Photo: RIA Novosti
It is very common to define today's Russian political reality through the concept of postmodernism. But explanations for this are not often found. Meanwhile, there are quite weighty signs by which it can be argued that the attitude of the majority of Russian residents and Russian authorities to political life is a total, deeply rooted in the subconscious postmodernism.
We must immediately make a reservation that in postmodernism it is worth highlighting at least two formats: “high” and “consumer”. Both of them proceed from the same premise: the main idea of the modern era, the idea of universal human meaning has ceased to work. But then there are differences.
- The «high» format of postmodernism lives the loss of meaning as a drama, although it does not cease to be ironic about its own drama.
- The «consumer» format of the feeling of drama deprived and completely occupied with adaptation to the senseless space of the world. There is also irony, but it is directed not at oneself, but at any attempt at a new appeal to universals. Rather, not irony, but harsh sarcasm.
As observations show, the most common type of Russian political postmodernism clearly corresponds to the «consumer» format. Here are two examples.
First, one of the key postmodern concepts is “death of the subject”. Indicates the disappearance of an independent producer of meanings or events. Russian society now almost completely fits into such a concept. Of course, both events and meanings multiply at a catastrophic rate, but there is only one source: the Russian authorities. It constantly produces new laws, declarations, incidents before astonished glances.
What is usually called a society does not produce anything. The maximum that is available is emotions, questions and claims.
Every day there is some reason to increase unhealthy excitement: what will happen after this? However, the excitement does not capture everyone. Only a small, critically thinking part reacts. The one that bears the well-known name: «intelligentsia». The basic, absolutely predominant part of Russian society is busy with its usual business — adaptation to what is at arm's length. The base part has no political involvement, not even emotional involvement. And she has no questions to the authorities.
An educated and successful young woman, when asked what she thinks about a possible war with Ukraine, replies: “I'm tired of politics!” When asked how actively she was previously interested in politics, she says: “I wasn’t interested, but I still got tired of her!”
However, it is not very appropriate for the depoliticized majority to be called “society”. Actually, as well as «the people». Both of these concepts presuppose political subjectivity — a self-conscious will capable of being an opponent for the will of its rulers. But such subjectivity is not observed in the majority.
Therefore, the most appropriate name for it would be “population”. Or, in the well-known expression of the political scientist Gleb Pavlovsky, “populations” who, with their indifference and speechlessness, have ensured loyalty to the power system for more than twenty years. thoughts and will. Chaadaev would certainly agree with such a statement. Or maybe the Russian population is catastrophically unlucky with their state. One way or another, but — there is no subject. What is always there is, according to one well-known chief prosecutor: an icy desert where a dashing person walks.
Kirill Kukhmar/TASS
The second example of the adaptation of postmodernism to Russian life: the active practice of deconstructing meaning through a game with names and titles. «The game of text against meaning» — as Jacques Derrida, the author of the very concept of deconstruction, called it.
However, the process of naming also has a downside, which, in fact, is the practice of deconstruction. The name given to a phenomenon can not only reflect, but also destroy, deform its fate. This is especially noticeable when it comes to a parody, deliberately distorted name.
It seems that the free treatment of names is really so essential? But it is very essential — the whole identity rests on the connections between the phenomenon and its names. This does not mean that names cannot change — and they do. But if identity is important to us, then changes in names should derive their validity not from our whim or benefit, but from the fate of the phenomenon itself. Even when the validity floats and becomes fake, one should also see this as nothing more than the fate of the phenomenon.
This is well understood by the ideologists of the Russian authorities. And great use. For example,
want to discredit the essence of free civil institutions, they attribute to them the status names of «foreign agents», «undesirable» or «extremist» organizations. It would look like a perfect parody, an oxymoron, but…
Those who create such a parody have sufficient power resources to make it move from a comic category to a dramatic burden.
Here we collide with yet another method of deconstructing meaning. When, at some arbitrary moment, the meaning is transferred from the intellectual-linguistic dimension to the violent-bodily dimension. A kind of game with dimensions. But the price that many people pay for such transfers is far from being playful: prison, emigration.