CC BY
1
СОЦИАЛЬНАЯ И ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ ФИЛОСОФИЯ SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
5.7.7. Социальная и политическая философия
Social and Politica Philosophy
5.4.1. Теория, методология и история социологии
Theory, Methodology and History of Sociology
DOI: 10.33693/2223-0092-2022-12-2-149-156
Construction of the Eurasian Symbolic System in the Context of Disintegration/Integration and Disconnection/Connection with the Soviet Symbols
Yu.P. Ten ©
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation
E-mail: YPTen@fa.ru
Abstract. The author offers the symbolic approach to understanding the nature of the construction of the Eurasian identity in the framework of the EAEU as the result of (dis-)integration and (dis-)connection with the Soviet symbols. The goal of the research is to provide the interdisciplinary analysis of shaping the EAEU's symbolic identity. The symbolic and dialectic approaches are used. The main idea consists in the suggestion that the symbols are social technology of creating EAEU's identity. The article argues that EAEU's symbolic system is shaping on the logic of (dis-)connection and (dis)integration with the meanings of the symbolic system of the USSR. The dialectic logic of integration and connection means greater interaction of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Russia. A logic of history of integration and connection is determined on the attempt to revive the Soviet symbols which can be the basis for the construction of common symbolic system. The inner strength of such integrative process lies in the fact that the new phenomenon of the EAEU is not seeking the reincarnation of the old symbols of the Soviet era, serving the expression of utopian ideas. The key findings of the research can be the basis for the practical recommendations in terms of the Eurasian cultural policy.
Key words: Eurasian Economic Union, symbol, symbolic system, Eurasian identity, symbolic system of EAEU
DOI: 10.33693/2223-0092-2022-12-2-149-156
Построение евразийской символической системы в контексте дезинтеграции/интеграции и разъединения/связи с советскими символами
Ю.П. Тен ©
Финансовый университет при правительстве Российской Федерации, г. Москва, Российская Федерация
E-mail: YPTen@fa.ru
Аннотация. Автор предлагает символический подход к пониманию природы конструирования евразийской идентичности в рамках ЕАЭС как результата (дис-)интеграции и (дис-)связи с советскими символами. Цель исследования - провести междисциплинарный анализ формирования символической идентичности ЕАЭС. Автор использует системный и диалектический подходы. Ключевая идея состоит в предположении, что символы можно рассматривать как социальную технологию создания идентичности ЕАЭС. В статье утверждается, что символическая система ЕАЭС формируется по логике разобщения/связи и дезинтеграции/ интеграции со значениями символической системы СССР. Диалектическая логика интеграции и связи означает более тесное взаимодействие Беларуси, Казахстана, Кыргызстана, Армении и России. Логика истории интеграции и соединения определяется попыткой возродить советские символы, которые могут стать основой для построения общезначимой символической системы. Внутренняя сила такого интеграционного процесса заключается в том, что новое объединение стран ЕАЭС не стремится к реинкарнации старых символов советской эпохи, служащих выражению утопических идей. Выводы исследования могут быть положены в основу практических рекомендаций с точки зрения евразийской культурной политики.
Ключевые слова: Евразийский экономический союз, символ, символическая система, евразийская идентичность, символическая система ЕАЭС
INTRODUCTION
In November 1989 with the fall of the Berlin wall began the collapse and the Eastern Bloc. August 2021 marks the 30th anniversary of the fall of the USSR. "The iron curtain" was the vividly symbol of the barriers between peoples, socio-economic socialist and capitalist systems. The symbolic approach allows us to present the history of the particular Post-Soviet state as the historical shift of its symbolic systems. The global change of system of symbols occurs in the time of transition from one type of state to another. In such time the ruling elite is searching the sings and symbols that will reflect the key ideals, concepts and values of the new political thinking, to serve the ideas, values and values of the new type of political community. In order to understand the logic of integration of the Eurasian regions and states, it is necessary to understand the dialectic logic of (dis)-integration and (dis)-connection with the Soviet symbolic system. The relevance of the research lies in the fact that in 2020 humanity was faced the challenge of a pandemic. All countries have started a policy of forced isolation and restrictive measures. This can lead to regional localization, to the growth of new barriers and walls, to the creation of authoritarian regimes, and to the restriction of human rights and freedoms. But the Berlin wall should not be built
again. It has to go into the past as a mythological symbol that separates and isolates peoples from each other. In order to prevent the rehabilitation of symbolic or real walls between peoples, Russia and all countries can jointly seek common technologies for effective international communication. I assume that the symbols can be seen as the effective technology for constructing regional identity. It is important to identify and analyze specific symbols (images, signs, emblems, allegories, metaphors, etc.) that public and political leaders could use to form socio-cultural policies for the integration of different societies and international unities.
From the end of the XX century to current time one of the consequences of the globalization towards Eurasia has been became political and economic integration of some Post-Soviet states in the face of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Today EAEU is a macro-bloc of strategic regional partnership of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. In the context of creation of a geo-economic center S. Karaganov develops the concept "Greater Eurasia" as "a space of civilization cooperation, which is being restored after centuries of oblivion and which was previously embodied in the cultural aspects of the Great Silk Road that incorporated and connected civilizations in China, East Asia, India, Persia, and the Arab Near East with Europe" [Karaganov, 2018: 90]. Therefore,
Ten Yu.P.
a concept of "Greater Eurasia" refers us to the old symbol of "Great silk road" which embodied not only trade but also cultural links between Europe and Asia [Atanov, 2018]. The appeal to this ancient symbol for shaping the symbolic form for Eurasian identity model that arose as the result of inter-civilizational interactions in past that be the powerful support for the ideological construction of the collective interstate identity in the new time. The purpose of the research is to provide interdisciplinary analysis of the construction of the Eurasian symbolic identity in the framework of the Eurasian economic union.
The establishment of a Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan in 2010, which was transformed into the Eurasian Economic Union in 2015 attracted substantial attention and debates of academics, political authorities, public leaders, researchers and experts. The Eurasian integration is the subject of analysis from different perspectives: Economics, Political Studies, International Affairs, Logistics, Geography, Sociology, etc. Academic interest to Eurasian integration reflects the evolution of the discussions about the role of Russia in the geo-political area and constructing the bipolar [Lukin, 2016; Karaganov, 2018] and multipolar world order [Chebankova, 2017]. Another trend of research interest is economic benefits of participation of the states in this union [Dzarasov, 2017; Kirkham, 2016; Knobel, 2017; Li 2018; Lukin, Yakunin, 2018]. At the same time the socio-philosophical analysis of the issues of socio-cultural bonds of the Eurasian integration is not still sufficiently developed in the contemporary studies. Meantime in order to examine ideas, concepts, values and patterns which are shaping the supranational identity of the EAEU' s peoples it is necessary to turn to the multidisciplinary approach.
Since the USSR's collapse the Post-Soviet states have been going through the period of the total identity's transformation. The Soviet ideological model of shaping "the universal Soviet people", implying the disappearance of ethnic identities among nations of the USSR [Arutyunyan, 2003] were rejected. Each Post-Soviet country and region dealt with construction of its collective identity appealing to its historical, socio-politic, ethno-cultural and religious backgrounds. So, the Baltic countries have become the members of the European Union accepting the European Union's symbolic system of values, norms and patterns and they totally refused from the Soviet symbols. Contrarily, the states of EAEU is partly trying to construct collective identity using historical-economic and socio-cultural backgrounds of the USSR. However, not everything is so clear. The year 2020 has thrown the EAEU countries a number of serious challenges that threaten integration (the political crisis in Belarus after the election of the President, the military conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, etc.). Therefore, how the dialectical logic of the symbolic integration model of Eurasian identity will develop can only made predictions. Despite the fact that in international discourse there are two opposite views on the reality and utopian nature of the future of the EAEU, in connection with the threat and unknown consequences of the pandemic, as well as internal and external political contradictions and conflicts between the member countries of that union, the author can not give an accurate forecast of the viability of this union.
1. METHODS AND HYPOTHESIS
The study is interdisciplinary in nature. The research involves the concepts, theories, approaches, methods from Philosophy, Political Studies, History of Civilization. The dialectic and system approaches are applied. Author uses the concepts, approaches and methods of Symbolic Interactionism [Blumer, 1969; Charon, 1979], Russian scholars of semiotics [Lotman, 1990] and French poststruc-turalism [Baudrillard, 1981; Barthes, 1977; Deleuze, 1990].
The study of the academic papers reveals that research into symbols as the means of social technology of constructing collective identity highlights their importance both for elites and academics. Symbols are the universal non-verbal means of international communication [Cassi-rer, 1955; Lotman, 1990]. Symbol is embodied ideas, concepts, beliefs which can be valuable for socio-cultural identity of civilizations [Shengler, 1991] and integrative union [Laffan, 1996; Fornas, 2012; Kolstm, 2016].
The author's hypothesis consists in the suggestion that analysis of the identity model of the EAEU uncovers that symbols are potentially conserving particular meanings of different periods of the history of the Eurasian civilizations. The revival of symbols from the national memory rooted in the common past of countries as members can have the impact on the consciousness of the modern populations of the EAEU. The construction of a symbolic model of collective identity has different tracks. Meantime in the modern interpretation of the symbolic model by the EAEU's authorities the relevant role belongs to the Soviet symbols.
Section 2 is examined that the breakdown of the USSR social, economic and cultural bonds of the peoples could not be broken so rapidly. The strongest bonds of international relations of the Post-Soviet peoples are the Russian language, educational backgrounds in the framework of the Soviet Union past, social relatnship and the phenomenon of historical memory. The fact of birth and growing of the Eurasian Economic Union serves as an illustration that some ideas, concepts, values, norms and patterns of the Soviet past may be regarded as the elements for construction of collective Eurasian identity. The symbols can be one of the effective technologies of exposing ideas, concepts, values, norms and patterns which are shaping the supernational identity of the contemporary integrative entity [Manners, 2011].
Section 3 focuses on the symbolic approach to understanding the nature of shaping the Eurasian identity. It should be noted that in every society and culture the individuals and social groups are connected with each other by means of coding/decoding system [Barthes, 1977; Lotman, 1990; Hall, 1997]. Each socio-cultural system weaves certain thinking, perceptive and behavioral patterns, accepted among the members of this society. The meaning of symbol has the conventional nature [Charon, 1979]. That is why the interpretation of each symbol by different peoples can be controversial [Gadamer, 1994].
The meanings of the particular symbols (in our case it is the Soviet symbolic system) are preserved in the historical memory of the nations as subjects of the shared civilization's history. Symbols are the universal means for providing nonverbal communication
among different nations. The Post-Soviet people keep in their historical memory meanings of the symbols from previous socio-cultural periods (first of all the Soviet time). Therefore, the ruling elites of the EAEU actively revival the Soviet symbols for the shaping the feeling of the common collective identity [Malinova, 2015; Evgen'eva, Selezneva, 2016]. The main result of study consists in the assumption that the dialectic logic of the categorical couples "disintegration-integration" and "disconnection-connection" reveals that symbols are the basis for integration and connection among individuals, social groups and societies for accepting meanings of the particular symbolic system. Vice versa simulacra1 are the basis of disintegration and disconnection in interpretation of the meanings of the symbolic system of integrative union. Therefore, the inner strength of EAEU's integration lies in the fact that it should not seek for the reincarnation of that symbols of the Soviet epoch which serve the expression of utopian ideas and false values. Due to the objective historical reasons the majority of symbols of the Soviet era have lost their ideological force of influence on the masses, becoming simulacra. The rehabilitation of these simulacrums of the Soviet era can only weaken functioning of the EAEU [Ten, 2017].
2. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE EAEU AS A RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGES OF CONTEMPORARY HISTORY
In terms of "law challenge-and-response" by famous historian A.J. Toynbee [Toynbee, 1987[ civilization as the largest unit of social organization is forced to give the practical responses to the challenges of external and internal environments. From the end of the 1980s to the beginning of the 1990s a huge civilization based on Socialist ideology could not cope with the "challenge" of the capitalist system. M. Mozaffari writes: "The fall of the Soviet Empire was not simply the fall of an empire ... It was also the end of a civilization which possessed all the necessary elements of a great civilization: a powerful and sophisticated ideology (Marxism) constituting a complete world vision; a well-defined project for a historical formation (communism); an immense and rich geographic territory; and an empire to which a number of countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere were subjugated" [Mozaffari, 2003: 64].
Since breakdown of the USSR political, economic, cultural bonds between fifteen republics have been disintegrated under the impacts of the economic and legal policy of the ruling elites of Post-Soviet countries and regions. However, despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the underlying ties of the Eurasian civilization could not be destroyed in swift pace. The populations of the Soviet Republics were concurrently the subjects and the objects of Soviet history, ideology, statehood, socioeconomic system, education and culture. The generations
1 Simulacrum is neoclassical interpretation the symbol concept which was used by the Post-Structuralism. According to J. Baudrillard simulacra are not based in a reality nor do they hide a reality, they simply conceal the fact that anything like reality is relevant to our current understanding of our lives [Baudrillard, 1981].
born until the middle of the 1980s went through the main stages of socialization in the Soviet society under total pressing of the Communistic ideological regime. In this regard the Russian language has played the role "metropolitan language" which was "essential for social mobility and avoiding identity-based discrimination" [Marquardt, 2017: 832]. It is important to emphasize that the Russian language as a verbal mean of international communication has played key role in the construction of the Soviet identity's model [Ibid]. After emergence new Post-Soviet states, the Russian language has begun losing its position of the primary element of shaping identity outside of Russian Federation. In this shadow socio-cultural and linguistic gaps among the Post-Soviet states began to develop. As M. Golam and M. Monowar argue that the strategy for closer integration of the EAEU by "adopting one currency (ruble) and one language (Russian) is very controversial and faces serious challenges from the ethnically diversity population of the region" [Golam, Monowar, 2018: 169]. Therefore, the appeal to Russian language in the construction of the EAEU identity model can be not the successful response to the challenge of the loss of the Russian language international status.
At the beginning of XXI century from the creation of the Customs Union of Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus to current format of the Eurasian Economic Union is one of the attempts to give answer on the different external challengers. For example, M. Bajdurin considers that the formation of common Eurasian economic space is accompanied by convergence of the countries and the growth of their economic and technical level, interweaving structures of their national economies and increasing foreign trade [Bajdurin, 2017]. And "it develops the ability to resist risks and threats to economic security arising through the use of the Western countries as financial and trade-economic groupings for the purposes of economic pressure...on the countries competitors to limit the competitiveness of their national economies to world markets" [Bajdurin, 2017: 3]. Thus, Bajdurin underlines the necessity of the first attempt at creating the collective Eurasian security system in the Post-Soviet world. As the social institution EAEU has been constructed to support logistic visions of the most perspective strategy for international marketing and trade policy in the Eurasian region in the whole [Lukin, 2016].
In a more global perspective the states of the EAEU will be jointed to the Chinese initiative logistic vision of the "One Belt, One Road" [Li, 2018] and Silk Road Economics [Atanov, 2018; Gordienko, 2019]. Obviously, Russia seeks to be one of the leaders of the new globalizing Eurasian world [Karaganov, 2018; Kirkham, 2016]. Therefore, it needs the political partnership and economic cooperation with some Post-Soviet countries [Dzarasov, 2017; Golam, Monowar, 2018; Sergi, 2018]. There is the point of view that the EAEU is attempting to reconstruction of the common economic zone in the shape of the USSR [Rotaru, 2018]. The EAEU authorities declaims that the key EAEU economic aim is restoring economic integration in the former Soviet territories through free movement of goods, labour and capital. V. Fedorenko insightfully notes that "Russian-led Eurasian integration process, which has
Ten Yu.P.
included Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan so far, aims to establish a mechanism of intergovernmental cooperation focusing predominantly on economic partnership. With the establishment of supranational institutions in collaboration with the post-Soviet republics, Russia aims to reestablish its influence, foster economic ties and strengthen trade relationships in the region" [Fedorenko, 2015: 1].
Meantime today Eurasia is not region representing the integrity due to close mentality. Along with that Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Belarus and Russia have common and long history, influence the Russian language in international communication, a multitude of economic ties across countries within the PostSoviet area. Therefore, the advancement of the Eurasian integration idea into practical implementation should have new objective suppositions as well. These are defined by the contemporary economic, political, and ethno-cultural processes in the Post-Soviet space.
It should be note that Russia's political, economic, and cultural activity has focused on the Western part of the country for many long centuries - or at least dating from the time of the policy by tsar Peter the Great. And, despite the fact that the majority part of its territory lay in Asia, Russia's Asian policy was seen as ancillary to its European policy [Lukin, Yakunin, 2018: 100-101]. Currently the Russian Greater Eurasian partnership and Chinese Belt and Road are important initiatives for further international economic cooperation that provide a response to the challenge of world economic under press of globalization [Lukin, 2016]. Y. Li considers that "Russian pivot to the East" [Lukin, 2016] means to more close cooperation with China, Japan, South Korea and the whole Asian countries [Li, 2018: 96]. Russia, China and ASEAN and EAEU become "very important economic entities" [Li, 2018: 97].
Shaping the EAEU is a reflection of the dawn of a more complex stage in the Post-Soviet integration and it involves actively deepening interaction of the participating countries in the major areas of production and investment activities in the labor and capital markets, enhancing the exchange of goods and services and spending. In fine among all Post-Soviet countries the logic of the categorical opposition integration and connection couple implies greater interaction of the five famous countries.
In the time of the real and potential political, financial, social crisis nations and countries are able to give the "responses" to the external "challenges" of the XXI century. The EAEU's members are "states that are building their nations while facing substantial challenges in separating from their Soviet past" [Golam, Monowar, 2018: 169]. At the same time in the prism of a symbolic approach to shaping of EAEU's collective identity can be revealed the Soviet symbols represented the ideas, ideals and values which can be forced the function of collective integration. Remarkably, symbols serve as the markers of differences between societies and civilizations from each other's. Turning to symbols as the important tool of social technologies for constructing supranational identity is a necessary step to bond the populations of the member states of the EAEU on the basis of common ideals, values and traditions of the historical memory.
3. THE SYMBOLIC MODEL
OF EURASIAN ECONOMIC UNION
In order to generate a collective identity, the Eurasian Economic Union's institutions revert to various identity's technologies. Symbols can be served as the effective instrument of social technology for shaping a collective identity of the international organization. Symbols embody ideas, concepts, beliefs which can be valuable for socio-cultural being of international political and economic union [Laffan, 1996; Theiler, 2005; Foret, 2009; Fornas, 2012; Bottici, Challand, 2013; Kolstm, 2016].
The Eurasian Economic Union can been seen as the symbolic system which is concluded several subsystems. These are the following:
1. Official symbols are symbolized ideas of integration and solidarity of the social groups of the EAEU (emblem2 and flag).
2. Political symbols are expressed an official policies of the states. They includes signs, emblems of different official political parties, associations and unions.
3. Social symbols are aimed at shaping identities and consolidating different individuals, social and ethnic groups classified according to various criteria.
4. System of the mythological and religious symbols, embodying the most common religious beliefs, norms and values among the peoples of the EAEU.
5. System of the cultural symbols indicating main ideas, ideals, norms and values of the society as a creator and holder of a particular culture.
6. System of economic symbols is included the brands and emblems of the companies, organizations and brands3. In the whole structure of the symbolic system these
subsystems are interrelated and interact within the limits of their interpretations. It should be noted that the same symbol has different semantic interpretations, depending on the context. It would be of use to remember that a symbol has a deeply dialectic nature which implies interrelation of the form and the matter, the material and the spiritual, the quotient and the general.
The EAEU's symbolic systems can be seen on the three basic levels:
1) the global level of the EAEU's integration as an organization;
2) the national level of the separate states of the EAEU (the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Armenia);
3) the regional level of various regions of the national states (for example, the Republic of Dagestan as a federal subject of the Russian Federation);
4) the individual level [Ten, 2017].
In the context of the EAEU it is very important to search for social technologies for agreement and concordance of the Eurasian symbolic model by majority of the state members. It is significant that the ruling
2 The official emblem of the EAEU symbolizes the desire for economic cooperation of the member-states. Blue color is a symbol of Europe. The gold color is a symbol of Asia. Circle reflects the common interests of the two continents (Europe and Asia).
3 In this connection important symbol is the trade mark "Made in EAEU" for goods produced in the states of the Eurasian economic union.
elites use the particular symbols from the previous time of the common existence in the space of the Eurasian civilization (the Russian empire and the USSR). Such symbols are continuing to live in the national memories of the peoples of the former USSR. And the political elites understand that the common Soviet symbols provide strong bonds for integration for the Post-Soviet peoples.
Within the framework of the construction of the Eurasian Economic Union it is relevant to search for such symbols rooted in the local social and cultural traditions of member states that would express the common ideas, concepts and values of shaping the modern EAEU's identity. As K. Kirkham considers "the formation of a Eurasian identity is in its initial stage. The EAEU authorities should work hard on the construction of a common identity by launching cultural projects to battle Russo-phobia" [Kirkham, 2016: 125].
It is worth to note that the measure of common interpretation of the meanings of the symbols is depended of the level of cultural distances between communicator and recipient in the process of international communication. Therefore, the subjects of interstate interaction in the format of the EAEU should develop a strategy of cultural policy for the creation and wide implementation of educational programs and multimedia information portals aimed at the formation in the mass consciousness of the conventionality of the meanings of the symbolic model of the Eurasian identity. At the same time, in terms of the historical dynamics of the change of generations, it is important that the Soviet symbols will be able to represent such meanings which can be accepted. Therefore, in the construction of the model of the Eurasian economic union, it is advisable to look for such symbols, rooted in the local cultural traditions of all member states, which would express common ideas, concepts and values in the format of contemporary interpretation.
Remarkably, in the modern Eurasian economic union there are various local communities (including diasporas) which share the traditional systems of the values, religious beliefs, social patterns and norms of their cultures and religions. In the framework of the process of the EAEU integration under the idea of shaping a common Eurasian identity, the key question arises: is it possible to construct the modern collective identity by creating the symbolic model in which the meanings of the official symbols do not confront with the meanings of the traditional symbols of different social groups? This issue is not in the scope of this paper and it needs further research.
The EAEU's identity strategy at forming a positive image of the union should be aimed at the revival of such symbols of the Soviet era, which can cause positive associations among the majority of recipients. In this case, they will become effective social technologies for the formation of collective identity. In this connection it can be note that one of the most powerful elements of the construction of national identity is the concept of patriotism. The feeling of patriotism can be seen as a basis for the interstate integration process [Habermas, 2003]. The feeling of common identity and strong connection with Russia (Russian language, culture, social ties, etc.) among the representatives of other countries help in getting support for Russian international politics. International public movement to preserve the personal
and family memory of the generation of the Second world war become one of the power symbols for the current generations which are keeping historical memory. Vividly example is the fact that with 2010s the significant symbolic ties all the former Soviet Republics is the action "Immortal regiment", devoted to the Victory Day.
RESULTS
Although the Eurasian Economic Union is the new phenomenon in the contemporary history, the emergence of this organization is deeply rooted in the past of the Eurasian history. The countries of the EAEU have had contacts and communications in trade, politics, science, education, art, etc. for centuries. We can see some hidden determinants of the development of the supranational identity by symbols. Firstly, construction of the symbolic model of the EAEU is based on the common and long shared historic contacts and connections of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. Secondly, at least for last century the Russian language has played a dominant role as the international language of these countries. Thirdly, the EAEU is reconstructing trade contacts, economic ties, logistic lines among the countries within the Post-Soviet territory. Therefore, one of the popular symbols of the current political and economic discourse has become the symbol of bridge. the EAEU will be play the role of the link between Europe and Asian. It means that the Eurasian economic union's policy creates and transmitters the particular symbols as the instrument of social technology forming links among Eurasian citizens and shaping common collective identity. These symbols are adopted with the hope that common EAEU's identity will be created in the future [Ten, 2017].
The dialectical logic of the categorical couples "disintegration-integration" and "connection-disconnection" reveals that the symbols can be considered as the basis for communication among social groups and communities in the context of integration. On the contrary, the insufficiency of the degree of conventionality among the members of social groups and communities in understanding of common values of the EAEU's symbols leads to their transformation into simulacra. It results in loss of conventionality in the interpretation of the meanings of the Soviet symbols among members of social groups and communities. The practical implication of the research is that it points to the need to search for such symbols of the Soviet symbolic system or symbolic system of older cultural epochs which could perform integration-identification function for social communities of the members in terms of particular meanings and values.
