Il Pluralismo tra Democrazia ed Autoritarismo: Il Caso Russo

The research explores the mechanisms in the formation and consolidation of a new regime which combines democratic and authoritarian features; it has emerged as result of democratization processes affecting different world areas in recent years. The study analyses a case of great international significance, post-communist Russia: here internal factors strongly prevail in front of the external variables of democratic imitation and contagion, thus showing to what extent Russia differs from other political contexts. The study intends to examine the strategies used by this regime to solve internal conflicts and become stable in spite of the democratizing pressures coming from outside. Indeed, the literature about political transformations has shown the problems in analyzing these polities together with the need to examine their peculiarities more in depth. In this perspective, the first section focuses on the dynamics of State-building in Russia as a fundamental process in tracing the specific characteristics of the current regime: particularly, it is suggested that the State dimension comes out as crucial in determining the level of political and social pluralism accepted in post-Soviet Russia. This argument is worked out in the second section, which analyses the main mechanisms used by the incumbents to limit and control pluralism within the two arenas of political competition and civil society, from where the major threats to the status quo are supposed to come. The main hypothesis is that the leadership interventions in these spheres during the last ten years have shaped a regime which can be characterized as a new type of authoritarianism: with respect to traditional authoritarian forms a certain degree of political contestation is accepted, visible in the presence of a multiparty system, semi-competitive elections and of the several representatives of civil society. Yet, this diversity is curbed basically in two different ways: from one hand the incumbents provide support to political and social actors who sponsor government politics (see the party of power and pro-Kremlin movements). From the other they use some non coercive forms of control and restriction (in legislation, in political elections) against those actors who promote values and priorities opposed to the official ones.

Epos orale russo tra oralità e scrittura: problemi e proposte di traduzione

In the present thesis, I discuss the role of orality in translation, taking into account the problems arising while translating Russian folk epics. I investigate the meaning of orality in the context of folkloristic translation, trying to define a concept of oral poetry, and exploring its consequences for translation. In the first chapter, I try to identify the main differences between written literature and oral modes of expression, with special reference to folklore. Oral verbal art is performed, sung or recited, and based on a vital and dynamic interrelation between kinesics, sound, speech and gestures. According to Muhawi (2006), performance provides an interpretive frame enabling a correct interpretation of the message conveyed beyond the literal meaning. Transposing certain performance elements into print is one of the most controversial problems in folklore studies. However, formulas and formal stylistic devices may be rendered in transcription, building a bridge between oral and written elements. In the translation of oral poetry in transcription, this interconnection between orality and literacy might be emphasized, thus creating a hybrid dimension where oral and literary features coexist. In the second chapter, I introduce and describe the genre of Russian folk epics, transmitted orally, and transcribed between the 19th and 20th centuries, from a historical, linguistic and stylistic point of view. In the third and fourth chapters, I explore the issue of translation of Russian oral poetry. I first analyse existing Italian translations of Russian epics, and then present and discuss my own translation, based on a philological, scholarly approach. Thus, in my translation, which is followed by a rich commentary, I try to focus on the rendering of formulas as one of the most relevant aspects of Russian epics. At the same time, oral devices combine with literary features, thus creating a sort of frozen orality.