Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage. How the Institute of Cultural Studies and the Institute of Heritage were destroyed

04.09.2019

Russian Research Institute of Cultural and natural heritage was created by Government Decree 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 the state cultural policy and regional programs for the conservation 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 Soviet era To 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 already 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.

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” (about refusal to quit “for at will“she stated in advance) stirred up the scientific community, M. Kuleshova’s colleagues, who clearly expressed their 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 connection with the difficult international situation, the word patriotism is increasingly being heard in scientific organizations in the humanitarian field. 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 introduced by the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation “ effective managers" 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 budget 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 in Russian Institute 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 culture of the Russian Federation) have become a reference point research work, which scientists have 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.

This is how RIC developed a unique scientific school, 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 former employees the latter today there are 20 people left, 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 have been put in place professional activity. 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 took place general meeting employees of the RIC and the Heritage Institute 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 statement of claim employees to recognize the decision of the body state power 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 for sociocultural policy and modernization processes, which was part of the Center basic research in the field of culture (under the pretext of renaming it to the Department of Heritage Actualization and without providing the concept of the 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, completely disappeared from the directions and plan of the institute, which indicates the deliberate destruction of the institute as a research center.

Topics in the study of traditional and modern values, methodologies 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 Center world heritage at a time when, by sudden appointment “from above” at the beginning of 2015, a certain Yuri Nikolaevich Gusev began to lead 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, humiliating 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 directions 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 unique scientific centers countries.

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 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. Mironov: “The role of values and images of cultural, historical and natural heritage in the spiritual, moral, patriotic education 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 even be trusted to compile brochures for teachers kindergarten... 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 expense of the state (and a considerable one!) the destinies of real scientists were not ruined and science as such were 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). Is it possible that the Ministry of Culture also considers these products scientific achievements and scientific capital?!

Rescue and cleansing of the institute from A.S. Mironov and his team of pseudoscientists who occupied the institute are strategic objective, requiring urgent intervention and consistent legal assessment.

We especially note that A.S. Mironov violates articles Labor Code RF; 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 establishments and research organizations may not restrict the academic freedom of their staff members or use their public statements as grounds 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 compensate for the wasted scientific research budget funds, carry out financial audits, 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 issues globalization of the Scientific Council “History of World Culture” under the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, [email protected]

Mongush M.V., doctor historical sciences, V.R.S. Center for Geocultural Regional Policy of the Heritage Institute named after. D.S. Likhacheva, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Honorary Worker of the System general education RF, [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 Kyiv (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.

In February 1928, after graduating from Leningrad State University, Dmitry Likhachev was arrested for participating in the Space Academy of Sciences student group and sentenced to five years for counter-revolutionary activities.

From November 1928 to August 1932, Likhachev served his sentence in the Solovetsky special purpose camp. Here, during his stay in the camp, in 1930 the first scientific work Likhachev "Card games of criminals" in the magazine "Solovetsky Islands".

After his early release, he returned to Leningrad, where he worked as a literary editor and proofreader in various publishing houses. Since 1938, Dmitry Likhachev’s life was connected with the Pushkin House - the Institute of Russian Literature (IRLI AS USSR), where he began working as a junior researcher, then became a member of the academic council (1948), and later - head of the sector (1954) and department ancient Russian literature (1986).

During the Great Patriotic War from the autumn of 1941 to the spring of 1942, Dmitry Likhachev lived and worked in besieged Leningrad, from where he was evacuated with his family along the “Road of Life” to Kazan. For his selfless work in the besieged city, he was awarded the medal "For the Defense of Leningrad."

Since 1946, Likhachev worked in Leningradsky state university(LSU): first as an associate professor, and in 1951-1953 as a professor. At the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University he taught special courses “History of Russian Chronicles”, “Paleography”, “History of Culture” Ancient Rus'" and others.

Dmitry Likhachev devoted himself to the study of the culture of Ancient Rus' and its traditions most of his works: “National identity of Ancient Rus'” (1945), “The emergence of Russian literature” (1952), “Man in the literature of Ancient Rus'” (1958), “Culture of Rus' in the time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise” (1962), “Poetics of Old Russian Literature" (1967), essay "Notes on Russian" (1981). The collection “The Past for the Future” (1985) is dedicated to Russian culture and the inheritance of its traditions.

Likhachev paid a lot of attention to the study of the great monuments of ancient Russian literature “The Tale of Bygone Years” and “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” which he translated into modern Russian with the author’s comments (1950). In different years of his life, various articles and monographs of the scientist were devoted to these works, translated into many languages of the world.

Dmitry Likhachev was elected a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1953) and a full member (academician) of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1970). He was a foreign member or corresponding member of the academies of sciences of a number of countries: the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (1963), the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts (1971), the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1973), the British Academy (1976), the Austrian Academy of Sciences (1968), the Göttingen Academy Academy of Sciences (1988), American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1993).

Likhachev was an honorary doctor from the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun (1964), Oxford (1967), the University of Edinburgh (1971), the University of Bordeaux (1982), the University of Zurich (1982), Lorand Eötvos University of Budapest (1985), Sofia University (1988) ), Charles University (1991), University of Siena (1992), honorary member of the Serbian literary-scientific and cultural-educational society "Srpska matica" (1991), Philosophical scientific society USA (1992). Since 1989, Likhachev was a member of the Soviet (later Russian) branch of the Pen Club.

Academician Likhachev led an active community work. The academician considered his most significant work as chairman of the “Literary Monuments” series at the Soviet (later Russian) Cultural Foundation (1986-1993), as well as his work as a member of the editorial board of the academic series “Popular Scientific Literature” (since 1963) . Dmitry Likhachev actively spoke in the media in defense of monuments of Russian culture - buildings, streets, parks. Thanks to the scientist’s activities, it was possible to save many monuments in Russia and Ukraine from demolition, “reconstruction” and “restoration.”

For his scientific and social activities, Dmitry Likhachev was awarded many government awards. Academician Likhachev was twice awarded the State Prize of the USSR - for the scientific works “The History of Culture of Ancient Rus'” (1952) and “The Poetics of Old Russian Literature” (1969), and the State Prize of the Russian Federation for the series “Monuments of Literature of Ancient Rus'” (1993). In 2000, Dmitry Likhachev was posthumously awarded the Russian State Prize for Development artistic direction domestic television and the creation of an all-Russian state television channel "Culture".

Academician Dmitry Likhachev was awarded the highest awards of the USSR and Russia - the title of Hero Socialist Labor(1986) with the presentation of the Order of Lenin and the Hammer and Sickle gold medal, he was the first holder of the Order of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called (1998), and was also awarded many orders and medals.

Since 1935, Dmitry Likhachev was married to Zinaida Makarova, an employee of the publishing house. In 1937, their twin daughters Vera and Lyudmila were born. In 1981, the academician’s daughter Vera died in a car accident.

2006, the year of the centenary of the scientist’s birth, by decree of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources

Information D. S. Likhachev Foundation

Information

The mission of the Foundation was formulated by Likhachev himself - development Russian culture, education, humanities, the spread of democratic and humanistic values. The Foundation operates within the framework of regional, Russian and international programs, holds grant competitions, supports seminars and conferences, and publishes books. The foundation has representatives in Moscow, Volgograd, and New York. The foundation has the Antsiferov Library, a collection of books on the history of St. Petersburg.

Foundation named after D.S. Likhacheva organizes a book competition for the Antsiferov Prize, established in 1995 to reward the best contemporary works on the history of St. Petersburg. The prize is dedicated to the memory of local historian and educator N.P. Antsiferov, whose name is associated with the tradition of studying the city as an integral historical and cultural organism. The Antsifer Prize is intended to promote the further development of this approach. The prize is awarded every two years.

The Likhachev Foundation develops programs “Local history and civil society”. The Foundation's employees believe that local history should instill not only love for the Motherland, but also civic responsibility for its fate, and stimulate civic participation in solving problems of the local community. Local history is the basis for the development of voluntary societies and initiatives for the protection and restoration of historical and natural monuments, improvement of territories, the creation of nature reserves, the revival of folk crafts, and the study of family history. This is precisely what the Likhachev Foundation sees as the main goal of modern local history. In this direction, it strives to develop its programs related to local history.

The Center for St. Petersburg Studies cooperates with the Antsiferov Library in preparing exhibitions, selecting candidates for the prize, and exchanging bibliographic 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 with scientific and methodological guidance of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Heritage Institute and the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation

License

License Federal service on supervision of compliance with legislation in the field of mass communications and protection of cultural heritage dated March 4, 2005 No. 264 for the implementation of activities for the restoration of cultural heritage sites (historical and cultural monuments).

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 Cultural 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.

Structure and areas of activity

Directorate

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.

Heritage Documentation Center (HCDC)

Collection and dissemination of diverse information related to cultural and natural heritage for scientific, official and educational purposes.

Employees:

Sector of unique historical and natural territories

A comprehensive study of territorially expressed especially valuable objects of cultural and natural heritage and scientific justification of policies regarding their protection and use.

Employees:

Abdurakhmanova, Zarema Tariverdievna - researcher. Candidate of Geographical Sciences.
Kulinskaya, Svetlana Vladimirovna - senior researcher.
Pakina, Alla Anatolyevna Candidate of Geographical Sciences.

Sector of legal problems of cultural landscape management

Identification and systematization of cultural landscapes, including work on the study of the nomination of cultural landscapes of world significance; information support and monitoring of cultural landscapes; development of regulations and legal documents aimed at preserving cultural landscapes and regulating their use; development of programs, projects, plans, diagrams, concepts and other guidance documents for the management of cultural landscapes as heritage sites; inclusion of information potential cultural landscape into the main development programs and main activities of museum-reserves and national parks as government institutions.

Employees:

Gomboev, Bair Tsyrempilovich - senior researcher. Candidate of Geographical Sciences.
Shtilmark, Natalya Feliksovna - senior researcher.

Sector for the protection and use of archaeological heritage

Participation in the legislative process; development of new provisions and methods for accounting and control of objects archaeological heritage, creation of methodological foundations for a monitoring system of archaeological heritage.

Head - Sergey Valentinovich Gusev, Candidate of Historical Sciences.

Employees:

Zagorulko, Andrey Vladislavovich (b.) - senior researcher. Candidate of Historical Sciences .
Mukhin, Gennady Dmitrievich (b.) - senior researcher. Candidate of Historical Sciences .
Prut, Alexander Anatolyevich - research fellow.

Living Traditional Culture Sector

Living culture is a set of facts and phenomena of spiritual and material culture, relevant for society or individual social groups in the current period of time. The most important component of living culture, its kind of genetic code, is tradition, which ensures continuity and continuity of cultural development.

Employees:

Belosheeva, Anna Aleksandrovna - researcher.
Vedernikova, Natalya Mikhailovna Candidate of Philological Sciences.
Veshnsky, Yuri Grigorievich (b.) - senior researcher. Candidate of Cultural Studies.
Nikitina, Serafima Evgenievna (b.) Doctor of Philological Sciences.
Polishchuk, Mikhail Aleksandrovich - researcher.
Ryabov, Sergey Alekseevich - leading researcher. Candidate of Military Sciences.
Faustova, Elmara Nurgaleevna (b.) - researcher. Candidate of Philosophical Sciences.
Cherenkov, Lev Nikolaevich (b.) - senior researcher. Candidate of Historical Sciences .

Center for Traditional Culture of Nature Management

Cultural landscapes and traditional indigenous knowledge small peoples and ethno-territorial groups of other peoples of the North; marine mammals and birds of the Arctic - traditions of conservation and use; Aboriginal domestic animals in traditional cultures of Russia and foreign countries.

Head - Lyudmila Sergeevna Bogoslovskaya, Doctor of Biological Sciences.

Employees:

Aleinikov, Pyotr Aleksandrovich - leading researcher. Candidate of Philology .
Vdovin, Boris Innokentievich - senior researcher.
Kozlov, Andrey Igorevich - leading researcher. Doctor of Biological Sciences, Candidate of Medical Sciences.
Krupnik, Igor Ilyich (b.) - leading researcher. Doctor of Biological Sciences, Candidate of Historical Sciences.
Sulimov, Klim Timofeevich - leading researcher. Candidate of Biological Sciences.

Sector for the Study of Historical and Traditional Technologies

“Historical” technologies are technologies that in the “pre-industrial” period were the basis of many industries and were used to create material objects, but have now long disappeared with the disappearance of industries operating on the basis of these technologies. “Traditional” technologies are “historical” technologies that managed to adapt to the conditions of the industrial revolution.

Employees:

Maksimova, Tatyana Vasilievna - senior researcher.
Sadykova, Elena Yuryevna (b.) - senior researcher. Ph.D. in History of Arts .
Frolov, Dmitry Yuryevich (b.) - research fellow.

Center for Environmental Problems of Heritage Conservation and Expertise of Regional Programs and Projects

Analysis environmental problems preserving heritage and finding ways to solve them.

Head - Galina Alekseevna Zaitseva, Candidate of Biological Sciences.

Sector of Russian estate and garden culture

Local history sector

Study of the complex problem of implementing state functions for the study and protection of cultural and natural heritage through local history, as well as the study and use of the educational potential of the heritage.

Head - Valery Evgenievich Tumanov, Candidate of Historical Sciences.

Sector of tourism and recreational forms of heritage use

Head - Sergey Yurievich Zhitenev (b.), candidate of cultural studies.

Employees:

Baynazarov, Yuri Karabaevich (b.) - senior researcher.
Solovyov, Andrey Petrovich (b.) - senior researcher.

Arctic Cultural and Natural Heritage Research Sector

Identification, description, monitoring and preservation of the historical, cultural and natural environment of the Arctic.

Head - Ilya Borisovich Baryshev.

Employees:

Kuliev, Anatoly Nikolaevich - senior researcher.
Pyatnitskaya, Alena Vasilievna (b.) - junior researcher.

Sector for Research of Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Solovetsky Archipelago and White Sea Region

Sector based on the Maritime Arctic Complex Expedition (MAEC), which has been conducting field research of the Solovetsky Archipelago since 1986; is part of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition center.

