Transformation of the “Soviet Ideology” in the Discursive Practices of the Russian Government
The article examines the trajectory of changes in the post-Soviet period in the ideological complex, which was called “Soviet ideology” in the “late” USSR. The theoretical and methodological frame work of the analysis consists of the theory of political regimes, as well as elements of the theory of...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN RU |
| Publicado: |
Ассоциация независимых экспертов «Центр изучения кризисного общества» (in English: Association for independent experts “Center for Crisis Society Studies”)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/c616157d894a4e07aaba239231d2a513 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | The article examines the trajectory of changes in the post-Soviet period in the ideological complex, which was called “Soviet ideology” in the “late” USSR. The theoretical and methodological frame work of the analysis consists of the theory of political regimes, as well as elements of the theory of ideologies and the theory of political discourse. The features and peculiarities of the “Soviet ideology” in the conditions of the “post-totalitarian” political regime in the “late” USSR, which led to its weakening and decline after the collapse of the Soviet regime, are investigated. Under the conditions of the post-Soviet political regime in Russia, the “Soviet ideology” disintegrated into an ideological component (the basis of the ideology of post-Soviet communist parties) and a political-cultural component (the pattern of post-Soviet political culture). Both components created a specific problem of relations with these phenomena for the ruling power. The study of the discourse of power on the subject of “Soviet ideology” (conducted mainly on the material of speeches and statements of the presidents of the Russian Federation) allowed us to identify three successive discursive strategies of such relations: the strategy of “struggle”, the strategy of “adaptation” and the strategy of “selective use”. The last of them was used in the 2010s in the conditions of consolidation of the authoritarian political regime. It made it possible to selective lyinclude the legacy of “Soviet ideology” in the ideological complex of the ruling regime, which is characterized by the use of not full-fledged political ideologies, but “identitarian narratives” that allow the inclusion of heterogeneous elements of ethno cultural, historical, religious, etc. traditions. Comparative studies also show that the orientation in the ideological sphere to such “identitarian narratives” is a characteristic trend of modern neo-autocracies. |
|---|