Politically United, Globally Isolated Russia: Article summary of 'Symbol of the war-but which one'

The Winter School "Biopolitics and Geopolitics in the Black Sea and the Caucasus" has finally kicked off! Participants will be asking and working to answer several questions in Kääriku, among which the meanings of art and symbols will be analyzed. What do different symbols mean in your home country and how has the meaning of national symbols in your country changed over time or in different regions?

Article reviewed:

Kolstø, Pål (2016). ‘Symbol of the war—but which one? The St George ribbon in Russian nation-building’. Slavonic and East European Review.  ISSN 0037-6795.  94(4), p 661- 702

The construction of national identity and its diffusion and impact has always been highly relevant and controversially discussed. Different approaches have focused on individual factors intended to contribute to identity formation. This article by Pål Kolstø seeks to illustrate the role of symbols in nation-building and their “inherently ambiguous character” (p. 664) which leaves room for individual interpretation. In addition to testing the ability of St George ribbon to unite the nation around the political establishment, the author goes further and shows the power of symbols to perform both inclusive and exclusive roles simultaneously.

The article opens with a statement about the importance symbolism has in nation-building processes. It presents several key observations: Firstly, symbolic uniting of the population is a precondition for the state’s survival. Secondly, the meanings of symbols are not clearly manifested and fixed. This fact allows the meaning to be modified either by the state authorities, ‘magician’s sleight-of-hand’ (p. 661), or by individuals themselves. Thirdly, it remains questionable whether symbols play an integrative role by uniting the population around them, or if this sense of unity is determined by a ‘mutual differentiation’ (p. 665) and the construction of the Other as opposed to the Self.  

The traditional use of the St George ribbon, analyzed in the article, goes back to 2005. However, since the symbol’s history has its roots in the tsarist period, it combines elements of different political regimes. The eclectic character of the ribbon is not coincidental. It embraces the Golden Age of the Russian Empire under Catherine the Great and the period of the USSR’s superpower status during the Cold War, not to mention an association with fascism which is neglected in modern discourses. As a result, we observe an attempt to unite the population around historical memories. Pål Kolstø claims that the ribbon’s direct reference to the Soviet Victory in the Great Fatherland War make it highly politicized. Proceeding from this conclusion, the St George ribbon could become a uniting symbol for all former Soviet states, ideally creating a close link between them. However, the symbol seems to introduce more “discord” (p. 663) distancing the ruling authorities not only from the former ‘sphere of influence’, but also from certain inside groups as well. This poses the questions: what are the reasons for such distancing of even the closest allies, and why has this lead others to introduce their own symbols as well?

At the beginning of the article, the author underlines the controversial nature of symbols in “giving the capacity to make meaning” (p. 664) without directly forming it. As a result, we may attribute the effect of deriving different meanings from the same symbol to the ‘near abroad’. However, given the externalization of the symbol and its attempts to influence the Russian population abroad, the ribbon seems to be aimed primarily at constructing a superior Russian identity and erecting a boundary against the hostile outside. The latter relates not just to the “sinful West”, but to the groups opposed by the existing regime as well. This development of a black-and-white mindset makes loyalty towards the state indisputable and unquestionable.

At the same time, the ambiguous nature of all symbols makes their meanings flexible and changeable. The current article stresses that “symbols and traditions are constantly being designed” (p. 661) and also suggests that the very meaning of the symbol and its scope may well be undergoing a change. Thus, over time, the St George ribbon action has started to affect “all Russian citizens at home and abroad” (p. 671). Moreover, as the symbols’ perception is formed “in the minds of the beholders” (p. 700), it offers considerable scope for manipulation.

Despite the backlash and rejection of the ribbon (either in the form of a ban or by introducing different national symbols) in even the former Soviet states, and the wary attitude after the annexation of Crimea, Russia manages to combine the diametrically opposed strategies. On the one hand, policy is aimed at internal consolidation leading to Russia’s isolation from the outside. On the other hand, given the economic consequences of its partial isolation, Russia tries to reintegrate into the international community by portraying itself as a strong advocate for universal values. 

While the former is achieved by appealing to historical memories, the latter has its own symbols, including cultural representations. However, given the existing misrepresentation or neglect of these values (in the Ukrainian case for example), particular attention may be paid to the way different symbols overlap and do not strongly contradict empirical evidence and the forming image of the state.

In conclusion, this article shows that the symbolic component of nation-building continues to be mixed. In the case of the St George ribbon (among other symbols), an “inherently ambiguous character” (p. 664) allows multiple meanings of the same image to occur. Such a mixed character of symbols leads them to be manipulated and instrumentalized. Additionally, as the St George ribbon case has shown, this symbol constitutes part of a broader agenda and is oriented towards a certain target group. At the same time, it does not make its meaning exclusive but rather, tries to fit it into a broader context by reformulating the symbol’s meaning according to a black-and-white mindset pushed by Russia. By promoting an imperialist agenda and creating the image of the hostile outside which is opposed to “universal values”, the country may well find itself being united around the political establishment at the expense of being cut off from the outside world.

Katsiaryna Lozka is currently a first-year Master’s degree student in European Studies at Comenius University in Bratislava. She comes from Belarus where she earned her Bachelor’s degree in International Relations.

Katsiaryna Lozka (Kate): "I have been very fortunate to have been chosen to participate in the winter school organized by the University of Tartu and the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. I expect this program to provide interesting and informative lectures that will broaden my understanding of the contemporary Russian policy and its driving forces in important and comprehensive ways. This school will be a wonderful opportunity to open myself to new people from diverse backgrounds. I think that this school with its lectures, seminars and thought-provoking movie screenings will become an inspirational experience for me. Also I am looking forward to enjoying the natural beauty of the area where we will stay. I am sure that this school will perfectly combine academic and socio-cultural activities and leave only pleasant memories. And I greatly appreciate the support during the preparation for this program and I am very much looking forward to starting this journey of discovery!"