RELATIONS BETWEEN LEADERS, DIASPORAS AND OTHER COMMUNITIES: NEO-PERSONALISTIC FACTOR AS AN UNDERLYING CAUSE OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTACTS BETWEEN RUSSIA AND EUROPE.
Andrey V.Dakhin, Nizhny Novgorod Academy for Public Service
[1]
Two theoretical perspectives have formed the basis of this part of research. The first is Poul Ricoeur’s idea of the different social meaning attached to “long” and “short” relationships between people. “Long” relationships are, in a way, “technological”, and exclude personal involvement; opposite to them, “short” relationships presuppose strong personal involvement, and that is why appear to be of an “atechnological” nature.
The second argument is the concept of collective socio-historical memory within the bounds of which the “long” and “short” relationships are considered as different structures of commemoration that support various models of inheritance of socially important elements of common experience and historical legacy.
Moreover, I will proceed from the fact that relationships between Europe and Russia established in the post-war Europe were built on the “long” relationships basis, i.e. were grounded in what could be called institutional sterility: both parts understood the relationships between officials as the relationships between state institutions. Bilateral contacts fundamentally excluded personal involvement, and “short” relationships were considered as a sort of “treason”. A certain exception constituted the illegal activities of the institutions on the territory of a potential foe.
At the same time it is significant that the XIX century was a bearer of a different culture of international relations between Russia and Europe. A complicated balance between “short” and “long” relationships was typical for this type of culture. Dynastic relations between Russian tsars’ and Europe royal families were a fundamental source of “short” relationships, a source that provided
the interaction between corresponding institutions within the “Russia - Europe” framework. This culture of international communication was destroyed after the events of October 1917.
In 1991, after the end of the Cold War, a new page in the communication between Russia and Europe was opened. The return of “short” relationships as an underlying factor of Russian foreign policy conduct has become a differential sign of the system. Boris Yeltsin rediscovered a new format of official relationships, called “meetings on the highest level without ties”. This “invention” has become a novelty, first of all, for Russia.
Yeltsin has created a precedent of “personal friendship” with the heads of other countries (in particular, with the German Chancellor). During the USSR period the same precedent was created between Mikhail Gorbachev and Margaret Thatcher). The relationships between Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schroeder can be a new example of “personal friendship”. Thus, the institutional relationships between Russia and Europe have entered the XXI century with the dynamically developing “short” relationships between the officials as their underlying factor. The negative part of this dynamics is a number of corruptive links involving Russian and European officials. The research of these processes should include the analysis of the structure, organization and socio-political functions of meetings “without ties”, as well as the analysis of corruption scandals and “silent” cases, connected with the Russian - European relations.
We call the return of the “short” relationships to the institutional relationships between Russia and Europe a
neo-personalistic factor, since their structure presupposes much higher involvement of Russian state officials than it was during the XX century
[2]. On the one hand, the changes at the theoretical level are evident: there is a transition from the “cold war” theory to the “Russian integration to Europe” theory, with the rethinking of the principles of relationships between the officials. The most problematic sphere is connected with the public transparency of the meeting “without ties” and the limits of public control of this system of relations. The main attention is paid to the format of these relationships, called “tete-a-tete meeting”. Not less theoretically important is the question of opportunities of normative regulations, somehow formalizing the “short” relationships.
On the other hand, the practice of international relations generate different typical models of “without ties” behavior. There are two main types among them: “legitimate” (positive) and “shady” (negative). Each type includes different varieties that have to become subjects of description and reflection. The following statement about Russian cultural features has become up to date: “in private relations we can notice a curious willingness of the Russians to neglect all institutional fences separating one person from another; sometimes quite frank personal irresponsibility appears as a weak point of this mental trait” (7).
