Language problem . In the second half of the 80s. In the republic, the language problem acquired particular relevance, which from a cultural-ethnic one turned into a political one. The issue of languages ​​was increasingly associated with problems of sovereignty, national development of Belarus, preservation of the Belarusian nation, its worldview, spirituality, and culture. But political leadership The USSR believed that national issue, including on the issue of national languages, there are no problems. The leadership of the BSSR shared a similar opinion.

December 15, 1986 28 representatives of the creative and scientific intelligentsia of Belarus, including V. Bykov, Ya. Bryl, G. Borodulin and others, wrote an open letter to M.S. Gorbachev with proposals to improve the situation Belarusian language. There was no reaction to this letter.

June 4, 1987 A letter was already sent to M.S. Gorbachev from 134 representatives of the Belarusian intelligentsia, among whom were poets, writers, composers, actors, artists, teachers, doctors, engineers, preschool teachers, and workers. In this letter, for the first time, the national policy of the Soviet government in Belarus was called by its real name: Russification.

Since the summer of 1988 in means mass media A campaign is beginning in Belarus to give the Belarusian language the status of a state language. The newspaper “Literature and Art” was especially active in this matter. In April 1989 a section “Belarusian language – status of dzyarzhaunai” appeared in it. Many people spoke in this section: from academicians to collective farmers. Informal youth organizations “Talaka” in Minsk and “Pakhodnya” in Grodno spoke out in support of the Belarusian language and national culture.

The creation on June 27, 1989 was important in expanding the scope of use of the Belarusian language. Belarusian Language Association. The partnership was named after F. Skaryna. The Republican Council was headed by Neil Gilevich. Since March 1990 The partnership began to publish the newspaper “Our Word”.

New political conditions and the active work of the national intelligentsia contributed to the fact that in July 1989. The Supreme Council of the BSSR creates a commission to prepare proposals for the legislative regulation of the status of Belarusian, Russian and other languages ​​of the population of the republic. January 26, 1990 The Supreme Council of the BSSR adopted the law “On languages ​​in the Belarusian SSR”. The law declared the Belarusian language the state language of the republic.

In connection with the adoption of the Law on Languages, the Supreme Council instructed the government to develop a State program for the development of the Belarusian language and other national languages, which was approved on September 20, 1990. The program contained a number of measures for the revival and development of the language and culture of the Belarusian people, the free use of native languages ​​by citizens of other nationalities who lived on the territory of the republic. This is how the legislative basis for the revival of the Belarusian language was created.

Education . In the formation of the spirituality of each people, education plays a vital role. In the second half of the 80s, new approaches began to be implemented, namely: 1) a course towards the formation of a national education system; 2) democratization, increasing the independence of educational institutions; 3) integration of education with science, production and culture.

Increased attention was paid to kindergartens - the first educational stage, where the preconditions for personal development are laid. Every year the number of kindergartens in the Belarusian language of instruction increased. In 1987 there were 18.3% of the total number of such gardens, in 1993 - 68.6%.

The principle of pluralism in education led to the creation, along with secondary schools, of educational institutions of a new type - gymnasiums, lyceums, colleges and others.

A characteristic feature of the gymnasium is the priority of the humanitarian component, i.e. in-depth study of languages, literature, history, logic, rhetoric, fundamentals of economics, philosophy, law, religious studies and other psychological, pedagogical, social and humanitarian disciplines. In 1990 - 91 academic years. The first gymnasium opened in Minsk in 2009; three years later there were already 52 of them.

If gymnasiums were created on the basis of secondary schools, then lyceums, as a rule, were created at universities. Their task is to prepare capable students to continue their studies at universities. In the 1993-94 school year. there were 22 lyceums.

In the process of updating higher education, the main task was seen to be in accordance with the standards of higher education in developed countries. Considering that universities and academies are the most common in the world, a widespread transition to new forms of higher educational institutions began in the BSSR. The institutes were transformed into universities and academies. In particular, the Belarusian State Economic University was created on the basis of the Belarusian State Institute of National Economy named after V.V. Kuibyshev. In total, in the 1993-94 school year. year in Belarus there were 38 state and 9 non-state universities, in which more than 180 thousand students studied in approximately 200 specialties.

The republic’s universities have begun a transition to a multi-level bachelor-master training system, new training courses are being introduced, and the humanitarization of higher education is intensifying. One of the components of humanitarization is the study of domestic and world history, the number of hours devoted to the study of which is increasing in all universities of the republic.

There are also problems. These are not fully calculated relationships between educational and special disciplines, these are the requirements to connect the educational process with the research work of students, these are the terms of study, these are the problems of distribution of graduates and the responsibility of universities for their employment, and many others.

Literature during the years of perestroika . During the period of perestroika, Belarusian literature sharply increased its attention to historical themes, coverage of cultural heritage, national issues, and the Chernobyl disaster. The journalistic genre developed especially quickly, periodicals were in great demand at this time.

In the wake of glasnost, the works of “forgotten” poets and writers were returned to society. The prose of N. Goretsky, A. Garun, P. Golovach, V. Lastovsky, poetry and poems by L. Geniush, Y. Chechet, Y. Luchina, I. Dvorchanin and others were confiscated and published from storage facilities and special storage facilities.

New works were also published. In 1992 Ivan Chigrinov completed his famous cycle with the novel “Return to War”. Vyacheslav Adamchik dedicated the novel “The Voice of Your Brother’s Blood” (1990) to the history of the Western Belarusian village in the 30-40s. XX century. Vasily Bykov published his next story “The Cold”.

Democratization and glasnost brought a new understanding of the Stalinist totalitarian regime. The memoir stories by S. Grakhovsky “Zone of Silence” and “With a Wolf Ticket”, P. Prudnikov’s “Hedge Gauntlets” and “Inferno”, F. Alekhnovich’s “In the Claws of the GPU”, B. Mikulich’s “A Tale for Myself” were received with interest. , memoirs by L. Geniyush “Confession”, stories by Y. Skrygan “Leather Coat”, “Reward”, V. Khomchenko “Tsar-prisoner Semyon Ivashkin”.

Belarusian writers did not stand aside from understanding the causes and results of the Chernobyl disaster. I. Shamyakin responded with the novel “Evil Star”. The stories of V. Karamazov “The Edge of the White Path”, V. Kozko’s “Save and Have Mercy on Us, Black Stork”, B. Sachenko’s “Native Corner”, in A. Adamovich’s book “Apocalypse on Schedule” are devoted to the same topic.

One of the most important topics at this time it becomes historical. Leonid Daineko wrote three historical novels, “The Sword of Prince Vyachka.” “Trace of the Werewolf” about Polotsk Rus', “Iron Acorns” about the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. A number of interesting works on historical topics came from the pens of Vladimir Orlov, Konstantin Tarasov, Oleg Loiko and others.

Belarusian poets devoted many of their works to the problems of national and cultural revival. Neil Gilevich published several collections, a collection of poems was published by Grigory Borodulin, V. Zuenok, N. Metlitsky, Vladimir Neklyaev wrote the poem “Zone” about the Chernobyl disaster.

Into poetry in the late 80s - early 90s. a new generation of Belarusian poets has arrived: Anatoly Sys, Sergei Sokolov-Voyush, Lyudmila Rublevskaya, Mikhail Skoblya, Oleg Minkin, Ales Pismenkov, Leonid Dranko-Maisyuk, Irina Bogdanovich, Galina Bulyko, Lyubov Tarasyuk, Vladimir Maruk and many others.

Belarusian drama was noted for its new achievements during this period. Alexey Dudarev wrote four plays, including “Izlom” about the people of the “bottom”, “Song about the bison” after N. Gusovsky and others.

New names have appeared in Belarusian drama: Ales Ostashonok, Vladimir Butrameev, Nikolai Orekhovsky, Vladimir Saulich, Sergei Kovalev, Igor Sidoruk.

Thus, Belarusian literature of the mid-80s and early 90s. carried the ideas of revival, spiritually enriched people, contributed to their national self-awareness, and the establishment of democracy and humanism in society.

Theater life. During this period, Belarusianization and revival were fundamental themes for the theatrical life of Belarus.

Despite the difficulties economic life, the network of theaters grew. If in 1985 There were 17 theaters in the republic, then in 1995. – 24 theater groups. They were financed from the republican, regional and city budgets. Theaters began operating for the first time in Slonim, Mozyr and Molodechno.

Private theaters appeared. American businessman Grigory Figlin, a philanthropist, opened his own independent theater. It should be noted that half of the theaters in Belarus stage their productions in the Belarusian language.

Many theaters were simply not ready for the abolition of strict censorship, the opportunity to live according to the laws of self-development, and unexpected freedom, because independence also means responsibility. Therefore, each theater experienced this period in its own way. Some rushed to stage previously banned performances that brought good box office receipts but were not always highly artistic; others used the old repertoire; others sought new criteria for understanding modernity.

It was this path that the Belarusian State Academic Theater named after Y. Kupala took. Artistic director of the theater V. Raevsky in 1989 staged V. Butromeev’s play “The Passion of Avdei,” which had great success. The director of the same theater, N. Pinigin, staged the play “Tuteishyya” based on the play by Y. Kupala, for which in 1992 he received director N. Pinigin, composer V. Kuryan, actors V. Kin-Kaminsky and V. Manaev were awarded the State Prize of the Republic of Belarus. Today this theater rightfully bears the name National academic theater named after Y. Kupala.

The performances of the Academic Theater named after. Y. Kolas in Vitebsk, the Republican Theater-Laboratory "Free Scene" of the Alternative Theatre, Drama Theatre, Studio Theater - all in Minsk, as well as regional drama theaters in Gomel, Mogilev, Grodno and Brest.

The revival of theatrical life in Belarus has undoubtedly been facilitated by the holding of theater festivals. In October 1993 The first international festival of one-man performances was held in Minsk, in which playwrights, directors, art critics, and actors from England, Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania and Belarus took part. In 1994 In Molodechno, a festival was held dedicated to the theater masters - Stefania Staniuto, Alexandra Klimova, Rostislav Yankovsky, Zinaida Brovarskaya, Viktor Lebedev and other recognized stage masters. The then mayor of Molodechno, Gennady Karpenko, provided great assistance in holding this festival.

There were many problems in the development of the Belarusian theater during these years. The social protection of actors and directors remained weak, wages were low, and no bonuses were established for “talent.” Theaters are poorly provided with premises, transport, and materials. This had a particularly negative impact on theaters in regional and district centers. During these years, tours became sharply limited. However, despite the difficulties of existence, the Belarusian theater has proven its vitality, its ability not only to survive, but also to develop.

Musical theaters also worked quite fruitfully. This is, first of all, the State Academic Bolshoi Theater of Opera and Ballet of Belarus, whose ballet troupe under the direction of V. Elizariev is rightfully one of the best in the CIS, the theater of musical comedy.

The music festivals held in Belarus “Slavic Bazaar” in Vitebsk, “Golden Hit” and “Mighty God” in Mogilev have gained European fame. The festival of Belarusian song and poetry in Molodechno has become traditional. Music and song also contribute to nurturing the self-awareness of the Belarusian people and increasing the authority of the young state in the international community.

Thus, the spiritual life of the Belarusian people in the late 80s - early 90s. was full of difficulties. The economic crisis did not allow the necessary funds to be allocated for the development of culture, and those funds that were allocated were devalued by inflation. But even in such conditions, the state did everything possible to preserve the intellectual and cultural potential of the Belarusian people.

Changes in spiritual life

The country's transition to a market economy and radical changes in political and social life took place in conditions of information openness. The ideological dictate of the state and with it censorship have disappeared. At a fast pace The market for information services was saturated. Citizens received free access to global network communications to the Internet. The number of its users in 2003 was about 11.5 million people.

In the early 1990s. Government spending on cultural development has sharply decreased. Clubs and creative centers, exhibition halls and cinemas, sports and tourist centers were closed. The circulation of literary and artistic magazines and newspapers, which once had huge audiences, has fallen.

In a market economy, only those cultural spheres that enjoyed commercial success due to popularity among mass audiences developed most dynamically. Numerous private publishing houses appeared. The market for books and periodicals was rapidly becoming saturated, primarily with entertainment publications.

Foreign mass culture products, sometimes not of the best artistic quality, poured onto the screens and into print in a wide stream. Such symbols of Western everyday life as the fast food restaurant McDonald's, the products of the famous brands Coca-Cola and Reebok, etc., have become popular with consumers.

In domestic youth culture, subcultural groups have emerged, focused on borrowed from foreign everyday experience styles of behavior and clothing, imitation of heroes of popular culture.

Thus, Tolkienists (fans of J.R. Tolkien’s novels) were looking forward to the appearance of new films with the adventures of their idols on the screen. Aikidokas promoted the lifestyle of martial arts fans. Punks were distinguished by special signs in their clothing and in communicating with each other. Metalheads, rockers and rappers defended their commitment to various directions in modern popular music. Their style of dressing copied the clothing habits of their musical idols.

Entertainment centers - clubs, discos, reproducing Western standards - have become popular forms of youth leisure. The trend of Westernization (borrowing Western models) of youth culture clearly reflected the processes that were taking place in popular culture in conditions of its rapid spread.

In the second half of the 1990s. the supply of mass cultural products has increased domestic sample. The leisure sector was developing rapidly. Domestic television series and commercial films, video clips and commercials appeared. As a result, the consumer-oriented entertainment industry has become one of the most dynamic sectors of the national economy. Book publishing and television, production and replication of audiovisual products, show business, construction of new and refurbishment of old cultural objects have become the focus of attention of domestic business. Continuing the traditions of Russian philanthropy, the largest companies and banks provided material support to musical and theatrical groups, publishing, educational and restoration projects.

A kind of response to commercialization mass forms Leisure has become a growing interest in the national cultural and spiritual heritage, in religious and secular traditions. Hundreds of Orthodox churches and many mosques were returned to believers. Attention to culture and traditions of Orthodoxy, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other faiths has increased. The sphere of religious education and upbringing has developed - from Sunday schools to seminaries, theological academies and universities, as well as publishing.

In search of stable value guidelines, people turned to the historical and cultural heritage of the country. New forms of mastering the national heritage have emerged: historical and cultural dramatizations that recreate episodes of major historical events - the Battle of Kulikovo, the Battle of Borodino, etc., which enjoy constant success with the viewer.

Cultural tourism was becoming one of the promising areas of economic development of Russian territories around historical heritage monuments. In total, at the end of the last century, there were about 2,000 state museums in Russia, including 90 nature reserves.

The peculiarities of the country’s spiritual life were largely determined by the dynamics of social and cultural changes taking place in Russian society in the post-Soviet period.

The variety of forms of creativity has increased. Different directions, styles, schools and artistic personalities were given the opportunity to express own views and realize your potential. Many of them not only entered into creative disputes and conflicts with each other, but also caused heated discussions in society. The process of spiritual rethinking of the past and the search for one’s place in a globalizing world continued. Cultural life opened up to influences and borrowings from other cultures and at the same time sought ways to renew its own traditions. The primary task became the accumulation of intellectual capital - the main resource for development modern world, improving the quality and level of education. As social stratification deepened, television became the main source of satisfying the cultural needs of a significant part of the population ( average duration TV viewing was about 3-3.5 hours per day). Some Russians who had a high level of income, on the contrary, focused on the elite leisure industry - pay TV channels, Internet access, expensive clubs and foreign tourism.

Appendix 1

Features of the political and spiritual development of the country in the 60-70s.

Appendix 2

USSR in the early 80s.

Economy

o Sharp decline in economic growth

o Strengthening the command and administrative system of economic management

o Attempts to further strengthen the centralization of management during the 1979 reform.

o Crisis of rigid bureaucratic management of agriculture

o Crisis of the system of non-economic coercion

o inefficient use of material and labor resources and delay in the transition to intensive production methods

o inflationary processes, commodity shortages, huge pent-up demand.

Political system

o The rigidity of the party and state structures, the tightening of repression against dissidents

o Increased bureaucratization of the state machine

o Increasing contradictions in social class structure of society

o Crisis of interethnic relations

Spiritual realm

o Increasing gap between word and deed

o Avoidance of objective analysis of the state of affairs in society

o Tightening ideological dictate

o Ideological rehabilitation of Stalinism

o Increasing mass skepticism, political apathy, cynicism

The emergence of the pre-crisis state of our society can be explained by both objective and subjective reasons. Objective features include the development of our country in the 70s. A difficult demographic situation, the removal of sources of raw materials and energy resources from traditional areas of their use, aggravation of economic problems, an unfavorable global economic situation, and an increasing burden of costs to maintain military-strategic parity and to help allies played a role here. In this regard, it is worth paying attention to the fact that the share of the USSR within Warsaw Pact accounted for 90% of total spending, and only 10% came from allies (for comparison: within NATO, US spending is 54%).

The characteristics and results of previous years of the country's development also contributed to the formation of the pre-crisis state. Processes such as, for example, excessive centralization of economic management and the nationalization of the cooperative form of ownership were identified and gained momentum much earlier. But in the 70s, along with the increase in the scale of production, they began to appear more clearly.

The diagnosis of the situation in which the development of our society finds itself is stagnation. In fact, a whole system of weakening the instruments of power arose, a kind of mechanism for inhibiting socio-economic development was formed. The concept of “inhibition mechanism” helps to understand the causes of stagnation in the life of society.

The braking mechanism is a set of stagnant phenomena in all spheres of life in our society: political, economic, social, spiritual, international. The braking mechanism is a consequence, or rather a manifestation of the contradictions between productive forces and industrial relations. The subjective factor played a significant role in the formation of the braking mechanism. In the 70s and early 80s, the party and state leadership turned out to be unprepared to actively and effectively counter the growing negative phenomena in all areas of the country's life.

Appendix 3

The main stages of perestroika in the USSR

Appendix 4

Stages of economic reform in the USSR (1985 – 1991)

Appendix 5

Production of main types of food products (in% of the previous year)

Appendix 6

Perestroika and changes in the spiritual life of society at the turn of the 1990s.

1985 became a landmark year in the spiritual life of the USSR. The principle proclaimed by M. S. Gorbachev publicity created conditions for greater openness in decision-making and for an objective rethinking of the past (this was seen as continuity with the first years of the “thaw”). But the main goal of the new leadership of the CPSU was to create conditions for the renewal of socialism. It is no coincidence that the slogan “More glasnost, more socialism!” was put forward. and the no less eloquent “We need publicity like air!” Glasnost implied a greater variety of topics and approaches, a more lively style of presenting material in the media. It did not amount to an affirmation of the principle of freedom of speech and the possibility of unhindered and free expression of opinions. The implementation of this principle presupposes the existence of appropriate legal and political institutions, which in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s. there wasn't.

The size of the CPSU in 1986, when the XXVII Congress took place, reached a record level in its history of 19 million people, after which the ranks of the ruling party began to decline (to 18 million in 1989). In Gorbachev's speech at the congress, it was said for the first time that without glasnost there is no and cannot be democracy. It turned out to be impossible to keep publicity in check, in measured volumes, especially after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (April 26, 1986), when it was revealed that the country's leadership was unwilling to provide objective information and raise the question of responsibility for the tragedy.

In society, glasnost began to be seen as a rejection of ideological narrow-mindedness in covering current events and in assessing the past. This opened up, as it seemed, inexhaustible opportunities for the formation of a new information field and for open discussion of all the most important issues in the media. The focus of public attention in the first years of perestroika was journalism. It was this genre of the printed word that could react most sharply and quickly to the problems that worried society. In 1987-1988 The most pressing topics have already been widely discussed in the press, and controversial points of view have been put forward about the country's development paths. The appearance of such sharp publications on the pages of censored publications was unimaginable just a few years ago. Publicists on short time became real “masters of thoughts.” New authoritative authors from among prominent economists, sociologists, journalists and historians found themselves at the epicenter of attention. To incredible level popularity has increased printed publications, which published stunning articles about failures in the economy and social policy - “Moscow News”, “Ogonyok”, “Arguments and Facts”, “Literary Gazette”. A series of articles about the past and present and about the prospects of the Soviet experience (I. I. Klyamkina “Which street leads to the temple?”, N. P. Shmeleva “Advances and debts”, V. I. Selyunina and G. N. Khanina “Evil figure" and others) in the magazine "New World", in which the editor was the writer S.P. Zalygin, caused a huge response from readers. The publications of L. A. Abalkin, N. P. Shmelev, L. A. Piyasheva, G. Kh. Popov, T. I. Koryagina on the problems of economic development of the country were widely discussed. A. A. Tsipko suggested critical thinking Lenin's ideological heritage and the prospects of socialism, publicist Yu. Chernichenko called for a review of the agrarian policy of the CPSU. Yu. N. Afanasyev organized historical and political readings “The Social Memory of Humanity” in the spring of 1987; they had a response far beyond the boundaries of the Moscow Historical and Archival Institute, which he headed. Particularly popular were collections that published journalistic articles under one cover; they were read like a fascinating novel. In 1988, the collection “No Other is Given” was published in a circulation of 50 thousand copies and immediately became a “shortage”. Articles by its authors (Yu. N. Afanasyev, T. N. Zaslavskaya, A. D. Sakharov, A. A. Nuikin, V. I. Selyunin, Yu. F. Karyakin, G. G. Vodolazov, etc.) - intellectuals known for their social stance were united by a passionate and uncompromising call for democratization Soviet society. Every article conveyed a desire for change. The short preface by editor Yu. N. Afanasyev spoke about “different topics, conflicting opinions, non-trivial approaches. Perhaps this is what gives particular convincing to the main idea of ​​the collection: perestroika is a condition for the vitality of our society. There is no other option."

The press’s “finest hour” was 1989. The circulation of printed publications reached an unprecedented level: the weekly “Arguments and Facts” had a circulation of 30 million copies (this absolute record among weeklies was included in the Guinness Book of Records), the newspaper “Trud” - 20 million, “Pravda” - 10 million. Jumped sharply subscription to “thick” magazines (especially after the subscription scandal that broke out at the end of 1988, when they tried to limit it under the pretext of a paper shortage). A public wave arose in defense of glasnost, and the subscription was defended. “New World” in 1990 was published with a circulation of 2.7 million copies, unprecedented for a literary magazine.

A huge audience was gathered by live broadcasts from the meetings of the Congresses people's deputies USSR (1989-1990), at work people did not turn off their radios and took portable televisions from home. The conviction emerged that it was here, at the congress, in the confrontation of positions and points of view, that the fate of the country was being decided. Television began to use the technique of reporting from the scene and live broadcasting; this was a revolutionary step in covering what was happening. “Live talking” programs were born - round tables, teleconferences, discussions in the studio, etc. Without exaggeration, the nationwide popularity of journalistic and information programs (“The View”, “Before and After Midnight”, “Fifth Wheel”, “600 Seconds”) was due not only to the need for information, but and the desire of people to be at the center of what is happening. Young TV presenters proved by their example that freedom of speech is emerging in the country and free debate around the issues that concern people is possible. (True, more than once during the years of perestroika, TV management tried to return to the old practice of pre-recording programs.)

A polemical approach also distinguished the most striking documentaries of the journalistic genre that appeared at the turn of the 1990s: “You Can’t Live Like This” and “The Russia We Lost” (dir. S. Govorukhin), “Is It Easy to Be Young?” (dir. J. Podnieks). The last movie was directly addressed to a youth audience.

Most famous art paintings they talked about life without embellishment and false pathos about modernity younger generation(“Little Vera”, directed by V. Pichul, “Assa”, directed by S. Soloviev, both appeared on screen in 1988). Soloviev gathered extras for filming last frames film to a crowd of young people, announcing in advance that V. Tsoi would sing and act in the film. His songs became for the generation of the 1980s. what the work of V. Vysotsky was for the previous generation.

“Forbidden” topics have essentially disappeared from the press. The names of N.I. Bukharin, L.D. Trotsky, L.B. Kamenev, G.E. Zinoviev and many other repressed political figures returned to history. Never-published party documents were made public, and declassification of archives began. It is characteristic that one of the “first signs” in understanding the past were the works of Western authors already published abroad about the Soviet period of national history (S. Cohen “Bukharin”, A. Rabinovich “The Bolsheviks Are Coming to Power”, the two-volume “History Soviet Union" Italian historian G. Boffa). The publication of the works of N. I. Bukharin, unknown to the new generation of readers, caused a heated discussion about alternative models building socialism. The very figure of Bukharin and his legacy were contrasted with Stalin; discussion of development alternatives was conducted in the context modern perspectives"renewal of socialism". The need to comprehend the historical truth and answer the questions “what happened” and “why did it happen” to the country and people aroused enormous interest in publications on the Russian history of the 20th century, especially in the memoir literature that began to appear without censorship. In 1988, the first issue of the magazine “Our Heritage” was published; unknown materials on the history of Russian culture, including the heritage of Russian emigration, appeared on its pages.

I looked for answers to the questions that tormented people and contemporary art. The film directed by T. E. Abuladze “Repentance” (1986) - a parable about universal evil, embodied in the recognizable image of a dictator, without exaggeration, shocked society. At the end of the picture, an aphorism was heard that became the leitmotif of perestroika: “Why a road if it doesn’t lead to the temple?” The problems of a person’s moral choice were the focus of two masterpieces of Russian cinema with different themes - the film adaptation of M. A. Bulgakov’s story “ Heart of a Dog"(Dir. V. Bortko, 1988) and "Cold Summer of '53" (dir. A. Proshkin, 1987). Those films also appeared at the box office that were previously not allowed on the screen by censorship or were released with huge bills: A. Yu. German, A. A. Tarkovsky, K. P. Muratova, S. I. Parajanov. The strongest impression was made by A. Ya. Askoldov’s film “Commissar” - a film of high tragic pathos.

Appendix 7

"New political thinking" in international relations

In the mid-1980s. The new leadership of the USSR sharply intensified its foreign policy. The following traditional Soviet ones were identified: foreign policy objectives: achieving universal security and disarmament; strengthening the world socialist system as a whole, the socialist community in particular; strengthening relations with liberated countries, primarily with countries of “socialist orientation”; restoration of mutually beneficial relations with capitalist countries; strengthening the international communist and labor movement.

These tasks were approved by the XXVII Congress of the CPSU at the beginning of 1986. However, in 1987-1988. significant adjustments have been made to them. They were first reflected in M. S. Gorbachev’s book “Perestroika and New Thinking for Our Country and the Whole World” (autumn 1987). The Minister of Foreign Affairs, member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee E.A. took an active part in defining and implementing the principles of “new thinking” in the foreign policy of the USSR. Shevardnadze and Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee A. N. Yakovlev. The change in course was symbolized by the replacement of the highly experienced Minister of Foreign Affairs A. A. Gromyko with the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia E. A. Shevardnadze, who previously had only experience in Komsomol and police work and did not speak any foreign languages.

"New political thinking"(NPM) in foreign policy was an attempt to implement the “ideas of perestroika” in the international arena. The basic principles of NPM were as follows:

• rejection of the conclusion that the modern world is split into two opposing socio-political systems - capitalist and socialist, and recognition of the modern world as a single, interconnected one;
• rejection of the belief that the security of the modern world rests on the balance of forces of two opposing systems, and recognition of the balance of interests as a guarantor of this security;
• rejection of the principle of proletarian, socialist internationalism and recognition of the priority universal human values over any others (national, class, etc.).

In accordance with the new principles, new priorities of Soviet foreign policy were defined:

• de-ideologization of interstate relations;
• joint decision global supranational problems (security, economics, ecology, human rights);
• joint construction of a “common European home” and a single European market, which was planned to enter in the early 1990s.

As a decisive step on this path, the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Pact countries, on the initiative of the Soviet leadership, adopted in May 1987 the “Berlin Declaration” on the simultaneous dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and NATO and, first of all, their military organizations.

In the second half of the 1980s. The Soviet Union took major practical steps to normalize interstate relations, ease tensions in the world, and strengthen the international authority of the USSR. In August 1985, on the fortieth anniversary atomic bombing Hiroshima, the USSR introduced a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, inviting others nuclear powers support his initiative. In response, the US leadership invited representatives of the USSR to attend their nuclear tests. Therefore, the moratorium was temporarily lifted in April 1987. It was returned to in 1990. On January 15, 1986, the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee M. S. Gorbachev made a statement “In the year 2000 without nuclear weapons.” It proposed a plan for the phased and complete elimination of nuclear weapons by the 21st century. In February 1987 in Moscow, at the international forum “For a nuclear-free world, for the survival of mankind,” Gorbachev called on representatives of over 80 countries to “humanize” international relations, combine morality and politics, and replace the ancient principle “if you want peace, prepare for war” with the modern “if you want peace - fight for peace."

