state image

  • Interaction of Arts in Diplomatic Ceremonials of the USSR (Early 20s – mid 80s XX Century)

    Author: Zakharova Oksana Yuryevna
    E-mail: mikepriluki@gmail.com
    Institution: Independent Researcher
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2143-7020
    Year of publication: 2020
    Source: Show
    Pages: 107-117
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/rop2020107
    PDF: rop/11/rop1107.pdf

    The relevance of the study is determined both by the insufficient study of the diplomatic ceremonials of the USSR, and the fact that knowledge of the laws of their functioning expands our ideas about the cultural component of the life of Soviet society.
    Taking into account the absence in Russian historiography of a special study devoted to the problem of the interaction of arts at diplomatic ceremonies, the author set the goal to conduct a comprehensive research of the problem of the interaction of arts in diplomatic ceremonials.
    The article considers the stay of the Diplomatic Corps in Moscow from the point of view of the influence of foreign policy priorities on the norms of the diplomatic protocol.
    Examples of balls, sports, receptions, organized by the embassies of Germany and Italy, which in the 20–30s played a leading role in the life of the Diplomatic Corps, are given.
    The content of concert programs of official foreign visits, which contributed to the creation of a positive image of the country on the world stage, is analyzed.
    For the first time the term “diplomatic counterculture” is introduced into scientific circulation – an intentional violation of the diplomatic protocol and diplomatic etiquette in order to achieve a specific result in international communication.
    It was revealed that the diplomatic ceremonial in itself is a synthesis of arts – the picturesque design of space, music, choreography, costume.
    Already in the first years of Soviet power, symbols of power entered the “struggle for power.” At diplomatic ceremonies this struggle was in the form of a confrontation between European protocol traditions and the rules of the Soviet diplomatic protocol and etiquette newly created by the employees of the Protocol Division of the USSR People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs.
    Dress code, concert programs, a list of dishes served – everything had to meet the standards of Bolshevik ideology.
    Hospitality is an important component of national politics. The Protocol Division, through its work, tried to destroy stereotypes about the USSR as an evil empire. The multinational Soviet culture contributed to the creation of a positive image of the state on the world stage.

  • US president’s inauguration ceremonial as a factor in intercultural communication

    Author: Oksana Zakharova
    E-mail: mikepriluki@gmail.com
    Institution: Independent Researcher
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2143-7020
    Year of publication: 2020
    Source: Show
    Pages: 114-124
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/rop2020208
    PDF: rop/12/rop1208.pdf

    The article considers the history and development of the inauguration ceremonies of US presidents. Their role in legitimizing power and their influence on creating the image of the state is evaluated. The very specificity of the inauguration as a social phenomenon makes this ceremonial action a kind of illustration of the cultural condition, mores and tastes of society, national characteristics, becoming a symbolic characteristic of hierarchical differences. Its norms reflect not only ideology, but also the social psychology of society, without an adequate interpretation of which it is impossible to correctly understand the behavior of statesmen in specific situations related to their social status. State civil and military ceremonies, being, as a rule, striking events in the life of the state, have symbolic meaning. They establish a balance between their immediate participants and the highest environment, testify to the stability/instability within the ruling elite. Modern ceremonials of the inauguration of world presidents are politics, prestige, and the image of the government in power.

  • The Regulatory Framework of the Soviet Diplomatic Protocol. History of Formation

    Author: Oksana Zakharova
    E-mail: mikepriluki@gmail.com
    Institution: Independent Researcher
    ORCID: https://orcid. org/0000-0002-2143-7020
    Year of publication: 2020
    Source: Show
    Pages: 150-163
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ksm20202010
    PDF: ksm/26/ksm2610.pdf

    The concept of “diplomacy” combines the foreign policy activities of state leaders and supreme authorities. At various stages of the development of society the methods and means of diplomacy changed. In the Middle Ages the protocol is the rules of paperwork and archiving. Subsequently ceremonial issues began to be attributed to the diplomatic protocol. Currently the diplomatic protocol is a set of generally accepted norms, traditions and conventions that are observed in international communication. The purpose of the study is to analyze the evolution of the Soviet protocol as an instrument of the state’s foreign policy based on the analysis of regulatory documents. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that the author considers the diplomatic legal culture as a component of the image of the state, in which ideology influenced all aspects of society, including the rules of communication between a Soviet citizen and foreign partners. It was revealed that the employees of the Protocol Department of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (PCFA), and primarily its head D.T. Florinsky (repressed in 1934) and V.N. Barkov (repressed in 1941, rehabilitated in 1958), were able to “reconcile”, as evidenced by regulatory documents, the European diplomatic protocol with the norms of Soviet ideology. Through its work the Protocol Department tried to destroy the idea of the USSR as an “empire of evil”; it was part of the positive image of the USSR, like the Bolshoi Theater, Soviet sports and Russian literature. As an actor in world politics the Soviet Union could not but accept the main provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Ignoring the international norms of the protocol is a denial of equality, sovereignty, territorial integrity of the state, and as a result, loss of reputation in the eyes of the world community.

  • “The struggle of pamphlets” (1791) . Ukrainian diplomats in London at the end of the XVIIIth century

    Author: Oksana Zakharova
    E-mail: semendajtataana@jmail.com
    Institution: National Academy of Management of Culture and Arts
    ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2143-7020
    Year of publication: 2020
    Source: Show
    Pages: 71-82
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/rop2020305
    PDF: rop/13/rop1305.pdf

    Throughout the XVIIIth century, Anglo-Russian relations were very contentious. The Ochakov crisis of 1791 risked escalating into direct military action between Russia and England. Ambassador Count S.R. Vorontsov managed to garner the support of members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons of the English Parliament, come in contact with the Prime Minister, members of his cabinet and opposition leaders. The above mentioned allowed him to handle the possibilities of the press, publishing houses and the opposition during the Ochakov crisis of 1791 as well as influenced a public opinion in Britain. In large part, because of the active actions of S.R. Vorontsov and his office staff, it was possible to avoid an armed conflict between Russia and England. One of the closest employees of Semyon Romanovich was the son of a Ukrainian priest Yakov Ivanovich Smirnov, who was considered by many contemporaries as one of the outstanding employees of the office of the Russian Embassy. Ya. I. Smirnov was knighted of the Order of St. John under Paul I, and then the Emperor’s stunning decision took place – the priest was appointed charge d’affaires of Russia in London. V.F. Malinovskiy, the future first director of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, served in Vorontsov’s office. After leaving London, he worked as a secretary at the negotiations in Iași in 1792. As well as V.F. Malinovskiy, V.P. Kochubey hailed from Ukraine. The nephew of Count A.A. Bezborodko was in London from the early spring of 1789 until January of 1791. In 1793, Vorontsov gave V.P. Kochubey, who was diligently engaged in his education, a brilliant character reference. Over the course of his service, Count S.R. Vorontsov regularly defended the interests of the employees of his office; he knew how to gather individuals for his inner circle and work. In the XIXth century, there was a concept of “official of the Vorontsov school”. S.R. Vorontsov and members of his office used the methods of modern public diplomacy, which implies means used by governments, private groups and particular persons to change the views of other people and governments in order to influence their external political decisions. Public diplomacy is a tool for creating the image of the state. Appealing to public opinion, publication of government documents, use of the mass media and issuance of brochure for manifesting one’s position are methods which play a crucial role in modern public diplomacy, which originated due to Ukrainian diplomats as well.

  • Diplomatic Counterculture as a Tool of the Soviet Foreign Policy

    Author: Oksana Zakharova
    E-mail: semendajtataana@gmail.com
    Institution: National Academy of Management of Culture and Arts
    ORCID: https:/orcid.org/0000-0002-2143-7020
    Year of publication: 2020
    Source: Show
    Pages: 10-21
    DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/ksm20200301
    PDF: ksm/27/ksm2701.pdf

    The article deals with the study of the issue of diplomatic counterculture the definition of which the author introduces into scientific use. The breach of protocol takes place either due to its ignorance, which is non-typical for professional politicians, or for a public demonstration of zero tolerance to particular political objectives. In this context, the meeting of the Polish charge d’affaires with a representative of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs (NKID) in Moscow dated February 1, 1995 is of special interest. The latter demanded from the diplomat to comment behavior of some members of the diplomatic corps, who didn’t stand up when signing the Internationale (anthem in that period) during one of the official events. Another NKID’s complaint against the diplomatic corps concerned the reluctance of diplomats to stand up for greeting the Soviet vozhds (leaders), including J.V. Stalin who didn’t hold any official leadership post in the system of the Soviet state. In the author’s opinion, J.V. Stalin was one among Soviet politicians of the most sophisticated improvisers, professionally manipulating the norms of diplomatic protocol and etiquette. In 1939, J. Ribbentrop had talked about vozhd as a man with extraordinary power. Stalin managed to daze Minister of Foreign Affairs of German and, in August 1942, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom W. Churchill marked Stalin’s hospitality at a dinner in the Kremlin and offered to drink to his health. It has been found that one of the blatant cases of diplomatic counterculture is the conduct of N.S. Khrushchev during the meeting at the United Nations General Assembly in 1960. “Shoe diplomacy” didn’t raise the credibility of the Soviet leader in the minds of the global community. The ignorance of protocol rules may lead to the loss of the reputation of a government leader, and as a consequence, negatively affect the country’s image, its attractiveness, which is a hallmark of the “softpower” of the state.

Wiadomość do:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart