Abstract

In this article, we discuss the interaction of those in positions of power and the subordination of the servant in different cultural traditions. The author contrasts the European practice of rational subordination with the subordination in the more fundamental practice of Russian culture. Speaking about the practices of subordination in the culture, the author is inclined to contrast the collective image of the European servant provided by Truffaldino with the popular collective image of the lackey within the framework of Russian culture as provided by Fiers. The author believes that these primeval service-providers possess features that complement each other and become one. As well, each type mentioned may be specific to the political practices of those in power in a particular cultural tradition. The author examines the similarities and differences in the practical services of the chosen servants in the context of behavioral strategies in detail. Selection strategy, in turn, is communicated within defined constraints. In totalitarian discourse conditions, the servants are unlikely to have a chance of achieving a more-or-less independent positioning or high mobility. The cultural context constructs a hierarchical submission, its structure, and functionality. Therefore, the rational life in European culture can be contrasted with the more-sweeping economic style taking place in Russian cultural tradition. The respect for the servant in the European culture associated with the contractual principle of service is impossible in Russian cultural practice, where the dependence of the servants on the lord seems to be much more fundamental.

Highlights

  • Носитель власти конструирует плотную массу, защищающую его от «внезапного прикосновения» (Канетти, 1997: 18–21)

  • Подобно тому, как власть и ее институты могут представляться в различных образах в зависимости от культурной традиции, так и структуры подчинения оказываются очень сильно зависимыми от культурного контекста

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Как не обычные слуги, связанные несвободой, призваны постоянно воспроизводить различные ситуации служения и необходимости его периодического превозмогания — отказа от зависимости от воли господина. Изначальная связанность подчинением говорит о сходстве вынужденной участи слуги как в европейской, так и в русской культурной традиции. В русской культурной традиции мобильность не выступает таким серьезным преимуществом, каким она является в европейской культуре. Слуга в русской культуре не выглядит активным и деятельным, легко передвигающимся за своим господином в пространстве.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.