HISTORICAL POLITICS IN THE NATIONAL REPUBLICS OF THE CAUCASUS: COMMEMORATIVE PRACTICES AS INVENTED TRADITIONS

The author analyzes the features of historical politics as a politics of memory in four national republics of the Caucasus – Chechnya, North and South Ossetia, Abkhazia. It is assumed that the modern politics of memory became a continuation of nationalist manipulations with the history of the previous period because historians played an important role in the development of modern national identities. An analysis of the politics of memory can be carried out on the basis of national historical narratives. Its study in the context of the functioning of invented traditions (Republic Day, Independence Day, Flag Day) actualize social forms and changes in historical memory. It is shown that the historical politics in Chechnya, Abkhazia, North and South Ossetia develop as a policy of promotion of state narratives, state continuity and the inevitability of the emergence of national statehood. The author concludes that ethnic motives in modern politics of memory are marginalized in comparison with other ones and their importance decreased from the 1990s. Ethnic motives are more visible in the Abkhaz and Chechen politics of memory, while Ossetian historical politics emphasizes the idea of statehood. In general, the author believes that the politics of memory in the national republics of the Caucasus have a secondary nature because they duplicate the practices and strategies of historical imagination proposed in the historical policies of Europe in general and Russia in particular.

1. BORDIUGOV G., BUHAREV V. Natsional'naya istoricheskaya mysl' v usloviyakh sovetskogo vremeni [National historical thought in the Soviet time]. IN: Natsional'nye istorii v sovetskom i postsovetskikh gosudarstvakh [National histories in the Soviet and post-Soviet states]. Ed. by K. Aymermacher, G. Bordiugov. – M.: Fond Fridriha Naumanna, AIRO-XX, 2003. – P. 21-72. (In Russian)

2. BULAKHTIN M.A. Politika istoricheskoi pamyati v sovremennoi Pol'she [The policy of historical memory in modern Poland]. IN: Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. – 2019. – Vol. 3. – No 4. – P. 449-458. DOI: 10.35634/2587-9030-2019-3-4-449-458 (In Russian)

3. FRIEDMAN J. History, Political Identity and Myth. IN: Lietuvos etnologija. Lithuanian Ethnology. Studies in Social Anthropology and Ethnology. – 2001. – No 1. – P. 41-62. (In English)

4. GALKINA IU.M. Kommemorativnye praktiki pyatidesyatiletiya pervoi mirovoi voiny vo Frantsii (1964-1968) [Commemorative practices of the fiftieth anniversary of World War I in France (1964-1968)]. IN: Klio. – 2019. – No 8 (152). – P. 66-75. (In Russian)

5. GRITSAK IA. Ukrainskaya istoriografiya. 1991 – 2001. Desyatiletie peremen [Ukrainian historiography. 1991–2001. A Decade of Changes]. IN: Ab Imperio. – 2003. – No 2. – P. 423-454. DOI: 10.1353/imp.2003.0084 (In Russian)

6. HRYTSAK Y. On Sails and Gales, and Ships sailing in various Direction: Post-Soviet Ukraine. IN: Ab Imperio. – 2004. – No 1. – P. 229-254. DOI: 10.1353/imp.2004.0033 (In English)

7. Istoricheskaya politika XXI veka: sbornik statei [The historical policy of the XXI century: collection of articles]. Ed. by A. MILLER, M. LIPMAN. – M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2012. – 648 p. (In Russian)

8. IVANESKO A.E., URUSHADZE A.T. Past indefinite: istoricheskaya pamyat' i politika na Severnom Kavkaze [Past indefinite: historical memory and politics in the North Caucasus]. IN: Novoe proshloe. The New Past. – 2018. – № 3. – P. 186-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23683/2500-3224-2018-3-186-190 (In Russian)

9. KIRCHANOV M.V. Istoricheskaya politika. politika pamyati i voina s pamyatnikami v SShA [Historical politics. Politics of memory and war with monuments in the USA]. IN: SShA i Kanada: ekonomika, politika, kul'tura. – 2017. – No 12 (576). – P. 63-75. (In Russian)

10. KIRCHANOV M.V. Tyurkizm kak paradigma turetskoi istoricheskoi politiki [Turkism as a paradigm of Turkish historical politics]. IN: Problemy sotsial'nykh i gumanitarny. – 2019. – No 4 (21). – P. 64-74. (In Russian)

11. KUSKO A., TAKI V. «Kto my?» Istoricheskii vybor: rumynskaya natsiya ili moldavskaya gosudarstvennost' [“Who are we?” Historical choice: Romanian nation or Moldavian statehood]. IN: Ab Imperio. – 2003. – No 1. – P. 485-495. DOI: 10.1353/imp.2003.0100 (In Russian)

12. LINDNER R. New Directions in Belarusian Studies besieged past: national and court historians in Lukashenka’s Belarus. IN: Nationalities Papers. – 1999. – Vol. 27. – No 4. – P. 631-647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/009059999108867 (In English)

13. LINDNER R. Niazmiennasć i zmieny ŭ postsavieckaj histaryjahrafii Bielarusi [The constancy and change in post-Soviet historiography Belarus]. IN: Bielarusika. Albaruthenica. – Mn., 1997. – Vol. 6. – Part 1. – P. 114-118. (In Belarusian)

14. SHNIREL'MAN V.A. Voiny pamyati: mify, identichnost' i politika v Zakavkaz'e [Wars of memory: myths, identity and politics in Transcauasia]. – M.: IKTs «Akademkniga», 2003. – 592 p. (In Russian)

15. SMITH A.D. Nationalism and the Historians. IN: International Journal of Comparative Sociology. – 1992. – Vol. 33. – Iss. 1-2. – P. 58-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/002071592X00059 (In English)

16. USMANOVA D. Sozdavaya natsional'nuyu istoriyu tatar: istoriograficheskie i intellektual'nye debaty na rubezhe vekov [Creating the national history of the Tatars: historiographic and intellectual debates at the turn of the century]. IN: Ab Imperio. – 2003. – No 3. – P. 337-360. DOI: 10.1353/imp.2003.0072 (In Russian)

17. VARNAVSKII P. Granitsy sovetskoi buryatskoi natsii: natsional'no-kul'turnoe stroitel'stvo v 1926 – 1929 gg. v proektakh natsional'noi intelligentsii i natsional-bol'shevikov [Borders of the Soviet Buryat nation: national-cultural construction in 1926-1929 in the projects of the national intelligentsia and the national Bolsheviks]. IN: Ab Imperio. – 2003. – No 1. – P. 149-176. DOI: 10.1353/imp.2003.0074 (In Russian)