Deproblematization of interethnic and interconfessional relations and memory policy in the republic of Tatarstan
Abstract
A key factor of consolidation and harmony in any society is a responsible and respectful attitude to its past. The study of the relationship between memory politics and the identities of ethnic groups, for whom the origin and sense of a shared past consolidates solidarity in the present, determines the perceptions of their identity and relations with other groups, is particularly significant. The article presents the results of the study of the Politics of Memory in the Republic of Tatarstan and considers the processes of turning to the Bulgarian period as a source that can be referred to in order to explain the foundations and current trends of events in politics, religion, art and even to analyze a number of ethical issues (such as patriotism, tolerance, etc.). Representations of the Bulgarian period help to build an image of a self-evident “natural peace” between representatives of different ethnic groups and confessions in the region. The strategy works primarily through such channels as the media, statements by officials, and education. The positive effect of such a memory policy is to establish tolerance as a norm that is used for socialization within the framework of the institution of education, while the negative effect is related to the fact that the problems of interaction between multiple ethnic groups and confessions can be attributed to chance, and lead to the eventual ignoring of systemic problems.
Downloads
References
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: a treatise on sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books, pp. 323.
Bourdieu, P. (2007). Social space: fields and practices. St. Petersburg: Aleteia, pp. 28-30.
Durkheim, D., & Moss, M. (1996). On some primitive forms of classification. Toward the study of collective representations. In: Moss, M. Societies. Exchange. Personality: works on social anthropology. Moscow: Oriental Literature, pp. 6-73.
Halbwachs, M. (2007). Social frames of memory. Moscow: New Publishing House, pp. 348.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding / Decoding. In: Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., Willis, P. (eds.) Culture, Media, Language: working papers in cultural studies (1972-1979). London: Hutchinson, pp. 128-138.
Hobsbawm, E., & Ranger, T. (2000). The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 320.
Maximova, O. A., Nagmatullina, L. K., Eflova, M. I., & Rassolova, E. N. (2019). Linguistic socialization in family and development of polylingual personality. International Journal of Educational Sciences, 27(1-3), 110-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2019/27.1-3.1111
Nora, P., Ozouf, M., Puimage, J. de, & Vinok M. (1999). Problematics of places of memory. France-memory. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of Saint Petersburg University, pp. 17-50.
Olik, J., & Khlevniuk, D. (2012). Figurations of memory: process-relational methodology illustrated by the example of Germany. Sociological Review, 11(1), 40-74.
Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics. La Salle: Open Court. Schuman, G., & Scott, J. (1992). Collective memory of generations. Sociological Studies, 2, 47-60.
Shnirelman, V. A. (2010). Presidents and archaeology, or what politicians are looking for in antiquity. Bulletin of the Russian Nation, 1-2(9-10), 189-218.
Varnavskiy, P. K. (2008). Strategies of constructing sociocultural boundaries in the modern discourse of Buryat ethnicity. Problems of History, Philology, Culture, 20, 254-266.
White, H. (2002). Meta-history: historical imagination in Europe of the XIX century. Yekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, pp. 528.