The course towards a nuclear-free world was consistently pursued during Soviet-American summit meetings. They were resumed in November 1985 and became annual. Meetings and negotiations between M. S. Gorbachev and US Presidents R. Reagan and George W. Bush contributed to the destruction of the image of the enemy, the establishment of comprehensive relations between the two states and led to the signing of two treaties on military issues. In December 1987, the INF Treaty (medium- and short-range missiles) was signed in Washington. He marked the beginning of a turn from the arms race to disarmament through the destruction of an entire class of weapons. Ratified in both countries in May 1988, it led to the elimination of more than 2.5 thousand missiles by May 1990 (including 2/3 Soviet ones). This amounted to approximately 4% of the world's nuclear weapons stockpile. In July 1991, the Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1) was signed in Moscow. This was the second treaty that provided for the elimination of some nuclear weapons.

Appendix 8

FROM THE REPORT OF THE USSR SUPREME COUNCIL COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS “ON THE POLITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DECISION TO ENTER SOVIET TROOPS INTO AFGHANISTAN”

As a result of a thorough analysis of the available data, the committee came to the conclusion that the decision to send Soviet troops into Afghanistan deserves moral and political condemnation. The general international situation in which the decision was made was undoubtedly complex and characterized by acute political confrontation. In that situation, there were ideas about intention certain circles The United States of America to take revenge in Afghanistan for the loss of positions after the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran; facts pointed to the possibility of such a development of events. In the official statements that followed the deployment of troops, one of the motives for the action was the desire to strengthen the security of the Soviet Union on the approaches to the southern borders and thereby protect its positions in the region in connection with the tension that had developed in Afghanistan by that time. Elements of armed intervention from outside were growing. There were appeals from the Afghan government to the Soviet leadership for help. It has been documented that the Afghan government, starting in March 1979, has made more than 10 requests to send Soviet military units to the country. In response, the Soviet side rejected this form of assistance, declaring that the Afghan revolution must defend itself. However, later this position underwent, frankly speaking, dramatic changes.

The Committee states that the decision to send troops was made in violation of the Constitution of the USSR... In this context, we inform you that the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and its Presidium did not consider the issue of sending troops to Afghanistan. The decision was made by a narrow circle of people. As the Committee on International Affairs established, the Politburo did not even meet in full to discuss this issue and make a decision on it. Giving a political and moral assessment of the entry of troops into Afghanistan, it is necessary, it is our duty, to name those who, while working on the most important foreign policy issues since the mid-70s, decided to send Soviet troops into Afghanistan. This is Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, who at that time held the posts of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium Supreme Council our country, Chairman of the Defense Council and Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USSR; this is the former Minister of Defense of the USSR Ustinov, Chairman of the Committee state security Andropov, USSR Foreign Minister Gromyko.<...>Politically and morally condemning the decision to send in Soviet troops, the Committee considers it necessary to state that this in no way casts a shadow on the soldiers and officers heading to Afghanistan. Faithful to the oath, convinced that they were defending the interests of the Motherland and providing friendly assistance to the neighboring people, they were only fulfilling their military duty.<...>

Appendix 9

FROM B.N.'S SPEECH YELTSIN AT THE IV CONGRESS OF PEOPLE'S DEPUTIES OF THE USSR

We must frankly admit: the Union leadership does not have a clear political course for the renewal of the country. Outwardly, his actions are in the nature of improvisation, non-reaction to emerging circumstances, and endless maneuvering. But behind them is a harsh political logic aimed at disrupting the sovereignty of the republics and sabotaging radical reforms. As a result, we have today a union center of “popular distrust.” The so-called revolution from above is over. The Kremlin has ceased to be the initiator of the country's renewal and an active promoter of the new. The renewal processes, blocked at the center level, moved to the republics. The deputy corps in a number of republics for the first time seriously weakened the control over themselves by the totalitarian system. A real opportunity has emerged to begin radical transformations in the republics. The unlimited power of the party-state bureaucracy was under threat. And this is not a transfer of power functions from the union to the republican bureaucracy, as they are trying to present it here, but the only real opportunity in a totalitarian system to protect the independence of enterprises, their peoples, every person from the arbitrariness of departments.<...>

Appendix 10

FROM THE DECLARATION OF THE 1st CONGRESS OF PEOPLE

DEPUTIES OF THE RSFSR “ON THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE RSFSR”

The First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, - conscious of the historical responsibility for the fate of Russia, - testifying to respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples included in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, - expressing the will of the peoples of the RSFSR, solemnly proclaims the state sovereignty of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic throughout its entire territory and declares about the determination to create a democratic legal state within the renewed USSR.<...>

Appendix 11

FROM B.N.'S SPEECH YELTSIN ON

III EXTRAORDINARY CONGRESS OF PEOPLE'S DEPUTIES OF THE RSFSR

By now, two opposing political courses have clearly emerged in the country: the first is a course towards implementing a strategy of profound transformations in all spheres of life; - dismantling the political and ideological monopoly of one party, developing democratic institutions; - creation of effective mechanisms for social protection of people, implementation of social policies aimed at liberating human activity, his initiative and creativity; - and, finally, this is a course towards an open foreign policy. Another, opposite in nature, political course is nothing more than a return to the policy that was pursued before April 1985 and caused enormous damage to Russia. This course can only ensure the joyless existence of today and its deterioration... At the union and republican levels, it is necessary to implement the following political conditions. The immediate start of a dialogue between all political forces and professional associations of all republics on the principles of a “round table”, the formation of a broad democratic coalition of parties, labor movements and various associations. Official renunciation of the use of force, including military force, as a means political struggle. Development of a system of direct democracy, implementation of decisions of the union and republican referendums. Real division of the bodies of the Prosecutor's Office, justice, KGB, army, state apparatus, a ban on combining party positions with leadership positions in government and administrative bodies, including for the President of the country. The introduction of a system of separation of powers as the beginning of the construction of a rule of law state... The abolition of all unconstitutional decisions of union and republican bodies that infringe on the political, economic, social and personal rights and freedoms of citizens, the creation of an effective system of guarantees for their provision. Real provision of political pluralism, guarantees of a multi-party system. Creating conditions for implementation constitutional law citizens to reliable information, ensuring the independence of the media.<....>

Appendix 12

FROM RESOLUTION No. 1 OF THE STATE COMMITTEE FOR A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN THE USSR

In order to protect the vital interests of the peoples and citizens of the USSR, the independence and territorial integrity of the country, restore law and order, stabilize the situation, overcome the grave crisis, prevent chaos, anarchy and fratricidal civil war State Committee for state of emergency in the USSR decides:

1. All government and administrative bodies of the USSR, allied and autonomous republics, territories, regions, cities, districts, towns and villages, ensure strict compliance with the state of emergency in accordance with the Law of the USSR “On the Legal Regime of State of Emergency” and the resolutions of the State Emergency Committee of the USSR. In cases of failure to ensure the implementation of this regime, the powers of the relevant authorities and management are suspended, and the implementation of their functions is entrusted to persons specially authorized by the State Emergency Committee of the USSR.

2. Immediately disband the structures of power and control, paramilitary formations operating contrary to the Constitution of the USSR and the laws of the USSR.

