Myths about the past in media environment: theoretical grounds and Russian political practice

Linchenko Andrei Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0000-0001-6242-8844 PhD in Philosophy Associate Professor, Researcher, Lipetsk Branch of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation; Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Lipetsk State Technical University. 398002, Russia, Lipetsk region, Lipetsk, Tereshkova str., 17, sq. 104 linchenko1@mail.ru Other publications by this author

The rapid development of digital technologies and the media environment contributed not only to the transformation of the nature of the spread and the way social myths are affected, but also became a source of changes in the essence of the social myth itself. This statement fully applies to myths about the past, which in recent decades have become an important tool for conducting a special type of information wars, called "memorial". However, this formulation of the question contains an initially negative interpretation of social mythology, which does not reflect the complexity of social reality and the place of myths about the past in it. In recent studies, it has long been customary to talk about both constructive and destructive functions of social mythology, which can be fully extrapolated to the field of myths about the past. However, myths about the past in the media environment are constructed primarily within the framework of a certain memory policy, which is carried out by both state and non-state actors. Even myths about the past, created spontaneously in the mass consciousness, become truly mass only when they get into the media environment, which means they still have to deal with the politics of memory. At the same time, numerous studies of myths about the past in the media space, as a rule, pay less attention to philosophical and theoretical reflection and are focused on the application of empirical methods and theoretical schemes of such sciences as anthropology, sociology, history, cultural studies. The task of this article is precisely to try to coordinate several of the most significant theoretical models of understanding social myth and to comprehend on their basis the possibilities of constructive use of myths about the past in modern memory politics. In this regard, the Russian context is an interesting field for testing such theoretical conclusions. However, before we raise the question of the constructive functions of media myths about the past, we have to draw the reader's attention to their ontological status and essential characteristics.

What are myths about the past?

Since the time of the German Romantics, it has been customary to interpret myth not only and not so much as fiction, but, firstly, as a special form of archaic worldview and, secondly, as a special perception of the surrounding world in the context of personal experiences and expectations based on existing experience. The second meaning indicates the enduring significance of mythology, which is transformed along with society itself, acting as one of the most important foundations of the worldview in each epoch. The most meaningful characteristic of this understanding of the myth was given by A.F. Losev at the time, showing that the myth is "not fiction, but the brightest and most authentic reality" ^{[1, p. 24]}, a living subject-object communication in the process of contact between consciousness and reality. Myth in both interpretations is pre–formal logical thinking, which, according to A.V. Gulyga, is distinguished by the fusion of the real and the ideal (sacred), unconscious character, synrectism and imperativeness ^{[2, p.215]}. Myth, despite the processes of rationalization of consciousness in the Modern era, continues to exist in the form of individual elements of myth-making and mythologization in the context of various types of social mythologies (scientific, political, religious, ethnic, etc.).

However, it would be a significant simplification to see social mythology only as a set of disparate myths and mythologies that exist in various spheres of public life. Theoretical studies of social myth in modern literature continue to develop in the direction of studies of the consistency of social mythology. The literature emphasizes that social mythology is a form of social consciousness, and primarily a system of sensory-visual images and behavioral stereotypes embodied in myths and mythological consciousness. According to A.G. Ivanov, the consistency of modern social mythology is set by the totality of its ontological, epistemological, axiological and praxiological functions in society. He also notes that mythological consciousness is interpreted today as "a specific reflection of the surrounding world through the mental and symbolic forms objectified in the myth <...> myth and mythological consciousness are interrelated, but not identical phenomena. Myth, as something objectively existing, influences the formation of mythological consciousness, but at the same time, mythological consciousness participates in the creation of myths" ^{[3, pp. 67-68]}. A prominent Russian researcher V.N. Syrov suggests talking about at least four of the most important features of the modern social myth: narrative, archetypal, symbolic, ritualistic. He emphasizes that "to the extent that certain entities acquire a narrative appearance, gravitate towards the formulation of archetypes, are filled with symbolic meaning and are embodied in rituals, so they are mythologized. Then the mythological consciousness will be such a consciousness that is able to perceive the surrounding world and act in it only through the prism of the above-described features. As a worldview, the myth will form a picture of the world that contains narratively designed entities that have received the status of archetypes, filled with symbolic meaning and prescribing to individuals a certain type of action, namely the eternal repetition of archetypes" ^{[4, p.74]}.

The works of modern Russian researchers have been inspired by a number of theoretical models of social myth that have emerged in recent decades in the West. First of all, we are talking about the works of Roland Barthes ^[5], the research of Hans Blumenberg ^[6] and a series of recently published books and articles by Chiarra Bottici ^{[7, 8, 9]}. In our opinion, some conclusions of these researchers can help us to more comprehensively cover the essence of modern mythological ideas about the past. In his book "Mythologies", R. Barth noted that "... a myth is a communicative system, a message. Hence it is clear that it can be neither a thing, nor a concept or an idea: this is a form, a way of designating... the myth hides nothing and demonstrates nothing – it deforms; its tactics are neither true nor false, but a deviation" ^{[5, p.289]}. Moreover, for Roland Barthes, myth is a secondary semiotic system, which can be described as the primary system of language through the concepts of "signified", "signifier" and sign. However, what in the primary system was a sign (the result of the association of a concept and an image), in the secondary system turns out to be just a signifier. Thus, for Barth, myth is a connotative system. The relationship of the "signified", "signifier" and sign is revealed by Barth in the context of the concepts of "meaning and form". According to Roland Barthes, in the myth there is an incessant mutual transition of two hypostases of the same object – "meaning" and "form". "The signifier in the myth appears in a dual form, being both meaning and form, on the one hand, complete, on the other hand, empty" ^{[5, p.274]}. It is extremely important for us that the "meaning" in this construction is self–sufficient. "Some meaning has already been laid down in the sense, and it could well have prevailed if it had not been taken over by a myth and suddenly turned into an empty parasitic form. The meaning has already been completed, it postulates a certain knowledge, a certain past, a certain memory" ^{[5, p.275]}. And this concrete, plot content of the myth is captured by the secondary semiotic system, turns into an empty form, filled with a new, off-plot, ideological content. The theoretical model of Roland Barthes allows us to better understand the essence of myths about the past, which in modern literature are interpreted as "ideas about the past, perceived in this society as reliable "memories" (as "history"), which make up a significant part of the worldview and play an important role both in the orientation, self-identification and behavior of the individual, and in the formation and maintenance of collective identity and the translation of ethical values" ^{[10, p.453]}. Starting from the ideas of Roland Barthes, we could significantly supplement this definition by pointing out, firstly, the consistency of myths about the past, secondly, their communicative nature, depending on the peculiarities of the social circulation of knowledge about the past, and, thirdly, their specificity to be formed both on the basis of knowledge about the past, memory events, and be constructed from any available cultural images and representations.

The most important feature of the theoretical model of myth presented in the book by Hans Blumenberg is the radicalization of the thesis about the dynamic and particularistic nature of modern myth. In his opinion, a myth is not a static object that is given to us once and for all, but a process of ongoing processing of the basic narrative core or some archaic mythologeme ^{[6, p.32]}. The German researcher suggests that we should not so much talk about the formation of new mythologies and myths, as about the constant reassessment and processing of a number of archaic myths in the cultures of the past and present. In his book, he analyzes the well-known myth of Prometheus and shows that the myth of Prometheus is rather a mythologeme, the meaning of which is not unambiguous. This ambiguity stems from the peculiarities of giving meaning to this mythologeme in various cultures and historical circumstances. Moreover, as noted by H. Blumenberg, "the work on the myth" takes place also in the myth itself. Such variability of myth is called the "polytheistic tendency of myth" (polytheistic vocation of myth). The variability of the myth and its pluralism forced the German author to supplement the traditional scheme of the process of transmitting the myth as a communicative action from the communicator to the recipient.  In his interpretation, it looks like the circulation of a mythological message from the narrator to the recipients, then to potential re–narrators and, finally, back to the narrators. Such "work on the myth" turns out to be driven by the need for significance, which is based on the changing circumstances of social existence. The theoretical model of the myth of X. Blumenberg allows us to understand more deeply the mechanism of circulation of myths about the past from one culture to another, to see that the subsequent change in the form of myths about the past is not a distortion or deformation of meaning, but its "growth". The fact that this meaning may be far from rationality in this case is a completely different question.

The book by Hans Blumenberg became the starting point for the theoretical approach of the Italian researcher Chiarra Bottici. She believes that the meaning of modern myths is to provide answers to fundamental human needs. These myths not only give things meaning, but also give them significance ^{[7, p.124]}. Moreover, she suggests to see in social mythology, which she considers on the example of a political myth, a communicative process, defining it as "work on a common narrative that gives importance to political conditions and the experience of a social group" ^{[9, p.320]}. From this point of view, we can see not only how the myth is "produced", but also how it is perceived: "the whole system of production – perception – reproduction constitutes "work on the myth" ^{[9, p. 320]}. Everything is involved in this "work on the myth": speeches of politicians, art forms, rituals, social practices, and finally, "producers" and "consumers" of myths. Such a procedural approach allows us to see the "mythical" potential of the sign/word in a different way. In this case, this potential is not associated with the content of the myth or even with the claim to truth. This also means that modern myths may not always develop on the basis of ancient archetypes. Italian philosopher Chiara Bottici believes that a narrative can turn into a myth if: 1) condenses meanings to meet the need for significance; 2) is shared by the group; 3) meets the special political conditions in which it finds itself ^{[9, p. 320]}. It is also important for us that the broadcast narrative in the form of a myth be perceived as a belief and, as K. Bottici notes, "have a dramatic form." That is, there is a reverse construction of the world in the mythological consciousness of the "myth consumer". In the words of P. Bourdieu, this is the process of "constructing views on the world, which in turn participate in the construction of this world" ^{[11, p.73]}. The Italian researcher is not inclined to agree with Roland Barthes and to determine the essence of myths about the past solely from their narrative form and storyline. She notes that the organization of historical events into a plot does not mean that we are dealing with myths about the past. Only after dramatization, historical narratives acquire the character of myths and become an important part of the social imagination. The significance of Chiarra Bottici's theoretical model consists, firstly, in understanding the targeted nature of myths about the past, which "always belong to someone", "have significance for someone" (producers and consumers of myths about the past). Secondly, her approach focuses primarily on the presence of the myth of the past in all practices through which cultural significance is transmitted, which means that no sphere of public life can escape the influence of mythology. Thirdly, the elaboration of myths about the past requires a "look at the work of the myth as a whole", that is, it is a problem for historical culture, and not only for historical science. However, the presented understanding of the essence of myths about the past requires a separate consideration of the specifics of their ontology in the media sphere, which we intend to undertake further.

The ontology of the past in the myths of the media environment

Despite the significant influence of postmodernism and the active development of such an interdisciplinary field as memory studies, as well as the emergence of the phenomenon of public history, there is an opinion among researchers about the important role of historical science in the formulation of what could be called the "ontology of the past". This means that in trying to understand the peculiarities of the ontological foundations of constructing ideas about the past in modern myth, we will inevitably compare this process with how these ontological foundations are presented in historical science and in the methodology of historicism as a whole. In this regard, we have tried to identify those categories that characterize the method of historicism and look at them in the light of their transformation in the context of the mythology of the modern media environment.

An attempt to analyze archaic mythology through the prism of categories of historical consciousness has already been made in the Russian scientific literature.  Thus, in the work of M.N. Chistanov, the idea of the need to distinguish elements in the mythological consciousness that testify to its inherent initial form of historicism is substantiated ^{[12, p.100]}. He makes this conclusion based on the analysis of archaic mythological consciousness in the context of the basic categories of historical consciousness: time, past, causal relationship, individuality, totality. In this regard, we took as a basis his detailed analysis and tried to apply it to the peculiarities of modern media mythology.

Regarding the category of time, M.N. Chistanov notes the following: "the unfolding of the ritual and mythological narrative in time is a potential possibility of the invasion of the historical dimension into the myth" ^{[12, p.90]}. He also emphasizes that "it is not even the time of the mythological narrative itself that is problematized in the mythological consciousness, but the ratio of the time of the narrator (narrator) with the time of the archetype, the action performed by the legendary ancestor" ^{[12, p.91]}. In this regard, ritual actions are not only a form of "eternal repetition", but also actualize the contact of temporal (profane) and sacred (eternal) contexts of mythological experience. It is worth agreeing with the author quoted above that "the cyclic concept in myth is an attempt to smooth out the contradiction between the two temporal layers of the mythological narrative, to save its spatial, synchronic structure" ^{[12, p.92]}.

At the same time, the situation changes to some extent when we turn to the modern media myth. In this regard, the discreteness and discursive nature of the most modern myth, which R. Barth pointed out, is of paramount importance. The modern myth, unlike the archaic one, does not strive to be an integral narrative, which naturally changes the specifics and character of temporality. Time in the modern media myth can be fragmented and segmented depending on the customer of the media product, on the chosen communication channel, as well as on the peculiarities of the personal views of the producer of media content. The discursive nature of media practices is also manifested in the arbitrary nature of the choice of a certain mythological origin. In other words, the modern media myth can choose any epoch and any historical event as its starting point. The specificity of this starting point is set by the very purpose of the mythological message. In contrast to the archaic myth, the modern media myth more clearly separates the narrator and the mythological event itself. Moreover, if in the archic myth the narrator tends to immerse himself during the described event, then in the modern media myth the narrator continues to remain in his usual time, while constructing the mythological time of the event. Moreover, the modern myth in the media environment also allows for a certain fusion of the sacred and profane under the guise of a new chronology of the event. Mythological time turns out to be "embedded" in ordinary historical time, which is especially noticeable in the mythological description of major historical catastrophes and the destruction of states ^{[13, p.111]}.

No less interesting is the argumentation regarding the category "past". M.N. Chistanov rightly notes that "the very layout of the myth acquires the character of a retrospective ... the myth is unequivocally associated with the past" ^{[12, p.93]}. Further, he reasonably notes that "the mythological past is a very vague concept, its boundaries are very mobile, therefore it is said about it quite vaguely: a long time ago, in ancient times, it was a long time ago, when your grandfather was not born yet, and so on. Nevertheless, the penetration of the past into the structure of the myth is a fact that speaks for itself" ^{[12, p.93]}. Agreeing with the position of the cited researcher, we point out that the situation changes when referring to the modern media myth and the presence of the past in it. Without any doubt, the retrospect of the myth, which was mentioned above, remains. However, the very nature of this retrospect is changing. As in the case of mythological time, the past in modern myth no longer has an unambiguous reference to "ancient times". The modern media myth is not interested in the past at all. The subject of his interest is the concrete past, relevant only in the context of the current mythological message. In this case, the above-mentioned arbitrary nature of choosing not only the initial point of the report, but also the historical events themselves, necessary for the formation of a mythological message in modern media, becomes even more noticeable.

The arbitrary nature of the treatment of events and traces of the past in the modern media myth becomes even more noticeable when referring to the category of "cause" and to the fact of the presence of a causal relationship in mythological constructions. Thus, with regard to the archaic myth, M.N. Chistanov emphasizes that in the case of myth, "only the original pattern, the archetype, can be the cause in the true sense, and any phenomenon of everyday reality is its direct consequence" ^{[12, p.95]}. It would seem that an archaic myth can generally do without dividing events into cause and effect, even within the framework of a narrative. This is due to the fact that the origin and the phenomenon in the archaic myth have a timeless basis. In this case, R.D. Collingwood reasonably noted that "the myth, telling about events as following one after another in a certain order, is clothed in some seemingly temporary form. But this form is, strictly speaking, not temporary, but quasi-temporal: the narrator here uses the language of a temporal sequence as a metaphor for expressing relationships that he does not think of as temporary in the true sense of the word" ^{[14, p.18]}. At the same time, it is impossible not to agree with the position of M.N. Chistanov, who suggests talking about a special causal relationship between the original and the phenomenon, calling it genetic. He notes that "the genetic connection necessarily presupposes the identity of cause and effect in some respect... the effect in the mythological consciousness reproduces the root cause, becoming this root cause. Therefore, causality in the myth is genetic, generative causality, and in relation to a person – genealogy. Therefore, ethnogony in the myth is possible only as a genealogy" ^{[12, p.97]}. 

