| Article | |
|---|---|
| Article name | New Trends in the Field of Public Memory |
| Authors | Zaporozhchenko G.M.Doctor of History galinakoop@ yandex.ru |
| Bibliographic description | Zaporozhchenko G. M. New Trends in the Field of Public Memory // Humanitarian Vector. 2021. Vol. 16, No. 6. PP. 129–138. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853-2021-16-6-129-138. |
| Section | |
| DOI | 10.21209/1996-7853-2021-16-6-129-138 |
| UDK | 001.89 (571) + 069:377 |
| Article type | |
| Annotation | The article analyzes the forms of public memory in the field of historical, cultural and scientific heritage on the example of commemorative practices in the Novosibirsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The source basis was the historiographic and information resource of publications about the SB RAS, the materials of the electronic open archive of the SB RAS, the results of the method of included observation. The methodological basis is the socio-cultural approach, the provisions on T. Shola’s mnemosophy. We consider the resonant commemorative events of 2020–2021 dedicated to the leaders of the Siberian Branch M. A. Lavrentiev, N. N. Yanenko, N. N. Pokrovsky, T. I. Zaslavskaya, doctor of philology M. I. Cheremisina, the builder of the Akademgorodok of the Novosibirsk Scientific Center general N. M. Ivanov. Conclusions are drawn that the sphere of public memory is an important component of the socio-cultural framework of the territory of the “scientific topos”. Novosibirsk Akademgorodok is a complex innovative form of public memory that configures the socio-cultural environment for the tasks of commemoration. The calendar-anniversary principle of commemoration of memorable dates is complemented by the logic of spiritual attachment to the heritage of significant personalities. The line between institutional and private initiatives and partnerships is being blurred. There is a further rethinking of the contribution and significance of the leaders of science. In various forms of public memory, social orientation, social activism, and moral agentivity are noted. The practical value of generalizing and algorithmizing the experience of commemoration is due to the importance of the socio-cultural function of the sphere of public memory in creating a semantic space of social myth-making, which significantly affects the life of society, the accumulation of historiographic and information resources for the successful implementation of national projects related to the modernization of science and education in the face of great challenges of modernity. |
| Key words | sphere of public memory, commemoration, commemorative practices, scientific topos, mnemosophy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences |
| Article information | |
| References | 1. Repina, L. P. Cultural memory and problems of historiography (historiographical notes)]. Preprint WP6/2003/07. M: 2003. (In Rus.) 2. Ahiezer, A. S. Archaization in Russian society as a methodological problem. Social sciences and modernity, no. 2, pp. 89−100, 2001. (In Rus.) 3. Kuz’min, N. N. Features of collective memory in traditional societies. Scientific notes of the Crimean Federal University named after V. I. Vernadsky, no. 2, pp. 114–124, 2017. (In Rus.) 4. Romanovskaya, E. V. Maurice Halbwaks: cultural contexts of memory. Izvestia of Saratov University, no. 3, pp. 39−44, 2010. (In Rus.) 5. Anikin, D. A. The space of social memory. Cand. sci. diss. abstr. Saratov, 2008. (In Rus.) 6. Svyatoslavskiy, A. V. Habitat as a medium of memory: to the history of the national memorial culture. M., 2013. (In Rus.) 7. Hewison, R. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a climate of decline. London: Methuen, 1987. (In Engl.) 8. Hudson, K. Museums of Influence. New-York: Cambridge University Press, 1987. (In Engl.) 9. Hudson K. Museums: Treasures or Tools? Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation, 1992. (In Engl.) 10. Yates, F. The Art of memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. (In Engl.) 11. Framing Public Memory / Edited by Kendall R. Phillips. Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 2004. (In Engl.) 12. Šola, T. Eternity does not live here anymore - a glossary of museum sins. Zagreb, 2012. (In Engl.) 13. Shola, Tomislav S. Mnemosophy. Science of Public memory. Rostov Velikiy, 2017. (In Rus.) 14. Van Mensh, P., Meje-van Mensh, L. New trends in museology. M., 2021. (In Rus.) 15. Shelegina, O. N., Kupershtoh, N. A., Zaporozhchenko, G. M. The identity of local scientific communities: the experience of formation and translation (based on the materials of the Novosibirsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Humanities of Siberia, no. 3, pp. 117–122, 2016. (In Rus.) 16. Pokrovskiy, N. N., Zaporozhchenko, G. M., Shelegina, O. N. Landmark “Novosibirsk Akademgorodok”: scientific and historical and cultural heritage. Novosibirsk, 2018. (In Rus.) 17. Vishnevskiy, E. V. Strategist of Siberian science. Mikhail Alekseevich Lavrentiev. Novosibirsk, 2021. (In Rus.) 18. Actual problems of Russian history, source studies and archeography: To the 90th anniversary of N. N. Pokrovsky. Novosibirsk, 2020. (In Rus.) |
| Full article | New Trends in the Field of Public Memory |
