Suchergebnisse

This dissertation focuses on portrayals of victims and perpetrators at sites related to Soviet repression in contemporary Moscow and Yekaterinburg, Russia. Its aim is to explore the different ways in which site stakeholders choose to interpret victims and perpetrators: specifically, how they handle the issue of intertwined grieving and blaming when the categories of 'victim' and 'perpetrator' are not always clear. It also aims to understand the broader political and sociocultural attitudes underlying why different groups choose various forms of 'grievability' and 'blameability'. Millions of Soviet citizens were victimized in successive waves of Soviet repression, yet there has been little critical study of the tangible and intangible heritage of these acts of violence as they are inscribed (or not) on today's Russian cityscapes. The idea of 'grievability' was developed by Judith Butler; I have developed a typology of grievability that can be used to compare who is being grieved at each site and why each site's caretakers and stakeholders make these choices. The dissertation then goes beyond grievability to introduce the concept of 'blameability', which I propose in order to analyze how blame is assigned at each site. I have developed a typology of blameability that can be used to categorize whom each site blames for the violence that affected the victims memorialized there. For each individual or group identified at a site, their respective degrees of grievability and blameability can be plotted on a chart, allowing for a more thorough and holistic view of how each site's stakeholders view and portray the issue of intertwined victimhood and perpetration. Finally, the case study data are brought together in order to draw conclusions about overarching attitudes towards the tangible and intangible legacies of Soviet repression in Russia. Linked theorizations of 'accountability' and 'repentability' are also introduced and their ramifications addressed. ; My PhD was funded by the Gates Cambridge Trust, while I also received financial support from the Jesus College Doctoral Support Fund, the Dorothy Garrod Memorial Trust, Banco Santander, and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

If a revolution is taken to be a decisive break with the past, how can there be a heritage of revolution? Conversely, how does any revolution affect tangible and intangible heritage, as well as shifting conceptions of heritage? In this introduction to four papers dedicated to the theme of 'Heritage and Revolution', we provide an overview of changing conceptualizations of both ideas and how they have shaped each other since the French Revolution first radically changed both. This special section's papers developed from the 2017 Annual Seminar of the Cambridge Heritage Research Group. 2017, as the centenary of the February and October Russian Revolutions, provided a global opportunity for reflection on these themes and for analysis of how contemporary heritagization of revolution (or lack thereof) molds and is molded by a society¿s conception of itself and its past. At at time of shifting political and heritage paradigms worldwide, this topic remains timely and fascinating. This work was supported by the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research [grant number JCNM.GFAC]