Controlled modification of cultural and ideological narratives in the post-revolutionary period of Russia

Статья принята к публикации: 17.10.2023.

During the period of the emergence of Soviet statehood (between October 1917 and 1922), there was not only a transformation in the political system, economic relations, and foreign policy doctrine of the young Soviet state, but also a significant upheaval in existing sociocultural practices. The primary focus was on introducing new constructs into mass consciousness to shape the worldview of the "new man." This involved a radical dismantling of old cultural codes and replacing them with new ones that promoted socialist attitudes.

The October Revolution in 1917 marked the beginning of a monumental experiment that aimed to build a radically new economic, social, and cultural system. It involved an unprecedented scale of mobilized forces and resources with the vision of establishing a communist society based on equality and fraternity [2]. This ambitious undertaking had no historical equivalents at the time. According to Marxist theorists, the transition from capitalism to socialism was expected to be explosive. Unlike previous societal formations that emerged within existing frameworks, socialism sought to create a completely new era, which could only be achieved by dismantling the old order.

It was noted that both feudalism and capitalism originated in the economic sphere before gaining recognition through state legislation. Interestingly, historical examples were drawn from the Roman Empire and its cultural successors to illustrate the emergence of new structures within the old. In the case of socialism, the theory was argued in relation to the unique history of Russia in the present century, which had a distinct dual self-perception.

The initial phase of implementing this task involved challenging existing worldviews and introducing new attitudes into people's daily lives. This was accomplished through the widespread use of mottos, slogans, and various forms of agitation that served as cultural symbols [6]. These attitudes were designed to cultivate fresh ideas and meanings in the collective consciousness, and they found tangible expression in material objects - symbols.

Within the realm of cultural studies, the concept of symbols can be defined in various ways. However, it is crucial to focus on its interpretation within the context of culture, considering the substantial changes that occurred in this sphere of social practices during the formation of a new identity known as the Soviet man. Symbols played a crucial role as conveyors of encoded information and meanings that necessitated active realization. In the cultural domain, symbols hold significant importance, as they embody constructed representations that mirror the tangible aspects of the actual world [7].

In general, the symbol signifies the attainment of a particular stage in comprehending the world through a series of condensed material representations. This process involves a sequence of figurative associations that encode the essence of a material object and its symbolic reflection. The intricate nature of symbols, coupled with their multifunctionality (e.g., cognitive, representative, regulative-adaptive), determines their utilization across diverse domains, spheres, and forms of culture.

In nearly every political system, cultural symbols serve as indispensable tools for establishing a durable connection between the ruling structures and the general populace. The longer a specific political system endures, particularly when power remains within a single royal or imperial family for an extended period, the more deeply ingrained these intangible ties become. The symbols, which act as the ideological framework, firmly embed themselves within the collective consciousness, ensuring a stable bond.

A nation's internal cohesion and subsequent consolidation are critically marked by the emergence of symbols, which constitute a paramount criterion. In the present stage of national progress, the existence of a comprehensive framework of cultural symbols deeply ingrained in the collective consciousness for centuries is indispensable and unimaginable.

The process of symbol creation typically receives approval from the highest authority, which takes on the responsibility of embedding it within the collective consciousness. When the existence and reinforcement of a cultural symbol align with the authorities' interests in strengthening societal cohesion, every effort is made through the use of signs to establish it within the framework of human values. It's evident that the organic development of a nation necessitates the presence and functioning of multiple symbols in the collective mindset, as they cannot be developed in isolation from one another

Контролируемое изменение культурно-идеологических нарративов в постреволюционный период России.

[4]. They form a cohesive system only through their interaction, which is a vital prerequisite for close and continuous communication. Their interconnection is predominantly aimed at addressing similar challenges, as the entire system of symbols is tailored to a specific ideological framework.

The establishment of a solid material and technological infrastructure is not the sole aspect involved in the construction of a new world. It also entails a profound process of social modernization that encompasses the entirety of the geographical region. Although the "creation of a new world" could be facilitated through collective endeavors and occasionally expedited through governmental practices aimed at cultivating work enthusiasm, the transformation of individuals' mindset proved to be less straightforward. It involved a shift in ideological beliefs that couldn't be instantaneously achieved [11]. In order to firmly embed the notion of active involvement in constructing a new socialist homeland within each person's consciousness, their worldview needed to be infused with new content.

