Abstract
How to understand the concept of the ‘Unique Russian path’, that is, the belief in a special Russian destiny which today constitutes a fundamental part of Russian official rhetoric and is widespread in Russian society? This chapter analyses the symbolic policy of the Russian authorities and the symbolic practices of the Russian public. They are connected through the institutional channels of school, press, and above all television. The analysis is based on Russian nationwide polls of the adult (over 18 years of age) population that were conducted over more than two decades by the Levada Analytical Center.1 The analytical approach is a form of sociological hermeneutics. It separates the semantic layers of various symbolic formations in public use, in particular the mythologeme (ideologeme) of a ‘Russian special path’ — my current subject of interest — and interprets them as elements of orientation and identification in various groups of Russian society. In addition, the semantic actions of other collective actors and the operation of communication channels between the participants are taken into consideration.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
For more information see L. Borusyak (2010), ‘“Staroe Dobroe Kino” i post-sovetskii opyt’ [‘Good Old Cinema’ and Post-Soviet Experience], Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniya [The Russian Public Opinion Herald], No. 1, pp. 90–101.
The idea and ideology of Sonderweg in Germany, as well as the emphasis on the uniqueness in Spain (Hispanidad), Turkey and other countries of delayed or belated modernization, are parts of a historical phase and do not constitute any fundamental mechanism of collective self-identification or symbolic reproduction of a ‘lost’ unity and the ‘return’ to it. The idea of multiple ways of modernization developed by a number of social and political scientists since the 1980s (see e.g. Eisenstadt S. N. (2009), Multiple Modernities: Der Streit um die Gegenwart. Berlin: Kadmos) makes senseless the ideologeme of a Russian ‘unique path’ with the content and functions given by Russian ideologues and analytically reconstructed in this article.
Coser, L. A. (1974), Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment (New York: Free Press).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Boris Dubin
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dubin, B. (2012). The Myth of the Russian ‘Unique Path’ and Public Opinion. In: Jonson, L., White, S. (eds) Waiting for Reform under Putin and Medvedev. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137011206_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137011206_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43641-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-01120-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)