Круглый стол «Интеллигенция и интеллигентность в наше время» в редакции газеты «Прямая речь» 6 декабря 1994 года
Round table “Intelligentsia and Intelligence in our time” in the editorial office of the newspaper “Priamaia rech’” on December 6, 1994

Summary/Abstract: The scientific community often asks the question: why has the provincial city of Ivanovo become one of the recognized centers for the study of intelligentsia and intellectuals in Russia since the 1990s? There are many reasons for this. One of them is that the founder of the scientific direction “intellectual studies” V. S. Memetov (1939-2019) worked in the city. But only the scientist’s works seem not to be enough to turn Ivanovo into a center for the study of intellectuals and intellectuals. It is also important that V. S. Memetov caught the mood of a significant part of the Ivanovo public, especially young people who in the 1990s, during the collapse of party-ideological shackles, were looking for the answers to the questions about the past, present and future of the intelligentsia. This work is intended to confirm this thesis. Its purpose is to show that in the 1990s in the Ivanovo land there appeared an amalgam of intellectual studies of the experienced professionals who had been developing the topic for many years, with the creative approaches of novice researchers. This goal is achieved by reprinting the materials of the round table “Intelligentsia and Intelligence in our time”, which was published on the pages of the youth newspaper “Priamaia rech’” on December 6, 1994. The publication uses source-based methods — external and internal criticism of the source. With external criticism, the history of the newspaper “Priamaia rech’” is told and attention is drawn to the participants of the round table under consideration. It is noted that all of them were interested in the history of the intelligentsia and intellectuals professionally, had scientific publications on this topic and were either students of V. S. Memetov (A. M. Semenenko, A. A. Danilov, A. A. Zakhovaev, A. E. Ryabinkin), or knew him well (S. V. Konorev, G. S. Smirnov). When conducting internal criticism of the source, subscript comments are given.

• Details
• Contents