How historical myths are created, useful to the state: explains Andrei Zorin. Historian Andrei Zorin: "The man became so insensitive that only the supernutrition can squeeze out of him a tear Zorin Andrei Leonidovich Year of birth

Andrei Zorin.

Historian and philologist, specialist in the history of Russian culture and intellectual history, Professor MVSHSEN (Shaninka), University of Oxford (United Kingdom), Professor of the Department of Humanitarian Disciplines and scientific director Liberal Arts programs at the Institute of Public Sciences Ranjigs

- When a person reads a historical book, he still meets someone else's interpretation of history? Anyway, the author has its own position.

- In the XIX century, the science of "critic sources" originated, which made its task to formulate the general principles of the approach to the source, allowing to determine the degree of its reliability. At the same time, the famous historian of the century Leopold background Rake was formulated by his thesis, according to which the Historian task is to find out how it really was. In recent decades in historical science Another trend is the idea that every source is in one degree or another design written in someone's interests. Famous formula: lying as an eyewitness. Yuri Nikolaevich Tynyanov, Great Russian Philologist, said: Documents are lying as people.

- History is an attempt to control the past?

- Yes, this is our fight against the ancestors. We were born during the we asked us, in the circumstances that we were asked, we can not change anything about it. But we take revenge, telling about the ancestors of the story, complementing them, imagging, - and through our stories, fables and fantasies about what was, we carry out our control over them.

- Ideology very often uses the story as a weapon and is trying to justify its actions in the present, in the past. So it was always - or are these recent centuries?

If we are talking about government attempts to monopolize the story - they begin from the moment that the state has the need to explain where it came from and why it is. A classic example is the story of the troubled time, told from the top of the Romanov dynasty. The Romanov Dynasty appeared in 1613, after 700 years of the preceding dynasty. Her rights to the throne were very dubious, it was necessary to invent a bright and convincing story, which would allow them to legitimize their rights to manage Russia. It was largely possible to them. In the next 300 years, before the events of 1917, this dynasty reigned in the Russian throne.

- Why do you need to justify the present with the help of the past? And why does this reception work? What is the difference in me that, let's say, Ivan Grozny comes from a nephew of the emperor of August?

- Everyone is his story about himself. We come to get a job and say: I worked there something then - our biography explains who we are and what we imagine. Any community of people, the state, including - it is in the same way arranged, it is its own history. Before the new time, as everyone knows well, the government was justified by divine origin. So, if your power is from God, then you have to tell how the Lord gave you this power. I just talked about the Romanov dynasty. This is a characteristic story. Came on Zemsky Cathedral Cossacks and said: "Choose Mikhail Romanova." With the armed Cossacks will not paint. But when Mikhail reigned, then this story was required to forget. And a very beautiful legend was invented that all the boyars were ordered to write on the paper the name of the future king, they wrote everything, and everyone had the same name - Mikhail. Of course, only the Lord God could go such an incredible coincidence, he stood over each other and suggested it; There may be no other explanation. The fact that this version is clearly borrowed from history about seventy-tolnikov, no one embarrassed. The sacred history was an absolute model of not even historical, but transistoric, non-historical truth, so the recognition of the plot attached to him a reliability.

- It turns out that the creation of myths or falsifications begins in the history of Russia from a vague time, from the beginning of the Romanov. The first myth is called? Foundation myth?

- Yes. This is quite common scientific term. And this is the standard thing. Everyone celebrates your birthday. This means that you are re-worried about the act of your birth. The family celebrates the wedding day, the day when it originated, we can bring a lot of similar examples. The state is embedded in the same row. The central myth of any state is the question where it came from, its myth of the foundation. It comes up with a starting point from which it has grown.

- In this case, the XVII century serves the myth on how Romanov became rulers. What is happening in the XVIII century, during Peter?

- The gigantic layer, which produces Peter I with the Russian consciousness leads to the enormous change of historical mythology, and since its official titulature. He was called first, Peter I. To him, the Russian emperors were not considered. The backs of the "fourth" formidable were appropriated, but the Terrible never called himself the fourth, he was just "Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich". Peter I calls ourselves first, and it is not just a fixation of the fact that in the throne of Russia to him Petrov never had, but it is generally an indication that everything goes from him. From non-existence in Genesis, the Chancellor Golovkin spoke about Russia, and a great set of such quotes.

"If Peter is a new covenant, did you remember the old, did you remember the troubled time, did Mikhail Romanov remember?

- Peter fixes the historical Russian consciousness on himself, which indicate other significant pages in the recent past it became uninteresting. All Russian kings are building their personal continuity towards Peter. Elizabeth, who was known to illegal daughter, says she is Petrovna and Peter's daughter; Peter III He said that before him was unknown who, and he - the grandson of Peter; Catherine Stavit Copper rider And he writes on it: "Peter I Catherine II". Although there was no kinship between them, she was generally a usurper of the throne, but in this way she fits themselves in Petrov's mythology again. And after her death, Paul pulls out the old monument to Rastrelli and writes on it: "great-grandfather's great-grandfather" - opposing his own relationship with the Great Emperor and Numerology of his own mother (first and second) and again removing their legitimacy to Peter.

- It turns out that the entire XVIII century there is a plot of return to Peter, that is, return to the order.

- Yes. The fact is that the XVIII century is the endless era of crisis, coups, disputes about the throne, tsarubiy. Peter introduced permission to the emperor to appoint himself the heir, and 75 years old the Russian monarchy was shaking, while Paul I, who, however, was also killed, did not introduce a decree on the union. The emperors made the Guard, after the coup of 1762, Catherine proclaimed that she climbed the throne of all classes, and especially guards: everyone is equal, but some are equal. And so far, actually, the Guard was not shot by the guns on December 14, 1825 on the Senate Square, the source of the legitimacy of the monarch was the position of the guard and continuity towards the Creator of the Guard and modern Russia - the emperor Peter.

- What exactly are the plots around Peter I more relying? What things were invented, what, on the contrary, preferred to forget?

- First of all, it is a victory in the Northern War, new territories, entering the sea, the construction of St. Petersburg and the famous dressing of the nobility. Peter created in an absolutely non-European country one hundred percent Europeanized elite. People who have learned about 100 years to look, think and talk like a European aristocracy. When the Russian army took Paris in 1814, then the Paris public had a feeling that some indescribable barbarians would come, the Russians were painted in the Paris newspapers, whose smoke goes out of the nostrils, and everyone was, of course, were amazed by the pure French Russian officers.

It turns out that Peter I and the rulers following him felt like Europeans. Ekaterina II appears, endless wars with the Turks, the accession of the Crimea. And with Catherine, it turns out, we are no longer quite Europeans, but the descendants of the Greeks.

Logic is understandable. European Culture inherits the Roman Empire, Rome took his culture from Greece, which means that the Greek heritage came to them indirectly. And we took both faith and classical culture right in the Greeks. That is, we are the center of European culture, because we are connected with her cradle and the main hearth. We can overlook Europe in Europe.

For Catherine, the mythology of Vladimir Saint: From here, her famous trip to Crimea in 1787, the accession of the Crimea, all Potemkin projects of the future empire. And Potemkin writes Catherine that if Peter has achieved such success in St. Petersburg swamps, then what are you, the sovereign, will achieve in such beautiful, god of data, fertile places that we have now joined.

- At first, the ideology is built on the fact that Europe is great, and then it turns out that in fact we are even better than Europe, but in times Napoleonic Wars The most important plot again becomes a vague time. Why is that?

- In the 1760s, Catherine wrote that Peter had achieved such success, because we had applied European morals in the European state. That is, we were the Europeans, whom Tatars temporarily shot down from the way, but Peter returned us back to our historic road. But who Ekaterina meant? It was solely about a few percent of the elite. By the beginning of the XIX century from Europe, again, the idea of \u200b\u200bnation comes and starts the roots, which there is a single people, he has a single spirit, one general story, and that the tops of Russian society, the nobility should also to some extent to nationalize themselves, penetrate the folk spirit. And here the story of the troubled time, militia and fire militia, turns out to be unusually comfortable.

The mythic heroes of the Antipolsky movement were three - Patriarch of Hermogen, Minin and Pozharsky. That is, the Patriarch, representing the church, a simple man of minin, from the merchants, and the Prince of Pozharsky, representing the noble elite, - they all united, and as a result of this public unity, a new dynasty appeared. That is, the return from Petrovskoy mythology to the mythology of a vague time is an attempt to some extent to expand the social base of state ideology. During the Napoleonic wars, the authorities had to appeal to the folk masses, they needed mobilization of much broader layers than those to which the monarchy appeared before.

- That is, in the myth of the troubled time, the interventories that are captured by us?

- Yes. Let's remember the last part of the vague time: Vladislav, the liberation of Moscow, the captivity of Minin and Pozharsky. Russia then was on the verge of death, because it was captured by the Poles - and during the Napoleonic Wars, the same infection, enemy from the West, that is, the French.

- It can be said that this is the first case in history, when the ideology is that around the enemies, we are surrounded, there are still traitors within the country.

- War is the most important way of historical assertion. In Petrovskoy mythology, the victory over the Swedes played a huge role. The myth of war, the enemies and victory ancient - Vladimir also fought, went to the Crimea with a campaign. But that now appeared new - this is the mythology of betrayal. The importance of the concept of betrayal, internal treason, is very closely connected with a completely new, absolutely Western idea of \u200b\u200bthe people as a single body. The people are a single body, an organism with all metaphors: he has a head - this is usually a sovereign, he has a heart - this is usually a church. And the body, respectively, from what dies? He dies from the infection that someone brings from the outside. And here the topic of betrayal arises at this time.

- Rurikovichi ruled Russia 700 years. Is this the only case when the dynasty held so long?

- Not. Cappets held for a very long time, and about chinese emperors And there is nothing to say. But 700 years old is still terribly a lot, and the sudden break of the dynasty is, of course, shock. There were several attempts to overcome it. With Boris Godunov, it turned out badly. Then there was Lhadmitry - again some kind of nonsense. Then Vasily Shui, one of the most ancient Russian princes, put - again not very. Why did not happen with Godunov and with Shui? According to the general opinion, because they were not royal. We had no other royal sort, but I had Poles. Polish king SIGISMUDU was presented several conditions that his son Vladislav should take Orthodoxy and come to Moscow. And Sigismund began that Stalin subsequently called dizziness from success. And he, instead of fulfilling the contract with him, decided that he would not send Vladislav to Moscow, he would not be allowed to move in Orthodoxy, and he would be he himself as a king to manage the Moscow kingdom as his province. But he had no political resource to implement it, and it caused an explosion.

- Again with boyars?

- With boyars, yes. There was an embassy, \u200b\u200band concluded an agreement with them, the boyar Philaret of Romanov, the father of the future king Mikhail Romanova. But the agreement was not fulfilled by Poland, and this caused a protest ending with the second militia of Minin and Pozharsky. But the boyar did not want to appoint enemies, so they came up with accuse the Cossack Ivan Zarutsky and a few more people - including Prince Trubetsky, who had a Cossack army. Mostly among the Cossacks prescribed traitors, and they were carriers of the Polish contagion. Plus, of course, the story of Marina Mnishek and her stunning fate, too, on all those who wrote this legend, made a strong impression. It turned out that the Poles of our Russian people completely seduced. "Taras Bulba" is then written on the same topic and so on. The image of an excellent and terrible pool, which seduces a simple, uncomfortable Russian person, in Russian culture is very significant.

- Who appointed a traitor to the role in 1812?

"A suitable candidate was already here, she turned out to be Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky, the nearest adviser to Emperor Alexander I. He was appointed Agent Napoleon, a man who wants to bribe and destroy Russia and get the Polish crown. Before that, one of the advisers of Alexander was Prince Adam Chartorian, he was really a Pole, at least a logic at least understandable. Speransky was the son of an Orthodox priest. He was hated as an attractive. He was Popovich and became the main minister and the right hand of the emperor.

- And who chose this sacrifice?

- public opinion a large number of The nobles that he hated from the very beginning. His low origin, his reform plans was very annoyed. And plus he appeared in the immediate surroundings of the emperor after the Tilzite world, which was perceived as a national humiliation. For simplicity, the conservative-noble camp should be said, probably headed by Admiral Shishkov, he almost appointed a traitor. And Alexander, who, of course, did not believe in the versa in the version of the Speransky betrayal, said: "I had to bring this sacrifice." However, with such accusations, the reference to Nizhny Novgorod and Penza was still a rather soft measure.

- The war of 1812 begins soon, and art begins to pull out this story about the troubled time. Art comes up with this myth or reacts to it?

- Such strong historical myths are always collective creativity. Maybe art does not come up with him, but in art it acquires that clearness, expressiveness and power to master the minds. A monument to minin and a fire in the Kremlin is set, created theatrical performances. To the 25th anniversary of the war - Opera Glinka "Life for the king", in soviet time The called "Ivan Susanin", and so on. That is, all this series of events creates a mythological image.

- When in front of the war, 1812 in the fashion entered the fashion, dislike for the French, interest in troubled time, can it be said that it was in some way even the opposition? After all, Russia is officially friendly with France at this moment.

- Yes, originally it was an opposition ideology, of course. Moreover, right up to the Tarutinsky battle and the departure of the French from Moscow, since 1807, rumors were rumored all the time that Alexander is about to overthrow from the throne. Russia was not accustomed to the state coup, and public opinion was already a candidate for his place - it was the great princess of Ekaterina Pavlovna.

- I will ask you about a short educational program. What preceded the war of 1812?

