: «Комиссия составления долгов» и<br>«Комиссия погашения законов» (Кукольник 1996:108). Изящество анекдота заключается в тонкой связи между законами и долгами. Действительно, в зависимости от ситуации по закону долги могли быть прощены<br>должнику, или, наоборот, чести и здоровью должника мог быть нанесен непоправимый урон, и это тоже было по закону. Замечательное новаторское исследование Сергея Антонова посвящено именно этой деликатной стороне отношений людей и государственных институтов.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-186-189</p> Tatiana Borisova ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 09:58:39 +0000 Yuri Slezkine. The House of Government: A Saga of the Russian Revolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017 <p>У рецензируемой книги, посвященной знаменитому Дому правительства (известному также как «Дом на набережной»), есть ощутимый недостаток: она очень велика. Тысяча с лишним страниц – это немало, даже если учесть, что много места уделено иллюстрациям. Боюсь, что размер издания может отпугнуть часть той аудитории, на которую рассчитывал автор. Объем книги создает серьезные проблемы и для рецензентов: редакции позволяют им увеличить количество слов в их рецензиях. И все же сократить рецензируемый текст было бы сложно: для этого пришлось бы выкинуть яркие факты, убрать сочные пространные цитаты. Между тем<br>многие интересные источники вводятся в научный оборот впервые: так, автор использовал материалы, выявленные им на протяжении многих лет работы в 18 архивах, в том числе в архиве музея «Дома на набережной».</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-190-194</p> Boris Kolonitskii ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:04:27 +0000 Teda Skochpol. Gosudarstva i sotsial'nye revoliutsii: Sravnitel'nyi analiz Frantsii, Rossii i Kitaya. Per. s angl. Sergeya Moiseyeva pod nauch. red. Dmitriia Karaseva. M .: Izd-vo Instituta Gaidara, 2017 <p>Столетие революции в России было отмечено оглушительным молчанием: ни одна из основных групп, борющихся за направление исторической политики в стране, не предприняла заметных усилий для того, чтобы опереться на наследие Октября или Февраля. В то же время события вековой давности в России по-прежнему<br>понимаются во всем мире как одна из важнейших вех современной мировой истории. Такой очевидный дисбаланс интерпретаций указывает на исключительное значение самой идеи революции для сегодняшней российской политики. Пожалуй, никакое другое понятие не вызывает сегодня таких интенсивных политических эмоций.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-195-198</p> Grigorii Yudin ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:10:08 +0000 Stephen Lovell. Russia in the Microphone Age: A History of Soviet Radio, 1919– 1970. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015 <p>Мне уже доводилось писать об одной из более ранних книг профессора Королевского колледжа Лондона Стивена Ловелла, посвященной дачам как феномену русской культуры (Утехин 2004). В работе о дачах ярко проявился характерный для этого автора взгляд историка, позволяющий проследить некоторое явление на протяжении нескольких веков на фоне общей панорамы общественных изменений и основанный на обширном корпусе материалов, в том числе архивных. Про русские дачи к тому моменту в монографическом формате не существовало ни одной работы. Про историю советского радио на сегодняшний день написано немало, начиная еще с советского времени, и Ловелл ссылается на эти публикации. Но существующие работы сфокусированы либо на развитии технологических аспектов радиовещания, либо на институциональной истории радио в СССР с особенным вниманием к вопросам цензуры (такова известная книга Татьяны Горяевой (2000, 2007)), тогда как содержание вещания не подвергалось столь же подробному анализу, не говоря<br>уже о проблематике восприятия вещания слушателями.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-199-205</p> Ilya Utekhin ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:45:42 +0000 Mark Bassin and Gonzalo Pozo, eds. The Politics of Eurasianism: Identity, Popular Culture and Russia’s Foreign Policy. London: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017 <p>Различные политические теории «растворены в воздухе» в виде риторики, которую большая часть аудитории просто не понимает. Или не воспринимает. Политики, бюрократы и другие категории граждан, составляющие «политический класс», используют, особенно в разговорах в своем кругу, определенную терминологию и,<br>пользуясь ею, устанавливают задачи для нации (которые не всегда нации понятны). При этом академический анализ или общественная рефлексия по поводу этих задач и их исходных, теоретически сконструированных моделей, как правило, сильно запаздывает. Если вообще проводится. В этом отношении заслуживает<br>большого уважения деятельность профессора Университета Сёдертёрна Марка Бассина (Mark Bassin), инициировавшего долгосрочный проект по изучению одной из политических теорий, важных для постсоветского социума – евразийства.</p> <p>DOI: 10.25285/2078-1938-2018-10-2-206-208</p> Nikolai Mitrokhin ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 10:52:10 +0000 Authors <p>This issue's authors.</p> Laboratorium Russian Review of Social Research ##submission.copyrightStatement## Fri, 21 Sep 2018 11:08:02 +0000