*98783*

Философия / 2. Социальная философия

PhD, Polyushkevich O.A.

Irkutsk State University, Russia

Collective memory and social solidarity in the Russian and Portuguese society

Processes involved in social solidarity formation vary from society to society and are of complex and diverse character. Human history shows that it is not definitely democratic institutions, freedoms and rights that encourage people to form a unity, however pathetically these values are proclaimed. It is either calamity (war, crisis, environmental disaster) or power that unites a society into a single whole.

The ways the nations see the world have already been formed. These ways are determined by the Soviet past of Russia and the Salazar’s past of Portugal. (The term “fascist’s”, often used by European researchers, seems irrelevant to me here due to lopsided and unidirectional evaluations of Portugal’s development at the period in question.). Social identity and social memory are never formed overnight, and a few decades is not a sufficient period for images of the past to be erased from memory of generations.

Salazar’s rule has left its traces and marks in all spheres – within the society, in households, in the streets. They are retained in the space of the present as memory of the past. The Soviet past still persists in today’s Russia as well.

Outsiders may apply a great variety of attitudes to the past and provide diverse evaluations of the past, but ordinary citizens view the past in a more unambiguous way, for it is more understandable to them.

Social solidarity is the form of agreement among people, but it takes time to be formed. It takes time for people to understand each other. Collective memory is a precondition not only for transmitting cultural values, traditions and norms, concepts and attitudes, but also for gaining internal acceptance, rejection, understanding or hostility in relations between nations and states. Solidarity manifests itself on a subconscious level and is determined and guided by socio-cultural norms.

Past experiences are recalled in times of turmoil and adversity. Consideration for the past may assume various forms ranging from collecting information about one’s family to searching for details of certain historical events.

Collective memory includes recollections shared by people, conceptions of the events of the past to be revived, made more urgent, and constructed anew in an intrapersonal discourse. Collective memory is the way to form people’s conceptions regarding their past through ideological propaganda professed by means of educational institutions, mass media, various communication patterns, and others.

Problems of collective memory are equally grave and painful for modern Russia. Collective memory helps people acquire social identity through internationalizing common traditions and collective conceptions shared by the group. Besides that, collective memory is closely connected with aims and demands of the group, that is, collective memory helps to restore the past, in compliance with the purposes of the present, in the life of a group under consideration. Though the memory constructs individual recollections, it is reproduced with account for social context. Analyzing the current situation in Portuguese and Russian societies, one may notice that such and such facts from the life of different groups are drawn from the past and reconsidered, that is, there takes place a process of rethinking over the impact exerted by the past on the current life in the society. For instance, evaluation of Stalin’s policy in Russia, Salazar’s government in Portugal, perestroika in early 1990’s in Russia and in 1970’s in Portugal are ideologically constructed conceptions of those events that had formed in the minds of different social groups. People’s collective memory is selective and binary (white/black, good/bad, hero/villain, etc.). It does not accept contradictions, controversies, complexities and transitional forms of real life; it is of categorical and unambiguous character. These properties allow for manipulating public consciousness, conceptions of the past, by interpreting them in a way required by today’s ideologists.

Appreciation of any past events depends on the ideology of the times in question. “State and power provide an impact on the process either directly (through educational curriculum and standards), or indirectly (through culture and mass media)” [2]. Historical events of the past are often made use of by institutions of power and authority in order to construct and reinforce their image in the present, to have their actions approved by the people, and to mould a uniform attitude towards any events which are later to become factors determining national unity.

In the Soviet Union, the powerful structures relied on a deep-set attitude of people – to become united in times of calamity – for making the nation united and forming one single whole. In times of war, nationality or religion mattered little; everyone was pursuing a single task of winning the war, both on the front line, and in the home front. Even after the war had been over, movies, parades, and festivals exploited the symbol of a united nation as a tool of consolidating the society, in the form of “memory of those events”. Every new coming leader continued that line of ideology (“The victory of the Russian people” is meant here, as an element of a united nation in the past, and recollecting the memory of that event nowadays means contributing to making the society united in the present).

Besides that, “a construction site of the century” – the Baikal-Amur Railway construction site – became an element of nation-building. That public project was undertaken for the great forthcoming future, and, again, differences in religion, nationality, language mattered little for builders involved in working at the construction site. Dividing lines of national and cultural identity grew blurred, as characteristic features forming a member of the Soviet society were developed. Social identity of an individual in the Soviet society was manifested in the form of devotion and loyalty to the declared values and ideals of communist society. In 1984, the population of the Soviet Union identified themselves as residents of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was that very identification the cultural and ideological principles of which had been formed in the earlier years were targeted at sustaining. To quote from a famous song written by D.Tukhmanov and V.Kharitonov and performed by “Samotsvety” group: “My address is not a house or a street, my address is the Soviet Union”; for many people, the lines were not simply lines from a song, but the ideals to live by and follow. Political, economic, educational, and cultural levels formed the culture of “We” as a Soviet society, while there was formed also the notion of “They” – other societies being “wrong”, “bourgeois”, “exploiting”, etc.

The collective memory has retained the image of Trans-Siberian Railway builders as “young”, “energetic”, “cheerful” people constructing the future with their own hands; to a great extent, the image was preserved due to movies devoted to this construction and personal memories of people engaged in the construction at the time, who now see that period as a period of their being young, and being young is the time most frequently remembered as one of the best periods in one’s life. Hence, the image is viewed as generalized image of the times (it is through personal memories and evaluations of the events that conceptions of the whole society’s development are formed). That is, collective memory is sustained by real personified images and views and virtual (thought-up) images, thus forming general symbolic space of evaluations and attitudes in large groups of people.

It suggests that collective memory is activated through mechanisms of personal memory and evaluations given to an event by its participants.

Similar processes were observed in Portugal. During Salazar’s being in power, the idea of national development and national pride was dominating. Social attitudes of considering the Portuguese nation as a single unity still persist, in spite of increased migration from the country’s former colonies and former Soviet republics.

However, individual memories, personal experience, and personal knowledge of some events may be inconsistent with the version of the events elaborated thoroughly and imposed on people by the official power structures, which is often the case with one’s gaining access to confidential information concerned with state or personal affairs. Even memories of those who had taken part in the events may change and be reconstructed under the influence of interpretations inflicted by power institutions or other interested parties; or, the blame for the policies conducted by past rulers may be laid upon the shoulders of the whole nation. The precedent concerning collective guilt of the German nation is a masterpiece of political technology [1].

National and nationalistic feelings are based on collective memory. Power or opposition may manipulate the feelings based on memory, and in doing so construct public appreciation of events and people.

Ideology of the Soviet society, as well as that of the Portuguese society, was formed by all-encompassing policy of “the party line”; in the modern Russian society such a line is not manifested as an overt one, it is of covert nature, deeply concealed under numerous settings and attitudes, it is of no straightforward and direct character, but not in the least less influential. Reconsideration of the “Soviet history” of Russia is an attractive field for politicians: additional meanings are interwoven with class symbols of the Soviet epoch, heroic symbols of the Great Patriotic War are questioned, and negative, or positive, connotations are attached to the meaning of past events. Reevaluation and reconsideration of Portuguese history is also taking place. The only difference is that in Russia the process is initiated by state and powerful institutions, while in Portugal the policy conducted by authorities is of minor importance – it is the response to the processes which public consciousness is engaged in.

The tendencies are natural and consistent from the point of analyzing the reconstruction of restoring functions of collective memory: learning, mediation, adaptation, and conventionalization. Social appreciations, perceptions, and attitudes – viewed from the angle of learning function – interpret, explain, and classify events, actions, and phenomena. Viewed from the mediatory angle, they regulate and determine individual behaviour, social relations, communication and interaction in a group through values upheld. Adaptation function allows adjusting new information to the existing knowledge of events and phenomena, thus preserving the view of the world formed in an individual or in a group. Conventionalization function contributes to sustaining stability and firmness of individual and group structural consciousness through differentiating and integrating the coming information about an event or a phenomenon.

