Magazine / History / Controversy over Soviet Monuments / Article | 30/05/2007

Russia's new-old places of memory

The public discourse surrounding Russia's history makes little attempt to engage in the work of memory, as Jutta Scherrer has found. Instead, the discourse attempts to rehabilitate Russia's shaky self-image by means of a state-controlled culture of commemoration.

The varied fortunes in Western societies of "history and memory”, that pair of concepts, are also leaving their trace in Russia. One seeks in vain, however, for any reappraisal of Russia's recent past on the agenda in Russian history policy today.

The construction of a post-Soviet identity is the goal of the politics of history in Russia.
Photo: stock.xchng

The moral dimension of what is understood as "political correctness” in Western democracies is unknown to public discourse in Russia. "Politically correct” in Russia is what serves the interests of the state.[1] The state-directed commemoration culture is based exclusively on the search for a past which can be exploited and put to good use. The creation of new places of commemoration, or the re-dedication of old ones, is undertaken almost exclusively with a view to the construction of a post-Soviet identity for the Russian nation. How far this concept goes beyond the core ethnic Russian population to include the numerous other peoples who inhabit the territory of the Russian Federation is a question which is seldom addressed, or which alternatively is whitewashed over with a vague metaphor about "the Russian idea”.

In terms of the process of finding a post-Soviet identity, it is significant that no battles are being fought in Russian society about its historical memory, of the kind which are being fought in France over the memory of colonialism, slavery and immigration or in Germany over the memory of expulsion and flight. In Russia, everything is quietly taking its course. Decisions made "on high” about public commemoration are accepted calmly, and from time to time they are just as calmly ignored. The continuity of a policy on history laid down by the state or the Party continues to have its effect. Civil society plays hardly any role in the construction of a commemoration culture, or with the value judgements which go with that, apart from exceptions such as the courageous activities of the human rights organisation, Memorial.

The "day of national unity” (den' narodnovo edinstva) decreed last year, which is supposed to take over from the commemoration of the October Revolution (no longer considered appropriate for our times) is a striking example of the political use of history for the purposes of national cohesion. What was behind the choice of a new national day? What was at stake?

1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . next »

Further articles on the subject » History, » Russia
More from the press review on the subject » History, » Russia