Suchergebnisse

The author analyzes virtual states in the contexts of identity markets. There is assumed that virtual states can play the role of both subjects and objects of modern symbolic exchange. The article shows that virtual states do not have a common definition, and those who study them offer different approaches ranging from economic to cultural, from social to anthropological. On the one hand, virtual states can sell their identities. The author presumes that markets can be defined as cultures, and cultures as markets. On the other hand, the virtual states' "products" that actualize their identity can also be goods. There is assumed that the processes of globalization and virtualization significantly changed the vectors and trajectories of identities development, turning them into a part of the market economy. The article assumes that the nation-state is gradually losing its monopoly right to represent the identity of the nation, and new actors are trying to challenge this right by proposing their own projects for identity development.The author believes that the emergence of virtual states in identity markets was the result of a performative turn and a craft revolution, for virtual states appeared as the consequences of economy craftivization, offering various mechanisms to monetize identities and turn them into sacred and symbolic political products. The author believes that the virtual state was caused by the craftivization of the serial mass identities proposed in the 19th century as in the age of nationalism. There is assumed that the virtual states were the attempts to challenge the regular state's monopoly inherited from the modern era to construct national identities. Therefore, the article analyzes the virtual states as attempts to revise the modern nation-state in the contexts of a cultural turn in the economy, which turned it into a sphere of production of meanings and identities. In general, the author considers virtual states as a new and alternative form of economic functioning, where the sense-making and meaning-generating constructs that invent and imagine new types and forms of identities become goods.

The aim of the study is to examine the contemporary politics of memory in Greece in the early 2020s. The author analyzes the role and place of various ideological trends in modern Greek social thought, defining them as factors in the development and transformation of memorial culture and the collective historical memory of society. The novelty of the study lies in addressing the current stage in the development of the historical policy of the Greek society in the context of an objective lack of interdisciplinary research. The article is based on the principles of interdisciplinary historiography on memory studies. The author uses the achievements of the memorial turn and intellectual history to analyze Greek politics of historical memory and memorial culture. The article reveals the importance of factors of weak institutionalization of memorial culture in the context of significant politicization and ideologization of historical memory. The article shows that social activists as agents of the politics of memory in modern Greek society make a significant contribution to the development and transformation of memorial culture, the spectrum of memorial practices of Greek intellectuals varies from nationalism to liberalism, the participation of intellectuals in memorial politics impacts the parallel co-development of various competing forms of historical memories and versions of memorial cultures. The research suggests that the role of society in the historical politics of modern Greece will increase, and the intellectual community will remain among the active participants in the collective memorial politics.

This article presents an attempt to analyse historical politics as politics of memory in modern Georgia in the context of perception of the images and heritage of the Democratic Republic of Georgia (DRG). The aim of the study is to analyse the images of the Democratic Republic of Georgia between 2018 and 2020 as part of the history and genealogy of the modern project of Georgian statehood in historical politics. The article is based on the methods used in studies of the politics of memory (historical politics) in modern interdisciplinary historiography. The article describes the features of the instrumentalisation of DRG images in the historical and political cultures of Georgia. The article examines the forms of participation of modern elites in the politics of memory in contexts of jubilee celebrations, memorial, and commemorative events that inspired the actualisation of the DRG images in the cultural and public spaces of Georgia. It is revealed that modern elites and heirs of DRG politicians became actors of historical politics and actual "battles for history". As a result, the author concludes that images of the DRG became a symbolic resource for the consolidation of society and the development of the political identity of Georgian statehood. It is assumed that images of the DRG are integrated into the symbolic tools that political elites used in their attempts to correct identity and historical memory in modern Georgia. It is demonstrated that by initiating memorial celebrations dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the DRG in 2018, Georgian elites launched a series of commemorative events planned until 2024 solving political problems, localising, and interpreting historical traumas in the politics of memory proposed by the state as the main former of the official historical canon.