Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

Philosophy and Culture
Reference:

The concept of cultural sovereignty in the structure of the Foundations of State Cultural Policy

Pilyak Sergey Aleksandrovich

ORCID: 0000-0002-8910-8741

PhD in Architecture

Associate Professor of the Smolensk State University

214000, Russia, Smolensk region, Smolensk, Bolshaya Sovetskaya str., 30/11

s.pilyak@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 
 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0757.2023.4.40391

EDN:

VCXCEV

Received:

07-04-2023

Published:

01-05-2023

Abstract: Cultural heritage, which serves as a substratum of national identity, forms the right of the state to its own sovereignty. The substantiated proof of the possibility of independence from other cultures and nations has relatively recently entered the conceptual field of the philosophy of culture. In January 2023, significant changes made to the Foundations of the state Cultural Policy took into account the concept of cultural sovereignty and, to the necessary extent, justified its high importance for the development of the state and society. The fundamental role of culture in the creation and development of the state has been repeatedly recognized as one of the priorities. It should be noted that even later this priority was not a Russian regulatory novel.   The purpose of the study is to consider a range of concepts and legal novels reflecting the sphere of cultural heritage. The long-term work of an extensive circle of philosophers and culturologists has been crowned with the recognition of the value of culture in the system of state regulation of various spheres of human activity. As a result of the research, the conclusion is made about the relevance and timeliness of the implementation of the most important philosophical concepts in strategic planning documents and the high potential practical significance of the actualization of cultural heritage in order to achieve the results of the state cultural policy. In conclusion, it is noted that heritage as a cultural phenomenon has direct access to its semantic and value core. The preservation of cultural identity through the consistent building of cultural sovereignty is one of the most important priorities of modern state policy.

Keywords:

culture, interpretation of cultural heritage, a public policy tool, cognition, cultural phenomena, cultural heritage, heritage, public administration, interpretation, philosophy
This article is automatically translated.

At the present stage of development of society and culture, the concept of cultural sovereignty is of particular importance. Independence in the preservation of cultural values, firmness of beliefs and the absence of destructive foreign influences are the most valuable capital that allows building public policy as a whole. Cultural heritage simultaneously acts as an evidence base for external partners and its own population, arguing due to the historical continuity of the territory of the zones of interests of the state, the actions and deeds of state authorities. Heritage is a special human environment that visualizes the past and builds the vector of the future. The actualization of traditional values determines the transformation in relation to heritage.

Cultural heritage has a wide range of key characteristics that explain the specifics of its nature and practical possibilities. We will indicate the most characteristic of them in the context of this study. Firstly, heritage acts as a collective historical memory, storing the most important facts that unite people into nations, and peoples into states. It should be noted that one of the risks of culture is the deformation of historical memory [1], which is prevented by the preservation of cultural heritage. Secondly, heritage, due to its own uniqueness, non-renewability and attractiveness, is a rare instrument of influence, i.e. an argument for the use of forces and resources. Thirdly, heritage acts as a territorial marker, fixing the territory of the spread of certain cultural traditions. The involvement of national culture declares that the locality belongs to a certain state brighter than borders and legal acts. In this case, the heritage acts as a resource for the development of the territory.

At the same time, we note that the practical value of cultural heritage in state creation has not been in full demand for a long time. In 2023, following global changes in the global geopolitical structure, the value of identity markers – artifacts of cultural heritage - has significantly increased. An expedient continuation of the transformation of public and state relations was the adjustment of the most important act of state regulation of the sphere of culture. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 35 of January 25, 2023 "On Amendments to the Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 808 of December 24, 2014" embodied a number of important scientific theses in the system of public administration.

The inclusion of the concept of cultural sovereignty is one of a number of novelties of the Foundations of state Cultural Policy. In the new version of the act, the complex of tasks and priorities of the policy in the field of culture has been transformed. Previously, the relationship between heritage and cultural policy was not obvious. For example, the goals of the state cultural policy declared priority cultural and humanitarian development as the basis of economic prosperity, state sovereignty and civilizational identity of the country [1], which did not directly affect the issues of preserving cultural heritage.

It should be noted that the interpretation of the concept of an object of cultural heritage and the specifics of its nature is the subject of research by a whole galaxy of scientists. The concept of an object of cultural heritage, including in the context of human perception, was developed by researchers A.V. Rabotkevich [13], K. E. Rybak [14], Yu. A. Godovants [8] and others.

M. L. Shub made a significant contribution to the study of the actualization of heritage [18]. Based on the conceptualization of the image of the past as a cultural phenomenon, the researcher has identified its main characteristics, types and forms of representation of the image of the past in the modern socio-cultural space. M. A. Tyaglova [16] touches on the issues of heritage in the framework of the discussion on the value of culture in the modern world. T. V. Bespalova [3-7, 15] contributed to the consideration of the value-normative foundations of Russian cultural policy in the context of the development of patriotism. The researcher considers the principles and current state of patriotic education with the involvement of works of culture and art.

The purpose of the study is to determine the prospects for the preservation of cultural heritage in connection with the introduction of the concept of cultural sovereignty into the system of normative acts.

The research methodology can be characterized as a set of general scientific methods characteristic of the humanities and social sciences. The study was conducted using methods of analysis and synthesis, systematization and classification.

As is known, "every creative activity is based on a value system" [12, p. 106]. The most important consequence of creative activity is the translation of these cultural values. In addition, culture can act as a tool for the formation of motivation. Making any decisions is based on an analysis of the conditions under which decisions are made. In the case when a significant condition of the environment becomes love for the motherland, the desire to support a close region or local territory, it will be natural to make a decision taking into account the above and similar factors. The motivational role of culture is directly related to the concept of cultural sovereignty introduced by S. F. Chernyakhovsky [17]. A. L. Kazin applies the concept of interpretive politics in this context [10]. The study of the concept of cultural sovereignty has been conducted for a long time by a whole galaxy of researchers. "It is especially important for us that the expectation of a miracle inherent in the Russian spirit is associated with a radical interpretation of the concept of sovereignty" [11, p. 251]. In general, the concept of sovereignty is characterized by the qualities of universality, exclusivity and specificity [11, p. 254].

As modern researchers point out, "a person's selectivity in relation to certain aspects of the culture with which he identifies himself is susceptible to a high degree of external influence" [9, p. 9]. At the same time, in addition to fashion, mass tastes and stereotypes, this process, thanks to the use of "humanitarian technologies", can be adjusted by many interested forces. The leading force among them in the domestic realities should be recognized as the state implementing a set of measures within the framework of the implementation of state policy in the field of culture and education. The most obvious symbols of power, possessing the properties of uniqueness, emotionality and non-renewability, are cultural artifacts. It is the heritage that can serve to form state sovereignty, defined as the establishment of the identity and monopoly of the state on supreme power in society.

The concept of cultural sovereignty is one of the most important grounds for cultural policy. The concept of sovereignty includes a set of characteristics that ensure the stability of the state. "Sovereignty is created by an act of recognition, but not always, but only under certain conditions" [11, p. 222].

In the Fundamentals of state Cultural Policy, the concept of cultural sovereignty is interpreted as follows: "a set of socio-cultural factors that allow the people and the state to form their identity, avoid socio-psychological and cultural dependence on external influence, be protected from destructive ideological and informational influences, preserve historical memory, adhere to traditional Russian spiritual and moral values" [1].

The most important achievement of the act is that the concept of cultural sovereignty was introduced into the foundations of the state cultural policy. Complex geopolitical processes have caused a rethinking of the status of culture, its place in the formation of personality and state sovereignty in general. The legislative consolidation of the concept, its introduction into the system of normative acts is an important decision that builds a practice-oriented vector of development of cultural disciplines.

Let's consider the concepts mentioned in the document in more detail. "The state cultural policy is designed to ensure priority cultural and humanitarian development as the basis of economic prosperity, state sovereignty and civilizational identity of the country ..." [1]. Thus, cultural sovereignty is placed on the same level as the state, gaining special significance as the capital of state-building.

It should also be noted that one of the priorities of the state cultural policy is the effective use of the unique Russian cultural heritage for the spiritual and moral education of citizens, an appeal to historical memory. Considerable attention is paid to the recognition and formation of the "attractiveness of the Russian value system" [1].

Ensuring the cultural sovereignty of the Russian Federation and increasing the role of the Russian Federation in the global humanitarian and cultural space are designed to occupy a special place in the tasks of the state cultural policy.

Building the priority of traditional spiritual values visibly represents the supremacy of cultural sovereignty for the state. Consequently, the recognition of the expediency of cultural independence has made the most important civilizational choice in favor of a strong independent Russia.

Thus, historical memory and cultural heritage become effective tools in solving the tasks of the state cultural policy. Heritage objects can serve as milestones, fixing the space and its belonging to a certain culture. The indisputability of territorial affiliation makes it possible to consider culture as a fundamental type of activity. State participation in the preservation of heritage, therefore, directly affects sovereignty.

Cultural heritage is the highest value of the state, a tangible authority of the past, serving to strengthen the authority of the present. It should be noted that some other strategic planning documents also echo the content of the novels of the Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy. The concept of foreign policy literally builds the ideological matrix of Russia. Indications of a special state identity that ensures "harmonious coexistence of different peoples" [2] allow us to emphasize the exceptional role of Russia in the development of world civilization. Cultural and historical heritage is once again an extensive evidence base. 

The existing versions of these acts are to some extent synonymous. Attention to the issues of cultural sovereignty, reinforced against the background of modern historical events, pay special attention to the effectiveness of such work of heritage. The national interest of Russia is declared to be "strengthening traditional Russian spiritual and moral values, preserving the cultural and historical heritage of the multinational people of the Russian Federation" [2]. It is also planned to give priority attention to "promoting constructive international cooperation for the preservation of historical and cultural heritage" [2]. Culture remains one of the most sensitive areas of human society. The reflection of numerous transformations and metamorphoses of the public sphere inevitably affects culture and the perception of cultural heritage.

In conclusion, we note that heritage as a cultural phenomenon has direct access to its semantic and value core. The preservation of cultural identity through the consistent building of cultural sovereignty is one of the most important priorities of modern state policy. Culture, which relatively rarely receives detailed and practically realizable mentions in strategic planning acts, gradually occupies a special place at the present stage. The design of cultural sovereignty as a normative concept suggests the formation of a more favorable environment for the preservation of heritage objects in the future.

References
1. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 808 of December 24, 2014 "On Approval of the Fundamentals of the State Cultural Policy" (with amendments and additions)
2. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 229 dated March 31, 2023 "On Approval of the Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation".
3. Bespalova, T. V. The civilizational potential of state patriotism in modern Russia // Russia as a state-civilization: higher goals and alternatives for development: A collective monograph based on the materials of the Jubilee International Panarin Readings dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the birth of A.S. Panarin / Ed.: V.N. Rastorguev; scientific ed.: A.V. Nikandrov / Russian Scientific Research. in-t cultural and natural. Heritage named after D.S. Likhachev (Institute of Heritage); Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, Philos. f-T. – M.: Institute of Heritage. 2016. pp. 183-204.
4. Bespalova, T. V. Academician D.S. Likhachev on the identity of Russian culture // Ecology of culture – the doctrine of the preservation of cultural heritage and eternal values of culture: to the 110th anniversary of the birth of Academician D.S. Likhachev. // Scientific collection based on the materials of the International Anniversary Scientific Conference "Ecology of Culture – the doctrine of the preservation of cultural heritage and eternal values of culture: to the 110th anniversary of the birth of Academician D.S. Likhachev", October 26, 2016 at the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D.S. Likhachev. Ed. by S.Y. Zhitenev. – Moscow: Heritage Institute, 2017. pp. 5-13.
5. Bespalova, T. V., Rastorguev, V. N. Patriotism and Russian civilizational identity in modern Russian society. – Moscow: Heritage Institute, 2017. – 224 p.
6. Bespalova, T. V. Cultural and civilizational meanings of state patriotism [Text]: monograph / T. V. Bespalova, E. V. Sviridkina; ed. by T. V. Bespalova; Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D. S. Likhachev.-M.: Heritage Institute, 2019. – 212 p.
7. Bespalova, T. V., Minakov, A. Yu., Vasiliev, G. E. Analysis of the main documents of strategic planning of the Russian Federation in the fields of education, culture, state national policy and national security // Improving the conceptual apparatus in the sphere of state cultural policy of modern Russia: a collective monograph.-M. : Heritage Institute, 2020. pp. 40-58.
8. Godovanets, Yu. A. Preservation of cultural values: theory and practice of application of international standards (cultural analysis): abstract of the dissertation ... Candidate of Cultural Studies: 24.00.01; [Place of defense: Russian Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation]. – M., 2004. – 32 p .
9. Ikonnikova, S.N., Leonov I.V. The main vectors of self-identification in the formation of cultural identity // Bulletin of the St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture. 2019. No. 2 (39). pp. 6-10.
10. Kazin, A.L. Culture and statehood: a textbook / RIII. St. Petersburg, 2019.-132 p.
11. Kolev, A.N. Nation and state. The theory of conservative reconstruction. – M.: Logos, 2005. – 800 p.
12. Korostelev, N.Yu. On the role and significance of modern state cultural policy // Culture and civilization. 2016. No. 3. pp. 104-112.
13. Rabotkevich, A.V. State policy in the field of protection of historical and cultural monuments in Russia in the XVIII – early XX century: dissertation ... Candidate of Cultural Studies: 24.00.03 / Russian State Humanist. un-T.-Moscow, 1999. – 295 p.
14. Rybak, K. E. Museum in the normative system (historical and cultural analysis): abstract of the dissertation ... Doctor of Cultural Studies: 24.00.03; [Place of defense: St. Petersburg State University]. – St. Petersburg, 2006. – 36 p.
15. Strategy for the preservation of culture and cultural and historical heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030. Project / call. author: E. V. Bakhrevsky, T. V. Bespalova, O. A. Zakunov, A. S. Mironov. M.: Heritage Institute, 2016.-136 p.
16. Tyaglova, M. A. The game as a way of constituting the sacred principle in modern youth subcultures: on the examples of the role-playing and reconstructive movement : abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Cultural Studies : 24.00.01 / Tyaglova Maria Alexandrovna; [Place of protection: Crimea. feder. V.I. Vernadsky University].-Simferopol, 2017.-26 p.
17. Chernyakhovsky, S. F. Political culture: state policy and philosophy of the future. [Text]: monograph / S. F. Chernyakhovsky, ed. by S. F. Chernyakhovsky; Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D. S. Likhachev. — M. : Institute of Heritage, 2019. — 254 p.
18. Shub, M. L. Social, collective and cultural memory: a new approach to the definition of semantic boundaries of concepts // Observatory of Culture. 2017. Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 4-11

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The reviewed material cannot be considered as a scientific article according to a number of criteria. Its very volume - a little more than 0.2 a.l. without a bibliographic list – is insufficient to disclose the problem raised (although not explicitly formulated), in this regard, it should also be pointed out the extreme scarcity of sources, on the basis of which it is impossible to consider any issue relevant to the development of scientific knowledge. It is clear that the document addressed by the author is known to a wide range of domestic readers, and that is the only reason why one should take care to inquire about his existing assessments. But the situation is even worse with the content of the material. The text is composed of separate statements, apparently poorly understood by the author himself, it is devoid of any intelligible argumentation and is perplexing in terms of stylistics and punctuation. Many sentences are generally difficult to "decipher", that is, it remains unclear what the author really wanted to say. Let's read, for example, the following fragment: "Cultural heritage simultaneously acts as an evidence base for external partners and its own population, arguing for the historical continuity of the territory of the zones of state interests, actions and deeds of public authorities" (apparently, "zones", - the reviewer). The same strange impression is made by such a statement: "The inclusion of the concept of cultural sovereignty is one of a number of short stories (is the author familiar with the meaning of this word in Russian? – reviewer) Fundamentals of the state cultural policy". Of course, "novella" is not the only word of foreign language origin, with the use of which the author clearly made a mistake, we read further: "In 2023, following global changes in the global geopolitical structure, the value of identity markers - artifacts of cultural heritage increased significantly." What kind of "artifacts" can serve, in the author's opinion, as "markers of identity"? The fact of the matter is that the reader cannot learn this from the text itself and must guess what "artifacts" the author is so opaquely hinting at. But "The Decree of the President ... embodied in the system of public administration a number of important scientific theses." However, one can only guess what these provisions are. The following statement turns out to be a "worthy conclusion" of the entire narrative: "Culture, which relatively rarely receives detailed and practically realizable mentions in strategic planning acts, gradually occupies a special place at the present stage." It is extremely difficult to comment on such statements, since the bewilderment and rejection in them are caused not by individual fragments that could be corrected, but by the entire statement. I recommend rejecting the material.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

In the peer–reviewed article "The concept of cultural sovereignty in the structure of the Foundations of state cultural policy", the subject of the study is ensuring the cultural sovereignty of the country within the framework of the implementation of state cultural policy. The purpose of the research is not explicitly stated in the work itself. The methodology of the study is not prescribed. The research method is mainly a formal legal method, based on the principles and techniques of which the concept of "cultural sovereignty" is analyzed within the framework of normative legal acts. It can be noted that the author uses the "method of ascertaining" the use of this concept by other researchers without a meaningful interpretation of this concept. The relevance of the research is determined by the fact that at the present stage of society's development, the concept of cultural sovereignty is gaining key importance. Moreover, in modern conditions of confrontation, the work on preserving cultural heritage and historical memory becomes crucial for gaining cultural sovereignty, which is placed on the same level as the state. The importance of cultural sovereignty for the country necessitates the analysis of those threats and challenges of the modern world that hinder the preservation of historical memory, traditional Russian spiritual and moral values. The scientific novelty of the publication is not obvious from the standpoint of philosophy. Having analyzed the interpretation of the concept of cultural sovereignty in the Foundations of state cultural policy, the author makes a trivial conclusion that the most important achievement of this act was the introduction of this concept. In addition, the connection between the concepts of cultural sovereignty and cultural heritage is not obvious in the article. As a result, the conclusions formulated in the article are generally trivial. The content generally meets the requirements of the scientific text, but the lack of purpose of the work makes the expected result unclear: is it to bring the definition of cultural sovereignty from a normative act? (the author coped with this task, but the conclusion is trivial); to give an analysis of the relationship between cultural heritage and cultural sovereignty (this is not the case, and it is not included in the title). This one is characterized by general consistency and literacy of presentation. The article may be of interest to experts in the field of cultural policy. The bibliography of the work includes only 6 publications in Russian. At the same time, two works are normative in nature. As a result, the appeal to the main opponents from the area under consideration is not fully present. Thus, the article "The concept of cultural sovereignty in the structure of the Foundations of state cultural policy" in its presented form does not have scientific, theoretical and scientific-practical significance, to a greater extent corresponds to the branch of legal sciences in its methods. The work can be published if 1) the relationship between the concepts of cultural sovereignty and cultural heritage in relation to the stated topic is revealed; 2) the list of works on cultural sovereignty / cultural heritage is expanded and analyzed.

