communicologyКоммуникологияCommunicology2311-30652311-3332МАК10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-2-106-117communicology-274Research ArticleСОЦИАЛЬНАЯ СТРУКТУРА, СОЦИАЛЬНЫЕ ИНСТИТУТЫ И ПРОЦЕССЫSOCIAL STRUCTURE, SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSESСимволический подход к анализу формирования евразийской идентичностиSymbolic approach to the analysis of the formation of Eurasian identityТенЮ. П.TenY. P.

Тен Юлия Павловна – доктор философских наук, профессор департамента менеджмента и инноваций, доцент.

125993, г. Москва, Ленинградский пр-т, 49. 

Ten Yulia Pavlovna – DSc (Philos.), Professor of the Department of Management and Innovations, assoc. professor.

125993, Moscow, Leningradsky ave, 49.

YPTen@fa.ruФинансовый университет при правительстве Российской ФедерацииРоссияFinancial University under the Government of the Russian FederationRussian Federation202230062022102106117Copyright © Тен Ю.П., 20222022Тен Ю.П.Ten Y.P.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.communicology.ru/jour/article/view/274

Автор предлагает символический подход к пониманию природы конструирования евразийской идентичности в рамках формирования Евразийского экономического союза. Цель исследования – дать философский анализ формирования символической модели евразийской идентичности. Автор использует диалектический, феноменологический и системный подходы. Ключевая идея состоит в предположении, что символы можно рассматривать как социальную технологию создания идентичности. В статье утверждается, что символическая модель Евразийского экономического союза формируется по логике интеграции / дезинтеграции связи / разъединения с советской символической системой. В рамках ЕАЭС логика интеграции и соединения основана на попытке возродить значения символов из общей прошлой истории, которые могут стать основой для формирования символической модели евразийской идентичности. Автор приходит к выводу, что символы можно рассматривать как творческую технологию формирования евразийской символической системы, доступ к социо-культурным кодам которой поможет участникам интеграционного процесса минимизировать барьеры, препятствующие наиболее эффективному взаимопониманию. Основные выводы исследования могут лечь в основу практических рекомендаций в сфере культурной политики ЕАЭС.

The author provides a symbolic approach to understanding the nature of the construction of the Eurasian identity within the framework of the formation of the Eurasian Economic Union. The purpose of the study is to give a philosophical analysis of the formation of a symbolic model of the Eurasian identity. The author uses dialectical, phenomenological and systemic approaches. The key idea is that symbols can be seen as a social technology for creating an identity. The author states that the symbolic model of the Eurasian Economic Union is formed according to the logic of integration – disintegration of connection – separation from the Soviet symbolic system. Within the framework of the EAEU, the logic of integration and connection is based on an attempt to revive the meanings of symbols from a common past history, which can become the basis for the formation of a symbolic model of Eurasian identity. The author comes to the conclusion that symbols can be considered as a creative technology for the formation of the Eurasian symbolic system, access to the socio-cultural codes of which will help the participants in the integration process to minimize the barriers that prevent the most effective mutual understanding. The main conclusions of the study can form the basis of practical recommendations in the field of the cultural policy of the EAEU.

символЕАЭСевразийская идентичностьевразийская символическая модельsymbolEAEUEurasian identityEurasian symbolic modelReferencesЕвгеньева Т.В., Селезнева А.В. (2016). Советское прошлое в ценностном и образносимволическом пространстве российской идентичности // Полис. Политические исследования. № 3. С. 25-39.Atanov N.I. (2018). Russian–Eurasian Transit in the Economic Zone of the Great Silk Road. Problems of Economic Transition. No. 60 (1-3). P. 210-219.Евразийский экономический союз: власть, политика и торговля. Доклад № 240 Европа и Центральной Азия, 20 июля 2016 г. [эл. ресурс]: https://www.refworld.org.ru/pdfid/57e52a104.pdf.Dzarasov R.S. (2017). Russian neo-revisionist strategy and the Eurasian project. Cambridge journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 1. P. 1-16.Малинова О.Ю. (2015). Актуальное прошлое: cимволическая политика властвующей элиты и дилеммы российской идентичности. М.: Политическая энциклопедия.Eurasian Economic Union: power, politics and trade. Report 240 Europe and Central Asia, 20 July 2016 [el. source]: https://www.refworld.org.ru/pdfid/57e52a104.pdf (In Rus.).Свасьян К.А. (1980). Проблема символа в современной философии (Критика и анализ). Ереван: Изд-во АН АрмССР.Evgenyeva T.V., Selezneva A.V. (2016). The Soviet past in the value and figurative-symbolic space of Russian identity. Polis. Political studies. No. 3. P. 25-39 (In Rus.).Символика и образы в евразийской истории и идеологии // Центр Льва Гумилева [эл. ресурс]: https://www.gumilev-center.ru/simvolika-i-obrazy-v-evrazijjskojj-istorii-i-ideologii/.Foret F. (2009). Symbolic dimensions of EU legitimization. Media, culture and society. No. 31(2). P. 9-14.Тренин Д. (2006). Интеграция и идентичность: Россия как «новый Запад». М.: Европа.Fornäs J. (2012). Signifying Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Atanov N.I. (2018). Russian–Eurasian Transit in the Economic Zone of the Great Silk Road. Problems of Economic Transition. No. 60 (1-3). P. 210-219.Golam M., Monowar M. (2018). Eurasian Economic Union: evolution, challenges and possible future directions. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P.163-172.Dzarasov R.S. (2017). Russian neo-revisionist strategy and the Eurasian project. Cambridge journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 1. P. 1-16.Gordienko D. (2019). The Strategy of the Silk Road Economic Belt and Ensuring Russia’s Economic Security. Problems of economic transition. Vol. 61. P. 354-376.Foret F. (2009). Symbolic dimensions of EU legitimization. Media, culture and society. No. 31(2). P. 9-14.Karaganov S. (2018). The new Cold War and the emerging Greater Eurasia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 85-93.Fornäs J. (2012). Signifying Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Kirkham K. (2016). The formation of the Eurasian Economic Union: how successful is the Russian regional hegemony? Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 7. P. 111-128.Golam M., Monowar M. (2018). Eurasian Economic Union: evolution, challenges and possible future directions. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P.163-172.Knobel A. (2017). The Eurasian Economic Union: Development Prospects and Possible Obstacles. Problems of Economic Transition. Vol. 90. P. 335-360.Gordienko D. (2019). The Strategy of the Silk Road Economic Belt and Ensuring Russia’s Economic Security. Problems of economic transition. Vol. 61. P. 354-376.Kolstø P. (2016). Strategies of Symbolic Nation-building in South Eastern Europe. Routledge.Karaganov S. (2018). The new Cold War and the emerging Greater Eurasia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 85-93.Laffan B. (1996). The politics of identity and political order in Europe. Journal of common market studies. Vol. 34. No. 1. P. 81-102.Kirkham K. (2016). The formation of the Eurasian Economic Union: how successful is the Russian regional hegemony? Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 7. P. 111-128.Li Y. (2018). The greater Eurasian partnership and the Belt and Road initiative: can the two be linked? Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 94-99.Knobel A. (2017). The Eurasian Economic Union: Development Prospects and Possible Obstacles. Problems of Economic Transition. Vol. 90. P. 335-360.Lukin A. (2016). Russia’s Pivot to Asia: Myth or Reality? Strategic Analysis. Vol. 40, issue 6. P. 573–589.Kolstø P. (2016). Strategies of Symbolic Nation-building in South Eastern Europe. Routledge.Lukin A., Yakunin V. (2018). Eurasian integration and the development of Asiatic Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 100-113.Laffan B. (1996). The politics of identity and political order in Europe. Journal of common market studies. Vol. 34. No. 1. P. 81-102.Malinova O.Y. (2015). Current Past: The Symbolic Politics of the Power Elite and the Dilemmas of Russian Identity. Moscow: Political encyclopedia (In Rus.).Li Y. (2018). The greater Eurasian partnership and the Belt and Road initiative: can the two be linked? Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 94-99.Manners I.J. (2011). Symbolism in European Integration. Comparative European Politics. No. 9(3). P. 243-268.Lukin A. (2016). Russia’s Pivot to Asia: Myth or Reality? Strategic Analysis. Vol. 40, issue 6. P. 573–589.Marquardt K.L. (2017). Identity, social mobility and ethnic mobilization: language and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Comparative Political Studies. No. 51 (7). P. 831-867.Lukin A., Yakunin V. (2018). Eurasian integration and the development of Asiatic Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 100-113.Rotaru V. (2018). The Eurasian Economic Union – a sustainable alternative for the former soviet space? Journal of Contemporary European Studies. Vol. 26 (4). P. 425-442.Manners I.J. (2011). Symbolism in European Integration. Comparative European Politics. No. 9(3). P. 243-268.Russia celebrates Victory Day // VCIOM data of a survey about Victory Day celebration, 2021 [el. source]: https://wciom.com/press-release/russia-celebrates-victory-day.Marquardt K.L. (2017). Identity, social mobility and ethnic mobilization: language and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Comparative Political Studies. No. 51 (7). P. 831-867.Sergi B.S. (2018). Putin’s and Russian-led European Union: a hybrid half-economics and halfpoltical “Janus Biifrons”. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 52-60.Rotaru V. (2018). The Eurasian Economic Union – a sustainable alternative for the former soviet space? Journal of Contemporary European Studies. Vol. 26 (4). P. 425-442.Spengler O. (1991). The decline of the West. Oxford: Oxford university press.Russia celebrates Victory Day // VCIOM data of a survey about Victory Day celebration, 2021 [эл. ресурс]: https://wciom.com/press-release/russia-celebrates-victory-day.Svasyan K.A. (1980). The Problem of the Symbol in Modern Philosophy (Criticism and Analysis). Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the ArmSSR (In Rus.).Sergi B.S. (2018). Putin’s and Russian-led European Union: a hybrid half-economics and halfpoltical “Janus Biifrons”. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 52-60.Symbolism and Images in Eurasian History and Ideology. By Lev Gumilyov Center [el. source]: https://www.gumilev-center.ru/simvolika-i-obrazy-v-evrazijjskojj-istorii-i-ideologii/ (In Rus.).Spengler O. (1991). The decline of the West. Oxford: Oxford university press.Theiler T. (2005). Political symbolism and European integration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Theiler T. (2005). Political symbolism and European integration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Trenin D. (2006). Integration and Identity: Russia as a “New West”. M.: Europe (In Rus.).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.