Руденко, Сергій2024-08-202024-08-202024Руденко С. Український спадщинний дискурс поразки російської ідентичності / Сергій Руденко // Наукові записки НаУКМА. Історія і теорія культури. - 2024. - Т. 7. - C. 69-83. - https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-8907.2024.7.69-83https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-8907.2024.7.69-83https://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/31292This article is devoted to the urgent problem of Ukrainian culturology: how to be useful in the struggle against Russian aggression. Some scientists do not believe in the special warfare aspect of military culturology because of its primarily humanistic sense. Another group of researchers considers culturology as a means of escaping war situations. In their work, they tend to overlook the reality of war. Moreover, they demonstrate a form of moral purism, which can indeed be seen as a hidden hypocrisy. But if culturology can save blood, culturologists have to work as technologists and join the efforts of destroying invaders. The Russo-Ukrainian war is, first of all, an existential conflict, which encompasses political, military, economic, institutional, technological, biological, and cultural dimensions. Russia acts in a genocidal manner, attempting to eliminate Ukrainians on all of these levels. As a result, only one side can maintain its existence. Since Ukrainians, in contrast to Russians, are civilized people; biological annihilation is relevant only for troops attempting to occupy Ukraine (not necessarily where they are located). But other dimensions are acceptable. Naturally, culturologists can be effective at the cultural level. It’s rather to emphasize that this aspect of warfare does not require many resources. Furthermore, the main cause of this war is precisely cultural because other mentioned reasons for a full-scale conventional (not hybrid!) war do not benefit Russia. Everything is blown up: Russian political status as a global power, simulacra of Russian military might, Russian outdated carbon economy, Russian archaic social system (indeed, refreshed khaganate). The civilized development of Ukraine, its strengthening, and consequently, the affirmation of Ukrainian identity, endanger the Russian one. Since Russian identity has its basis in Ukrainian cultural heritage.Research findings are as follows. Russian culture is not civilized, as many believe, but rather barbaric. This means that Russian identity is filled with resentment – an intention to destroy civilization entirely. Using full-scale methods of propaganda, Russians have achieved, at first glance, the seemingly impossible task of hacking the collective unconscious. Thus, the key archetype of human civilization – the cult of life, resurrection, and eternal life – is contradicted by necromancy: the cult of death, human improvement through Thanatos, and a "festival" of permanent perish Recovery of the Russian ill collective unconscious will not thus provide a fix for Russian identity. On the contrary – it will be destroyed. But, if this is not addressed – universal human civilization will be destroyed one day by new barbarians. So, the only way is dismantling Russian identity by recovering its collective unconscious. Finally, Ukrainians are faced with a big, important mission. Without a heritage model of Ukrainian identity, overcoming Russian identity cannot be achievable. The matrix of Ukrainian identity consists of such basic elements: Byzantine-Rus heritage, Baroque heritage, the concept of the army as the state, ethnologism, modernism, frontierness (a subconcept of "sacredness of the land"), cultural-oriented social modus. In this regard, there is a need to implement these elements in Ukrainian museums and heritage representations. The main practical tasks are: 1) Physical safeguarding of cultural heritage; 2) Reinterpreting the meaning of cultural heritage in Ukraine (deimperialization, decommunization, desovietization, derussification); 3) Utilizing museology as a cognitive model (especially, the laboratory theory of the museum); 4) Civilizational reinstatement of Ukrainian cultural heritage and identity; 5) Eliminating the reification of Russian identity within Ukrainian heritage; 6) Creating new civilizational means enriched by Ukrainian cultural experience; 7) Updating Ukrainian identity in a way that promotes its antifragility.Започатковано новий напрям досліджень, що має посилити мілітарну утилітарність культурології. В його основу покладено єдність теорії та практики, а не їхнє протиставлення. Автор доводить, що каузальність війни обумовлена зіткненням, з одного боку, двох культурних ідентичностей, а з іншого – глобального нового варварства, уособленого росією, та цивілізації, репрезентованої Україною. Запропоновано матриці культурних ідентичностей, розроблені з опорою на спадщинний підхід і музеологію як когнітивну модель. Це сприятиме розкладанню російської ідентичності. Завдяки цьому глобальну цивілізаційну загрозу можна нівелювати в цивілізований спосіб, без застосування варварського анігіляційного інструментарію (геноцид, тероризм та ін.).ukросійсько-українська війнакультурологіямілітарна (воєнна) культурологіямілітарні технології в когнітивній сферімілітарні технології в культурологіїмузеологічний дискурс культурологіїкультурологічне кураторствомузейспадщинаідентичністьматриці ідентичностіархетипи ідентичностіпоразка росіїцивілізаціяварварстворесентиментстаттяRusso-Ukrainian warcognitive MilTechculturologyculturology in wartimecuratorial culturologymuseumcultural heritageidentitymuseological discourse of culturologydefeat of Russiacivilizationneobarbarismressentimentarchetypes of cultural identityArticle