📄Работа №126638
Тема: Динамика создания российской идентичности, 2010-2016
Тип работы
Магистерская диссертация
Предмет
международные отношения
Объем:
97 листов
Год:
2017
Просмотров:
55
5700
руб.
🛒 Купить работу
Не подходит эта работа?
Закажите новую по вашим требованиям
Узнать цену на написание
Закажите новую по вашим требованиям
Представленный материал является образцом учебного исследования, примером структуры и содержания учебного исследования по заявленной теме. Размещён исключительно в информационных и ознакомительных целях.
Workspay.ru оказывает информационные услуги по сбору, обработке и структурированию материалов в соответствии с требованиями заказчика.
Размещение материала не означает публикацию произведения впервые и не предполагает передачу исключительных авторских прав третьим лицам.
Материал не предназначен для дословной сдачи в образовательные организации и требует самостоятельной переработки с соблюдением законодательства Российской Федерации об авторском праве и принципов академической добросовестности.
Авторские права на исходные материалы принадлежат их законным правообладателям. В случае возникновения вопросов, связанных с размещённым материалом, просим направить обращение через форму обратной связи.
Настоящий учебно-методический информационный материал размещён в ознакомительных и исследовательских целях и представляет собой пример учебного исследования. Не является готовым научным трудом и требует самостоятельной переработки.
📋 Содержание
Introduction 7
Chapter 1: Theoretical Analysis 11
1.1 Identity in Global Politics 12
1.1.1 Role of Identity in Constructivism as International Relations Theory 13
1.1.2 Criticism of Constructivist’s Identity 17
1.2 Primordialism as Social Theory and Identity 18
1.3. Russian Identity Discourse - Common Ground 20
1.3.1 Literature Review on Russian Identity - Politically Divided Concepts 21
Chapter 2. Evolution of Russian Identity - Historical approach 32
2.1. Historical Perspective on Russian Identity 32
2.1.1 Slavophiles 33
2.1.2 Westernizers 34
2.1.3 Eurasianism 35
2.1.4 Identity Discourse during Soviet Period 37
2.1.5 Post-Soviet Identity Formation 38
Chapter 3: Construction of Russian Identity during Presidential Term of Dmitry
Medvedev 2010-2012 43
3.1 Russkiy Mir, South Ossetia and Abkhazia Conflict in 2008 as a Background for Russian
Identity Construction 43
3.1.1 Russkiy Mir 44
3.1.2 Abkhazia and South Ossetia Conflict 2008 44
3.2 Russian Identity Construction in 2010-2012 47
3.2.1 Religious Component of Russian Identity 48
3.2.2 Role of Great Patriotic War in Russian Identity 49
3.2.3 Eurasian Conception of Russian Identity 50
3.2.4 Compatriots Living Abroad 51
3.2.5 Nationalism, ethnicity and Russian Identity Construction 53
Chapter 4: Russian Identity Construction During Presidential Term of Vladimir Putin 2012-2016 59
4.1 Strengthening of National Consciousness 60
4.1.1 Patriotism and Identity 60
4.1.2 Nationalism 62
4.2 The Ukraine Crisis and Russian Identity Interaction 65
4.2.1 Crimean Crisis 66
4.2.2 Crimea as a Part of Russian Identity 68
4.2.3 Unrest in South-Eastern Ukraine in Russian Identity Discourse 72
4.3 Sanctions-Russian Identity as a Source of Conflict with the West 76
4.4. Recent Developments in Russian Identity 79
4.4.1 Strengthening of Interethnic Unity 79
4.4.2 Russian Identity and Foreign Policy 82
CONCLUSION 85
BIBLIOGRAPHY 89
Chapter 1: Theoretical Analysis 11
1.1 Identity in Global Politics 12
1.1.1 Role of Identity in Constructivism as International Relations Theory 13
1.1.2 Criticism of Constructivist’s Identity 17
1.2 Primordialism as Social Theory and Identity 18
1.3. Russian Identity Discourse - Common Ground 20
1.3.1 Literature Review on Russian Identity - Politically Divided Concepts 21
Chapter 2. Evolution of Russian Identity - Historical approach 32
2.1. Historical Perspective on Russian Identity 32
2.1.1 Slavophiles 33
2.1.2 Westernizers 34
2.1.3 Eurasianism 35
2.1.4 Identity Discourse during Soviet Period 37
2.1.5 Post-Soviet Identity Formation 38
Chapter 3: Construction of Russian Identity during Presidential Term of Dmitry
Medvedev 2010-2012 43
3.1 Russkiy Mir, South Ossetia and Abkhazia Conflict in 2008 as a Background for Russian
Identity Construction 43
3.1.1 Russkiy Mir 44
3.1.2 Abkhazia and South Ossetia Conflict 2008 44
3.2 Russian Identity Construction in 2010-2012 47
3.2.1 Religious Component of Russian Identity 48
3.2.2 Role of Great Patriotic War in Russian Identity 49
3.2.3 Eurasian Conception of Russian Identity 50
3.2.4 Compatriots Living Abroad 51
3.2.5 Nationalism, ethnicity and Russian Identity Construction 53
Chapter 4: Russian Identity Construction During Presidential Term of Vladimir Putin 2012-2016 59
4.1 Strengthening of National Consciousness 60
4.1.1 Patriotism and Identity 60
4.1.2 Nationalism 62
4.2 The Ukraine Crisis and Russian Identity Interaction 65
4.2.1 Crimean Crisis 66
4.2.2 Crimea as a Part of Russian Identity 68
4.2.3 Unrest in South-Eastern Ukraine in Russian Identity Discourse 72
4.3 Sanctions-Russian Identity as a Source of Conflict with the West 76
4.4. Recent Developments in Russian Identity 79
4.4.1 Strengthening of Interethnic Unity 79
4.4.2 Russian Identity and Foreign Policy 82
CONCLUSION 85
BIBLIOGRAPHY 89
📖 Введение
As every political decision is social phenomenon, it cannot be understood properly without making the research of the context in which it was created, that is society, social groups as well social actors which are creating their actions with reference to which they are identifying with. Simply said, social subjects are having firstly identity towards which they are further legitimizing their action while the examination of actor’s identity is beneficial for understanding the environment in which it was created and also to understand actor’s actions as well motives behind them. As every identity is specific in its elements or components which are creating it, each identity requires different approach to be analyzed and also different approach for the further interaction that is intended to have specific outcomes. For instance, one group simply cannot dishonor the specific values that are creating the identity of another group without expecting adequate response from group which feels itself dishonored. It doesn’t matter if that action was conscious or unconscious, response should be expected but what is more important, study of that group’s identity which is one making reference to can prevent unpredictable calculations.
Purrpose of this thesis is to prove that identity is important element in IR and to estimate this issue and recent developments specifically in Russian identity context. By analyzing of Russian identity construction in 2010-2016 thesis is applying to prove that study of actor’s identity is important in order to understand his actions (foreign, domestic policy) as well motives behind them. Furthermore, analysis of actor’s identity helps to predict possible outcomes in meaning of costs or benefits from particular action or strategy with respect to him and also with respect to objects which are forming his identity. Nevertheless study of actor’s identity is beneficial also in calculations of possible trends and prospects in his domestic and foreign policy as well in his further interactions with international environment. Study of identity supports the development of explanatory understanding mainly in historical but also in sociological means, that is - what are or what were the reasons of behavior of certain state.
Discourse on Russian identity over the last years is rather intensive, but not sufficient in analyzing and achieving of widely common opinion. Scholars are divided in different characteristics of elements that are influential in defining of Russian identity and also divided in perspectives that they are applying on the research and sources influential for the status of Russian identity. However, there is widely accepted opinion that there are attempts to create new Russian identity, but its concept and exact characteristics are not certain or not widely accepted.
One of the fundamental reasons for this problem lies also in fact that researches on Russian identity are in many cases performed out of official discourse on Russian identity and are arranged in the sort of “cogitations” that fits author’s various preferences like ideological, political or limitations and boundaries of identity theory. For instance, this means that several studies are oriented on Russian identity, but after all they are not applying research method from theories that are treating identity as important in international relations and also that which are having specific studies and concepts on identity and its role in global politics.
Assuming the incoherence on the Russian identity discourse means also similar inconsistency in its role in foreign policy, or better say assumptions that Russian identity is weak for consistent foreign policy. Another problem in analyses of Russian identity, particularly in its role in foreign policy is the media’s framing of subjective opinion of any civic representative or random citizen in foreign policy and identity issues, what is further misused for the purposes of analysis of identity or foreign policy what is after all not very independent. Same is applicable in the researches on Russian identity provided with focus on another context of Russian policy from which is further analyzed assumption on Russian identity issues, while such studies lacks comprehensive identity context.
Similar are studies undertaken mainly by politically motivated opposition with aim to discredit government in another issue while at the end it refers also to identity because only few things are indicating on it. Such views then having “snowball” effect and are starting to play “role” in topic. Likewise issues could be identified in many other topics of social sciences. What was intended to analyze and explain is that topic of identity is view that construction of actor’s identity cannot be transparently analyzed by having predisposition that there is one or whatever number of generally applicable concepts of identity or whatever number of the “right” identities. Identity is specific set of elements that are “generated” by and for specific community, while each has its particular elements, components.
Aim
For the purpose of examining or challenging the context mentioned above, thesis is applying research question - Is Russian Identity Strong Enough for Consistent Foreign Policy?, and also, thesis is forming complementary question - How is the Conflict Between the Russia and the West Perceived Through the Dynamic of Russian Identity Construction.
Aim of this thesis is to analyze the official activity of different social but mainly political actors in the process of construction of Russian identity in the researched period of 2010 until 2016. Such construction in the time period is beneficial for evaluating possible progress or regress in the set of researched issue; as well it helps to consider whether researched object which is Russian identity is formed due to accidental circumstances, or it is planed consistent form of strategy. Nevertheless, time horizon is also useful in comparison of two different administrations of the researched country - presidential terms of Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. Mentioned approach is crucial in order to reach the answers on formulated questions, while thesis will prove the level of consistency and influence of Russian identity construction into foreign policy of Russia and also will analyze what role is dynamic of Russian identity construction playing in the conflict between the Russia and the West.
West is in this research understood as the group of countries with the liberal democracy as the official political ideology. Additionally, West is represented by the NATO and EU members.
International environment is meant as a set of various active objects that are creating international relations, as states, organizations, communities, representatives.
Purrpose of this thesis is to prove that identity is important element in IR and to estimate this issue and recent developments specifically in Russian identity context. By analyzing of Russian identity construction in 2010-2016 thesis is applying to prove that study of actor’s identity is important in order to understand his actions (foreign, domestic policy) as well motives behind them. Furthermore, analysis of actor’s identity helps to predict possible outcomes in meaning of costs or benefits from particular action or strategy with respect to him and also with respect to objects which are forming his identity. Nevertheless study of actor’s identity is beneficial also in calculations of possible trends and prospects in his domestic and foreign policy as well in his further interactions with international environment. Study of identity supports the development of explanatory understanding mainly in historical but also in sociological means, that is - what are or what were the reasons of behavior of certain state.
Discourse on Russian identity over the last years is rather intensive, but not sufficient in analyzing and achieving of widely common opinion. Scholars are divided in different characteristics of elements that are influential in defining of Russian identity and also divided in perspectives that they are applying on the research and sources influential for the status of Russian identity. However, there is widely accepted opinion that there are attempts to create new Russian identity, but its concept and exact characteristics are not certain or not widely accepted.
One of the fundamental reasons for this problem lies also in fact that researches on Russian identity are in many cases performed out of official discourse on Russian identity and are arranged in the sort of “cogitations” that fits author’s various preferences like ideological, political or limitations and boundaries of identity theory. For instance, this means that several studies are oriented on Russian identity, but after all they are not applying research method from theories that are treating identity as important in international relations and also that which are having specific studies and concepts on identity and its role in global politics.
Assuming the incoherence on the Russian identity discourse means also similar inconsistency in its role in foreign policy, or better say assumptions that Russian identity is weak for consistent foreign policy. Another problem in analyses of Russian identity, particularly in its role in foreign policy is the media’s framing of subjective opinion of any civic representative or random citizen in foreign policy and identity issues, what is further misused for the purposes of analysis of identity or foreign policy what is after all not very independent. Same is applicable in the researches on Russian identity provided with focus on another context of Russian policy from which is further analyzed assumption on Russian identity issues, while such studies lacks comprehensive identity context.
Similar are studies undertaken mainly by politically motivated opposition with aim to discredit government in another issue while at the end it refers also to identity because only few things are indicating on it. Such views then having “snowball” effect and are starting to play “role” in topic. Likewise issues could be identified in many other topics of social sciences. What was intended to analyze and explain is that topic of identity is view that construction of actor’s identity cannot be transparently analyzed by having predisposition that there is one or whatever number of generally applicable concepts of identity or whatever number of the “right” identities. Identity is specific set of elements that are “generated” by and for specific community, while each has its particular elements, components.
Aim
For the purpose of examining or challenging the context mentioned above, thesis is applying research question - Is Russian Identity Strong Enough for Consistent Foreign Policy?, and also, thesis is forming complementary question - How is the Conflict Between the Russia and the West Perceived Through the Dynamic of Russian Identity Construction.
Aim of this thesis is to analyze the official activity of different social but mainly political actors in the process of construction of Russian identity in the researched period of 2010 until 2016. Such construction in the time period is beneficial for evaluating possible progress or regress in the set of researched issue; as well it helps to consider whether researched object which is Russian identity is formed due to accidental circumstances, or it is planed consistent form of strategy. Nevertheless, time horizon is also useful in comparison of two different administrations of the researched country - presidential terms of Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. Mentioned approach is crucial in order to reach the answers on formulated questions, while thesis will prove the level of consistency and influence of Russian identity construction into foreign policy of Russia and also will analyze what role is dynamic of Russian identity construction playing in the conflict between the Russia and the West.
West is in this research understood as the group of countries with the liberal democracy as the official political ideology. Additionally, West is represented by the NATO and EU members.
International environment is meant as a set of various active objects that are creating international relations, as states, organizations, communities, representatives.
✅ Заключение
This thesis has analyzed the dynamic of identity construction in the period of 2010-2016. Starting with the theoretical explanations of the term of identity in theories of constructivism and primordialism, research did framework of analyzed object for the purpose of understanding under what characteristics is identity in this paper understood. Intend of choosing constructivist and primordial theories lied in fact to find a “breakthrough” between these theories which contradict each other in basic opinion on identity and further to prove that such “breakthrough” is applicable in practice.
While the constructivism admits that identity is changing due to interactions with the other social actors, primordialism states that identity is fixed, given and undeniable. However analysis has shown that both of these theories are applicable, but regarding to fact of their final statements and contradictions whether identity is changeable or not, this research has proved that “compromise” between these two approaches should be found. This first outcome of thesis was achieved by elaboration of historical perspective on Russian identity which has identified specific elements or components through the evolution of identity in Russia since the 18th century up to the beginning of researched period that is since Medvedev’s presidency and the year 2010 respectively. Historical evolution has pointed out that Russian identity was changing for example with regards to debate between Westernizers and Slavophiles and further on conceptions of Eurasian identity before and during the USSR or liberal western or uncertain one after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At this point, constructivist theory on changing of identity is absolutely correct. However, this historical analysis has identified also few elements that were present in different concepts on Russian identity during different periods of time and these elements are still persistent or better say are influential in Russian identity also in contemporary. Components of Orthodox Church, unique path or historical role of Russia and various elements stemming from it like its historical lands, unifying components of different ethnics and religions or Russia’s history in general were present in conception of Russian identity in history and as it was presented, they are influential in contemporary as well. Assuming this, the primordial opinion on identity that it is fixed or somehow given is also correct. The prove of “breakthrough” between the two theories on identity stipulates the opinion that the academic attention towards the research on identity should continue also in other perspectives that are already elaborated and also that identity discourse in social science, namely in international relations is important what is extended in other findings of this research.
Second finding of this dissertation points on its research question, respectively to its answer whether is Russian identity strong enough for consistent foreign policy (?). The literature review on topic of Russian identity has presented the discourse on this topic among the various authors, with different background and distinctive approach for their findings. However, their different point of views has found at least one common conclusion among the majority of authors, and that is that concept of Russian identity is uncertain and weak. This conclusion of theirs is certainly dependent on assumption towards which and who’s component of international relations or politics they were its conclusion constructing. Nevertheless, literature review has analyzed why Russian identity was at certain period weak, and what led the Russian officials to indulge this topic. Another purpose of such different opinions in literature review was to prove how plenteous discourse on Russian identity is and how differently can be identity examined.
Nonetheless, to challenge the crisis in Russian identity discourse and whether that crisis was (is) still present, and how did Russian administration dealt with this issue appears like a motive for research question-if Russian identity is strong enough for consistent foreign policy. To identify findings on this question this research has analyzed mainly presidential statements, amendments and speeches, as well other governmental documents that were issued or submitted by president Dmitry Medvedev since 2008 in broad discourse on Russian identity, but more specifically since 2010 when he publicly announced that attention on the topic of Russian identity in politics is essential. Since then, Russian administration started to work on (re)construction of identity mainly in symbolical decisions in order to develop the domestic social status and to promote the country’s interests and position towards identity mainly at home. Significant progress or shift in Russian identity construction occurred during third presidential term of Vladimir Putin in 2012. Putin has presented specific policy strategy that was regarded to identity construction and that was not only symbolic but had effect in various domestic policies. His administration did various effective amendments and laws that were influential for construction and promotion of Russian identity not only in domestic terms but also had effect in abroad. Putin’s administration was faced with the foreign policy with regards to situation in Ukraine, where has construction of Russian identity subjected to first international or foreign test. In the beginning and also during continuation of this test, Russian identity is holding same position with reference to the status quo in Ukraine; furthermore framework of policy towards Russia’s identity presented and gradually developed by Putin is influential for Russia’s foreign policy also in recent developments with regards to amendments on Russian citizenship and compatriots. With results of such analysis, it is possible to prove that Russian identity is strong enough for consistent foreign policy, as for the second finding of this dissertation.
While the constructivism admits that identity is changing due to interactions with the other social actors, primordialism states that identity is fixed, given and undeniable. However analysis has shown that both of these theories are applicable, but regarding to fact of their final statements and contradictions whether identity is changeable or not, this research has proved that “compromise” between these two approaches should be found. This first outcome of thesis was achieved by elaboration of historical perspective on Russian identity which has identified specific elements or components through the evolution of identity in Russia since the 18th century up to the beginning of researched period that is since Medvedev’s presidency and the year 2010 respectively. Historical evolution has pointed out that Russian identity was changing for example with regards to debate between Westernizers and Slavophiles and further on conceptions of Eurasian identity before and during the USSR or liberal western or uncertain one after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At this point, constructivist theory on changing of identity is absolutely correct. However, this historical analysis has identified also few elements that were present in different concepts on Russian identity during different periods of time and these elements are still persistent or better say are influential in Russian identity also in contemporary. Components of Orthodox Church, unique path or historical role of Russia and various elements stemming from it like its historical lands, unifying components of different ethnics and religions or Russia’s history in general were present in conception of Russian identity in history and as it was presented, they are influential in contemporary as well. Assuming this, the primordial opinion on identity that it is fixed or somehow given is also correct. The prove of “breakthrough” between the two theories on identity stipulates the opinion that the academic attention towards the research on identity should continue also in other perspectives that are already elaborated and also that identity discourse in social science, namely in international relations is important what is extended in other findings of this research.
Second finding of this dissertation points on its research question, respectively to its answer whether is Russian identity strong enough for consistent foreign policy (?). The literature review on topic of Russian identity has presented the discourse on this topic among the various authors, with different background and distinctive approach for their findings. However, their different point of views has found at least one common conclusion among the majority of authors, and that is that concept of Russian identity is uncertain and weak. This conclusion of theirs is certainly dependent on assumption towards which and who’s component of international relations or politics they were its conclusion constructing. Nevertheless, literature review has analyzed why Russian identity was at certain period weak, and what led the Russian officials to indulge this topic. Another purpose of such different opinions in literature review was to prove how plenteous discourse on Russian identity is and how differently can be identity examined.
Nonetheless, to challenge the crisis in Russian identity discourse and whether that crisis was (is) still present, and how did Russian administration dealt with this issue appears like a motive for research question-if Russian identity is strong enough for consistent foreign policy. To identify findings on this question this research has analyzed mainly presidential statements, amendments and speeches, as well other governmental documents that were issued or submitted by president Dmitry Medvedev since 2008 in broad discourse on Russian identity, but more specifically since 2010 when he publicly announced that attention on the topic of Russian identity in politics is essential. Since then, Russian administration started to work on (re)construction of identity mainly in symbolical decisions in order to develop the domestic social status and to promote the country’s interests and position towards identity mainly at home. Significant progress or shift in Russian identity construction occurred during third presidential term of Vladimir Putin in 2012. Putin has presented specific policy strategy that was regarded to identity construction and that was not only symbolic but had effect in various domestic policies. His administration did various effective amendments and laws that were influential for construction and promotion of Russian identity not only in domestic terms but also had effect in abroad. Putin’s administration was faced with the foreign policy with regards to situation in Ukraine, where has construction of Russian identity subjected to first international or foreign test. In the beginning and also during continuation of this test, Russian identity is holding same position with reference to the status quo in Ukraine; furthermore framework of policy towards Russia’s identity presented and gradually developed by Putin is influential for Russia’s foreign policy also in recent developments with regards to amendments on Russian citizenship and compatriots. With results of such analysis, it is possible to prove that Russian identity is strong enough for consistent foreign policy, as for the second finding of this dissertation.
ИЛИ
Поиск аналога
📕 Список литературы
🛒 Оформить заказ
⚡ Работу высылаем в течении 5 минут после оплаты.