2022/5, стр. 499 - 513

SYMBOLIC CHANGES IN THE SPACE OF THE CITY: ADDRESS URBANONYMS OF KHMELNYTSKYI IN THE XX CENTURY

Резюме:

Ключови думи:

Introduction

In significant periods of its history, each nation turns to the experience of its ancestors. In this experience, it seeks to find worldview guidelines and opportunities for a balanced and constructive solution to social problems and conflicts, examples of humandeeds, inspiring to overcome the difficulties of the current time. It is obvious that the reconstruction of the past is possible and expedient only in the interests and demands of the present and as a result for the future. Modernity cannot be understood outside the past; at the same time, the events of the past acquire their value significance in the context of the needs of the present time.

It should be noted that the dialogue between “yesterday” and “today” in the name of “tomorrow” takes place in the context of the actualization of historical memory. It is the factor serving as a reflection of the collective experience, allowing a particular social group to identify itself through the experience and examples of the past. It acts as a “living” history, since it creates an opportunity to form a chain of interrelated and interacting processes of social consciousness. With the help of history, he socializes, joining the cultural values of his people and at the same time continues to create new cultural values. Thanks to historical memory, a person realizes himself as an active participant in history, tries to predict the future, to feel himself a part of his nation. With the help of history, he socializes, joining the cultural values of his people. Obviously, historical memory is an important vital component of national and state building, the basis of the historical consciousness of the society. According to B. Shatska, it forms an awareness of the common past among members of the social community, causes emotional experiences from a long common stay in time, and transmits values and patterns of behavior. (Shatska 2011, 58). Historical memory provides answers to important questions for society: namely, about its origin, features of the historical fate and development prospects. The answers to these questions largely determine the current state of society, since they open the curtain of what it is and where it is heading in its development.

It is thanks to the general image of the past, more or less the same for most members of the community, that a person gets the opportunity to identify himself with the victories and defeats of previous generations, with the thoughts and actions of common heroes, with places of memory sacred to society, with the achievements of culture etc. That`s why the correlation of historical memory and national identity is fully embedded in the formula: “no memory – no identity, no nation.”

The concept of historical memory does not have a single and clear definition. Researchers put different content into the nature and essence of this definition, basing on their own experience and worldview. Very often this concept is identified with the concepts of social memory, cultural memory, etc. Despite the semantic proximity and a single object of research, there is a difference between them. First of all, the difference is in the ways of fixing the content of the object both in the information field and in the semantic field. So, if social memory concentrates on a larger amount of information in order to transform relevant social information about the past and save the accumulated social experience and pass it on from generation to generation, then historical memory broadcasts mainly past facts related directly to their participants. Historical memory is based on the fixation of the specific historical events and personalities. Another feature is its socially constructive nature. Basing on the ideas of P. Berger and T. Luckman, we believe that historical memory can be viewed as a kind of social construct created on the basis of the interaction of certain social groups within a specific time period (Berger et al. 1995, 112). A certain manifestation of the historical memory construction is its artificial subjective manipulation, depending on political preferences. It should be noted that the manipulation of historical memory is carried out around certain points in which it is concentrated and broadcast. These points can have both of material and nonmaterial nature. In the research discourse, they are called “the places of memory”. The author of this concept, P. Nora, explains it as follows: “the places of memory are remains. It is the extreme form containing a commorative consciousness in history, which ignores it, but which has a need for it. It is the thing that hides, veils, establishes, creates, discredits, maintains through the art and will of the community. Museums, archives, cemeteries, collections, holidays, anniversaries, treatises, protocols, memorials, temples, associations – all these values in themselves are the witnesses of another era, the illusions of eternity (Nora 1999, 26). Obviously, “the places of memory” are specific points of the historical memory concentration. With the help of the memorable places reformatting the politics of memory takes place as a manifestation of the construction and deconstruction of historical memory. It is also important to understand that “the places of memory” are a very wide range of elements: from material to non-material objects. Thus, memory is rooted in the certain things, in space, gestures, images and objects. It is fixed in various forms of knowledge, in cultural stereotypes, myths, symbols, etc. Let us consider the fixation of historical memory in more detail using the example of symbols.

1. The social nature of the symbol

The explanatory dictionary explains a symbol as a sign, as a conventional designation of an object, concept or phenomenon (Busel 2002, 456). Despite the fact that the symbol is identified as the sign and is revealed through the sign, however, it differs from it as the meaning of the symbol does not have a direct dependence on the sign. It is, in fact, the outward expression of it.

The symbol cannot be interpreted literally. The meaning of the symbol is not given, but is set. It cannot be explained using a set of logical formulas and rules. The essence of a symbol can only be interpreted in comparison with other semantic ideas. It preserves, in a folded form, exceptionally extensive and significant texts and meanings. Therefore, in the process of understanding symbols, a person establishes their meaning in the sense of ideas and a system of ideas. He tries to understand what meaning the ideas express and what lies behind the ideas, that is, he wants to discover the meanings of the symbol in relation to the hidden reality of human consciousness, not expressed in exoteric language. The symbol, according to S. Krymskyi, is a special product of co-knowledge, a certain life phenomenon that allows you to look beyond the limits of everyday life (Krymskyi 2008, 89). Provided that at first glance the symbol is a complete text, nevertheless it is not practically included in any syntagmatic series, and if it is included in it, it retains its semantic and structural independence. Thus, the symbol represents one of the most enduring elements of the cultural continuum. Its stable nature allows us to consider the symbol as the main tool with the help of which a person interacts with the world. He is immersed in artistic images, symbols and rituals. Thanks to symbols, according to E. Cassirer, a person lives in a wider reality than other living organisms. He lives in a symbolic universe of his own making, to which he reacts and which he is able to change. At the same time, the physical world does not disappear for a person, but somehow “dissolves” into the symbolic one (Cassirer 1998, 40). With the help of symbols, a person cognizes and understands the world and himself in this world. So, J. Baudrillard states that in the consumption system a person does not deal with things as such, but with the cultural signs, the exchange between which occurs constantly within a certain structural code (Baudrillard 2000, 46). The understanding of the symbolic world is based on a person’s personal worldview. This outlook, according to J. Huizinga, is based on the individual worldview of a person, his moral values, personal priorities and experience (Huizinga 1995, 56). Culture is a certain sign system, which has its own symbolic context, which is revealed by a person. According to Yu. Lotman, culture is a collective intelligence and collective memory, that is, a supra-individual mechanism for storing and transmitting certain messages (texts) and developing new ones. Thus, the memory common to the space of a given culture is provided, firstly, by the presence of certain constant texts and, secondly, either by the unity of codes, or by their invariance, or by the continuity and regular nature of their transformation. It is obvious that memory as a creative mechanism is not only panchronous, but it is opposed to time. It preserves the past as abiding. “From the point of view of the memory as a mechanism that works with its entire thickness, the past has not passed,” notes the researcher (Lotman 1996, 201).

However, the memory should not be viewed as a passive repository of culture. Culture is presented as a process and a product of the interaction of people, social groups and communities. The result of the interaction is the formation of a certain paradigm, the content, meanings and configuration of which are constantly changing based on the value priorities and needs of people of a certain era. Obviously, each culture defines its own paradigm of what should be remembered and preserved, and what should be forgotten. Facts subject to oblivion are deleted from the memory of people, defined as inconsiderable, insignificant and “somehow ceases to exist”. The texts that form its basis constantly generate new meanings, are consonant with the modern-synchronous cut of culture. Being an important mechanism of cultural memory, symbols transfer texts, plot schemes and other semiotic formations from one layer of culture to another. “The contrastive sets of symbols, penetrating the diachrony of culture, to a large extent take on the function of mechanisms of unity: by carrying out the memory of culture about itself, they do not allow it to fall apart into isolated chronological layers. The unity of the main set of dominant symbols and the duration of their cultural life largely determines the national and areal boundaries of cultures”, writes Yu. Lotman (Lotman 1996, 193). The symbol is the memory of culture, because it is the herald of other cultures, other eras. It retains something special, archaic. As a result, the symbol permeates the synchronous slice of culture along the vertical, since it originates from the past and is directed to the future.

Considering this circumstance, let us consider the relevance of symbols in the preservation and creation of new contexts of historical memory. We assume that the study of the emergence and transformation of the meanings of symbols opens up additional opportunities for creating and preserving a culture of memory. The object of consideration is the city symbols. The relevance and topicality of this object of research interest is explained by the fact that the symbolic marking of urban space in recent years has been marked by dependence on political conjuncture and as a result demonstrates the manipulation of historical memory around certain points − “the places of memory”. The problem of the urban space symbolic marking relevance acquired an additional topicality as a result of the elimination of communist symbols elements. The relevance and topicality of this object of the research interest is due to the importance of symbolic marking of the urban space in the formation of worldview orientations. We are talking about the ability of urban symbols to influence the consciousness of people. This feature is embodied in practice due to the display of the ideological priorities of the state, ethnic characteristics, economic and cultural specifics of the city in the toponymy of this city.

The purpose of the article is to consider the features of the historical memory formation in the urban space on the example of the address urbanonyms.

Address urbanonyms are an important source of information about the past. The study of the features of the emergence and transformation of urbanonyms clarifies and details the picture of the past, opens up additional opportunities for studying political, economic, social, and cultural processes. It should be noted that address urbanonyms in states, that for many centuries had the opportunity to preserve and develop the traditions of statehood, as a rule, do not change for a long time and are rightly considered an acquisition of national culture. At the same time, in states with interrupted state building targeted toponymic narratives are being revised. Since, while preserving the markers of the former non-state era, they cast doubt on their modern existence. An example would be the processes of decommunization in Ukrainian society.

2. Symbols as the embodiment of human memory

The world of symbols is embodied and expressed in various spatio-temporal practices of human life. Urban space plays a relevant role in spatial practices. City symbols are represented in the names of streets and squares, in memorial plaques, buildings, monuments, etc. They are not only an important element in supporting and revitalizing the life of the city, but also create its unique portrait, filling the city with special meaning and value orientations. Thus, thanks to the symbols the urban space acts as a special space of historical memory. The city is not only a geographical feature, but also an important cultural environment. The city, according to P. Nora, is a place where the memory of society is preserved and formed (Nora 1999, 34). People, co-existences, buildings, traditions, songs or landscape units, etc., which are surrounded by a symbolic aura, are stimuli for the activation of memory. They carry a certain symbolic meaning. It can change due to numerous individual or group strategies. The creation and awareness of the human community of “the places of memory” is the main factor in the formation of identity. Therefore, studying the change in the symbolic load of these places, according to P. Nora, one can understand the development of historical self-awareness and the collective identity of a certain social group (Nora 1999, 35). Monuments, memorial tables, names of streets and squares, etc., being a certain symbolic coding of the city, serve not only to perpetuate a certain historical event. They are constantly reminded of the causes, motives of events or actions of the historical figures. Their main purpose is the maintenance and reproduction of the historical memory. Influencing the formation of the cultural space of the city, filling the life world of its inhabitants with a special meaning and value orientations, these city symbols are an effective means of articulating a certain vision of the past. We are talking about the possibilities of metaphorically supporting the experience and achievements of the historical past and projecting this experience into the socio-cultural context of the present. Therefore, changing the names of streets and squares, destroying or creating new monuments, establishing memorial tables, etc. testifies to the processes of constant symbolic coding or recoding of the urban space. French researcher P. Nora believes that these processes are typical for countries that have freed themselves from totalitarian and authoritarian regimes and elites. In the socio-cultural life of these countries, there is an appeal to traditional memory, destroyed or distorted in favor of the previous regime (Nora 1999, 36). An example is the modern Ukrainian society, where decommunization processes have been actively taking place in recent years. They are accompanied by liquidation of the monuments and the memorial plaques of the Soviet era, renaming streets and squares, and so on. The symbolic recoding of urban space is intended not only to destroy the symbols of the Soviet era, but also to “clear” urban space to create new symbols. The result of these actions is the oblivion and elimination of the connection between eras, cultures, ideological narratives, etc.

Any destruction of symbolic culture presupposes the distortion of historical memory. A symbol is understood not just as a carrier of meaning dictated by history, but as a manifestation and embodiment of the human memory. It provides the ability to broadcast messages about certain constructed variations of the image of the past. This feature allows not only to broadcast different variations of characters that are associated with a specific memory model.

Accordingly, a change in the political system of the state very often leads to the destruction of monuments and cultural artifacts, the burning of texts, the renaming of streets, etc., that is, it involves the fight against the symbols of the previous ruling regime and the approval of new symbolic paraphernalia. The point is that changes in the symbolic space of the city cause changes in the politics of memory.

3. Address urbanonyms of Khmelnytskyi in the time retrospective of the XX century

We will consider the analysis of trends in the symbolic marking of urban space using the example of Khmelnytskyi city. This city has more than 600 years of history and originates from a small settlement Ploskyriv or Ploskyrivtsy. The year of foundation of the city is unknown. The first mention of this settlement dates back to the first half of the 15th century. At that time, Podillia was an arena of rivalry between the Lithuanian princes and the Polish king. This rivalry ended with the victory of the Polish king. The part of Podillia, including the Bug region, went under the Polish crown. In 1431 the King Vladislav Jagiello gave these lands to the faithful gentry as privileges. Among the settlements that are mentioned in the documents of the royal office of that time there is a settlement of Ploskyrivtsy on the Bug River in the Letychiv district of Podilsk land. During the reign of Vladislav III (1434 – 1444), the right to own the settlement was confirmed, but with the name Ploskyriv (Krylov 1905, 234). Over time, the city developed and acquired its original character, which was reflected in the symbolism as well.

Since the symbolism of the city is very diverse, we chose address urbanonyms as the subject field of our research. The choice is explained by the following factors. Firstly, the appearance of streets and squares names is due to the need of performing an informational, explanatory function. Consequently, street names are constantly referred to by residents of the city when filling out documents or other bureaucratic forms, asking the driver to stop, explaining the location of something, etc. Secondly, monuments, memorial plaques and other cultural artefacts are of less practical importance in the everyday life of residents and, according to V. Sereda, are automatically perceived by the urban population as an integral and inconspicuous part of the urban space. Thus, the researcher considers monuments and memorial plaques as “natural” markers of the city and therefore considers them more noticeable to the “foreign” eye (tourists, people who visit this city for the first time) (Sereda 2008, 74). Let us consider the variability and representativeness of the historical memory models, which are encoded in the urban names of the city of Khmelnytskyi, based on the fact that address urban names are an integral part of the toponymic system of the city. That is why the regulation of the urban space contains a powerful potential for the ideological policy of any political regime. As an illustration there is the research of the Bulgarian scientist V. Sukarev. Analyzing the history of renaming the streets of Plovdiv, he draws attention to the fact that the establishment of the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1944 was due to a break with many historical traditions. One of the directions of the communist ideological machine functioning is the creation of their own “places of memory” (Sukarev 2022, 322). The renaming of a large number of streets began in May 1945. Street names associated with the local history of the city were replaced by the names associated with the events of the communist era of the country’s existence. V. Sukarev notes the fact that the streets in the new micro-districts of the Plovdiv city in the second half of the 20th century received names associated not only with the names of the Communist Party of Bulgaria, but also with geographical names that have nothing to do with the history of the city and even with the names of plants, for example, Maple, Lotus streets, etc. An interesting example of the renaming of Bogolim Street to Moscow Olympics Street was the fact that Olympic flame has passed this street on the way to the Summer Olympic Games in Moscow in 1980. The researcher explains these facts by the lack of names and a certain remoteness of new streets from the center (Sukarev 2022, 324). At the same time, the lack of names did not contribute to the renewal of the historical memory of past times, the return of historical names.

Address urbanonyms of the city should clearly correspond to the state ideology, strengthen its influence on the creation of city residents. The authorities have always explained changes in modern history by the need to restore (or resume) historical justice (Koleva 2020, 44). Note that this resource was actively used by the governments of different totalitarian regimes. The chronological framework of this process is outlined by the events of the twentieth century.

To characterize the targeted urbanonyms of Khmelnytskyi city, we used the method of the urbanonyms classification according to the sources of nomination. This approach allowed us to trace a number of changes in the urbanonymic map of the city in the 20th century. During this period the Soviet government was installed in the city, and it took over the creation of the symbolic space of the city as an instrument of agitation and propaganda. In the twentieth century, the creation and change of urbanonyms does not occur spontaneously, but by the administrative means.

The following trends can be traced in the renaming of address toponyms.

Firstly, the central streets of the city received the names of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, leaders of the Communist Party, leaders of the revolutionary movement (streets of K. Marx, V. Lenin, F. Dzerzhinsky, M. Frunze, R. Luxemburg, K. Liebknecht, etc.) (State Archives of Khmelnitskyi region (SAKR) (SAKR, F.1178, Op.4, 120). Less important territories (the degree of significance was determined by the distance from the center and the size of the street) were assigned the names associated with the names of ordinary revolutionaries, famous workers – the strikers of communist labor, military personnel (streets named by V. Primakov, V. Chapaiev, S. Rudnev, V. Bozhenko, etc.). Such structuring of the symbolic space testified to the laying in the minds of the inhabitants of the city a hierarchy of the “correct” ideas (the significance of the leaders of Marxism-Leninism, the cultivation of subordination and servility, the elimination of alternative views and pluralism of thinking, etc.), which should have evoked a feeling of the scale of the political, cultural, military, economic achievements of the Soviet power. It should be noted that some central streets changed their name several times during the Soviet era (V. Samusyak St. (1921) – V. Lenin St. (1940) – Zhovtneva St. (1985); E. Ostapovich (1921) – S. Kirov street (1940) and others) (SAKR, F.1178, Op. 4, 120, Ar. 8, 11, 15, 17; SAKR, F. 1178, Op. 4, 32, Ar.8; SAKR, F.1178, Op.4, 196, Ar.5, 7; SAKR, F.1178, Op.4, 299, Ar.8). Obviously, such frequent renaming of the central streets of the city was associated with the need to constantly remind residents about the achievements of the Soviet power, the need to maintain and cultivate the fundamental ideas of the communist ideology, faith in a bright communist future, etc.

Secondly, many streets of the city were named after a certain person (the streets of N. Vatutin, Y. Galan, Marshal Zhukov, General Kyrponos, Marshal Rybalka, M. Raskova, M. Tolbukhin and others). We believe that the increased interest and need to perpetuate the names of the party figures, scientists, culture, military personnel not only in granite, but also in street names lies in the psychology of the political regime. The Soviet government relied in its activities on the sycophantic environment, which unquestioningly and very often thoughtlessly perceived its ideas, but in return demanded appeasement with awards and honors. As a result, in the 20 th century, the address urbanonyms of the city increasingly began to perform the function of toponymic monuments. The city was seen as a space of symbolic markers that the authorities used to strengthen and expand their ideology. The streets and other objects of the city became “incorporeal monuments” to those personalities or events that were updated by the authorities as outstanding or significant.

Thirdly, the names of the streets of this period have little to do with the regional specifics of the development of the city, the features of its cultural landscape. At the end of the 19th century, address urbanonyms were associated with the names of former homeowners (landowners), occupations or social status of their inhabitants (Dvorianska, Komertsiina, Kupetska streets). As S. Esyunin notes, at the beginning of the 20th century Khmelnytskyi was a significant trade center for export grain trade. Accordingly, an important social layer of merchants is being formed in the city, the number of which is growing every year. So, “if in 1806 there were only 5 merchants, then in 1897 there were 146, and in 1903–578” (Yesyunin 2007, 65). They built their houses and, accordingly, stores with warehouses on the central street of the city, which was called Kupetska (Merchants). The expansion of the city led to the creation of new streets that adjoined Kupetska and where merchants and other entrepreneurs also settled. So, says S. Yesyunin, in 1824 new streets were laid, which adjoined the central part of the city – Commercial, Millionna. It was on these streets that the houses of the local nobility and merchants were located, where they found the house of the local treasury, where, according to local residents, they "disposed millions of capital” (Yesyunin 2008, 108, 120). After the advent of Soviet power, these streets were renamed. So, Kommertsiina Street was renamed into Rosa Luxemburg Street, and in 1991 it was renamed in honor of Mikhailo Hrushevskyi. With the advent of Soviet power, Millionna Street was renamed in honor of one of the heroes of the Bolshevik revolution, O. Samusyak. In 1940, in honor of the 70th anniversary of the Bolshevik leader V. Ulyianov (Lenin), the street received a new name – the name of Lenin. In 1985, the authorities decided that the central street of the city should bear the name of Lenin, so the former Millionna was renamed into Zhovtneva. In 1991 it received a new name – Teatralna. In just one century this street has changed five names (Yesyunin 2008, 120). Address urbanonyms of the end of the 19th century also indicated significant geographic objects of the city. At that time, the streets of the city were Postal road to Kamianets, Postal road to Letychiv, Velyka Vokzalna, Novyi Boulevard, Mala Bugska and others. Mala Bugskaya street is one of the oldest streets in Khmelnytskyi. In the middle of the 19th century, it changed its name to Naberezhna (Quay), and in 1965 the authorities gave it a name in honor of the Red Cossack commander Vitaly Primakov (Yesyunin 2008, 154). Some streets of the city got their names from the location of significant city objects there. For example, one of the central streets in the 19th century was called Cathedral, since the Church of the Nativity of the Virgin was located here. In the 20s of the twentieth century, the Soviet authorities renamed it in honor of the German communist revolutionary Karl Liebknecht (Yesyunin 2009, 18). Thus, in the twentieth century, most of the streets of the city received the names of personalities, whose biographies were not connected with the history and culture of Khmelnytskyi (V. Chapaiev, Yu. Gagarin, Ya. Galan, M. Raskova, S. Rudnev, M. Tukhachevskyi and others). Under such conditions, the symbolic image of the city lost its uniqueness, acquired universal features that were inherent in many average Ukrainian cities of the Soviet period. The development of address urbanonyms of this period is characterized by two factors: a significant percentage of renaming and ideologization. Such a standardized approach deprived the city’s symbolic space of its uniqueness, making its toponymic map similar to hundreds of other cities. As a result, according to L. Males, a “foreign” symbolic image was formed in the minds of the inhabitants, which in general terms was also characteristic of other Ukrainian cities (Males 2006, 170).

Fourthly, the symbolic marking of the streets of Khmelnytskyi is heavily focused on the militaristic component. Among the addresses of the Soviet period some urban names were devoted to military achievements, heroic victories of the Red Army, famous military personnel (Chervonoarmiiska (Red Army street), Chervonoflotska (Red Fleet street), Marshal Rybalko, Marshal Zhukov, General Kyrponos, M. Tolbukhin, M. Tukhachevskyi, V. Chapaieva, S. Rudneva, N. Vatutina and others). The intensive militarization of the symbolic markers of the city was designed to ensure the formation of an imperial-type identity, served as a source of constant energy supply for a sense of belonging to a single Soviet people (Dolganov 2014, 174). Disproportionately, a very small part of the names of the streets of the Khmelnytskyi Soviet period is dedicated to the figures of culture, art, science. There are even fewer targeted urbanonyms of the Soviet era associated with national culture and history. If they were it was rather isolated cases and only those that fit the scheme of the Soviet paradigm of the history of Ukraine (V. Bozhenka, Y. Galan, D. Korotchenko and others). There were no street names associated with figures of regional history and culture. Thus, the function of formation in the symbolic space of the relationship of domination / submission was achieved. The weak ethno-cultural (not political) Ukrainian identity gave way to militarily and politically dominant identity of the Soviet type.

Fifthly, in the structure of the thematic classification of the symbolic marking of address urbanonyms, there are no street names that symbolize the connection with the multicultural and multinational past of the city. At the same time, many different nationalities, Poles, Russians, Jews, Turks, Tatars, Roma and others have lived in the city since its foundation. The Jews were the most numerous national community. Researchers of regional history P. Pavlova and S. Yesyunin argue that “in 1889 more than 60% of the total population of the city were Jews. Approximately the same proportions were preserved in the first half of the 20th century” (Pavlova et al. 2006, 11). The Polish community was the second to the Jews in terms of numbers. The Poles made up almost a quarter of the population of Khmelnytskyi (Yesyunin 2005, 34). At the same time, on the toponymic map of the city there are no address urbanonyms associated with history, culture, famous representatives of the national communities of the city. There is a street with the name Tsiganska (Gypsy’s), but it is rather an exception. In the middle of the 19th century a Roma community lived compactly on this street in the southwestern district of the city. Precisely, this circumstance contributed to the name of the street. However, at the end of the 19th century it received a new name – Novobulvarna. In 1928 it was renamed in honor of one of the local Bolsheviks M. Rechko. Since 1946 the street has been named after the Ukrainian writer Ivan Franko (Yesyunin 2008, 129).

In the last decades of the twentieth century, there are relevant changes in public life. They are associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of an independent Ukrainian state. The liquidation of Soviet power made its own adjustments to the formation of historical memory as a social construct. Consequently, there have been changes in its symbolic component. This is how the process of renaming address urbanonyms takes place. In this process, we can observe two main strategies: the restoration of the original names associated with the history of the area; perpetuation of prominent figures of the Ukrainian people. In this other strategy, a certain opposition can be traced: national (Ukrainian) – totalitarian (Soviet). As a result, the “rudiments” of the Soviet era occasionally remained in some of the city's targeted urbanonyms (rather, those that had a neutral ideology). First of all, we are talking about those names that did not have a clearly expressed communist ideology. For example, the name of the street in honor of the first Soviet cosmonaut Yu. Gagarin has been preserved. Structural changes in favor of the nationalization of the targeted urbanonyms can be traced in the names of the central streets of the city. The quintessence of the national policy of the municipality of Khmelnytskyi was the assignment to the streets of the city the names of the national liberation struggle leaders of the Ukrainian people in 1917 – 1919, the heroes of the UPA liberation struggle (S. Bandera, G. Tiutiunnyk, Povstanska, A. Sheptytskyi and others). Thus, in the names of modern streets one can trace the same military component as in the Soviet era. A large number of modern streets are dedicated to military figures, heroes whose life and ascetic service was associated with armed struggle (streets of S. Bandera, G. Tiutiunnyk, Povstanska, M. Voloshyn and others). Among the address urbanonyms of the modern city the part of the names associated with the activities of the famous figures of culture, art and literature has increased (M. Kropyvnytskyi, M. Verbytskyi, N. Amosov, A. Sheptytskyi, John Paul II and others). It would be appropriate to use the names in address urbanonyms dedicated to local figures of culture, literature, science and art. This approach will create an original toponymic map of the city. It is also about the renewal of the historical and cultural environment of the city. The cultural space of a modern city, without a doubt, should reflect its deep history, form a harmonious, unique topographic environment.

Historical amnesia remained practically unchanged in relation to the multicultural component of Khmelnytskyi's history. The culture and heritage of the national minority of the city has not found a verbal embodiment in the address urbanonyms of the city. At the same time, in our opinion, the multicultural historical heritage is a powerful resource in revealing the regional features of the city, creating its original cultural and social portrait. Thus, the multicultural historical heritage can significantly reformat the symbolic space in favor of the regional dominant, in front of the state meta-narrative, turning the city into a more self-sufficient and attractive in all contexts and reviving its historical palette (Dolganov 2014, 175). Focusing on the multi-ethnic history of Khmelnytskyi contributes to the education of liberality and tolerance towards the traditional minorities of the city, thus providing a symbolic expression of inter-ethnic communication.

Conclusion

The formation of historical memory is not a self-flowing, natural process. It is understood as socially constructed and, as a result, depends on a number of factors that contribute to or hinder its implementation. Symbols play a significant role in this process. Influencing the consciousness of people, they contribute to the unity of various lifestyles, worldview values and individual human experience. In the complex nature of symbols there is an ideological, educational and spiritual potential, taking into account which culture of memory is being formed. Thus, historical memory should not be regarded as a passive repository of culture. Being an important mechanism of the cultural memory, symbols transfer texts, plot schemes, and other semiotic formations from one layer of culture to another. The process of transformation of the semantic part of symbols opens up additional opportunities for creating and preserving a culture of memory.

Any change in symbolic culture presupposes a change in historical memory. A symbol is understood not just as a carrier of meaning dictated by history, but as a manifestation and embodiment of the human memory. It provides the ability to broadcast messages about certain constructed variations of the image of the past. Accordingly, a change in the political system of the state very often leads to the destruction of monuments and cultural artifacts, the burning of the texts, the renaming of the streets, etc., that is, it involves the fight against the symbols of the previous ruling regime and the approval of the new symbolic attributes. The point is that changes in the symbolic space of the city cause changes in the politics of memory. A feature of address urbanonyms is, unlike memorials and other symbolic objects, that they are very easy to change, succumbing to political conjuncture and are good material for political manipulation. On the example of the address urbanonyms of the Khmelnytskyi city, it was found that the names of the streets of this period have little to do with the regional specifics of the city's development, the features of its cultural landscape. The marking of Khmelnytskyi's symbolic space in the Soviet era reflected the state's ideological dictate, within which there was no place for the counter-memory presentations. Thus, the symbolic space of the city became a good material for political manipulation and distortion of the culture of memory.

Prospects for further research may be the consideration of the problems of the historical memory reconstruction in the context of the advertising development.

NOTES

1. ANONYMOUS. N/a. Architectural and planning tasks for the improvement of the city for 1960. Planning tasks. In: F. 1178, op. 4, spr. 120, ar. 8, 11, 15. At: State Archives of Khmelnitsky region (SAKR) [in Ukrainian].

2. ANONYMOUS. N/a. Measures for the improvement of the city in honor of the 100th anniversary of V. Lenin in 1969. In: F. 1178, op. 4, spr. 196, ar. 5, 7. At: State Archives of Khmelnitsky region (SAKR) [in Ukrainian].

3. ANONYMOUS. N/a. Plans for comprehensive improvement of the city for 1977. Plans. In: F. 1178, op. 4, spr. 299, ar. 8. At: State Archives of Khmelnitsky region (SAKR) [in Ukrainian].

4. ANONYMOUS. N/a. Plans for the development of housing and communal services for 1950 – 1955. Plans. In: F. 1178, op. 4, spr. 32, ar. 80. At: State Archives of Khmelnitsky region (SAKR) [in Ukrainian].

REFERENCES

BAUDRILLARD, J., 2000. Symbolic Exchange and Death. Moscow: Dobrosvet, 387 [in Russian].

BERGER, P. & LUKMAN, T., 1995. Social construction of reality. Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. Translated from English. Rutkevich (translator). Moscow: Medium, 332 [in Russian].

DOLGANOV, P. S., 2014. Ideological decolonization of the toponymic system of verbal markers in Rivne. Bulletin of Lviv University. Sociological series. 8, 162 – 174 [in Ukrainian].

CASSIRER, E., 1998. The Concept of Symbolic Form in the Structure of the Spiritual Sciences. Cultural studies of the twentieth century. Digest of Philosophy of Culture. 2, 34 – 68. Moscow: Worldwide [in Russian].

HENZINGA, J., 1995. Autumn of the Middle Ages: Op. in 3 vols. T.1. Translated from Dutch. UKOLOVA(ed.). Moscow: Progress-Culture, 416 [in Russian].

KOLEVA, D., 2020. Memory and justice. Personal memories and public stories under communism. Sofia: Ciela, 130 [In Bulgarian].

KRYLOV, A., 1905. Populated places of the Podolsk province. KamenetsPodolsky: Publication of the Podolsky Statistical Committee. 563 [in Ukrainian].

KRYMSKY, S., 2008. Signature of Sofia. Kyiv: Vidavnichiy dіm “KyivMohyla Academy”, 367 [in Ukrainian].

BUSEL, W., 2002. Large explanatory dictionary of the Ukrainian language,

Kyiv: Libra, 1034 [in Ukrainian].

List of Squares, Streets, Lands, Passages, Squares, Boulevards, Parks, Located on the territory of Khmelnytsky, 2012. Available from: https:// www.reestp_vil24-12-2012.Pdf [in Ukrainian].

List of Khmelnytskyi streets, 2022 [in Ukrainian]. Available from: https:// list.in.ua/%D0%A5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD %D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9/streets.

LOTMAN, Y. M., 1992. Memory in culturological lighting. In: Selected articles. 1, 200 –220. [in Russian].

LOTMAN, Y.M., 1992. Symbol in the system of culture. In: Selected articles. 1, 191 – 199. [in Russian].

LOTMAN, Y., 1996. Inside Thinking Worlds. Man – text – semiosphere – history. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture, 464 [in Russian].

MALES, L., 2006. Map of the place: symbolic expanse of management. In: Current Suspіlnі problems in the world of sociology of management. Materials of the II scientific conference. Donetsk: DonDNU, 169 – 174 [in Ukrainian].

NORA, P., 1999. The issue of places of memory. Translated from French. Dina KHAPAEVA (translator). In: NORA, P.; OZOUF, M.; PUYMIN, J. De; M. WIENOCK, M. France-memory. St. Petersburg, 17 – 57 [in Russian].

SHATSKA, B., 2011. Past-memory-myth. Translated from Polish. A. PAVLISHINA (translator). Chernivtsi: Books – XXI, 248 [in Ukrainian].

SEREDA, V.V., 2008. City as a lecu de memoire: memory common or shared. Bulletin of the Lviv University. Series: Sociology. 2, 73 – 99 [in Ukrainian].

SUKAREV, V., 2022. Administrative Renaming And The Memory For Plovdiv Urban Space During XX Century. Istoriya-History. 30 (3), 316 – 332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53656/his2022-3-5-adm

YESYUNIN, S., 2008. A walk by Proskuriv. Historical essays. Khmelnytskyi, 160 [in Ukrainian].

YESYUNIN, S., 2005. Khmelnytskyi Streetі. Ternopil: Published by V.P. Andriyshyn, 122 [in Ukrainian].

YESYUNIN, S. M. & PAVLOVA, N.M., 2006. Proskuriv-Khmelnytskyi. Time travel. Khmelnytskyi: PP Gonta A.S., 60 [in Ukrainian].