Constructivist Aspects of National Myth-Making in the Post-Soviet Space
The real multi-ethnicity of the former Soviet republics remains an invariable fact, and local titular elites perceive it as a problem, rather than as a competitive advantage in international relations. Therefore, the path of assimilation of non-titular peoples is most often chosen. On the example of some former Soviet republics, one can be convinced of the futility of ethnofavoritism as the ideological basis of nation-building, when constructivist methods are used in conjunction with primordialist rhetoric. The difference between constructivism and most other approaches to nation-building lies in the idea of the partial man-madeness of the modern national community. But the idea of the nation about itself does not cease to be an exceptionally important condition for national unity. In the context of the obvious growth of the global crisis of the civilization of endless progress and the Western version of globalization, the significance of collective mythology within each national community will inevitably increase. The semantic emptiness of the explanatory model of the Russian civil nation leaves room for any manipulations with the elements of the collective mythology of Russians. Therefore, the current state of collective mythology in the Russian Federation requires intense centralized work to build the protection of national ideas about our past from endless external attempts to revise and manipulate, develop a systematic approach to tabooing all blocks of the historical memory of Russians and its consistent implementation. The existence and replication in the post-Soviet space of versions of collective mythology, alternative to the domestic one, is a dangerous challenge to Russia’s security. The multi-ethnic nature of Russian society, the ethno-cultural diversity of our country should have a single edition of the explanation, broadcast by all institutions of socialization both at the federal and regional levels.