• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.53-86
• /
• 2010

This paper is focused on splitting of the first Soviet theatre, MKhAT and collapse of Soviet theatre. A close attention has been paid to Art Theatres's circumstances leading to splitting, critical conscience about division between ideal and real theatres and other concrete situation before the verge of collapse. Administrative reform of the Soviet theatre at the period of Perestroika and Glasnost', its results and conflicts, occurred in the process of transition into market system. These are considered under the premise of that the problems of MKhAT were not so different to the other soviet theatres at that time. As it is known that Moscow Art Theatre is a symbol of Russian theatre. And the status of MKhAT as a symbol of Russian theatre had formulated not only the well-known Stanislavsky' system and his legendary performance The Seagull, Three Sisters etc. It was made by party's effort to make MKhAT as the first Soviet theatre and by directors, artists and critics, they had believed and tried to protect idea of MKhAT as the 'battlements' of Soviet theatrical art. One of them is O. Yefremov, a former leader and artistic director from 1970 to 2000. Actually from the periods of Sovremennik Yefremov knew that does not exist the ideal MKhAT, excepting myths, legends and administrative attitudes. Nonetheless he chose the duty of MKhAT's artistic director to construct ideal MKhAT, theatre as the best moral institution, theatre as union based on common belief. It is same motive that he had led split of MKhAT. But split of theatre did not bring the expected results. After spliting MKhAT has become almost collapsed under collapse of USSR and subsequent turmoil at 1990's. And as soviet theatre disappeared into history, Russian theatre became lost its special significance, the super-theatre's idea.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.10
• /
• pp.324-370
• /
• 2004

This paper aims to research the historical development of the archival systems in the Soviet Union from 1917 to the 1920's. The Russian revolution was the turning point not only for the political and social changes but for the archival administration in Russia, as it provided the new Soviet regime with the chances to reorganize the archival institutions under Bolshevik rule. However, we must not forget the fact that the Russian Archival Workers' Union had taken part in the organization of the archival systems together with the Bolshevik revolutionaries. The Soviet government intended to transform the decentralized and poorly organized archival systems in the prerevolutionary years into the centralized and bureaucratized ones. In this meaning, the decree signed be V. I. Lenin on 1 June 1918 was estimated as the real basis for the Soviet archival centralization. Lenin's archival decree of 1918 encompassed the entire national documentary legacy, which was gradually extended to all types and categories of manuscripts and archival records by successive legislation. The concept of state proprietorship of all documentary records was designated "Single State Archival Fond"(Edinyi Gosudarstvennyi arkhivnyi fond), which was renamed as "Archival Fond of the Russian Federation" after the collapse of the USSR. The independent state administrative agency, that is, "Main Administration of Archival Affairs"(Glavnoe upravlenie arkhivnym delom) was charged with the management of the entire "Single State Archival Fond". While the Soviet Union reorganized its archival systems in the twenties, the archival institutions became under the severe control of the government. For example, M. N. Pokrovskii, the well-known Marxist historian and the political leader, headed the organizational work of archives in the Soviet Union, which resulted in the exclusion of the prerevolutionary specialists from the archival field in the Soviet Union. However, the discussions over the concept of "the Archival Fond" by B. I. Anfilov helped to develop the archival theories in the USSR in the twenties. In conclusion, the Soviet Union, having emphasized the centralization of the archives, developed its archival systems from the early period, which were the basis of the systematic archival institutions in Russia.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.7-27
• /
• 2011