4. Suspend the activities of political parties, public organizations And mass movements preventing the normalization of the situation.

5. Due to the fact that the State Committee for the State of Emergency in the USSR temporarily takes over the functions of the Security Council of the USSR, the activities of the latter are suspended.

Appendix 13

DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE RSFSR “ON THE ILLEGALITY OF THE ACTIONS OF THE GKChP”

In connection with the actions of a group of persons who declared themselves the State Committee for the State of Emergency, I decree:

2. All decisions taken on behalf of the so-called emergency committee are considered illegal and have no force on the territory of the RSFSR. On the territory Russian Federation There is a legally elected government in the person of the President, the Supreme Council and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers, all state and local authorities and management of the RSFSR.

3. The actions of officials executing the decisions of this committee are subject to the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and are subject to prosecution by law.

This Decree comes into force from the moment of its signing.

President of the RSFSR B. Yeltsin

Red or white? Drama of August 1991: facts, hypotheses, clash of opinions. M., 1992. P. 71.

Appendix 14

FROM THE ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE RSFSR B.N. YELTSIN “TO THE CITIZENS OF RUSSIA!”

Whatever the reasons for justifying this removal, we are dealing with a right-wing, reactionary, anti-constitutional coup.

Despite all the difficulties and severe trials experienced by the people, the democratic process in the country is acquiring an ever deeper scope and an irreversible character. The peoples of Russia are becoming masters of their own destiny. The uncontrolled rights of unconstitutional bodies, including party ones, are significantly limited. The Russian leadership took a decisive position on the Union Treaty, striving for the unity of the Soviet Union, the unity of Russia. Our position on this issue made it possible to significantly speed up the preparation of this Treaty, coordinate it with all the republics and determine the date for its signing - August 20 this year. G.

This development of events infuriated the reactionary forces and pushed them into irresponsible, adventuristic attempts to solve the most complex political and economic problems by force. There have been previous attempts to carry out a coup.

We believed and still believe that such forceful methods are unacceptable. They discredit the USSR before the whole world, undermine our prestige in the world community, and return us to the era cold war and isolation of the Soviet Union from the world community.

All this forces us to declare the so-called committee that has come to power illegal. Accordingly, we declare all decisions and orders of this committee illegal.

We are confident that local authorities will strictly follow the constitutional Laws and Decrees of the President of the RSFSR.

We call on Russian citizens to give a worthy response to the putschists and demand that the country be returned to normal constitutional development.

It is certainly necessary to provide the opportunity for President Gorbachev to speak to the people. We demand the immediate convening of the Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR.

We are absolutely sure that our compatriots will not allow the arbitrariness and lawlessness of the putschists, who have lost all shame and conscience, to establish themselves. We appeal to the military personnel to show high citizenship and not take part in the reactionary coup.

Until these demands are met, we call for an indefinite general strike.

We have no doubt that the international community will give objective assessment a cynical attempt at a right-wing coup.

President of the RSFSR Yeltsin B. N.

Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR Silaev I. S.

Acting Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR Khasbulatov R.I.

Red or white? Drama of August 1991: facts, hypotheses, clash of opinions. M., 1992. S. 63 – 72.

Appendix 15

ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA TO SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE USSR, KGB OF THE USSR, MIA OF THE USSR.

Military personnel!

Compatriots!

A coup attempt was made. The President of the USSR, who is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the USSR, was removed from office. The Vice President of the USSR, the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the KGB of the USSR, the Ministers of Defense and Internal Affairs of the USSR entered the anti-constitutional body, thereby committing high treason - the gravest crime against the state.

The country faced the threat of terror. The “order” that the newly-minted saviors of the Fatherland promise us will turn into tragedy, the suppression of dissent, concentration camps, night arrests. “A better life” will remain a propaganda hoax. Soldiers and officers of Russia! At this tragic moment for Russia, for the entire country, I am turning to you. Don’t let yourself be caught in a web of lies, promises and demagogic arguments about military duty! Do not become a blind instrument of the criminal will of a group of adventurers who trampled on the Constitution and laws of the USSR.

Soldiers! I am addressing you. Think about your loved ones, your friends, your people. In the difficult moment of choice, do not forget that you took an oath of allegiance to the people. The people against whom they are trying to turn your weapons.

You can build a throne out of bayonets, but you won’t sit on it for long. There is no and will not be a return to the past. The days of the conspirators are numbered.

Soldiers, officers and generals! An hour ago I appointed the chairman of the RSFSR Committee on Defense Issues. He became your comrade in arms - Colonel General K.I. Kobets. A decree was issued according to which all territorial and other bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the KGB, the Ministry of Defense on the territory of the RSFSR are obliged to immediately comply with all orders of the President of the RSFSR, the KGB of the RSFSR, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the RSFSR, and the State Committee of the RSFSR on Defense Issues.

Clouds of terror and dictatorship have gathered over Russia, over the entire country. But they cannot turn into eternal night. The law will triumph on our land and our long-suffering people will regain freedom. Now - once and for all!

Soldiers! I believe that in this tragic hour you will be able to do right choice. Honor and glory Russian weapons will not be stained with the blood of the people.

Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Federation.

7 hours 10 minutes.

Red or white? Drama of August 1991: facts, hypotheses, clash of opinions. M., 1992. P. 73.

Appendix 16

AGREEMENT ON THE CREATION OF THE CIS

Article 1. The High Contracting Parties form the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).<...>

Article 4. The High Contracting Parties will develop equal and mutually beneficial cooperation of their peoples and states in the field of politics, economics, culture, education, health, environmental protection, science, trade, humanitarian and other fields, promote broad information exchange, in good faith and strictly comply with mutual obligations. The parties consider it necessary to conclude an agreement on cooperation in these areas.

Article 5. The High Contracting Parties recognize and respect each other's territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders within the Commonwealth. They guarantee open borders, freedom of movement of citizens and the transfer of information within the Commonwealth.<...>

Article 7. The High Contracting Parties recognize that, in the sphere of their joint activities, implemented on an equal basis through the common coordinating institutions of the Commonwealth, include:

• coordination foreign policy activities;
• cooperation in the formation and development of a common economic space, pan-European and European markets, in the field of customs policy;
• cooperation in the development of transport and communication systems;
• cooperation in the field of environmental protection, participation in the creation of a comprehensive international system environmental safety;
• migration policy issues;
• fight against organized crime.

Article 14. The official seat of the coordinating bodies of the Commonwealth is the city of Minsk.<...>

For the Republic of Belarus S. Shushkevich

For the RSFSR B. Yeltsin, G. Burbulis

For Ukraine L. Kravchuk

Appendix 17

Independent states

Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Armenia, Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation (RSFSR), Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Republic of Uzbekistan and Ukraine,

striving to build democratic rule of law, relations between which will develop on the basis of mutual recognition and respect for state sovereignty and sovereign equality, the inalienable right to self-separation, the principles of equality and non-interference in internal affairs, renunciation of the use of force and the threat of force, economic and any other methods of pressure, peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for human rights and freedoms, including the rights of national minorities, conscientious fulfillment of obligations and other generally recognized principles and norms of international law;

recognizing and respecting each other's territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders;

Considering that strengthening relations of friendship, good neighborliness and mutually beneficial cooperation with deep historical roots meets the fundamental interests of peoples and serves the cause of peace and security;

aware of their responsibility for preserving civil peace and interethnic harmony;

Being committed to the goals and principles of the Agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States, declare the following:

interaction between the participants of the Commonwealth will be carried out on the principle of equality through coordinating institutions, formed on a parity basis and operating in the manner determined by agreements between the participants of the Commonwealth, which is neither a state nor a supranational entity.