Therefore, it was of paramount significance for the Bolsheviks to instill a new and comprehensive perspective into the consciousness of the general populace. Achieving this objective necessitated the integration of symbolic representations, which accompanied various components of the prevailing social framework and acted as indispensable components of the communist ideology in question. By introducing symbols deeply rooted in the collective consciousness, the Bolsheviks sought to communicate and reinforce their revolutionary ideals.

Throughout the historical trajectory of Russia, the influence of ideological frameworks has been pivotal in shaping the collective identities of its populace and shaping their perception of their position within the global stage. Key elements within these frameworks include faith, the portrayal of leadership, and the distinct historical path followed by the nation. Specifically, these constructs have encompassed the dimensions of orthodox faith, the depiction of leaders or sovereign figures, and a unique national development trajectory centered around the preservation or dissemination of orthodox beliefs. Up until the events of 1917, these constructs held immense significance in determining the course of Russia's advancement.

However, following the collapse of the autocratic regime and the subsequent triumph of the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution, followed by a period of intense civil strife, significant transformations occurred within these ideological constructs. Their meanings underwent a complete replacement, reflecting the profound societal changes brought about by these historic events. Nevertheless, despite this shift in meaning, it is important to note that the orthodox worldview continued to exert a consistent influence over the state's economic and social policies, remaining deeply ingrained in the governance of the nation.

The triumvirate of "faith - leader's image - special way" acquired an entirely different symbolic form, rooted in the new state ideology, while still adhering to the old framework [1]. Communism took on the role of a faith, an officially proclaimed religion, with the image of the party leader as the head of the party acting as a guardian of the people. The special trajectory of the Soviet state now entailed spreading communist ideology worldwide.

In order to consolidate its authority subsequent to the triumph achieved in October 1917, the Party sanctioned a fresh ensemble of symbols devised to strike a chord with the populace by establishing a profound connection to the forces responsible for defeating the tsarist regime. These symbols materialized in tangible embodiments, exemplified by the red star, the pioneer tie, the hammer and sickle, as well as monuments erected in honor of Lenin, among other embodiments [5]. Furthermore, a diverse array of audiovisual resources inclusive of revolutionary poems, propaganda posters, and leaflets mobilizing support for the defense of the revolution were harnessed as symbolic instruments.

The objective of these symbols and slogans was to guide individuals towards the desired ideological path, aligning them with a unified vision often referred to as "the music of the revolution" by contemporaries.

While each of these functions carried significant weight, it can be argued that the most integral among them was the process of shaping the worldview. The primary objective of this worldview was to convey the idea of actively striving towards the construction of a new society, ultimately seeking to expand its influence on a global scale [10]. Within the array of propaganda materials disseminated, a notable example that epitomizes this intention is encapsulated in the famous slogan: "We belong to ourselves, we will build a new world!" This slogan serves as compelling evidence that, despite the seemingly predominant emphasis on economic motives over socio-cultural factors, the policy pursued by the Bolsheviks during this particular period of history acknowledged the significance of societal restructuring, encompassing socio-cultural dimensions alongside economic transformations throughout the 1920s to 1930s.

In the pre-revolutionary Russian Empire, an official ideology had been established, famously encapsulated in the 1833 proposition by Minister of National Education S. S. Uvarov: "Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality." Among these, the most potent and emotionally resonant idea was Orthodox Christianity [8]. The entire baptized population, from ordinary peasants to the tsar, regarded the Orthodox Church and its symbolic foundation as an unquestionable authority.

The belief that Orthodox faith was vital for the country's existence and protection granted the Church exceptional influence. Additionally, the Russian Orthodox Church held special significance due to being one of the few Orthodox Churches worldwide that maintained authority both within and outside the country since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. It is evident that the Church exerted an influence on various aspects of Russian life, ranging from social activities to everyday routines. The direct symbolic connection between the Orthodox faith and the personification of the tsar as the defender of that faith further solidified the popular perception.

