Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T07:24:16.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Constructing the Collective Trauma of “The Hard 1990s” as a Disregarded Tool of Legitimation for Putin’s Authority

Review products

The Red Mirror: Putin’s Leadership and Russia’s Insecure Identity, by SharafutdinovaGulnaz, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2020, $99.00 (hardcover), ISBN 9780197502938.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2022

Olga Malinova*
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, School of Politics and Government, HSE University; Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Extract

The book The Red Mirror: Putin’s Leadership and Russia’s Insecure Identity by Gulnaz Sharafutdinova is a valuable contribution to the literature on post-Soviet Russian politics, as well as to identity studies. Scholars of international relations largely succeeded in demonstrating the relevance of national identities for foreign affairs. However, there are not so many works exploring their effects for domestic political regimes. Sharafutdinova explains Putin’s lasting popular support by his contribution to the “sense of national identity and collective purpose that Russian citizens relate and value” (19–20). She relies on the social identity theory that posits a sense of belonging, pride, and self-esteem, provided to individuals by their respective groups, as an important driver of social behavior. According to Sharafutdinova, Putin’s leadership rested upon a crafty exploitation of group emotions associated with “two central pillars of the Soviet collective identity, including a sense of exceptionalism … and a sense of a foreign threat to the state and its people” (18). Such manipulations were facilitated by using the state-controlled media to broadcast the proper messages, on the one hand, and “the contextual variables” that made the Russian population sensitive to them, on the other (35). Among such variables, the author particularly emphasizes “the Russian citizen’s collective experience of the Soviet collapse and the ensuing transition” (35). Of course, this is not the first work exploring the political outcomes of the national identity construction in Russia (e.g., Morozov 2009) or pointing to the contrast between the hardships of the early years of Russia’s

Type
Book Symposium
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Association for the Study of Nationalities

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2004. “Toward a Theory of Collective Trauma.” In Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, edited by Alexander, Jeffrey C., Eyerman, Ron, Giesen, Bernhard, Smelser, Neil J., and Sztompka, Piotr, 129. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bonch-Osmolovskaia, Anastasia. 2018. “Imena vremeni: Epitety desiatiletii v Natsional’nom korpuse russkogo iazyka kak proektsiia kul’turnoi pamiati” [Names of time: Epithets of decades in the Russian National Corpus as a projection of cultural memory]. Shagi – Steps 4 (3–4): 115146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottici, Chiara, and Challand, Benoît. 2006. “Rethinking Political Myth: The Clash of Civilizations as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” European Journal of Social Theory 9 (3): 315336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colton, Timothy J., and McFaul, Michael. 2003. Popular Choice and Managed Democracy: The Russian Elections of 1999 and 2000. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
Levinson, Alexey. 2007. “1990-ye i 1990-i: Sotsiologicheskie materialy” [The 1990s and the 2000s: Sociological materials]. Novoe literaturnoe obosrenie, no. 2, 489503.Google Scholar
Malinova, Olga. 2019. “Konstruirovanie smyslovyh ramok pamjati o reformah 1990-h gg. v liberal’nom diskurse 2000-h gg” [The construction of the semantic framework of memory of the reforms of the 1990s in the liberal discourse of the 2000s]. Juzhno-Rossijskij Zhurnal Social’nyh Nauk, no. 3, 91105.Google Scholar
Malinova, Olga. 2020a. “Framing the Collective Memory of the 1990s as a Legitimation Tool for Putin’s Regime.” Problems of Post-Communism 68 (5): 429441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinova, Olga. 2020b. “Tema ‘likhikh devianostykh’ v diskursakh rossijskihk kommunistov I national-patrioto” [The issue of “the hard 1990s” in discourses of Russian Communists and National-Patriots]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Politologia 14 (2): 5363.Google Scholar
Matovski, Aleksandar. 2018. “It’s the Stability, Stupid! How the Quest to Restore Order after the Soviet Collapse Shaped Russian Popular Opinion.” Comparative Politics 50 (3): 347368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morozov, Viatcheslav E. 2009. Rossia i Drugie: Identichnost’ i granitsy politicheskogo soobschesyva [Russia and Others: identity and borders of political community]. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.Google Scholar
Sztompka, Piotr. 2004. “The Trauma of Social Change: A Case of Postcommunist Societies.” In Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, edited by Alexander, Jeffrey C., Eyerman, Ron, Giesen, Bernhard, Smelser, Neil J., and Sztompka, Piotr, 155195. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar