Director of the Likhachev Heritage Institute. Likhachev Dmitry Sergeevich

The Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage was created by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation in 1992.

The creation of the institute was determined by the need to implement the provisions of the UNESCO Convention “On the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” and take effective measures to preserve, improve and develop the historical, cultural and natural environment. The purpose of creating the Institute is defined in a government decree as scientific support for state cultural policy and regional programs for the preservation and use of national heritage.

The history of the institute is closely connected with the work of the Soviet Cultural Foundation, created in the late 1980s and working under the leadership of D. S. Likhachev. The core of the institute’s team was made up of specialists who participated in the work of the Council for Unique Territories of the Soviet Cultural Fund.

The activities of the new institute were guided by precisely those principles that were developed during work at the Cultural Foundation, in scientific expeditions and research conducted under the patronage of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev and in the process of forming a new cultural policy and lawmaking at the transition point from the Soviet era to the new Russia. The Institute's activities are based on the fundamental role of heritage in preserving the country's cultural and natural diversity and in its sustainable development. The sphere of interests of the institute, defined at the very beginning of its functioning: methodology and theory of conservation of cultural and natural heritage, development of comprehensive territorial heritage conservation programs, formation of a system of specially protected areas, cartographic support for the sphere of heritage protection, study of living traditional culture, remains relevant today .

In 1999, the Institute was named after Academician D. S. Likhachev.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D. S. Likhachev

weaving at the Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D. S. Likhachev

Orfinskaya O.V. - [#to_traditions] - History of cutting, part 1

Orfinskaya O.V. - [#to_traditions] - History of cutting, part 2

The power of fact. Rivers.

Subtitles

General information

Organizational and legal form

Organizational and legal form - Federal state budgetary research institution under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation.

Heritage Institute and the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation

Story

The Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage was created by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation in 1992.

The Heritage Institute was created to implement the provisions of the UNESCO Convention “On the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” and take effective measures to preserve, improve and develop the historical, cultural and natural environment. The government decree defined the purpose of creation as scientific support for state cultural policy and regional programs for the preservation and use of national heritage.

The background of the Heritage Institute is connected with the Soviet Culture Foundation. The staff of the institute consisted of specialists who participated in the work of the Council on Unique Territories of the Fund. The basic principles underlying the activities of the institute were developed during work at the Soviet Cultural Foundation, in scientific expeditions and research supervised by D.S. Likhachev.

The idea of the fundamental role of heritage in preserving the cultural and natural diversity of the country and in its sustainable development is key to the activities of the institute. From the very beginning of its activities, the sphere of interests of the Heritage Institute included the methodology and theory of preserving cultural and natural heritage, the development of comprehensive territorial heritage conservation programs, the formation of a system of specially protected areas, cartographic support for the sphere of heritage protection, and the study of living traditional culture.

After the death of D. S. Likhachev in 1999, the Heritage Institute was named after him.

In 2013, public attention to the Institute was drawn in connection with personnel changes that took place in it: under pressure from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, the founder of the Institute, Yuri Vedenin, was forced to cede leadership to Pavel Yudin, whose views on the prospects for the development of the institution had previously been sharply criticized. Some experts regarded the replacement of Vedenin with Yudin - “a young man from the United Russia party - not a scientist, without a degree” - as cynical. The figure of Yudin is also associated with a plan to merge with the Institute of another research institution - which arose much earlier, approved, according to the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, which initiated this process, by the scientific community and representatives of both institutions. However, according to a number of former RIC employees, their transfer to the Heritage Institute was forced and absurd. According to the former director of the RIC, Kirill Razlogov, the affiliation of the Institute of Cultural Studies with the Institute of Cultural Heritage is due to the fact that “we perceive culture as a thing that belongs to the past. Therefore, the Heritage Institute is very useful, and everything that concerns the present and future is considered by many to be irrelevant and even harmful”; Razlogov believes that the approval of the scientific community is guaranteed for the merger of institutes, since all his opponents have already been fired. The final decision to merge the two institutions was made on January 23, 2014.

On May 30, 2014, within the framework of a meeting of the Council of Heads of Government of the CIS member states, a decision was signed to give the Heritage Institute the status of the basic organization of the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States in the field of world heritage conservation.

Structure and areas of activity

Directorate

Director of the Heritage Institute is Arseniy Stanislavovich Mironov.
First Deputy Director - Alexander Vasilyevich Okorokov, Doctor of Historical Sciences.
The Scientific Secretary of the Institute is Yuri Aleksandrovich Zakunov, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences.

Discussion of the main directions and problems of the scientific activities of the institute, discussion and approval of dissertation research of graduate students and applicants, discussion of the results of research work of the sectors and centers of the institute at the end of the year.

Council composition:

Arseny Stanislavovich Mironov - Director of the Heritage Institute
Evgeniy Vladislavovich Bakhrevsky - deputy director, head of the center for state cultural policy, candidate of philological sciences
Tatyana Viktorovna Bespalova - leading researcher at the center for interdisciplinary research, monitoring, examination and analysis of interethnic and interfaith relations, Doctor of Philosophy
Pyotr Vladimirovich Boyarsky - Deputy Director of the Heritage Institute, Head of the Center “Marine Arctic Complex Expedition and Maritime Heritage of Russia”
Irina Ivanovna Gorlova - Director of the Southern Branch, Doctor of Philosophy, Professor
Sergey Yuryevich Zhitenev - Advisor to the Director of the Institute, Candidate of Cultural Studies
Yuri Aleksandrovich Zakunov - scientific secretary, candidate of philosophical sciences
Kapitolina Antonovna Koksheneva - Head of the Department of State Cultural Policy, Doctor of Philology
Natalya Vladimirovna Kuzina - head of the postgraduate department, candidate of philological sciences
Alexander Vasilyevich Okorokov - first deputy director, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Tatyana Aleksandrovna Parkhomenko - head of the department of cultural interaction between the state, religion and society, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Vladimir Ivanovich Pluzhnikov - Head of the Department of Heritage Documentation and Information Technologies, Candidate of Art History
Yuri Stepanovich Putrik - Head of the Department of Sociocultural and Tourist Programs, Doctor of Historical Sciences
Irina Aleksandrovna Selezneva - director of the Siberian branch, candidate of historical sciences
Dmitry Leonidovich Spivak - Head of the Center for Fundamental Sociocultural and Cultural-Psychological Research, Doctor of Philology
Evgeniy Petrovich Chelyshev - chief researcher at the center for fundamental research in the field of culture, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy
Ekaterina Nikolaevna Shapinskaya - Deputy Head of the Expert Analytical Center for the Development of Educational Systems in the Field of Culture, Doctor of Philosophy
Tamara Yuryevna Yureneva - leading researcher at the museum design laboratory, Doctor of Historical Sciences

Scientific and practical events of the Institute

2006

2008

Russia: imagination of space / space of imagination. International Conference.

2012

Domestic and world experience in the conservation and use of cultural and natural heritage. International conference within the framework of events dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the creation of the Heritage Institute.

Seminar "World Cultural Heritage Sites: Preservation, Use, Popularization." December 2013

Seminar "World Cultural Heritage Sites: Preservation, Use, Popularization." May 2014

Conference " Improving government statistical observation in tourism in the Russian Federation ". July 2014

Bibliography

Proceedings of the Heritage Institute

Collective monographs

Comprehensive regional programs for the conservation and use of cultural and natural heritage (collective monograph). - M.: Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1994.
Unique territories in the cultural and natural heritage of regions / Responsible. ed. Yu. L. Mazurov. - M.: Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1994. - 215 p.
Vedenin Yu. A., Lyuty A. A., Elchaninov A. I., Sveshnikov V.V. Cultural and natural heritage of Russia (Concept and program of a comprehensive atlas). - M.: Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1995.
A comparative analysis of cultural landscape management practices. - M.: Heritage Institute, 1999.
Cultural heritage of Russia and tourism (collective monograph). - M.: Heritage Institute, 2005.
Zamyatin D. N., Zamyatina N. Yu., Mitin I. I. Modeling images of historical and cultural territory: methodological and theoretical approaches / Responsible. ed. D. N. Zamyatin. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2008. - 760 p. - ISBN 978-5-86443-133-7

Monographs

Lavrenova O. A. Geographical space in Russian poetry of the 18th - early 20th centuries: Geocultural aspect. - M.: Heritage Institute, 1998. - 95 p.
Turovsky R. F. Cultural landscapes of Russia. - M.: Heritage Institute, 1998. - 210 p.
Lavrenova O. A. Spaces and meanings: Semantics of the cultural landscape. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2010. - 330 p.

Non-system collections

Ecology of culture. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2000.

Information collection “Heritage and Modernity”

Collection "Heritage Archive"

Heritage Archive-1999 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute.
Heritage Archive-2000 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2001. - 336 p. - 600 copies. - ISBN 5-86443-051-X
Heritage Archive-2001 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2002. - 388 p. - 600 copies. - ISBN 5-86443-081-1
Heritage Archive-2002 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute.
Heritage Archive-2003 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2005.
Heritage Archive-2004 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute.
Heritage Archive-2005 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2007. - 448 p. - 500 copies.
Heritage Archive-2006 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute.
Heritage Archive-2007 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute.
Heritage Archive-2008 / Comp. and scientific ed. V. I. Pluzhnikov. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2010. - 371 p. - ISBN 978-5-86443-159-7

Almanac “Human Geography” (2004-2010)

/ Comp., rep. ed. D. N. Zamyatin; auto Baldin A., Galkina T., Zamyatin D., etc. - Vol. 1. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2004. - 431 p. - 500 copies. - ISBN 5-86443-107-9.
Humanitarian Geography: Scientific and Cultural-Educational Almanac / Comp., rep. ed. D. N. Zamyatin; auto Andreeva E., Belousov S., Galkina T. and others - Vol. 2. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2005. - 464 p. - 500 copies. - ISBN 5-86443-107-9.
Humanitarian Geography: Scientific and Cultural-Educational Almanac / Comp., rep. ed. D. N. Zamyatin; auto Abdulova I., Amogolonova D., Baldin A. et al. - Vol. 3. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2006. - 568 p. - 350 copies. - ISBN 5-86443-107-9.
Humanitarian Geography: Scientific and Cultural-Educational Almanac / Comp., rep. ed. D. N. Zamyatin; auto Abdulova I., Amogolonova D., Gerasimenko T. and others - Vol. 4. - M.: Heritage Institute, 2007. - 464 s. - 350 copies. - ISBN 5-86443-107-9.
Humanitarian Geography: Scientific and Cultural-Educational Almanac / Responsible. ed. I. I. Mitin; comp. D. N. Zamyatin; auto Belousov S., Vakhrushev V.,

In the picture; current director of the Heritage Institute named after D.S. Likhacheva A. Mironov

Published on Kogita.ru July 26, 2016Head of the Department of Cultural Landscapes and Traditional Nature Management of the Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after. D.S. Likhachev Marina Kuleshova about the destruction of this institute (as well as the Institute of Cultural Studies attached to it) through the efforts of its new leadership - proteges of the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation V. Medinsky - did not remain “a voice crying in the wilderness.”

Secondly, this brave public speech by an employee of the Institute and the immediate subsequent dismissal of Marina Kuleshova, allegedly “for absenteeism” (she announced in advance that she refused to resign “of her own free will”) stirred up the scientific community, M. Kuleshova’s colleagues, who clearly expressed , your solidarity with her (see on Kogita.ru).

New publications in the media followed, two of which we reproduce here, as containing both new factual information and new generalizations.

I would especially like to draw attention to the collective letter from a group of employees of the former Institute of Cultural Studies and the Institute of Heritage, containing a detailed and impartial analysis of the pogrom (in relation to these scientific institutions) activities of the current director of the Institute of Heritage A. Mironov and his “minions”.

As M. Kuleshova informed us even earlier, “two Duma deputies from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation read the article in the Regnum news agency (or someone familiarized them with it) and without hesitation wrote to the President and others like him, and signals went down from Olympus and reached the district prosecutor’s office. I had to confirm the truth of what was written and even add something.” Now, after a letter with 12 signatures (including 5 doctors of science), “the prosecutor’s office has lost its work,” as M.K. notes in another letter.

“Dear A.N.! INfrom the continuation of the problem raised on your site:https://regnum.ru/news/2164053.html.Could you publish this as a further development of the story (preferably with a link to Regnum)?”

I do it willingly. But first, I invite the reader to read a slightly earlier publication on this topic in the Daily Journal...

A. Alekseev. 08/07/2016

From the Daily Journal:

Who is going to teach us patriotism and how?

In humanitarian scientific organizations, due to the difficult international situation, the word patriotism is increasingly heard. But, as we know, any concept, even the most sacred, can be “washed out” or vulgarized if it is used inappropriately or is used by those whose personal example is clearly disharmonious, if not contradictory, to the semantic content of this concept. To teach patriotism, namely love for one’s Fatherland, one must be patriots oneself. You must respect the work and knowledge of your compatriots (and not mock them), you must spend your knowledge and energy on a better structure of the country (and not rob your neighbor to improve your own well-being), you must be a citizen and be able to protect the public domain (and not monitor the direction winds from power verticals) and much more is needed. In this regard, we draw attention to a social phenomenon - the personality of one of the leaders of the institutes subordinate to the Ministry of Culture, who, on the rising wave of patriotism and traditional values, successfully defeated two scientific teams that were engaged in both values and patriotism - not in words, but in deeds.

In this regard, we fully support the article of our colleague, head. Department of Cultural Landscapes and Traditional Nature Management of the Russian Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after. D.S. Likhachev Marina Kuleshova “New Lysenko: The Russian Ministry of Culture “optimizes” the science of Russian heritage”, which has become a reliable anthology of the destruction of our institution by “effective managers” introduced by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. At the same time, we express our protest against the actions of the current director of the institute, Arseny Mironov, who, contrary to the current legislation in relation to scientific workers, guided by behind-the-scenes internal regulations, hastily fired the author for “truancy” and immediately went on vacation, which for some reason coincided with his summons to the prosecutor’s office . By the way, his series of vacations began in March of this year, when the Ministry of Culture first came to the attention of law enforcement agencies. This is how the “philosophy of the hare” returns (this time to a particularly naughty one), if we recall the history of previous interventions by the Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky in the scientific research of the institutes under his jurisdiction and the personnel purges and appointments initiated by him - supposedly to improve the quality and raise the salaries of the remaining employees.

We are the remnants of the former scientific team of the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after. D.S. Likhachev and the Russian Institute of Cultural Studies, who survived under the pressure of administrative pressure and blackmail from the new leadership of the united institute, as well as some already dismissed specialists, we express solidarity with our colleague Marina Evgenievna Kuleshova and appeal to the head of state of the Russian Federation, various law enforcement government departments, and the scientific community of Russia and the media with a request to stop the process of the final destruction of our institution, which began in 2013 and continues to this day, accompanied by “misappropriation of budgetary funds” of the state, as the commission of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation described the results of the activities of the previous transitional administration of the merged institutions headed by P.E. . Yudin (such an assessment remained without consequences).

After the arrival of the new director A.S. Mironov in the fall of 2014. In the reorganized and united institute, the practice of destroying fundamental and applied scientific areas, dismissing experienced employees, and appropriating the intellectual capital of authoritative scientists by newly minted science businessmen intensified. Incompetence, arbitrariness, and protectionism characterize the style of the current leadership. All this together undermines the foundations of scientific research and creates an environment of complete disregard for the law.

Let us briefly outline what exactly led to the suspension of real research activities, first at the Russian Institute of Cultural Studies (hereinafter referred to as RIC), and then at the Russian Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after. Likhachev (hereinafter referred to as the Heritage Institute), to which RIC was annexed as a result of reorganization.

A cynical attitude towards intellectuals and the intellectual community and an underestimation of the role of intellectual capital in general began to appear since the appointment of Vladimir Medinsky as Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation, characterizing the entire period of his tenure. Let us recall various interviews in the media in which the Minister of Culture demonstrated his attitude towards research institutes, where, in his opinion, people work who create nothing and receive meager salaries, which indicates their lack of self-respect. Such a mocking position of the Minister of Culture in relation to the “subordinate” intellectual community became a platform for the destruction of scientific institutions (both in Moscow and St. Petersburg).

From the history of the Institute of Cultural Studies

Created in the 30s of the 20th century, RIC became the only research institute in the country that conducted fundamental research in the field of culture (M.B. Turovsky, F.T. Mikhailov, N.S. Zlobin). Subsequently, thanks to the developments of the living legend and luminary of Russian science, Professor E.A. Orlova, V.P. Shestakov (colleague of A.F. Losev), V.L. Rabinovich and many others, the prestige of RIC only increased, and at the end of the 20th century, RIC was already ranked at the world level. Created by E.A. Orlova’s universal concept of culture, a number of directions in the field of fundamental and applied research (note, approved by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation) became a guideline for research work, which researchers followed for decades. The institute has developed its own traditions, practice of training scientific personnel, and standards of research activities in the field of fundamental and applied developments. The requirements for continuous improvement, professionalism, scientific innovation, etc. were unconditional.

Thus, a unique scientific school has emerged in RIC, which has no equal in Russia. True, for the sake of objectivity, it should be noted that not all researchers reached the given “bar”, but truly talented scientists constituted real competition for their world-famous foreign colleagues.

State of affairs at the Institute of Cultural Studies during the period of the so-called reorganization (2013 and 2014)

The destructive strategy was launched in 2013 under the guise of an officially proclaimed course of “optimization”, which, in accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation, was to be based on an action plan specially developed by the Ministry of Culture called the “road map”. Under administrative pressure, RIC Director K.E. was forced to leave his post. Razlogov, which caused a protest from iconic figures of national culture.

According to the “road map”, a reduction in the number of employees has begun. It was planned: in 2013 - 91 researchers, in 2014 - 87; in 2015 - 85; in 2016 - 83. However, today the institute employs only 7 people from the former RIC, who remained after the merger with the Heritage Institute, and from among the former employees of the latter, 20 people remain today, so this point of the “road map” can be called a farce , although, perhaps, the given number is supplemented by employees who appeared after the arrival of A.S. Mironov.

It should be noted that for the entire period of work of A.S. Mironov, practically no monograph or any serious work has been published by the Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage. The process of destruction and destruction of the institute began to gain momentum. The massive reduction of employees is taking place without compliance with labor legislation (Article 179 of the Labor Code), regulations on certification, other procedures, etc. Scientists are being professionally discredited, and other obstacles to their professional activities have been erected. Thus, a number of employees did not receive either from the leadership of the RIC or from the responsible persons of the Ministry (in particular, from A.O. Arakelova) a response on the acceptance (coordination) of research topics, and in fact we were talking about planning the work of the Institute of Cultural Studies until 2018 !

On January 21, 2014, a general meeting of employees of the RIC and the Heritage Institute was held with the participation of Advisor to the President of the Russian Federation V.I. Tolstoy, State Secretary of the Ministry of Culture G.P. Ivlieva. It was promised to preserve the independence and autonomy of the REC, and the meager salaries were explained as a “technical failure.” However, the next day, a complete surprise for the entire team was the announcement by the leadership of the RIC about a merger with the Heritage Institute, although the day before, in the presence of government representatives, decisions were made in the interests of science and taking into account the interests of the scientific team. On January 22, 2014, Order No. 76 (“On the reorganization ...”) was issued, according to which the reorganization should have been carried out in the form of the RIC joining the Heritage Institute.

Numerous appeals by REC employees to various government authorities, including courts, did not yield results. At first, the Moskvoretsky District Court refused to accept the employees’ claim regarding clarification of the issue of their salary in accordance with the “road map”. Then the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow did not accept the employees’ claim to recognize the decision of the government authority as illegal (claim to establish the legality and legality of order No. 76 of January 22, 2014).

Thus, the issues of the legality of the reorganization of the RIC, the failure to implement the “road map” and the legality of spending budget funds still remain open and unclear (in informal conversations, the current management of the institute attributes all financial fraud to the former director P.E. Yudin, who was dismissed from office by order of the Minister of Culture RF in 2014).

So, the employees found themselves in a legal vacuum and arbitrariness on the part of ministerial officials and the management of the institute. This ended the first stage of the destructive process; the events of the second stage took place within the walls of the Heritage Institute.

State of affairs at the Heritage Institute (2014−2016)

And yet, the Minister of Culture, in order to stop the active resistance of RIC employees, was forced to choose a different tactic and replaced the director of the institute P.E. Yudin, a man of dubious and uncertain biography, on A.S. Mironov.

If the first leader behaved shamelessly, rudely and authoritarianly, then the second began the mission of destroying already united institutions, acting secretly and more sophisticatedly. Today the circumstances of affairs at the institute are as follows.

Behind the backs of the scientific team (namely, behind the scenes of the Ministry of Culture), the Charter was adopted and the Concept of the Institute was approved. After M. Kuleshova’s publication, the website was hastily changed in order to remove a number of questions arising about the activities of the institute. Only on the new website did information appear about the structure of the institute, which was approved behind the scenes without coordination and discussion with the scientific team; this structure puts an end to the continuity of research practice of the RIC and the Heritage Institute. The cross is not only figurative, but also in the literal sense - in the center of the diagram depicting the new structure of the institute, a Calvary cross is placed, the management, in between, is having fun with religious outrage within the walls of a secular scientific institution. However, Christian, as well as patriotic, rhetoric in this case acts as a cover for embezzlement and unscrupulous redistribution of the employee payroll fund in favor of a small group of close deputies, most of whom do not produce any scientific products. At the same time, against the background of salaries of 6-12 thousand per month for ordinary employees, the income of the Institute’s management looks strikingly high, reaching 3-4 million rubles per year.

At the Heritage Institute, with the arrival of Mironov, the qualification requirements for newly recruited scientific staff, for positions leading scientific work: director, his deputies, advisers, are completely ignored, without which hiring is not legitimate (a competition must be announced listing the requirements, compliance with which is mandatory for applicants and employees of research and educational institutions). With rare exceptions, people are hired who have nothing in common with science, and highly qualified and world-famous personnel are expelled. In fact, there is a process of deliberate destruction of the institution.

The Academic Council was formed not on a professional basis, but mainly on the basis of the loyalty of its members to the director. Among the members of the Academic Council there are those who took an active part in the destruction of both institutes and the illegal dismissal of scientific staff; they currently occupy the positions of deputy directors of the institute and advisers. The last stronghold of the RIC was destroyed - the only division of the institute in which fundamental research was still carried out - the department of strategy of socio-cultural policy and modernization processes, which was part of the Center for Fundamental Research in the Sphere of Culture (under the pretext of its renaming into the department of heritage actualization and without providing the concept of a new department) .

Such areas as cultural anthropology, sociology of culture, political culture, etc., without which modern fundamental research in the field of culture cannot be imagined, have completely disappeared from the directions and plan of the institute, which indicates the deliberate destruction of the institute as a research center.

Topics on the study of traditional and modern values, methodology for developing modernization policies, etc., stated by M.R. Demetradze for inclusion in the institute’s plans for 2016, carried out by employees of the Department of Strategy for Socio-Cultural Policy and Modernization Processes, is partially assigned to Director A.S. Mironov, is partially redistributed among employees from his close circle, although they have never conducted research on this topic. Let us note that the appropriation of other people's work by non-professionals leads to distortion and devaluation of ideas and texts due to incompetence and lack of understanding of the methodology of scientific research.

Having appropriated other people's scientific directions and topics, the director translated M.R. Demetradze to a non-core center, the concept of which is unknown, thus resorting to administrative arbitrariness (although in an official letter he cynically claims that the center was not liquidated, but only renamed).

An excellent example of the profanation of science and the imitation of vigorous activity is the history of the institute’s World Heritage Center at a time when, by sudden appointment “from above” at the beginning of 2015, a certain Yuri Nikolaevich Gusev became the head of this structure. Literally a couple of weeks after his arrival, he, completely incompetent, never in contact with the field of heritage protection, but an extremely self-confident person, began to force the dismissal of the main experts on World Heritage issues, who had worked at the Institute for a long time, who knew their job perfectly and had no prior experience. There are no disciplinary complaints. He personally removed them from their usual scientific topics and created an atmosphere of information vacuum around them, without giving any instructions. As a result, five experts of the Center, one after another, were forced to leave the building of their once dear Institute, resigning “by agreement of the parties” or “of their own free will.” In this moral pressure on people, by the way, Gusev was tacitly supported by the administration of the institute, creating an atmosphere of suspicion and vindictiveness around the mentioned World Heritage specialists, degrading human dignity. Mr. Yu.N. himself For a whole year, Gusev entertained himself by visiting various international forums at public expense, received considerable income from the institute by “saving money” on his subordinates, and, in order to somehow justify his presence at the Institute, “invented” the so-called. “national index of cultural heritage”, hastily presented at the suggestion of A.S. Mironov in the media as a scientific “breakthrough”. However, this “development” was recognized by experts as a complete profanation, which threatened the already shaken image of the institute. This practically disrupted the implementation of the most important state task related to world heritage, which was formulated in paragraph 3d of the Instructions of the President of the Russian Federation following the results of a joint meeting of the State Council and the Council for Culture and Art on December 24, 2014. After a year of unsuccessful, if not shameful, reign of Yu.N. Gusev quit.

The planned topics for which the Ministry of Culture allocates funds are allocated in such a way as to satisfy the appetites of a narrow circle of select people, while 10 topics at once are assigned to the same employees who do not have any research experience and relevant knowledge. One of these should obviously include M.B. Gurov, who does not have an academic degree, has not published a single scientific article, is just a postgraduate student, but in a recent postgraduate report is unable to clearly present the content of his scientific work. Nevertheless, he manages a number of structural divisions, leads dozens of scientific directions, pushing around distinguished scientists and declaring himself the author of their achievements. At the same time, the volume of funding for scientific projects is hidden, and the plans of the institute are constantly being altered due to the galloping pace of the changing composition of the staff.

The wage fund is non-transparent; It is not clear on what basis some workers are paid high wages, while others are paid meager wages. Salary provisions are not available for employees. The criteria for efficiency and effectiveness of work, labor indicators, etc. are completely ignored. In any case, the scientometric indicators of employees, which are not controversial in themselves in the scientific community, but are now accepted for implementation by management (developed in the RSCI), are absolutely not taken into account. What then are scientific reports for if not for borrowing their results?

The director protects himself from the pre-reform scientific team, ignores professional ethics, achievements, authority and qualifications of experienced researchers. The director does not respond to letters from employees; surrounded himself with pseudoscientists who have nothing to do with scientific research. It is possible that this explains the removal of scientists’ scientometric indicators from the site. Meanwhile, such concealment means that the institute appears with a zero impact factor, which can lead to its complete liquidation.

The director liquidates the most productive departments and does not at all liquidate departments that only formally exist and do not publish any scientific products (even in the form of articles!).

The administration deliberately paralyzes normal work and prevents the development and implementation of new specialties, subjects, and programs in the graduate school of the institute. The fruits of the painstaking work of the head of the graduate school N.V. were under the threat of complete destruction. Cousin.

The salaries of the main employees of the previous composition are frozen in the range from 6 to 12 thousand rubles, while the institute has established a regime of daily presence in order to intimidate employees with dismissal from work, although intellectual work by its nature does not allow sitting on a chain at the workplace kennel.

Daily checks of employees regarding visits to the institute building are carried out not in order to increase labor efficiency, but as a means of putting pressure on employees so that they do not dare to defend their social rights and lose the desire to be interested in the level of salaries, financial flows and the state of affairs at the institute, thereby telling them : “Humble yourself, otherwise we’ll crush you!”

Acting on the principle “if there is a back, there will be guilt,” the administration forced its founder Yu.A. to leave the institute. Vedenin, his areas of scientific activity were destroyed, “dirty labels” were hastily hung on him in the media. The heads of departments and topics of B.B. were fired. Rodoman, D.N. Zamyatin, N.V. Maksakovsky, M.V. Mongush, S.A. Pchelkin, V.V. Ryabikov, T.I. Chernova, O.K. Rumyantsev and many other employees.

The current situation can be called catastrophic. Managed by repressive methods and treating scientists as slaves, the institute became the domain of A.S. Mironov, occupied by quasi-scientists from the circle of familiar officials of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. Here, large public funds are allocated for dubious projects, which does not bring any benefit to either science or the state. This is probably the essence of “optimization”, under the pretext of which the Minister of Culture began the destruction of the country’s unique scientific centers.

Professional discrimination against employees, restrictions on research freedom and pluralism at the Heritage Institute

Discriminatory policy of A.S. Mironov is beyond doubt. It is confirmed by the following:

1) failure to pay decent wages to the majority of members of the previous team; and vice versa - high salaries for selected people (resulting in what appears to be an acceptable “average” salary);

2) destruction of departments at their own discretion, without reason or warning; leaving and maintaining ineffective departments, again at your own discretion;

3) harassment, blackmail against some employees; permissiveness for employees close to management.

Since A.S. Mironov was an adviser to the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation, including on planning issues; it is easy for him to coordinate and “knock out” topics from the ministry that suit him, which is why many of the topics stated by the institute in the 2016 plan are either very narrow and do not have any scientific and practical significance , or they cannot even be called scientific (this is easy to see by reading the names of topics and areas listed below), and this despite the fact that at the same time real scientific areas were eliminated or discriminated against.

In addition, the approval of the topics took place only in the middle of the year, in June, when employees received plans signed by the ministry, but they were signed retroactively - on December 28, 2015! In 2015, plans changed three times, the last one was approved in November, when reports were already being submitted! Plans are openly “tailored” to the final achievements, but even these latter cannot be boasted about.

Directions and topics of the institute’s plan for 2016

Direction 1. Basic research. Section 1. Inheritance of the values of culture and civilization

The stated topic in this section of one of the employees: “Russian spiritual and philosophical tradition (19−20 centuries) as a methodological basis for understanding the patterns of inheritance of the values of Russian civilization. Development of a value model of culture and cultural inheritance.”

The following is of interest here. Based on what methodology can a researcher combine the categories “spirituality”, “civilization”, “values”; It’s interesting to get acquainted with such a methodology and, of course, with the “value model of culture” itself... Can such a topic claim the status of fundamental research?! If “yes,” then what is its novelty, practical and theoretical value?!

Direction 2. Social regulation and social norms in the inheritance of values.

And here again is the inheritance of values, without a meaningful difference between the first and second directions.

Direction 3. Social memory in the processes of inheritance and images of culture…

The stated topic of one of the employees here is: “Collective historical memory and “ideas of memory” in culture: modern concepts and strategies.”

Here, the strategy of the concept of “memory idea” and its scientific value also raise questions.

The same “scientist”, his other topic: “Media culture of historical memory as a factor in the formation of Russian identity.”

And the same questions to the “scientist”.

Direction 4. Values, norms and images of Russian civilization as the basis of Russian identity

Declared topic: “Patriotism and Russian civilizational identity in modern society.”

No comments…

Direction 5. Values, norms and images of Russian culture as the basis of Russian civilization and identity.

Please note that almost all directions and especially 4 and 5 are practically the same. Maybe “scientists” believe that civilization and culture are not interconnected... All this does not stand up to criticism!!!

Here is Mr. A.S. Mironov claims the following topic: “The value picture of the world of the Russian epic.”

Section 3. Cultural policy

Direction 16. Value-normative civilizational approach to cultural policy.

The highly scientific topic stated here is: “Cultural policy abroad in the context of a civilizational approach.”

Applied research in the plan is presented under the title “Inheritance of the values of culture and civilization”...

Direction 23. Updating the value content of cultural and historical heritage for the purposes of spiritual, moral, patriotic education.

Here is the topic of A.S. Mironova: “The role of values and images of cultural, historical and natural heritage in the spiritual, moral, patriotic education of youth.” No comments…

And who will explain the name of this topic: “Development of a value theory of monuments”?! This is already from the realm of comedy!!! Or maybe someone has heard about the theory of monuments?!

Only some topics, carried out by inertia by representatives of pre-reform groups, have grounds to be called scientific research.

So, the topics discussed above, overlapping each other, do not correspond to the level of a research institute. But, most importantly, who will implement them? Let's say more: these gentlemen cannot be trusted to even compile brochures for kindergarten teachers... That is why these figures, by hook or by crook, get rid of qualified employees, truly scientific topics and directions, avoid verified indicators of scientific work, etc. All this would be funny if at the same time, at the expense of the state (and a considerable one!), the destinies of real scientists were not ruined and science as such was not emasculated.

A.S. Mironov clearly puts emphasis on such categories as “civilization”, “values”, “patriotism”, “inheritance”, etc., which drives the researcher into a narrow framework, or rather, pushes him out of the scientific field. Censorship is being imposed, academic freedom and pluralism of opinions are being limited, which is unacceptable for a research institute and the intellectual community. Meanwhile, rights in this area are protected by the laws of the Russian Federation.

We draw attention to the printed “works” of A.S. Mironov, which are not at all scientific, but journalistic in nature. For example, his books “The Twelfth Daughter” (fantasy), “Much Ado About Never” (alternative history), “The Dead End of Humanism” (humorous fiction), “Ornaments of the Shrew” (alternative history). Do the Ministry of Culture really consider these products to be scientific achievements and scientific capital?!

Rescue and cleansing of the institute from A.S. Mironov and his team of pseudoscientists who occupied the institute is a strategic task that requires urgent intervention and consistent legal assessment.

We especially note that A.S. Mironov violates articles of the Labor Code of the Russian Federation; Federal Law No. 127 “On science and scientific and technical policy of the Russian Federation”; academic freedom of research organizations, two basic principles of academic freedom:

1) Within and outside an educational institution or research organization, complete freedom is allowed to raise any questions and strive for the truth, including regarding controversial and unpopular views, regardless of whether or not this or that point of view offends anyone.

2) Educational institutions and research organizations do not have the right to restrict the academic freedom of their full-time employees, nor use their public statements as a reason for disciplinary action or dismissal.

Employees who survived administrative arbitrariness and repression, as well as forcibly dismissed colleagues, are protesting against the personnel policy of the Ministry of Culture in research institutes and asking for the following.

1. Remove from the post of director of the Heritage Institute A.S. Mironov, forcing him to reimburse budget funds wasted to the detriment of scientific research, carry out financial audits, and familiarize the institute’s employees with the financial statements for 2014−2015.

2. Bring the Institute’s Charter and the Institute’s Concept into line with the interests of the development of science and the scientific team, and familiarize employees with it.

3. Immediately remove from office the current deputy directors and advisers, as well as some particularly zealous employees of support services who took part in the dispersal of the scientific team and the destruction of institutes, carry out a financial audit of the scientific projects of employees from among the “inner circle” of A.S. Mironov.

4. Form a new composition of the competent Academic Council of the Institute.

5. Ask Yu.A. Vedenin, one of the founders of the Heritage Institute, as well as colleagues who became victims of administrative arbitrariness (especially the author of critical articles about the activities of the current leadership of the institute, M.E. Kuleshov), about their return to the institute.

6. Eliminate the reason for the low salaries of the pre-reform staff of the two institutes.

7. Return to the work regime with two mandatory days of attendance per week for scientific employees, adopted in most research institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and previously adopted in the RIC and the Heritage Institute.

8. Bring the structure of the institute and the plans of the institute in accordance with the urgent needs of the country and science in the field of cultural studies and heritage research, as well as in accordance with the real capabilities of the currently sequestered scientific team.

On behalf of the staff of the Heritage Institute, including those fired, as well as employees of the abolished RIC:

Demetradze M.R., Doctor of Political Sciences, leading researcher at the Heritage Institute, professor at the Russian State University for the Humanities, member of the editorial board of the journal “Politics and Society”, member of the International Association of Sociologists and the Russian Association of Political Scientists, [email protected]

Lyusy A.P., Ph.D. in cultural studies, senior researcher Center for Fundamental Research in the Field of Culture of the Institute of Heritage named after. D.S. Likhacheva, associate professor of the Russian New University (RosNOU), member of the Commission on Social and Cultural Problems of Globalization of the Scientific Council “History of World Culture” under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, [email protected]

Mongush M.V., Doctor of Historical Sciences, senior researcher Center for Geocultural Regional Policy of the Heritage Institute named after. D.S. Likhacheva, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Honorary Worker of the General Education System of the Russian Federation, [email protected]

Shestakov V.P., Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation, former head. theory of art RIC, [email protected]

Shemanov A.Yu., Doctor of Philosophy, Ved. scientific co-author, Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Moscow State Psychological and Pedagogical University", former. employee of the RIC and the Heritage Institute, [email protected]

Shakhmatova E.V.., former employee of the RIC, associate professor of the Department of Philosophy of the State University of Management, candidate of art history, elena. [email protected]

Maksakovsky N.V., Candidate of Geographical Sciences, Head of the World Heritage Center of the Heritage Institute (2013−2015)

Gubenko S.K., senior researcher in the sector of tourism and recreational forms of heritage use at the Heritage Institute, [email protected]

M. Kuleshova - A. Alekseev
...One Ukrainian colleague made me very happy; his letter to Mr. Mironov was forwarded to me:
“Marina, good afternoon!
My good friend Yulian Tyutyunnik from Kiev (well known to almost the entire “old staff” of the Heritage Institute, as far as I understand, and to you), having received your last open letter, responded to it in a letter to the current director of the institute:
"Mironov, I want to tell you that you are real<…>(not an obscene, but very offensive definition. - A. A.). Remember: you are<…>. And the entire ESeng monument conservation and geographical scientific community knows about this, about your art of destroying the Institute, but only because of my intelligence, from which I do not suffer, does not tell you this out loud. And I say. So that you know firmly and walk with consciousness and dignity<,>. Be healthy and<…>
Yulian Tyutyunnik"
Tyutyunnik asked me to acquaint you with this message, Yu.A. Vedenin (I don’t know his address) and all past and present colleagues to whom you consider it possible to send...
Hold on!
G.I."
Maybe they’ll call me to the prosecutor’s office about this too? I will be happy to provide explanations.

