This paper contributes to the studies of governmentalities of the late 20th century which are predominantly focused on the raise and on various national careers of neoliberal ideas and policy prescriptions, and have only rarely taken into account another powerful trend related to proliferation of information technologies. To complement available research on the role of computer and automation of decision-making in (neo)liberal economy, we’re revealing the existence of alternative technoscientific networks associated with different political projects. Based on archival materials and oral history interviews, we’re reconstructing and analyzing the story of the Franco-Soviet cooperation in the field of economic management, from the late 1950s to the 1980s, which was initially motivated by a common interest in promoting and perfecting planning methods, but was later recast as a dialogue dominated by purely technical issues of the information processing and communication, which finally became a part of the commercial strategy aiming to support the French and Eastern European computer industry. We’re showing that this dynamics was underpinned by various interests and visions of “scientific management” and of the role of computers and information technologies in managing national economy. Importantly, we found that both French and Soviet planners criticized an extensive use of formalization and automatization of managerial decisions–which contradicts widely accepted accounts of confluence between cybernetics and planning. However, under the Brezhnevian conservative turn–despite the rhetoric of the scientific-and-technological revolution–the computer was accepted as a means to preserve the existing social and political order.
Intensive development of new media makes the discussion of their role in science increasingly relevant. Considering this perspective, one of the most important issues for public history is the question of transformation of a historian’s professional identity. In Russia, where public history as a sphere of intellectual work and practical activity is going through the process of formation, this issue has not yet received any full-fledged understanding. In our chapter, we attempt a pilot study of this subject using the examples of Russian history projects in Telegram – this platform has been rapidly gaining popularity in recent years, primarily among young Russian historians. According to our estimates, Telegram in the Russian media space plays a role similar to Twitter in English-speaking countries, and its popularity is growing every year. The emergence of history projects indicates a certain increase of interest in stepping outside the limits of professional communication and in launching the new public platforms to discuss history. Analysing this phenomenon is relevant for understanding the evolution of the role of a public historian in Russia. In particular, it allows us to ask questions about how people, who make history the subject of their professional studies, use new media for public communication; what attracts them to a certain media platform; what topics and forms of activity historians prefer to there.
Recent protests against the dictatorship in Belarus and following political conflict simultaneously polarised the Belarusian nation and unified various groups of protesters with the help of new national imagery. These opposing but connected processes instrumentalise the Belarusian Soviet past. Heritage as a way of past-in-present existence becomes a tool in this struggle. This paper focuses on the music band 'Pesniary' that represents Soviet music heritage in Belarus. The manifoldness of 'Pesniary' creativity and peculiarities of the band's cultural origins allows different agents to articulate its meaning as Soviet and national heritage at the same time. Using critical heritage studies approach to heritage as a constantly antagonistic process of meaning-making of the past, I will explain how popular music heritage functions in the field of political dissent as means of assimilation of contested past.
The research of how scientific works acquire the status of «classics» is an important aspect in the study of the actualization of ideas and approaches, their circulation in the academic field, as well as the current state of a scientific direction or discipline. Based on historiographical sources and documentation, this article analyzes the role of publication and perception of academic heritage of the famous historian, academician, Stepan Borisovich Veselovskiy (1876–1952) in classification. In this research the creation and activity of the Commission for the publication of Veselovskiy's papers is considered as one of the key stages in the process of classicalization. There are studied the reasons for the creation of the Commission and its history, personal membership, as well as publishing plans on the basis of documentation materials from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). Also there is analyzed the influence of Veselovskiy's academic heritage on the historiography of the late Soviet era. There are considered the continuity of Veselovskiy's scientific views and approaches in researches on the history of pre-Petrine Russia, the criticism of papers published both during his lifetime and posthumously. Special attention is paid to the influence of reviews on the classification of academic heritage. It is highlighted further research prospects and assumed that the posthumous publication of Veselovskiy's academic works and their involvement in historiography created the basis for the classification of Veselovskiy's academic heritage in the late Soviet period.
