Suchergebnisse

Concept of Virtue in Contemporary Democratic Theory: an Alternative to A. MacIntyre. This paper examines the relationship between the theories of virtue ethics and the theories of contemporary democracy, as an alternative to the theories of Alasdair MacIntyre. The aim is to provide an alternative assessment of the relationship between these concepts than that provided by MacIntyre, incorporating two important concepts that have not been explored in detail by the philosopher: democracy and sovereign. Assessments of the virtue ethic in contemporary theories of democracy have not been explored in detail, often simply emphasizing the theoretical incompatibility of these concepts. This leads to both various theoretical tensions and the resulting ethical issues in practical politics. The aim is to show that a thorough analysis of the theories of modern democracy and the sovereign concept can help to better understand the theoretical tensions between the virtue ethics and modern democracy. An analysis of Macintyre's theories of virtue ethics and politics reveals that the philosopher does not pay enough attention to the theoretical understanding of modern democracy and therefore does not fully appreciate its relationship to virtue ethics. The analysis of the concept of contemporary democracy in this paper indicates that MacIntyre also refers to similar problems, which suggests that an analysis of the concept of democracy is needed to understand the author's philosophy. The paper introduces the sovereign concept necessary to understand the theoretical basis of contemporary democracy in order to find an alternative way to re-evaluate the theoretical tension of modern democracy and virtue ethics. Analysis of the concept of sovereign shows that Rousseau's concept of sovereign as the general will can provide an alternative understanding of the moral and ethical basis of contemporary democracy. The idea of general will also allows to re-evaluate the key problems of virtue ethics in contemporary theories, raised by MacIntyre, such as the pursuit of the common good and the problem of a legitimate political authority.66 Despite the fact that modern theories of democracy and classical theories of virtue ethics seem incompatible at first sight, a detailed analysis of these theories, including the sovereign concept necessary for the modern concept of democracy, showed that virtue ethics and modern democracy can be explanatory or complementary aspects. In order to thoroughly evaluate virtue ethics, it is important to understand the theoretical political background in which virtue ethics are analyzed, as they are closely related to political sphere. Moreover, the concept of sovereign in the theories of contemporary democracy has a similar role and effect as the concept of virtue ethics in the classic theories. Classic virtue ethics (as described by Aristotle) are not possible (or even morally acceptable) in the fields of contemporary democratic theories; however, this study shows that generally, virtue ethics should not be dismissed from contemporary democratic theories. These findings suggest that it is necessary to treat democracy as a political regime in order to analyze its compatibility with virtue ethics.

Concept of Virtue in Contemporary Democratic Theory: an Alternative to A. MacIntyre. This paper examines the relationship between the theories of virtue ethics and the theories of contemporary democracy, as an alternative to the theories of Alasdair MacIntyre. The aim is to provide an alternative assessment of the relationship between these concepts than that provided by MacIntyre, incorporating two important concepts that have not been explored in detail by the philosopher: democracy and sovereign. Assessments of the virtue ethic in contemporary theories of democracy have not been explored in detail, often simply emphasizing the theoretical incompatibility of these concepts. This leads to both various theoretical tensions and the resulting ethical issues in practical politics. The aim is to show that a thorough analysis of the theories of modern democracy and the sovereign concept can help to better understand the theoretical tensions between the virtue ethics and modern democracy. An analysis of Macintyre's theories of virtue ethics and politics reveals that the philosopher does not pay enough attention to the theoretical understanding of modern democracy and therefore does not fully appreciate its relationship to virtue ethics. The analysis of the concept of contemporary democracy in this paper indicates that MacIntyre also refers to similar problems, which suggests that an analysis of the concept of democracy is needed to understand the author's philosophy. The paper introduces the sovereign concept necessary to understand the theoretical basis of contemporary democracy in order to find an alternative way to re-evaluate the theoretical tension of modern democracy and virtue ethics. Analysis of the concept of sovereign shows that Rousseau's concept of sovereign as the general will can provide an alternative understanding of the moral and ethical basis of contemporary democracy. The idea of general will also allows to re-evaluate the key problems of virtue ethics in contemporary theories, raised by MacIntyre, such as the pursuit of the common good and the problem of a legitimate political authority.66 Despite the fact that modern theories of democracy and classical theories of virtue ethics seem incompatible at first sight, a detailed analysis of these theories, including the sovereign concept necessary for the modern concept of democracy, showed that virtue ethics and modern democracy can be explanatory or complementary aspects. In order to thoroughly evaluate virtue ethics, it is important to understand the theoretical political background in which virtue ethics are analyzed, as they are closely related to political sphere. Moreover, the concept of sovereign in the theories of contemporary democracy has a similar role and effect as the concept of virtue ethics in the classic theories. Classic virtue ethics (as described by Aristotle) are not possible (or even morally acceptable) in the fields of contemporary democratic theories; however, this study shows that generally, virtue ethics should not be dismissed from contemporary democratic theories. These findings suggest that it is necessary to treat democracy as a political regime in order to analyze its compatibility with virtue ethics.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.

