Political culture of our state at all times differed from their foreign counterparts, not always comprehensible to other ethnic characteristics. These features go far deeper into the historical development of the Moscow State. And although it would seem that an enormous amount of time passed, this theme cannot help affecting us even in the 21 century.
And the aboveis not a joke. If you look at the arrow of time, at the time of the establishment of our state, we can distinguish a great number of events and processes that have occurred and are occurring now only because of particular features of cultural policy of the Moscow State. These events and processes which will be discussed in the main part of the work in the compartment are higher than even a singleevent such as the creation of the Warsaw Pact and the end of the Afghan war, which are very important milestones in our history.
The history of political culture of the Moscow State cares during its inception. Naturally it has changed over the centuries until today under the influence of different geographic, economic, social and other factors. Also in Moscow State political culture wasinfluenced by various external factors and processes (e.g., The Time of Troubles) and the different sides of the personalities of the princes and kings (e.g., personality and character of Ivan the Terrible). Time passed and more and more factors appeared. But even the Soviet government could not change the kernel, the basic postulates of cultural policy of the Moscow State.
Also, through the study of thetopic becomes possible to analyze ourselves, our time and even our future behavior and the fate of the state. Thus, the study of the past, especially the issue is an interesting topic, which will be disclosed further on the basis of Nancy Shields Kollmann`s article and further analysis of this article.
The work of Nancy Shields Kollmann begins with the question: what is the political culture? Theauthor, as a response, gives examples of the views of various historians of different schools, but also tells about the development of this issue in general.
Then the author reveals that one group of historians did not, however, participate in theoretical elaboration of political culture through the 1980s - namely, Soviet historians.
There are two reasons for this. First, Marxist ideology inprinciple objected to the concept's blurring of class interests and rejection of teleological change. French Marxists, for example, did not share historians' general enthusiasm for applying the term to the French Revolution. Secondly, Soviet historians were ill-informed about the work of Western historians, owing to limited knowledge of Western languages and limited access to Western publications.Soviet historians persisted in an approach that interpreted Muscovite history within early modern European terms. Only in the 1990s did Russian historians begin to engage with these more anthropological and theoretical approaches.
Throughout the article, we see that Nancy Shields Kollmann, by correlating different views spoke about the importance of "divine" power of the Tsar, as well as theimportance of elites and noble families. This is described well in the future, when the identity is revealed, and the reign of Ivan the Great and Ivan the Terrible, especially. Further, the author speaks about clan politics in times of Ivan the Terrible, about the patronage of the Church by these groups and about the Boyar Duma and district councils as an instrument of political struggle. Nancy drawsattention to the fact that Ivan the Terrible paid much attention to his deification. So much so that he himself believed in his omnipotence. This was special feature in reign of Ivan. There were such manifestations as: oprichnina, torture and executions of "traitors" boyars. In this situation, a supra-moral space shared only by rulers had been created. On the other hand Ivan the Terrible do not...