In order to ensure international strategic stability and security, the unified command of military-strategic forces and unified control over nuclear weapons; The parties will respect each other's desire to achieve the status of a nuclear-free and (or) neutral state.

The Commonwealth of Independent States is open with the consent of all its participants for accession by member states former Union USSR, as well as other states that share the goals and principles of the Commonwealth.

The commitment to cooperation in the formation and development of a common economic space, pan-European and Eurasian markets is confirmed.

With the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceases to exist.<...>

Appendix 18

FROM M.S.'S SPEECH GORBACHEV ON CENTRAL TV

Dear compatriots! Fellow citizens! Due to the current situation with the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, I am ceasing my activities as President of the USSR. I make this decision for reasons of principle. I firmly stood for independence, independence of peoples, for the sovereignty of republics. But at the same time, for the preservation of the union state, the integrity of the country. Events took a different path. The prevailing line was to dismember the country and disunite the state, which I cannot agree with. And after the Almaty meeting and the decisions made there, my position on this matter has not changed. In addition, I am convinced that decisions of this scale should be made on the basis of the people's will.<...>I leave my post with trepidation. But also with hope, with faith in you, in your wisdom and fortitude. We are the heirs of a great civilization, and now it is up to each and every one of us to ensure that it is revived to a new modern and dignified life.

Appendix 19

FROM THE DECLARATION OF THE COUNCIL OF REPUBLICS OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE USSR IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

Based on the will expressed by the highest government agencies Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan and Ukraine on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Council of Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR states that with the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the USSR as the state and subject of international law ceases to exist.

The Council of Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR appeals to the heads of the Independent States with a proposal to consider the following issues:

• succession of the USSR and allied bodies state power and management in connection with the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States;
• the creation of an interparliamentary body of the Commonwealth with the aim of preserving a single legal, economic, humanitarian and environmental space in the territories of the member states of the Commonwealth;
• ratification, execution and denunciation of international treaties concluded Union of Soviet Socialist Republics before the formation of the Commonwealth.

The Council of Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR calls on the highest representative bodies of state power and heads of state - members of the Commonwealth to take all measures in their power to ensure the rights and freedoms of citizens, regardless of their nationality, in accordance with the Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, peaceful coexistence of the peoples of the Commonwealth, democratic development their statehood, good neighborly relations and cooperation with the states and peoples of the world community, the steady fulfillment of international obligations arising from treaties and agreements of the USSR.

Chairman of the Council of Republics A. Alimzhanov

Gazette of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. 1991. No. 52. Art. 2058 – 2059.

Proclaimed M.S. Gorbachev, the principle of glasnost created the conditions for greater openness in decision-making and for an objective rethinking of the past (this was seen as continuity with the first years of the “thaw”). But the main goal of the new leadership of the CPSU was to create conditions for the renewal of socialism. It is no coincidence that the slogan “More glasnost, more socialism!” was put forward. and the no less eloquent “We need publicity like air!” Glasnost implied a greater variety of topics and approaches, a more lively style of presenting material in the media. It did not amount to an affirmation of the principle of freedom of speech and the possibility of unhindered and free expression of opinions. The implementation of this principle presupposes the existence of appropriate legal and political institutions, which in the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s. there wasn't.

The focus of public attention in the first years of perestroika was journalism. It was this genre of the printed word that could react most sharply and quickly to the problems that worried society. In 1987-1988 The most pressing topics have already been widely discussed in the press, and controversial points of view have been put forward about the country's development paths.

New authoritative authors from among prominent economists, sociologists, journalists and historians found themselves at the epicenter of attention. The popularity of printed publications that published stunning articles about failures in the economy and social policy - Moskovskie Novosti, Ogonyok, Argumenty i Fakty, Literaturnaya Gazeta - grew to an incredible level. A series of articles about the past and present and about the prospects of the Soviet experience (I.I. Klyamkina “Which Street Leads to the Temple?”, N.P. Shmeleva “Advances and Debts”, V.I. Selyunin and G.N. Khanina “Evil figure”, etc.) Yu.N. Afanasyev organized historical and political readings “The Social Memory of Humanity” in the spring of 1987; they had a response far beyond the boundaries of the Moscow Historical and Archival Institute, which he headed. Particularly popular were collections that published journalistic articles under one cover; they were read like a fascinating novel. In 1988, the collection “No Other is Given” was published in a circulation of 50 thousand copies and immediately became a “shortage”. Articles by its authors (Yu.N. Afanasyev, T.I. Zaslavskaya, A.D. Sakharov, A.A. Nuikin, V.I. Selyunin, Yu.F. Karyakin, G.G. Vodolazov, etc. ) - representatives of the intelligentsia, known for their public position, were united by a passionate and uncompromising call for the democratization of Soviet society. Every article conveyed a desire for change. The press’s “finest hour” was 1989. The circulation of printed publications reached an unprecedented level: the weekly “Arguments and Facts” had a circulation of 30 million copies (this absolute record among weeklies was included in the Guinness Book of Records), the newspaper “Trud” - 20 million, “Pravda” - 10 million.

A huge audience was gathered by live broadcasts from meetings of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR (1989-1990); at work, people did not turn off their radios and took portable televisions from home. The conviction emerged that it was here, at the congress, in the confrontation of positions and points of view, that the fate of the country was being decided. Television began to use the technique of reporting from the scene and live broadcasting; this was a revolutionary step in covering what was happening. “Live talking” programs were born - round tables, teleconferences, discussions in the studio, etc. Without exaggeration, the nationwide popularity of journalistic and information programs (“Vzglyad”, “Before and After Midnight”, “Fifth Wheel”, “600 Seconds” ") was determined not only by the need for information, but also by the desire of people to be in the center of what is happening. Young TV presenters proved by their example that freedom of speech is emerging in the country and free debate around the issues that concern people is possible. (True, more than once during the years of perestroika, TV management tried to return to the old practice of pre-recording programs.)

The most famous artistic films about modernity, without embellishment and false pathos, told about the life of the younger generation (“Little Vera”, directed by V. Pichul, “Assa”, directed by S. Solovyov, both appeared on the screen in 1988). “Forbidden” topics have essentially disappeared from the press. The names of N.I. have returned to history. Bukharin, L.D. Trotsky, L.B. Kameneva, G.E. Zinoviev and many other repressed political figures. Never-published party documents were made public, and declassification of archives began. Contemporary art also sought answers to questions that tormented people. Film directed by T.E. Abuladze’s “Repentance” (1986) - a parable about universal evil, embodied in the recognizable image of a dictator, without exaggeration, shocked society. At the end of the picture, an aphorism was heard that became the leitmotif of perestroika: “Why a road if it doesn’t lead to the temple?” Problems of a person’s moral choice were the focus of two masterpieces of Russian cinema with different themes - the film adaptation of the story by M.A. Bulgakov’s “Heart of a Dog” (dir. V. Bortko, 1988) and “Cold Summer of ’53” (dir. A. Proshkin, 1987). Those films also appeared at the box office that were previously not allowed to appear on the screen by censorship or were released with huge bills: A.Yu. Germana, A.A. Tarkovsky, K.P. Muratova, S.I. Parajanov. The strongest impression was made by the painting by A.Ya. Askoldov's "Commissar" is a film of high tragic pathos.