- The war of 1812 was preceded by several wars, the first of which ended with a terrible defeat in the battle of Austerlice, described in the novel "War and Peace". After the truce was another war, less catastrophic, which ended with the Tilzite world, scary unprofitable for Russia. As a result, Russia was supposed to join the continental blockade of England and take the conditions of Napoleon. Alexander knew perfectly well that it was temporary and that new war Do not power. The rise in Speransky with a huge number of unpopular measures, which were adopted, was also associated with preparing for war. But it was impossible to declare out loud. Both Alexander, and Speransky, who was perceived as a foreign agent, was opposed to the Great Princess, who had a wonderful credit history that Napoleon was launched to her, and she was married to the prince of Oldenburg. Locked Napoleon's nose, he did not get our wonderful princes, and she was perceived as the main center of the patriotic party. Great Princess At the same time, not a single word in Russian.

- We completely burned in this plot of troubled time. Next Foundation Myth is the October Revolution?

- Yes of course. Stow everything changes in the XX century after the revolution. And in this sense it is very similar to the Petrovsky revolution. A new era, a new state was created. To end Soviet Union The 1917 revolution in one degree or another plays the role of the Myth of the foundation.

- A rather fun way for the holiday on November 7 turned into 4 November.

- Yes, again sending to troubled time, the Day of National Unity.

- In the Soviet Union, remembered the confusion? Because she goes to the plot of the Patriotic War.

- The Great War begins with a terrible defeat when the enemy turns out to be at the capital or approaches it. In 1612, these are the Poles, in 1812 it is the French, burning Moscow, in 1941 these are Germans who are suitable for Moscow for the near future. And the country and the country turns out to be on the verge of absolute death and the total catastrophe, from which magical way, God's and wonderful magnitude of the leader, king, the heads of the militia, the leader, Generalissimus and is unknown to whom, it re-occurs as a Phoenix and rises to the greatest victory in its history. Here, the paired arises on the terminology - " Patriotic War"And" Great Patriotic War. " That is, this parallel - it arises.

Ready to see your eyes to the best summer day - August 3, on the picnic "Posters". The Cure, Pusha-T, Basta, Gruppa Skryptonite, Mura Masa, Eighteen - and this is just the beginning.

On December 10 and 11, a winter book festival will be held in the "shift". In addition to the traditional book fair (to which we, by the way, have prepared two detailed recommendations guides - and), the GPF will lectures prominent Russian scientists. One of them is the historian Andrei Zorin: on Saturday he will talk about the emotional culture of the formed part russian society At the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries (the lecture will be held with the support of the "Enlightener" award). On the eve of the Indeed Festival, Zorin was asked about the peculiarities of the recreation of the emotional world of the past, Pushkin as a tutor's feelings and differences in the public status of male and female vulnerability.

Andrei Zorin.

doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor of Oxford University, RGU and Ranjigs. Member of editorial board magazines "New Literary Review", Slavic Review, Cahiers De Monde Russe. Sphere of interest - Russian literature and culture of the late XVIII - early XIX. Century in the European context, the history of emotions, the history of the educated community in Russia and the USSR. Nominee for the "Enlightener-2016" premium for the book "The appearance of the hero. From the history of the Russian emotional culture of the late XVIII - early XIX century "; Winner of a special award "Enlightener of Enlighteners"

It is believed that the description of feelings and emotions is the prerogative of art. How does science fits this issue?

Science comes from the fact that emotions are a culture product. Through the culture, we get knowledge of feelings and learn to feel right in terms of society. In this paradigm, you can allocate special emotional communities - groups of people with clearly established regulations of feeling. On football, we can see only two reactions to the goal: the joy of fans of one team and the annoyance of the other fans. This is an example of different emotional communities. Feelings are not only inside a person - they are part of its communicative and interpersonal space. It is this property that can be studied within the framework of humanitarian sciences.

What sources do researchers use when studying the emotional world of the past?

First of all, we look at the so-called emotional texts - these are texts in which certain emotions are prescribed to people. For example, manifesto on the liberty of the nobility (1762) gave representatives of the provisions of the right to refuse military serviceHowever, he ordered that in this case the other nobles should despise the refusal. We see how certain emotional behavior is fixed at the level of the state act. A modern example is the current Criminal Code, providing for the punishment for insulting the feelings of certain categories of citizens. Such texts are sources of the first row. It is possible to study emotions in the works of art: they contain emotional matrices of the manifestation of feelings, comprehending which people learn the language of feelings and culture of emotions. We usually know what we will feel in a specific situation, because we have emotional matrices based on public norms. From this it follows that the world of emotions is changed and transformed along with the norms of society. It is difficult to accept right away: many authors of historical novels proceed from the fact that the people of the past behaved the same way as we.

Is it possible to reconstruct the feelings of the past in modern categories?

I do not think that the word "reconstruction" is suitable here. "Would not get the ink in the world to write and typographs to print the impressions of one day," Lion wrote Tolstoy. The complete reconstruction of one experience is a gigantic work, because human experiences are a deep phenomenon. But to get closer to the emotional world of the past - performing the task. In his book, the appearance of the hero, I tried to achieve this on the example of one person - Andrei Ivanovich Turgenev (1781-1802). He was interested in as a bright type of a ranneromantic personality, with the emotional code inherent in this period.

You describe the imperial period when Russian Higher Society diligently adapts European cultural and emotional codes. And what was in the country before?

The conversion of the elite was the result of the focused Effort of Peter I. He believed that for the appearance of a new Russian Europeans, it was enough to disguise people, teach them to smoke and drink coffee, - he was little interested in feelings of subjects. Of course, there were earlier traditions. But they are difficult to investigate due to lack of sources of personal origin. Moreover, it seems to me that the idea of \u200b\u200ban individual experience is a product of a later time. But the general imaging background can be recreated through the study of everyday practices and rituals, in which the program emotions of the epoch are enshrined. In the book "The appearance of the hero" I describe the young lady who went into the monastery. With the reconstruction of the motives of this act, I saw that it was at the same time under the influence of the church and Western European literature, which at the end of the XVIII century was not particularly optimistic. In this example, we see a complex combination of emotional matrices in one person. At the beginning of the XIX century, the elite is already accomplished by the fact. The conductor of the early emotional tradition remains only religion, which continues to occupy a great place in the life of people.

From your words it follows that sources allow us to study only formed estates. Was there an emotion culture of the specifically differentiated?

The people remained a perfect mystery for the Lord. The nobility and peasants had different models of feelings, so they were experiencing emotions in different ways: conventionally speaking, the French novels served for the Lord, and the peasant continued to live in a traditional embezzlement. At the same time, it can be said that the nobles refused to peasants in sensuality. Nikolai Karamzin In order to convince the nobles, who considered the peasants "insensitive animals," described the peasant in the "poor Lisa", which is experiencing a deep emotional life. And he did it in understandable nobles forms - the image of the peasant of Lisa is stylized under the literary tastes of the then elite.
Feelings and emotions reflect social differences: the system of emotional communities includes gender, age-related, geographical and professional groups, and the more difficult society, the stronger its emotional standards are crushed. The manifestation of this can be considered a huge variety of age-related, gender and other stereotypes in the range from "Boys do not cry" to "Youth for love" and "Maturity - time to be cooled."

How was the social acceptability of male tears changed in Russian society?

In the XVIII century, tears were the norm - the hero of my research Andrei Turgenev in diaries often mentions his tears. Ranneromantic culture was expressed in the oppositions of soft and hard, cold and hot. Hot, that is, ardent, is good, cold - bad. The same with the opposition is hard - soft: the noble soul under the action of the heat should melt, become soft. Tears are a natural manifestation of a melted soul, opposing cold and stiffness. Gradually, such a type of sensitivity comes end: it is difficult to imagine a man who, in the times of the heyday of romanticism, would moisturize the eyes from the type of flower. The hero of the romantic era can cry only under the influence of severe spiritual shocks or passion. Further, this model was strengthened, and in the 20th century, in my opinion, the taboo became strong as ever: the masculine culture of the USSR made male tears in principle impossible. Only one socially approved context for men's tears remained: death close man. About the possibility of crying because of personal suffering could not be any speech - it is ashamed and in general "in Babski".

It turns out that men's tears are associated with "high" sensuality and deepest inner suffering, while women are perceived as a domestic phenomenon that is not related to strong experiences. Don't you think that men's tears have a greater public weight?

On the one hand, it is - and this is the result of the penetration of Western masculin culture. On the other hand, the same culture until the very last time reported to us that the woman feels thinner: they say, the man is so simple and insensitive that only supernutrition can squeeze out of it. Through different requirements for male and female sensitivity in culture, a gender difference is recorded. A woman is prescribed to be emotionally rich and fine, and a man - restrained. But in the last decade, such an opposition is strongly loosened.

How do genuine feelings and methods of their representation relate?

I do not share these concepts as opposition. Some emotions we do not show, and they remain unnoticed, but the fact that some senses are expressed, and others remain inside, does not external expression near. There are clear models that prescribe people certain behavior: a feeling of envy, for example, is not socially acceptable, so we cannot express it. For other feelings, the permissible situations of their manifestations are clearly indicated - at home, with friends, in public, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to draw conclusions about the authenticity of the feeling, based only on its severity.

Did the culture of the culture and painful emotion and painful emotion, are distinguished in culture?

This happens through standard channels: basic mythology, rituals, art, recently - media and social networks. I do not engage in social networks, but probably husky and emoticons have recently experienced a standardization. They register, reflect and model modern system Emotions - you better know me about the existence of situations and contexts when the smiles are welcome, and when they are categorically inappropriate. But these are common trends, and you need to take into account the individual life experience of each person. If you give a literary example, Jane Austin in his novels directly describes its own response to the hated manifestations of the sentimental culture of the late XVIII century. It clearly fixes the basic emotions and emotional models of their contemporaries and makes them a negative verdict. In her texts, we see this border between a normal feeling and abnormal sensitivity.

Is it possible to say that for Tatiana from the "Eugene Onegin" means of knowledge of emotional culture were the French novels, which she read?

It's really indicative example. Tatiana rose on the sentimental novels of the XVIII century, and Evgenia about this is known - it means that it clearly represents emotional matrices of the girl's behavior. For her, Eugene, on the contrary, is a mystery. Therefore, during the first meeting, the ratio of forces in a pair unequal - he sees her through, and she does not know anything about him. Next, Tatyana visits the library of Evgenia and sees the books that he reads: Byron, Gibbon, Rousseau, and so on. At the next meeting, everything changes: Eugene for Tatiana is absolutely transparent, and she is no longer available for him. But the reason for their differences, in Pushkin, is that Tatiana has a distinct connection with the folk culture (as Pushkin understood it), and Onegin was such a connection. Pushkin deliberately described the situation of differences in emotional models, and in this plan "Eugene Onegin" - a novel about the upbringing of feelings.

How are the senses regulate depending on the sphere of their manifestation - private or public?

Feelings are clearly divorced according to these areas, and the regulations of the feeling are an integral part of emotional culture. But the boundaries are moving and erased over time. Can we consider entry in a personal blog privately expressing feelings? And this is only one example of how technology makes the borders permeable. In addition, changing modes can occur consciously. Bright emotions Policies in the public are understandable manipulation, although sincerity cannot be excluded completely. Reverse situation is possible: feelings are deliberately hiding, and it also becomes a sign for the rest of society. At one time I was struck by the audio recordings of public speeches Winston Churchill: he uttered strong and emotional texts smooth, ice and unmodulated voice. It seems that everything is clear: politician-aristocrat demonstrates perfect confidence. But it seems to me that thus Churchill directly opposes himself Hitler, who, as you know, was an extremely emotional speaker.

Can I say that every era is inherent in dominant emotion?

Abstain from global generalizations. In each era there are various social types And the emotional communities - in the XVIII century and melancholys lived, and mocking voltarians, and deep mystics, so it seems to me to characterize a whole age of some emotion.

How, in this case, do you characterize the phenomenon of mass experiences? For example, when Polmier grieves the death of Princess Diana.

Values \u200b\u200band emotional models have a tendency to globalization. The history of Princess Diana consists of basic archetypal plots: this is a fairy tale about how a simple girl has become a princess and faced a cruel world, which then allegedly killed her. Despite the fact that the real state of affairs does not correspond to fantasies about Cinderella, this fabulous and serial model turned out to be quite universal to melt the hearts of millions of people. And this is an interesting cultural phenomenon: Diana's death did not affect the life of grieving, and the English monarchy had no political power for a long time, but an emotional response was still colossal.

Does the soil of the stereotype of the risen and suffering from the Russian soul in the spirit of Dostoevsky's heroes?

Dostoevsky taught us a lot. His appearance marked a gigantic cultural layer caused by the crisis of noble culture as elitar. A new model is coming to shift, based on the dedicated matrices: first of all on the idea that the scale of sin determines the potential of holiness, that is, what you are worse now, the better you can become in the future. This is a completely non-obvious move, but he is intuitively understood by a person who grew up in Russian culture. A Russian man believes that the country of him may, and bad, and gets worse, but in some kind of mystical future will definitely be better. Basic emotion of Dostoevsky - a blast, through which the inner depths break through. But it seems to me, now such a model goes into the past: in the world social networks and an open type of communication is no request for "spiritual depths" and "breaking from the abyss of truth", there is no cult of depth. And this is not a negative assessment - just the world changes, which is absolutely normal.

Illustrations: Danila Makarov

Curator Super Course Online University Arzamas "". The author of the book "The feed of a two-headed eagle ... Literature and state ideology in Russia in the last third of the XVIII - the first third of the XIX century" (Moscow, 2001), "where Pheasant sits ... Essays of recent years" (Moscow, 2003) and "The appearance of the hero. From the history of the Russian emotional culture of the late XVIII - early XIX century "(Moscow, 2016). Publist Lydia Ginzburg, a specialist in Russian literature and culture of the XVIII-XIX centuries; The area of \u200b\u200binterest is literature and state ideology, history of emotions.

