Contents panel I
| Вид материала | Документы |
- Table of contents, 459.31kb.
- Пособие прошло апробацию в группах магистратур факультета мэо. Contents, 1474.51kb.
- Система программирования Delphi, 31.24kb.
- rum ru/database/osbd/contents shtml Основы современных баз данных, 4049.07kb.
Propaganda, Protest and Violence: Revolutions in the East and the West
Convenors: Henry Y. S. Chan (Minnesota State University Moorehead, USA), Akop P. Nazaretyan (Moscow State Linguistic University, Russia)
In the mass age, propaganda – the deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist - is one of the most widely used tactics in power struggle. Social scientists generally distinguish two kinds of propaganda: integration and agitation. The former is used by the authorities to maintain its legitimacy and interests, while the latter is employed by the political opponents to arouse people against the power-holders in the existing regime. In an extreme situation, an intensification of state coercion may lead to the opposition’s change in tactic from propaganda by word to propaganda by deed, mostly in form of assassination. This would initiate a cycle of violence, and possibly set the stage for the outbreak of a revolution. On the other hand, in the course of gradual political transformation, such as the experimentation in constitutional development, propaganda becomes one of the means for opposition groups to win popular support. At times, this may give rise to political conflicts and instability. While the revolutionary experience varies from country to country, the factor of propaganda is crucial to the development of world revolutions. This international panel, comprising social scientists and historians from Asia, Europe and North America, purports to study the issues of propaganda, conflicts and violence with special reference to the revolutions in China, Japan and Russia. Dr. Akop P. Nazaretyan from Moscow State Linguistic University presents us the conceptual framework for the study of anthropogenic crises in his paper on the hypothesis of techno-humanitarian balance. Dr. Henry Chan from Minnesota State University illustrates in his study the extreme case of agitation propaganda in the early phase of the Chinese Revolution. In his paper on revolutionary conservatism, Dr. Ben-Ami Shillony from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem shows how the Japanese emperors have been serving as potent propaganda tools in the hands of the government to achieve revolutionary changes. Mr. Victor Y. Maul and Mrs. Olga G. Rybakova from Tyumen State Oil and Gas University discuss the social and cultural discourse in eighteenth-century Russia in the light of the conflicting values between modernization and Russian bunt. Dr. L. O. Boutorina from the State Agricultural Academy of Ulyanovsk and Dr. A. I. Stetsenko from the State University of Ulyanovsk jointly analyze the problems and crisis of the conservatives during the first Russian Revolution in early twentieth century, basing themselves on modern concepts of social and political sciences. Michael Ostromensky, an independent scholar, concludes the panel by elaborating on a broader topic, namely, the issues and problems the non-Western Christian Civilizations confront in their endeavors to developing a democratic system of government. Social scientists and historians will find the papers a useful reference to the study of propaganda and violence in world revolutions.
Akop P. Nazaretyan (Moscow State Linguistic University, Russia)
Techno-Humanitarian Balance Hypothesis
A cross-disciplinary research of the anthropogenic crises since the Paleolithic discovered a regular relation between the three variables: technological potential, cultural regulation quality, and internal social sustainability. The law of techno-humanitarian balance states that the higher production and war technologies’ power, the more refined the behavior-regulation (aggression-retention) means that is required for self-preservation of the society. The first artificial tools of Homo habilis have once and forever interfered with a natural ethological balance between the intra-species killing facilities and the power of instinctive aggression-retention. In the new conditions, those few herds could survive that assimilated artificial restraints to equilibrate hominids’ unnatural weapons. Following the hypothesis, from there on, the techno-humanitarian balance mechanism has controlled consecutive selection of viable social organisms. Broken balance between “force” and “wisdom” entailed splashes of ecological and/or geopolitical aggression. As a result, most frequently, the societies subverted the background of their existence, and fell victim to their own non-compensated power. Still, in some cases, as the anthropogenic crisis covered a wide region with high cultural diversity, its inhabitants managed to find a cardinal way out of the deadlock. These were complex revolutions in life activities including technologies, organization, values, and psychology, to adapt to the new instrumental opportunities. No less than seven crucial breakthroughs have been revealed and described, each of which was preceded by a wide-scale anthropogenic crisis and became a landmark in panhuman history. Thereby, the leading societies have broken into the new historical epochs, consecutively adapting the quality of regulation to the increasing technological might. The hypothesis is a subject of falsification/verification procedures by its non-trivial corollaries. Particularly, retrospective calculations show a paradoxical fact: while weapons’ killing power and people’s concentration have been successively growing for millennia, violence victims’ ratio to the population numbers has been even irregularly decreasing.
