A tétel áttekintő adatai

Szerző dc.contributor.author	Szvák, Gyula
Elérhetőség dátuma dc.date.accessioned	2021-04-21T16:03:40Z
Rendelkezésre állás dátuma dc.date.available	2021-04-21T16:03:40Z
Kiadás dc.date.issued	2020
Uri dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10831/55036
Nyelv dc.language.iso	angol	hu_HU
Nyelv dc.language.iso	magyar	hu_HU
Cím dc.title	„Az orosz történetet az oroszoknak kell írniuk, miért avatkoznak ebbe bele a magyarok?” (Mikrohistoriográfiai etűd)	hu_HU
Típus dc.type	folyóiratcikk	hu_HU
Változat dc.description.version	megjelent változat	hu_HU
Nyelv dc.language.rfc3066	eng
Nyelv dc.language.rfc3066	hun
Jogok dc.rights.holder	Alapítvány az Orosz Nyelvért és Kultúráért	hu_HU
Kivonat angolul dc.description.abstracteng	The present article analyzes documents to introduce the antecedents and the story of a scandalous, failed PhD defense, which took place in Russia in 1992, in the midst of the neoliberal economic shock therapy. Apparently, this case was an attempt to prevent the future academic career of a young Hungarian historian, who would have deserved a better fate, but, in fact, this case study in micro-historiography reveals the state of Russian historiography after the glasnost'. It describes how the imperial conception of history, which has remained persistent even after the change of regimes, breeds xenophobia, and how the “nationalist” perspective is elevated to the level of chauvinism. Even though this is a Russian story, the lessons should be observed by all national historiographies. The author of the attacked dissertation was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Russia was in ruins but at the Historical Faculty of the Petrograd University a strong “hardcore” was formed, which became triumphant under the leadership of the dean. This group refused to reconcile with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of national greatness and pride, which occurred thanks to their own political leaders and the West. In the Russia of 1992, the time was not ripe for a change of paradigm in historiography and the new conception of history. Furthermore, the author shows that at this particular historical moment the change of perspective at the Historical Faculty of the Petrograd University – ironically – was even less likely than back in 1984, in the Soviet era, when he had defended his PhD. Even though 1992 marked a post-glasnost' year, the aforementioned case shows that freedom of speech and academic freedom could only trigger xenophobia as a novel contribution to the imperial conception of history.	hu_HU
Doi azonosító dc.identifier.doi	10.38210/RUSTUDH.2020.2.5
Folyóirat dc.identifier.jtitle	RussianStudiesHu	hu_HU
Utolsó oldal dc.identifier.lpage	27	hu_HU
Első oldal dc.identifier.spage	1	hu_HU
Hozzáférés dc.rights.access	hozzáférhető	hu_HU
Kulcsszó angolul dc.subject.en	Sándor Szili	hu_HU
Kulcsszó angolul dc.subject.en	microhistoriography	hu_HU
Kulcsszó angolul dc.subject.en	imperial conception of history	hu_HU
Kulcsszó angolul dc.subject.en	xenophobia	hu_HU
Kulcsszó angolul dc.subject.en	Russia in 1992	hu_HU
Kulcsszó angolul dc.subject.en	Historical Faculty of the Petrograd University	hu_HU
Kulcsszó angolul dc.subject.en	R. G. Skrynnikov	hu_HU
Kulcsszó angolul dc.subject.en	I. Ya. Froyanov	hu_HU
Alcím dc.title.subtitle	“Russian History should be written by Russians. Why do Hungarians intervene in this matter?” (Etude in micro-historiography)	hu_HU
Besorolás dc.type.genre	publikáció/alkotás	hu_HU
Jelleg dc.type.resrep	tudományos	hu_HU
Szerző szervezeti egysége dc.contributor.inst	ELTE BTK Professor Emeritus	hu_HU
Típus dc.type.type	folyóiratcikk	hu_HU
Kiadás éve dc.description.issuedate	2020	hu_HU



Ez a tétel a következő gyűjteményekben található meg

• RussianStudiesHu [91]

A tétel áttekintő adatai