| Annotation |
Media practices contributed to the formation of an inclusive community that brought together Ukrainian and
Russian culture, but did not take into account ethnic feelings and traditions. Through the mass media, political
forces were the source of the formation of ideological attitudes of citizens and ideas about socio-cultural normality,
different from the policy of memory of the USSR. The traditional division of the Ukrainian media has become“own” and “alien”. As a result, a community was formed based not on a common Soviet past for Russians and
Ukrainians, but on a common present for Eastern and Western Ukrainians. Thus, in the Ukrainian official discourse
appeared a narrative about “Russia’s intervention in the problem of civil reconciliation of Ukrainians”,
which led to a radical departure from the Soviet-inherited assessment of Ukrainian history in the light of the thesis
on the unity of two peoples. Like other ideological differences in society, attitudes to past events became the
subject of public debate. Thus, the mass media became the main source of historical knowledge for Ukrainian citizens,
attracted attention to many topics and, at the same time, popularized certain episodes and corresponding
values and identities to the detriment of others. They are the subject of this study. We managed to conduct content
analysis of a number of ideologically polar Ukrainian media (Ukrainian-centric “Ukraine is young”, “Newspaper
in Ukrainian” and pro-Russian “Segodnya”, “Fakny I kommentarii”) and to trace what media tools were used
by them for media retrieval of the most significant historical dates, events and persons who had a key impact on
the formation of identity of “their” and “foreign” audience. The analysis of media practice revealed two main contradictions,
on the one hand, between secular and religious holidays and, on the other hand, between Soviet and
nationalist narratives of history. We conducted the sociological survey among the students of the RANEPA and
Kherson State Pedagogical University which demonstrated the socio-cultural impact of these media discourses.
It turned out that one of the most important ways of media influence on the formation of the historical memory of
the audience was observance of holidays and commemorative days, which establish a hierarchy of importance.
This allocation is the main component of the media contribution to the calendar, which accompanies the activities
of society as a holistic system, while maintaining the legitimacy of established taxonomies. |
| References |
1. Arel, D. Interpreting “nationality” and “language” in the 2001 Ukrainian census. Post-Soviet Affairs, no. 18,
pp. 213–249, 2002. (In Engl.)
2. Brubaker, R. Nationhood and the national question in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Eurasia: an
institutionalist account. Theory and society, no. 23, pp. 47–78, 1994. (In Engl.)
3. Malinova, O. Y. Memory Policy as a Symbolic Policy Area. Methodological Issues of Memory Policy
Study. M: Nestor History, 2018. (In Rus.)
4. Miller, A. I. The increasing importance of the institutional factor in the policy of memory ‒ causes and
consequences Politics: Analysis. Chronicle. Forecast (Journal of Political Philosophy and Sociology of Politics),
no. 3, pp. 87–102, 2019. (In Rus.)
5. Nahaylo, B. Victor Swoboda V. Soviet disunion: a history of the nationalities problem in the U.S.S. R. London:
Hamish Hamilton. Council on Foreign Relations, no. 5, pp. 201, 1990. (In Engl.)
6. Danilova, E.A., Sulyak, S. G. Feast in tears: about the attitude to the Victory Day in Ukraine. Rusin,
no. 65, pp. 296–315, 2021. (In Rus.)
7. Sevastyanova, Y.V., Efremenko, D. V. Past and future in the Soviet meta-narrative: the relationship of the
national and supranational. Memory policy in modern Russia and Eastern Europe. Actors, institutes, narratives:
collective monograph. Sankt-Peterburg: EUSP, 2020: 40–60. (In Rus.)
8. Sevastyanova, Y.V., Efremenko, D. V. Securitization of memory and dilemma of mnemonic security.
Political science, no. 2, pp. 66–86, 2020. (In Rus.)
9. Sidorov, B. A. Past and Present in Media Environment: Value Resonance. Humanitarian Vector, no. 2,
pp. 171–180, 2022. (In Rus.)
10. Vyzhliviy, V. Vyachichi STB pozykuyut rose product. Telekritika. 20 Oct. 2006. (In Ukr.)
11. Baisha, O. Discursive rift of the social field: Lessons of Euromaidan. M: Izd. House of the Higher School
of Economics, 2021. (In Rus.)
12. Fighters, V. N. The problem of historical memory preservation: history and modernity. Humanitarian
Bulletin of the Military Academy of Strategic Missile Forces, no. 4, pp. 18–23, 2021. (In Rus.)
13. Kostina, E. N. Memory, oblivion, identity: dialectics of phenomena. Humanitarian Vector, no. 1, pp. 63–
65, 2011. (In Rus.)
14. Tsvetova, N. S. Media presentation of the modern communicative personality: value content. Media
linguistics. Proceedings of the 6 International Scientific and Practical Conference. Saint Petersburg: 30 June
2022: 779. (In Rus.)
15. Ankersmith, F. R. Sublime historical experience. M: Europe, 2007. (In Engl.)
16. Kokotuhukha, A. Anna Unmanned: “Our new project can become the birth of a new TV genre”. Teleritika.
04 Nov. 2006. (In Engl.)
17. Voronovici, A. Internationalist separatism and the political use of “historical statehood” in the unrecognized
republics of Transnistria and Donbass. Problems of Post Communism, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2019. (In Engl.)
18. Mälksoo, M. “Memory must be defended”: Beyond the politics of mnemonical security. Security dialogue,
no. 3, pp. 221–237, 2015. (In Engl.)
19. Fedorov, A.V., Chelysheva, I.V., Muriukina, E.V., Gorbatkova, O.I., Kovaleva, M.E., Knyazev, A. A. Stages
of media education in the USSR and Russia: the mainstages. M: Information for All, 2014. (In Rus.) |