• Page on the website of the School of Actual Humanitarian Research (steps)

Russian as Greeks

How the conquest of Constantinople became the center of the religious, political and cultural ideology of Catherine II

Poetry in the service of Russian expansion

Why the poet became the main propaganda of the Russian-Turkish war and what is common between the Spartan king Leonid and Alexei Orlovy Chesmensky

The origins of the Crimean myth

As the Crimea replaced Catherine II Greece, was renamed Tavrid and became a symbol of updating and success Russian Empire

Russian antiquity under the Crimean Sun

As the Crimea turned into a "blooming paradise", became a symbol of war and rest and as the Crimean idea lived from the end of the XVIII century to the present day

Parenting project of feelings

Like Catherine II and Ivan Beetski created in the Smolny Institute of the European Human of New Time

Strange Love

As a trustee of the Smolny Institute loved and tormented his pupil, but never made her suggestions

The role of old Velmembra

How Comedy Voltaire help reconstruct feelings, experienced more than 200 years ago

Intrigue Empress

As Catherine II put the performance to issue a marriage actress

Lion Tolstoy and Power

As a writer has become a radical anarchist and abandoned everything that can make non-free, property, family and copyright

Lion Tolstoy and History

For that the writer hated history and how it came out that his novels - historical

Reforms and changes in education do not stop all last years. Does higher education in Russia's higher education - the future reflects on this with Dr. Philological Sciences, Professor Oxford University (United Kingdom), Academic Director of the Faculty Program government controlled Academy of National Economy Andrei Leonidovich Dawn.

- Andrei Leonidovich, now the Minister of Education will be changed, together with the Cabinet of Minister, as always is the change of models and vectors of education. What does it seem in general in the field of higher education necessary to change first?

"The answer is simple, and it is concluded for me in the wording of your question: the minister changes, and therefore life in universities freezes - everyone is waiting for.

Here I work in English University and I have no idea who in the UK Minister of Education. Neither the last name I do not remember how it looks like, although in Britain was just a monumental reform of the system of state financing of higher education.

In my opinion, the most important problem of modern higher education in Russia is his incredible dependence on the state, from his policy, from standards that descend from above, from bureaucratic rules, etc.

I believe that if there is no university autonomy, not only private universities, but also state, if universities still remain a bureaucratic body, then no meaningful reforms in the field of higher education are not expected to expect.

- What should, first of all, this university autonomy consist?

- the university should be managed by an independent Board of Trustees, in which, of course, government authorities may be presented (if it state University), but only on the rights of one of the participants.

Before such advice is obliged to report the rector, primarily on budgetary issues. And the same degree of autonomy in the spheres of its competence should have divisions within the university.

Autonomy should have not only a few elected universities, who hardly struggled the right to form their own curriculum, own criteria for personnel policy, etc.

Anakhronism and absurdity - the presence of state scientists, the type of candidate and doctors of science. Nowhere in the world there is no such nonsense so that the state suggests someone a degree degree. Everywhere people are doctors of the relevant university. Awards a particular university.

- Probably there are some advantages in the existing unification? It is known that not all universities are smooth with the defensiveness of theses, on a number of departments of work from Vaca, then depart to reading in other universities ...

- Practice proves that the state system of control is meaningless, does not work. From the existence of a monstrous number of regulations and norms, the percentage of graphoman dissertations and the frank plagiarism increases. This is understandable - people who are interested in science, just do not want to contact this procedure.

Yes, cases of plagiarism and protection of unscrupulous work will be both at the university autonomy, but the state should not be responsible for this, and the university, awarding a degree, is a shame on his reputation. And the ministry can, say, lay the texts of protected dissertations on the network so that everyone can check them on plagiarism. No state control is no longer necessary.

- What first should be changed in the educational process itself?

- Same. Based on educational process Also, the principle of maximum autonomy should be in the choice of specializations, drawing up curricula, the choice of teachers, etc. While I talked about it on the highest floors - the autonomy of the rector, university, faculty, but it should be lowered throughout the stairs right up to teachers and students.

- And what can it manifest?

- In particular, it seems to me, the student must have a very large degree of freedom of choice of specialty educational programs, preferably, inside the university. We have been imposed on a 16-year-old year old man exorbitimate responsibility. At the age of 17, he must define his entire path, and nothing can be changed.

In my opinion, the student, acting in, it seems to me, should be able to clarify and redefine his professional orientation, to participate in the choice of the program of its training and educational priorities.

"So after all, a student can form a schedule that will not do anything ...

Well, there are teachers and administrative services. There must be clear criteria, the algorithm for choosing courses and disciplines, the framework in which this choice is meaningful. It was them that the University and the Faculty should ask, not a state, namely the University and the Faculty, where the applicant comes. And in different universities, educational models can and should differ significantly from each other.

Alas, the current lecture examination system, when students force to listen to the same lectures during the semester, then they are forced to learn something to learn something before the session, then they pass the exam and forever forget all that they learned - the whole system, in my opinion, does not work. She does not give almost anything to anyone.

- Now there is no state order. Should he be? Why is it now missing?

- First, it is - because budget places At universities and specialties determines the state. And if you are about guaranteed distribution, then only it lacks it for complete happiness.

The labor market is changing with such an incredible speed that, entering the university on some specialty, you can not be sure that this specialty will be in demand after 4 years. You can't be sure that it will exist at all. It may disappear forever.

At the same time, a few waves of the emergence of new specialties will be held for the life of each current young man, which we can not even assume what they are what they will consist.

Therefore, the main thing for a person who goes to the labor market today is not a set of specialized skills, which it can apply in some narrow area, but methods of orientation in the existing world, critical thinking, the ability to retrain.

To acquire a narrow specialization there are a mass of advanced training forms. For example, one must exist a year: a year a person can learn new specialty, and four years he is unlikely to learn again.

Accordingly, the essence of the balacariat, the essence of basic education is precisely to give knowledge, skills and competences so that a person can navigate the labor market.

In the third generation standard, a competency approach is extended, but, in fact, it remains so far, unfortunately, the principle of standardized specialization continues to dominate.

- It doesn't seem to you that the competence approach threatens at all the very idea of \u200b\u200buniversity education? After all, the difference between university teaching from language courses, for example, is primarily to give a wide base, a horizon, background. Competence is a set of specific practical skills, Skills, focused on solving a particular practical task.

- optional practical task. When I communicate today with young people, I see that they do not possess basic functional training. It is difficult for them to understand the text and process it into another text. This is a fundamental competence, which a person who finished undergraduate is definitely necessary to possess. There is logical competence - the ability to analyze data, the ability to rationally aggressive, build their thought, etc.

As for the conflict between the universality, latter, depth and practical orientation, I think that this kind of conflict is laid in the nature of university education. Moreover, it seems to me if it is resolved in favor of any of these two components, university education will suffer.

It should always be inside this constructive conflict, because if only the orientation is defeated, to the market, then, almost, the university itself disappears. But if the university is focused only on the formation of knowledge, without looking at the needs of the world, he gradually degenerates.

Here is this conflict and there is a productive conflict, which supports the university for a thousand years as an institution as an organization.

- Ege - is it a step towards the collapse of education or, in your opinion, to salvation?

- I do not know. I would advise you to discuss it with people, more closely related to the school.

