Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The article opens a special issue of the Journal of Frontier Studies “Mental Boundaries and Memorial Frontiers”. The text raises topical issues of the nowadays cultural and historical situation, although the author is sure that it is not unique, therefore he gives it the universal name “historical catastrophe”. The subject, forced to exist in the conditions of a historical catastrophe, is in a radicalized situation of choice. The radicality of the choice makes it impossible to reach consensus between alternative options, which act not as ready-made clear models, but as radically opposed propositions to each other. The choice of one of them determines the further strategies and trajectories of the subject, the characteristics that are attributed to him by other subjects as essential. Despite the radical nature of the opposition, the boundaries between them are not defined, and pass within the subject itself, since different sides of the manifestation of the subject in an ordinary situation can combine simultaneous manifestations of both of them, and in an ordinary situation they are not opposed.
References
Anikin, D. A. (2020). Frontier Issues in Cultural Memory Research. Journal of Frontier Studies, 5(2), 12‑25. https://doi.org/10.46539/jfs.v5i2.201 (In Russian).
Auger, M. (2017). Non-Places. Introduction to the Anthropology of Hypermodernity. New Literary Review. (In Russian).
Bauman, Z. (2017). Retrotopia. Wiley.
Brillon, P. (2013). Comment aider les victimes souffrant de stress post-traumatique: Guide à l’intention des thérapeutes [How to help victims of post-traumatic stress: A guide for therapists]. Les Éditions Québec-livres. (In French).
Chaadaev, A. Y. (1991). Philosophical Letters (1829-1830). In The Complete Works and Selected Letters (Vol. 1, pp. 320–440). Nauka. (In Russian).
Deets, S. (2006). Pulling Back from Neo-Medievalism: Thee Domestic and International Politics of the Hungarian Status Law. Slavic Eurasian Studies, 9, 17–36.
Fedorova, R. V. (2010). The Structure of the Aspectual Category of Prospectivity. Bulletin of Nizhnevartovsk State Humanitarian University, 3, 82–86. (In Russian).
Ferraris, M. (2011). Social Ontology and Documentality. In G. Sartor, P. Casanovas, M. Biasiotti, & M. Fernández-Barrera (Eds.), Approaches to Legal Ontologies: Theories, Domains, Methodologies (pp. 83–97). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0120-5_5
Hägerstrand, T. (1986). Den geografiska traditionens kärnområde [The core area of the geographical tradition]. Svensk Geografisk Årsbok, 62, 38-43. (In Swedish).
Karyagina, T. D., & Pridachuk, M. A. (2017). Empathically Caused Distress and the Possibilities of its Diagnostics. Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 25(2), 8–38. https://doi.org/10.17759/cpp.2017250202 (In Russian).
Krasner, S. D. (2001). Abiding Sovereignty. International Political Science Review, 22(3), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512101223002
Krippner, S., Pitchford, D. B., & Davies, J. A. (2012). Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Biographies of Disease). Greenwood.
Ryanskaya, E. M. (2002). Prospectivity as part of aspectuality. Philological Studies, 4, 86–92. (In Russian).
Troitskiy, S. A. (2021). In Search of Total Order: Solidifying Borders and a Stable Identity. Journal of Frontier Studies, 6(1), 196–225. https://doi.org/10.46539/jfs.v6i1.279 (In Russian).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.