This article is devoted to little-studied play of M.A. Bulgakov "Adam and Eve". By the end of 1920's - the beginning of 1930's soviet society is differentiated again, its construction is rebuilded. In the new condition drama is needed as much as possible. Drama on the stage is ideal model for instruction of "Mass". Thereupon soviet society asked "New Hero", "New play", which can rebuild soviet citizen in the new construction of government. Thereby the play of M.A. Bulgakov "Adam and Eve" is created by order of soviet society. In this play typical soviet people are represented: Adam Krasovsky(engineer), Daragan(pilot-terminator), Ponchik-Nepobeda(writer), Zahar Markizov(proletarian-baker). They are different from each other by their occupation and formation, but they have same consciousness and they think identically. Bulgakov makes stand such problems: impersonality and unfreedom of human being in the government of communism. Bulgakov, using Parody, doubt the possibility of realization of utopia of Soviet government. Bulgakov show to us that Adam Krasocsky is not real Adam-first human being. In the play we can see the real Adam is the scientist-intelligent Efrosimov. Bulgakov change the place of Ponchik with the place of Markizov. The idiot and the fool is recognized not Markisov-drinker, tyrant, but Ponchik-writer. After the disaster Markisov, reading a Bible, is changing and by the end of play he started writing his own novel. Indeed if Ponchik wrote hoked-up novel, Markisov writes a real own history. Request of Leningrad Theater for Bulgakov to write about the future war comes from the spirit of the time. But Bulgakov in this play "Adam and Eve" could insist that the "Life" is a supreme value.

• 기호학연구
• /
• no.57
• /
• pp.27-57
• /
• 2018

This paper aims at (re)investigating the interrelationship between Communism and language in terms of historical experiences of Soviet Union in $20^{th}$ century. Critically reviewing Boris Groy's famous thesis about Soviet communism as the "kingdom of language", in which Soviet system is regarded as the result of "linguistic turn, executed in the dimension of social practice", i.e., as a state of "total linguistification of society", I will examine it in comparison with another very interesting view on the language system of communism(socialism): Alexie Yurchak's controversial thesis on "performative shift" in late socialism. Yurchak's unique view on Soviet socialism as a specific discourse system, thoroughly illuminating peculiar paradox of Soviet discourse system in the period of late socialism, in which performative repetition of authoritative ideological discourses does not prohibit, but rather enable the possibility of creative deviation from or unexpected reappropriation of them, could provide us with profound insights on the problematics around the collapse (the end) of "linguistic imperial" of Soviet Union.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2010

This research examines the concept of 'homo sovieticus' by reviewing the sociological essay novel homo sovieticus written by Zinoviev who was one of the well-known dissident in Soviet Union period, and attempts to have critical understanding of the concept. It is an interesting research topic that current Russia and Russians who get through the historical layers from Soviet to post-Soviet regime at the time current trend that allows to have various academic discussions of post-Soviet. It is required to examine the past of Russia and Russian to make precise estimation of their current and future. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine the term of 'homo sovieticus' which is conventionally accepted. This research aims at broad comprehension of homo-sovieticus by focusing on the Zinoviev's own understanding instead of the habitual use of the term which only contains ideological and political intention.

• Journal of Korean Society of Archives and Records Management
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.95-111
• /
• 2007

The goal of this paper is to review the process of formation of the Early Soviet Archival System with a focus on the incarnation of the Tsar Russian System and Theories. Most of the western researchers take the uniqueness of the Soviet Archival System for granted and regard it as a Soviet Invention. However in this paper, researcher tries to find the archaic form of the Soviet system in the Kalachov's archival theories in the late 19th century. In the main body of this paper, researcher tries to reveal the whole feature of the Kalachov's theories, then, compares them with the Soviet System including 'Glavarkhiv.'

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.51 no.3
• /
• pp.37-53
• /
• 2023