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the peer-reviewed study is an extremely important problem of conceptualization and institutionalization of Russia's cultural sovereignty. In the late 90s of the XX century. a very controversial but very popular American political scientist in Russia, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in his famous book "The Great Chessboard..." wrote that American global power is based on the "cultural superiority" of the United States, i.e. on the "amazing attractiveness" of American mass culture, including music, film, television, and other products cultural industry. It took Russia almost two decades to reflect on this problem and recognize its existence at the regulatory level – in the "National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation" of 2015. The concept of cultural sovereignty received a new sound in the amendments to the "Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy" introduced by the President of the Russian Federation at the end of January 2023. Thus, it must be admitted that the topic chosen by the author of the reviewed work for research has not only scientific relevance, but also political significance. Unfortunately, the author did not pay due attention to substantiating his own theoretical and methodological choice. His entire reflection on this topic was reduced to mentioning some strange "set of general scientific methods characteristic of the humanities and social sciences" [so are these methods general scientific, or are they characteristic only of socio-humanitarian knowledge? – Rec. Among such "general scientific" methods, the author indicates "analysis and synthesis, systematization and classification." Let's leave aside for now whether "systematization and classification" can be considered methods of scientific research, and note only the superficial nature of the theoretical and methodological presentation of the work. In the future, the author can be recommended to take a more responsible attitude to theoretical and methodological reflection. Nevertheless, from the context it can be established that in addition to the general scientific analytical methods noted above, historical and normative-institutional methods were clearly used in the work (when analyzing the regulatory framework of the process of institutionalization of cultural sovereignty in Russia), as well as methodological tools for critical conceptual analysis (when studying the main approaches to conceptualizing the concepts of cultural heritage and cultural sovereignty established in Russian science). The correct application of these methods allowed the author to obtain results with signs of scientific novelty. First of all, we are talking about the connection identified by the author between the preservation of cultural heritage, cultural identity, and cultural sovereignty. The shift of emphasis in state strategic planning towards a greater understanding of the importance of cultural sovereignty, noted by the author, is also of interest. Finally, the synonymy revealed by the author in the interpretations of the importance of cultural sovereignty is interesting, as they are presented in the "Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy" and in the "Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation". Structurally, the reviewed work also does not cause any particular complaints: its logic is consistent and reflects the main aspects of the conducted research. Although in the future, the author may wish to categorize the text in order to simplify its perception by the reader. The same can be said about the style of the article. There is a certain (insignificant) amount of stylistic in the text (for example, ambiguity in the sentence "... Deformation of historical memory, the prevention of which ..."; the purpose of the study is not very correctly formulated from the point of view of style: "determining the prospects of the sphere of preservation of cultural heritage" [how can the sphere have a perspective? – Rec.]) and grammatical (for example, an inconsistent sentence: "... The interpretation of the concept of an object of cultural heritage ... is the subject of research by a whole galaxy of scientists") errors, but in general it is written quite competently, in a good scientific language, with the correct use of scientific terminology. The bibliography contains 18 titles and adequately reflects the state of research on the subject of the article. Although it has some errors in the design. For example, the lack of unification when quoting monographs (with a hyphen before the output data city: publisher; without a hyphen; with a dash; with spaces; without spaces, etc.). From now on, the author is recommended to take more responsibility for the design of the bibliographic list. The appeal to the opponents takes place when discussing the main approaches to the interpretation of the concepts of cultural heritage and cultural sovereignty. GENERAL CONCLUSION: the article proposed for review can be qualified as a scientific work that meets the basic requirements for works of this kind. The results obtained by the author correspond to the subject of the journal "Philosophy and Culture" and will be of interest to the community of political scientists, sociologists, social philosophers, cultural scientists, specialists in the field of public administration, as well as to students of the listed specialties. According to the results of the review, the article is recommended for publication.
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.