21st century is called the century of democracy. But if you take a look at the contemporary political discourse and recent situation, it is evident that the real situation is far from the described above. "The resurgence of ideological and political turbulence in the late 1960s, social conflicts rising in the early 1970s, and the spread of mass protest by new social movements and citizen initiatives in the 1980s were symptoms of a profound transformation of West European politics". This transformation united xenophobia and the populist ideology into one strong phenomenon that became very popular among the European societies. "Populist parties are generally thought of as lacking grand visions on comprehensive ideological projects. Instead, they are presumed to appeal to common sense of common people, seek to divine mood swings of an increasingly volatile electorate, and to shape their political programs accordingly." Because of high popularity, radical right wing populism becomes stronger. The main purpose of today's political and social elite is to stop or to prevent European societies from the possibility of becoming xenophobic nations full of fair and hatred. The way of preventing xenophobia and radical right wing populism is to create a unified and common European identity. "The future of radical right-wing populism ultimately depends on the degree on which it manages to incorporate the question of national identity into a coherent political program". Since this question was successfully unified in the Western democracies, it is possible that these parties and xenophobic radicalism can come to new EU member states: to Lithuania as well.

21st century is called the century of democracy. But if you take a look at the contemporary political discourse and recent situation, it is evident that the real situation is far from the described above. "The resurgence of ideological and political turbulence in the late 1960s, social conflicts rising in the early 1970s, and the spread of mass protest by new social movements and citizen initiatives in the 1980s were symptoms of a profound transformation of West European politics". This transformation united xenophobia and the populist ideology into one strong phenomenon that became very popular among the European societies. "Populist parties are generally thought of as lacking grand visions on comprehensive ideological projects. Instead, they are presumed to appeal to common sense of common people, seek to divine mood swings of an increasingly volatile electorate, and to shape their political programs accordingly." Because of high popularity, radical right wing populism becomes stronger. The main purpose of today's political and social elite is to stop or to prevent European societies from the possibility of becoming xenophobic nations full of fair and hatred. The way of preventing xenophobia and radical right wing populism is to create a unified and common European identity. "The future of radical right-wing populism ultimately depends on the degree on which it manages to incorporate the question of national identity into a coherent political program". Since this question was successfully unified in the Western democracies, it is possible that these parties and xenophobic radicalism can come to new EU member states: to Lithuania as well.

21st century is called the century of democracy. But if you take a look at the contemporary political discourse and recent situation, it is evident that the real situation is far from the described above. "The resurgence of ideological and political turbulence in the late 1960s, social conflicts rising in the early 1970s, and the spread of mass protest by new social movements and citizen initiatives in the 1980s were symptoms of a profound transformation of West European politics". This transformation united xenophobia and the populist ideology into one strong phenomenon that became very popular among the European societies. "Populist parties are generally thought of as lacking grand visions on comprehensive ideological projects. Instead, they are presumed to appeal to common sense of common people, seek to divine mood swings of an increasingly volatile electorate, and to shape their political programs accordingly." Because of high popularity, radical right wing populism becomes stronger. The main purpose of today's political and social elite is to stop or to prevent European societies from the possibility of becoming xenophobic nations full of fair and hatred. The way of preventing xenophobia and radical right wing populism is to create a unified and common European identity. "The future of radical right-wing populism ultimately depends on the degree on which it manages to incorporate the question of national identity into a coherent political program". Since this question was successfully unified in the Western democracies, it is possible that these parties and xenophobic radicalism can come to new EU member states: to Lithuania as well.

