Symbolic approach to the analysis of the formation of Eurasian identity
https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-2-106-117
Abstract
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.
About the Author
Y. P. Ten
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ten Yulia Pavlovna – DSc (Philos.), Professor of the Department of Management and Innovations, assoc. professor.
125993, Moscow, Leningradsky ave, 49.
References
1. 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.
2. Dzarasov R.S. (2017). Russian neo-revisionist strategy and the Eurasian project. Cambridge journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 1. P. 1-16.
3. 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.).
4. 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.).
5. Foret F. (2009). Symbolic dimensions of EU legitimization. Media, culture and society. No. 31(2). P. 9-14.
6. Fornäs J. (2012). Signifying Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
7. Golam M., Monowar M. (2018). Eurasian Economic Union: evolution, challenges and possible future directions. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P.163-172.
8. 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.
9. Karaganov S. (2018). The new Cold War and the emerging Greater Eurasia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 85-93.
10. 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.
11. Knobel A. (2017). The Eurasian Economic Union: Development Prospects and Possible Obstacles. Problems of Economic Transition. Vol. 90. P. 335-360.
12. Kolstø P. (2016). Strategies of Symbolic Nation-building in South Eastern Europe. Routledge.
13. Laffan B. (1996). The politics of identity and political order in Europe. Journal of common market studies. Vol. 34. No. 1. P. 81-102.
14. 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.
15. Lukin A. (2016). Russia’s Pivot to Asia: Myth or Reality? Strategic Analysis. Vol. 40, issue 6. P. 573–589.
16. Lukin A., Yakunin V. (2018). Eurasian integration and the development of Asiatic Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. No. 9. P. 100-113.
17. Malinova O.Y. (2015). Current Past: The Symbolic Politics of the Power Elite and the Dilemmas of Russian Identity. Moscow: Political encyclopedia (In Rus.).
18. Manners I.J. (2011). Symbolism in European Integration. Comparative European Politics. No. 9(3). P. 243-268.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Spengler O. (1991). The decline of the West. Oxford: Oxford university press.
24. 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.).
25. 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.).
26. Theiler T. (2005). Political symbolism and European integration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
27. Trenin D. (2006). Integration and Identity: Russia as a “New West”. M.: Europe (In Rus.).
Review
For citations:
Ten Y.P. Symbolic approach to the analysis of the formation of Eurasian identity. Communicology. 2022;10(2):106-117. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2022-10-2-106-117
Views:
288
Email this article 