The functions described above make it possible to interweave memory of trauma-causing events with those attitudes and values which are dominant at the present moment, while retaining the positive image of the past. Collective memory mirrors the continuity of social development. Material and spiritual values created by former generations are viewed by the following generations in an already adapted, converted form. In practice, it results in simplifying and reducing the scale and meaning of some events and details (which are of trauma-causing and negative impact) and actualizing and exaggerating the scale and meaning of other events (which are of positive impact or consistent with modern evaluation attached to the events). Such phenomena are formed in members of a group under certain conditions and are based on values that are common for the group.

Analyzing the historical past, one may draw a conclusion that collective memory is a way to construct social solidarity in people.

First and foremost, social solidarity is based on forms of interaction. Recollecting our past experience, we recollect our interaction with certain people; it is interaction that we remember. Emotions, actions, behaviour, and events concerning groups of people are memorized more efficiently when we talk about them; thus, if all people surrounding us talk about these events, firm and sustainable associations and conceptions are formed of any event being discussed. Owing to interaction, people construct new knowledge.

Collective memory’s being contextual is another peculiarity of the phenomenon (it demands certain social conditions, and it is determined by definite time, space, and finance limitations). Social context determines the variety of viewpoints, and the variety of probabilities to interpret the events taking place. Different positions are determined by individual peculiarities of a person or a group, by social status, gender, age, etc. Any knowledge is the experience of relations which have formed in and among people, groups, and states.

Attitudes and conceptions are formed for protection and explanation; they depend on a group’s needs and values. Needs and values may change throughout history and, in doing so, change the sense and contents of collective memory. Russian and Portuguese histories are a certain field of disintegration of meaning (Foucault) or of precession of simulacra (Baudrillard).

We conducted a research of social perceptions of and attitudes to the period of solidarity rate being the highest in the society, in 2009-2010, in Russia and Portugal. The research was conducted in different groups of respondents (managers, workers, non-working retired people, people engaged in educational sphere, students, unemployed people, migrants - 984 people participated in the survey. 502 of them are in the Russian sample, and 482 are in the Portuguese sample. The bias does not exceed 3%).

When asked which period in Russian history was characterized by highest degree of cohesion in the society, the majority of Russian respondents quoted Stalin’s rule (77%). Portuguese citizens, when asked the same question about Portuguese history, referred to Salazar’s government (62%). Different opinions were provided by migrants and people aged younger than 30; probably this young age is the reason for the authoritarian Portuguese ruler winning slightly fewer survey percentage points than the authoritarian Russian ruler. Additionally, the lion’s share of migrants in Portugal came from Ukraine, Moldova, Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Angola, Mozambique – all of them have superficial knowledge of Portuguese history, and, thus, fail to provide weighty judgment of Portuguese government figures (migrants from the former USSR fail to do it because curriculum in Soviet and, later, Russian schools did not encompass the details of Portuguese history; migrants from other countries fail to do it because they are typically either not educated at all, or have marginal education level – they have primitive numerate and literate skills).

In the Russian sample, even migrants (from China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Georgia - The share of each nationality is approximately equal) pointed at Stalin as a man who succeeded in making the country and its people united, though, his contribution to growing national cohesion was rendered both from positive and negative angles. The fact is due to the Communist party still being in power in China – the party always kept its people informed of the leaders, successes, failures of the neighboring countries and allies. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Georgia are the former USSR republics where educational curriculum was unified, and despite the fact that not all national policies conducted during Stalin’s rule gained approval and support among citizens of the former USSR republics, it is undisputable that those policies exerted a profound impact on people’s outlook and worldview.

The difference in replies provided by young respondents is due to differences in the ways Russian and Portuguese authorities understand tasks and objectives of education, in socialization peculiarities, and, finally, in resulting differences in collective memory. In Russia, the number of those who view the political history of the country in a different way is increasing, and Stalin is viewed as a unique and skillful manager. The new attitude to Stalin’s figure appeared as a result of changes in educational sphere and reconsideration of curricula (actually, history itself is reconsidered, which results in changing the population’s collective memory of the past).

