Россию понимать умом?

Результат исследований: Научные публикации в периодических изданияхОбзорная статья

1 цитирование (Scopus)

Выдержка

The book criticized in this article is devoted to a very important and topical subject: the interaction between the young Russian political science and the old Russian historical scholar. The authors want to "return political science to history" and this intention one can only welcome. But the author of this review was extremely surprised when he found the idea that for a better understanding of the current political situation there is no need to immerse yourself in history. In the opinion of the reviewer, this is a big mistake that prevents understanding modern Russian history and explaining it to readers. But this error is a result of poor knowledge of Russian history and a mistaken attitude to historiography, which is used very selectively. The analysis of all the provisions made by the authors has not allowed the author of the review to agree with any of these provisions. This applies primarily to the interpretation of "self-government" in Russia. Then to the understanding of the role of the so-called clan system whose concept the authors took from a Western scholar. The authors were unable to demonstrate the existence of it in modern Russia. Their idea about the identity of modern Russian political regime with the regimes in Taiwan or Pakistan is amusing because the reviewer is sure that the West is West, East is East, and Russia is Russia. The authors do not understand this, and therefore their predictions and advices in connection with the future of Russia "hang in the air". On this background, the last Chapter in which the authors still want to appeal to history in search of answers to the challenges of modernity looks quite curious. Since it is in contradiction with the authors' previous statements, and as already noted, they do not want to know the history, their excursions into history thus do not go beyond banal and trivial findings. Final reviewer's conclusion is: A. Lukin and P. Lukin are unable to "return politics to the history" or, in other words, they are unable to enrich the political scholar with great historical knowledge.

Язык оригиналарусский
Страницы (с-по)201-214
Число страниц14
ЖурналVestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, Istoriya
Том62
Номер выпуска1
DOI
СостояниеОпубликовано - мар 2017

Предметные области Scopus

  • История

Цитировать

@article{8903c918dee54d24964c902f07cf1bb0,
title = "Россию понимать умом?",
abstract = "The book criticized in this article is devoted to a very important and topical subject: the interaction between the young Russian political science and the old Russian historical scholar. The authors want to {"}return political science to history{"} and this intention one can only welcome. But the author of this review was extremely surprised when he found the idea that for a better understanding of the current political situation there is no need to immerse yourself in history. In the opinion of the reviewer, this is a big mistake that prevents understanding modern Russian history and explaining it to readers. But this error is a result of poor knowledge of Russian history and a mistaken attitude to historiography, which is used very selectively. The analysis of all the provisions made by the authors has not allowed the author of the review to agree with any of these provisions. This applies primarily to the interpretation of {"}self-government{"} in Russia. Then to the understanding of the role of the so-called clan system whose concept the authors took from a Western scholar. The authors were unable to demonstrate the existence of it in modern Russia. Their idea about the identity of modern Russian political regime with the regimes in Taiwan or Pakistan is amusing because the reviewer is sure that the West is West, East is East, and Russia is Russia. The authors do not understand this, and therefore their predictions and advices in connection with the future of Russia {"}hang in the air{"}. On this background, the last Chapter in which the authors still want to appeal to history in search of answers to the challenges of modernity looks quite curious. Since it is in contradiction with the authors' previous statements, and as already noted, they do not want to know the history, their excursions into history thus do not go beyond banal and trivial findings. Final reviewer's conclusion is: A. Lukin and P. Lukin are unable to {"}return politics to the history{"} or, in other words, they are unable to enrich the political scholar with great historical knowledge.",
keywords = "A. V. Lukin, Democracy, Electoral-clan system, Historical myth, Historiography, History, P. V. Lukin, Political culture, Political science, Polyarchy, Russia, State-clan",
author = "Dvornichenko, {A. Yu}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
doi = "10.21638/11701/spbu02.2017.115",
language = "русский",
volume = "62",
pages = "201--214",
journal = "ВЕСТНИК САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА. ИСТОРИЯ",
issn = "1812-9323",
publisher = "Издательство Санкт-Петербургского университета",
number = "1",

}

Россию понимать умом? / Dvornichenko, A. Yu.

