Material Elements of the Political Landscape of Moscow as a Capital

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The urban environment of Moscow is considered through the concept of the political landscape as a complex of environment-shaping, representative objects. The image of the capital is not only the political history of the state, captured in buildings and monuments, but also a mirror of the representations of the national elite about its social support, development prospects, the outside world, and diverse social ideas about space. Official buildings as the focus of the political and administrative functions of the capital and city monuments are shown in the study as the dominant categories of place, a matrix of new representations that determine the evolution of the urban political and symbolic landscape. The objective of the study is to trace the stages of evolution of the most important material elements of the Moscow political landscape: the location, the construction time, the origin, and other features of the buildings of state institutions and monuments. The features of the modern spatial distribution of government buildings and monuments are studied. The historical hyperconcentration of government buildings in the capital center has been confirmed. Two large areas of high concentration of government buildings are identified: around Lubyanka, Kitai-Gorod, Staraya and Novaya squares and within the Moscow City business complex, as well as the relationship between the significance of a government agency and proximity to the Presidential Administration and the Kremlin as the main centers of decision-making. Despite the transfer of several federal agencies outside the center, there has not yet been a noticeable spatial decentralization of the administrative functions of the capital. In turn, the geography of the monuments repeats the general patterns of the capital plan. Their location reveals the radial-ring and sectoral structures of the city, as well as the specialization of districts. The absolute dominants of the landscape are the monuments dedicated to the heroes and events of the Great Patriotic War (more than 40% of the total number of monuments), which is one of the basics of modern Russian identity. The importance and significance of many capital monuments as an element of the political landscape is based on a strong long-term discourse. Despite some changes (the installation of monuments to rehabilitated public and political figures, victims of new wars and terrorist acts, as well as orthodox monuments), the monumental landscape of the capital is quite stable.

About the authors

V. A. Kolosov

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: vladimirkolossov@gmail.com
Russia, Moscow

M. V. Zotova

Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: zotova@igras.ru
Russia, Moscow

A. I. Alexandrova

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography

Author for correspondence.
Email: alksssssss@yandex.ru
Russia, Moscow

A. S. Karasev

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Geography

Author for correspondence.
Email: karasyovalex@yandex.ru
Russia, Moscow

References

  1. Алпатов М.В. Русское искусство XVIII века. М., 1958. 642 с.
  2. Балыбердина Е.В. Пушкин: код национальной идентичности // На путях к новой школе. 2012. № 1. С. 47–49.
  3. Бочаров Ю.П. Трансформация столицы: от Ленина до Путина (в порядке дискуссии) // Academia. Архитектура и строительство. 2005. № 2. С. 20–25.
  4. Веденин Ю.А., Кулешова М.Е. Культурные ландшафты как объект природного и культурного наследия // Изв. РАН. Сер. Геогр. 2001. № 1. С. 7–14.
  5. Гайдай А.Ю., Любарец А.В. “Ленинопад”: избавление от прошлого как способ конструирования будущего (на материалах Днепропетровска, Запорожья и Харькова) // Вестн. Пермского ун-та. История. 2016. № 2 (33). С. 28–41.
  6. Гриценко А.А. Культурный и политический ландшафт // Идентичность: Личность, общество, политика. Энциклопедическое издание / отв. ред. И.С. Семененко. М.: Весь мир, 2017. С. 540–545.
  7. Дружинин А.Г. Пролонгация “москвоцентричности” российского пространства: pro et contra // Полис. Политические исследования. 2018. № 5. С. 29–42.
  8. Идентичность: Личность, общество, политика. Энциклопедическое издание / отв. ред. И.С. Семененко. М.: Весь мир, 2017. 992 с.
  9. Каганский В.Л. Культурный ландшафт и советское обитаемое пространство. М.: НЛО, 2001. 576 с.
  10. Калуцков В.Н. Ландшафт в культурной географии. М.: Новый хронограф, 2008. 320 с.
  11. Кринко Е.Ф., Горюшина Е.М. События и участники Смутного времени в мемориальной культуре России // Вестн. Волгоградского гос. ун-та. Серия 4: История. Регионоведение. Международные отношения. 2019. Т. 24. № 2. С. 203–214.
  12. Лавренова О.А. Стратегии “прочтения” текста культурного ландшафта // Эпистемология и философия науки. 2009. № 22 (4). С. 123–141.
  13. Лавренова О.А. Ленин – жив! Памятники вождю революции в постсоветском культурном ландшафте / География искусства: многомерные образы пространства. М.: ГИТР, 2022. С. 113–130.
  14. Малинова О.Ю. Великая Отечественная война как символический ресурс: Эволюция отображения в официальной риторике 2000–2010-х гг. // Россия и современный мир. 2015. № 2 (87). С. 6–29.
  15. Памятники монументального искусства Москвы. М.: Милк Эйдженси, 2016. 404 с.
  16. Подвинцев О.Б. Вопрос о переносе столицы в современной России / Перенос столицы: исторический опыт геополитического проектирования: матер. науч. конф. (Москва, октябрь 2013) / отв. ред. И.Г. Коновалова. М.: Институт всеобщей истории РАН, 2013. С. 114–119.
  17. Россман В. Столицы, их многообразие, закономерности развития и перемещения. М.: Издательство Института Гайдара, 2013. 336 с.
  18. Слука Н.А. Глобальный город: теория и реальность. М.: Аванглион, 2007. 243 с.
  19. Туровский Р.Ф. Политический ландшафт как категория политического анализа // Вестн. Моск. ун-та. Серия 12. Политические науки. 1995. № 3. С. 33–44.
  20. Чубуков В.В. Всенародный памятник Пушкину: 200-летию А.С. Пушкина посвящается. М.: “Тверская, 13”, 1999. 160 с.
  21. Adams P.C., Lavrenova O.A. Monuments to Lenin in the post-Soviet cultural landscape // Social Semiotics. 2022. Vol. 32. № 5. P. 708–727.
  22. Agnew J. Space and Place / J. Agnew, D. Livingstone (Eds.). The SAGE handbook of Geographical Knowledge. London: Sage, 2011. P. 316–330.
  23. Bellentani F. The Meanings of the Built Environment a Semiotic and Geographical Approach to Monuments in the Post-Soviet Era. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2021. 188 p.
  24. Berlin–Washington, 1800–2000: Capital Cities, Cultural Representations, and National Identities / A.W. Daum, C. Mauch (Eds.). NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007. 318 p.
  25. Claval P. Les espaces de la politique. Paris: Armand Colin, 2010. 416 p.
  26. Cosgrove D.E. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1998. 293 p.
  27. Debarbieux B. L’espace de l’imaginaire. Essais et détours. Paris: Edition du CNRS, 2021. 312 p.
  28. Forest B., Johnston J. Unraveling the Threads of History: Soviet-Era Monuments and Post-Soviet National Identity in Moscow // Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 2002. Vol. 92. № 3. P. 524–547.
  29. Gottmann J. The Significance of Territory. Charlottesville, VA: Univ. of Virginia Press, 1973. 169 p.
  30. Hartshorne R. The Functional Approach in Political Geography // Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 1950. Vol. 40. № 2. P. 95–130.
  31. Kliot N., Mansfeld Y. The political landscape of partition. The case of Cyprus // Political Geography. 1997. Vol. 16. № 6. P. 495–521.
  32. Kolosov V. Political polarization at the national and the intra-urban levels: the role of Moscow in Russian politics and the socio-political cleavages within the city // GeoJ. 1997. Vol. 42. № 4. P. 385–401.
  33. Kolosov V., O’Loughlin J. Building identities in post-Soviet “de facto states”: cultural and political icons in Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Transdniestria, and Abkhazia // Eurasian Geography and Economics. 2017. Vol. 58. № 6. P. 691–715.
  34. Kolosov V., Vendina O., O’Loughlin J. Moscow as an Emergent World City: International Links, Business Development, and the Entrepreneurial City // Eurasian Geography and Economics. 2002. Vol. 43. № 3. P. 170–197.
  35. Pallot J. Land Reform in Russia, 1906–1917: Peasant Responses to Stolypin’s Project of Rural Transformation. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999. 272 p.
  36. Sargin G.A. Displaced Memories, or the Architecture of Forgetting and Remembrance // Environment and Planning D.: Society and Space. 2004. Vol. 22. № 5. P. 659–680.
  37. Scott J.C. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1999. 464 p.
  38. Scott J.C. L'œil de l'État. Moderniser, uniformiser, détruire. Paris, La Découverte, 2021. 540 p.
  39. Stephens A.C. The Persistence of Nationalism: From Imagined Communities to Urban Encounters. L.: Routledge, 2013. 162 p.
  40. Taylor P., Walker D., Catalano G., Hoyler M. Diversity and power in the world city network // Cities. 2002. Vol. 19. № 9. P. 231–241.
  41. Thorez J. Le développement de la nouvelle capitale du Kazakhstan, Astana / Nur-Sultan (1998–2018): croissance, capitalisation et normalisation // Cybergeo: European J. of Geography, Espace, Société, Territoire. 2019. doc. 897. https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.32223
  42. Vale L.J. Capitals’ architecture and national identity / Minkenberg M. (Ed.). The Construction of Capitals and the Politics of Space. NY: Oxford, Berghahn Books, 2014. P. 31–53.
  43. Wittlesey D. The Earth and the State. N.: Holt, 1944. 618 p.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2.

Download (1MB)
3.

Download (520KB)
4.

Download (94KB)
5.

Download (1009KB)

Copyright (c) 2023 В.А. Колосов, М.В. Зотова, А.И. Александрова, А.С. Карасев

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies