Archive

Cancel culture as a modern form of ostracism characterizes certain forms of public activism, primarily on social networks. However, it is increasingly applied not only to public figures, groups and brands but also to re-evaluation of a wide range of socio-cultural issues, including the historical past. In this regard, the ways and contexts of addressing the idea of cancelling by representatives of the scientific community are of particular interest. Unlike public activism, this involves a certain degree of distancing from various cancel culture practices. The aim of the article is to analyze the idea of cancelling in the research literature. According to the author, this requires a consistent discussion of the following issues: 1) the status of the term “cancel” and the relationship between metaphor and cancelling; 2) an analysis of the possibilities of spreading the discourse of cancel culture to new subject areas; 3) cancelling in historical science; 4) the role of the state in spreading the practices of cancel culture. It is argued that the origin of the idea of cancelling can be associated with the metaphorical nature of any position that claims to be original and novel. Giving it the status of a term requires a set of certain interpretations, otherwise it will remain a rhetorical figure or ideological attitudes. The article puts forward the thesis that the introduction of both the term cancel culture and its language into research discourse presuppose the existence of a canon or a set of significant objects, established in public and professional discourse, which can become subjects of cancellation. It is emphasized that the discussion should focus on legitimacyof research interpretations themselves, specifically on preserving their research potential (i.e., whether certain discourses and practices can be considered manifestations of cancel culture), rather than implicitly expressing ideological stances. 

Keywords: cancel culture, research literature, metaphor, cancel discourse, cancellation practices, historical past, historical knowledge

The article examines the problems of structural organization of cancel culture, the formal and substantive implications of these issues. The object of the study is cancel culture as a discourse that performs a specific function within the discursive spaces of historical memory and symbolic politics. The primary tool of cancel culture discourse is moral rhetoric, with the central rhetorical figure being the appeal to responsibility. Cancel culture is recognized as a discourse of conflict aimed at restoring justice and is analyzed in a comparative framework alongside the discourse of judgment. It is shown that moral rhetoric provides instrumental support to cancel culture discourse, justifying the claims it raises and functioning to idealize the ethos of the group involved (whereas its main function should be to justify the connection between the ethos and a moral ideal). Historical responsibility is viewed as one of key concepts in the moral vocabulary of cancel culture, especially when cancellation practices address the past. Under this approach, historical responsibility turns out to be a complex multi-layered concept – a construct in which the declared goals differ from the outcomes realized. It is argued that the demand for historical responsibility as part of the cancel culture discourse can either be a discourse error or a manipulative tactic. The structure of the cancel culture discourse is analyzed by reference to the discourse ethics of Paul Ricoeur, Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen Habermas. The challenges and paradoxes of implementing historical responsibility within the framework of the cancel culture discourse are revealed through the example of the campaign against the commemorative legacy of Cecil Rhodes. It is concluded that cancel culture, as a conflict-driven discourse aimed at restoring justice, is unable to achieve its stated goal. This suggests that modern society needs alternative discursive models. 

Keywords: cancel culture, responsibility, historical responsibility, discourse, discourse ethics, memory studies, historical memory

The article attempts to investigate cancel culture as a modern form of ostracism through the lens of exclusion proposed by Michel Foucault. The research focuses on the relationship between social identity and cancel culture. Identity is conceptualised as a symbolic resource, and the influence of discursive strategies on the process of identification is examined. Special attention is given to prohibition as a form of controlling discourse. It is shown that prohibition manifests itself in exclusion, affecting not so much a particular person but rather a discussion or even the very possibility of a discussion. Foucault’s key concepts are analysed in relation to this task: disciplinary power, regimes of truth, and the norm as an instrument of coercion. The peculiarities of the exclusion mechanism in different epochs are studied. It is argued that social media can serve as a conduit for disciplinary power in the modern world. Through various media channels and social networks, individuals are influenced by economic, political, and cultural actors who compel them to comply with certain rules. Today, individuals are more controllable than in the Panopticon described by Foucault due to surveillance cameras, smart city technologies, digital footprints, and other tools. The article also demonstrates how the previously outlined framework can be applied to the analysis of cancel culture. The new norm focuses less on the body and more on ethical judgements and socially accepted (normal) behaviour. The mere existence of cancelling, along with the increasing instances of its application, sets the boundaries for what is deemed proper. The inability to perform certain actions due to the expectation of backlash and fear of cancellation affects not only their manifestations, but also identity itself. It is shown that cancel culture, originally spread to promote inclusiveness and the freedom of expression for previously oppressed groups, now functions as a restriction of freedom through control. It is concluded that cancel culture, by prioritising ethical over instrumental uses of the past, constructs identity through coercive relevance, i.e. its very existence dictates the framework for behaviour, actions and statements. 

Keywords: cancel culture, Michel Foucault, inclusivity, norm, exclusion, historical identity, identification

The article examines the use of the “historical justice” category as a public justification for political actions. Despite its frequent use in public discourse, the scientific legitimacy of the concept remains questionable, as its formal definition encounters a range of challenges. Firstly, the status of the main subjects of justice – perpetrators and victims – remains uncertain, since the assessment of their activities in the historical perspective may change over time. Secondly, the so-called non-identity problem is essential, as it complicates establishing the continuity between the victims of historical injustice and the modern communities claiming to represent them. The active use of appeals to historical justice rooted in the doctrine of “moral remembrance”, which arose as a result of World War II and consists of three main principles: the duty to remember, the duty to face the past, and the duty to ensure justice for victims. As the composition and number of leading political actors changed, there was a sharp increase in memorial narratives, and the automatic extension of demands for historical justice to these narratives resulted in an increase in memorial conflicts. In modern public space, the discourse of historical justice has become a crucial tool of symbolic struggle, often replacing moral attitudes towards the past with political manipulation. In this regard, it seems necessary to distinguish between historical justice as a political tool and as a category of historical ethics that allows determining and assessment of the relationship between historical facts and modern narratives. 

Keywords: historical justice, moral remembrance, discourse, collective memory, ethics, perpetrator, victim, cancelling

The article deals with the evolving attitudes towards cancel culture in Russia, a phenomenon that originated in the West. Until recently, negative assessments prevailed, largely due to several features inherent in cancel culture. Notably, among these are fear; the spread of alienation up to direct betrayal by colleagues, relatives, and acquaintances; self-affirmation at the expense of victims; and practices of public self-deprecation. Another reason was Russia’s own historical experience of cancel culture, which fostered a wary and negative attitude towards it. The dominant view of cancel culture in Russia contributes to the overlooking of some of its key aspects, as well as the uncritical reception of exaggerated critiques from Western right-wing conservative (“republican”) reviewers. There are serious premises at the heart of Western cancel culture that cannot be eliminated in any society where double standards exist. Cancel culture directs its attention toward the powerful and wealthy, from media figures to brands and companies. In this regard, it has a distinctly egalitarian and democratic aspect. In Russia, assessments of cancel culture have recently shifted from being overwhelmingly negative to more moderately positive. For example, the cancellation of concerts by certain artists for their real or perceived anti-patriotism is framed as the application of cancel culture to them, with Russian civil society involved. The justifications for these actions resemble those seen in the West. Appeals to the democratic aspect of cancel culture, which were previously met with skepticism, are now emerging. In this form, cancel culture may be seem by the political elite as a safe and controllable phenomenon. However, the author of the article believes within the Russian context, the moral and other costs associated with the spread of cancel culture seem unacceptable. 

Keywords: cancel culture, civil society, freedom of speech, double standards, moral costs

The article is a theoretical study of the transformation peculiarities of commemorations within modern cancel communities in the context of the influence of digitalization on the ways of recording, storing, reproducing and transmitting collective memory. Based on the constructivism of Pierre Bourdieu and the analysis of the contemporary social movements such as Black Lives Matter and Rhodes Must Fall, the article highlights the main features of modern cancel communities as mnemonic communities: an exaggerated focus on protest as an ideological basis for deconstructing the past, the construction of continuity with historically marginalized groups, the key role of digital technologies, the practical nature of commemorations and the expression of counter-memory, as well as the transnational nature of memory culture practices. Findings from the third wave memory studies underscores the significance of the digital turn in the field of memory research. This is evident in the emergence of new types of mnemonic communities, where the decisive role is played not by common patterns of identity, but by connective networks and hashtag interactions. The use of key concepts of digital memory studies – connective turn, globital memory, digital archive, gamification – as a theoretical framework allows us to identify and analyze the main trends in the transformation of commemorative practices in cancel communities in the context of digitalization. These trends include the amplification of commemorative practices in cancel communities and their unique temporality, the growing importance of the individual participation and mnemonic activism, the internationalization of commemorative practices, the rising influence of latent and passive forms of participation, and the active development of digital archives that serve as an alternative memory institution, focusing on protest forms of representation of the past. 

