Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis reveals the complexities of state identity formation in post-Soviet countries, highlighting intentionality and the EU/NATO aspirations.
This article applies the phenomenological approach of Edmund Husserl, in particular the concepts of intention-ality of consciousness and phenomenological reduction, to analyze the process of formation of state identity in post-Soviet countries. The author considers the state as a dynamic phenomenon, constituted and constantly redefined by acts of collective intentionality directed at it as a source of order, legitimacy and identity. The key problem lies in the contradictory nature of the search for a new identity by countries aspiring to join the EU/NATO. On the one hand, this implies a radical rethinking and rejection of the Soviet experience through specific intentional acts (symbolic politics, decommunization, language reforms). On the other hand, the ques-tion arises about the authenticity of the new identity: is the desire for abstract “Europeanness” replacing one form of alienation with another? Using V.S. Stepin’s typology of rationality, the author identifies a fundamental difference in the ways of development: Russia demonstrates the features of classical rationality (striving for hierarchy, determinism, universal truths). On the contrary, most other post-Soviet countries are in the zone of post-nonclassical rationality, where collective intentionality is aimed at actively redefining the state as an “unfin-ished project”, which manifests itself in a permanent revision of the foundations of identity and legitimacy. The examples of the policies of these countries show how an intentional act aimed at “Europe” materializes in at-tempts to symbolically “put aside” the Soviet past. It is concluded that true identity does not require a simple break or adherence to an ideal, but a phenomenological understanding of the entire continuum of historical existence in all its complexity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kirill I. Psarev (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: