• Interior
• Windows
• Walls
• Projects
• Buildings

Information sovereignty. Sovereignty of the Russian Federation in the field of traditional values ​​and cultural policy Cultural sovereignty definition

Sergei Chernyakhovsky

Culture, history, historical memory- is always a space of informational and semantic competition between national-state, socio-economic and socio-political systems. The space of struggle for the preservation of historical, identification, political, economic and cultural sovereignty.

In this regard, the main task of state policy in the field of culture and art is the preservation and protection of the country's cultural sovereignty.

The cultural sovereignty of a country includes:

· the right of the country and its people to be guided by those patterns, values ​​and norms of behavior that have been developed in the course of their history and are recognized and accepted by its people. The acceptance or non-acceptance by the people of certain models, norms and values ​​is more important than the recognition or non-recognition of them by entities external to a given country;

· the right of the country and its people to counteract the dissemination of information products that threaten the historical and cultural self-identification of society, significant patterns of behavior, values, ethical, aesthetic and everyday norms;

· the right of the people and citizens, the right and duty of the state to prevent the use of the cultural sphere to damage the national state-political sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.

In modern conditions, the country’s cultural sovereignty faces both objective and subjective threats.

The first include: the spread of behavioral patterns of the “consumer society”, which affirm growing consumption as the main value of human existence; “mass culture”, reducing high cultural patterns to their primitive perception; quasi-civilization of “postmodernity”, which denies the unity of the laws of the world, the objectivity of truth, ethical and aesthetic categories and affirms moral and value relativism.

Taken together, they threaten the value foundations of Russian culture, the national mentality, as well as the basic values ​​of the classical world and European civilization.

Subjective threats include the information aggression of Russia’s geopolitical competitors, aimed both at the destruction of domestic historical, cultural and state-political self-identification, and at the use of culture to discredit and destroy Russia’s political sovereignty.

These threats must be eliminated, and information aggression repelled.

The basis for countering threats to the cultural sovereignty of the country is the creation of a “mass culture of high standards”: based on targeted state support, eliminating the gap between the highest achievements of culture and the everyday life of the masses by raising the latter to the level of high cultural achievements.

One of the central tasks in this direction is to eliminate this gap in its following sections: on a regional basis; on social grounds; according to the professional affiliation of the educational institution.

Creating a system for protecting the country’s cultural sovereignty includes the following main points:

· recognition of the fact of this aggression and the threat to the cultural sovereignty of the country;

· creation of a system for tracking and analyzing the spread of waves of this aggression and its main directions;

· eliminating the gap between the everyday level of everyday culture and the cultural potential available in the country, connecting a person’s everyday life with the resources of national culture;

· implementation of a kind of “second cultural revolution” - a cultural educational program in the country. Information aggression appeals to primitive perception, the repetition of vivid but simplified cultural patterns - and turns out to be powerless where it is opposed by those rooted in tradition. national culture and high examples of art that address the essential principles in man;

· deunification of the education system in the humanitarian and creative spheres, training of highly qualified personnel in the field of culture and art, bearing the beginning of creative passion and good taste that captivates people, capable of making high examples of art accessible and perceived;

· ensuring the daily availability of cultural resources for every person.

And most importantly, the entire sphere of culture and the entire cultural life of society must be saturated with an understanding of perhaps the main thesis: a person differs from an animal in that he has meanings and values ​​greater than his actual physiological existence.

Sovereignty is self-worth and independence. The right of a country to determine for itself the meaning of its development, its values ​​and those social ethical norms that determine identification, patterns of behavior that make a given country itself.

No one will argue that the modern world is developing in conditions of competition - including competition for success, for resources, for the opportunity to influence the determination of rules and norms of behavior in modern world. Each of the competing parties tries to achieve recognition of those norms and rules that best reveal its competitive advantages.

But there are no a priori generally accepted norms: if they appear, it is only as a result of their recognition as such by different parties. Even the value of human life will be perceived differently in different countries and different civilizations.

Russia is undoubtedly a country of European culture and European civilization. The problem is that states located to the west of its borders today are not always related to the classical values ​​of Europe - not only Christian, but also ancient, not to mention the heritage of the Renaissance.

The Russian state is entering into its “cultural struggle” and, waging it, defends not only our national self-identification and cultural sovereignty of the country, but also the remnants of European culture itself, the bearer and custodian of which Russia remains today.

New policy 06/05/2014

IN lately We increasingly hear talk about the need for new privatization. Being a categorical opponent of privatization in terms of large industrial, infrastructure and energy facilities, I wanted to speak on this topic once again.

And this time to connect the problems of privatization with the problems of preserving Russia as an independent state in a historical perspective. And also consider the question of whether it is possible to maintain the level of sovereignty that Russia has today and whether it is achievable to obtain full state sovereignty in the future if a new privatization does take place.

To begin with, let me remind you of my definition of Full State Sovereignty. It consists of 5 components:

1. Recognition by the international community of the country as a subject of international law and international relations. Flag, coat of arms, anthem.
2. Diplomatic sovereignty.
3. Military sovereignty.
4. Economic sovereignty.
5. Cultural sovereignty.

Moreover, the presence and implementation in practice of all five signs of sovereignty in some connection (and to varying degrees) is, in essence, the semantic skeleton of all international relations. Classic example- this is the behavior of today's United States in the international arena. When the weakening of their economic sovereignty, as a consequence of the financial crisis, leads to increased military activity, with the help of military sovereignty, which has not yet been oppressed by the crisis. In concentrated form, this is expressed by the formula: “Saving the dollar is war.”

When we are told about new privatization in Russia, we are told about the increase in economic and managerial efficiency of the privatized industries. We will talk about whether this is a myth or reality in the following articles. Now let’s focus on just one component of the problem: the country’s economic sovereignty.

Russia is a separate civilization.

Russia has been formed over the centuries as a separate civilization. With all its own civilizational attitudes inherent in it as a civilization. Russia is the civilization of the Russian people, around which all other small nations that entered the orbit of Russian civilization were formed and formed. Russia is a mosaic of many peoples and cultures on common basis Russian people and Russian culture. Such a union of peoples, created around the Russian people, showed the world a unique fusion of many cultures and ways of life, different religions, languages ​​and races. Over the centuries, the developing Russian civilization, as a civilization that creates conditions for the existence and formation of many peoples, demanded the creation of a powerful state capable of protecting the peoples included in it, connecting the geographical space into a single political, economic and cultural space (without Russian civilization, most of these peoples , probably would have simply disappeared from the stage of history).

This is seen as the meaning of the existence of Russia as a state, as a state-civilization. By the way, the very existence of Russia as a state-civilization provides the meaning of existence for many other newly formed states. For example, for the Baltic states. Created to counterbalance Russia, on the initiative and with the support of our country’s geopolitical opponents, they play the role of a buffer restraining Russia’s movement towards the Baltic Sea coastline. Their second task is, along with Poland, to divide Russia and Germany among themselves. The purpose of the creation and existence of these states was not determined by their peoples or their rulers; it has nothing to do with the true interests of these countries. But created by opponents of Russia, they could not help but be anything other than purely hostile to us, no matter who and what they told us at the stage of their creation. If Russia is an example of successful multiculturalism and equality of peoples, then buffer states like the Baltic states could not help but be purely nationalistic. And so on.

But now I would not like to dwell on this in detail.
Let's return to privatization. Russia as a state-civilization has the only meaning of its existence - the preservation and development of the unique Russian civilization. From this postulate the following follows: when Russia as a state commits actions that contradict its meaning of existence, then every time it jeopardizes its own existence. That is, it threatens the peace and tranquility of all its member nations. And vice versa, when the actions of Russia as a state correspond to its role as a state-civilization, then Russia strengthens, and the peoples within it live among themselves not only in peace, but also in prosperity. Based on this statement, we can come to the conclusion that we must consider all issues related to privatization through the prism not of the abstract “efficiency” of enterprises and industries, but through the prism of strengthening or weakening our state-civilization. We are obliged to look at proposals to “privatize” state property through the prism of whether Russia as a state follows or does not follow its civilizational destiny.

That's exactly it - no more and no less.

The primary goal of any state (and even more so a state-civilization, which is what Russia is) is the creation, preservation and strengthening of the unity of the territory, the unity of culture, the unity of the general “rules of the game”. Those very rules of the game that exist only for their own. In our case - for Russian citizens. This is what will distinguish them from citizens of other states not at the level of declarations, but in reality. At the everyday, economic, semantic level, if you like.

Once upon a time in past centuries, with the development of technology at the level of that time, distant imperial Petersburg with Kamchatka and Sakhalin were connected at the everyday level by culture, language, and traditions. This was the basis of political and economic unity. In our technologically and informationally developed times, when Vladivostok is closer to Hawaii than to Moscow, the state’s task is to hold in its hands those sectors of the economy that, in addition to language, culture and tradition, become the basis of economic and political unity.

These are transport, energy, communications, natural resources. And a lever to access them. Russian citizenship should give the bearers of power and sovereignty, which are the citizens of the country, tangible advantages over citizens of other countries. In the 21st century, given the current level of technological and information development, the basis of the political and economic unity of the country, in addition to culture, language, and traditions, should be transport, energy, communications, and natural resources. And they will certainly become the basis of unity if we want to preserve our Russia as the global civilizational project that is familiar to us.

If we understand and are aware of the above, it is easy for us to decide on our attitude towards privatization proposals. Any privatization of anything from the above list is unacceptable. No discussions about “increasing efficiency” and expanding the tax base should even be considered, due to the fact that the unified civilizational and economic field, and after it the political field of the country, is being destroyed. Our unity will collapse - and soon there will be no one to collect taxes from this very “expanded tax base”.

I would like to note that no one talks about “greater efficiency” in other areas that are traditionally considered the zone of exclusive competence of the state. For example, if private business will propose to privatize a piece of the state border on the grounds that the PMCs, which will be entrusted with border protection, are more effective and professional compared to the soldiers and officers of the Border Troops. And such “privatization” will reduce government spending on protecting the state border, while increasing its efficiency. For some reason I am sure that such a proposal will not find understanding among the country’s leadership and the overwhelming majority of its citizens.

The proposal to “outsource” the diplomatic service of the state will also not find understanding among the country’s leadership. Although, perhaps, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs OJSC will be more efficient in terms of budget expenditures than the state Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Well, an OJSC or even a CJSC “Ministry of Internal Affairs” would generally solve a bunch of long-standing problems of the law enforcement system: from corruption to “werewolves in uniform.” After all, “everyone knows” that a private owner is always more efficient than an official. This means that private detectives would quickly restore order in the country, which would distinguish them favorably from the existing police officers. However, even here the state and society would send away all those who proposed such ideas.

Why? What do you think? I think because there is an understanding that there is a list of functions included in the list of the exclusive sphere of competence of the state. What if the state transfers something from this list to private owners, it inevitably gives rise to a logical question: why do we need such a state at all?
After all, it will be clear to any sane person that if you privatize a piece of the state border for reasons of “increasing efficiency,” this simply means losing control over the entire border of the entire country. No matter what formidable restrictions you would impose on this private owner when privatizing “a kilometer of the state border”...

It’s so efficient... It’s more efficient for a private owner, so it will be. OJSC MFA" and CJSC "Ministry of Internal Affairs" will also mainly care about the profitability and efficiency of their work. As a result, it will be easier for them to come to an agreement with organized crime about the division of spheres of influence within the country, and with Russia’s geopolitical “partners” in the international arena, than to defend the interests of Russian citizens. It will simply be cheaper and simpler - which means, in the language of the “privatizers” - it will be more effective.

If you take the “logic of efficiency” to its logical conclusion, then this end will be unexpected. If the bearer of the country’s sovereignty, the Russian people, in the person of their state, gave up part of their sovereignty in favor of a private owner, then this means that they did not really need this sovereignty. And here the next question is just around the corner: why such a state? And as a result: why such people?

Based on this, no one is proposing to privatize a piece of the state border or create OJSC and CJSC “Ministry of Foreign Affairs” and “Ministry of Internal Affairs”. But why then is talk about the need to privatize structural, state-forming sectors of the economy growing again? And all for the same reason - the privatization of such industries means the loss of the Russian state of its sovereignty. Do we need this? No way. So the opposite conclusion suggests itself.

The area of ​​EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE should be everything related to the implementation of all 5 components of Full State Sovereignty.

In our specific conditions, in order to realize economic sovereignty, in conditions of our distances, geographical and climatic features, the difference between territories in terms of general economic and resource content, the zone of EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE must include: transport, energy, communications, control over natural and energy resources. This makes it possible to create common rules of the game for all economic entities of the country. This allows the state to perform its most important function of planning the development of the WHOLE TERRITORY based on its general state and geopolitical objectives. The transfer of some of these functions into the hands of private and “effective” managers only leads to local egoism and the growth of economic, and then political, separatism. Because the interests of the development of the entire country can sometimes contradict the interests of an individual company aimed at obtaining maximum profits here and now.

That is why it is my deep conviction that privatization as an institution is only good where it does not affect the area of ​​EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE. This is the first thing. And secondly, it does not lead to an increase in population stratification, without exacerbating the gap between the poorest and richest segments of the people. And thirdly, it actually removes from the state functions that are unusual for it. For example, regulation of the economy at the level of small and medium-sized businesses, where it is quite enough for the state to play the role of an arbiter. Creating, on the one hand, all the conditions for development, and on the other, playing the role of a “dispute resolver.”

If we look at the problem of privatization from this side, what else do we need to privatize that has not been privatized?

Actually, we have no grounds for a new wave of privatization, since it is proposed to privatize exactly what is the EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE. Which inevitably undermines the economic sovereignty of the country. But they talk and talk about privatization quite persistently.

Some people talk about privatization as a political choice.

Someone about the need to improve efficiency.

Someone about the role of new privatization in the creation of a new patriotic elite of the country.

Someone about the need for Russia to join the club of developed countries through privatization and integration into the international division of labor.

I will discuss all this in detail in the following articles under the general title “On privatization and...”

Nikolay Starikov

Information sovereignty- this is the right of the state to independently formulate information policy, manage information flows, and ensure information security regardless of external influence. Information sovereignty includes any components related to the information sphere of the state.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  The term comes from the concepts of “sovereignty” and “sovereign state”. The traditional meaning of sovereignty is "superanus" in Latin and "souverainete" in French - supreme power. The legal dictionary defines state sovereignty as “the supreme authority in the decision-making process of the state and in the maintenance of order.” Head of the Federal Service for Technical and Export Control M.M. Curly gives the following definition: “ information sovereignty“is the supremacy and independence of state power in the formation and implementation of information policy in the national segment and global information space.”

  D.G. Artamonov understands information sovereignty as a combination of state control over its information sphere and its protection from threats, such as information wars and cyber attacks.

  Characteristics

  Information sovereignty includes two aspects: technical and ideological. The technical includes: own social networks, search engines, national software, national electronic payment system, etc. The ideological aspect implies the presence of an official ideology or national idea, a high level of popular mass culture, a developed propaganda system, as well as improved legislation in the field of information . .

  Information sovereignty is needed by a state that intends to pursue its own information policy, independent of the international community. However, it does not grant the state complete independence. The actions of actors in the information space must at least comply with the norms of international law. One should take into account the fact that the connection between information and territorial boundaries is becoming increasingly blurred with the expansion of virtual space. Despite the fact that the boundaries of the state’s information space are determined by law, territorial reference still prevails in the rules of law.

  Species

  Information sovereignty can actually be divided into two categories:

  The impact of technology on information sovereignty

  Robert McChesney, a professor at the University of Illinois, believes that in the context of information globalization, the state can gain rights and opportunities for more effective development their information technologies and industry, and the exchange of information resources with other states only if they are ready to “sacrifice” part of their information sovereignty, for example, the right of absolute control over incoming information.

  The above suggests that although countries have a significant interest in providing access to the services of foreign Internet giants, this interest will conflict with the interests of ensuring independence. Thus, states that do not trust the country that produces an Internet service have a stronger reason to block access to that service, or at least to encourage or develop alternatives. A consequence of this is the decision of a number of countries to restrict the import of equipment, fearing that the hardware will be used for intelligence gathering by the manufacturing country.

  Cultural sovereignty

  An element of information sovereignty is cultural sovereignty. Chinese scientist Wang Huning believes that cultural sovereignty– this is the right and opportunity to resist external influence, develop and preserve national culture

  The concept of cultural sovereignty was a product of the Cold War, and its positive meaning was of interest to those countries that were less developed in media power, and were in a worse position in the structure of global communication. External dominance over the media occurs in two directions:

  1. Control of media activities by foreign powers.
  2. External control over program content.

  In a broad sense, the communication of any information can be considered cultural. Even scientific or technical information contains a certain element of values, way of life or ideas about management and administration, etc. However, cultural communication usually refers to the dissemination of more specific media products, such as Hollywood films, pop music, MTV, radio and television programs, CNN news, etc. Cultural communication is essentially the dissemination of values. It influences and even shapes the lifestyle and ideology of the recipients. Information sovereignty should include the right to develop and strengthen national culture and identity through domestic and international communication.

  Criticism

  Information sovereignty is an “open” concept that has evolved over the course of history. According to Professor Gong, in the context of globalization, when the Internet and other new technologies are changing methods of communication, and the post-Cold War era has created new forms of political, cultural and ideological models, information sovereignty as a concept no longer meets modern realities and requires revision .

  As mentioned earlier, information sovereignty includes the independent right to produce and use information without any external interference, however characteristic feature global communication, encouraged by transnational corporations, is to overcome the barrier of national borders. Today, the state's "supreme authority" over information is being questioned, particularly by multinational corporations, and the traditional concept of information sovereignty is effectively losing its meaning. States, wanting to strengthen their information sovereignty, are increasing control over the Internet, developing new mechanisms for controlling the information environment, thereby limiting freedom of speech. At the same time, it is forced to make the necessary compromises in exchange for the right to remain within the global information system. In this regard, information sovereignty can be viewed as relative power In Russian

  • Artamonov D.S. Information sovereignty, theoretical aspect // Materials of the VIII International Constitutional Forum dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the Saratov region. – 2017. – pp. 16-20.
  • Belenkov D.V., Gyulazyan P.A., Mazlumyan D.E. Information sovereignty of Russia and the European Union, information policy and information confrontation: essence and content // International student scientific bulletin. – 2018. – No. 5. – (date of access: 10/31/2018).
  • Zorina E. G. Information sovereignty modern state and the main tools for its support // Izv. Sarat. un-ta. New ser. Ser. Sociology. Political science. – 2017. – T. 17, issue. 3. – pp. 345–348.
  • Kucheryavyi M. M. State policy of information sovereignty of Russia in the conditions of the modern global world // Management consulting. – 2014. – Issue. 9 (69). – P. 12.

  In English

  • Bayefsky, Anne F. Cultural Sovereignty, Relativism, and International Human Rights: New Excuses for Old Strategies. – 02 August 2007.
  • Fox JR, Dictionary of International and Comparative Law. – Oceana Publications Inc, 3d edn. – 2003. – 370 p.
  • Gong, Wenxiang. Information Sovereignty Reviewed // Peking University. Intercultural Communication studies XIV: 1 – 2005.
  • McChesney, R.W. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. – New York: The New Press. – 2000. – 462 p. – ISBN 1565846346.
  • Nordenstreng, Kaarle & Schiller, Herbert I., eds. National Sovereignty and International Communication. – New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co. – 1979. – 304 p.
  • Polčák, Radim, Svantesson Dan Jerker B. Information Sovereignty, Data Privacy, Sovereign Powers and the Rule of Law – Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, – 2017. – 288 p. – ISBN 9781786439222.
  • Price, E. Monroe. Media and Sovereignty: The Global Information Revolution and Its Challenge to State Power. – The MIT Press. – 2004. – 352 p. – ISBN 0262162113.
  • Schiller, Herbert I., Communication and Cultural Dominance. – NY: International Arts and Sciences Press. – 1976. – 127 p. – ISBN 0873320794.
  • Wang, Huning. Cultural Expansion and Cultural Sovereignty: the Challenge to the Concept of Sovereignty // Journal of Fudan University. Vol. 3. – 1994.

  Today, in the context of incessant sanctions and ultimatums, Russia’s cultural sovereignty must be spoken loudly, clearly and responsibly. Why? About this we'll talk further. But first, about the essence of the term itself.

  Concept "cultural sovereignty of the Russian Federation" was first enshrined in the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation (2015) as a factor contributing to “strengthening national security in the field of culture.” The mechanism for ensuring it is also indicated: “taking measures to protect Russian society from external ideological and value expansion and destructive information and psychological influence.”

  It should be emphasized that cultural sovereignty is not only component, but also a necessary condition for ensuring state sovereignty.

  Triad "sovereignty - identity - security"- the cornerstone of any statehood, an inviolable “border strip” that protects national states from cross-border expansion by global control centers led by the “world hegemon” in the person of the United States. It is safe to assume that in the conditions of the crisis of the modern world order, fraught with a real “clash of civilizations” according to S. Huntington’s scenario, the role of the cultural factor in ensuring state sovereignty and national security will steadily increase, since it is culture that plays the role of the keeper of the nation’s civilizational code, its value basis.

  The deepest basis of the cultural sovereignty of a nation is historical memory. N.A. Berdyaev also pointed out their organic relationship: “The nobility of any true culture is determined by the fact that culture is the cult of ancestors, the veneration of graves and monuments, the connection of sons with fathers. Culture is always proud<…>an inextricable link with the great past. Culture, like the Church, values ​​its continuity most of all.”

  Thanks to the decisions of President V.V. Putin and the initiatives of the Minister of Culture V.R. Medinsky, it was possible to overcome the narrow departmental, utilitarian, sectoral approach to culture and move to a new, nationally responsible and value-oriented model of state cultural policy. For the first time in the entire post-Soviet period, its high historical mission was formulated, according to which “state cultural policy is recognized as an integral part of the national security strategy”, “the guarantor of the territorial integrity of the country”, and culture itself is “elevated to the rank of national priorities”.

  The importance of cultural sovereignty was clearly pointed out when speaking at one of the extended meetings of the Council on Culture and Art, President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin: “We all understand the enormous role that culture plays in the development of Russia, in strengthening its authority and influence in the world, and in preserving the integrity of our state and national sovereignty. Because that if there is no culture, then it is not clear at all what sovereignty is, and then it’s not clear what to fight for.” Essentially, the fundamental role of culture in ensuring national sovereignty is affirmed here in a pointed form.

  The president again emphasized this idea in his recent Address to the Federal Assembly of February 20, 2019, the essence of which is that “without sovereignty there is no Russia.”

  As Western mass culture merges with big business, it degenerates into the entertainment industry and the “pleasure economy,” and educational model cultural development is finally supplanted consumer-leisure model, the spiritually and morally healthy forces of humanity have an urgent need for a different cultural strategy. Such a strategy that would not be accompanied by disastrous moral regression, the cynical triumph of base animal instincts, complete destruction“Divine plan for the world,” as our great predecessors thought about the mission of Man on Earth.

  Therefore, it is quite natural that culture is increasingly becoming a sphere of information-psychological confrontation, “invasion without weapons,” as they said back in Soviet years. It is no coincidence that Western leaders have repeatedly admitted that the Cold War with Russia was won by Western rock culture.

  Today, the organizers of the new generation of information and psychological wars - mental wars, “memory wars” - initiate not only falsification of history, but also falsification of cultural property. In the context of the spread of low-grade “surrogates” of mass culture, tailored according to Western standards of consumption, such “falsification becomes not only a counterfeit of genuine value, it displaces the latter and becomes even more in demand...”.

  It is generally accepted that the United States is the global producer of cultural counterfeits. The result of many years of American policy of “cultural imperialism” is what domestic and foreign scientists call the general “Californization” and “McDonaldization” of the world, a culture of “total homogenization” of personality.

  It is also important to emphasize that the cultural sovereignty of a nation is ensured not only by the degree of its protection from external ideological and value expansion, but also by the spiritual strength of the internal cultural space. And here, unfortunately, there are vulnerable “gaps” - what the writer Yuri Polyakov once aptly dubbed “fatherland phobia at public expense.”

  Unfortunately, today's television and radio broadcasts (including central channels) are filled with meaningless and intrusive “hits” that have become profitable business for a limited circle of “creators”, their predatory producers and nimble promoters. The commercial factor actively hinders the formation of a new national musical and song repertoire on patriotic, military and historical themes.

  As V. Mayakovsky once said, back in the pre-revolutionary period of his work, “the street is writhing, tongueless - it has nothing to shout or talk with.” Today this multimillion-dollar folk “street” does not have a real song “language.” After all, it is impossible to imagine our compatriots, gathered at a friendly table, camping around a campfire or on a tourist bus, performing, instead of a soulful song, a “collective rap” that is absolutely alien to the national melodic style.

  Another cultural “falsification” of postmodernism is the endless “remakes” of classic films and literary adaptations, pseudo-repetitions of outstanding works of Soviet art and images of performers of past years, turning into ugly fakes, blasphemous, often offensive parodies, destroying the fund of national cultural memory.

  The inability to create something new and original, equivalent in the power of spiritual and aesthetic impact to previous models, is replaced by the massive dominance of counterfeits. At the same time, untalented but aggressive pop culture, displacing genuine culture, weakens the spiritual and creative potential of the nation, its moral immunity, and, consequently, its sovereignty.

  Today, the state, represented by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, reserves the right not to provide financial support to “creative” projects that discredit its own state for the sake of “Western partners.” This should be recognized as a serious achievement in favor of the sovereign cultural policy of the state. After all, to understand the scale of the spiritual illness of some “creators”, it is enough to list the “telling” names of a number of “film masterpieces” recognized by the West, claiming supposedly deep, “metaphorical” generalizations: “Tightness” and “Acid”.

  This is exactly how the Motherland is seen by our “fatherphobes” - the spiritual brothers of numerous foreign-style Russophobes. Some of them are truly talented, but, unfortunately, the desire to please the “civilized West” at all costs and to shine at prestigious international competitions is much stronger. Moreover, some of them have a “backup homeland” there - just in case...

  “Who are you with, masters of culture?” - the straightforward and wise Gorky once asked. “Why are you, masters of culture? How much are you, masters of culture? - as always, Yuri Polyakov hits targets accurately and caustically, developing Gorky’s message.

  Against this background, the recent public statement of Dmitry Bykov, who, like the unfortunately stolen “brilliant” director K. Bogomolov, claims to be the new “ruler of thoughts”, shocked everyone honest man in Russia not only by its cynicism. The desire to morally rehabilitate the complete traitor General Vlasov and add him to the register of “wonderful people” is also a provocative challenge to our historical memory. This, among other things, is a deliberate reputational blow to the moral prestige of the Molodaya Gvardiya publishing house and the authority of the ZhZL series, which has been in operation since the time of M. Gorky. But it should be stated with full responsibility: no commercial success of the supposed “sensational” publication can be morally and socially justified. It is well known that in Russian the word “wonderful” has a purely positive meaning. Therefore, the publication in the “Life of Remarkable People” series of an opus about a traitor hated by the people cannot be called anything other than “mental sabotage” in the spirit of “memory wars,” only this time unleashed not from outside, but from within the country. However, for the sophisticated stylist D. Bykov, who, contrary to the opinion of a huge readership, was favored by another prestigious literary award, this, apparently, only works to his advantage. After all, being one of the leaders of the “fifth column” in Russian culture in the eyes of the West is very prestigious and even honorable. Apparently, the passionately awaited dividends will not take long to arrive...

  Russian President V.V. Putin has repeatedly noted that the cultural sphere is at the forefront of ideological, informational and psychological confrontation and global competition. Thus, during one of the meetings with representatives of the public on issues of patriotic education of youth, he emphasized: “As our own historical experience shows, cultural self-awareness, spiritual, moral values, value codes are an area of ​​fierce competition, sometimes the object of open information confrontation, well-orchestrated propaganda attack<…>This is at least one form of competition.”

  The substitution of values ​​and meanings is the main information and psychological weapon directed against Russian culture in the global information war against Russia. The Russian military historical society is fully aware of this danger and is waging a decisive fight against it. The unified strategy of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the Russian Military Historical Society as an authoritative public-state organization is yielding positive results. Are carried out on a systematic basis scientific conferences and round tables dedicated to countering the distortion of the history of the Great Patriotic War. Considerable attention is paid to the memorialization of places associated with the names of outstanding commanders and heroic defenders of the Motherland, objects of historical and cultural heritage. One of the priorities in the activities of regional and municipal branches of the Russian Military Historical Society has been and remains the patriotic education of children and youth.

  The most important function of culture is the protection of the civilizational, mental code of the nation. In the context of a global humanitarian crisis, culture becomes a weapon spiritual defense. In these conditions, falsification of the history of the Fatherland, traditional cultural values ​​and meanings should be considered as a serious and immediate threat to national security. This far from mythical threat must be put up with a reliable public barrier.

  Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 31, 2015 No. 685 “On the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation.” P. 39.

  Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of inequality. M., 2012. P. 271.

  Strategy of state cultural policy for the period until 2030. Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated February 29, 2016 No. 326.

  Fundamentals of state cultural policy. Approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of December 24, 2014 No. 808. Strategy of state cultural policy for the period until 2030. Approved by order of the Government of the Russian Federation dated February 29, 2016 No. 326. P.5.

  Speech by V.V. Putin at an extended meeting of the Presidium of the Council for Culture and Art. February 3, 2014, Pskov.

  Saraf M.Ya. Security of the national-cultural space is a necessary condition for sustainable development // Information Wars. 2010. No. 3 (15). P.96.

  Filimonov G. Cultural and information mechanisms foreign policy USA. M., 2012. P. 76.

  Meeting with representatives of the public on issues of patriotic education of youth September 12, 2012, Krasnodar.

  O. E. Voronova, member Public Chamber Russian Federation, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Department of Journalism of Ryazan State University named after S. A. Yesenin, member of the Russian Military Historical Society

  Cover: https://www.livejournal.com/

  Views: 1044

  1 Comment

  Tsarenko Sergey Alexandrovich/ candidate of architecture (theory, history)

  Emphasizing that the triad “sovereignty - identity - security” is the cornerstone of statehood, and the deep basis of the cultural sovereignty of a nation is historical memory, Russians and all Russians need to remember, first of all, the dynastic origin of our traditional statehood. The memory of this does not mean an inevitable return to the situation before March 1917 - one cannot enter that river, as they say, and subsequent events precisely showed the tragic weaknesses of the Russian royal house, albeit a betrayed one - however, we are talking about understanding the dynastic core any ethnopolitical and spiritual identity. The historical memory of Russian dynastic identity is an understanding of the simple and indisputable fact, to whom the oldest Russian chronicle “The Tale” is dedicated Temporary Years ": a multi-layered and, moreover, completely integral text in the famous “legend of calling” and messages closely related to it testifies that dynastic Rus' was a (proto-)Slavic (dynastically senior in relation to the Slavic dynasties proper) ethnocultural grouping of continental significance from two “Celtic” migration lines - from the Southern Baltic (northern, encircling the lands with a center in Novgorod the Great) and from the Danube through the Carpathians (southern, encircling the lands with a center in Kyiv; there is the “northern” Russian Olg, and not the “Helgi” fictional by current writers, found the “mother of cities” - it was the Slavic “Kybele”, authentically KYYAVA, or KYY-VELA, i.e. “Divine Mermaid”, a local revered “incarnation” - a stream now known as Kyyanka under the Starokievskaya mountain, apparently, the western one; the sacred rival was the Polish VѢ-RSHA-VA). Northern Rus' bore the class-ethnic nickname “Varyags” (with the initial emphasis on the first syllable), i.e. “defenders” (the sacred homonym is “guardians of the Great Water”, or “warriors of the Heavenly Stream”; in fact, the “surname” is Rurikovich, which characteristically, literally - “falcons”). As Adam of Bremen (11th century) wrote, the trade route “From the Varangians to the Greeks” began in Stargrad; This route was controlled, among other things, by the Vikings from the islands of Ruga or Ruyan (now Rügen). The medieval Arabs eloquently testified about both parts of the ancient Russians - joint owners of water trade routes in the Volga and Dnieper basins, of course, rival relatives - as two “types” of Rus (as well as three “groups” of Russian settlement). Among them, Celtic and Germanic names, weapons, as well as eastern shrines and ornaments were fashionable - a tribute to the historical memory of their own ancient ancestors (from the Celts, Slavs, Alans, ancient Taurians and others). There were no Scandinavian “idols” in the family pantheon of Vladimir the Baptist. No Scandinavians had anything to do with all this until the beginning of the 11th century. (despite the signs of archaic, ancient continental pilotage vocabulary in the names of the Dnieper rapids, often artificially interpreted as supposedly only Germanic, and of course, despite archaeological artifacts interpreted as “Scandinavian”). Only then, from the time of Yaroslav the Wise and the Swedish princess Ingigerd - Princess Irina, did the nickname Varangians spread to warriors of Swedish and other origin, which, in fact, was what the author (or compiler) of the Tale of Bygone Years wrote about: “ѿ [from time, i.e. e. not only and not so much on behalf of] Várg was nicknamed Russia, and first besha [previously called, the chronicler emphasizes! ] Slovenia. and even better. but Slovenskaya rѣch bѣ [the language of all mentioned is Slavic]. Let's call it that way. znezhe in Pole [Pole is a specific forest-steppe region!] sѣdѧhu. The language of the Slovenians is one [mentioned are from the same Slavic people],” we quote with spelling in the edition of the Ipatiev Chronicle. And before that, after the legend about the preaching of the Apostle Paul in Illyria, the most important chronicle evidence was recorded: “Slovenian language and Russians are one” - the Slavs and Russians are one people... And now in Rus' they have been “proving” for centuries that the ancient Rus are supposedly Germanic , and even extra-continental - the Scandinavians, some kind of unprecedented “Swedish Rus'”. And German-speaking academics have been “proving” since the 18th century, turning over the content of the message from the Bertin Annals, etc. (where the mentioned representatives of the Rhos people, in the understanding of the Western emperor, are precisely opposed to the “Sveons” - by the way, most likely precisely the “Balts” who found themselves among the representatives of Rus' and thereby aroused suspicion), and the current “experts” who did not serve in the army , with arguments like “we have no order”, with an incorrect translation of our original source. And in the chronicle there was talk about a princely outfit - an economic assignment, which was fixed as a term precisely in Russian army regulations: it was said - by the chronicler on behalf of the union of the northern tribes - we don’t have an outfit, for the outfit we need a leader (in those days - a dynast). Thus, the mainland dynastic dignity of Slavic Rus' is an objective fact, and the sacred historical name ROUS, or RSHA, i.e. "Solar" Living Water“is a WORLD SPIRITUAL BEGINNING under the same root sacred names Rus' and RUSSIA. They have an undeniable ethnopolitical primogeniture at the continental and global level. The Baptist of Rus', accustomed to uniting and developing (and not “divide and conquer”), understood perfectly well what universal priorities his people were claiming. Today - the Russian people are multinational, uniting many, and only the descendants of the Russians, four cultures (Belarusian, Carpatho-Rusyn, Russian, Ukrainian). And if, as stated in the article, “falsification of the history of the Fatherland, traditional cultural values ​​and meanings should be considered as a serious and immediate threat to national security,” then unconditionally categorical publications with obsessive mention of the supposedly “Scandinavian” Rurik, as in the encyclopedia “ Ancient Rus' in the medieval world" (Institute general history RAS, 2014), should at least be independently reviewed by the scientific community and certainly not remain above criticism.

