humanitiesГуманитарные науки. Вестник Финансового университетаHumanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University2226-78672619-1482Financial University under The Government of Russian Federation10.26794/2226-7867-2023-13-3-114-120humanities-838Research ArticleАКТУАЛЬНЫЕ СОЦИАЛЬНО-ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯCURRENT SOCIO-POLITICAL RESEARCHМетод анализа мифов (по Р. Барту) как инструмент для исследования процесса легитимации политической системы на примере переосмысления исторического опыта СССР в современной РоссииApproach to the Method of Myths Analysis (according to R. Bart Methodology) as a Tool for Studying the Process of Legitimation of the Political System on the Example of the Rethinking of the Historical Experience of the USSR in Contemporary Russiahttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9837-8014ЧимирисЕ. С.ChimirisE. S.

Екатерина Сергеевна Чимирис — научный сотрудник отдела глобальных проблем, Институт научной информации по общественным наукам Российской академии наук; руководитель Центра социально-политических исследований, Институт развития интеграционных процессов Всероссийской академии внешней торговли при Минэкономразвития РФ

Москва

Ekaterina S. Chimiris — research associate of the Department of Global Issues, Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Head of the Center for Social and Political Studies, Institute for Integration Processes Research and development, Russian Foreign Trade Academy, Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation

Moscow

chimiris@gmail.comРоссийская академия наук; Всероссийская академия внешней торговли при Минэкономразвития РФРоссияRussian Academy of Sciences; Russian Foreign Trade Academy, Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian FederationRussian Federation202317082023133114120Copyright © Чимирис Е.С., 20232023Чимирис Е.С.Chimiris E.S.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://humanities.fa.ru/jour/article/view/838

В данной статье автор делает попытку проанализировать ряд базовых мифов, которые основываются на событиях или особенностях исторических событий периода СССР, но оказывают непосредственное влияние на процесс легитимации современной политической системы России. Актуальность данной темы обусловлена необходимостью научно осмыслить существующий опыт в формировании идейных основ государственности России с учетом запроса на анализ ее генетического кода. Для анализа автором выбраны следующие мифы: «Памятник Гагарину как символ прорывного технологического наследия СССР и России как преемницы этого наследия»; «Экономический рост как символ экономического детерминизма, заложенного идеологией марксизма». Определение механизма формирования мифов на основе исторического опыта СССР позволило выявить перспективные направления для выработки мифов в будущем. 

In this article, the author attempts to analyze several basic myths that are based on the events or peculiarities of the historical events of the USSR period, but at the same time have a direct impact on the process of legitimation of the modern political system in Russia. The relevance of this topic is conditioned by the need to scientifically comprehend the existing experience both scientifically and analytically in the formation of the ideological foundations of the statehood of Russia, considering the request for the analysis of the “genetic code” of the Russian political system. As a material for analysis, the author of the article uses generally accepted ideas and artifacts of Russian modernity. The author identified the following three myths for the analysis: St. George’s Ribbon as a symbol of the victory of the USSR over fascism, the Gagarin Monument as a symbol of the breakthrough technological heritage of the USSR and Russia as the successor of this heritage; Economic growth as a symbol of economic determinism embedded in the ideology of Marxism. The identification and determination of the mechanism for the formation of myths based on the historical experience of the USSR has made it possible to identify promising directions for the development of myths in the future.

