Suchergebnisse

В работе анализируются процессы преобразования идентичности в межвоенное время в Советской России на примере мифологизации образа Василия Ивановича Чапаева, командира дивизии в Граждан- ской войне 1917–1923 гг. В начале рассматриваются основные этапы биографии Чапаева как реальной исторической личности, а также различные оценки его деятельности в трудах ведущих историков Граж- данской войны в России. Основная часть работы посвящена проблеме мифотворчества и мифологизации личности Чапаева, с помощью чего сторонники новой власти в Советской России пытались создать своеобразный противовес образу офицера как символу имперской власти. В статье прослеживается процесс отрыва образа Чапаева от контекста политической идеологии и его трансформации в практи- чески фольклорный анекдотич- ный персонаж как свидетельство профанации коммунистической идеологии. В конце анализирует- ся литературно-художественный образ Чапаева, связанный со всеми перечисленными мифологически- ми образами, но одновременно отличающийся от них. ; This paper analyzes the process of identity transformation of the interwar period in Soviet Russia on the example of mythologization of Vasily Ivanovich Chapaev, division commander in the Russian Civil War of 1917–1923. In the beginning of the work main stages of Chapaev's biography as a real historical figure are considered, as well as various assessments of his activity in the works of leading historians of Civil War in Russia. The main segment of this paper is devoted to the problem of myth creation and mythologization of Chapaev's personality, with the help of which supporters of the new government in Soviet Russia tried to create a kind of counterbalance to the figure of officer as a symbol of earlier imperial power. The article also traces the process of separation of Chapaev's figure from the context of political ideology, and its transformation into a practically folklore anecdotical hero as evidence of the profanation of communist ideology. In the conclusion of the article an artistic and literary figure of Chapaev, related to all above mentioned mythological figures, but simultaneously different from them, is analyzed.

The author discusses the crucial question of whether Serbia truly pursues the path of modernization and European integration, or just a simulation of these processes. The author proposes the thesis that there are numerous obstacles on Serbia's transitional path toward the (post)modern European society. Therefore, he tries to discover the essential reasons for the citizens' reluctance and resistance, the reasons which are related to the modernization of the Serbian society. Serbia is today at the crossroads of the traditional and modern understanding of life. It contains some elements of (post)modernization, but still with a strong influence of its traditional (conservative) heritage. The processes of re-traditionalization (re-mythologization and pseudo-mythologization) represent a major obstacle to the liberation of the society from the grip of the past and to its orientation towards European values. According to the author, the main creators of retrograde flows can be found in the political establishment of contemporary Serbia. He labels them, ironically and derogatorily, the 'guardians' of tradition, who use demagogic statements, populist paroles, and media information control (for their personal and party interests) to slow down Serbia on its European path.

The maxim that the people is the agent of the constituent power has, since the French revolution, been a universally accepted answer to the issue of the origin and the degree of validity of constitutional law which, as the ultimate norm of a state's legal order has no other higher positive law norm. But that maxim disregards political reality. Neither is it convincing from the point of view of the theory of state. The people is not the subject of activity but onl of reference. The maxim on the constituent power of the people is a democratic myth. As such it is polyvalent: the reinforcement of revolution or its prohibition determine whether the existing constitutional regime is to be overthrown or legitimised. The doctrine of the constituent power of the people is not cognitively rewarding as a theory of legitimation, either, since the effectiveness of a constitution does not depend on its provenance but on the reception it gets here and now from its addressees: state agencies and citizens. (SOI : PM: S. 63)