Henry Y. S. Chan (Minnesota State University Moorehead, USA)
Propaganda By Deed: The Tongmenghui and Revolutionary Terrorism
in the First Phase of the Chinese Revolution
The formation of the Tongmenghui (Revolutionary Alliance) signified a new stage of development in the movement against the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), which consummated in 1911. While works on the Tongmenghui and military uprisings abound, this paper studies a neglected aspect of the Chinese Revolution – the Tongmenghui and revolutionary terrorism between 1905 and 1911. Central to the analysis is the revolutionaries’ change in revolutionary tactics from propaganda by word to propaganda by deed in crisis situations. The first wave of assassinations took place after the formation of the organization in 1905. The terrorist incidents were publicized in revolutionary journals, such as Minbao (People’s Tribune), Xinshiji (new Century) and Tianyi (Heavenly Justice), to promote the use of assassinations when the revolutionary morale was in the doldrums as a result of repeated failures in uprisings between 1906 and 1907. A new round of assassinations began in 1909, consisting of solo missions and group operations. Among the terrorists were laborers and women. This tends to challenge the Communist view, which considers the 1911 Revolution a bourgeois movement. The intensity of violence increased in 1911 when several attempts at Manchu princes and senior officials were made in Beijing. To a certain extent, terrorism weakened the central government and indirectly brought down the dynasty. The study will contribute to our understanding of the nature of the 1911 Revolution.
Ben-Ami Shillony (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel)
Revolutionary Conservatism:
The Institution of the Emperor and Japan’s Transformation in Modern Times
Monarchy and revolution are usually regarded as a dichotomy. Indeed, most revolutions toppled monarchies, as it happened in France, Russia and China. A hereditary monarchy is by definition a conservative institution, often tied to the political and religious establishments. However, in certain cases the conservative prestige of the monarchy has been used to achieve revolutionary changes. Japan is the best example of that. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Meiji emperor sanctioned the political, social and economic transformation, which turned Japan from a feudal and backward country into a modern state. In the first four decades of the twentieth century, the Meiji, Taishoō and Showa emperors legitimized the unprecedented military expansion of Japan, which ended in disaster. In the mid-twentieth century, the same Showa emperor sanctioned the transformation of Japan from an authoritarian and militarist state, which he himself had earlier headed, into a democratic and pacifist one. In each of these cases the monarchy bestowed legitimacy on revolutionary changes by making them appear as “returns” to traditional modes. The emperors served as potent propaganda tools in the hands of the government by issuing imperial edicts, giving personal examples, and attending rallies. They could perform that role because of their extraordinary prestige on the one hand and because of their extraordinary weakness on the other. The emperors collaborated with the ruling elite, which professed reverence for the monarchy, and were themselves convinced of the necessity of the new policies. This peculiar system of working through weak emperors instead of invoking a revolutionary ideology prevented the rise of a one-person rule and of a personality cult in Japan, two phenomena which have plagued other modernizing societies.
Victor Y. Maul’, Olga G. Rybakova (Tyumen State Oil & Gas University,
Nizhnevartovsk Branch, Russia)
“Revolution from Above” and Russian Bunt:
Social and Cultural Discourse in Eighteenth Century Russia
At each stage of historical development a struggle between the old and new cultures can be observed. The incumbents are reluctant to hand over their positions. An image of “changing Russia” provokes activity of the conservatives who closely embrace the traditional style of life. It is typical for the Russian society of the 18th century to be struck with a crisis of traditional identity. Modernization was poorly planned and superficial. But the infringement upon “sacred olden time” caused cultural discomfort. The Russian people did not accept modernization based on principles and values of Western rationalism. It was necessary to liberate the common mind from religious fetters for them to accept these values. Science should take the place of religion. But scientific discoveries bypassed the common people. The reality of the epoch was that the consciousness of the masses was inevitably associated with religion. In such a situation the traditional culture involved traditional mechanisms to protect their identity. Bunt was one of the major of them. Only a many-sided social and cultural analysis will help to understand its meaning. Modernization creates a new model of authorities. Russian bunt opposes it by the image of national “tsar-father”. Modernization is a “revolution from above”. It imposes new cultural values violently. Therefore the traditional culture protects its values with the help of violence. That is why the social and cultural bases of this violence should be recognized. The conflict of ‘old’ and ‘new’ becomes antagonistic in its character. The traditional culture actualizes the archaic patterns of national mentality and addresses itself to archetypes of collective unconscious. As a result Russian bunt become connected with the mythological and ritual world of the past. Modernization and bunt are antipodes acting as anti-texts. This leads us into the world of humorous, “overturned” culture. The “reading” of Russian bunt in a language of “national laughter” increases cognitive potential of historical science. Thus, Russian bunt can be interpreted as a many-sided social and cultural phenomenon.
L. O. Boutorina (State Agricultural Academy of Ulyanovsk, Russia)
A. I. Stetsenko (State University of Ulyanovsk, Russia)