Представительство России в нобелевском пантеоне: социокультурная составляющая присужденных и неприсужденных премий
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
|---|---|
| Předmět: | |
| DOI: | 10.24412/2070-075x-2021-2-7-15 |
| Popis: | Столетний юбилей А.Д. Сахарова, выдающегося ученого и борца за мир, отмечаемый в мае 2021 г., вновь привлек внимание не только к сложной эволюции его гражданской позиции, но и к особенностям присуждения и неприсуждения Нобелевских премий в области как науки, так и литературы и миротворческой деятельности. В статье анализируются социокультурные, а в последнее время и отчетливо геополитические составляющие выдвижения претендентов и последующих решений Нобелевского комитета, буквально с первых лет учреждения премии. Эмпирическим материалом теоретического анализа послужила хронология Нобелевских премий в корреляции с социокультурными особенностями/обстоятельствами соответствующих периодов политической истории. During the one hundred-and-twenty years of the Nobel Prize, it remains the highest recognition of achievements in science, literature and peacekeeping. In connection with the special position of Russia in the modern world, an analysis of its representation in the “pantheon” of the winners is highly relevant. The chronology of the Nobel Prizes served as empirical material, in which the authors reveal the ever-increasing sociocultural, including geopolitical, component in the fate of the prizes that have and have not been awarded. In a whole series of domestic studies, an inevitable question was why so surprisingly and insultingly few Nobel Prizes went to the representatives of Russia (in all three fields), but most often authors refer to the so-called scientometric factors, and, in assessing political factors, they do not go beyond the globally dominant hypertrophied political correctness. Celebrated in May 2021, the centenary of the birth of A.D. Sakharov gave a reason to start the article with the figure of this outstanding scientist and human rights activist, and with an analysis of the evolution of his civic position from duty to his country to duty to humanity, his forced secrecy as a scientist, and recognition as a citizen of the world. The article, however, draws attention to the fact that from the very first years of the award, such outstanding scientists as D.I. Mendeleev, who was nominated three times and rejected by Nobel himself (Nobel had significant interests in the Baku oil fields and certainly knew about Mendeleev’s extremely negative attitude to the thoughtless use of oil as fuel). Mendeleev was also accused of nationalism. Before 1914, two representatives of Russia received the Nobel Prize in science; and in the Soviet period the first award went to Russia’s scientist only in 1956. Subsequently, all other things being equal, the prize was invariably awarded to foreign scientists: cooperation with them, including co-authored publications in English, was attractive. Undoubtedly, the state of culture in the country primarily depends on its funding, the overall quality of life, and the number of held and predicted awards in science directly depends on the number of scientists. As noted in the article, this does not justify the blind submission of our scientists to such rather conventional criteria as citation and, even more so, insufficient activity at international congresses and efforts to invite them to Russia. Attention is also drawn to the fact that even L. Tolstoy did not receive the Nobel Prize, and, in the decisions of the Nobel Committee, five of our undoubtedly deserved winners were united by the fact that they could look like “victims of the regime”, fighters against it, or at least exposers. The sociocultural, or, bluntly, political, background of the Nobel Peace Prizes is equally clearly traced. Thus, at the moment, the Nobel Prizes, designed to unite people and make culture a common heritage of humanity, rather split it. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|