CC BY
19
UDC 316.454.3
Вестник СПбГУ. Социология. 2017. Т. 10. Вып. 3
E. S. Bogomiagkova1, E. V. Evsikova1'2, G. A. Nikolaenko1'2
THE CASE OF MEMORY STUDIES: STUDENTS REMEMBERING 1993
1 St. Petersburg State University, 7-9, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersburg, 199034, Russian Federation
2 Center for STS, Institute for the History of Science and Technology named after Sergey I. Vavilov, St Petersburg Branch, Russian Academy of Sciences, 5, Universitetskaya nab., St. Petersbrg, 199034, Russian Federation
Despite the fact that the events of the early 1990s played a crucial role in shaping the social, political and cultural spheres in Russian Federation that embarked on the path of the democratic and capitalist development, this seldom falls into the focus of modern sociological research. In particular, this concerns issues of memory and, as a consequence, historical images that form national identity. In this article we turn to the classical theory of memory by Maurice Halbwachs, as well as to the works by Michel Foucault. Thus, the key concepts of our research are "memory" and "counter-memory". Within the framework of our research, the analysis of the formation processes of the historical memory of modern students about the events of 1993, in particular — the Putsch, was conducted. The study involved technical students and humanities at the age of17 to 22 from two universities in St. Petersburg. The study included 3 parts: an online survey (200 participants); unstructured personal interview (12 participants); content analysis of media (TV and 36 newspapers) and federal textbooks on the history of Russia for 2013-2014. Based on the content analysis, we found out that the interpretation of events in the mass media contradicts its legal version. The image of Boris Yeltsin as a central person prevailed in all analyzed sources, while his opponents are hardly mentioned. The events that occurred in 1993 were almost ignored by Russian history textbooks. This is how the "insignificance" of these events was formed. The results of the survey and interviews were similar. Thus, it can be argued that, at the moment, a fairly tough historical policy is being pursued in Russia, including the events of 1993. Refs 33. Figs 3. Table 1.
Keywords: memory, counter-memory, 1993, putsch, historical policy, memory design, survey, content analysis, generational analysis.
ПАМЯТЬ СТУДЕНТОВ О ПУТЧЕ 1993 ГОДА: ОПЫТ ЭМПИРИЧЕСКОГО ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
Е. С. Богомягкова1, Е. В. Евсикова1,2, Г. А. Николаенко1,2
1 Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет,
Российская Федерация, 199034, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 7-9
2 Центр социолого-науковедческих исследований СПбФ ИИЕТ им. С. И. Вавилова РАН, Российская Федерация, 199034, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 5
Несмотря на то, что события начала 1990-х годов сыграли решающую роль в формировании социальной, политической и культурной сферы в Российской Федерации, которая встала на путь демократического и капиталистического развития, они редко попадают в фокус современных социологических исследований. В частности, это касается вопросов памяти и, как следствие, исторических образов, формирующих национальную идентичность. В этой статье авторы обращаются к классической теории памяти Мориса Хальбвакса и к работам Мишеля Фуко, а ключевыми понятиями выступают категории «память» и «контр-память». В рамках исследования анализировались процессы формирования исторической памяти современных студентов о событиях 1993 года, в частности, о Путче. В исследовании принимали участие студенты технических и гуманитарных направлений подготовки в возрасте от 17 до 22 лет из двух университетов Санкт-Петербурга. Исследование включало 3 части: онлайн-опрос (200 респондентов); полуструктурированное личное интервью (12 информантов); контент-анализ СМИ (телевидение и 36 газет) и федеральных учебников по истории России за 2013-2014 годы. На основе контент-анализа, авторы выяснили, что интерпретация событий в средствах массовой информации противоречит его юридической версии. Образ Бориса Ельцина как центральной фигуры преобладает во всех проанализированных источниках, в то время как его оппоненты
© Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, 2017
почти не упоминаются. События, произошедшие в 1993 г., почти игнорируются в учебниках по истории России. Таким образом, можно сделать вывод о конструировании «незначительности» этих событий. Основные результаты опроса и интервью также были схожими. Можно утверждать, что в настоящий момент в России реализуется довольно жесткая историческая политика, в том числе в отношении событий 1993 года. Библиогр. 33 назв. Ил. 2. Табл. 1.
Ключевые слова: память, контр-память, 1993, путч, историческая политика, анализ памяти, опрос, контент-анализ, анализ поколений.
Relevancy and investigative problem
In 2013 there was the 20th anniversary of the 1993 Putsch (an attempted government overthrow) in Russia. The 1990s were an epoch of changes on the entire expanse of Eastern Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had led to changes in the political, economic, social, cultural life of many countries the significance of which is hard to overestimate. For the formation of the politico-economic structure of Russia the 1993 events, the attempted coup, when the country was on the brink of a revolution, were an especially important moment. Nevertheless, these events are rarely relevant on today's public agenda. In this connection the methods of memory construction about the 1993 events, and the reminiscences of young people about these events are of a special investigative interest.
Our research focused on young people, for due to their age modern students could not have witnessed the 1993 events. Each generation produces and reproduces its own recollections of significant events in the country's history. These recollections both soak up personal experience, personal emotions, and are affected by public discourse. It is interesting to analyze what modern students know and "remember" about the Putsch, what communicative channels are the basic source of information for them, whether this topic is of interest for modern youth. On the other hand, the dominant discourse generating mindsets regarding the 1993 events has become the subject of our research interest.
Theoretical framework
Despite the fact that memory research is becoming more popular from year to year, from the theoretical and methodological point of view this area of humanitarian knowledge is undergoing a crisis. The pioneer in the sociological studying of memory was the French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs. His research was based on the postulates of the Emil Durkheim school, as well as the philosophical works by Henri Bergson. Unfortunately, Maurice Halbwachs tragically died in the concentration camp of Buchenwald and didn't have a chance to correct his theory, published in 1925 under the title "On Collective Memory" (Les Cadres sociaux de la mémoire, 1925) [6]. Published posthumously book "The Collective Memory" (La Mémoire collective, 1950) [7], which included all the author's records that were able to be found in the postwar period, unfortunately, did not contain the answers to the majority of the critical theses that were put forward since the mid-1920s. At the moment, Pierre Nora — the French historian, a representative of the third generation of the Annals school — can be called the most significant follower of Maurice Halbwachs. Pierre Nora included most of his theoretical and methodological findings, in particular the so-called "Realms of Memory", in his work of the same name "Realms of Memory" (Les Lieux de mémoire, 1984-1992) [13]. Moreover, the most important
contribution to the study of memory was made by Paul Ricoeur — the French philosopher, the brightest representative of hermeneutics. The most interesting from the point of view of the studying memory and historical politics works by Ricoeur are the following: "History and Truth" (Histoire et vérité, 1955) [15], "An essay on interpretation" (De l'interprétation, 1965) [14], "The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics" (Le Conflit des interpretations, 1969) [16]. Special attention should be paid to the work of the German researcher Aleida Assmann, in particular, "Spaces of Remembrance: Forms and Transformations of Cultural Memory" (Erinnerungsräume: Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, 1999) [3], "The Long Shadow of the Past: Cultures of Memory and the Politics of History" (Der lange Schatten der Vergangenheit. Erinnerungskultur und Geschichtspolitik, 2006) [2], "Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives" (1999) [4] and "The New Discomfort at the Culture of Remembrance. An Intervention" (Das neue Unbehagen an der Erinnerungskultur. Eine Intervention, 2013) [1]. As for domestic researchers, at the moment Alexey Miller [11, 12] and Olga Malinova [9, 10] are "the industry leaders".
The most famous empirical study of memory, which later became a reference, is a cross-national study of the memory of generations, developed by American researchers G. Schumann and J. Scott [17], conducted in a number of countries between 1985 and 1994. In 1999, the results of an extensive study of the collective memory of Americans undertaken by the staff of the Gallup Institute [25] were presented. The main areas of research were identity research, biographical analysis, research on commemorative practices, intergenerational differentiation of social memory, research on the politics of memory and historical politics. Also, within the framework of the Eurasian Monitor project [24], an intercountry (cross-cultural) sociological survey was conducted among post-Soviet countries on the disintegration of the USSR, its consequences and causes [27].
In Russia, FOM [19] and VCIOM [32] (usually on the eve of memorable dates) periodically study the collective memory of generations about various historical stages (including "perestroika") [22], significant events [21, 28] and outstanding personalities [31], images of various epochs (including the 1990s) in the mass consciousness [18, 30, 29], and so on. In 2013, FOM conducted an all-Russian survey among the adult population on the events of 1993 [26]. As a result, it was revealed that 20 % of respondents believe that the truth in October 1993 was on the side of the Supreme Council, Yeltsin's supporters were half as much 9 %. The rest were at a loss to answer this question. 43 % of Russians are confident that if the Supreme Council won the victory, the country would develop differently, only 15 % think that it would go along the same path.
As a theoretical framework of our research we have selected the concept of memory by M. Halbwachs, and the ideas of memory and countermemory by M. Foucault. According to M. Halbwachs [20], memory is a part of human consciousness and divided into two levels, social and personal. Of greatest interest for us is the social level, which includes historical consciousness. According to Yuri Levada, "this concept covers all the variety of spontaneously formed or constructed rules, in which the society understands its movement in the temporary universe» [8]. Historical consciousness is formed both naturally (as a result of personal recollections, personal biography) and as a result of the existing public discourse.
Following the conception of memory by Michel Foucault, we suggest our own interpretation of categories of historical memory and countermemory (history). By his-
torical memory we mean the "aggregate of pre-scientific, scientific, quasi-scientific and non-scientific knowledge and mass perceptions of the community about the common past" [5]. Historical memory forms spontaneously. Within this research we determine countermemory (history) as discourse engendered by autocratic groups, reflecting perception and assessment of various events in accordance with relevant events of the present. The basic differences between historical memory and countermemory are given in the table 1.
Table 1. Basic differences between historical memory and countermemory
Historical memory Countermemory
Witnesses of events, family, friends, significant others, social media Institution of education, mass media, the state
Inhomogeneous Homogeneous within a separate nation
Spontaneous Discourse legitimizing political and economic culture
Personal recollections, daily narratives Official ideology
The main properties of historical memory are directly related to the agents that form it. Historical memory is heterogeneous since different social groups construct it in its own way. We can say that it is formed spontaneously. We have already said that different social groups construct different versions of historical memory, that makes us conclude that historical memory also works as an important element of social integration. As a result of identifying oneself with the group, the individual tends to share common ideas about the past and present, thus acting as the bearer of group historical memory. Collective historical memory influences the self-identification of an individual, defining its relation to the past, the present and the future, facilitating the distinction between "we-they".
Groups possessing power can form countermemory to legitimize the existing political and economic order, legitimize their own activities. Countermemory acts as dominant discourse reproduced through the basic social institutions (mass media, institution of education) available to "powerful groups", and affecting the formation of historical memory. Within our research we consider interaction of countermemory and historical memory on the example of recollections of students about the events of 1993.
Legitimate version of the events
In the fall of 1993 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation [33] acknowledged the B. N. Yeltsin's actions illegitimate and not conforming to the then-current Constitution of Russia, which is a ground for dismissing B. N. Yeltsin from the position of the President of the Russian Federation. Moreover, according to the Constitution, the competences of the President were transferred to the Vice President who was then A. V. Rutskoy. I. e., at the moment of the Putsch A. V. Rutskoy was a legitimate acting President of the Russian Federation.
The basic hypothesis
We suppose that through such social institutions as mass media and the institution of education, a version of the events is translated which differs from the legitimate interpretation, therefore, the historical memory of students is affected by countermemory.
Besides, we have put forward a number of additional hypotheses:
• Mass media play a leading role in the construction of the image of the 1993 Putsch and are the basic source of information for modern student community.
• In central mass media the 1993 Putsch is constructed as an uninteresting, insignificant, boring event; modern mass media rarely resort to this range of problems.
• The system of education in Russia not only discourages but also impedes the inclusion of this historical period in question (early 1990s) as a significant one in the history of Russia.
• The student community is characterized by a lack of interest in Russia's modern history.
Design of the research
The research was done in November-December, 2013. The target group was students of the two biggest higher educational establishments in Saint Petersburg (Saint Petersburg State University and Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia) studying in technical and socio-humanistic specialties. The aim of the research was to analyze historical memory of modern student community in relation to the events of 1993. In the course of the research the following objectives were put forward:
• To analyze the main content of historical memory of students in relation to the 1993 events.
• To review the basic channels for the formation of historical memory of modern youth.
• To analyze the content of statements in relation to the 1993 events broadcast using modern mass media and the institution of education.
• To compare the content of statements in relation to the 1993 events broadcast using modern mass media and the institution of education with a legal version of the events.
• To analyze the influence of "countermemory" on the formation of "historical memory» by the example of modern youth;
• To compare historical memory in relation to the 1993 events of students of technical and socio-humanistic faculties.