Throughout centuries of autocratic and imperial governance, the symbolic role assumed by the ruler fostered a deep-rooted tradition rooted in a system whereby individuals lived under the absolute authority, with the majority of the populace being granted minimal rights. Epithets, such as "the good tsar" or "the tsar's father," served a twofold purpose: firstly, to emphasize the distinct and independent lifestyle prevailing within the state, and secondly, to bestow an air of holiness upon state power, thereby effectively rendering its decisions immune to challenge from the subjects. Over the extended period of tsarist and imperial rule, a cultural custom was formed among the people, whereby profound symbolic importance became attached to the embodiment of the tsar. This cultural habit proved to be greatly advantageous for the Bolsheviks during the specific historical context at hand.

The Russian population has long been deeply influenced by the notion commonly referred to as the "special way" of Russia. This concept gradually took shape within the socio-political fabric of the nation over an extensive period, ultimately crystallizing in the 19th century. Undoubtedly, this construct cannot be dissected in isolation from its broader context. The country's distinct trajectory of development, marked by its divergence from the organic European milieu, can be primarily attributed to the aforementioned cultural isolation. This isolation arose from multiple factors, including the role of the Orthodox faith in shaping Russian consciousness and the challenges encountered in establishing closer ties with the Catholic and Protestant realms of Europe [9].

Through the passage of time, the prevalent patriarchal lifestyle, widely observed by the majority of the population, gave rise to mounting dissatisfaction among both political leaders and intellectuals, which, in turn, spurred a multitude of efforts aimed at reshaping the societal landscape. While these endeavors showcased a range of outcomes, it was not until the onset of the revolutionary events in 1917—events that ultimately led to the overthrow of the autocratic re-gime—that Russian society underwent a profound transformation away from its deeply ingrained adherence to Orthodoxy as a cultural emblem and the accompanying facets it entailed, such as communal living and collective decision-making processes.

The October events of 1917 were widely perceived as a necessary transition, and the notion of a distinctive historical trajectory in the country, characterized by the fusion of religion and the state, played a significant role in fostering this sentiment.

However, the socio-cultural dynamics prevailing in Russian society during that era posed significant challenges to pursuing a drastic paradigm shift or a comprehensive reformation of long-established institutions that had organically evolved over numerous centuries. These deeply ingrained structures held such sway in the collective mindset that even a revolution advocating for the complete obliteration of existing

Контролируемое изменение культурно-идеологических нарративов в постреволюционный период России.

frameworks failed to completely eradicate them. As a result, the triumphant portion of the populace entrusted with the governance of the reconstituted nation had no recourse but to find ways to accommodate and modify these entrenched constructs to suit their aspirations and objectives.

During the October Revolution of 1917 and the subsequent civil war, as well as among the broader populace of the expansive country, the upper echelons of leadership were compelled to exert extensive control over mass consciousness at any cost [13]. As previously mentioned, steering the ideological orientations of the people toward aligning with the goals of the Bolsheviks was an exceedingly urgent objective. In the process of shaping a new worldview, the ideologists of the nascent government drew upon familiar and proven constructs.

From an external perspective, the population's perception of power was strategically built upon and supplemented by emerging conceptions of a promising future orchestrated by the Communist Party and the enlightened vanguard of the worldwide proletariat. The Revolution brought with it a period of symbolical interchange and reconfiguration, leading to the establishment of novel frameworks that facilitated the harmonization and advancement of the sociocultural realm within the confines of a fresh worldview, akin to a newly-formed religious paradigm [].

"If a symbol is a concentrated image," wrote L. D. Trotsky, "then the revolution is the greatest master of symbols, for it presents all phenomena and relations in concentrated form. You can replace the idea of the tsar with the idea of the president or the general secretary, but in the concrete perception of someone who lived with the idea of the tsar yesterday, only the name will be new."

The diligent efforts to reshape the cultural symbols inherited from the Russian Empire into a new manifestation of socialism were undeniably undertaken during the aftermath of the October Revolution and the early decades of the Soviet state's establishment. The authorities in Russia were presented with a favorable milieu for conducting socio-political experiments due to the preceding political conditions leading up to 1917, as well as the subsequent years following the revolution.