  Sergei Chernyakhovsky

  Culture, history, historical memory is always a space of informational and semantic competition between national-state, socio-economic and socio-political systems. The space of struggle for the preservation of historical, identification, political, economic and cultural sovereignty.

  In this regard, the main task of state policy in the field of culture and art is the preservation and protection of the country's cultural sovereignty.

  The cultural sovereignty of a country includes:

  · the right of the country and its people to be guided by those patterns, values ​​and norms of behavior that have been developed in the course of their history and are recognized and accepted by its people. The acceptance or non-acceptance by the people of certain models, norms and values ​​is more important than the recognition or non-recognition of them by entities external to a given country;

  · the right of the country and its people to counteract the dissemination of information products that threaten the historical and cultural self-identification of society, significant patterns of behavior, values, ethical, aesthetic and everyday norms;

  · the right of the people and citizens, the right and duty of the state to prevent the use of the cultural sphere to damage the national state-political sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country.

  In modern conditions, the country’s cultural sovereignty faces both objective and subjective threats.

  The first include: the spread of behavioral patterns of the “consumer society”, which affirm growing consumption as the main value of human existence; “mass culture”, reducing high cultural patterns to their primitive perception; quasi-civilization of “postmodernity”, which denies the unity of the laws of the world, the objectivity of truth, ethical and aesthetic categories and affirms moral and value relativism.

  Taken together, they threaten the value foundations of Russian culture, the national mentality, as well as the basic values ​​of classical world and European civilization.

  Subjective threats include the information aggression of Russia’s geopolitical competitors, aimed both at the destruction of domestic historical, cultural and state-political self-identification, and at the use of culture to discredit and destroy Russia’s political sovereignty.

  These threats must be eliminated, and information aggression repelled.

  The basis for countering threats to the cultural sovereignty of the country is the creation of a “mass culture of high standards”: based on targeted state support, eliminating the gap between the highest achievements of culture and the everyday life of the masses by raising the latter to the level of high cultural achievements.

  One of the central tasks in this direction is to eliminate this gap in its following sections: on a regional basis; on social grounds; according to the professional affiliation of the educational institution.

  Creating a system for protecting the country’s cultural sovereignty includes the following main points:

  · recognition of the fact of this aggression and the threat to the cultural sovereignty of the country;

  · creation of a system for tracking and analyzing the spread of waves of this aggression and its main directions;

  · eliminating the gap between the everyday level of everyday culture and the cultural potential available in the country, connecting a person’s everyday life with the resources of national culture;

  · implementation of a kind of “second cultural revolution” - a cultural educational program in the country. Information aggression appeals to primitive perception, the repetition of bright but simplified cultural patterns - and turns out to be powerless where it is opposed by a national culture rooted in tradition and high examples of art that appeal to the essential principles in a person;

  · deunification of the education system in the humanitarian and creative spheres, training of highly qualified personnel in the field of culture and art, bearing the beginning of creative passion and good taste that captivates people, capable of making high examples of art accessible and perceived;

  · ensuring the daily availability of cultural resources for every person.

  And most importantly, the entire sphere of culture and the entire cultural life of society must be saturated with an understanding of perhaps the main thesis: a person differs from an animal in that he has meanings and values ​​greater than his actual physiological existence.

  Sovereignty is self-worth and independence. The right of a country to determine for itself the meaning of its development, its values ​​and those social ethical norms that determine identification, patterns of behavior that make a given country itself.

  No one will argue that the modern world is developing in a competitive environment - including competition for success, for resources, for the opportunity to influence the determination of rules and norms of behavior in the modern world. Each of the competing parties tries to achieve recognition of those norms and rules that best reveal its competitive advantages.

  But there are no a priori generally accepted norms: if they appear, it is only as a result of their recognition as such by different parties. Even the value of human life will be perceived differently in different countries and different civilizations.

  Russia is undoubtedly a country of European culture and European civilization. The problem is that states located to the west of its borders today are not always related to the classical values ​​of Europe - not only Christian, but also ancient, not to mention the heritage of the Renaissance.

  The Russian state is entering into its “cultural struggle” and, waging it, defends not only our national self-identification and cultural sovereignty of the country, but also the remnants of European culture itself, the bearer and custodian of which Russia remains today.