36
Oleg Bresky and Olga Breskaja
subject and even any certain order, but represent mechanisms of the Borderland, identify
the principles of social interaction providing the understanding of the social world. They
are necessary because they rely on subject values not adequate to norms and institutions
which are their contemporaries.
On the other hand, the Borderland mechanisms can be viewed as social frames. Situa-
tion intelligibility in this case is determined by an opportunity to form a frame significant
for social place by the subject. The construction of such a frame becomes an indicator
of actorship realization [32]. The social frame is the scheme of interpretation, the back-
ground understanding of the events the participants of which include will, expediency
and rationality, in other words, a life activity of the subject [33]. The frame is an alive and
developing form of the subject.
The given typology is a methodological basis used to overcome the fourth negative
discourse of the Borderland research that includes non intelligible social processes as an
object.
Literature
Dworkin R. Taking Rights Seriously.
Harvard University Press, 1977.
Geertz C. Wiedza lokalna. Dalsze eseje z zakresu antropologii interpretatywnej. Krakow
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, 2004. State formation, nation building, and mass
politics in Europe: The theory
of Stein Rokkan
Peter Flora ed. Oxford, 1999. Weil Simone. The need for roots. Prelude to a Declaration of
Duties Toward Mankind. NY.
1992.
Bauman 3. Individualizirovannoje soobshchestvo. M., 2005.
Bobkov, I. Tereshkovich, P. Vmesto predislovija // Perekrjostki. Zhurnal issledovanij vostoch-
noevropejskogo pogranichija. 2004. #1-2.
Brednikova O. Interpretiruja prigranichje: metaphory “okna”, “zerkala” i “vitriny”. Posle im-
perii: issledovanija vostochnoevropejskogo Pogranichija. Vilnius: EHU-International,
2005. S. 20.
Hoffmann I. Analiz freimov. Esse ob organizatsii opyta. /P.r. G.S.Batygina, L.A.Kozlovoj. .:
Institut sotsiologii RAN, 2003. S. 5.
Kant I. Sochinenija. . 6. S. 541.
Kelzen G. Chistoje uchenie o prave. . 2., 1988. S. 37.
Mamardashvili M. „Kak ja ponimaiju ilosoiju”. .: Izdatelskaja gruppa “Progress”. 1992.
S. 168.
Mamardashvili M. Mysl’ v kulture / Kak ja ponimaju ilosoiju. .: Izdatelskaja gruppa “Prog-
ress”, 1992. S. 144.
Mamardashvili M. Problema soznanija i ilosofskoje priznanije. / Kak ja ponimaju ilosoiju.
.: Izdatelskaja gruppa “Progress”, 1992. S. 56.
Mamardashvili M. Filosoija - eto soznanije vsluh / Kak ja ponimaju ilosoiju. .: Izdatel-
skaja gruppa “Progress”, 1992. S. 61.
Monson P. “Lodka na allejah parka” // [Electronic resource] / http://www.politnauka.orgiles/
monson.rar.
37
2B-Model of the Borderland
Nazarchuk A.V. Yazyk v transtsendentalnoj pragmatike K. Apelja. [Electronic resource]
/http://i-e.ru/biblio/archive/nasarchukja.
Oznobkina E. Nachalo sovershilos’, chelovek sotvorjon byl... / Novy mir. 1997.# 5.
Posle imperii: issledovanija vostochnoevropejskogo Pogranichija. Vilnius, EHU-lnternational,
2005.
Reno A. Era individa. K istorii subjektivnosti / per. s frants. S.B. Ryndina; pod red. E.A. Sa-
marskoj; statija B.V. Markova. SPb.: Vladimir Dal, 2002. S. 70.
Rulan Norber. Yuridicheskaja antropologija. .: Norma, 2000. S. 50.
Habermas J. Vovlechenie drugogo. Ocherki politicheskoj teorii. SPb.: Nauka, 2001. Arendt
Hanna. Istoki totalitarisma // per. s anglijskogo I. Borisovoj, J. Kimeleva.
A. Kovaleva. L.Sedova, J.Mishkenene. .: TsentrKom, 1996.
Cherutti Simona. Skory sud / Neprikosnovenny zapas. 2005. # 5.
Shmatko N.A. “Sotsialnoje prostranstvo” Pierre Bourdieu / Bourdieu P. Sotsialnoje prostran-
stvo: polya i praktiki. SPb.: Aleteja. 2005. S. 560.
Shparaga O.O. O neobhodimosti subjektivatsii Pogranichija // Posle imperii: issledovanija
vostochnoevropejskogo Pogranichija / pod red. I. Bobkova, S. Naumovoj, P. Tereshkovi-
cha.
Notes
1
Regional seminar “Social Transformations in the Borderland (Belarus, Ukraine, Mol-
dova)” (2004-2006).
2
Bobkov, I., Tereshkovich, P. Vmesto predislovija // Perekrjostki. Zhurnal issledovanij
vostochnoevropejskogo pogranichija. 2004. # 1-2.
3
It does not matter what reasons were selected for this purpose: Slavdom, Orthodoxy, Ca-
tholicism, general history, etc. All of them serve only to construct a utopian picture of
Eastern Europe as a social monolith united politically and ideologically. Such an approach
neutralizes almost completely the problem of the border condition of these societies, i.e.
valid reasons for their sameness.
4
State formation, nation building, and mass politics in Europe: The theory of Stein Rokkan
/ Peter Flora ed. Oxford, 1999.
5
it is essential to remember that the formation of the subject can happen only publicly. Even
if such a subject is a hermit, his activity has a public measurement and a public effect.
Every intellectual and cultural fulillment is public as it presupposes the presence of the
spectator who knows the difference between either beauty, or sense, or suffering. If there
is no such break to publicity, then life fades. In Russian literature melancholy of such life
isolated from public space was remarkably shown by Vasily Shukshin
in his stories about
provincial social reformers, who all their life wrote “for the suitcase”, about inventors of
planes and bicycles, about graphomaniacs. Everything that they have invented, have writ-
ten or have thought up is equally good, because nobody needs it and not because these
strange people “were ahead of their time” but because they simply had not entered and did
not enter that time. They were closed in their own world that did not have (it was not their
fault, obviously) any entry into public space.
6
Reno A. Era individa. K istorii subjektivnosti / per. s frants. S.B. Ryndina; pod red. E.A.
Samarskoj; statija. B.V. Markova. SPb.: Vladimir Dal, 2002. S. 70.