Chronotopicity of the concept “power” in the Russian language (On the archeology of power in Russian texts)

The author understands the concept “chronotope”, introduced into scholarly discourse by Russian researchers A. Ukhtomsky and M. Bakhtin, as a unity of the temporal and topological (spatial) being of any object or phenomenon. However, the identification of a language's ability to express the telicity of a particular reality's chronotope presents a great challenge. In other words, it is the ability of a natural language to observe phenomena singled out by researchers in the chronotope aspect without damaging the meanings and conceptual intuitions rooted in it. It is especially important for such phenomena as state, power, or politics. Following the style of Michel Foucault, the author of the article has carried out a thorough archaeological analysis of the concept “power” in the Russian language, referring to rare dictionaries, historical and etymological studies and specialized reference books. The research has shown that power in the Russian language is something physically tangible; it is not achieved, but granted or gained. It is not just a certain aspiration, ability or a set of skills, but a special condition having an objective and physiological embodiment, which is unavoidably obvious. In the Russian semiosphere, there exists a chronotopic unity of temporality and topology of ideas about power, the latter being alive, plastic, fluid, diverse, and adjusted to a specific space, transforming its owner and never stopping in its existence. Structurally, this single reality looks as follows. Power is the center, core and fundamental concept. Strength, will, law, and freedom are the immediate visible manifestations of power-wielding reality in the chronotope. They are associated with individuals who are power-holders. Moreover, an essential element is the format of freedom, which is bestowed only by the state of power. Influence, domination, and management are technical elements of power unlocking its inherent potential to change, transform and metamorphize the surrounding reality. State and possession are the two concepts embracing and including all the previous realities, except for power itself, which is the sphere's core, source and, as it were, mathematical point. State and possession make an all-out effort to objectivate the abstraction, embody it and its satellites and technical elements into the generally accepted reality. Possession is the final and, in a sense, peripheral concept of the semiosphere. But it is peripheral in the sense that power does not exist as such beyond its limits. Possession is a shell formalizing power, its border, limitation and periphery. Finally, possession is crucial to understanding the specific features of the Russian semiosphere of power, without which it (power) will remain a lifeless operational term for private laboratory research of separate insignificant elements of reality.

Keywords

Authors

References