The ambition of this article is to initiate an understanding of the Russian Orthodox Christianity at the time of the revolution in a way that is different from the classical approach which is often focused on its institutional side and limited to historical facts. Its main thesis is that rather than being an obstacle, Orthodox Christianity to some extent contributed to the revolution's success by providing familiar semantic background against which the majority of Russians interpreted, accepted and fought for the socialist ideals. It argues that Orthodoxy was the source of hegemonic cultural values and that it functioned as dominant, yet circuitous, semantic filter through which ideas surrounding the revolution were understood and appropriated by the masses. In constructing its argument the discussion relies on Antonio Gramsci's ideas about cultural hegemony, Iurii Lotman's concept of semiosphere and Ernest Bloch's theory about utopianism as a necessary element of radicalism.
Taking into account recent developments in the historical studies of ancient Israelites the article raises questions regarding the continuing use of the old theoretical platforms and the validity of source criticism as a method in searching for the origins of biblical festivals. Using different arguments it attempts to invalidate the widely held view of Pentateuch’s annual cycle of festivals as a more or less random collection of heterogeneous celebrations. Instead of focusing on the confusing picture presented by the biblical books, which the author sees as a result of the unfinished process of historicisation, the article suggests a different approach to reading the biblical texts and advocates application of the ritual studies findings and methods as a way towards a better understanding of the origins and the pre‐biblical functions of Pentateuch’s annual festivals.
This article attempts to open an alternative perspective in thinking about the role Eastern Orthodox Christianity played in the 1917 Russian revolution by challenging the prevailing paradigm that it was a conservative cultural element resisting social change. Weber claimed that Calvinism managed to turn a particular conception of the world into a corresponding practical norm that aided the development of capitalism. This article proposes a similar thesis regarding the Russian revolution, but utilizing as its theoretical framework Gramsci's ideas on cultural hegemony and Bloch's view about the role of utopian thinking. It argues that Orthodox Christianity was the source of hegemonic cultural values and as such was the familiar semantic background against which the majority of Russians interpreted, accepted, and fought for the socialist ideals of the revolution. In constructing its argument the article provides a critique and a corrective of Gramsci's understanding of cultural hegemony in Russia, analyzes the Orthodox idea of podvig as an enduring perpetual push from the immanent and the imminent of the historical toward the transcendent and the eternal of the utopian divine, and finally, discusses the implications of podvig's theological connotations as a cultural value and a “subjective force” in sustaining the revolutionary efforts.
From the perspective of biblical studies Pentateuch’s annual festivals (Passover, First Sheaf, Unleavened Bread, Weeks, Blowing of the Shofar, Day of Atonement and Tabernacles) are usually regarded as a more or less artificial collection of heterogeneous cultic occasions. Application of ritual studies findings and methods, however, reveals that there are multiple syntagmatic links between these festivals and that their explicit and implicit dynamics also disclose something of their pre‐biblical origins and significance.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.