- We receive students who pass now the exams in a different way. Know how many buttons on the Sultuka in Chichikova ...

- I calmly treat the exam. This system does not please me, I do not like her results. But I know that the system that preceded the EGE is a system of entrance examinations. I'm firmly sure that it can not be worse. It is so monstrous that no ego spoil anything in this background. Why? Because it is a system of institutionalization of corruption at the university.

- And the exam cannot translate corruption from one instance to another - from the university to school?

Maybe although rather not to school, but to local education authorities. It seems there will be at least a technology with which you can fight with corruption.

But I will say cynical, because I am from the side of higher education, I'm less worried about Rono. But corruption in the highest school, I saw her, I watch this nightmare, my heart hurts from it. The official corrupted is a drama, and the corrupt teacher is a tragedy.

EGE is a pretty bad system. But the question is to replace it. Go back K. entrance exams - Return to the worst. Let's say, for example, the fact that the social mobility of people from the outskirts increased dramatically, even with corrupt, poorly organized exam, means that some purpose has already been achieved. Therefore, the question is, in my opinion, not in the exam.

You can probably consider the Western Type model, where national tests are one of the factors, important, but not the only one. Perfect system It is definitely impossible to do, but for sure you can come up with a model better than existing.

- At the Academy of National Economy How does the Higher Education reform, what is today the novelty of that approach that you suggest?

- In Academy National economy There is a lot of things. I work at the faculty of public administration, and what we try to do there is only part of the general picture.

We do not set up a utopian task - to change everything and immediately create an educational utopia, but we expect to seriously move forward and in those on which it is possible, here we are, in fact, are already doing 3 years.

Here, in my opinion, a group of like-minded people, we understand about everything (I will not say equally, but close) your task. This understanding is specified for three to four years during continuous discussions and conversations. And we have an idea that the education of the Higher Bachelor Level should move in those directions in which I told you.

That it should be more free, more open, more students-oriented. That the number of audit hours should be significantly reduced, the number independent work It should be sharply increased. But independent work should be held under the leadership of the teacher, and not just a student must be thrown into the mercy of fate and granted himself.

- How should independent work be organized under the control of teachers?

- First, thank God, there is an Internet. The student does not prevent anything email teacher your text. The teacher can check it, react, write, ask a question on the Internet. There are forms of practical work and report on them, perhaps personal communication of the teacher with a separate student or a small group is on or offline.

But the audit work can be otherwise arranged - students know when they can find a teacher to talk to him, discuss some kind of problems, questions, difficulties. It can be useful for students who do not cope, and for students who work so well that they are interested to get more tasks.

I do not say that it is necessary to abandon lectures. The lectural form has its important functions that no other educational format can implement. But there should be much less than: 3-4 Lectures in a row no one normal student can listen to, it is absolutely counterproductive.

There must be more a bias on the conversations, for discussion, one's own participation in the discussion, to seminars, and seminars, maybe only in small groups, where it is impossible to most of the backs of others.

I can quite a lot of such approaches, we produce them, and this, you understand, not at all the system of some ready recipes, "how to make everyone". This is what arises in practical work with students.

- Anch for some time working on the system of undergraduate magistracy. MSU moves from a specialist at the undergraduate magistracy, in Europe the resistance of this two-step system is quite active - it turned out that the bachelor is not particularly needed by anyone. In order to make a good job, you need to be at least a majer ...

This is completely wrong. I taught in America and in Europe, there are movements against education reform, but not for the refusal of the two-stage system. In general, the magistracy there is a small part of the bachelors, most of whom successfully finds themselves work.

The two-stage system fully justified itself throughout the thousand-year history of European universities, and no one in Europe and does not think about it to protest. Many processes occurring in European education are now raised by protests and students, and teachers, but this does not apply to the centuries-old tradition of the two-level system.

Bachelor Education is a general formation, a universal, who gives people those fundamental ways of orientation in the world of knowledge, ideas, horizons, competencies, the skills with which he will live. Master is a specialized education in a narrow area.

We have a transition to a two-step system so that it is better not to move on at all: one, the five-year program is cut into four, the five-year program is artificially driven by four, by overcrowding. With the monstrous effort, it should be crammed into this "boot", and then ...

- And then it is not clear what to do two more years.

- Yes, and in Europe everything happens wrong. First, the situation when a student, having graduated from his undergraduate, enters the same magistracy at its faculty - in the US, there is almost no such thing. In Europe, this happens, but this is also not a typical situation. You graduated from the undergraduate in one place, in the other - the magistracy, and most often in general at another specialty.

Master is a significantly more pragmatic thing. Entering the magistracy, you should know who you want to work, what do you want to do what you need skills. At the same time, practical magistracy, oriented labor market, is usually one-year. Two-year magistracy, rather prepare for research work - Start of graduate school. In general, I believe that the two-stage system is much more flexible. Better because he is flexible.

- But we have baccalaureate more budgetary education, and for the magistracy already need to pay ...

There are budgetary magistracy, and it expands. In principle, the idea that undergraduate is the same formation as a specialty (also a specialized profession, only worse), of course, is hopeless. It seems to me that the colossal problems that have arisen with the transition to this system, too, the result of its violent introduction from above. The adoption by its autonomous universities would take, of course, much longer, but it would be more effective and meaningful.

- What kind of discipline is Liberal Arts?

- This is not discipline. This is an approach to education in undergraduate. Unfortunately, we did not find the correct translation in Russian, so we are talking. In Russia, this is often translated as "elegant arts" - it is generally wrong. To understand how much it is wrong translationIt is enough to say that on the principle of Liberal Arts, education is arranged in West Point, the Higher Military Academy of the United States.

Liberal Arts is an education based on the principle of freedom of choice, on the principle of flexible (usually double) specialization, the definition of specialization in the learning process, an emphasis on independent work, electrical, individual construction of its own educational trajectory.

These principles laid the foundation that American education today is the best in the world. American universities are leading in the education market - everyone wants to study in America. This is all the achievements of the last 70-80 years. Until the 1930s of the 20th century, for 500 years, the Center for Education was Germany.

- If you compare students of one specialization of Moscow University and good American universities, I would not say that they are leading with a huge margin. No matter how much.

"You know, for some reason, students from all over the world do not want to learn from Moscow universities, everyone strive to American universities. In the area of \u200b\u200bnarrow specialization, which is sharpening this or that faculty can give better training. But as soon as there is no demand for this, a narrow specialization given to you, you are helpless.

The American graduate can be prepared in a particular area of \u200b\u200ba little bit worse, but he is flexible, he sees a field, he is able to quickly make, master the mass of other skills, not to mention the second specialty obtained by him here necessarily, Because one cannot finish the university. But even besides these two, he has a field of options where he can navigate further.

- And how then are the "flexible" graduates of American universities float in the history of English (!) Language, like our first-year students?

- history of language in American and english education - This is mainly the Magistrants and Postgraduate Studies. Man who will work in the area oral transfermay do without language history. If he wants to become a linguist, he will go to the magistracy. There, first-class specialists will greatly teach his history history.