мифлегитимностьСССРсемиотикадискурсmythlegitimacyUSSRsemioticsdiscourseReferencesБарт Р. Мифологии. М.: Академический проект; 2008. 351 с.Bart R. Mythologies. Moscow: Academic project; 2008. 351 p. (In Russ.).Хабермас Ю. Европейское национальное государство: его достижения и пределы. О прошлом и будущем суверенитета и гражданства. URL: https://travellingscience.blogspot.com/2013/11/blog-post_5995.htmlHabermas Yu. The European Nation State: Its Achievements and Limits. On the Past and Future of Sovereignty and Citizenship. Nations and Nationalism. Moscow; 2002:364–381. (In Russ.).Fukuyama F. State Building. Governance and World Order in the Twentieth-First Century. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801455360Fukuyama F. State Building. Governance and World Order in the Twentieth-First Century. 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801455360Вебер М. Избранные произведения. М.: Прогресс; 1990.Weber M. Selected works. Moscow; 1990. (In Russ.).Истон Д. Категории системного анализа политики. Пер. с англ. Зубова К.А. Антология мировой политической мысли. 1997;(2):630–642.Easton D. Categories of systemic policy analysis. Anthology of world political thought. Moscow: 1997;(2):630–642. (In Russ.).Canetti E. Crowds and Power. England: Middlesex; Victoria; 1973.Canetti E. Crowds and Power. England, Middlesex; Victoria. 1973.Gilley B. The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries. European Journal of Political Research. 2006;(45):499–525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475–6765.2006.00307.xGilley B. The meaning and measure of state legitimacy: Results for 72 countries. European Journal of Political Research. 2006;45:499–525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475–6765.2006.00307.xHegtvedt K.A., Johnson C. Power and Justice: Toward an Understanding of Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):376–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338798Hegtvedt K.A., Johnson C. Power and Justice: Toward an Understanding of Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):376–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338798Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности: трактат по социологии знания. М.: Медиум; 1995.Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality: a treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Moscow; 1995. (In Russ.).Завершинский К.Ф. Легитимность: генезис, становление и развитие концепта. Полис. 2001;(2):113–131.Zavershinskiy K.F. Legitimacy: genesis, formation, and development of the concept. Polis. Political Studies. 2001;2:113–131. (In Russ.).Hetcher M. Legitimacy in the Modern World. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):280–287.Hetcher M. Legitimacy in the Modern World. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):280–287.Дюркгейм Э. О разделении общественного труда. М.: Канон; 1996.Durkheim E. On the Division of Social Labor. Moscow; 1996. (In Russ.).Horne C.A. Social Norms Approach to Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):400–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338799Horne C.A. Social Norms Approach to Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):400–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338799Tyler T.R. A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of institutions and authorities. The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. 2001;57(1):416–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1191958Tyler T.R. A psychological perspective on the legitimacy of institutions and authorities. The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations.. J.T. Jost & B. Major, еds. Cambridge, UK; 2001:416–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1191958Tyler T.R. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006;(57):375– 400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038Tyler T.R. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006;(57):375– 400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038Coicaud J.M. Legitimacy and Politics. A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997.Coicaud J.M. Legitimacy and Politics. A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge; 1997.Rothstein B. Creating Political Legitimacy. Electoral Democracy Versus Quality of Government. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):311–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1338615Rothstein B. Creating Political Legitimacy. Electoral Democracy Versus Quality of Government. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):311–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1338615Barker R. Legitimating Identities. The Self-Presentation of Rulers and Subjects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490163Barker R. Legitimating Identities. The Self-Presentation of Rulers and Subjects. Cambridge; 2001:9–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490163Бурдье П. Социология социального пространства. Пер. с фр. М.: Социо-Логос; 2007.Bourdieu P. Sociology of Social Space. Moscow; 2007. (In Russ.).Блакар Р.М. Язык как инструмент социальной власти. URL: https://www.studmed.ru/view/blakar-rm-yazykkak-instrument-socialnoy-vlasti_5562e1ca816.htmlBlakar R.M. Language as an instrument of social power. Language and modeling of social interaction. Moscow; 1987:88–124. (In Russ.).Leeuwen T.V. Legitimation in Discourse and Communication. Discourse & Communication. 2007;1(1):91–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986Leeuwen T.V. Legitimation in Discourse and Communication. Discourse & Communication. 2007;1(1):91–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986Бирюков Н.И., Сергеев В.М. Становление институтов представительной власти в современной России. М.: Издательский сервис; 2004.Biryukov N.I., Sergeev V.M. Formation of institutions of representative power in modern Russia. Moscow: Publishing service; 2004. (In Russ.).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.