Relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the State in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Context of a Change in Political Paradigms and Digitalization
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2022-7-8-22Keywords:
COVID-19 pandemic, religious institutions, religious freedoms, Russian Orthodox Church, Church opposition, digitalizationAbstract
The article is devoted to the characterization of the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the digitalization of society, with an emphasis on the technological aspect. The context of church-state relations during the pandemic period in the works of foreign and domestic authors is not the same: in Western liberal publications, attention is focused on the restrictions on democratic norms and liberal freedoms in the countries of the world, and in the works of Russian scientists, on the adaptation of state-confessional relations to the conditions of the pandemic, as well as on the processes of internal church life. To achieve this goal, the work uses institutional, culturological and constructivist approaches that allow scientifically arguing the author’s position. It was found that representatives of almost all religious denominations recognized the existential threat to humanity posed by the coronavirus and sided with the actions of state and municipal authorities to combat the pandemic. From the very beginning of the fight against the pandemic, the ROC built its policy on the basis of the recommendations of the secular authorities, even in cases where the possibility of performing religious rites and holding services was seriously limited. The internal conservative opposition did not radically influence the official policy of the church, while at the same time there is an increase in the social and civic activity of the ROC. The attitude to digitalization is associated with an understanding of the danger posed by technological capabilities in connection with the strengthening of state control over citizens and the restriction of rights and freedoms, including in the confessional sphere. At the same time, the church seeks to use the possibilities of modern technology to expand its influence, including among young people.Downloads
References
Баранов Н. А. Взаимодействие церкви и государства в современной России // Человек. Сообщество. Управление. 2009. № 4. С. 97-108.
Лункин Р. Н. Механизмы религиозной реакции на пандемию коронавируса // Научно-аналитический вестник ИЕ РАН. 2020. № 2. С. 104-109.
Лункин Р. Н. Социально-политические последствия пандемии для Русской православной церкви: раскрытие внутреннего потенциала гражданской активности и социального служения // Вестник РУДН. Серия: Политология. 2020. Т. 22. № 4. С. 547-558.
Лункин Р. Н. Церкви в политике и политика в церквях. Как современное христианство меняет европейское общество: монография. М.: ИЕ РАН: Нестор-История, 2020. 504 c.
Норт Д. Институты, институциональные изменения и функционирование экономики / Пер. с англ. А. Н. Нестеренко; предисл. и науч. ред. Б. З. Мильнера. М.: Фонд экономической книги «Начала», 1997. 180 с.
Откровение святого Иоанна Богослова // Библия. Книги Священного писания Ветхого и Нового завета. М.: Российское библейское общество, 2001. С. 1325-1346.
Почта Ю. М. Государственно-конфессиональные отношения в России в условиях пандемии: вызовы и ответы // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Политология. 2020. Т. 22. № 4. С. 559-578.
Пшеворский А. Физическое выживание - императив, все остальное - роскошь // Россия в глобальной политике. 2020. № 3. URL: https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/fizicheskoe-vyzhivanie-imperativ/ (дата обращения: 19.01.2022).
Религия в современной России: события и дискурсы пандемии: монография / М. М. Мчедлова; под ред. М. М. Мчедловой. М.: РУДН, 2021. 352 с.
Современная политическая наука: методология / отв. ред. О. В. Гаман-Голутвина, А. И. Никитин. 2-е изд., испр. и доп. М.: Аспект Пресс, 2019. 776 с.
Узланер Д. Постсекулярный поворот: как мыслить о религии в XXI веке. М.: Издательство Института Гайдара, 2020. 416 с.
Berengaut A. Democracies are Better at Fighting Outbreaks // The Atlantic, 24 February 2020. URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/whydemocracies-are-better-fightingoutbreaks/606976/ (дата обращения: 19.01.2022).
Berger P. L., Luckmann T. The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise on sociology of Knowledge. Anchor Books, Garden City, NY, 1966. 249 p.
Brown F. et al. How Will the Coronavirus Reshape Democracy and Governance Globally? // Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 6 April 2020. URL: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/04/06/how-will-coronavirus-reshape-democracy-andgovernance-globally-pub-81470 (дата обращения: 19.01.2022).
Fukuyama F. The Pandemic and Political Order // Foreign Affairs, July/August 2020.
Leininger J. Tackling the pandemic without doing away with democracy // German Development Institute (DIE), 27 April 2020. URL: https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/German_Development_Institute_Leininger_27.04.2020.pdf (дата обращения: 19.01.2022).
Onuf N. G. World of our making: Rules and rule in social theory and international relations. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, S.C, 1989.
Roth K. How Authoritarians Are Exploiting the COVID-19 Crisis to Grab Power // Human Rights Watch, 3 April 2020. URL: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/04/03/how-authoritarians-are-exploiting-covid-19-crisis-grab-power (дата обращения: 19.01.2022).
Staak S. van der. Democracy experts should seek a central role in shaping the post-coronavirus order // London School of Economics and Political Sciences (LSE), 20 May 2020. URL: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/05/18/democracy-experts-should-seeka-central-role-in-shaping-the-post-coronavirus-order/ (дата обращения: 19.01.2022).
Wendt A. Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics // International Organization. 1992. Vol. 46. N 2. P. 391-425.