Another thing is that the historical linguistics itself is discipline, now not particularly popular. Linguistics has the demand for other areas of knowledge and problems. But, in principle, still, of course, the possibility is very good to learn the history of the language in American universities.

- That is, we return to the question from which you started: there is a transition from a wide base, a wide "background", which is given at the very beginning of the student, to the postponement of this "Background" for later.

- No, no, I would not say. Why do you think that the student-philologist of the Russian who has learned the history of language, "Background" is more than that of a student, conventionally spent on the British of Yel, who could choose as auxiliary disciplines to the economy, right and political science?

- We have philologists also pass political science and economy. Only here if without knowledge of political science language can be taught, then without knowing the history of the language, the teacher will not answer the question why english language Such a colossal discrepancy between spelling and pronunciation.

- In general, correctly, because to be a teacher, you are not enough bachelor education. If you just do not want to limit the younger school - then you, of course, will also need a magistracy, but in child psychology and pedagogy.

And if you, ranging from high school, and in high school you want to teach, you need another substantive magisterism. And if you want to teach at the university, you need to write the dissertation. So you can get the necessary knowledge.

And if, say, go to PR or in the media, then there these questions are unlikely to ask, but just general ideas On the right, political science, the economy will be needed.

So I do not think that, really speaking, "Background" of Yale students lower than students of Moscow State University. Strictly speaking, I think it is right on the contrary.

Ranking is a useful thing if you do not treat it manic. If you do not assume that the fact that the university rose from the 17th place on the 12th - this is a victory, and if he sank from the 28th on 39th - this is some kind of global catastrophe and that necessarily university standing at 17 place better universitystanding on the 22nd.

So approach the ratings ridiculous, the more they differ different and each other. But, in principle, this thing is useful because it gives the zone of grades. We understand that, in general, universities located in the first fifty, stronger than universities that have not even come to 500. At this level, this is a working model.

The rating device is a little oriented in favor of universities of the English-speaking world. On the other hand, this angle of view also reflects reality. We know where they want to learn. In the first place - America, by quantity foreign students, on the second - England, on the third - Australia.

- For Humanitarians, this is a problem, for me too. But the ratings are in principle not for humanitaries, but for natural science regions.

To scientist to write a mathematical or biological article for an English-speaking magazine, he does not need to know English as a native. A person with minimal knowledge of the language will be able to say what is needed, and an article if she has scientific content, publish. Of course, to print an article about literature or stories in an English-language magazine, a higher level knowledge criteria.

- If we talk about the Russian as a whole, do you look at it more optimistic or pessimistic?

- You know, I do not argue in these categories. I think that you have to do what you think right, but to keep optimism or pessimism with you. If you work, then you need to work. And then it's all already in God's hands, and the global alignment does not depend on us. That is, slightly depends, of course. Therefore, it is worth trying.

It is impossible to choose a profession for life, the formula "Work in the specialty" has long been outdated, there is no obligatory knowledge in the era of the Internet, and the main problem of today's students - how to distinguish the fact from Fake, literary critic and historian considers the University of Oxford, Andrei Zorin. In an interview with "theories and practitioners", he told what to do with the overaffect of information, what faculties should die and why it concerns his educated person.

* The conversation took place in Kazan at the Winter Book Festival, where Andrei Zorin came with the support of the Enlightener award.

YouTube can see gigabytes video where people on the streets ask basic questions from school program And many can not answer them. For you as a teacher, is this a criterion for evaluating a student?

I do not make assumptions about what a student should know is because they are not justified. This does not mean that students are dark and uneducated people. Someone knows in the same area, someone - in another, the unified criteria for evaluating education are now blurred. Easy accessibility of information that is mined with one click, removes the problem "What I remember, and what I know." It is about the ability to think, see the world historically, to understand some things, find information, work with it.

In such a program, some girl said that Stalin lived in the XVII century: it seems to me that the problem here is not that it does not know when Stalin lived, but that she does not know what a century. This is a more serious thing - it is not clear to her what story is. Education must first of all be focused on understanding, independent work with sources and knowledge, the development of mental and intellectual skills.

In addition, we are dealing with a gigantic overabundance of information. The colossal problem of today's student - it cannot distinguish the minimal reliable information from unreliable in general. There is no culture distinguishing fake. When students inform me a historical fact, I ask them to call the source - they are lost, because they are notphipped the question itself.

That is, everything is for them that is on the Internet, is true?

- At least, evenly and equivalent. Previously, there was not enough information, it was necessary to distribute, and now - a giant oversupply, you need to teach a person to filter, absorb, to process.

Dreams about the fact that the Internet will help spread knowledge, did not come true?

No technology will ensure universal happiness. These are all strange fantasies of the 60s: There will be armonuclear energy - then everyone will be happy. Another question is that the Internet is an unusually convenient thing. Electricity did not make a man happier, but now we are hard to live without it. Yes, the Internet helps to find information, reduces the time to search; I work in one of the best universities The world, we have a stunning library, where in half an hour you can get any desired book. Nevertheless, I read from the monitor, it still saves time: faster maneuvers, source navigation, it increases the possibility of independent work with information, reducing the role of intermediaries.

Another problem of students who are widely discussed - short historical memory. Is it bad? And what to do with it?

To some extent. These people were born and grew after a giant historical fault - for them everything that was until 1991 is covered with a web. This is a lot written in Russian literature in relation to people after 1917: what was before the revolution, they simply did not understand.

On the one hand, well, Atlantis drowned and drowned, and on the other hand, it is dangerous, because it provokes nostalgia, makes young people in festive stories.

"There was not enough information before, it was necessary to distribute it, and now - a gigantic oversupply, you need to teach a person to filter"

Do not you think that higher education Does not understand how to integrate into the labor market, and understands weak, why exist?

The problem of higher education is that it should solve different tasks at the same time, and some of them are mutually exclusive. Higher education does not hear the needs of the labor market, but the worst thing is when someone says from above: "We do not need economists more - we need engineers." By the time there are programs for the preparation of engineers, they will be trained and released, they will cease to be needed by the market. Very wrong idea: the problem of the relationship of education with the labor market cannot be solved by administrative adjustments.

That is, some faculties have long had to die?

Yes. For example, there is no point in spending four years on journalistic education. The journalistic program is a good additive to some kind of high-quality humanitarian, naturally scientific or political education; to some fundamental basic education It is enough to add a year, and then the semester of journalistic skills - this will be enough. I watched this spectacle in the 90s in the RGU, when all new media were busy with our graduates. Journalists were simply uncompetitive next to graduates of the historical and philological faculty, people with alive brains who quickly taught journalism.

I was brought up in such an ideology where you study in order to choose a profession. It is clear that the situation with the "profession for life" has changed. Moreover, a constantly repeating formula "in the specialty or not in the specialty" is generally nonsense. 80% of graduates do not work in the specialty - this is the standard, the very phrase "work in the specialty" apparently leaves our consultation, because the labor market is changing with fantastic speed. Doing B. educational institutionThe person cannot know whether his profession will be in demand in 4-5 years. Therefore, training becomes constant, there is a need for training and retraining, and this creates a completely different logical situation.

It is clear that it is still a small phenomenon, but sites and publications that are engaged in popularizing science - is it the result of the fact that people are drawn to self-education? Is it worth universities?

Universities missed a huge market, they do not see the gigantic need that is near, and this market is filled with initiatives. Good universities would be to offer in the field of promoting programs - I am now trying to establish cooperation between the wonderful site of Arzamas and the university, where I work in Moscow. Maybe it will turn out, and this will become a pioneer project in the field of cooperation between the university and the informal educational educational program. I have a feeling that the university due to cosupiness and conservatism without a fight gives a huge market.

University, winning this market, should adapt to the requirements of Millenialov - short texts, video? Or read the long text still important?

On the one hand, higher education should take into account the view of the audience, on the other hand, the ability to read long text is a very important science. My colleagues in Rowhighs have developed the Great Books program in which students should read 21 books from different regions Knowledge - artistic, philosophical, economic. All this is scattered on semesters, but read books need entirely. And it gives a wonderful effect: I see how our freshmen with a complete sense of self-consideration when meeting with their classmates say that Plato's Republic has already been read. And it does not completely contradict what you are talking about, - short thinking, the ability to quickly switch attention and so on.

In working with information and with the sources that you said are very important factacheking. I have a feeling (I noticed it in the discussions about the story) that the facts depart into the background and it becomes more important to whom the listener is experiencing emotional sympathy - and it does not matter that a person says.

This is generally the nature of a person: the one to whom you are located, it seems more convincing. Nevertheless, any conversation comes from the fact that there is a zone, about which there can be no discussion. Can argue whether battle of Borodino The victory of the Russian army or defeat is absolutely legitimate different points of view. But it is impossible to argue that the Russian troops retreated in the battle and passed Moscow; If we say that this was not, then it is meaningless. The point of view is quite admissible - she defended her Tolstoy - that it was the greatest victory, which became in Russian historiography of the dominant. Very can be. Nevertheless, it was decided to go away, to leave Moscow, and the French were defeated and discarded for the state borders of the Russian Empire after this battle. There are facts, and if we do not recognize their logic, we have nothing to talk about.

And what to do with factsing, when politicians appeal to history, for example? You can not live live, for example on debates, check the accuracy of their words?

That's right - politicians have enjoyed this effect. This is the expert community - however, it is in poor condition and, partly according to his own fault, ceased to cause confidence.

Oxford dictionary chose the word 2016 "Post-Truth", that is, the "postbook", "after the truth". According to the calculations of American journalists, 70% of the fact that Donald Trump spoke in the election campaign, it was either just a lie, or partial lies. Interestingly, the huge part of the voting for him knows that he is telling a lie. Litured always believed, but it is interesting that now I can believe, knowing that he is a lie. This is another attitude to the truth and to reality in which there is a lot of dangerous.

* In 2016, on the "Enlightener" award, Andrei Zorin received a special award "Enlightener of Enlighteners" for the book "The appearance of a hero. From the history of the Russian emotional culture of the late XVIII - early XIX century "

About yours. * You said that, studying the Archive of the Muravyov, discovered that he was experiencing two emotions at the same time, because he was a family man and nobleman, in different ways reacting to the events that occur in his life. How do you think happens if the same thing is happening now on the Internet, is it different to the image of a person online and offline?

Offline and online ratio is a special case. The book has a theoretical model in which I try to describe the situation of the conflict of various value and emotional systems. A man all the time lives "From this side, and with this one - so", the same person can feel at Ranzhuan who conquering female hearts, romantically in love with one woman, and also faithful family man - all this at the same time. The question is to what extent he has the need to be one, to what extent it is easy to move from one zone to another, as he hovers inside them. It is always interesting for the specific navigation of a person in the conditions "between".

You also wrote about the influence of texts of various works on human emotions, when he tries on some hero. Now a lot talk about competition books with TV shows, TV. Pop cultural heroes also affect human emotions?

Of course, I just wrote about literary culture, but in general, institutions that produce a set of symbolic images and feelings that a person consumes, diverse: art, literature, mythology, religion, ideology, ritual practices, everyday life And, of course, in the last decade - the media. Obviously, they pushed traditional book samples on the second and third plans. To date, the book almost ceased to function as a significant emotional matrix; Maybe serious cinema still functions in this regard, and the literature is not sure.

People in principle still - documentary or fiction book, Do they perceive it anyway as a behavioral role?

Documentary literature for its nature is less adapted, because it, and even more documentary films, is what obviously happens to someone else. The whole effect of the artistic work - in identifying himself with the hero; You look at him and perceive a story about another person as a story about yourself. It is possible to do this with the hero of the documentary work, but it is much more difficult, because documentary binds to the fact that it clearly indicates that the conversation is not about you, but about some other characters.

"Litured always believed, but it is interesting that now they can believe, knowing that he is a lie. This is another attitude to the truth and to reality. "

What is the evidence of emotions and words that describe them? For example, in Tatar language there are several words, which are considered to be media, are not transferred to other languages. Why is this happening? People think that he has unique emotions?

I did not touch the linguistic side, I have nothing written about the impurability of concepts. The book uses the word "experience", which, by the way, is not translated into English and French, although in Russian is a trap with German. There are many negligibility of such cases, but important emotional matrices can be condensed in the Word: such a number of works is written about the Russian longing as a specific impressive experience, a cultural image that is behind this feeling. There are loved words, such as English Longing, but it is not quite something.

Another thing is that the word as such rarely can serve as an emotional matrix, the word shade for perception. The word is very abstract - more important is a lexeme, but the case of consumption. We do not just think about love, but hear the use of this word, and some specific use. In the XVIII-XIX centuries, for example, the formula "I love you" meant the proposal of the hand and the heart, and there was no other option for it, the point. Now this phrase has no such meaning: if you gather off the hand and heart, then you need to say some other words, these are not suitable.

There is such a connection, it is written a lot about this - if only we do not believe that a person who does not belong to this people is not able to experience this feeling. Of course, it is capable of. And the fact that for these senses the language community has found a specific word, indicates that it may be meaningful for him than for other people.

The book emphasizes that the study concerns the "educated person," is this a watershed?

During this period, a Russian educated person had another emotional culture than the peasants. I was told that I deny the peasants in his free life - nothing like that, they just had other channels. Of course, the Russian, French or English nobleman was easier to understand each other's emotions than the Russian nobleman - a peasant. They could be on the same level, but in so different cultural worlds that the images of feelings were different.

The model that I build is that emotions are primarily a team, because emotional matrices are significant for certain groups of people, emotional communities. The question is that each person belongs to a variety of different emotional communities. And so these systems are always difficult to arrange and you maneuvering among different communities, collect individual emotions from a set of collective samples. Therefore, there can be no opposition here, there can be no individual emotion, in which there would be no collective. But she is your own, because the set of those collective emotions that you adapt to a specific situation, always different.