The research consisted of three stages:
1. Content analysis of mass media (television and newspapers) and textbooks on the history of Russia.
In the course of content analysis the following informational sources was analyzed:
• video materials (31 in total) placed on official sites of leading Russian TV channels "Pervy Kanal", "Rossiya", "NTV", in which the events of October 1993 are mentioned (over 2000-2013);
• articles (26 in total) placed on official sites of the newspapers "Izvestiya", "Vedo-mosti", "Argumenty-i-Facty", "Komsomolskaya Pravda", "Moskovskij Komsomo-
lets" containing references to the events of October 1993 (over 2003-2013). All articles are devoted to the events of 1993: 13 articles in "Komsomolskaya Pravda", 3 articles in "Moskovskij Komsomolets", 5 articles in "Izvestiya", 5 articles in "Ar-gumenty-i-Fakty". The search was carried out on the official sites of these newspapers using the key words ("the Putsch in 1993", "October 1993", "1993", "20th anniversary", etc.). The list of the materials to be analyzed was drawn up on the basis of the all-Russian rating of mass media [23]. All the analyzed newspapers was in the top-5 of this rating in 2014, so they were considered the most popular among citizens of our country. • information disclosing the events of October 1993 placed in six textbooks on the history of Russia (included in the federal list of textbooks recommended (admitted) for use in the educational process in educational establishments implementing general educational programs and having state accreditation, for the 2013/2014 academic year). The textbooks were issued in 1995, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2013.
2. An online survey of students (The Case of St. Petersburg State University and Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia). The questionnaire was developed on the basis of cross-national studies of the collective generation memory by Howard Schumann and Jacqueline Scott [17], studies of the collective memory of Americans (Gallup Institute) [25] and Russians (FOM, VCIOM) [18, 21, 22, 26, 28-31]. As the stratification criteria, the students were identified as belonging to a technical or socio-humanitarian profile. The general totality consists of students of social-humanitarian and technical faculties of SPbSU and Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia. The selection of respondents occurred separately in each of the allocated strata by spontaneous way. The Internet survey was used as a method of data collection. The sample size was 200 persons, of which 50 % study in social sciences and humanities, 50 % in technical ones.
We have to underline that our study does not pretend to be representative, because the sample was formed by spontaneous, not random, way. Such a study does not entail an assessment of sampling error. So, the results of this survey can only be applied to the studied group of students. Nevertheless, outcomes of this research can help to formulate new hypothesis about historical memory of the modern youth and the ways of its constructing that may be tested in future surveys.
3. Among people who responded to the Internet survey, 12 respondents were randomly selected (among them there were 6 students of Herzen's technical and socio-humanitarian areas and 6 students of St. Petersburg State University of relevant areas) for conducting semi-structured interviews that allowed to expand the data obtained at previous stages of the study.
Basic results
As already mentioned earlier, in the fall of 1993, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognized Yeltsin's actions as illegal, which was the basis for the removal of Boris N. Yeltsin from the office of the President of the Russian Federation and the appointment of A. V. Rutskoi as Acting President of the Russian Federation.
On the basis of the undertaken content analysis a preliminary conclusion can be drawn that through the main social institutions (mass media, education) the version of the 1993 events is reproduced which is opposite to its legal interpretation. Thus, in most analyzed sources of mass media A. V. Rutskoy and R. I. Khasbulatov act as putschists, instigators, and organizers of an attempted coup-detat. In his turn, B. N. Yeltsin is viewed as the legal president of the Russian Federation opposing the conspirators from the Supreme Council.
In the textbooks on the history of Russia used in secondary schools in 2014 the event of October 1993 are practically not reviewed. Thus, in one of the textbooks this topic is absent at all, in the remaining ones it occupies about 3 paragraphs in which B. N. Yeltsin acts as a defender of the political and economic system of the young Russian Federation opposing the "remnants of the Soviet elite" striving to forcibly seize the power. Thus, we can presume that the "insignificance" of this event is constructed. Besides, even the 20th anniversary of the 1993 events brought about no outburst of news, TV footage, articles in leading periodicals. The 1993 events were presented in the central media as insignificant, not bearing directly on the current politico-economic situation, were not viewed as a watershed in the history of the country, having shaped its future.
Relying on the results of our research, we also can say that countermemory significantly affects historical memory. Thus, in the analyzed mass media the image of B. N. Yeltsin prevails is a key figure in the events of October 1993, whereas A. V. Rutskoy and R. I. Khasbulatov are practically not mentioned. The same tendency remains in the answers which we obtained using questionings and interviews.
Key figures (B. N. Yeltsin, A. V. Rutskoy, R. I. Khasbulatov) were mentioned 24 times in school textbooks in the context of the topic under consideration. Of these, 66.7 % of the mentions refer to figure of B. N. Yeltsin, 20.8 % — A. V. Rutskoi and only 12.5 % — R. I. Khasbulatov. Thus, the content analysis of textbooks showed that B. N. Yeltsin is the most frequently mentioned figure. In general, his name was mentioned 16 times (66.7 %) — 63.5 % in positive interpretations and only 12.5 % in the negative. As for
positive ■ negative
Figure 1. Ranking by Most Frequent Mention of Key Figures with Positive and Negative Coloring
A. V. Rutskoy (40 %) and R. I. Khasbulatov (33 %), the same number of negative and positive mentions of these key figures was found in textbooks (Figure 1).
In textbooks, in most cases there is rather an approving coloring to Boris Yeltsin's actions than negative or neutral. In turn, supporters of the Supreme Soviet (A. V. Rutskoy and R. I. Khasbulatov) are characterized as "invaders", "irreconcilable", "leaders of resistance", etc., i.e. they have a pronounced negative connotation.
Just as in school textbooks, the image of Boris Yeltsin as the key figure in the events of October 1993 prevails in the analyzed newspaper materials, while A. V. Rutskoy and R. I. Khasbulatov are much less often mentioned. In total, key figures were mentioned 312 times in the analyzed articles. B. N. Yeltsin was mentioned 66.3 % of them, R. I. Khasbulatov — 17 % and A. V. Rutskoy — 16.7 %. In addition, Boris Yeltsin's number of positive references exceeds the number of negative references (23.3 % versus 8.2 % in print media, 63.2 % versus 12.5 % in textbooks on the history of Russia). The situation with A. V. Rutskoy and R. I. Khasbulatov is of an opposite nature. For example, in print media, among all the mentions of A. V. Rutskoy, 11.5 % are of positive color, and 32.7 % are of negative color. For R. I. Khasbulatov the distribution is as follows: 7.5 % positive and 26.9 % negative in the print media (Figure 2).
It should be noted that within the articles there are such characteristics as "Absolute truth was on the side of Borys Yeltsin", "Yeltsin called on generals to show solidity and save the legitimate authority", "the man (Rutskoy) just declared himself head of the state at the height of a terrible political crisis", "Leaders of the Supreme Council of Russia of the 1993 wanted to change the power by force".
Thus, we can conclude that in most articles the image of Boris Yeltsin is presented to readers as positive, while the images of A. V. Rutskoy and R. I. Khasbulatov are negative. The remaining mentions were attributed to the category of neutral. Neutral mentions are informative or descriptive without positive or negative coloring.
positive ■ negative
Figure 2. Ranking by Most Frequent Mention of Key Figures with Positive and Negative Coloring
As a result of the study of the video materials, the following characteristics of the key figures were found: "The inspirers of the armed adventure of Khasbulatov, Rutskoy and their supporters ...", "As is often the case, all instigators of the massacre remained alive and well", "October 3, armed supporters of the Supreme Council, incited by Rutskoy and Makashov, seized the Moscow mayor's office and tried to storm the television center. <.> instigators of the October riots", "America will never forget how he stood on the tank in front of the White House, resisting coup attempts".
The figure of B. N. Yeltsin turns out to be symbolically related to the Putsch, in the visual representations he poses as a hero, often against the background of the flag of Russia. One can assume that, since the modern political elite is a legal successor of B. N. Yeltsin, the glorification and legitimization of his actions during the 1993 Putsch are effected in its interests.
Based on the content analysis of the main information channels of counter-memory, it is possible to draw a preliminary conclusion that, in order to legitimize the existing political-economic system (which is the direct successor of Boris Yeltsin's reforms), the events of 1993 receive an interpretation that is significantly different from the legal version. Thus, we were able to confirm the hypothesis that counter-memory is working to legitimize the existing political-economic system.
Moreover, we compiled a rating of the popularity of information sources used by students to obtain information about the events of October 1993. The respondents reported Internet (54.5 %), school textbooks (45 %), "significant others" (44 %), television (28 %) as the basic sources of obtaining information on the 1993 events (Figure 3).
Generally, on the basis of the online survey it can be concluded that modern students take little interest in either the modern history of Russia or the current political situation, are not acquainted with the legal version of the 1993 events. As a rule, they say about the competence of the actions of B. N. Yeltsin. It should be said that no significant differences in mindsets of students of technical and socio-humanistic profiles were identified.