In Portuguese society the picture is different due to the policy conducted by current authorities trying to strengthen Portugal’s position in the European Union. The attitude and views articulated by the European Union concerning Salazar’s governing period are of negative character; Salazar is portrayed as a tyrant and dictator, thus, any reconsideration of the meaning of his figure and his government is totally out of the question. Yet, there arises conflict between power and people: in public consciousness, Salazar is the defender of Portugal’s interests (especially in the light of growing tension and uncertainty of nowadays), while, in the view of the powerful (inspired by the European Union), Salazar is the enemy of democracy, human rights and freedoms.

Middle-aged and old-aged people have similar attitude to the governing period of rulers indicated in the table (see Table), because they lived in the times characterized by “stability”, “cohesion”, “solidarity”, and “unity” of people. In Portugal, Salazar initiated economic, political, agricultural reforms; he did the same thing as Stalin did in Russia. In his policies, Salazar avoided touching upon the issues of nationality and religion. He avoided the former because Portugal held, and still holds, open borders with its ex-colonies, thus vesting vital interest in the resources of the territories. He avoided the latter because he himself was a deeply religious person.

In the Portuguese sample, there is one exception: it is the opinion provided by people working in educational sphere – they are more highly inclined to follow general European norms and standards, and to evaluate Portugal from the angle imposed by the European Union. Students tend to follow the outlook propagandized by their teachers and to adopt their worldview and attitudes, sometimes too affectionately, thus entering a conflict between their views and the views supported by their parents.

All respondents in their replies project certain experiences, values and emotional evaluations on the period under consideration, forming their views of the period. The corresponding differences are given in the Table.

Table 1

Qualitative evaluation of “cohesion” and “solidarity” of the society during the government of Stalin in Russia and Salazar in Portugal*

Social group	Stalin - Russia	Salazar - Portugal
Managers (middle class)	"stability", "guarantees", "predictability"	" stability", "work", "confidence in the future"
Workers	"social guarantees", "stability"	" stability", "work", "safety in life"
Retired people, not employed	"confidence in the future", "free education and medical treatment", "youth"	"serenity", "reliability", "work"
People working in education	"serenity", "romantic feeling", " stability"	"restrictions", "limits", "strength"
Students	"strength", "safety", "reliability"	"friendship", "restrictions", "oppression"
Unemployed people	" stability ", "well-being", "feeling protected"	"reliability", "dependability", "work"
Migrants	"openness", "strength"	"power", "strength"

* Most frequent answers

Each age and social group – irrespective of a country – attaches its own meanings to the attitudes being formed towards a governing period of a certain ruler. Memories is a product of collective memory, which is to a great extent processed by powerful institutions and which makes people mould a different viewpoint of contemporary historical events and compensate for, as far as symbols are concerned, or complete lacunas; thus, recollection turns into interpretation. Memories are symbols of historical and social identity, they are based on processes reflecting group cohesion, on rituals of collective solidarity (national, religious, etc.), with collective myths and ideologemes legitimizing political decision-making and institutions being expounded and confirmed.

Therefore, following the conclusions drawn by Maurice Halbwachs, we are to ask a question of who, what leader moulds this past, who benefits from it, what it makes population distracted from, and what it is going to result in; what social frameworks of collective memory are activated in a certain historical period, what techniques and symbols may be used to mobilize people for discussing and defending ideals, events, and thoughts of the past.

Social and cultural foundations are manifested unconsciously, on the basis of collective memory. The one who has profound understanding of these mechanisms may rule peoples of the world.

References:

1. Svasyan K. Politics of memory and the Golem of "collective guilt" / / Russian journal [electronic resource] URL: http://www.russ.ru/Mirovaya-povestka/Politika-pamyati-i-golem-kollektivnoj-viny (date of access 26/09.2010).

2. Senyavskaya A.S., Senyavskaya E.S. The historical memory of the wars of the XX century as an area of ideological-political and psychological resistance / / Russian history. - 2007. - № 2. - S. 142.