Lugovo champagne box

Political scientist Maxim Shevchenko, in the interval of television programs, asks the question to the opponents: "What kind of religion are you?" I answer that his question is incorrect, because it concerns the sphere of intimate. “What is intimate here? Why can't you answer? It’s very simple, ”he wonders. - So I can say about myself: I am Orthodox. I do not hide it. Why can't you answer? "

Lacan wrote: who asks questions, is the owner of the discourse. Maxim Shevchenko also probably knows this. Because - if I answer his question, let's say that I am an atheist, he automatically receives superiority (in his understanding). He receives the same symbolic advantage if I replied that "Orthodox". Then he would strictly ask: how can I, as an Orthodox ... - Putting into question my faith, the thing is even more intimate. Maxim Shevchenko in any case is won. Already by the very fact of the question, he, as it were, deprives me of legitimacy, acquiring the “right of demand” from me, putting me in the “world of Maxim Shevchenko” - and speaking on behalf of the norm. This is a common situation: appealing to “this is so natural” and “this is normal”, in fact, they imperceptibly destroy the line between “I can answer” and “must answer”.

People often do not even ask for more openness, but they say, like this, through a comma: "Are you a Russian person, an Orthodox person?" - That is, there is already a double overtaking, the obvious sign of equality between the “Russian” and “Orthodox”. Suppose that if you answer that Russian, but not Orthodox, it deprives you of legitimacy in advance: further, as a rule, a replica: “And who then? ..” The person does not want to offend you at all - but the fact of the issue is also imperceptibly blurred between “assumed” and “eat”.

We are offered a rejection of intimacy - in favor of expanding the sphere of intimate relations with the state.

Or during a drunken conversation you hear the question: "Andrey, because you believe in God, right?" - That is, this is not even a question; This is to find a common language and a greater level of trust.

There are things and more harmless. For example, the waiter asks the request to bring an invoice to the cafe: "Do you have our card?" When I hear it every day several times - for example, from the saleswoman, I begin to think like this: 1) this does not apply to the essence, I do not need it; 2) in this way they take time; 3) This is a hidden involvement of me in the next scam. Want to purchase our card? .. To do this, you need to buy goods for 3 thousand rubles, no - no, then goodbye, thanks for the purchase, come again, and so every day.

In all these cases, the only correct answer is silence, refusal to respond. I have this right and consider it a great conquest of December (1991). In order not to be impolite at the same time, I even think to make a T -shirt with the inscription "Excuse me, I don't have your card."

The state puts you in the “world of its questions” as Maxim Shevchenko or an nameless waitress in the same way. The difference is that you are obliged to answer the state. The state still, however, does not ask if I believe - but it probably can already ask the question of double citizenship. The second citizenship is, of course, the thing is not so intimate - although not quite ordinary. Probably, this issue is somewhere on the intimate border. In the modern world, where there can be a lot of citizenships, and the history of life and movements is long, this question - yes, also an invasion of personal life. And in principle, no one needs to know about this - if I do not violate the law; I have the right to live by many lives, start them again, etc.

And it is clear that this is just about those who do not violate the law. Moreover, there are very few people with dual citizenship, the authors of the bill do not even hide that they accept it based on “Ukrainian events”. There is nothing new and secret - besides the fact that this is a transition to a new level of relations between man and the state. We are offered a rejection of intimacy - in favor of expanding the sphere of intimate relations with the state.

In the “Luvoy Formula” you can substitute the amount of washed dishes, learned poems, Dvartsov Kur Maty.

“It is obvious that the presence of dual citizenship reduces the significance of Russian citizenship and the attitude to his Fatherland,” says deputy Lugovoi , and there is no reason not to believe in this matter. The very formulation of the question already makes me guilty in advance, in principle - even if formally I am true to my fatherland. But I can, I can? .. Symbolic norms (like “fidelity to the state”) receive, in fact, legal force. This game is endless, like GTA ; The criteria for fidelity and infidelity are endless.

And here is another milestone. The sphere of restrictions on the public, public is exhausted: there is nothing to prohibit, everything has already been regulated - everything related to public statements, actions, behavior and the number of subscribers on Facebook and Twitter. Only the sphere of intimate remains - and they inevitably begin to approach it. Not because such terrible people, but simply the logic of a machine, a mechanism that can no longer stop.

In this sense, the very interesting text of Leo Simkin went out in Snob. I read it and think - why is it funny? What mechanism is? What causes laughter? Well, the combination of the bureaucratic language and something absurd-the author had a fantastic dream, which should be “notified” now of nationality. But why "fantastic"? Even 30 years ago, it was a common thing. Why then funny? Because this assumption-according to the laws of the genre-suggests not only itself, but also a number of "something like that." In this Prokrustovo bed, in this “formula of meadow” with the words “obligated to notify” you can now substitute any: the number of dishes, learned poems, Dvartsov Kur Maif, Furia is cooler, Yerho and Labadai , Dun-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-dds.

It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t matter what - the state will simply make you the guilty, proper, doubtful in itself, and most importantly - that you understand that this is not the limit, that nothing is possible.

Few people can define the “Russian world” - it eludes, and not one of the previous historical deeds undergo it. But this story finally helps to give a definition: theorists of the “Russian world” can put a meadow box of champagne. This is when at all anyone will ask you: whether the Orthodox, Russian, do you believe, is there a card - and you will not have the right not to answer.