The object of this master thesis is contemporary museum communication and representation. The goal of the thesis – to study the features of communication and identify perspective approaches to representation in the activities of contemporary Jewish museums in Central and Eastern Europe by the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin and the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow, as well as to develop recommendations for the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus. Main tasks of the thesis: to consider the essential characteristics of museum communication, its structure, the concept of strategies; to develop the author's methodology of contemporary museum communication strategies research for further study of selected cases; to conduct a methodological analysis of the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin; to conduct a methodological analysis of the case of the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow; to reveal the problems of the development of Jewish heritage in Belarus in the context of the country's politics of memory; to identify perspective communication strategies and representation approaches for the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus. The usage of such methods as a theoretical analysis, description, case study, field observation, expert online interview, focus group, synthesis and generalization led to a conclusion that emerging in the 60s of the XX century, the theory of museum communication is actively developing during the 1960s – 1990s, radically transforming the face of the museum. It becomes a cultural institution in which its two most important functions harmoniously coexist – storage and communication. However, henceforth the emphasis in museum activity is placed on mutual dialogical relations with its visitor, which are realized through the museum exhibition. The development receives the museum exhibition designing, which has the goal of helping to uncover the meanings laid down in the exhibition, as well as sociological and psychological researches that help the museum to better understand its audiences. Museum communication, as a result, becomes one of the most important theoretical aspects of museology as an independent scientific discipline, determining the perspective of its evolution to this day. The variety of communication processes of the contemporary museum is a set of tools for the implementation of cultural communication, and the principles of their development are nothing else than strategies for the museum's communication processes designed to construct specific working methods. Understanding the specifics of the communication processes of the contemporary museum made it possible to develop on the basis of the communication model of H. D. Lasswell an author's methodology, which was subsequently used to analyze the cases of the Jewish Museum Berlin and the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow. According to the results of the study, was determined the role of these museums as the agents of the historical and cultural policies of their states – Germany and Russia, acting as tools aimed at solving the urgent problems of a particular society. For Germany – overcoming the country's difficult national-socialist past, and for Russia – determining the problem of maintaining the unity of society in the ethnocultural diversity of a multinational state. Being aimed at such tasks, communication of both museums was physically expressed in costly but well-designed representational solutions, the specificity of which is in the need to conduct a dialogue with an audience that has low knowledge in the field of Jewish history and culture, as well as the complexity of the problematics of museums. Based on the conclusion about the significant role of state historical and cultural policies in the activities of the contemporary Jewish museum in Central and Eastern Europe, it was decided to conduct an in-depth analysis of the features of the politics of memory in Belarus, according to which it became known that in the context of the problematic processes of independence in Belarus, attention of the state turns to consolidation of the nation, which pushes into the background the need to preserve the memory of its ethnocultural communities. Thus, the preservation of the Jewish heritage of Belarus is an "external" problem in relation to the national discourse of the state, remaining on the periphery of its memory practices. These trends have a direct impact on the activities of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus, forming a field of interconnected problems around it, which was identified through the study of the museum's case on the basis of the previously developed methodology. From the standpoint of identified problems in the development of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus, as well as the results of the whole study, was made an attempt to identify perspective communication strategies and approaches to representations of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus that are recommendatory by their nature.

The object of this master thesis is contemporary museum communication and representation. The goal of the thesis – to study the features of communication and identify perspective approaches to representation in the activities of contemporary Jewish museums in Central and Eastern Europe by the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin and the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow, as well as to develop recommendations for the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus. Main tasks of the thesis: to consider the essential characteristics of museum communication, its structure, the concept of strategies; to develop the author's methodology of contemporary museum communication strategies research for further study of selected cases; to conduct a methodological analysis of the case of the Jewish Museum Berlin; to conduct a methodological analysis of the case of the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow; to reveal the problems of the development of Jewish heritage in Belarus in the context of the country's politics of memory; to identify perspective communication strategies and representation approaches for the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus. The usage of such methods as a theoretical analysis, description, case study, field observation, expert online interview, focus group, synthesis and generalization led to a conclusion that emerging in the 60s of the XX century, the theory of museum communication is actively developing during the 1960s – 1990s, radically transforming the face of the museum. It becomes a cultural institution in which its two most important functions harmoniously coexist – storage and communication. However, henceforth the emphasis in museum activity is placed on mutual dialogical relations with its visitor, which are realized through the museum exhibition. The development receives the museum exhibition designing, which has the goal of helping to uncover the meanings laid down in the exhibition, as well as sociological and psychological researches that help the museum to better understand its audiences. Museum communication, as a result, becomes one of the most important theoretical aspects of museology as an independent scientific discipline, determining the perspective of its evolution to this day. The variety of communication processes of the contemporary museum is a set of tools for the implementation of cultural communication, and the principles of their development are nothing else than strategies for the museum's communication processes designed to construct specific working methods. Understanding the specifics of the communication processes of the contemporary museum made it possible to develop on the basis of the communication model of H. D. Lasswell an author's methodology, which was subsequently used to analyze the cases of the Jewish Museum Berlin and the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center in Moscow. According to the results of the study, was determined the role of these museums as the agents of the historical and cultural policies of their states – Germany and Russia, acting as tools aimed at solving the urgent problems of a particular society. For Germany – overcoming the country's difficult national-socialist past, and for Russia – determining the problem of maintaining the unity of society in the ethnocultural diversity of a multinational state. Being aimed at such tasks, communication of both museums was physically expressed in costly but well-designed representational solutions, the specificity of which is in the need to conduct a dialogue with an audience that has low knowledge in the field of Jewish history and culture, as well as the complexity of the problematics of museums. Based on the conclusion about the significant role of state historical and cultural policies in the activities of the contemporary Jewish museum in Central and Eastern Europe, it was decided to conduct an in-depth analysis of the features of the politics of memory in Belarus, according to which it became known that in the context of the problematic processes of independence in Belarus, attention of the state turns to consolidation of the nation, which pushes into the background the need to preserve the memory of its ethnocultural communities. Thus, the preservation of the Jewish heritage of Belarus is an "external" problem in relation to the national discourse of the state, remaining on the periphery of its memory practices. These trends have a direct impact on the activities of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus, forming a field of interconnected problems around it, which was identified through the study of the museum's case on the basis of the previously developed methodology. From the standpoint of identified problems in the development of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus, as well as the results of the whole study, was made an attempt to identify perspective communication strategies and approaches to representations of the Museum of Jewish History and Culture of Belarus that are recommendatory by their nature.

Current article deals with the social status theories and analyses the shifting concept of personal status. Social conversions directly affect the understanding and definition of personal status. Part of contemporary authors considers this multiple process to be a result of modern crisis both in the Western democracies as well as in the post-Soviet countries. They criticize the devastating effect that secularization has on the conventional way of life and interpersonal relationship without positive alternative. Cultural and social deviations as a forthcoming norm, fragmentation or even collapse of the traditional communities, decline of the family institute, alienation and estrangement of an individual are the social phenomena that were identified and widely analyzed in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Consequently, social status was started to identify with welfare, power and good/profitable position and vice versa – unsatisfactory status or status publicly recognized as "mean" is perceived as a social stigma. The conception that treated personal status as the whole of multisided obligations and responsibility among individuals was rejected as inadmissible. Subversion against the established authority, tradition and status system probably has had the greatest impact on the societies of post-Soviet countries. The former social system(s) and routine of everyday-life were brutally annihilated. Higher status and/or position became the only source of acceptable standard of living or even physical survival, even though the politics of social equality and impersonality was formally proclaimed. After totalitarian soviet system collapsed the strife for the better social status gained drastic and long-term expressions. High personal (social) status is demonstrated and proved by means of financial power, human manipulation or even coercion as a regular result of the Soviet rule.

Current article deals with the social status theories and analyses the shifting concept of personal status. Social conversions directly affect the understanding and definition of personal status. Part of contemporary authors considers this multiple process to be a result of modern crisis both in the Western democracies as well as in the post-Soviet countries. They criticize the devastating effect that secularization has on the conventional way of life and interpersonal relationship without positive alternative. Cultural and social deviations as a forthcoming norm, fragmentation or even collapse of the traditional communities, decline of the family institute, alienation and estrangement of an individual are the social phenomena that were identified and widely analyzed in the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Consequently, social status was started to identify with welfare, power and good/profitable position and vice versa – unsatisfactory status or status publicly recognized as "mean" is perceived as a social stigma. The conception that treated personal status as the whole of multisided obligations and responsibility among individuals was rejected as inadmissible. Subversion against the established authority, tradition and status system probably has had the greatest impact on the societies of post-Soviet countries. The former social system(s) and routine of everyday-life were brutally annihilated. Higher status and/or position became the only source of acceptable standard of living or even physical survival, even though the politics of social equality and impersonality was formally proclaimed. After totalitarian soviet system collapsed the strife for the better social status gained drastic and long-term expressions. High personal (social) status is demonstrated and proved by means of financial power, human manipulation or even coercion as a regular result of the Soviet rule.

The dissertation is based on data about almos 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers

The dissertation is based on data about almost 500 contemporary works of Lithuanian fiction: which of them are discussed in academic pulications; which are analysed in the students' finishing theses; which received state funding for publishing; which were awarded literary prizes; which are most often borrowed from libraries. Theoretical model defines all these factors as "acts of transmission", on which the "survival" of the work depends – whether or not it is going to be consumed and remembered in the future. The quantitative data is analysed alongside "performance protocols" - written statements about books, from online discussions and blogs to academic publications. The results indicate that the usual opposition of "popular" vs. "professionally acclaimed" is almost non-existant – the professional and non-professional readers in most cases choose the same books. However, the non-professional readers appreciate recognising what they find familiar from their experience of reality, whereas the professionals focus on comparing works of literature to each other. Finally, a third trend is recognised – it is called institutionalised taste. 48% of books funded by the state do not interest neither professional nor non-professional readers.