The geopolitical imaginaire

According to Durand, imagination dynamically organizes schemata to homogenize representations resulting from the process of projecting internal schemata onto reality. As suggested by his mentor Gaston Bachelard, Durand believes that we should abandon the goal of finding a universal and one-sided meaning of symbols and instead study the trajectory traced by them in the imagination. Attention to trajectory highlights the underlying dynamism of characters; in other words, the basic pattern and its projection imply movement derived from the body.

Some examples of the most relevant traffic patterns are the from/to path and entry/exit orientation patterns. The latter is the basis for many linguistic structures, such as “I expressed my feelings” or “I suddenly had an idea”.

The empirical basis for this entry/exit orientation rests on the bodily experience of our bodies as containers with boundaries. This empirical basis is also found in the development of the idea of self, and it is this empirical basis that was used by G. Bachelard to define his “axiomatic metaphors” on which Durand based his “axiomatic schemes” in the study of symbolism. According to Durand, symbols are the result of a process of dynamization of bodily perceptions into corresponding patterns of movement.

Durand believes that bodily experiences give rise to the first archetypes (indicative of his attention to Jungian theories), which are then seen as connecting points between imaginary and rational processes. Archetypes are the most general (or “naked”) structures, and in the process of symbol emergence they are transformed into patterns that still retain an abstract nature, although they are the product of bodily perception. Finally, following the archetype and schema, the symbol itself is the final step in the process of materializing bodily perceptions into fully tangible and concrete images. Durand believed that the symbol is the most fragile element in the chain of materialization of the archetype because it is a tangible object that has been most prone to transformation throughout history. Symbols change over time, evolve and new ones are created, while patterns and archetypes are limited and fixed.

The imaginaire

It is worth differentiating the concept of imaginaire before analyzing Durand's theory and applying it to the geopolitical context. In French imaginaire, with a rough translation, it can be translated as “The world of imagination”, which includes both the object of imagination and the imaginator, that is, the subject, and the process of imagination itself. However, it is still entirely possible to translate it as:

• imagination or fancy
• Compare imagination to the activity = process of figurative thinking.

However, it is possible to expand the context and add a few more to these two units: the direct producer of the activity - the imagining one, and the object of imagination - its immediate result, created through imagination/fantasy - a metaphorical image that can be materialized. But it seems impossible to give an unambiguous definition of this phenomenon, due to the lack of a lexical analogue in the Russian language. Therefore, depending on the context, it seems reasonable to use imaginaire as: subject of imagination / object of imagination / fantasy / imagination (as a process). However, it is more correct to use the French term in the Russian transcription - имажинэр.

According to Durand, the sociology of imagination implies the transformation of imagination into an autonomous and independent object of sociological study. Therefore, within the framework of this approach, “imaginary social reality” is perceived as the world of social realities, which also includes the world of people's everyday practices in the development of socio-communicative processes.

Meaning of the symbol

Durand wrote: “Most of those who have analyzed symbolic impulses and been historians of religion have settled on a classification of symbols that more or less corresponds to their relation to one of the great cosmological epiphanies. Thus, Krapp divided myths and symbols into two groups: heavenly and earthly. The first five chapters of his ‘Origin of Myths’ are devoted to the sky, the sun, the moon, the ‘two great luminaries’, and the stars, while the last six chapters are devoted to atmospheric, volcanic, aquatic, chthonic, and catastrophic myths and, finally, the history of humanity and its symbolism.

Bachelard seems to have approached the problem by noting that subjective assimilation plays an important role in the sequence of symbols and their motivations. He suggests that our sensibility, which mediates between the world of objects and dreams, belongs to the division between the physics of qualities (une physique qualitative) and the first instance of the Aristotelian type. Or rather, it arrives at what such a physics already contains, and instead of writing monographs on the imagination of heat, cold, dryness and humidity, it closes in the theory of the four elements. These are the four elements that will serve as the basis for the poetic studies of epistemology, because ‘the four elements are the hormones of imagination’. However, Bachelard realizes that this classification in its symmetry is too rational, too objectively rational, to correspond exactly to the whims of logical madness. With a distinct psychological instinct, he breaks this quadruple symmetry by writing five books, two of which deal with aspects of the earth element. He understands that the matter of earth is ambiguous, linking the softness of soil and the hardness of stone, thus ‘encouraging introversion as well as extroversion’. We add that with this ambiguity Bachelard touches on the fundamental rule of symbolic incentive, in which each element is dual, being both an invitation to adaptive conquest and a rejection that motivates assimilative withdrawal. Similarly, the water element in Water and Dreams. Clear water is not the same as mixed and deep water. Calm water has the opposite meaning as storm water. Consequently, the resulting classification does not reveal the original principles that would allow for ambivalence. To say bluntly that ‘the most beautiful images are often the refuge of duality’, is this not admitting the failure of this classification? If the basic classification is inadequate, then it is inadequate, as we have tried to show elsewhere, because human perception has a much broader range of primary nuances than that represented in Aristotelian physics. For the sensible component, ice and snow do not find their resolution in howling, a blazing fire is different from light, clay is not the same as a crystal stone. Only in the landmark work ‘Water and Dreams’ does Bachelard catch a glimpse of the Copernican revolution, abandoning the objective signs that characterize its symbolic trajectory.

Dumézil's central idea is that the systems of mythical representation and their linguistic expression in Indo-European societies consist of three main functional parts. Indo-Europeans had a division into three castes or three orders: priestly, military and productive, which permeated the entire system of representation and shaped the impulses of both secular and religious symbolism. But apart from the fact that this tripartite division is by no means stable and allows for some confusion between magical-religious sovereignty on the one hand and royal power on the other, it seems to us that the philologist has not considered the deeper causes of the tripartite division itself. It and the functions associated with it seem to us secondary in the impulses of the symbolic. They are naturalistic projections onto celestial or terrestrial objects or phenomena.

Adler, immediately after the flowering of the symbolic, motivated by the pleasure principle, emphasizes the power principle, the drives of the whole vast area of the symbolic, formed because of the mechanism of overcompensation, gradually smoothing out the feeling of inferiority experienced in childhood. We see that this new approach, which is not in itself evidence of imperialism, can partly assimilate other compensatory impulses of childhood stupidity. Finally, Jung shows us how libido becomes complicated and transformed under the influence of ancestral drives. All symbolic thinking first became an awareness of the great hereditary symbols, a kind of psychological ‘embryo’, the subject of paleopsychology. Of course, one can criticize the claims made by the doctrine of the hereditary psyche as less than established, but it is precisely along with psychoanalysis that one can make a combined rebuke of imperialism and extreme simplification of motives: according to Freud, symbols are too easily classified according to the scheme of human bisexuality, and according to Adler according to the scheme of aggression. According to Piaget, there is an overwhelming imperialism that always seeks to allow imaginary content in a shameful attempt to deceive the censors. In other words, imagination, according to psychoanalysts, is the result of a conflict between drives and their social suppression, while in reality, more often than not, in its aspiration, it is the result of an agreement between desires and the social and the natural environment. Far from being a product of repression, imagination, as we shall see, is, on the contrary, a source of liberation. Images are judged not by their libidinal roots, which they conceal, but by the poetic and mythological colors they reveal. As Bachelard puts it very well, ‘For the psychoanalyst, the poetic image has always been a context. Interpreting the image, he translates it into a language other than the poetic logos. It has never been more appropriate to say: translator, traitor’”.

It is no accident that such a large passage of text is given here, for it is in it that one finds the classification that Durand gave, dividing the content of the imagination into myths, archetypes, symbols and plots. Duran also introduces two characteristic modes of imagination: it will be simultaneously substantiated by a two-part division into two symbolic regimes: diurnal and nocturnal, and a reflexological division into three parts. We have chosen a two-part division of this empirical classification of archetypal convergences for two reasons: first, as we are about to show, because the dual plane, combining the two-part and three-part divisions, is not contradictory and covers very well the various anthropological motivations set forth in researchers as far apart as Dumézil, Leroy-Gourhan, Piganyol, Eliade, Krapp, and reflexologists and psychoanalysts. Second, because the three-part division of dominant reflexes by classical psychoanalysis is functionally reduced to one into two parts. [...] In the West, there is a tradition-which is also a matter of archetypology-of giving “stomach pleasures” a more or less somber, or at least nocturnal, emotional coloring; therefore, it is proposed to contrast the symbolic “nocturnal (night) mode” with the “diurnal (day) mode”, structured by the dominant postural, its manual and visual consequences, and also, perhaps, the Adlerian consequences of aggression.

Differentiating all the above, it is worth noting that:

• The “diurnal mode” focuses on postural dominance, military technology, the sociology of the sovereign magician and sovereign warrior, and rituals of elevation and purification. The “diurnal mode” covers vessel and habitat techniques, nutritional and nutritive values, matriarchal and nutritive sociology.
• The “night mode” is divided into food and cyclic dominant. The “night mode” groups techniques related to the cycle, agrarian calendar, such as the textile industry, artificial or natural symbols of return, myths and astrobiological dramas.

“Daytime regime” on a geopolitical scale

According to the above, first of all, those who put the archetypes of Mage and the Warrior + Ruler pair in the line of their worldview are first of all subject to the “diurnal” regime. What are these archetypes and why, according to Jung's classification, can they match Durand's classification?

The Warrior archetype is based on a purposeful strategy that can lead to results. The archetype corresponds to a pragmatic and decisive line, which in any case should lead to the result placed in the base.

The Sovereign archetype is based on the creator archetype. This archetype takes everything under its control to avoid chaos; it relies only on itself and its strength.

The mage archetype, unlike the lower archetypes, can not only create but also appropriately multiply what has been created. If the Sovereign archetype takes responsibility in the material world, then the Magician can call on the help of the invisible (unconscious) world. That is, this archetype corresponds to the power and trust according to only its owner can resolve the situation.

That is, all three of these archetypes in their base imply a long-term result, power and self-confidence. It can be seen that on the world stage it is entirely possible to designate Russia, the United States and China as such actors. However, the latter still has a “daytime” mode as a shadow mode, according to the concept of Chinese strategy, it is relevant to refer to the “night” mode.

Why are Russia and the United States more characteristic of the “daytime” regime? As noted above, the representatives of this regime focus on the dominant posture, military technologies, and rituals of elevation and purification. Just turn to the Russian and American strategies of recent years.

In the new edition of the Russian strategy, the top priority is the preservation of the Russian people: “The people are the bearers of the sovereignty of the Russian Federation and its main resource. Russian spiritual and moral ideals and cultural and historical values, the talent of the people are the basis of the state and are the basis for the further development of the country”. Here appears the archetype of the Sovereign, which is based on the archetype of the creator, which is the people.

The document emphasizes Russia's desire to increase predictability, trust and security in the international sphere. It notes the legitimacy of taking measures to suppress and prevent hostile actions that pose a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation: in order to secure and protect the national interests of the Russian Federation from external and internal threats, including hostile actions of foreign states, it is necessary to increase the efficiency of utilization of existing achievements and competitive advantages of the Russian Federation, taking into account long-term trends in world development. This passage vividly depicts the warrior archetype, indicating the words “provide”, “protect”, and similar constructions with connotations of protection and some kind of militancy directly indicate membership in this archetype.

In the context of growing geopolitical tensions, the foreign policy of the Russian Federation should contribute to increasing the stability of the system of international relations based on international law, the principles of universal, equal and indivisible security, deepening multilateral cooperation without dividing lines and approaches to jointly solve global and regional problems with a coordinated central to the role of the United Nations (UN) and its Security Council.

In this and subsequent passages we see not only the dominant archetype of the Sovereign, but also an indication of the technology of protective measures and rituals of purification from aggression and security violations.

The paper also highlights Russia's economic security and the decline in the use of the U.S. dollar in foreign economic activity: “The modern world is going through a period of transformation. The increase in the number of centers of world economic and political development, the strengthening of the positions of new leading global and regional countries lead to a change in the structure of the world order, the formation of a new architecture, rules and principles of the world order.

The desire of Western countries to maintain their hegemony, the crisis of modern models and instruments of economic development, the strengthening of disproportions in the development of states, the increase in the level of social inequality, the desire of multinational corporations to limit the role of states are accompanied by a worsening of domestic political problems, an increase in interstate contradictions, a weakening of the influence of international institutions, and a decrease in the effectiveness of the global system.

Now it is worth highlighting some aspects of the U.S. security strategy that also fall under the “daylight” regime described above. Thus, according to the text of the American strategy, “The actions we take now will determine whether this period will be known as an era of conflict or the beginning of a more stable and prosperous future”. There is a bright Wizard archetype here, as it is indicated that the future will depend on American actions, with the Sovereign archetype, temporary constants are thought of as the present.

“We face two strategic challenges. First, the post-Cold War era is finally over and there is competition among the major powers to determine what will happen next. No country is in a better position to succeed in this competition than the United States, as long as we work for a common cause with those who share our vision of a free, open, secure and prosperous world. This means that the fundamental principles of self-determination, territorial integrity and political independence must be respected, international institutions must be strengthened, countries must be free to determine their own foreign policy choices, information must be freely available, and universal human rights must be respected.

Second, as this competition continues, people around the world are trying to cope with the consequences of common problems that cross borders, whether it is climate change, food insecurity, infectious diseases, terrorism, energy shortages or inflation. These common challenges are not secondary issues to geopolitics. They are at the very foundation of national and international security and must be treated as such. By their very nature, these challenges require governments to cooperate if they are to address them”.

It is also worth noting separate chapters in the strategy devoted to Russia and China, which also goes back to the archetypal image of a warrior and focuses on the dominant posture: “Modernizing and strengthening our military forces will enable the United States to reinforce the international order that has benefited the American people greatly for decades and has enabled us to outmaneuver our rivals who offer a different vision. The breadth and complexity of our global interests means that we must use this power strategically. Three interrelated areas of engagement are critically important: addressing challenges to the international order posed by our strategic competitors, addressing shared global challenges, and shaping the rules of the road in technology, cybersecurity, trade, and economics. Overtaking China and containing Russia. The PRC and Russia are moving closer to each other, but the problems they pose are different in important respects. [...] Our strategy for the PRC consists of three parts: 1) investing in the foundations of our internal strength: our competitiveness, our innovation, our resilience, and our democracy; 2) coordinating our efforts with our network of allies and partners, acting with a common goal and for a common cause; and 3) competing responsibly with the PRC to protect our interests and build our vision for the future. [...] Currently, Russia poses a direct and constant threat to international peace and stability. This is not a struggle between the West and Russia. [...] We are implementing a united, principled and decisive response to the Russian invasion, and we have rallied the entire world to support the Ukrainian people as they courageously defend their country. Working with a broad and strong international coalition, we have mustered near-record security assistance to provide Ukraine with the means to defend itself. We have provided humanitarian, economic and development assistance to strengthen a sovereign, elected government and assist the millions of refugees who have been forced to flee their homes. We will continue to support the Ukrainian people as they fight against overt Russian aggression. And we will rally the world to hold Russia accountable for the atrocities it has unleashed throughout Ukraine. Together with our allies and partners, America is helping to turn Russia's war in Ukraine into a strategic failure. Across Europe, NATO and the European Union are united in opposing Russia and defending common values. We limit strategic sectors of the Russian economy, including defense and aerospace, and will continue to oppose Russian attempts to weaken and destabilize sovereign states and undermine multilateral institutions. Together with our NATO allies, we are strengthening our defense and deterrence, particularly on the Alliance's eastern flank”.

As you see, the U.S. strategy brilliantly elevates itself and its value above others, which also corresponds to the Wizard archetype and the “daytime” regime and cannot in any way be considered, compared to the U.S., as a “nighttime” regime.

“Night regime” on a geopolitical scale.

“Night” mode is divided into food and cyclical dominant. “Night mode” groups together techniques related to the cycle, the agrarian calendar, such as the textile industry, artificial or natural symbols of return, myths and astrobiological dramas. So why is China more associated with this regime than with the diurnal regime?

We will not consider China's national security strategy, as it is more interesting to note the Chinese nation's bright symbolism and great attention to signs and symbols, which correlates with the sphere of myths and astrobiological dramas. The last visit of the leader of the People's Republic of China was only to some extent based on symbolism. This was the Chinese leader's ninth visit to Russia.

The number “nine” is a symbol of prestige; in Chinese this number is pronounced similarly to the word “longevity,” so nine is considered a blessed number. This is a lucky number from the Chinese point of view.

But even before the visit, articles were published by the leaders of Russia (in the People's Daily) and the PRC (in Russian newspapers), which meant the consolidation of interests and interest in Russian-Chinese relations.

The PRC leader's meeting was greeted by a red carpet, a sign of great respect in the language of diplomatic etiquette. It is also worth noting the similar outfits of the leaders: dark blue suits with bright red ties.

The meeting program concluded with a dinner in the Faceted Room, where receptions are rare. The room was built under Tsar Ivan III. There was a throne room here. Here the tsars received congratulations after their coronation, there was the opening of the Legislative Commission meetings by Catherine II in 1767, as well as the Empress' presentation of awards to generals after the Kyuchuk-Kaynardzhinsky peace in July 1774. During the construction of the Grand Kremlin Palace in 1838-1849, the Faceted Chamber was included in the new complex of palace buildings and was connected to the Vladimir Hall via the Sacred Entrance. In 1945, a solemn reception in honor of the participants of the Victory Parade was also held here, and during the reign of Ivan the Terrible the Capture of Kazan was celebrated. Therefore, a reception in the Faceted Chamber indicates the highest level of welcome and respect. “This visit [...] will help promote strategic cooperation and practical interaction between Russia and China”.

Cyclical and food dominance (in the context of the article, one can also include industry) also fully correlates with China's leadership in exports to other countries. According to the TrendEconomy portal, cumulative exports from China amounted to $3.59 trillion in 2022. In terms of value, the increase in the supply of goods from China compared to 2021 was 6.87 percent: the export of goods increased by $231 billion (goods worth $3.36 trillion were delivered from China in 2021). The main destinations of goods exports from China in 2022 were: United States with a 16.2 percent share (US$582 billion), Hong Kong with an 8.27 percent share (US$297 billion), Japan with a 4.81 percent share (US$172 billion).$), South Korea with a 4.52 percent share (US$162 billion), Vietnam with a 4.08 percent share (US$146 billion), India with a 3.29 percent share (US$118 billion) US$), the Netherlands with a 3.27% share (US$117 billion), Germany with a 3.23% share (US$116 billion), Malaysia with a 2.6% share (US$93 billion), and other Asian countries with a 2.27% share (US$81 billion).

The textile industry and its dominance also leave one of the top places for China-exports include such goods: finished textiles, clothing and textile products that were in use; toys, games and sports equipment; articles of clothing and their accessories, except machine or hand knitwear; and other finished goods, including clothing patterns.

In spite of the “night” regime we have identified, the archetype of the Ruler and the Magician is also the same for the PRC, which is reflected in the Chinese Communist Party's desire for the great awakening of the Chinese nation through Chinese modernization, coordinated development of material and spiritual culture, harmonious coexistence of man and nature, following the path of peaceful development.