The second decade of the 20th century bore witness to the advent of the Second World War, an event that inflicted unparalleled casualties, widespread devastation, and the utilization of technologies capable of simultaneously decimating a significant number of soldiers. Consequently, the value ascribed to human life reached unprecedented heights.

The outbreak of the First World War arose from a complex confluence of global political, economic, and ideological crises [7]. Traditional empires had become obsolete, established economic relationships clashed with emerging alternatives, and the durability and stability of bourgeois ideologies came under scrutiny.

In the context of European nations, the intellectual underpinnings of civic institutions, authentic popular participation in governance, the freedoms associated with entrepreneurship, and the inviolability of private property can be traced back to the ancient Roman tradition. These fundamental principles gradually evolved and gained prominence over the course of centuries. Despite the occurrence of socialist revolutions akin to the Russian counterpart in certain European countries, which were suppressed prior to the 1920s, these nations managed to overcome the resultant systemic crisis. The enduring strength of bourgeois ideology proved resilient.

However, the historical trajectory of our own country diverged to some extent from that of Europe and its established norms, primarily due to its initial development within the sphere of Byzantine influence. The cultural isolation faced by Russia, resulting from its geographical proximity to adversarial entities such as the Ottoman Empire in the south and perennially hostile powers like Poland in the west, as well as previous invasions from the Golden Horde, had a detrimental effect on the rapid development of urban centers, specialization, craftsmanship, industrial progress, capital accumulation, and the overall technological advancements essential for the emergence of bourgeois revolutions.

The autocratic rule in Russia heavily relied on the nobility and solidified its authority by gradually imposing serfdom upon the peasant population residing on the landed estates. This socio-economic structure hindered the incessant flow of labor into urban centers, thereby impeding the development of the economic foundation necessary for the emergence of bourgeois society epitomized by capitalism.

The process of bourgeois society formation in Russia commenced belatedly in the 19th century. This development was primarily prompted by the pressing need of European countries, also advanced in their own right, to alleviate military backwardness and avert the risk of relegation to a secondary power position, as exemplified by the Crimean War.

Consequently, the formation of bourgeois society in Russia was constrained by factors such as limited time and the absence of a prolonged, organic progression that gradually permeated and yielded beneficial outcomes. Instead, the inception of bourgeois ideology in mid-nineteenth century Russia was propelled by deliberate actions carried out by the authorities through liberal reforms. As a consequence, this ideology failed to fully seep into the traditional collective consciousness of society.

This circumstance assumes a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics of events during the initial decades of the 20th century. In Russia, the antiquated and traditional ideology of the landlords, which had relied heavily on a closely-knit alliance with the autocratic government, had largely waned. This ideology, still reeling from the liberal undercurrents witnessed during the reign of Alexander II, failed to regain its former influence. Concurrently, the nascent bourgeois ideology struggled to establish its foothold amidst a society characterized by rigidity and traditionalism. It remained spiritually estranged from the majority of the populace due to its emphasis on individual principles and the prioritization of individual interests above the collective welfare centered around the imperial throne. It is hence not surprising that, within the context of a crisis surrounding the conservative model of social development coupled with the lack of progress in the liberal model, the alternative revolutionary model for the construction of a new social order gained particular relevance.

This alternative model strived to inaugurate an entirely novel society operating under the dominance of societal segments that previously occupied lower positions in the patriarchal social structure. Such a transformation became feasible within our country due to its underdeveloped state and, in certain instances, the complete absence of a middle class. The middle class typically serves as a major proponent of civic values within both urban and rural domains. The series of events occurring towards the end of the 19th century, including the humiliating Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, the revolution of 1905-07, and the tumultuous period of the initial State Duma sessions, further discredited the aristocratic landowner ideology in the eyes of a weary population already disillusioned with the throne, which had suffered a loss of credibility on an even greater scale.

In a scenario where the Provisional Government failed to resolve any bourgeois-liberal issues, the communist ideology espoused by the Party in 1917 emerged as the sole force capable of surmounting the systemic crisis in Russia. It mobilized society during the most arduous political circumstances and provided a glimmer of hope for rejuvenation, notwithstanding the fact that the ensuing Civil War resulted in the sacrifice of millions of lives [4].