At the turn of the 1990s. There was a period of rapid growth in the historical self-awareness of the nation and the peak of social activity. Changes in economic and political life became a reality, people were seized by the desire to prevent the reversibility of changes. However, there was no consensus on the issue of priorities, mechanisms and pace of change. Supporters of the radicalization of the political course and the consistent implementation of democratic reforms were grouped around the “perestroika” press. They enjoyed widespread support public opinion, which took shape in the first years of perestroika.

With their moral and civic position, people like D.S. Likhachev and A.D. Sakharov, had a huge impact on the spiritual climate in the country. Their activities became for many moral guide in an era when the usual ideas about the country and the surrounding world began to collapse.

During the years of perestroika, numerous public initiatives independent of the state were born. The so-called informals (i.e., activists not organized by the state) gathered under the “roof” scientific institutes, universities and such well-known public (in fact, state) organizations as the Soviet Peace Committee. Unlike previous times, groups of public initiatives were created “from below” by people from the most different views and ideological positions, everyone was united by their readiness to personally participate in achieving radical changes for the better in the country.

The flow of people traveling abroad has also increased sharply Soviet people, and mainly not through tourism, but within the framework of public initiatives (“people’s diplomacy”, “children’s diplomacy”, family exchanges).

Works previously prohibited from publication in the USSR began to return to the reader. In the “New World”, 30 years after the award of B.L. Pasternak Nobel Prize Based on literature, the novel “Doctor Zhivago” was published.

In 1990, the USSR Law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations” was adopted, it guaranteed the right of citizens to profess any religion (or not to profess any) and the equality of religions and faiths before the law, and secured the right of religious organizations to participate in public life. Recognition of the importance of the Orthodox tradition in the spiritual life of the country was the appearance of a new calendar public holiday- Nativity of Christ (first January 7, 1991). But the process of revival of religious life was already in full swing by that time. The number of people wishing to be baptized grew rapidly at the turn of the 1990s. The level of people's religiosity has noticeably increased. There were not enough clergymen, the first centers of religious education were opened. The first religious literature accessible to the mass reader began to appear, parishes were registered and churches were opened.

Soon after the arrival of M.S. Gorbachev's leadership of the country announced emergency measures to limit alcohol consumption. The number of retail outlets selling alcoholic beverages sharply decreased, “alcohol-free weddings” were widely promoted in the press, and plantations of elite grape varieties in the south of the country were destroyed. As a result, the shadow trade in alcohol and moonshine increased sharply.

Russia in the 18th century Kamensky Alexander Borisovich

9. Changes in culture, everyday life, spiritual life

Changes that took place during Peter's time everyday life Russian people, their worldview, self-awareness, everyday behavior, as well as in culture, were determined both by the purposeful policy of Peter I and by the indirect influence of changes in social sphere and political life. Great value, as already mentioned, was the very change at the very beginning of the reform period in the external appearance of a Russian man, who shaved his beard and put on a European dress, which qualitatively changed his self-perception. The way of life has also changed radically. People involved in various events of Peter the Great's time were introduced to new, previously unknown activities; they had to move around the country a lot, solve new problems, deal with new types of documents in which it was necessary to express their thoughts in a new way. Important role played by the linguistic reform undertaken by Peter, which began in 1708 with the introduction of the so-called civil font for printing books of secular content and led to the formation of a new literary language. At the same time, the development and perception of this language, its vocabulary, style, and methods of presenting thoughts had ideological significance, because it actually meant a positive reception of the entire complex of Peter’s transformations, since a person began to think in the same categories as the Tsar himself. The construction of St. Petersburg was also of fundamental importance, where there was not only a different, European-style organized urban space; but in the sphere of everyday life (layout of living quarters, interior, household utensils, diet and food culture) everything was different. Such changes contributed to the emergence of new everyday practices and new behavior among Russians. Essentially, Peter’s reforms seemed to create a new world with a different, radically different from the traditional Russian system of values, way of life, norms of behavior, principles of relationships between people.

The self-awareness of a Russian person, primarily a nobleman, also changed due to the need to receive a secular education based on natural science. In Peter's time, the first secular educational institutions; translated natural science and philosophical literature is actively published; the first pharmacies are established; the Kunstkamera is founded - the first Russian museum, also predominantly of a natural science nature; theatrical performances are organized; The first Russian newspaper Vedomosti begins to appear; European music is played in the royal palaces and gardens, sculptures brought from Europe are installed; fireworks and balls are held; The Academy of Sciences is founded. Tsar's decrees instruct the nobles to gather in assemblies and strictly define the rules of behavior at them. Serious changes also occurred in the position of the Russian woman, first of all, the noblewoman, who at this time became a full-fledged participant in the secular salon.

All this contributed to the fact that the time of Peter the Great, which began with the reform of the calendar, was perceived by contemporaries as truly the beginning of a new historical era. The changes in the life of the country were so rapid and radical that they gave rise to acute reflection on what was happening, expressed, in particular, in the appearance of the first Russian memoirs at that time, which also indicates the beginning of the process of realizing the self-worth human personality, the desire to record and preserve for posterity not only evidence of historical events, but also my own life experience.

At the same time, changes in the sphere of culture and everyday life affected, first of all, the nobility and the urban population, primarily residents of large cities. Among the masses of the common people and especially among the Old Believers, rumors spread about the replacement of the Tsar with a “German”; his behavior was perceived as “anti-behavior”, and the Tsar himself was perceived as the Antichrist. The lifestyle of the main masses of the population, their value system remained largely unchanged. But they also found themselves involved in new types of occupations, were subject to new types of duties, were attracted to participate in various events of Peter’s time, came into contact with numerous foreigners in the Russian service, observing their way of life, manner of behavior, which was sharply different from their own, etc. .

In general, the era of Peter the Great became the time of the beginning of the formation of a new type of Russian person - rational, dynamic, open to the perception of everything new. This was the time of approval in Russia secular culture, the formation of that cultural environment, which then persisted until the revolutionary upheavals of the beginning of the 20th century. But at the same time, Peter’s reforms led to a cultural split in Russian society, to the emergence of two types of Russian mentality opposing each other - traditional, focused primarily on the past, and Europeanized, focused on the values ​​of European culture. We can also talk about the emergence of two different cultural types of Russian people, for whom even historical time flowed with at different speeds. Later, this tragic conflict became the basis for the formation of the Russian intelligentsia as a special socio-cultural phenomenon, a characteristic feature of which was a heightened perception of the cultural breakdown of Russian society and its social consequences.

It should, however, be borne in mind that for that social stratum, which Peter’s reforms affected in the first place and which then became the source new culture, this transformation was by no means painless and far from quick. Almost throughout the entire 18th century, in the behavior, lifestyle, and psychology of not only ordinary Russian townspeople, but also European-educated nobles, one can detect a bizarre mixture of old Russian customs and habits with the latest European fashion and the most “advanced” views.