RUMOR MAGAZINES RADIO
UNIVERSITY PROGRAMME NEWSPAPERS LITERATURE TELEVISION «SIGNIFICANT OTHERS» SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS INTERNET
Figure 3. Frequency of Information Sources
0,6% 2%
However, it should be noted that among respondents who believe that the available information on the events of the autumn of 1993 is not reliable, 81.3 % refer to the social and humanitarian profile and, accordingly, only 18.7 % to the technical one. Moreover, among the students sympathizing with B. N. Yeltsin, the greater part — 66.7 % refers to the technical profile and only 33.3 % to the socio-humanitarian. Thus, socio-humanistic education does not facilitate formation of a more detailed vision of the history of Russia or encourage interest in modern political processes. We can say as a conclusion that spontaneously constructed historical memory is constantly influenced by countermem-ory which is able to form an attitude to and assessment of various historical events in the interests of the ruling groups.
Thus, as a result of the study, the following conclusions can be drawn: one of our assumptions that such social institutions as media and the education system, broadcast a version of the events that differs from the legitimate interpretation, and, therefore, the historical memory of students is under the influence of counter-memory, was confirmed. Moreover, the additional hypotheses put forward by us at the beginning of the study were partially or fully confirmed. The mass media really play a significant role in building the coup in 1993 and are the main source of information for the modern student community (Internet (54.5 %), school textbooks (45 %), television (28 %)). Nevertheless, an important role among the sources of information about the events of 1993 is played by "significant others" (44 %). Indeed, in the central media, the 1993 Putsch is designed as an uninteresting, insignificant, boring event. Moreover, modern media rarely address this issue. According to the results of the survey, modern students have little interest in both the history of Russia and the current political situation, they are not familiar with the legal version of the events of 1993.
Can a historical policy that forms a certain pro-power image of history influence the perception of historical events by the population? Certainly! This statement is a sociological axiom. As for the image of the events of the Putsch in 1993, it can be seen from the results of our study that silence does take place. However, the question of this concealment nature remains open. Firstly, it can be determined by the awareness of the need to deduce these events beyond the limits of the public "operative memory" because of the ambiguous actions of all historical actors who took an active part in the putsch. Especially this assumption becomes actual, if we recall the words of the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy that could be avoided. Of course, the Putsch of 1993 had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, but it was the last blow to the structures of Soviet power that remained at that time. At the same time, as is known, this blow was organized by B. N. Yeltsin, whose successor is V. V. Putin. Secondly, it is quite possible that the putsch is not hushed up, but simply ignored because the historical policy of the Russian Federation is built on other dominants, including the Great Patriotic War, Yuri Gagarin's flight into space, etc. Thus, it can be assumed that the Putsch is shifted to the second and third place in a natural, historical way, like a multitude of events, whose significance has faded in comparison with other events that took place in the same historical period. As it is known, historical events imprinted in memory can be classified into two groups — "significant events" and "turning points". What is the coup of 1993? Is it a significant event? Quite possibly. Is it a turning point? Most likely, yes, because it puts the coup on the Soviet model of power. However, after the collapse of the USSR, the viability of this model aroused not only doubts but also skepticism among the population
and, from this point of view, it can be said that the coup was rather a formal point, only confirming the actual state of affairs. In any case, whether this is silence or ignoring the position of the government expressed in the state historical policy is clear and transparent, and the taken measures have ensured success. The 1993 Putsch, fading in the shadow of Putch 1991, dissolved in the amorphous concept of "dashing 90s", hiding the details of the formation of the modern political system in Russia and, as a consequence, the sources of the current government.
As it was already mentioned, in 2013 the FOM conducted a study of the adult population of Russia (18 years and older, 1500 respondents) regarding the events of 1993. However, in this absolutely valuable and interesting study, the accent was placed on memories, while the question of forming the image of the younger generation, which did not find these events at a conscious age, was not disclosed. The overwhelming majority of young respondents who participated in the FOM survey chose the answer "I was small (-s)", which again demonstrates to us some dichotomy between eyewitnesses and their descendants. Thus, the novelty of our research is that we were interested in a group of people who are not direct witnesses of this event, but who have an idea of it only through external sources.
Our study does not pretend to be representative (it is a case, therefore, the results of this study can only be applied to the studied group of people), but we hope that due to our work we will draw the attention of the scientific community to the importance of studying "images" on a par with memories like in neurological studies, as well as interdisciplinary research in the field of memory that have repeatedly shown the variability of memories and, on the contrary, the stability of images. Prospects for further research in the field of memory are, as we can see, unconditionally useful, and that is most important — interesting.