The symbolic approach using categorical couples disconnection/connection disintegration/integration offers insights into transformation of the symbolic systems of the states of the Post-Soviet time. The logic of disintegration and disconnection (the collapse of the USSR) can be represented as the loss by the former Soviet Republics of shared perception, understanding and attitudes towards the USSR system of symbols (primarily political and state symbols). In the extreme, it is expressed in the law of ban of using the Soviet symbols (for example, the Baltic countries and the Ukraine). The history of the more then thirty years brightly illustrates
Ten Yu.P.
strengthening of the gap and the loss of meanings of the Soviet ideology in several countries of the former Soviet Union as the consequence of the state policies.
In the context of the formation of the EAEU the logic of integration and connection is based on the attempt of "revival" of the meanings that can be the basis for the formation of a system of universally valid symbols of this economic union. The inner strength of such integrative process lies in the fact that the new economic union should not seek for the reincarnation of that symbols of the Soviet epoch which serve the expression of utopian ideas and false values. Due to the objective historical reasons the majority of symbols of the Soviet era have lost their potential force of emotional influence on the masses, becoming simulacra [Ten, 2017].
The formation of a common system of meanings of official and unofficial symbols of the EAEU will help social groups and communities to feel part of the model of Eurasian identity. Through the media, the education system, the Institute of religion and other institutions of socialization, the ruling elite, engaged in the symbolic construction of the EAEU as a long-term integration union, should provide information support and constant broadcasting in the media, through various channels of mass communications of various types of symbols that form the collective identity of the EAEU countries.
The historical and cultural heritage of the peoples of the former USSR and their historical-political, industrial, social contacts play a key role in reaching agreement and validity in the new system of symbols formed during the EAEU construction and development. The Eurasian identity arises in particular political and economic contexts or situations and receives mostly a socio-cultural interpretation. "Russian's pivot to the East is giving a strong boost to the creation of the Eurasian geopolitical, geo-economic, and cultural community" [Karaganov, 2018: 90]. We will see results of this pivot in the future.
The study of symbols of Eurasian integration is important to understanding of how the EAEU' authorities are building the collective identity. In general, this research may serve as one of the perspectives for the further analysis of the international policy dealing with the issues of the Eurasian identity.
REFERENCES
1. Arutyunyan Yu.V. Transformation of post-Soviet nations. Based on the materials of ethnosociological studies. Moscow: Nauka, 2003. (In Rus.)
2. Atanov N.I. Russian-Eurasian transit in the economic zone of the Great Silk Road. Problems of Economic Transition. 2018. Vol. 60, No. 1-3. Pp. 210-219.
3. Bajdurin M.S. Baidurin M.S. Ensuring economic security of the EAEU on the basis of the development of economic integration of the CIS countries. PhD Theses dis. ... Dr. Sci. (Econ.). Moscow, 2017.
4. Baudrillard J. Simulacra and Simulation. University of Michigan Press, 1981. 164 p.
5. Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California press, 1969.
6. Bottici C., ChallandB. Imagining Europe: Myth, memory, and identity. Cambridge University Press, 2013. 224 p.
7. Barthes R. Rhetoric of the image. Image - Music - Text. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977.
8. Bruter M. On what citizens mean by feeling "European": Perceptions of news, symbols and borderless-ness. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 2003. No. 30 (1). Pp. 21-39.
9. Cassirer E. Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. Vol. 1: Language. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955.
10. Charon J.M. Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration. New York, 1979. 323 p.
11. Chebankova E. Russia's idea of the multipolar world order: Origins and main dimensions. Post-Soviet Affairs. 2017. Vol. 33. No. 3. Pp. 217-234.
12. Deleuze G. The logic of sense. Columbia University Press, 1990.
13. Dzarasov R.S. Russian neo-revisionist strategy and the Eurasian project. Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2017. No. 1. Pp. 1-16.
14. Evgeneva T.V., Selezneva A.V. Soviet past in the value and figurative-symbolic space of Russian identity. Polis. 2016. No. 3. Pp. 25-39. (In Rus.)
15. Fornas J. Signifying Europe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2012. 353 p.
16. Fedorenko V. Eurasian integration: Effects on Central Asia. Washington: Rethink Institute, 2015.
17. Foret F. Symbolic dimensions of EU legitimization. Media, Culture and Society. 2009. No. 31 (2). Pp. 9-14.
18. Golam M., Monowar M. Eurasian Economic Union: Evolution, challenges and possible future directions. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2018. No. 9. Pp. 163-172.
