Approach 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 Russia
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2023-13-3-114-120
Abstract
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.
About the Author
E. S. Chimiris
Russian Academy of Sciences;
Russian Foreign Trade Academy, Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
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
References
1. Bart R. Mythologies. Moscow: Academic project; 2008. 351 p. (In Russ.).
2. Habermas 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.).
3. Fukuyama F. State Building. Governance and World Order in the Twentieth-First Century. 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801455360
4. Weber M. Selected works. Moscow; 1990. (In Russ.).
5. Easton D. Categories of systemic policy analysis. Anthology of world political thought. Moscow: 1997;(2):630–642. (In Russ.).
6. Canetti E. Crowds and Power. England, Middlesex; Victoria. 1973.
7. 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.x
8. Hegtvedt K.A., Johnson C. Power and Justice: Toward an Understanding of Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):376–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338798
9. Berger P., Lukman T. Social construction of reality: a treatise on the sociology of knowledge. Moscow; 1995. (In Russ.).
10. Zavershinskiy K.F. Legitimacy: genesis, formation, and development of the concept. Polis. Political Studies. 2001;2:113–131. (In Russ.).
11. Hetcher M. Legitimacy in the Modern World. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):280–287.
12. Durkheim E. On the Division of Social Labor. Moscow; 1996. (In Russ.).
13. Horne C.A. Social Norms Approach to Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist. 2009;53(3):400–415. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338799
14. Tyler 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/10.2307/1191958
15. Tyler T.R. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology. 2006;(57):375– 400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
16. Coicaud J.M. Legitimacy and Politics. A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility. Cambridge; 1997.
17. 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.1338615
18. Barker R. Legitimating Identities. The Self-Presentation of Rulers and Subjects. Cambridge; 2001:9–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511490163
19. Bourdieu P. Sociology of Social Space. Moscow; 2007. (In Russ.).
20. Blakar R.M. Language as an instrument of social power. Language and modeling of social interaction. Moscow; 1987:88–124. (In Russ.).
21. Leeuwen T.V. Legitimation in Discourse and Communication. Discourse & Communication. 2007;1(1):91–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986
22. Biryukov N.I., Sergeev V.M. Formation of institutions of representative power in modern Russia. Moscow: Publishing service; 2004. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Chimiris E.S. Approach 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 Russia. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2023;13(3):114-120. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2023-13-3-114-120
Views:
383
Email this article 