In alternative terms, the populace of the nation, devoid of moral guidance, did not attempt to reestablish their moral compass through the adoption of foreign bourgeois morality. Instead, they were prepared to reconstruct it, imbuing it with fresh content and significance. The historical circumstances leading to the transfer of power in Russia set the stage for the subsequent development of the "new man" model in the 1920s.

Soviet Russia managed to maintain its revolutionary foundations after the Bolshevik triumph in the civil war and the expulsion of foreign interventionists. On 30 December 1922, this culminated in the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

In the process of surmounting the post-war economic and political challenges, the formation of the Soviet personality type emerged as a paramount phenomenon in the reconstruction of culture within the USSR. This development was crucial, as ideology consistently requires capable individuals who possess the comprehension, retention, and transmission abilities necessary for its sustenance.

Symbolism was significantly influenced by the resurgence of ideological beliefs within society [11]. Particularly notable was the transformation witnessed in the state-implemented education system, which as-

Контролируемое изменение культурно-идеологических нарративов в постреволюционный период России.

sumed a pivotal position in shaping individuals recognized as belonging to the "Soviet personality type." Throughout their educational pursuits, schools and other academic institutions played a distinctive role in nurturing the continual development of the traits that defined and outlined the collective nature of the Soviet Union.

In this context, cultural symbols played a fundamental role in socialization, one of their key societal functions. It becomes evident that the endeavor to educate and mold the younger generation of Soviet citizens according to correct socialist principles would have been arduous and impractical without clear, accessible, and encoded information. Such information, in the form of cultural symbols, was presented through various textbooks and accompanied children from their earliest school years, thereby intimately linking their subsequent socialization within society to the degree of assimilation regarding the ideas, attitudes, and meanings encapsulated within the given symbols.

The interdependent relationship between schools and families within the framework of communist education for the younger generation held significant significance. Symbolic representation manifested across various realms within the context of establishing a new Soviet community. Alongside tangible representations in fields such as architecture, sculpture, and painting, which will subsequently be expounded upon, ideological symbols played a crucial role in the ideological upbringing of the populace, particularly evident in literature, including educational materials designed for the younger generation educated under the principles of communist morality.

Simultaneous to the acquisition of instructional content, the assimilation of symbols representing the new world was also pursued, to some extent reflected in textbooks. These materials encompassed agitational poems penned by a vast collective of proletarian poets, as well as depictions of revolutionary leaders and key political figures of the revolution.

During the 1920s, the foremost objective for party ideologues entailed instilling a wholly novel worldview within the citizens of the world's inaugural socialist state [6]. Consequently, the question of proper education took center stage, spanning from the confines of the school desk forward.

The events that unfolded in 1991 brought the nation to a critical juncture in terms of its ideological survival. Drawing parallels with the aftermath of the February Revolution in 1917, the previous socio-cultural and ideological frameworks described in this paper were shattered. However, unlike the earlier period under scrutiny, the year 1991 did not usher in new ideological symbols. Instead, the society witnessed the permeation of Western cinema, music, and literature, which served as conduits for Western world propaganda. Regrettably, these novel concepts failed to assume their rightful place in shaping the persona of individuals within the "new formation." Primarily, this deficiency stemmed from the inherent paucity of meaningful semantic content inherent in the implanted concepts. The ideology of consumerism proved incapable of supplanting the ideology that had developed over centuries rooted in religion and the profoundly symbolic fabric of cultural heritage.

Consequences stemming from the absence of a stable and meaningful ideological framework during the 1991 revolution continue to exert their influence, resulting in the distortion of public consciousness even to this day. Present circumstances necessitate the belated yet imperative task of constructing ideological concepts and symbols that can resonate with society at large.

By drawing upon the experiences of the October Revolution and the implementation of socialist ideology through adaptive means, it remains feasible to capture the attention of contemporary society, which finds itself adrift and devoid of clear direction. Such endeavors are essential for fostering the development and fortification of the nation.