19. Gordienko D. The Strategy of the Silk Road economic belt and ensuring Russia's economic security. Problems of Economic Transition. 2019. Vol. 61. Pp. 354-376.
20. Habermas J. Making sense of the EU - toward a cosmopolitan Europe. Journal of Democracy. 2003. Vol. 14. No. 4. Pp. 86-100.
21. Hall S. The work of representation/presentation. In: Cultural representations and signifying practices. S. Hall (ed.). London: Sage, 1997. Pp. 13-74.
22. Karaganov S. The new Cold War and the emerging Greater Eurasia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2018. No. 9. Pp. 85-93.
23. Kirkham K. The formation of the Eurasian Economic Union: How successful is the Russian regional hegemony? Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2016. No. 7. Pp. 111-128.
24. Knobel' A. The Eurasian Economic Union: Development prospects and possible obstacles. Problems of Economic Transition. 2017. Vol. 90. Pp. 335-360.
25. Kolstm P. Strategies of symbolic Nation-building in South Eastern Europe. Routledge, 2016. 300 p.
26. Laffan B. The politics of identity and political order in Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies. 1996. Vol. 34. No. 1. Pp. 81-102.
27. Li Y. The greater Eurasian partnership and the Belt and Road initiative: Can the two be linked? Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2018. No. 9. Pp. 94-99.
28. Lotman J.M. Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture. London & New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 1990.
29. Lukin A. Russia's pivot to Asia: Myth or reality? Strategic Analysis. 2016. Vol. 40 (6). Pp. 573-589.
30. Lukin A. Russia in a post-bipolar world: Survival. Global Politics and Strategy. 2016. No. 58 (1). Pp. 91-112.
31. Lukin A., Yakunin V. Eurasian integration and the development of Asiatic Russia. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2018. No. 9. Pp. 100-113.
32. Malinova O. Actual past: The symbolic policy of the ruling elite and the dilemma of Russian identity. Moscow: Political Encyclopedia , 2015.
33. Manners I.J. Symbolism in European integration. Comparative European Politics. 2011. No. 9 (3). Pp. 243-268.
34. Marquardt K.L. Identity, social mobility and ethnic mobilization: Language and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Comparative Political Studies. 2017. Vol. 51 (7). Pp. 831-867.
35. Mozaffari M. Globalization and Civilizations. London: Routledge, 2003.
36. Rotaru V. The Eurasian Economic Union - a sustainable alternative for the former soviet space? Journal of Contemporary European Studies. 2018. Vol. 26 (4). Pp. 425-442.
37. Sergi B.S. Putin's and Russian-led European Union: A hybrid half-economics and half-poltical "Janus Biifrons". Journal of Eurasian Studies. 2018. No. 9. Pp. 52-60.
38. Shengler O. The decline of the West. Oxford: Oxford University 40. Ten Yu.P. The shaping of a symbolic model of the Eurasian Press, 1991. economic union as basis for marketing strategy. Humanities
39. Theiler T. Political symbolism and European integration. Man- and Socio-economic Sciences. 2017. No. 3 (94). C. 110-113. chester: Manchester University Press, 2005. (In Rus.)
Статья проверена программой Антиплагиат
Рецензент: ТюриковА.Г.,доктор социологических наук; профессор департамента социологии факультета социальных наук и массовых коммуникаций Финансового университета при Правительстве РФ Статья поступила в редакцию 18.03.2022, принята к публикации 26.04.2022 The article was received on 18.03.2022, accepted for publication 26.04.2022
ABOUT THEAUTHOR
Julia P. Ten, Dr. Sci. (Philos.); Professor at the Department of Management and Innovation of the Faculty of Higher School of Management; associate professor at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. Moscow, Russian Federation. ORCID: 0000-0003-23876243; SPIN: 3745-3928; E-mail: YPTen@fa.ru
СВЕДЕНИЯ ОБ АВТОРЕ
Тен Юлия Павловна, доктор философских наук; профессор Департамента менеджмента и инноваций факультета «Высшая школа управления»; доцент Финансового университета при Правительстве Российской Федерации. Москва, Российская Федерация. ORCID: 0000-00032387-6243; SPIN: 3745-3928; E-mail: YPTen@fa.ru