The comeback of “short” relationships to the institutional relationships between Russia and Europe entails one more theme – that one related to the continuity in foreign policy mechanisms; in particular, the question relates to how the structures of social-history memory could be altered, as applicable to the countries participating in the construction of new relationships between Russia and Europe. The European research of the commemoration practices reflects in general the public perceptions of historical knowledge (Maurice Halbwachs, Pierre Nora, Yael Zarubavel, Patric H. Hutton and others). In this context of utmost importance is the understanding of mechanisms of inheriting the experiences and background practices. Partly these aspects – as related to ethnic self-organization - were reflected in a series of articles (1, 2, and 3). It is necessary to summarize the methodological potential of this research and implement it in the analysis of the structures of socio – historical memory that shape relationships between Russian and European officials. The key concept of this sphere is Francis A. Yates’s reconceptualized term “the locus of memory” that has to be partly rethought because an official person ought to be understood and conceived as this “locus of memory”. The hypothesis is that a structural unit of socio-historical commemoration in the “short” relationships sphere is a person (an individual) with all his/her features of personal relations and connections. Within the framework of “long relations”, this is normative (standardized) order of the corresponding social institution that is a “locus of memory”, and the commemoration structure is set by statutory acts, legislative and law enforcement institutions.
Relations involving Diasporas and communities residing in the territories of the countries constitutive of the Russia - Europe dialog, have changed too, and the main hypothesis here is that these changes are related, first of all, to the nature of “short” relationships and, correspondingly, to the changing balance between “long” and “short” relationships. During the USSR period the relations between Russians and their relatives or acquaintances who lived in Europe were unwelcome or under suspicion. Only institutional contacts, opened for state supervision, were allowed. Emigration considered as “treason” or “punishment”.
Three parallel processes have started since 1991: the new opportunities for personal communication between Russians and Europeans; the new possibilities for emigration (new wave of emigrants); and the intensification of personal relations between Russians and Europeans. At the same time, institutional relationships between countries have been also changed, because Diasporas have become, partly, their participants. Thus, Germany has started a program to facilitate the return of ethnic Germans from Russia, and a program of supporting the German communities in Russia (the Volga Region Germans).
The other side of these issues is that different segments within the “New Europe” stimulate new vectors of political activities and new precedents in the relationships with Russia. An example might be found in the activity of the Latvian veterans fought for fascist Germany and nowadays influencing the standpoint of the Latvian government. This simultaneously provokes the sharpening of the situation around the Russian Diaspora that supports the veterans fought on the USSR side. In general the situation is challenging for Russia, since this country is a home to veterans (or their graves) fought on the German side too. That is why the broadening of the veteran’s SS activities from the Baltic States to Russia can become a negative factor in the Russian – European relationships.
The analysis of these processes and tendencies is assumed to be analyzed from the stand point of socio-historical memory, the subjects of which are Diasporas, ethno-national communities and entities. The problem that needs a special attention is the problem of “counter-memory” (to be grounded in the texts of Michel Foucault, Yael Zarubavel and some other thinkers).
References
1. Дахин А.В. Понятие гуманитарной безопасности в контексте проблемы этнокультурного разнообразия // Глобализация и проблемы национальной безопасности России в XXI веке: региональные аспекты. Материалы седьмых Вавиловских чтений. Йошкар-Ола: МарГТУ. 2003. С.113-119.
2. Дахин А.В. Соотношение этнической и национальной идентичности: Россия, Южная Корея, Канада // Философские науки. № 9. 2003. С.5-23;
3. Дахин А.В. Политическая философия: возможности развития в контексте синергетической метафоры «порядок и хаос» // Социальная синергетика: предмет, актуальные проблемы, поиски, решения. Йошкар-Ола: МарГТУ. 2003. С.208-218.
4. Зерубавель Я. (Yael Zarubavel). Динамика коллективной памяти // Ab Imperio. №.3. 2004.
5. Йейтс Ф. Искусство памяти. СПб.: Университетская книга. 1997.
6. Рикёр П. История и истина. СПб.: Алетейя. 2002.
7. Сепир Э. Избранные труды по языкознанию и культурологии. М.: Прогресс. Универс. 1993. С.472.
8. Хаттон П (Patric H. Hutton). История как искусство памяти. СПб.: Владимир Даль. 2003.
9. Genieys William. The Sociology of Political Elites in France: The End of an Exception? // International Political Science Review. Oct. 2005. Vol. 26. No.4. Pp. 413-430.
10. Halbwachs Maurice. The Collective Memory / Translated by F. J. and V. Y. Ditter. New York. 1980.
11. Nora Pierre. Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire // Representations. 1989. Vol. 26.
(1) - Author wishes to thank Yulia Ovchinnikova and Andrey Makarychev for helping with translation of this paper from Russian into English.
>>>
(2) - It is worthwhile noting that a set of new theoretical approaches is being developing by the European experts in policy elites (9).
>>>
© INTAS
Project
2006
(Up) Наверх