Mironov Arseny Stanislavovich

Biography

In 1995 he graduated from the international department of the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. Speaks English, French and Serbo-Croatian.

Since 1994, he worked at ITAR-TASS in the editorial office of European countries as an intern, correspondent in Washington, editor, senior editor, special correspondent of the diplomatic service in Moscow.

Since 1995 - member of the Union of Journalists of Russia.

In 1998-99 - consultant to the Referenta of the President of the Russian Federation.

In 2000-2004 - Advisor to the Office of the Press Service of the President of the Russian Federation.

In 2001, he defended his dissertation work “Techniques of soft propaganda in the quality press of the USA and France” (supervisor Prof. Ya.N. Zasursky). Inflate and conquer: technologies of modern soft propaganda Candidate of Philological Sciences.

In 2004-2008 - chief adviser to the Protocol and Organizational Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation.

2008-2012: Director of the Department of the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications

From 2008 to 2012 - Director of the Department of Information and Public Relations of the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media of Russia. Member of the team of Igor Olegovich Shchegolev. Several sources close to Svyazinvest companies said that it was Arseny Mironov who introduced Igor Shchegolev and Konstantin Malofeev. The latter has known Mironov since childhood. But their close cooperation, according to Mironov, began in 2006, when the Orthodox gymnasium of St. Basil the Great was created (one of the main projects of the Malofeev Foundation). Mironov says that he joined its academic council, helped develop the concept and compile new textbooks. According to him, when he was working on a literature textbook for the 10th grade of the gymnasium, he discussed the very idea of the gymnasium, including with Shchegolev. “Shchegolev is interested in history, and this project was interesting to him,” says Mironov.

2012: Deputy director of the Institute of Art Studies

In 2012 - Deputy Director of the State Institute of Art Studies.

2013: Assistant to the Minister of Culture

In 2013 - Ministry of Culture of Russia, Assistant to the Minister in charge of planning issues of state policy in the field of:

culture, organization of activities of expert councils of the Ministry of Culture of Russia and examination of creative projects;
digital heritage and information technologies in the field of culture;
preservation, study and popularization of intangible cultural heritage and traditional folk culture;
public relations and preparation of projects for public speeches of the Minister;
interaction with the Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade on the development of national cultural images for the children's goods industry.

Member of the editorial group of the State Council on state cultural policy, the Working Group of the Ministry of Culture of Russia on the development of the Strategy of state cultural policy.

2014: Director of the Likhachev Heritage Institute

In September 2014, Arseny Mironov was appointed director of the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D.S. Likhachev.

Name: Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D.S. Likhacheva

Departmental affiliation: Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation

Structural subdivision: Intangible Heritage Department

History of the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after D.S. Likhachev:

The Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage was created by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation in 1992.

The history of the institute is closely connected with the work of the Soviet Culture Foundation, created in the late 1980s and working under the leadership of D.S. Likhachev. The core of the institute’s team was made up of specialists who participated in the work of the Council for Unique Territories of the Soviet Cultural Foundation.

Basic principles of the Institute:

Orientation towards a broad idea of heritage as a reflection of the historical experience of interaction between man and nature. This presupposes the inclusion in the category of heritage not only of immovable and movable monuments of history, culture and nature, but also of objects of living traditional culture, traditional technologies, historically established forms of economy and environmental management, and the cultural landscape.

Consideration of heritage as a systemic formation in which individual heritage objects cannot be preserved without connection with each other and outside the environment. At the same time, not only individual monuments, but also the entire historical, cultural and natural environment become the object of protection. At the same time, the unity and close relationship between cultural and natural heritage is emphasized.

The primacy of a spatial approach to heritage conservation. The main objects of protection and use are territories - from the country as a whole to individual cities, villages, estates, national parks, historical and cultural territories. At the same time, the concept of territory implies all the diversity of historical, cultural and natural monuments, ensembles, landscapes included in it, as well as traditional forms of socio-cultural and economic activity that have survived to this day.

Consideration of activities for the protection and use of heritage as an organic part of the complex of modern socio-cultural, socio-economic, political and environmental processes.

Main areas of scientific topics:

methodological foundations for the conservation and use of cultural and natural heritage (definition of fundamental concepts, classification of heritage objects, theoretical developments);
development of comprehensive regional programs for the protection and use of cultural and natural heritage, focused on combining heritage conservation activities with ensuring the socio-economic and socio-cultural development of regions of various types (both methodological and practical aspects);
principles and methods of forming a system of historical, cultural and natural territories, design work for the creation of such territories;
creation of the Russian National Atlas of Cultural and Natural Heritage and cartographic support for heritage protection activities;
development of the scientific foundations of national policy in the field of protection and use of heritage (preservation of national cultures of indigenous and small peoples, preservation of ethnographic and archaeological heritage, traditional forms of settlement, environmental management);
introduction of new technologies for systematic description of cultural and natural heritage sites;
study of historical and traditional technologies;
the study of traditional culture in its historical forms and modern “living” manifestations;
research into the possibilities of tourism and recreational use of the potential of historical cities and villages, natural areas;
studying the economic and legal conditions for the conservation and use of heritage in modern economic conditions;
study of environmental problems of heritage conservation and the formation of a comprehensive monitoring system for various territories;
information and analytical research in the field of heritage;
comprehensive expeditionary research of the historical, cultural and natural environment of the regions.