In society

About the "status" discussion

October 5, 2010 Anatoly Bershtein

In the “Widow-Barsenkov case” there was an expert pause, and I am not going to break it. I will not write again about their textbook: the commission works, we will wait for the results of its work. But about the polemic around the book I would like to say a few words.

Two very remarkable points are noteworthy: opponents of the critics of the manual blames them with “status incompetence” and appeal to ethics and democracy.

I do not know when this concept appeared - “status historian”. In my time they did not say that. What people emphasize, focusing on status: a hierarchical position in a professional workshop or recognition of scientific merits and respect of colleagues?

After reading who and what says on this topic, he came to the conclusion that the majority focuses on the professor’s status of the authors of the manual, as well as on the status of the university in which they work. I am not against respect for authority, but to authority, supported by the name in science, scientific publications, recognition of colleagues in the workshop, but not by position. But it turns out that if a person is applied, and most importantly, if he occupies a position , then, to communicate with him, and even more so can he criticize him only equal in status - that is, in official position? Is this not the feudal-Holoi psychology that helps to hide incompetence, and sometimes frank ignorance?

It is no coincidence that another coincidence: those who worship the posts, ranks, statuses usually constitute power as such. But it has long been said: there is no place in a person. And it’s unlikely that I will reveal a big secret if I say: a status politician, a status ideologist, even a status professor of history can sometimes frozen such stupidity ...

And another remarkable feature of the dispute. Even frank or latent fans of Stalin's methods and views in their Philippics in defense of the authors of the training manual appeal to democracy, accusing critics of “Herring”, of an unleashed campaign “Witch Hunts”, in 37 years. The very one that they do not consider so gloomy in our history-it was better to live, more fun. And what is characteristic: right there, in the comments, in blogs, numerous proposals appear to bring their hands to the "scientists-patriots" to "shot articles" and other passions. By the way, opponents have long passed on personalities.

All this, speaking in open text, is called hypocrisy and hypocrisy.

There are those who, not being a “member of the corporate party” and having its own, not fitting in the Procrustean bed of all sorts of “Inges”, opinion, He tries somewhat squeamish and discovered from both “plague houses”. In this position, in my opinion, albeit unintentional, but crafty. These people still have preferences, only the odion of individual participants in the dispute and personal moral disgust scares away.

Well, it is wonderful that people from childhood have been accustomed to elementary moral hygiene. I am only categorically against the Amalgam - they say, all in the same world of Mazana. By no means. Perhaps I also foresee (although I do not belong to any camp and I have quite moderate views), in any case, where my side is definitely and clearly. And so what I want to say: these are not equal parties, dear colleagues. In any case, most of the most of those whom I personally know “for their part”, in any campaigns do not participate, only have their own opinion, most often competent, and civil position. I am ready to believe that many of their opponents are also sincere and knowledgeable people, just think differently. So, you just have to believe in the sincerity of opponents and start talking on the merits, not being distracted by personal suspicions and stereotypes of thinking.

I myself recently wrote that the discussions of this kind seem useless to me, in the sense that it was painful in different environments and the participants in the polemics developed. Now I understand that it was worth making a reservation: it still concerns those who adhere to “dirty” views and unclean thoughts, who divide the people of their country into “ours” and “strangers”. And there are such “implacable” on both sides. The rest can and should be talked to each other. How else? ..

We live in the same country, with such an “unpredictable” history that, of course, there are different, sometimes diametrically opposite points of view on its past and present. But we are doomed to agree at least for the sake of a peaceful future.

Materials on the topic:

The Center of Scientists and Teachers of Judaic in Universities “Safer” (Moscow). About the training manual A.S. Barsenkova and A.I. Widow "History of Russia. 1917–2009