В: Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, Istoriya, Том 62, № 1, 03.2017, стр. 201-214.

Результат исследований: Научные публикации в периодических изданияхОбзорная статья

TY - JOUR

T1 - Россию понимать умом?

AU - Dvornichenko, A. Yu

PY - 2017/3

Y1 - 2017/3

N2 - The book criticized in this article is devoted to a very important and topical subject: the interaction between the young Russian political science and the old Russian historical scholar. The authors want to "return political science to history" and this intention one can only welcome. But the author of this review was extremely surprised when he found the idea that for a better understanding of the current political situation there is no need to immerse yourself in history. In the opinion of the reviewer, this is a big mistake that prevents understanding modern Russian history and explaining it to readers. But this error is a result of poor knowledge of Russian history and a mistaken attitude to historiography, which is used very selectively. The analysis of all the provisions made by the authors has not allowed the author of the review to agree with any of these provisions. This applies primarily to the interpretation of "self-government" in Russia. Then to the understanding of the role of the so-called clan system whose concept the authors took from a Western scholar. The authors were unable to demonstrate the existence of it in modern Russia. Their idea about the identity of modern Russian political regime with the regimes in Taiwan or Pakistan is amusing because the reviewer is sure that the West is West, East is East, and Russia is Russia. The authors do not understand this, and therefore their predictions and advices in connection with the future of Russia "hang in the air". On this background, the last Chapter in which the authors still want to appeal to history in search of answers to the challenges of modernity looks quite curious. Since it is in contradiction with the authors' previous statements, and as already noted, they do not want to know the history, their excursions into history thus do not go beyond banal and trivial findings. Final reviewer's conclusion is: A. Lukin and P. Lukin are unable to "return politics to the history" or, in other words, they are unable to enrich the political scholar with great historical knowledge.

AB - The book criticized in this article is devoted to a very important and topical subject: the interaction between the young Russian political science and the old Russian historical scholar. The authors want to "return political science to history" and this intention one can only welcome. But the author of this review was extremely surprised when he found the idea that for a better understanding of the current political situation there is no need to immerse yourself in history. In the opinion of the reviewer, this is a big mistake that prevents understanding modern Russian history and explaining it to readers. But this error is a result of poor knowledge of Russian history and a mistaken attitude to historiography, which is used very selectively. The analysis of all the provisions made by the authors has not allowed the author of the review to agree with any of these provisions. This applies primarily to the interpretation of "self-government" in Russia. Then to the understanding of the role of the so-called clan system whose concept the authors took from a Western scholar. The authors were unable to demonstrate the existence of it in modern Russia. Their idea about the identity of modern Russian political regime with the regimes in Taiwan or Pakistan is amusing because the reviewer is sure that the West is West, East is East, and Russia is Russia. The authors do not understand this, and therefore their predictions and advices in connection with the future of Russia "hang in the air". On this background, the last Chapter in which the authors still want to appeal to history in search of answers to the challenges of modernity looks quite curious. Since it is in contradiction with the authors' previous statements, and as already noted, they do not want to know the history, their excursions into history thus do not go beyond banal and trivial findings. Final reviewer's conclusion is: A. Lukin and P. Lukin are unable to "return politics to the history" or, in other words, they are unable to enrich the political scholar with great historical knowledge.

KW - A. V. Lukin

KW - Democracy

KW - Electoral-clan system

KW - Historical myth

KW - Historiography

KW - History

KW - P. V. Lukin

KW - Political culture

KW - Political science

KW - Polyarchy

KW - Russia

KW - State-clan

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031089436&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.21638/11701/spbu02.2017.115

DO - 10.21638/11701/spbu02.2017.115

M3 - Обзорная статья

AN - SCOPUS:85031089436

VL - 62

SP - 201

EP - 214

JO - ВЕСТНИК САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА. ИСТОРИЯ

JF - ВЕСТНИК САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБУРГСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА. ИСТОРИЯ

SN - 1812-9323

IS - 1

ER -