Formation of Russian Identity in the Crimea and Sevastopol City
https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2024-14-2-109-114
Abstract
The Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol have not yet completed the process of reintegration today. In this context, it is necessary to pay attention to its political and psychological component — the problem of creating the Russian national-state identity. The political-psychological approach involves analyzing not only the rational aspects of this process but also the place of unconscious factors in it, including the symbolic space of identity. The study involved researchers from Sevastopol University who conducted a questionnaire survey comprising closed and open questions. The sample selected for the study represented two regions. Their survey included 2,100 respondents. The researchers identified elements such as the image of the territory, the idea of personalities with symbolic meaning, and historical symbols for the study.
About the Author
T. V. Evgenieva
Financial University; Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tatyana V. Evgenieva — Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Professor of the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications; Associate Professor of the Department of Sociology and Political Psychology
Moscow
References
1. Anderson B. Imagined communities. Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London-New York: Verso; 2006. 256 p.
2. Hobsbawm E. Nations and Nationalism in Europe Today. Anthropology Today. 1992;8(1):3–8.
3. Hobsbawm E. Language, Culture, and National Identity. Social Research. 1996;63(4):1065–1080.
4. Smith A. D. Nationalism and modernism. A critical survey of recent theories of nations and nationalism. London and New York: Routledge; 1998. 270 p.
5. Tishkov V. A. Ethnology and politics. Moscow: Nauka; 2001. 240 p. (In Russ.).
6. Stefanenko T. G. Ethnic identity: from ethnology to social psychology. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 14. Psihologiya = Bulletin of Moscow University. Episode 14. Psychology. 2009;(2):3–17. (In Russ.).
7. Kiselev I. Yu., Smirnova A. G. Dynamics of the image of the state in international relations. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University Publishing House; 2003. 269 p. (In Russ.).
8. Semenenko I. S. Cultural factors and mechanisms for the formation of Russian national-civilizational identity at the turn of the 21st century. Polis = Policy. 2004;(1):101–114. (In Russ.).
9. Titov V. V. Politics of memory and the formation of national-state identity: Russian experience and new trends. Moscow: Tipografiya “Vash format”; 2017. 288 p. (In Russ.).
10. Evgenieva TV. National-state identity in modern Russia. Moscow: Yurayt; 2023.
11. Bell D. Mythscapes: memory, mythology and national identity. British Journal of Sociology. 2003;54(1):63–81. (In Russ.).
12. Bourdieu P. Sociology of social space. St. Petersburg: Aletheya; 2007. 288 p. (In Russ.).
13. Baudrillard J. Symbolic exchange and death. Moscow: Dobrosvet; 2000. 387 p. (In Russ.).
14. Edelman M. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 1964. 387 p. (In Russ.).
15. Eliade M. Space and history. Selected works. Moscow: Progress; 1987. 312 p. (In Russ.).
16. Malinova O. Yu. Construction of macropolitical identity in post-Soviet Russia. Politicheskaya ekspertiza: POLITEKS = Political expertise: POLITEX. 2010;(1):5–28. (In Russ.).
17. Potseluev S. P. “Symbolic politics”: on the history of the concept. In the collection of scientific works “Symbolic Politics”. Moscow: Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences; 2012. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Evgenieva T.V. Formation of Russian Identity in the Crimea and Sevastopol City. Humanities and Social Sciences. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2024;14(2):109-114. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.26794/2226-7867-2024-14-2-109-114
Views:
236
Email this article 