The Russian Review· 2026Q1
Late Soviet Intellectual Cult(ure): Merab Mamardashvili’s Strategy of Self‐Presentation
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Merab Mamardashvili cultivated an intellectual cult in late Soviet culture by strategically positioning himself as a public intellectual, a move later reinterpreted by followers to legitimize post-Soviet academic philosophy.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Merab Mamardashvili strategically adopted the role of a public intellectual in the late 1980s.
- His collection 'How I Understand Philosophy' (1990) significantly impacted the reception of his thought and fostered an intellectual cult.
- Following his death, friends and colleagues reinterpreted Mamardashvili's ideas to legitimize post-Soviet academic philosophy.
- The article uses Pierre Bourdieu's framework to analyze philosophy as a social practice influenced by theoretical and political struggles.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract This article analyzes Merab Konstantinovich Mamardashvili’s philosophical strategy in the context of late and post‐Soviet intellectual culture. It focuses on How I Understand Philosophy (1990), a collection of Mamardashvili’s works and interviews that had a significant impact on the reception of his thought and the shaping of his intellectual cult. This article argues that in the late 1980s, by assuming the role of a public intellectual, Mamardashvili laid the foundations for this cult, and after his death, his friends and colleagues who participated in its creation reinterpreted his ideas to legitimize (post‐)Soviet academic philosophy. I draw on Pierre Bourdieu’s approach to studying philosophy as a social practice, determined by both theoretical controversies and political struggle. This article is divided into three parts: the first section examines Mamardashvili’s career trajectory within the late Soviet academic environment; the second section analyzes his definitions of philosophy, which reflect the position of a public intellectual he occupied in the late 1980s; and the third section focuses on his critique of political and academic institutions and demonstrates how these “inconvenient” aspects of his legacy were neutralized and decontextualized by his followers.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. The Russian Review, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: History
HistoryArts and Humanities