RUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST

The reference to history in the context of Russia’s foreign policy is considered as an appeal to the quasi-transcendence, whereby an ideal dimension is added to the practical (political, economic) aspects of international relations. It is noted that only in the 2010s Russian diplomacy began to pay s...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	K. A. Pakhaluk
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN RU
Publicado:	MGIMO University Press 2018
Materias:	historical memory discourse analysis foreign policy identity foreign policy discourse cultural policy public diplomacy soft power russian-bulgarian relations russian-turkish war of 1877- 1878 memorial cooperation International relations JZ2-6530
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/034147a175734981882708016fc815c1
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:034147a175734981882708016fc815c1
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:034147a175734981882708016fc815c12021-11-23T14:50:39ZRUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST2071-81602541-909910.24833/2071-8160-2018-4-61-178-203https://doaj.org/article/034147a175734981882708016fc815c12018-09-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.vestnik.mgimo.ru/jour/article/view/797https://doaj.org/toc/2071-8160https://doaj.org/toc/2541-9099The reference to history in the context of Russia’s foreign policy is considered as an appeal to the quasi-transcendence, whereby an ideal dimension is added to the practical (political, economic) aspects of international relations. It is noted that only in the 2010s Russian diplomacy began to pay special attention to such «symbolic games», designed to provide the moral basis for foreign policy through reference to the historical role that Russia plays on the international arena. This, in turn, leads to the dominance of performative practices, rather than to the building of dialogue spaces. In practice, the politicization of historical memory is conducted in two ways: inclusion in foreign policy discourse and by various symbolic practices of addressing to the common past during official visits. The author suggests distinguishing actual memory places and symbolic gestures aimed at their actualization. Russian-Bulgarian relations are characterized by asymmetry in the spaces of shared memory, memory places are mainly localized in Bulgaria. We outline main practices of turning places of memory into the common spaces of memory, but interpretations of these symbolic gestures in Russia and Bulgaria are structured by different national historical narratives. The memory of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and the liberation of Bulgaria during the WWII are assigned greater importance in Bulgaria than in Russia. This asymmetry leads to the fact that a significant work of the Bulgarian authorities, Bulgarian and Russian public organizations on the arrangement of places of memory and setting up new memorials is invisible in Russia, while Russian foreign policy discourse is dominated by the emphasis on negative aspects (for example, actions of individual vandals to destroy the monument of the Soviet Army in Sofia). This deprives the ongoing work in the field of symbolic support and at the same time forms a myth of «Bulgarian ingratitude». The most striking example is the scandal during the 140-year celebration of the liberation of Bulgaria in March 2018, which is based on a different understanding of how the achievements of the Imperial period should be interpreted today.K. A. PakhalukMGIMO University Pressarticlehistorical memorydiscourse analysisforeign policy identityforeign policy discoursecultural policypublic diplomacysoft powerrussian-bulgarian relationsrussian-turkish war of 1877- 1878memorial cooperationInternational relationsJZ2-6530ENRUVestnik MGIMO-Universiteta, Vol 0, Iss 4(61), Pp 178-203 (2018)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN RU
topic	historical memory discourse analysis foreign policy identity foreign policy discourse cultural policy public diplomacy soft power russian-bulgarian relations russian-turkish war of 1877- 1878 memorial cooperation International relations JZ2-6530
spellingShingle	historical memory discourse analysis foreign policy identity foreign policy discourse cultural policy public diplomacy soft power russian-bulgarian relations russian-turkish war of 1877- 1878 memorial cooperation International relations JZ2-6530 K. A. Pakhaluk RUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST
description	The reference to history in the context of Russia’s foreign policy is considered as an appeal to the quasi-transcendence, whereby an ideal dimension is added to the practical (political, economic) aspects of international relations. It is noted that only in the 2010s Russian diplomacy began to pay special attention to such «symbolic games», designed to provide the moral basis for foreign policy through reference to the historical role that Russia plays on the international arena. This, in turn, leads to the dominance of performative practices, rather than to the building of dialogue spaces. In practice, the politicization of historical memory is conducted in two ways: inclusion in foreign policy discourse and by various symbolic practices of addressing to the common past during official visits. The author suggests distinguishing actual memory places and symbolic gestures aimed at their actualization. Russian-Bulgarian relations are characterized by asymmetry in the spaces of shared memory, memory places are mainly localized in Bulgaria. We outline main practices of turning places of memory into the common spaces of memory, but interpretations of these symbolic gestures in Russia and Bulgaria are structured by different national historical narratives. The memory of the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and the liberation of Bulgaria during the WWII are assigned greater importance in Bulgaria than in Russia. This asymmetry leads to the fact that a significant work of the Bulgarian authorities, Bulgarian and Russian public organizations on the arrangement of places of memory and setting up new memorials is invisible in Russia, while Russian foreign policy discourse is dominated by the emphasis on negative aspects (for example, actions of individual vandals to destroy the monument of the Soviet Army in Sofia). This deprives the ongoing work in the field of symbolic support and at the same time forms a myth of «Bulgarian ingratitude». The most striking example is the scandal during the 140-year celebration of the liberation of Bulgaria in March 2018, which is based on a different understanding of how the achievements of the Imperial period should be interpreted today.
format	article
author	K. A. Pakhaluk
author_facet	K. A. Pakhaluk
author_sort	K. A. Pakhaluk
title	RUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST
title_short	RUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST
title_full	RUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST
title_fullStr	RUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST
title_full_unstemmed	RUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST
title_sort	russia and bulgaria: from «memorial wars» to the search for common past
publisher	MGIMO University Press
publishDate	2018
url	https://doaj.org/article/034147a175734981882708016fc815c1
work_keys_str_mv	AT kapakhaluk russiaandbulgariafrommemorialwarstothesearchforcommonpast
_version_	1718416685515407360

RUSSIA AND BULGARIA: FROM «MEMORIAL WARS» TO THE SEARCH FOR COMMON PAST

Ejemplares similares