Q2 Arts and Humanities
Alexey V. Mikhalev
{"title":"Русские места памяти в современном Харбине: имперские смыслы и советские символы","authors":"Alexey V. Mikhalev","doi":"10.22162/2619-0990-2023-65-1-153-162","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The study analyzes Russian places of memory in contemporary Harbin. Goals. The paper seeks to answer the question if a memorial consensus regarding the Russian heritage in China is possible, the term ‘memorial consensus’ as such denote a certain formal or informal agreement — between governments or within the community — whether to accept or reject certain symbols of the past, and how to interpret the historical events. That would guarantee conflict-free attitudes to places of memory and their due use for ritual purposes. Moreover, such an agreement regulates how certain memorials or memorable dates associated with a common history may be used in a way most acceptable to all the parties. And the present-day war on monuments around the world makes the study timely enough. In this regard, the Chinese experiences of forming a model for accepting a common past are of essential interest. Materials and methods. Methodologically, the work clusters with memory studies. The paper relies on the concepts ‘places of memory’ and ‘cultural memory’ to apply them to empirical materials of Heilongjiang and focus on toponyms, monuments, cemetery, museum exhibitions, architectural monuments, including Orthodox Christian churches. The discussion shall comprise not only monuments associated with White Russian émigrés but also later Soviet memorials. The paper investigates topographic data, visual materials, reference books dealing with historical and cultural landscapes, and historical works. Discussion. In terms of academic disciplines, the study involves historical, political science, sociological, and cultural approaches. This makes it possible to combine the analysis of the position of memorial objects with political changes in the region. Results. The work shows that a memorial consensus about the ‘Russian past’ has been formed in Harbin to meet tourist needs within the city’s image. This has been facilitated by the rapid development of domestic tourism in China. An important role in finding a memorial consensus was played by the constant dialogue between leaders of the two countries. The study identifies a total of three periods when relationships between national leaders had positive impacts on the policy towards the past. The first period is the time of the union between I. V. Stalin and Mao Zedong, the second period is the dialogue between B. N. Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, and the third one is the tandem of V. V. Putin and Xi Jinping.","PeriodicalId":36786,"journal":{"name":"Oriental Studies","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oriental Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22162/2619-0990-2023-65-1-153-162","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍。本研究分析了当代哈尔滨的俄罗斯记忆场所。的目标。本文试图回答这样一个问题:关于中国的俄罗斯遗产是否可能达成纪念共识,“纪念共识”一词本身就意味着某种正式或非正式的协议——政府之间或社区内部——是否接受或拒绝过去的某些象征,以及如何解释历史事件。这将保证对纪念场所采取无冲突的态度,并保证其适当用于仪式目的。此外,这种协议规定了如何以各方最能接受的方式使用与共同历史有关的某些纪念碑或值得纪念的日期。当今世界各地对纪念碑的战争使得这项研究足够及时。在这方面,中国形成一种接受共同过去的模式的经验是至关重要的。材料和方法。在方法上,这项工作与记忆研究相结合。本文将“记忆地”和“文化记忆”的概念运用到黑龙江的经验材料中,重点关注地名、纪念碑、墓地、博物馆展览、建筑纪念碑,包括东正教教堂。讨论将不仅包括与白俄人的薪金薪金有关的纪念碑,而且包括后来的苏联纪念碑。本文考察了地形数据、视觉资料、历史文化景观参考书和历史著作。讨论。在学科方面,研究涉及历史、政治学、社会学和文化方法。这使得对纪念物位置的分析与该地区的政治变化相结合成为可能。结果。这项工作表明,哈尔滨已经形成了一种关于“俄罗斯过去”的纪念共识,以满足城市形象内的游客需求。这得益于中国国内旅游业的快速发展。两国领导人之间的持续对话为达成纪念共识发挥了重要作用。该研究确定了国家领导人之间的关系对过去政策产生积极影响的三个时期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Русские места памяти в современном Харбине: имперские смыслы и советские символы
Introduction. The study analyzes Russian places of memory in contemporary Harbin. Goals. The paper seeks to answer the question if a memorial consensus regarding the Russian heritage in China is possible, the term ‘memorial consensus’ as such denote a certain formal or informal agreement — between governments or within the community — whether to accept or reject certain symbols of the past, and how to interpret the historical events. That would guarantee conflict-free attitudes to places of memory and their due use for ritual purposes. Moreover, such an agreement regulates how certain memorials or memorable dates associated with a common history may be used in a way most acceptable to all the parties. And the present-day war on monuments around the world makes the study timely enough. In this regard, the Chinese experiences of forming a model for accepting a common past are of essential interest. Materials and methods. Methodologically, the work clusters with memory studies. The paper relies on the concepts ‘places of memory’ and ‘cultural memory’ to apply them to empirical materials of Heilongjiang and focus on toponyms, monuments, cemetery, museum exhibitions, architectural monuments, including Orthodox Christian churches. The discussion shall comprise not only monuments associated with White Russian émigrés but also later Soviet memorials. The paper investigates topographic data, visual materials, reference books dealing with historical and cultural landscapes, and historical works. Discussion. In terms of academic disciplines, the study involves historical, political science, sociological, and cultural approaches. This makes it possible to combine the analysis of the position of memorial objects with political changes in the region. Results. The work shows that a memorial consensus about the ‘Russian past’ has been formed in Harbin to meet tourist needs within the city’s image. This has been facilitated by the rapid development of domestic tourism in China. An important role in finding a memorial consensus was played by the constant dialogue between leaders of the two countries. The study identifies a total of three periods when relationships between national leaders had positive impacts on the policy towards the past. The first period is the time of the union between I. V. Stalin and Mao Zedong, the second period is the dialogue between B. N. Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, and the third one is the tandem of V. V. Putin and Xi Jinping.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Oriental Studies
Oriental Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信