This article is devoted to the correspondence of Russian orientalists and their informants, Muslim intellectuals of the Russian Empire. This article aims to reveal the impact of the practice of correspondence on the process of knowledge formation about the Muslim regions of the Empire. This task requires the concentration on the conditions of this practice. Subsequently, it is important to study different methodologies of the explication of the meaning from the texts created by its main actors. In this research, ethics has particular importance. The senior generation of Muslim intellectuals was interested in Orientalists’ abilities to preserve the local knowledge and provide the inter-generational transition. The younger generation of intellectuals was seeking new methodologies for further progress of their communities. These factors were the basis of the interaction between different groups of experts. This interaction led to the reconfiguration of the knowledge of the Muslim communities in the epoch of modernism.
In science history one of the actual problems is the study of ethical issues of research activity. These issues include not only value orientations and virtues of academics, but also deviations from norms, conflicts, academic violations. This paperis devoted to the problem of plagiarism in Soviet historical science after 1945on the basis ofdocumentation materials from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS).The article examines the conflicts of Soviet researches: N.M. Druzhinin, T.D. Shoinbaev, L.V. Cherepnin, A.M. Karasik, A.L. Sidorov, A.I. Gukovskiy, L.I. Zubok, I.S. Zvavich, P.Ya. Bukshpan and I.A. Fedosov.Therearestudiedthe issues ofspecial commissions that considered cases of plagiarism. In the article one of the keypoints is related to concept meaning of plagiarism in the scientific field. One of the main circumstances in commission'sexpertiseis related tofeatures of the academic genre/type of historiographical source, so the research is analyzed this problem too. There are defined two types of conscious unfair borrowing: textual plagiarism and plagiarism of ideas. Special attention is paid to the theme of punishment for intellectual theft. There are considered the requirements of the accusers, punishmentmeasures.Tosumitup, the forming of commissions is regarded as thereaction of research community to ethical conflicts, the attempt to resolve issues related to suspicion of plagiarism in academia. There is also noted the further perspective of this topic through the study of the motivation of scholars-plagiarists.
The "History of Medicine" as an independent scientific discipline took shape in the Soviet
period and became an autonomous research space. The main and first text describing the disciplinary
rationale and main scientific principles of medical history was the encyclopedic article "Medicine". It
was written by Ilya Strashun for the first edition of the Great Medical Encyclopedia and was published
in 1936 in volume 17. This text was the result of a Soviet experiment in disciplinary construction in
which medicine was articulated in a new system of coordinates. In this article, drawing on the methods
of discourse analysis proposed by Michel Foucault and Umberto Eco, the author attempts to examine
the history of the text and to relate it to pre-existing narratives on medical history. The author analyses
ways of adapting the existing practices of describing the history of medicine to the new Soviet language.
Particular attention is paid to the identification of the discourse’s types included in the text of the article
and the emergence among them of discursive elements unconventional for the Soviet text. The
concluding section there is a reference to the role of historical science in the creation of the encyclopedic
text and the cumulative status of the history of medicine. The I. D. Strashun's role in establishing a new
discourse order and the systematization of the accumulated knowledge of medical history is revealed.
The review analyzes the diary of Nadezhda Nikolaevna Platonova (1861–1928), published in 2020. There are given the archeographic characteristics of the publication. There is also estimated the information potential of the diary. In particular the diary is considered as the evidence of the professorial life of the late XIX – early XX centuries. There is paid special attention to the analysis of communicative interactions as school-forming practices of St. Petersburg historians. Then the review represented the role of N.N. Platonova in the academic activity of her husband – historian Sergey Fedorovich Platonov (1860–1933). The final part presents the prospects for researching the dissertation culture through the diary of N.N. Platonova.
Academic reviewing, one of the communal academic practices, is a vital genre, in which epistemic virtues have been cultivated. In our article, we discuss reviews as a form of institutionalized critique, which historians could use to trace the changing epistemic virtues within humanities. We propose to use them analogously to Lorraine Daston’s and Peter Galison’s treatment of atlases in their seminal work Objectivity as a marker of changing epistemic virtues in natural sciences and medicine. Based on Aristotle’s virtue theory and its neo-Aristotelian interpretation in the second half of the 20th century, as well as on its most recent applications in the field of history and philosophy of science, we propose a general conceptual framework for analyzing reviews in their historical dimension. Besides, we contend that the analysis of reviews should be carried out taking into account their historical context of social, political, cultural and media-environment. Otherwise, one may risks presupposing the existence of an autonomous, disconnected community of scholars.
I analyze the polemically charged exposition of classical cosmologies by Gregory of Nyssa in Against Eunomius II, 72–76, and identify probable sources for this passage and the targets of Gregory’s criticism of classical cosmologies, manifested in this passage. In Against Eunomius II, 73–75, Gregory presents the Aristotelian cosmology and polemicizes with it. My analysis shows three avenues of Gregory’s criticism of the Aristotelian cosmology, which are manifested in this passage. As my analysis of Against Eunomius II, 76 shows, in this passage, Gregory summarizes and criticizes the Stoic natural-philosophical and cosmological doctrine that there is the limitless void beyond the limits of the cosmos, in which cosmos moves (probably by expanding and contracting). I identify two points in Gregory’s criticism of this doctrine. Finally, I suggest that the immediate Gregory’s source regarding this Stoic doctrine was a treatise of Cleomedes.
The key participants of the public discussions about the past in contemporary Russia are both official state institutions and public memorial and urban projects. The concept of cultural heritage has a defining role in their discourses and practices. Though participants appeal to the international definitions of cultural heritage adopted by UNESCO, their interpretations and uses vary. It impedes public discussions about the past in general and heritage in particular in Russia.
We analyse how the concept of cultural heritage is interpreted and used by both official state institutions and public memorial projects.Our investigation lies at the intersection of two research programs: public history and critical heritage studies. The public history approaches allow us to study the problem of “shared authority,” which is extremely important for the study of non-state public forms of talking about the past and heritage.
Throughout my book The Birth and Death of Literary Theory, I attempt to demonstrate that literature and literary theory have been involved in complex dialectic moves between autonomy and heteronomy. These two poles are perhaps best treated as heuristic tools, which is also how one should read my insistence on literary theory as having its own epistemological identity despite the interplay between aesthetics, philosophy, and cultural theory within which it has functioned. As Bogdana Paskaleva rightly observes, the book is, in a sense, an extended case study of such amalgamations, from within which literary theory emerges as a specific mode of reflection on literature that has its own limited time span (but not necessarily a time-limited impact, as I show in the epilogue to the book). This should cancel concerns about the supposedly unilinear timeframe the book works with: in fact, the narrative traces not only overlapping chronologies but, crucially, overlapping regimes of relevance that operate with different temporalities and zones of validation. This is also true of the presence of politics and issues of power in the book: the entire first part, that on Russian formalism, implicitly and explicitly traces the dual processes of differentiation and accommodation of literary theory vis-.-vis political power, and there is a nod toward this duality also in the brief references to the work of the Prague Circle.
Schelling’s ›Erlangen Lectures‹ of 1820/21 (›Initia Philosophiae Universae‹) have a key position in his complete works. As a basic reflection on the nature of philosophy as a science, they combine transcendental, identity and ages of the world philosophy with the philosophy of mythology and revelation which was brought forth later in Munich and Berlin. This is the first publication of Schelling’s handwritten (and complexly structured) master copy of the lectures from the Berlin estate. It thus combines the edition of a previously unknown transcript as well as the text of the so-called Enderlein transcript (published by Horst Fuhrmann in 1969) in a new transcription and finally the version of the lectures in the ›Sämmtlichen Werken‹. The texts are correlated systematically in a synopsis and made accessible through comprehensive editorial reports as well as text-critical and annotating apparatuses. Indexes and a bibliography conclude the volume.
The intellectual and social sources of the transition to the “market” and capitalism during the post-Soviet transformation in Russia are often presented as external to the state and its ruling class (nomenklatura). In particular, the “young economists”—members of the “reform government” responsible for implementing extremely unpopular economic liberalization measures—had, according to this narrative, no experience with the Soviet economy and mostly followed the prescriptions of Western economic advisers. This contribution aims to question this thesis of the exteriority of post-Soviet reformers and their ideas by closely following their professional trajectories leading them to high government positions in the late 1980s and 1990s. This analysis reveals that most of these economists were part of the networks of power and expertise within the state apparatus long before the end of the Soviet Union, and that this experience provided them with a specific “reformist capital” that played a decisive role in their paths to power at the turning point of autumn 1991, shortly before the dissolution of the USSR. Thus, this analysis sheds light on the logic of selection and reproduction of intellectual and political elites in the Soviet Union and Russia triggered by the profound crisis of the Soviet system.