This paper examines the mobilizing potential of revolutionary history among Russian youth during the presidency of Dmitriĭ Medvedev (2008–2012), a period marked by increased political dissent and the emergence of mass street protests. Using and further developing Klas-Göran Karlsson’s theoretical framework on the functional uses of history, this study analyzes how two prominent protest art collectives, Voĭna and Pussy Riot, used narratives of Russian and foreign revolutionary history in their artworks. Through an analysis of audience reception via comments on social media platforms, this study assesses the extent to which these historical narratives resonated with Russian youth (the majority of Internet users at the time), who, unlike older generations, lack Soviet-era familiarity with revolutionary history. The findings suggest that while these historical references were comprehended by the audience, their mobilizing power was limited by a dominant “anti-revolutionary consensus” and fragmented historical knowledge.

The article addresses uses of revolutionary history in the Russian protest art created during Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency (2008–2012) and reception of these uses. Since the protest art is considered by many as an arena where dissatisfaction with the ruling regime, expressed in the mass protests of the winter 2011–2012, was fueled, the article seeks to define whether the uses of revolutionary history have played a role in consolidation of those dissatisfied with the regime. Focusing on the protest artworks created by collectives Vojna and Pussy Riot, the article answers the question by using and developing Klas-Göran Karlsson’s ideas on functionality of the uses of history. The results show that although many recipients understood the meaning conveyed by the artists, the uses of revolutionary history were most of the time dysfunctional due to the existence of “antirevolutionary consensus” in the Russian society. The article offers new answers to the question as to why the protest art failed to engage the Russian society.

The protests against election fraud in Russia in winter 2011–2012 were the first in the post-Soviet period that were attended by a united opposition, and attracted hundreds of thousands of previously apolitical citizens. This article seeks to explain mass participation in the protests by focusing on uses of the history of revolution and dissent in Russian protest art. The article investigates whether a common historical consciousness, which could have made it possible to unify previously fragmented opposition and mobilize previously apolitical citizens, was manifested in protest artworks created by artists with differing political ideologies. The conclusion is that the official historical narrative promoted by the state – of a spiritual unity between a strong state and the people – was challenged and undermined by protest artists, who have characterized Russian history as a continuous struggle between an oppressive state and civil society. This finding indicates that a common historical consciousness was manifested in protest artworks.

Recent research on the conservative turn of post-Soviet Russia has paid attention to the revival of the so-called ‘traditional values’ promoted through the government’s pro-natalist family policy. A patriarchal view of women, and their roles in society, is nothing new: pre-revolutionary Russia was a patriarchal society, where women were considered first of all as wives and mothers; even the Soviet society was patriarchal in its attitude towards women, with the burdens of both paid work, outside the home, and domestic responsibilities. The chapter introduces the mnemonic actors, the mnemonic signifiers, and their connections to the history of female participation in revolutionary struggle and to the post-Soviet female political activism. According to the Soviet mnemonic pattern, the revolutionaries, regardless of sex, were driven by the political beliefs that they cherished. All female revolutionaries are represented as women with ‘natural’ female desires, who ended up in the wrong place because of personal circumstances.