/
Search results


Пантелеева А. В. Роль дискурсивных практик в формировании маргинальности общин мессианского иудаизма // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2014. Вып. 3 (53). С. 81-90. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201453.81-90
The author attempts to analyze the most significant stages of the developing of the Messianic conception within Judaism as well as the cultural and historical conditions and mechanisms which contributed to the marginalizing of Messianic Jewish communities within Judaism. The main research instrument used by the author is the discourse analysis method proposed by M. Foucault as well as the method of problematization developed and systematized later by Castel. Given methodology presupposes a reconstruction of historical events as refracted by their modern perception; the aims are, fi rstly, to discover invariant models or continuity that are instrumental in preserving the identity of problematization in its constant transformations and, secondly, to single out the principles of varying, that is the variant models of the phenomenon under study. In our case, the problematization emerges at the moment when abruption or marginalization of Messianic Jewish communities takes place. At the end the author arrives at the following conclusions: with respect to Messianic Judaism it is obvious that in the course of its historical development the term «Messianic» has acquired and appropriated negative connotations which was preconditioned mainly by the fact that Messianic communities and groups which shared and actively propagated the Messianic ideas in the society were perceived and declared by the dominant religious tradition as unacceptable, heretical or marginal phenomena destabilizing the established order.
G. Simmel, M. Foucault, marginality, Christianity, Messiah, Messianic Judaism, discourse, narrative, cultural borders, discourse analysis, mythopoeia.

1. Green W. S. 1987 “Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question” in: Green W. S., Neusner J., Frerichs E. (eds.) Judaims and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 1–13.
2. Horsley R. A. 1984 “Popular messianic movements around the time of Jesus” in: Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1984, vol. 46, pp. 471–495.
3. Hughes E. 1945 “Social Change and Status Protest: An Essay on the Marginal Man” in: Phylon-Atlanta, 1945, vol. 10/1, pp. 58–65.
4. Park R. 1928 “Human Migration and the Marginal Man” in: The American journal of sociology, 1928, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 881–893.
5. Simmel G. 1972 “The sociological significance of the stranger” in: Park R., Burgess E. (eds.) Introduction to the science of sociology, Chicago, 1972, pp. 322–327.
6. Siu P. S. P. 1958 “The Sojourner” in: The American journal of sociology, 1958, vol. 58, pp. 34–36.
7. Ban'kovskaja S. P.2007 “ Drugoj kak jelementarnoe ponjatie social'noj ontologii” (Another One as Elementery Concept of Social Ontology) in: Socioloicheskoe obozrenie, 2007, vol. 1, pp. 75–87.
8. Bart R. 1996 “Mif segodnja” (Myth Today) in: Mifologii, Moscow, 1996, pp. 233–251.
9. Danchenko O. “Vozvrashhenie k istokam” in: http:in:www.myzion.ru (27. 04. 14).
10. Donin H. Byt' Evreem (To Be a Jew), Rostov, 1999.
11. Duglas M. Chistota i opasnost': analiz predstavlenij ob oskvernenii i tabu (Purity and Danger: Analysis of Notions on Desecration and Taboo), Moscow, 2000.
12. Zimmel' G. Izbrannoe (Selected Works), Moscow, 1996, vol. 2.
13. Ierushalmi I. H. Zahor (Zachor). Tel Aviv, 1998.
14. Solovejchik J. B. Obshhina zaveta (Society of Testament), Jerusalem, 1989.
15. Fakengejm Je. «Chto takoe iudaizm». Sovremennaja interpretacija (“What is Judaism”. Modern Interpretation), Moscow, 2002.
Пантелеева А. В. От религиозных практик к религиозным нарративам как смыслообразующим моделям поддержания солидарности в сообществе // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2017. Вып. 71. С. 119-130. DOI: 10.15382/sturI201771.119-130
Taking into account Durkheim’s declaration about religion as a base for human solidarity, this article aims to trace the dynamics of those mechanisms that allow religion to play this role in transient conditions. The paper demonstrates how E. Durkheim’s theoretical programme is interpreted by one of his followers, the founder of cultural sociology J. Alexander, and how it is used in cultural and sociological methodology. The paper also draws attention to the fact that J. Alexander remains within the paradigm proposed by E. Durkheim, in which cognitive and social structures correlate and interact; however, at the same time he develops the Weberian approach emphasising an important role of such symbolic systems as language, myth, narrative in the organisation of human experience, behaviour and consciousness. J. Alexander draws on both approaches to the understanding of religion, but redefines religion as a discourse or as a series of narratives that transmits, on the one hand, a certain tradition of describing social reality, and, on the other hand, makes possible for this reality to be rewritten and to acquire a different meaning. The paper demonstrates the relevance of E. Durkheim’s basic assumption about the solidifying role of religion and describes the way how the emphasis on the authorising role of religious practices is gradually moving to the sense-building function of religious narratives.
E. Durkheim, solidarity, religious narratives, functions of religion, discourse

Alexander J. C., “The Promise of a Cultural Borisenkova A. V., Metodologiya sotsialnogo Sociology: Technological Discourse and the poznaniya v traktovke Paul Ricoeur: krit-Sacred and Profane Information Machine”, icheskiy analiz osnovaniy teorii narrativov, in: Кonteksti sovremennosti, Кazan, 2001. Мoscow, 2011.
Alexander J. C., Smith Ph., eds., The Cam-Brockmeier J., Harre R., “Narrative: Problems bridge Companion to Durkheim, Cambridge, and promises of an alternative paradigm”, 2005. in: Voprosi philosophii, 3, 2000, 29–42.
Alexander J. C., The Meanings of Social Life, Durkheim E., “The Elementary Forms of Re-Moscow, 2013. ligions Life”, in: Мistika. Religiya. Nauka.
Alexander J. C., The Meanings of Social Life: A Кlassiki mirovogo religiovedeniya. Аntologiya, Cultural Sociology, New York, 2003. Мoscow, 1998.
Durkheim E., The Division of Labour in Society, Мoscow, 1996.
Gofman А. B., “Religiya v philosophsko-sociologicheskoy kontseptsii E. Durkheima”, in: Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 4, 1975, 178–187.
Maturana H. R., Varela F. J., The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding, Моscow, 2001.
Rawls A. W., “Durkheim’s treatment of practice: Concrete practice vs. representations as the foundation of reason”, in: Sotsiologicheskoe obozreniye, 4, 1, 2005, 3–30.
Rawls A., Epistemology and Practice, Cambridge, 2004.
Ricoeur P., History and Truth, Saint Petersburg, 2002.
Schmaus W., Rethinking Durkheim and his tradition, Cambridge, 2004.
Schütz А., Izbrannoe: Mir, svetyaschiysya smislom, Мoscow, 2004.
Trotsuk I. V., “Narrativ as an interdisciplinary methodological construct of contemporary social science”, in: Vestnik RUDN, Sociology, 6–7, 2004, 56–72.
Weber М., The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Izbrannie proizvedeniya, Мoscow, 1990, 44–271.
Yereksheeva L. G., “K analizy sotsiologii religii E Durkheima”, in: Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 12, 2008, 117–126.
Panteleeva Anna
Academic Degree: graduate student;
Place of work: Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State University 27-4 Lomonosovskij prospekt, 119992 Moscow, Russian Federation;
Пантелеева А. В. Священник и пациент: практики взаимодействия в пространстве больницы // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия I: Богословие. Философия. 2020. Вып. 88. С. 121-132. DOI: 10.15382/sturI202088.121-132
This article presents results of a fi eld study carried out at Sklifosofsky Institute. Using the obtained results, it analyses the role of a hospital priest both within the space of the hospital, in the system of hospital interaction and in a broader perspective; its aim is to identify reasons for a social tension emerging around the discussion about the lawfulness and necessity of the priest’s presence at hospital. The article employs theoretical framework developed by I. Goff mann and M. Foucault, describes the specificity of interaction of the priest and the patient conditioned by the heterotopic space, examines practices and strategies of interaction in conditions of hospital (these are non-characteristic of the participants), distribution of symbolic power in these relations. Despite the fact that offi cial legal documents declare the right of the priest to conduct religious rites in the territory of hospital, the presence of priests or availability of chapels and churches can provoke mixed reactions in some patients and visitors. This study attempts to give an integrated idea of how the interaction between the priest, patient, visitors, nurses, hospital personnel takes place and to answer the question why mixed reactions arise. Observations have shown that the sourse of mixed reactions is the co-presence of participants of the interaction in the heterotopic space unusual to all of them, which weakens the hierarchic system and disrupts the distribution of symbolic power among the participants. The participants are forced to interact with each other face to face. This face-to-face interaction imposes certain restrictions on them and inspires certain expectations which under these circumstances can only be supported by the voluntary desire to save the face of each participant. The priest is, on the one hand, in a privileged position because his status is maintained by the assistant nurses. On the other hand, his position is vulnerable because the space of heterotopia weakens his right to a special status.
prayer service, heterotopia, Orthodoxy, priest, religion, healthcare, symbolic power
  1. Ambarczumov I., svyashh. (2008) “Bol`nichny`j khram: istoriya prodolzhaetsya” [“Hospital temple: the story continues”]. Voda zhivaya, vol. 4, available at: www.pravmir.ru/bolnichnyjxram-istoriya-prodolzhaetsya/ (17.11.2019) (in Russian).
  2. Boriskin A. (2012) “Osobennosti pravoslavnogo pasty`rskogo sluzheniya v detskoĭ bol`nitse” [“Features of Orthodox pastoral ministry in a children’s hospital”]. Khristianskoe chtenie, no. 1, pp. 185–200 (in Russian).
  3. Conroy Natalia (2019) “Mezhdu teologiei i zabotoi: obzor issledovanii bol’nichnogo sluzheniya” [“Between theology and care: what does it mean to be a hospital chaplain?”]. Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial’ni politiki, vol. 17, issue 3, pp. 375–390 (in Russian).
  4. Emelyanov Nikolaj N. (2019) “Zhatvy` mnogo, a delatele`j malo”: problema vzaimodeystviya svyashennikov i miryan v sovremenno`j Rossii [“The Harvest Truly is Plentiful, but the Laborers are Few”: The problem of Cooperation between Clergy and Laity in Contemporary Russia]. Moscow: Izd-vo PSTGU (in Russian).
  5. Foucault Michel (1966) The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. Moscow (Russian translation).
  6. Foucault Michel (1984) Of other spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Moscow (Russian translation).
  7. Goff man Erving (1965) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Moscow (Russian translation).
  8. Goff man Erving (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Moscow (Russian translation).
  9. Kantaryuk Ekaterina A. (2016) “Bol’nichnye khramy v pravoslavnoi kul’ture sovremennoi Rossii (semiotiko-khudozhestvennye smysly)” [“Hospital churches in the orthodox culture of the modern russia (semiotic and artistic meanings)”]. Obshhestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul`tura, vol. 5, pp. 45–46 (in Russian).
  10. Kantaryuk Ekaterina A. (2016) “Bol’nichnye khramy pravoslavnoi Rossii: k semantike gosudarstvennogo popecheniya” [“Hospital churches of the orthodox Russia: semantics of public care”]. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura, vol. 7, pp. 51–53 (in Russian).
  11. Kantaryuk Ekaterina A. (2016) “Sotsial’noe i sakral’noe v ekzistentsial’nom prostranstve bol’nichnogo khrama” [“Social and sacred in the existential space of hospital churches”]. Obshhestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul`tura, vol. 8, pp. 39–41 (in Russian).
  12. Krihtova Tatiana (2019) “«Gospod’ na pervom etazhe»: pravoslavnye chasovni v prostranstve meditsinskikh uchrezhdenii” [“«The Lord is on the ground fl oor»: Orthodox chapels in the space of medical institutions”]. INTER, vol. 17, pp. 61–75 (in Russian).
  13. Panteleimon (Shatov), еpiskop. (2019) Bol`nichny`j svyashhennik [Hospital priest]. Moscow: Nikeya (in Russian).
  14. Vakhshtajn Victor (2011) Sociologiya povsednevnosti i teorii frejmov [Sociology of everyday life and theories of frames]. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatel`stvo Evropejskogo Universiteta (in Russian).
  15. Voronova Lyudmila (2019) Interview, available at: www.miloserdie.ru/article/sestra-miloserdiyakapitan-dalnego-plavaniya (17.11.2019) (in Russian).
Panteleeva Anna
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov per., Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-8559-8878;
Email: panteleeva.a.v@gmail.com.
This article was prepared as part of the project “Religious Leadership in Late Antiquity - Early Middle Ages” of the Ecclesiastical Institutions Research Laboratory (EIRL), STOU with the support of the Development Fund of STOU.