In this review article we examine political science’s contribution to post-Soviet symbolic politics through a focus on memory politics, which took center stage in the political competition among post-Communist elites. Under the Soviet regime, Communist ideology and its symbolism permeated both public and private life. After this system collapsed, confronting the ancient regime’s symbolic presence became a visible and often dramatic aspect of post-Soviet transformation in the newly independent states. This led to the proliferation of research on symbolic politics in post-Communist countries. The authors argue that political scientists, newly inspired by post-Soviet memory politics, have made two major contributions to the field of memory studies. First, political scientists brought the issue of power to the fore - who had the power to manipulate symbols in public space, and to what political ends? This research encourages a focus on the interactions among various mnemonic actors, rather than solely on the state. Second, political scientists brought innovative comparative theories and methods to a field previously dominated by studies of single monuments, cities, and countries. At the same time, the interdisciplinary nature of memory studies has encouraged political scientists to conceptualize power in more nuanced ways and helped to spread and legitimize the use of interpretive and ethnographic methods in political science.

The article is devoted to clarifying the role of different types of social forgetfulness as a symbolic resource of national mobilization. Based on the methodological potential of the concepts of memory / forgetfulness presented in the works of Saint Augustine, F. Ankersmit, P. Ricoeur, P. Connerton, J. Assmann and A. Assmann, P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, the author identifies forgetting, oblivion and amnesia as the main types of mnemonic deficits relevant in the aspect of social construction of reality. The article emphasizes the role of «narrative configuration» (P. Ricoeur) as a way of purposeful forgetting, an alternative to social amnesia in the context of national mobilization. The article develops this thesis based on the cases of Irish and Circassian nationalism described in the scientific literature. According to the author, the ideology of Circassian nationalism shows that the traumatic historical experience, which is difficult to forget (displace), can be consciously used as an instrument of national mobilization. However, the success of this use is largely due to the symbolic persuasiveness (naturalness) of the narrative reinterpretation of the epic (folk) heritage, and not to the abstract national «idea». The article develops the thesis that the theoretical relevance of the concept of social oblivion with respect to social «forgetting» and «amnesia» is clearly manifested in the amnesty institute as a form of prescribed oblivion. Although amnesty often pretends to be amnesia, or in part generates it, it never quite coincides with it. Based on the experience of countries that have experienced acute civil conflicts (Spain, South Africa, Rwanda etc.), the author gathers arguments in favor of the conclusion that mixing amnesty with amnesia is not only immoral, but often leads to a politically erroneous assessment of prescribed oblivion as an instrument of national mobilization. The article may be of interest to clarify the conceptual apparatus in the analysis of modern national movements, as well as to clarify the methodology of memory studies as a separate area of research.

The article examines the phenomenon of memory securitization, its premises and consequences, including the use of historical arguments in interstate interactions and geopolitical competition. The efforts to securitize historical narratives and symbolic practices often turn into dictate by dominant mnemonic actors. By using normative judgements and tools of protection of physical and public security, they seek to consolidate a certain interpretation of the past in public opinion. On the international arena, competitive relations of state-related actors on the issues of historical memory may reproduce the classic security dilemma, albeit with particular adjustments. The dilemma of mnemonic security arises when a historical narrative, which serves as a «foundation myth» for a state A or plays a large role for uniting the community within this state, is systematically challenged by influential forces that act on behalf of the community, which is represented by state B. In case when institutions of the state B provide sustained support to these efforts, then the political elites of the state A faces the following choice: either to ignore such actions or to develop its own set of measures aimed at counteracting this undermining of «one's own» narrative and at discrediting historical narratives that are important for uniting the community in the state В.

The foundation and development of a new state, Russian Federation, and a new president system is accompanied by the implementation of new political concepts, updating and rethinking of political vocabulary, processes of (re)ideologization of words. That's why it's important to explore interconnection between language and ideology. The purpose of this article is a cognitive analysis of the ways of discursive construction of the concept of «President» in Russian political discourse. The corpus includes 7 Russian Presidents' Inaugural Addresses by B. Yeltsin, D. Medvedev, V. Putin. The inaugural Address is an ideological text about perfect project of future and an inauguration is one of the forms of symbolic political actions expressing dynamics of social relationships and collective values. Drawing on discursive analytical approach, linguistic pragmatics and cognitive linguistics we examine 1) semantic development of the word president in the Russian language and Russian political discourse, 2) linguistic means which are used to explicate knowledge on (self) identification (Who is the president?), action (What does he do?) and affiliation (What subjects refer to president) in order to identify prototypical and variable elements of the political concept of “President of Russia”. Our findings indicate that the execution of the President's office is an extremely responsible matter. The actions of the President are motivated by duty and have a moral (ethical) basis. The prototypical actions of Russian presidents are expressed by verbs of speech activity, social activity and interpersonal relations. Certain subjects refer to the President office: 1) country; 2) voters who show attitude (approval, hostility) to the presidential candidate; 3) symbolic signs of power; 4) labor activity; 5) political activity; 6) ethical categories.

Using the methods of the discursive-historical approach, this article analyzes the evolution of approaches to the representation of «democracy» in the presidential annual addresses to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation from 2000 to 2018. The author studies the lexical choice of the speaker (the words used to represent the discursive key categories such as human rights, freedom, relations between the state and the individual ) and the frame, that is, the structure for representing democracy, organized on the basis of a certain concept (eg. freedom, a strong state, sovereignty, threats , etc.). Based on the data collected, the representation of the «democracy» in the documents analyzed and the frequency of its intersection with other topics were compared. This made it possible to establish internal contextual relations between the concept of democracy and other concepts such as civil society, human rights, freedom, etc., and thereby reveal the evolution of the representation of democracy in presidential addresses. The article shows that over a long period from 2000 to 2012 democracy was one of the key concepts used in presidential rhetoric of annual addresses, but always in close connection with the idea of originality ( samobytnost') . After 2012, «democracy» began to appear much less frequently in the president's addresses, being replaced by rhetoric of popular approval (outside democratic procedures), responsibility and unity of citizens. The author concludes that the representation of «democracy» in presidential addresses changed significantly in the period from 2012 to 2017. If in the early 2000 s the president emphasized the dialogue nature of democracy and the interaction of people and authorities, then later the meaning of democracy is narrowed and practically reduced to elective procedures, or to the legality.

The presented paper is a study of Soviet symbolic legacy in contemporary Mongolia. We are going to discuss not only memorials, but also state symbols, works of art, texts - all things that shape a worldview. The paper is focused on the struggle for the space of symbols and the process of filling this space with new political senses. Today, the struggle is being led between Mongolian ethnic nationalism and Russian nationalism of the Motherland. In Mongolia, the dismantling of monuments to Lenin as a part of decommunization was held within a non-conflict scenario. At the same time, military memorials were left untouched and even turned out to be in a certain demand. Each nationalism forms its own worldview, filling it with symbols of the previous epoch. As a result, we can ascertain a symbiosis of these two nationalisms. This symbiosis exists on the 'ruins' of the Soviet system of symbols and is based on high demand for heroism as an important factor of popular consolidation. In this paper, we study three key myths based on the Soviet legacy and keeping their importance today. The study is based upon the author's fieldwork materials that were obtained during expeditions to Mongolia in 2009-2019 (Ulaanbaatar, Erdenet, Choir, Sayshand). Besides, the article is based on regional mass media materials, fiction writing, and visual content. This paper is a part of a longitude research devoted to a study of Soviet legacy in Asia.

The author analyzes the development of the multimedia project «Russia - my history» using the example of Moscow historical park that was reconstructed in 2018. The research compares the ways of the historical narrative mediation (before and after the reconstruction of the exhibition pavilion) through the lenses of the theoretical approaches developed by H. White, M. McLuhan and S. Hall. The changes that took place in the expositions not only marked the beginning of a new life of the project's exhibitions, but also clearly reflected the mechanisms of interaction between the institutional and symbolic levels of historical politics in modern Russia.

The article analyzes the Russian language, as a fundamental soft power tool of Russia's foreign policy, capable to promote the integration processes in the Eurasian region. The Russian language is considered as a necessary condition for a reliable cementing foundation of the Eurasian Economic Union, and as a tool of maintaining and strengthening the stable geopolitical position of Russia in the region. The author explores the trends in the language policy of Russia, carried out since 2000, analyzes the existing problems of promoting the Russian language abroad, including: reducing the geography of the use of the Russian language in the international space, changing its status and the number of Russian-speaking population in the post-Soviet space. As an example, to study the situation of the Russian language in the Eurasian region, the Republic of Kazakhstan is considered as a country in which, at the time of the collapse of the USSR, Russian was the second in the number of native speakers and the first in possession and level of distribution among all states of the post-Soviet space. The author points out the existing shortcomings in maintaining and strengthening the position of the language abroad, gives an assessment of the language policy of Russia in the near abroad and offers a set of recommendations for improving it and strengthening the importance of the Russian language in the international social, humanitarian and political space.

In this paper we propose to look at public administration as a special symbolic space and to determine the role and significance of symbolization in the construction of governance relations. Turning to this perspective of the study is associated with the need to overcome the «traps of rationality», which is an established tradition of studying administrative activity from the methodological positions of the theory of rational choice. Consideration of administrative activity as a process, accompanied by the creation of symbols, their objectification and transformation into a structure of influence on the actions of participants in administrative interactions, will help to better understand the factors that support the legitimacy of the public administration system and determine the framework for its development. A two-circuit model of the symbolic space of public administration is presented, where the first contour is made up of symbols-significators, which are peculiar markers of actors, normative orders and processes of public administration and which help people to navigate in the current system of public administration. The second circuit is made up of symbols-integrators (mythologemes, ideologemes) that form a symbolic universe and allow people to distinguish between the fair and the unjust, useful and harmful, important and secondary, in the system of state administration. The symbolic universe, by virtue of its special place in the system of government, inevitably becomes the scene of a struggle between those political forces that would like to preserve the existing system of government and those who are not satisfied with it and would like to radically renew it. With the development of digital technologies, the space for the formation of the symbolic universe of public administration is changing qualitatively, and the possibilities for the emergence and rapid spread of its deviant interpretations are expanding. It is shown that a paternalistic model of the symbolic universe of government has developed in Russian society, factors of its stability are analyzed and judgments are made about the nature of possible changes.

Today, the concept of «sovereignty» is one of the most actively used, both in political theory and in practical politics. Sovereignty as a theoretical concept can be understood in different ways: as a given principle of international relations (K. Waltz), as an international institution (R. Keohan), a social construct (A. Wendt), or a special practice of power (M. Foucault). At the same time, it is not entirely clear to researchers exactly how the concept of «sovereignty» reflects the empirical reality surrounding us. This article is based on the distinction between «sovereignty» as a recognized principle of international theory (Russian - suverenitet ) and «sovereignty» as an element of a symbolic structure that represents itself in the framework of performative discourse. This discourse, although a subject to historical transformation, is rooted in the nature of modern myth. The latter is reinforced with the symbolic nature of modern man. In the context of this study, «sovereignty» can be understood as a set of performative and discursive practices that define a symbolic order within community and it’s interactions with symbolic forms of «sovereignty» beyond the community. The article is devoted to a discussion of the methodological problems of studying sovereignty as a symbolic structure. Based on the analysis of the current state of research in particular, the works of R.B. Walker, I. Bartelson, C. Weber, T. Alberts, M. Freeden, R.N. Lebow, G. Wydra and several other authors, sovereignty is seen as a form of performative discursive practice that appeals to the construction and maintenance of collective identity.

This article presents the results of the analysis of justification of annexation of Crimea to Russia in speeches of president Putin and ministry of foreign affairs representatives. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 was an indicator of foreign policy change, which needed an official justification at domestic and foreign arenas. It proved to be quite successful inside Russia, but abroad. By using the instruments of strategic narratives theory, this articles reveals how the president and MFA representatives provided justification of the annexation of Crimea; why it was legitimized domestically; and what the goal for the justification at international level was analyzed. The actors’ main justification strategies were defined as ‘defense’ and ‘counter-attack’; they appealed to historical memory; defense of Russian culture; defense of the Crimean people’s rights. Simultaneously, a negative image of the West was constructed. Such a justification could help domestic legitimation, but did not consider the cultural features of the international audience. The justification could ledlead to a reduction of interest in the Crimean Spring internationally. The empirical base of the study was 46 transcripts of V.V. Putin and MFA representatives from 2014 to 2018, as well as 2 documentaries containing V.V. Putin’s interviews.

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.

The «Alternative for Germany» (AfD) is the most successful right-wing populist party in Germany. The party is the largest opposition force in the Bundestag and continues to increase success on regional level. The AfD proclaims protection of culture and identity of the Germans and promotes its own view on the history of the country. The article analyzes the position of the AfD on the most difficult events of the 20 th century for the modern Germans (the National Socialism period and the history of the GDR). The analysis is based on program documents and speeches of the party leaders. The AfD leaders raise difficult questions, bringing historical discussions back to the national level. The article concludes that the point of view of the AfD on a number of historical events ideologically coincides with the views of the group of «conservatives» that participated in the «Dispute of historians» in Germany in the late 1980 s. The group advocated for the «normalization» of the German national identity and emphasized the positive aspects of the country's past. In addition, it is emphasized that the interpretation of the German history by the AfD is determined both by the party’s right-wing ideology and its instrumental populist goals.