Serializing National Cohesion: Channel 1's "Shkola" and the Contradictions of Post-Soviet "Consensus Management"
Serializing National Cohesion: Channel 1's "Shkola" and the Contradictions of Post-Soviet "Consensus Management"
复制标题
连载国家凝聚力：第一频道的《Shkola》与后苏联“共识管理”的矛盾
DOI：
10.1111/russ.10701
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
HUTCHINGS S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HUTCHINGS S
议会很少讨论电视连续剧。然而，Valeriia Gai‐Germanika于2010年在俄罗斯第一频道播出的69集《学校》（Shkola）引起了争议，几位杜马议员呼吁禁止该节目。《Shkola》由手持摄像机和不知名的演员拍摄，对困扰俄罗斯学校的问题提供了毫不妥协的见解：种族主义、腐败、随意性行为、自杀、吸毒、自残、欺凌、贿赂、暴力以及以缺乏想象力的教学为特征的教室中持续不断的混乱。“Shkola”对允许的界限提出了前所未有的挑战。然而，本文评估了该系列节目培养民族凝聚力的能力，而不是采用胜利日等国家媒体活动特有的“自上而下”方式，而是通过中心和外围的多层次辩证关系。借鉴Jesus Martin - Barbero的调解理论，本文通过系列叙事的分裂结构追溯了辩证法：它在基于从社会中心转喻位移到边缘特定冲突的自然主义美学之间的振荡，以及适合于该中心的隐喻建模和普遍同理心话语的表达的情节戏剧感伤主义。辩证法促进了各种声音（官方爱国主义、苏联怀旧主义、民族极端主义、自由主义反对派、方言种族主义）的相互参与，其中每一个声音都污染或振兴了另一个声音，而Gai - Germanika偏爱的普遍主义立场未能占上风。这篇文章包括对“Shkola”对俄罗斯公共话语的更广泛影响的评估。
Parliaments rarely debate television serials. Such, however, was the controversy surrounding Valeriia Gai‐Germanika's 69‐part “Shkola” (“School”), shown on Russia's Channel 1 in 2010, that several Duma Deputies called for its banning. Filmed with hand‐held cameras and unknown actors, “Shkola” offered an uncompromising insight into problems afflicting Russian schools: racism, corruption, casual sex, suicide, drug‐taking, self‐harming, bullying, bribery, violence, and unremitting disorder in classrooms characterised by unimaginative teaching. “Shkola” posed unprecedented challenges to the boundaries of the permissible. This article, however, evaluates the serial's capacity to foster national cohesion, not in the “top‐down” manner characteristic of state media events such as Victory Day, but through a multi‐levelled dialectic of centre and periphery. Drawing on Jesus Martin‐Barbero's mediation theory, the article traces the dialectic through the serial narrative's split structure: its oscillation between a naturalistic aesthetic based on metonymic displacements from society's centre to specific conflicts at its margins, and a melodramatic sentimentalism suited to the metaphoric modelling of that centre and the articulation of a discourse of universal empathy. The dialectic facilitates a mutual engagement of voices (official patriotic, Soviet nostalgic, nationalist extremist, liberal oppositionalist, vernacular racist) in which each contaminates or revitalises the other and in which Gai‐Germanika's preferred universalist stance fails to prevail. The article includes an assessment of the broader implications of “Shkola” for public discourse in Russia.