Cultural and Philosophical Analysis of Collective Identity and its Representation in Cinema

Introduction. The current processes of deglobalization and decolonization in culture pose the task of rethinking and conducting a systematic and holistic analysis of the concept of collective identity from the perspective philosophy of culture. By utilizing culturalphilosophical paradigms, it becomes possible to overcome the limitations imposed by social constructivism and psychodynamic approaches to describing collective identity, and to describe collective identity as a stable objective interpersonal phenomenon. This article distinguishes between introgenic and extragenic types of collective identity, which differ in their sources of formation, significance for individuals and characteristics.

Methodology and sources. This research is based on the methodological foundations of symbolic interactionism, Mikhail Bakhtin's dialogical model of culture, Jurgen Habermas's ̈ discursive approach, and the systemic-holistic analysis developed by Moisey Kagan.

Results and discussion. Collective identity is considered as the result of aligning sociocultural experience with a system of values through communication. It involves the establishment of boundaries and the production of symbols that guide the process of identification. Cultural and ethnic identities are considered as introgenic types of collective identity, characterized by existential significance. Being dynamic, an identification leads to the formation of a stable and defined cultural or ethnic identity that seeks to maintain its boundaries and foundations even in the face of transformative influences. This is related to the processes of intersubjective interpretation, communication, and collectivity underlying their formation. Cinematic works do not merely reflect the world directly; they present it through languages and discourses, serving as reflections of reflections and social expressions that objectify the axiosphere. Cinema as a whole, and regional cinema in particular, reflects cultural values and identity, modeling ethnic diversity and illustrating the perspectives of cultural bearers. This way of representation liberates cultural or ethnic identity from distortions typical of exoticism and ethnographism that arise when describing local cultures through the eyes of the Other.

Conclusion. Currently, collective identity is only achievable through communicative interaction and it is based on the awareness of shared opportunities to participate in identity formation. This implies an equal contribution from both individuals and the objectified system of values and symbols through collective memory.

1. Khomyakov, M.B. (2006), “Identity, tolerance and the idea of citizenship”, Grazhdanskie, ehtnicheskie i religioznye identichnosti v sovremennoi Rossii [Civil, ethnic and religious identities in modern Russia], Institute of Sociology RAS, Moscow, RUS, pp. 30–56.

2. Levicheva, V.F. and Dimans, S.L. (2023), “Social identity as a result of informal interactions Friend or Foe”, RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Ser. Philosophy. Social Studies. Art Studies, no. 2, pp. 73–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6401-2023-2-73-83.

3. Nemchina, V.I. (2014), “The dominant strategy for the identification and production of collectivities”, Humanities of the South of Russia, no. 3, pp. 121–128.

4. Nemchina, V.I. (2013), “Reproduction frames of collective identities”, Social and humanitarian knowledge, no. 7, pp. 78–83.

5. Demichev, I.V. and Sultanova, G.D. (2017), “Identity as a sociocultural phenomenon”, Logos et Praxis, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 40–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2017.3.6.

6. Golovneva, E.V. (2013), “Regional identity as a form of collective identity and its structure”, Labyrinth. J. of Social and Humanitarian Studies, no. 5, pp. 42–50.

7. Budenkova, V.E. and Savelieva, E.N. (2016), “Identity as a topic of theoretical and methodological analysis: models and approaches”, Tomsk State Univ. J. of Cultural Studies and Art History, no. 1 (21), pp. 31–44. DOI: 10.17223/22220836/21/4.

8. Anderson, B. (2016), Imagined Communities, Transl. by Nikolaev, V., Kuchkovo pole, Moscow, RUS.

9. Bauman, Z. (2008), Liquid modernity, Transl. by Asochakov, Yu.V. (ed.), Piter, SPb., RUS.

10. Erickson, E. (1996), Identity: youth and crisis, Transl. by Andreeva, A.D. et al., Progress, Moscow, RUS.

11. Shul'ga, E.N. (2012), “Symbolic interactionism and rationality”, Kommunikativnaya ratsional'nost' i sotsial'nye kommunikatsii [Communicative rationality and social communications], Alfa, Moscow, RUS, pp. 275–287.

12. Bakhtin, M.M. (1979), Problemy poehtiki Dostoevskogo [Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics], Sovetskaya Rossiya, Moscow, USSR.

13. Schlesinger, P. (1989), “Identidad nacional: Una crítica de lo que se entiende y malentiende sobre este concepto”, Estudios sobre las Culturas Contemporáneas, vol. II, no. 006, pp. 39–98.

14. Habermas, J. (1987), The theory of communicative action. Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason, Bacon Press, Boston, MA, USA.

15. Bidney, D. (1997), “Theoretical Anthropology”, Transl. by Nikolaev, V.G., Antologiya issledovanii kul'tury [Anthology of cultural studies], vol. 1, Universitetskaya kniga, SPb., RUS, pp. 57–90.

16. Rodríguez Soriano, M.O. (2020), ”Identidad, cultura y etnicidad: una aproximación teórica. Apuntes acerca de la problemática sociocultural e identitaria de los latinos en Estados Unidos”, Novedades en Población, no. 16 (32), pp. 212–241.

17. Gasheva, N.N. (2012), “Modern Russian cinematography: cultural aspect”, Bulletin of Kemerovo State Univ. of Culture and Art, no. 21, pp. 90–100.

18. García Mendoza, J. (2005), “Exordio a la memoria colectiva y el olvido social”, Athenea Digital, no. 8, pp. 1–26.

19. Kryukova, O.A. (2020) “Le cinéma comme marqueur d'identité (sur l’exemple du cinéma québécois)”, Francophonie: langue, culture et problèmes identitaires, vol. 11, pp. 86–98.

20. Bakhtin, M.M. (2003), “Lectures and speeches of M. M. Bakhtin 1924-1925 in the notes of L.V. Pumpyansky”, Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works] in 7 vols., vol. 1, Russkie slovari, Moscow, RUS, pp. 326–342.

21. Shohat, E. and Stam, R. (2002), Multiculturalismo, cine y medios de comunicación. Critica del pensamiento eurocéntrico, Paidós, Barcelona, ESP.

22. Kagan, M.S. (1997), Filosofskaya teoriya tsennosti [Philosophical theory of value], Petropolis, SPb., RUS.