This study aimed to analyze the commemoration characteristics of the national war memorials made by the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(the Soviet Union), and Germany that participated in World War II(WW II). The results of the study are summarized as follows. First, the creation of the WW II memorials of the United States, the Soviet Union, and Germany aimed to commemorate the dead and victims. By country, the United States promoted unity and victory with representing the just and great cause for freedom, and the communist Soviet Union emphasized the Great Patriotic War that defeated fascist Nazi Germany. On the other hand, Germany, which had difficulty in national commemoration, cherish the victims of the war and aimed for peace. Second, WW II memorials were located in places of national significance such as national representative places and battlefields, and in Germany they were built in church cemeteries and public cemeteries. In addition, it showed concise and moderate aesthetic characteristics with a symmetrical and formal form centered on the axis of space in memorials. Third, the United States and the Soviet Union commonly visualized the appearance of war on the memorial wall. By country, the United States engraved sacrifice and dedication for freedom, and differently the Soviet Union and East Germany engraved messages promoting communist ideology as memorial texts. As for landscape details and sculpture, the United States emphasized national unity through eagles symbolizing the country and a colonnade representing each state and territory, and the Soviet Union set up a communist-style soldier sculpture. The United States and the Soviet Union, both countries used sculptures and laurels that symbolize victory, but in Germany, the statues of a fallen soldiers were installed in the memorial. Politically, the United States commemorated the victory of the war and also promoted unity, and the Soviet Union emphasized the Great Patriotic War and promoted communism. As the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Germans believed in Christianity universally, Christian symbols such as the crucifixion, the church, and the statue of Evita were often used. Further study will be required to establish national identity at memorials and advanced commemorative culture in Korea.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.297-329
• /
• 2015

Since 1989 about one million Jews from Former Soviet Union have immigrated to Israel. Now Russian speaking Jews are the second largest ethnic groups after the Israeli Jews who were born in Israel. Although FSU Jews have returned to their ethnic homeland, they continue to live as 'foreigners' due to a cultural distance between sending and receiving society, such as, lack of knowledge about Jewish tradition and religious practice and low level of Hebrew proficiency. Because of this reason FSU immigrants tend to continue remain strong ties with Russian language and culture. There are several reasons for such a relatively slow process of language shift of FSU Jewish immigrants, the language shift to Hebrew. Firstly, majority of FSU immigrants moved to Israel since the 1990s are older than 45. Secondly, their first residences in Israel are mostly located in small and mid-sized cities, where the proportion of Russian speaking immigrants is more than 30%. And finally they consider Russian culture is 'superior' to Israel's Levantine culture. For many Jewish diasporic communities, Judaism was a dominant factor for self-consciousness, but because of Soviet regime, aimed to break all the religious institution including Jewish, Soviet Jewry was uprooted from their religious traditions. Besides about 30% of FSU immigrants are not defined as Jews by the Jewish religious law(Halakhah). And many of them are reluctant to convert to Judaism. FSU Jewish immigrant agree that Israel must be a Jewish state, but for them 'Jewish' does not include religious elements. FSU immigrants consider that religious affiliation of citizens of Israel should not affect their civic rights.

• Cross-Cultural Studies
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.281-296
• /
• 2017

Andrei Amalrik's plays are a unique phenomenon in the 70 years' history of Soviet drama. Half a century after the Soviet theater had intentionally forgotten its own achievements of avant-garde dramaturgy in the early 20th century, his bizarre plays suddenly emerged in the Soviet theater environment, completely separated from contemporary Western practices of the experimental theater. Surprisingly even now, Amalrik's plays have almost been forgotten not only in Russia but also by foreign Russian literary scholars. Amalrik's autobiographical essay is his only book published in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet regime. There is no collection of his works, and reevaluation of his work is not found even in Russia. However, Amalrik is a writer who should get a proper evaluation. The purpose behind studying his plays is to restore the tradition of Russian grotesque-absurd dramaturgy, which has been inherited from Gogol, Khlevnikov, Mayakovsky, and Oberiu. In this paper, we will analyze the mechanism of composition in Amalrik's plays.

• Journal of International Area Studies (JIAS)
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.47-72
• /
• 2009

Since the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia has been aggressively seeking a role and place in the U.S.-led international order. Russia conditionally cooperated with the U.S. global policy, efforts to protect and expand the national interests in Post-soviet region. In this context, Post-soviet space is the arena of the struggle among the world powers. Especially in Ukraine as the Axis power of Post-soviet space, hegemony conflicts so called 'New Cold War' between Russia and western powers including U.S. have appeared. This paper examines what are Russian military security strategy and policy, how these come to fruition in Ukraine, what are important factors of complications and its aspect.