Keywords: cancel culture, cancel communities, digital memory studies, connective turn, globital memory, digital archive, gamification

The purpose of this article is to identify the specifics of cancel culture in the context of politics of memory. To achieve this, the author addresses the following objectives: a) to theoretically justify the use of the concept of “mnemonic security regime” as a tool for analyzing cancel culture as a new form of social ostracism, b) to examine the functioning of mnemonic security regimes in the context of digitalization. Based on an analysis of scientific literature on memory regimes and international regime theories, the author concludes that a mnemonic security regime is a political project incorporating symbols of the past, built on formal and informal institutions that limit the actions of actors to achieve long-term good. It is emphasized that in the context of the decline of “global” memory culture, antagonistic mnemonic security regimes dominate, with cancel culture becoming a key tool in the struggle between alternative projects of the past. The article highlights several features of modern reality that influence the transformation of images of the past and the rise of cancel culture. First, the conflict between “old” and “new” mnemonic security regimes. Second, the lack of resources for actors to establish their mnemonic security regime as universally accepted. Third, the rejection of deliberation and the choice of conflict as a way to resolve contradictions. The article also examines the specifics of functioning of mnemonic security regimes in the context of digitalization. It identifies key strategies for maintaining one’s own mnemonic security regime while marginalizing others, including appeals to justice and to historical truth. The study concludes that atomization and conflict are defining characteristics of modern memorial discourse. 

Keywords: politics of memory, memorial discourse, mnemonic security regime, memory regime, security regime, political project, conflict, cancel culture, digitalization

The article examines two theoretical issues related to the doctrines of Rechtsstaat and rule of law. The first issue concerns the relationship between these concepts. The author of the article argues that the differences between them are often exaggerated and are not significant from a normative perspective. The second issue addresses the contribution of Russian pre-revolutionary jurisprudence to the development of the Rechtsstaat doctrine. The article analyzes the main ideas of Russian legal scholars and evaluates them in the light of the current state of legal philosophy and theory. It is emphasized that the idea of Rechtsstaat has taken a unique form in Russia, with many theories remaining relevant and progressive even today. Thus, Russian thinkers’ understanding of the rule of law as a relative concept, subordinate to a higher moral ideal, allows for the following: 1) distinguishing the ideal of Rechtsstaat from other ideals by giving it a specific (formal) meaning, 2) recognizing the potential for social regulation not only through law and other normative regulators, but also by totally different means, and 3) providing theoretical justification for the violation of law in certain cases, without resorting to vague concept of “lawlessness”. With a broader (substantive) understanding of Rechtsstaat, Russian legal scholars’ interpretation of human rights as a means of personal development, rather than as a tool for isolating individuals from society and indulging any of their desires, is of interest. The theoretical basis of the study is formed by both domestic and foreign research on the rule of law and Rechtsstaat. The primary method is generalization, which allows demonstrating the general direction of the evolution of the doctrines under consideration and identifying similar ideas among different authors. The relevance of the research stems from the need to protect the history of legal thought from various ideological distortions. In addition, the study of the Russian tradition of philosophical and legal thought ensures cultural continuity, which is important for the development of a consolidating national identity. 

Keywords: Rechtsstaat, rule of law, legal ideal, natural law, welfare state, human rights, right to a decent life, national identity, Orthodoxy

The defense of national identity against external threats is a pressing issue for states, that aim to play a major role in shaping a multipolar world, including Russia. This issue can be examined not only from a political perspective but also through a legal lens, where an interesting paradox arises. From a legal standpoint, the defense of national identity comes down to the protection of the constitutional order (which typically reflects the values underlying the national identity) against the application of international treaties, the enforcement of conflicting international judicial decisions, and the normative prescriptions of international courts, among other factors. However, the transition to a multipolar world will inevitably be regulated by the principles of modern international law. Therefore, a key task for Russian legal science is to develop new mechanisms for protecting national identity in a way that aligns with international law. It requires drawing on the experience of other countries. Using a comparative legal method, the article analyzes the practice of constitutional control bodies in Germany, France, Italy, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Russia, where the argument in defense of national identity and related concepts (for example, the protection of historical identity in Brazil) have emerged. The author reveals that this argument occurs in its different forms across all the examined jurisdictions, even in those that are generally more aligned with international law (such as Germany and France). Some mechanisms for protecting identity are controversial from the standpoint of international law (e.g. qualification of international treaties as soft-law acts in Italy or international treaty termination a posteriori by the constitutional control body in Kazakhstan). The articles concludes that Russia must develop alternative methods for protecting its national identity striking a reasonable balance with fulfilling its international obligations. 

Keywords: national identity, constitutional identity, constitution, constitutional court, international law