«Sleeping» conflict: interpretations of events around the Prigorodny district in North Ossetia and the Republic of Ingushetia
https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2020.02.13
Abstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of the courses of symbolic politics in Ingushetia and North Ossetia leading to the formation of various interpretations of the causes and consequences of the events of 1992. It shows how discourses formed by significant socio-political actors and memorial reminders contrary to the recognition of the conflict as resolved, do not eliminate the causes of confrontation. The author of the article believes that the conflict around the Prigorodny district should be considered as «sleeping», which in the presence of certain structural conditions can again go into the «acute» stage of confrontation. Based on theoretical studies in the field of symbolic politics and politics of memory the author comes to the conclusion about their significant role in the formation and strengthening in the mass consciousness of a «collective» memory of this conflict. The article presents the results of the analysis of publications using the method of semantic networks. The main purpose of the analysis was to identify existing interpretations of the events of 1992 and the status of the Prigorodny district in Ingushetia and North Ossetia. Using the case-study method, an analysis of memorials dedicated to the events of the fall of 1992 was carried out. Based on the results it was concluded that the conflict potential remained in the region both in public discourse and in the memorial heritage of both republics.
About the Author
I. A. UshparovRussian Federation
Saint Petersburg
References
1. Ачкасов В.А. Роль политических и интеллектуальных элит посткоммунистических государств в производстве "политики памяти" // Символическая политика. М.: РАН. ИНИОН, 2012. Вып. 1.: Конструирование представлений о прошлом как властный ресурс. С. 126-149. EDN: PJPQVX
2. Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности. Трактат по социологии знания. М.: Медиум, 1995. 124 с.
3. Бурдье П. Социология социального пространства. М.: Ин-т экспериментальной социологии; СПб.: Алетейя, 2007. 288 с. EDN: QOECDF
4. Ваньке А.В., Полухина Е.В. Политика памяти и военные мемориалы в России: Сравнивая Поклонную гору в Москве и Мамаев курган в Волгограде.
5. XVI Апрельская международная научная конференция по проблемам развития экономики и общества (7-10 апреля 2015 г.). М.: Изд. дом ВШЭ, 2016. Кн. 2. С. 171-180.
6. Малинова О.Ю. Политика памяти как область символической политики // Методологические вопросы изучения политики памяти: сб. науч. трудов / под. ред. А.И. Миллера, Д.В. Ефременко. М.: Нестор-История, 2018. С. 27-53. EDN: YNCLNJ
7. Малинова О.Ю. Проблема политически "пригодного" прошлого и эволюция официальной символической политики в постсоветской России // Политическая концептология: журнал метадисциплинарных исследований. 2013. № 1. С. 114-130. EDN: PYQBTJ
8. Antonyuk A. The Changing meaning of privacy in information technology debates: evidence from the Internet governance forum // International conference on Internet Science, 24-26 October 2018, St. Petersburg / S.S. Bodrunova (ed.). Cham: Springer, 2018. P. 92-100.
9. Basov N., de Nooy W., Nenko A. Local meaning structures: mixed-method sociosemantic network analysis // American journal of cultural sociology. 2019. P. 1-42. DOI: 10.1057/s41290-019-00084-9 EDN: WGESHI
10. Doerfel M. What constitutes semantic network analysis? A comparison of research and methodologies // Connections. 1998. Vol. 21 (2). P. 16-26.
11. Searle J.R. The Construction of social reality. N.Y.: Simon and Schuster, 1995. 256 p.
12. Smetana M., Ludvik J. Between war and peace: a dynamic reconceptualization of "frozen conflicts" // Asia Europe journal. 2019. Vol. 17, N 1. P. 1-14. DOI: 10.1007/s10308-018-0521-x