Refernces
1. Assmann A. Das neue Unbehagen an der Erinnerungskultur: Eine Intervention [The New Discomfort at the Culture of Remembrance. An Intervention]. München, Verlag C. H. Beck, 2013. 230 p.
2. Assmann A. Dlinnaja ten'proshlogo: memorial'naja kul'tura i istoricheskaja politika [The Long Shadow of the Past: Cultures of Memory and the Politics of History] Moscow, New Literary Observer Publ., 2014. 328 p. (In Russian)
3. Assmann A. Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächtnisses [Memory Spaces, Forms and Transformations of Cultural Memory]. Special paperback editon, 1st edition publ. 1999, München, Beck.
4. Assmann A. Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Memory, Archives. First English Edition. Transl. Aleida Assmann and David Henry Wilson. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2011, 402 p.
5. Foucault M., Nietzsche, Genealogy, History, in D. F. Bouchard (ed.), Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1977, pp. 139-164.
6. Halbwachs M. On Collective Memory. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1992.
7. Halbwachs M. The Collective Memory. New York, Harper & Row Colophon Books, 1980, 182 p.
8. Levada Yu. A. Istoricheskoe soznanie i nauchnyi metod [Historical Consciousness and the Scientific Method]. Filosofskie problemy nauki [Philosophical Problems of Science]. Moscow, 1969, pp. 186-224. (In Russian)
9. Malinova O. Yu. Tema proshlogo v ritorike prezidentov Rossii [The Theme of the Past in the Rhetoric of Presidents of Russia ]. Pro et Contra, 2011, vol. 15, no. 3-4, pp. 106-122. (In Russian)
10. Malinova O. Yu. Aktual'noe proshloe: Simvolicheskaya politika vlastvuyushchei elity i dilemmy rossiiskoi identichnosti [Current Past: The Symbolic Politics of the Ruling Elite and the Dilemma of Russian Identity]. Moscow, 2015. 207 p. (In Russian)
11. Miller A. Istoricheskaya politika v Vostochnoi Evrope nachala XXI veka [Historical policy in Eastern Europe in the beginning of XXI century]. Istoricheskaya politika v XXI veke: Sbornik statei [Historical Policy
in the XXI Century: Collection of Articles]. Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Review], 2012, pp. 7-32. (In Russian)
12. Miller A. Rossiya: vlast' i istoriya [Russia: Power and History]. Pro et contra, 2009, no. 3-4 (46), pp. 6-23. (In Russian)
13. Nora P. The Era of Commemoration. Eds. Pierre Nora & L. Kritzman. Realms of Memory: The Construction of the French Past. Vol. 3. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
14. Ricreur P. Freud and philosophy: An essay on interpretation. (Translated by Denis Savage). New Haven, Yale University Press, 1970. 571 p.
15. Ricreur P. History and Truth. Transl. C. A. Kelbley. Evanston, Northwestern University Press, 1965.
16. Ricreur P. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics (Don Ihde, ed., & Willis Domingo et al., transl.). Northwestern University Press, 1974.
17. Schuman H., Scott J. Kollektivnaya pamyat' pokolenii [Generations and Collective Memories]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies], 1992, no. 2, pp. 47-61. (In Russian)
18. Fedorov V., Baskakova Yu., Zhirikova A. Press-vypusk № 3320. Rossiya udivlyaet: pyat' epokh v rossiiskom obshchestvennom mnenii (1987-2017) [Press Release No. 3320. Russia Surprises: Five Eras in the Russian Public Opinion (1987-2017)]. Vserossiiskii tsentr izucheniya obshchestvennogo mneniya (VCIOM) [Russia Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM)]. [Electronic recource]. 06.03.2017. Available at: https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=116098 (accessed: 10.04.2017). (In Russian)
19. Fond Obshchestvennoe Mnenie (FOM) [Foundation Public Opinion (FOM)]. Official site. Available at: http://fom.ru/ (accessed: 10.04.2017). (In Russian)
20. Halbwachs, M. Collective and historical memory. Emergency reserve, 2005, no. 2-3. Available at: accessedhttp://magazines.russ.ru/nz/2005/2/ha2.html (accessed: 17.03.2017).
21. Istoricheskaya pamyat' [Historical Memory]. Fond Obshchestvennoe Mnenie (FOM) [Foundation Public Opinion (FOM)]. [Electronic recource] 21.11.2012. Available at: http://soc.fom.ru/Proshloe/10704 (accessed: 14.04.2017). (In Russian)
22. Istoricheskaya pamyat': vzglyady pokolenii. Mneniya raznykh pokolenii rossiyan o znachitel'nykh sobytiyakh kontsa XX veka [Historical Memory: the Views of Generations. Opinions of Different Generations of Russians about Significant Events of the End of the XX Century]. Fond Obshchestvennoe Mnenie (FOM) [Foundation Public Opinion (FOM)]. [Electronic recource] 19.08.2013. Available at: http:// fom.ru/Proshloe/11041 (accessed: 10.04.2017). (In Russian)
23. Medialogiya. Monitoring i analiz SMI v rezhime real'nogo vremeni [Information and analytical system Medialogy]. Official site [Electronic resource]. Available at: http://www.mlg.ru/ratings/ (accessed: 20.02.2017). (In Russian)
24. Mezhdunarodnoe Issledovatelskoe Agentstvo "Evraziiskii Monitor" [International Research Agency "Eurasian Monitor"]. Official site [Electronic recource]. Available at: http://www.eurasiamonitor.org/rus/ (accessed: 29.04.2017). (In Russian)
25. Newport F., David W. Moore, Saad L. The Most Important Events of the Century From the Viewpoint of the People [Electronic recource]. Gallup. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/3427/most-important-events-century-from-viewpoint-people.aspx (accessed: 10.04.2017).
26. O sobytiyakh 1993 goda. Komu simpatizirovali rossiyane v khode sobytii 1993 goda? [About the Events of 1993. Who did the Russians Sympathize with During the Events of 1993?]. Fond Obshchestvennoe Mnenie (FOM) [Foundation Public Opinion (FOM)]. [Electronic recource] 02.10.2013. Available at: http:// fom.ru/Proshloe/11105 (accessed: 10.04.2017). (In Russian)
27. Obshchestvennoe mnenie o raspade SSSR: 25 let spustya [Public Opinion about the Collapse of the USSR: 25 Years Later]. Mezhdunarodnoe Issledovatel'skoe Agentstvo "Evraziiskii Monitor" [International Research Agency "Eurasian Monitor"]. Official site [Electronic recource]. Available at: http://www. eurasiamonitor.org/frmtext/EM_2006-2016_USSR-25Jv_4.1_15.04.17).pdf (accessed: 29.04.2017). (In Russian)
28. Press-vypusk № 1079 [Press Release No. 1079]. Vserossiiskii tsentr izucheniya obshchestvennogo mneniya (VCIOM) [Russia Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM)]. [Electronic recource]. 28.10.2008. Available at: http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=10879 (accessed: 10.04.2017). (In Russian)
29. Press-vypusk № 2825. Plody perestroiki [Press Release No. 2825. The Results of "Perestroika"]. Vserossiiskii tsentr izucheniya obshchestvennogo mneniya (VCIOM) [Russia Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM)]. [Electronic recource]. 29.04.2015. Available at: https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=115240 (accessed: 29.04.2017). (In Russian)
30. Press-vypusk № 2993. Rossiya devyanostykh: dni porazhenii ili pobed? [Press Release No. 2993. Russia of the Nineties: Days of Defeats or Victories?]. Vserossiiskii tsentr izucheniya obshchestvennogo
mneniya (VCIOM) [Russia Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM)]. [Electronic recource]. 08.12.2015. Available at: https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=115503 (accessed: 29.04.2017). (In Russian)
31. Russkie kumiry dvadtsatogo veka [Russian Idols of the Twentieth Century]. Vserossiiskii tsentr izucheniya obshchestvennogo mneniya (VCIOM) [Russia Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM)]. [Electronic recource]. Available at: http://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=13080 (accessed: 10.04.2017). (In Russian)
32. Vserossiiskii Tsentr Izucheniya Obshchestvennogo Mneniya (VCIOM) [Russia Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM)]. Official site [Electronic recource]. Available at: http://wciom.ru/ (accessed: 10.04.2017). (In Russian)
33. Zakony Rossii [Russian Laws]. Available at: http://www. lawrussia.ru (accessed: 15.03.2017). (In Russian).
For citation: Bogomiagkova E. S., Evsikova E. V., Nikolaenko G. A. The case of memory studies: Students remembering 1993. Vestnik SPbSU. Sociology, 2017, vol. 10, issue 3, pp. 302-314. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu12.2017.304
Received: 29.04.2017 Acepted: 08.06.2017
Authors information:
Bogomiagkova Elena S. — PhD; elfrolova@yandex.ru Evsikova Ekaterina V. — Postgraduate; katezevs@yandex.ru Nikolaenko George A. — Postgraduate; Eastrise.spb@gmail.com