Turning to the cause-and-effect relationships in the modern media myth, we also find significant changes in comparison with the archaic myth. On the one hand, genetic causality persists in the modern myth. This is due to the fact that in a modern media text, as a rule, it is difficult to separate the desired vision of the event and the event itself being described. On the other hand, the causal relationship is presented in the form of several versions, one of which initially dominates the others. Moreover, modern myths about the past broadcast in the media environment cannot avoid the "semblance of persuasiveness", because they have to compete with existing scientific knowledge. This persuasiveness is achieved by building a false chain of cause-and-effect relationships, appealing to emotional arguments, containing various forms of logical sorita. In this case, there may also be an arbitrary nature of the choice of argumentation.     

The central role in understanding the past and its ontological status is played by historical eventfulness itself, which has received significant research in recent years ^{[15, 16, 17]}. A historical event acts as a kind of "minimal unit" of the description of historical reality and fully embodies the category of "individuality" in the historical sciences. Quoted above, M.N. Chistanov rightly believes that as a historical category, individuality can be interpreted in two meanings: as the uniqueness of the historical events themselves and as the individuality of the perception and interpretation of these events by the subject of historical consciousness. In his opinion, if the first meaning is not characteristic of archaic mythological consciousness, then the second is a fairly observable fact in the case of an appeal to the figure of a cultural hero in a myth. He writes: "the hero of the mythological narrative is certainly not a historical person ... a cultural hero is an expression of the collective, primarily the generic Self, and this explains the significance of his actions and deeds that ... cannot be random" ^{[12, p.97]}. In other words, by individuality in mythology, he understands the phenomenon of selectivity collective memory, telling about some specific (and not about some other) cultural hero.

The idea of the important role of the myth of the hero in modern social mythology is quite well-founded in modern literature. What is the decisive difference between the heroic phenomenon in modern myth and archaic variants?  I.M. Suravneva and V.V. Fedorov in their work "The Phenomenon of Heroism" noted that the heroic myth is constantly generated by the archetype of the hero projected into the sphere of self-organization of society. "The heroic myth – the myth of the birth, death and rebirth of a hero, in which the aspirations of generations are embodied and the highest form of collectivity and the highest form of individuality are intertwined – constantly circulates in any society. These are myths about the power standing guard over the Truth, about the good king-hero or the king-martyr, about the hero-deliverer (the myth of the strong hand), etc. The figure of the hero is the core element of many social processes in modern society, since it is a means of presenting the essence of what is happening. In particular, with the help of ideas about the hero, the spiritual and moral dimension of politics is transmitted to the masses again and again" ^{[18, p.83]}.  

The cultural hero retains its significance in the modern myth. Due to the peculiarities of the most modern social mythology, the image of the hero is fragmented and is more dependent on the context of the media message and the peculiarities of its visualization in the corresponding communication channel. The mechanism of historical selectivity remains, but in the modern myth there is a tendency to highlight those aspects of the cultural hero that are primarily in demand in the current socio-political or economic context.

At the same time, not only a cultural hero falls into the sphere of modern media myths about the past. Mythologization can be subject to both a separate historical event and an epoch. In this regard, the modern media myth is constantly in contact with other forms of knowledge about the past, including scientific historical knowledge, borrowing content from them and often masquerading as scientific historical knowledge. In this case, it is necessary to agree again with Roland Barthes, who pointed out that the myth is precisely the form, not the content. Moreover, a form that marks the "traces" of the past in a new way as part of both historical and media space ^{[19, s.82]}.

In conclusion, let us briefly turn to another category that acts as an analysis tool for us – the category "totality". M.N. Chistanov points out that this category "may imply the unity of the historical process, may indicate the coherence and closeness of the historical narrative, finally totality may mean the unity of consciousness of the subject comprehending history" ^{[12, p.70]}. In other words, we are talking about a kind of unifying interpretive scheme, a construction of historical consciousness that brings a certain integrity to a set of historical events. In this case, the possibilities of archaic mythology become more noticeable. The Russian researcher noted above connects this with the inclusion of the narrator in the structure of the mythological narrative, when he, as a narrator, declares his personal position: approval or disapproval, fear, excitement, admiration. He notes: "as a result of such positioning, an indissoluble unity is formed, including the act of the first creation as a universal origin, a pattern; a set of events related to this origin genetically and forming a chain of mutually generating phenomena; finally, the narrator himself, who narrates all of the above" ^{[12, p.99]}. Moreover, it would also be possible to point out the completeness of the mythological narrative itself, which is not decomposable into separate segments and represents a certain chain of events described permeated with a single meaning. These characteristics, which make it possible to distinguish the category of "totality" in the archaic myth, can be fully found in the modern myth. Here, too, the position of the narrator is fully present, who not only does not seek to go into the shadow of the narrative, but on the contrary actively positions himself in the text of the mythological message. However, even more important for modern media myths about the past is the specifics of their relationship with historical events. Modern myths about the past create rather arbitrary constructions of historical events, striving to combine historical facts that differ in their content and logical scope into a common storyline. Moreover, the facts themselves can be directly taken from historical science, but the nature of their arrangement and interpretation can be mythologized. Moreover, it is the media environment that enhances this mythologizing effect due to the active use of a visual series that does not always correspond to the text of the message. The aesthetic integrity of the plot turns out to be dominant over the logical consistency of argumentation. It could also be said that in some cases the aesthetic integrity of a mythological message can do without reference to scientific and historical facts at all, using various fakes or data that continue to be the subject of discussion.

The Politics of Memory in the Mirror of Research Reflection

Despite the fact that at the official level, the memory policy in Russia is not talked about as well as youth, cultural, educational policy, de facto since the 2000s, the state has been increasingly active in this area. In the 90s, the state withdrew from a purposeful historical policy, preferring situational statements about specific events. At the same time, the most important feature of the Russian case is the focus of the Russian authorities on the "soft" version of the implementation of the memory policy. It is significant that the state has chosen not to act directly in such a delicate area, but through certain public institutions (the Russian Historical Society, the Russian Military Historical Society) or commissions. As we have already noted earlier, the main function of the state as an actor of memory policy was not the development, but the selection of images of the historical past formed by public and political communities, an indicative manifestation of which was the activity of the Commission to counter attempts to falsify History to the detriment of Russia's interests ^{[20, s.375]}. It should be noted that this commission, created by decree of the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev and existed for only three years (from 2009 to 2012), set its task not to develop a targeted memory policy, but only to identify falsifications and their subsequent criticism. The very same memory policy, the domestic researcher D.A. Anikin suggests to be understood as "purposeful activity to represent a certain image of the past, in demand in a political context, through various verbal (speeches of politicians, history textbooks) and visual (monuments, state symbols) practices" ^{[21, p.36]}.

  Despite the diversity of modern research on memory politics, it seems possible to identify a number of trends that are essential for understanding its mechanisms. Firstly, for most researchers, a constructivist approach serves as a kind of general methodological paradigm, actualizing the ideas about the multiplicity of actors of the commemorative space and their memory policies, about the situational nature of memory policies, a multitude of identities. Secondly, the constructivist methodology promotes the dissemination of issues of studying the dynamics of memory politics as a significant subject of analysis. In this regard, the so-called process-relational methodology has gained particular popularity. One of the most well-known variants of the process–relational approach to social memory is the methodology of memory analysis by D. Olik, who suggests considering collective memory not as an established theoretical construct, but as a certain set of various social forms, spaces and practices - from ordinary memories to general forms of sample maintenance. For him, memory is a social activity, a process, and not a static object. He's writing: "conceptualization of memory through phenomena and places overlooks the dynamics and relativity of the process of memory, whereas figuration, on the contrary, preserves them and draws attention to the processes of structuration and practices" ^{[22, p.46]}. At the same time, the dynamic nature of memory policy is also interpreted in the context of substantiating the dynamism of the hierarchy of semantic guidelines of memory policy today and the dependence of this dynamics on social contexts ^[23]. Thirdly, an interesting object of study was the idea of the active resistance of mass historical consciousness and its memory practices to the official strategies of memory policy (M. de Certeau, A. Assman). Fourth, the problems of memory politics are considered by a significant number of authors in the context of the practices of building imperial and other variants of political mythology. The mythologization of the past is considered today as one of the most important tools of memory policy ^[24]. Finally, fifthly, the authors write about the complex processes of interaction between political and symbolic borders, and, as a consequence, the formation of border zones of historical memory, where the influence of civilizational frontiers is dominant and generates new spaces of historical meanings based either on the idea of dialogue or conflict and confrontation ^[25].

These trends are characteristic of memory policy in different countries of the world, despite the presence of significant features. However, these features mostly consist in the ways of implementing memory policy as a kind of responses to the challenges presented by the above trends. The specificity of the Russian case consists, firstly, in the dominance of the state over the unofficial actors of memory politics. Secondly, it is connected with the state's reliance mainly on the symbolic resource of Soviet history. Thirdly, it is connected with the desire of the state to influence the collective memory in Russia with indirect tools, focusing not on the development, but on the selection of images of the historical past formed by public and political communities. How could it be effective in relation to the constructive use of the myths of the media environment?    

The Politics of Memory and Myths about the Past in the Media Environment: the Case of Russia

As our analysis has shown, the media environment contributes to the formation of a special ontology of myths about the past, reflecting the peculiarities of the activities of the mass media themselves. This ontology is the source of the duality of the functions of media myths about the past, which have both constructive and destructive significance. It can also be said that the constructive in historical mythology is the reverse side of the destructive, or rather both sides are constantly present in a single process of myth-making or mythologization. At the same time, with regard to media myths, the general context for us will be the position of A. Assman, who believes that "the media give important impulses for cultural memory, but they do not create it by themselves. They are necessary to activate cultural memory, but other instances are needed for its formation. The largest part of media contexts is irretrievably lost; only a small part of them is part of the functional cultural memory" ^{[23, p.264]}.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that constructive and destructive in the practices of production and broadcasting of media myths about the past are interrelated. Thus, the constructive potential of the media environment associated with increased public attention and activation of public reflection can turn into destructive forms of popularization and simplification of versions of the past. Expanding the possibilities of individualization and visualization of the past can result in "shredding" and distortion of the past. Decentralization and de-hierarchization of various versions of the past in the media environment can be a source of destruction of historical meaning, direct historical falsifications. What position should memory policy take in this case in relation to the Russian context?

The modern media environment is, on the one hand, a fairly "controlled" tool for promoting interests, and on the other hand, it is a kind of "black box" (in the sense of D. Easton), the use of which as a tool of politics does not always give the expected effect. In this regard, the question of the use of constructive myths about the past in the media environment is directly related to the question of the goals that memory policy should fulfill.  The key goal of the memory policy in modern Russia in this regard is the consolidation of Russian society in the context of a crisis of historical identity, external and internal social instability (a function of cultural and historical orientation). In our opinion, it is consolidation and a certain socio-cultural adaptation to new social conditions that should determine the context of using the resources of social mythology today. However, such a statement only raises a lot of new questions, and, above all, the question of what should be behind this consolidation. The most general answer could sound like this. We are talking about such a consolidation of Russian society that would be built on the basis of democratic values and those achievements of the national political culture that appeared in the post-soviet period and, above all, in the 90s of the last century. This means that the trend towards the formation of one official version of the memory policy and its set of mythologized plots is unlikely to be effective in the long term. That is why the consolidation and formation of collective identity in Russia is only one of the criteria for distinguishing constructive myths about the past in the media environment from destructive ones. Accordingly, the second equally significant criterion is the ability of myths about the past in the media environment to motivate the further development of society and the state (motivating function). Despite the dominance of suggestion, the modern media myth retains a significant project potential, the emotional power of which can hardly be compensated by professional historical knowledge with the most important critical role of the latter. Finally, the third important criterion for the relative differentiation of constructive and destructive myths about the past in the media environment is the ability of the latter to "smooth out social conflicts" and act as a mouthpiece for rationalizing various points of view about the problems of the past (the function of overcoming conflicts).

At the same time, so that the presented criteria do not look extremely unambiguous, we will try to formulate a number of conditions under which the constructive potential of media myths about the past could be successfully used in modern Russian memory politics. The first such condition, without any doubt, is the presence of a multitude of independent mass media, which initially contributes to the formation of a multi-level view of the problems of the past, placing media myths in a debatable context. In this case, it is the professional scientific environment that plays an important role, which is able to actively position itself in the media space. The second condition is the formation and development of a media culture in the mass consciousness, which could itself create "filters" for a "minimal critical" assessment of information about the past in the media environment. The third condition is the development of the historical culture of society itself, which actively involves the mass consciousness in the formation of knowledge about the past. In recent decades abroad and in recent years in Russia, this opportunity has clearly manifested itself in the phenomenon of "public history".

However, in response to these arguments, one could point out that, in fact, the constructive elements in this case are practically inseparable from the destructive ones. By mythologizing one image of the past and constructing a certain meaning of history on its basis, we inevitably close or distort another. A certain way out in this case will be some softening of the question. This mitigation consists in the fact that we could consider the use of social mythology, firstly, in the context, first of all, of rational reflection on the past, secondly, in the context of a certain hierarchy of different mythologies (as different images of history), and, thirdly, in the context of the priority of the idea of humanity. In this regard, J.'s thoughts are interesting. Ryuzena regarding the search for such values in historical science: "within the framework of the diversity of historical perspectives, the unity of history can be achieved only by the universality of values <...> we need a leading system of values, a universal system of values that affirms the difference of cultures. I believe that there is a fundamental value that should be introduced into the strategy of historical interpretation, a value that is both universal and justifies the divergence and difference. I am thinking about the normative principle of mutual appreciation and recognition of differences in culture <...> in which humanity will remain a problem of the consistency of history" ^{[26, p.25]}.

Y himself. Ryuzen suggests the project of "re-traumatization" as a project of building a new historical narrative in which "the narrative should lose its closeness, its gloss covering the chain of events <...> discontinuity, destruction of connections, collapse should become the essence of meaning in such a sense-generating idea of the passage of time" ^{[27, pp.61-62]} does not seem so too obvious and "healing". It is obvious that the mythologization of the past will only be an effective element of the formation of historical consciousness when it cooperates with other representations of the past and the re-actualization of memory, will be part of a common historical culture. Not to destroy and tear up historical memory, but to slowly rebuild mythologized images of the past, preserving the integrity of historical memory and historical consciousness. The conditions for such integrity are the project of historical consciousness as a "public process of transmission of traditions" by Y. Habermas and the project of multilevel commemoration by M.F. Rumyantseva ^[28]. Note that the philosophical symbol of such a process is the concept of "wisdom". In this regard, the reflections of the famous Russian philosopher A.V. Gulyga, who analyzed the meaning of "wisdom" as the basis for the inclusion of myth-thinking in modern aesthetics and art, seem to be consonant to a certain extent.: "It is in wisdom that the unity of theory and practice is realized, the synthesis of all spiritual potencies, all forms of thought, the coincidence of truth, goodness and beauty, wisdom does not reject the myth, it honors it to the extent that it is involved in poetry and morality ... the myth is not in itself, but taken as part of wisdom, in cooperation with other forms of thought; such are the conditions for the inclusion of myth-thinking in modern culture" ^{[2, p.215]}.