Head - Vadim Vadimovich Ryabikov.

Employees:

Gruzinov, Veniamin Stanislavovich (b.) - senior researcher.
Zakharov, Yuri Semenovich - senior researcher.
Semyonova, Tamara Yuryevna - senior researcher.
Filin, Pavel Anatolyevich - senior researcher, head of the White Sea detachment of MACE. Candidate of Historical Sciences .

Employees:

Lopan, Oksana Vitalievna - researcher.

Sector for comprehensive research, design and protection of historical territories of the Central region of Russia

Development of new methods for research, design and protection of historical territories Central Russia as an integral ecological and cultural system that preserves unique evidence of our past and ensures ethnocultural identity, continuity of traditions and sustainable development of society.

Employees:

Glazunova, Olga Nikolaevna (b.) - senior researcher.
Ershova, Ekaterina Georgievna - research fellow. Candidate of Biological Sciences.
Zavyalov, Dmitry Grigorievich - researcher.
Zavyalova, Nadezhda Iosifovna - senior researcher. PhD in Architecture.
Lebedeva, Ekaterina Yurievna (b.) - senior researcher.
Nikolaeva, Natalya Vyacheslavovna - senior researcher.
Rom, Natalia Vitoldovna - junior researcher.
Smirnov, Sergey Alekseevich (b.) - research fellow.
Sherenkova, Vera Nikolaevna (b.) - junior researcher.

Museum and restoration sector

Non-specialized museum department.

Head - Tatyana Ivanovna Chernova.

Employees:

Pozdnyakova, Galina Ivanovna - senior researcher.

Heritage Electronic Publishing Sector

Use of existing and creation of new computer technologies for their application in the field of study and use of cultural and natural heritage.

Head - Sergey Anatolyevich Pchelkin.

Employees:

Vorobyova, Elena Andreevna - senior researcher.

Conferences organized by the Heritage 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.

Bibliography

Proceedings of the Heritage Institute

Collective monographs

Proceedings of the Maritime Arctic Complex Expedition (MACE)

Willem Barents Park on Novaya Zemlya. In Russian and English. M., 1998.
New Earth. Nature. Story. Archeology. Culture. Book 2. part 1. Cultural heritage. Radioecology. Proceedings of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition.
New Earth. Nature. Story. Archeology. Culture. Book 1. Nature. Proceedings of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition.
Vaygach Island, Hebidya Ya is the sacred island of the Nenets people. Natural and cultural heritage. M., Heritage Institute. 2000.
Solovetsky Islands. Spiritual and cultural heritage. Map for pilgrims and tourists. M., Heritage Institute. 2001.
Polar Archive. Volume 1. Proceedings of the maritime Arctic complex expedition under the general editorship of P.V. Boyarsky. M., 2003.
Solovetsky Islands. Spiritual and cultural heritage. Map for pilgrims and tourists. Scale 1:50,000. M., Heritage Institute. 2004.
Vaygach Island. Book 1. Monuments of Arctic exploration. M., 2000.
New Earth. Nature, history, archeology, culture. Book 2, part 2. M., 2000.
Koch - Russian polar ship: problems, research and reconstruction. M., 2000.
The village of Belushya Guba is the capital of the polar archipelago of Novaya Zemlya (1897-1997). M., 1997.
To the North with Barents. Joint Russian-Dutch comprehensive archaeological research on Novaya Zemlya in 1995. In Russian and English Amsterdam, 1997.
Solovetsky Islands. Bolshaya Muksalma Island.
Map “New Earth. Natural and cultural heritage." Scale 1:1000,000; inset map to it “History of discoveries and research”, scale 1: 2500 000. M., Heritage Institute. 1995.
Map “Vaygach Island. Natural and cultural heritage. Hebidya Ya is the sacred island of the Nenets people.” Scale 1:200,000. M., Heritage Institute. 2000.
New Earth. Volume 1. Book 1. Proceedings of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition. M., 1993.
New Earth. Volume 1. Book 2. Issue II. Proceedings of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition. M., 1993.
New Earth. Volume 2. Issue III. Proceedings of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition. M., 1993.
New Earth. Volume 3. Issue IV. Proceedings of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition. M., 1994.
Novaya Zemlya: the concept of forming a system of specially protected natural, historical and cultural territories. M., 1994.
Solovetsky Islands. Bolshaya Muksalma Island. Coll. auto.. M., 1996.
New Earth. Nature. Story. Archeology. Culture. Book 1. Nature. Proceedings of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition. Coll.aut. M., 1998.
New Earth. Nature. Story. Archeology. Culture. Book 2, part 1. Cultural heritage. Radioecology. Proceedings of the Marine Arctic Complex Expedition. Coll. auto. M., 1998.
Willem Barents Park on Novaya Zemlya. M., Heritage Institute. 1998.