Skiperskikh Aleksandr Vladimirovich, Doctor of political sciences, professor, sub-department of state-legal disciplines, Institute of law and economics (Lipetsk) (35a Gagarina street, Lipetsk, Russia), firstname.lastname@example.org
Background. Wherever there is power – there is resistance. Such a dialectical opposition constantly updates the need for a rebellious person, who chooses the path of resistance to repressive institutions. Resistance can take many forms, especially paying attention to the crisis (transition) moments in history. Objectivity of a rebellion largely makes it necessary to study its purpose. In our opinion, the reasons may be to a large extent determined by the cultural tradition, which in its own way legitimates a rebellion and rebellious men. The article is to consider the cultural context that determines the choice of a rebellious person, means of rebellion implementation and its doctrinal basis.
Materials and methods. Implementation of research tasks required the use of a number of scientific methods. The dialectical method allowed to permanently update the “power – resistance” opposition. Comparison of the European and Russian contexts of a rebellion implied reference to the comparative method. Objectivity of the rebellion and the resistance, their presence in any political situations presented in the historical process, was verified by the historical method. Studying of the present problem also required application of the methodological tools (method of political phenomenology and political hermeneutics).
Results. The author studied the European and Russian contexts of a rebellion. At the same time the researcher revealed both the similarities in causation of a rebellion and the differences that go back to the conceptual principles of culture, its traditions.
Conclusions. The considered rebellion practices acquire certain specifications in a particular cultural context. At the same time, the practice of revolt produced in varying cultural traditions have much in common, allowing to talk about some ultimacy of human patience, a mismatch of aesthetic and psychological worlds of a rebellious human and a collective, oppressive institution. Virtually all of the examples given by the author, as well as the usage of the literary texts, fixing historical, cultural and political experience, show objectivityof resistance, its inevitability, regardless of the existing cultural context.
rebellion, rebellious man, power, culture, legitimation, protest, resistance.
1. Shlegel' K. Logos. 2002, no. 3–4 (34), pp. 169–190.
2. Skiperskikh A. V. Diskurs politicheskoy vlasti v skazochnom tekste: priglashenie k medlennomu chteniyu [Discourse of political authority in the fairytale text: invitation to reading slowly]. Elets: MUP «Tipografiya» g. El'tsa, 2011, 211 p.
3. Gippius Z. Zhivye litsa. Vospominaniya [Live faces. Memories]. Tbilisi: Merani, 1991, vol. 1, 398 p.
4. Prishvin M. Sobr. soch.: v 8 t. T. 8. Dnevniki, 1905–1954 [Collected works: in 8 volumes. Volume 8. Diaries, 1905-1954]. Moscow: Khudozhestv. lit., 1986, 759 p.
5. Oruell D. «1984» i esse raznykh let [“1984” and the essay of different ages]. Moscow: Progress, 1989, 384 p.
6. Yakovenko I. G. Rossiya i repressiya: repressivnaya komponenta otechestvennoy kul'tury [Russia and the repression: the repressive component of the national culture]. Moscow: Novyy khronograf, 2011, 336 p.
7. Kamyu A. Buntuyushchiy chelovek. Filosofiya. Politika. Iskusstvo: per. s fr. [The revolting man. Philosophy, Politics, Art: translation from French]. Moscow: Politizdat, 1990, 415 p.
8. Rozanov V. Metafizika khristianstva [Metaphysics of Christianity]. Moscow: AST, 2000, 864 p.
9. Dostoevskiy F. Besy [Demons]. Kiev: Borisfen, 1994, 640 p.