Soviet icons are a phenomenon that has been discovered and conceptualized in recent years. These are the most massive religious artifacts that were created during the Soviet era. They are complex objects: prayer images placed in a wooden case, decorated with chasubles and complex decor. Soviet icons are the heirs of the foil icons, which spread massively in the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th — early 20th century. Artifacts of this type are an “information container” — the principles of their manufacture, functioning, and perception conceal the most important information about cultural strategies, religious practices, social interactions, and the material realities of the epoch. The creation of Soviet icons required the construction of many shadowy social networks. The tools and materials that Soviet craftsmen used mirrored the realities of the Soviet village. Until recently, these objects did not attract the attention of specialists. In modern Russia, they are rapidly disappearing — perceived as “outdated” objects and “church garbage” they are being disposed of. A comprehensive study of these icons and the social contexts in which they existed and continue to exist is an urgent scientific task. It helps to reveal not only the religious and social specifics of the Soviet province, but also many processes taking place in post-Soviet urban and rural society. This work explores important trends in the religious life of church and monastery communities, and in much broader social circles — among pilgrims, parishioners and people who occasionally visit churches. The article describes the history of the discovery of Soviet icons. The author also focused on the material, social and cultural uniqueness of these artifacts, and examines post-Soviet scenarios in which they are involved.

The article focuses on the late medieval “Enclosed Gardens” and the composite amulets known as Breverl, which became popular in the early Modernity. In spite of the differences of their forms, sizes and functions, both types of religious objects were created as collages — from elements of different origins and uses. What they have in common, however, is that both were created as a kind of collage — from the elements of different origin. Most of them were not intended either for the “gardens” or for amulets and were reused in them. In the center of the folding “gardens”, small figures of saints were set up, and around them a densely filled world of elaborately made flowers, fragments of relics, images cut from manuscripts, pilgrimage badges, Agnus Dei was arranged. In the amulets, on the contrary, the center was occupied by a miniscule “reliquary” in which tiny particles of relics were juxtaposed with various devotionalia. It was wrapped in several layers of paper with engraved images of intercessor saints, texts of prayers and protective formulas. The aim of the article is to analyze the possible functions and the modus operandi of these image-objects; the combinations of sacred sign-indexes (relics) and sign-icons (images); similarities and differences in their visual rhetoric; and the role of visibility and invisibility of the elements. Both “Enclosed gardens” and Breverl are collections of sacred objects that are embedded in a clear spatial pattern where symmetry plays an important role. At the same time, in the “gardens” the sign-indexes and sign-icons are open to the eye and can support prayer practices and imply tactile contact. In amulets, both relics, images and texts, on the contrary, are hidden from view and are supposed to act “automatically”, protecting the one who touches and carries this enclosed world without seeing its powerful contents.

The article examines the peculiarities of the creation and existence of icons in the Middle Ages and Modern Times. The author shows that revered prayer images, both in the church and at home, most often functioned as part of integrated objects that consisted of metal vestments, fabrics, votive gifts, cases and other elements. Icons were built as symbiotic and later as hybrid objects, all parts of which were perceived as an “expanded body” of the shrine. The changes came at the beginning of the 20th century, when, as a result of scientific restoration, many ancient icons were disintegrated, cleared and presented at exhibitions. Soon after, the confiscation of church valuables, organized by the Bolsheviks, led to the destruction of almost all integrated icons in the country. The museumification of the cleared icons, and their replication in print media has reconfigured the optics of both specialists and the mass audience. Icons began to be understood, perceived and described as “pure images”, works of pictorial art. This optics became common to Soviet citizens who visited the museum and saw publications on Russian iconography, as well as to foreigners who are familiar with the phenomenon primarily through albums and books. However, the author of the article shows that this “museum” logic had clear social boundaries. The perception of icons has not changed among residents of the Soviet province. The craftsmen who worked in the villages made Soviet icons as integrated objects. They called the prayer image a picture and considered it only one of the elements of the icon. Their creations turned out to be the direct heirs of integrated icons of the Middle Ages and Modern Times. Both the craftsmen and the owners of Soviet icons shared the same optics and the same logic of interaction with prayer images that have was typical for Christian culture for centuries.

The article is devoted to the material aspects of the history of the craft of mass peasant icons and Soviet folezh icons in particular. In analyzing the transformations of various historical forms of the craft of mass peasant icons, the author uses the concept of affordance, that is, the possibility of the environment, a property of an object or the environment that allows it to be used in a certain way. The affordance of an icon craft is a factor that becomes a key opportunity for its birth, the development of its technological and market infrastructure, or subsequent important transformations. Such factors could be not only the inventions of key technologies and materials, but also important socio‑political events, for example, colonization and late Christianization of the region, the network of roads or the peculiarities of nature management. The mass peasant icon of each of the historical stages of the craft is formed by its affordances: natural, commercial, industrial, confessional, ethnic, etc. Through consideration of the affordances, one can understand the elements of the history and socio‑technological development of the phenomenon of the Soviet icon. The author of the article limits his analysis to several important subjects on the example of Vladimir‑Nizhny Novgorod region: (a) natural affordances of the beginning of the icon craft, (b) the affordances of the period of its intensive spread during the Russian colonization of new lands (infrastructural, ethno‑confessional affordances) and (c) some material and technological affordances of the late stage of the development of the icon craft, including the Soviet era. From the previous forms of icon craft, the masters of the Soviet icon borrowed the simplest technologies and cheap consumables, which were partially re‑invented. Cheapness, simplicity, and mass production were also significant in the craft of the Soviet icon. In this regard, it is one of the common forms of icons. Besides, the Soviet icon was created in completely different, unique and extraordinary conditions: the pragmatics of its craft was not related to extracting benefits from mass production, “conveyor belt” or speed of production, it consisted in filling the shortage of ritual artifacts.

The paper focuses on the semiotic ideologies that define the ways of designating old things and the practice of interacting with them in the post‑Soviet countries. Soviet icons, the most common religious artifacts of the Communist era, also passed into the category of “old things” after the collapse of the USSR. Their functions, loci of existence and symbolic status changed when the Soviet state ceased to exist. The assessments and practices of handling icons of the Soviet years are influenced by five semiotic ideologies that the authors identify and which are generally characteristic of modern Russian society: historical, antique, family, modernizing and the ideology of the “dangerous thing”. They all acquire another dimension when complemented by the idea of virtue, typical for the religious field. Each of these attitudes has developed in its own socio‑cultural environment and under the influence of various historical processes. In modern society, they are in constant interaction, sometimes entering into confrontation: they compete in the minds of “moderaters” (icon owners, prists, etc.), “shine through” each other, change depending on the communicative situation. The one that will prevail over the others will ultimately determine whether the moderator chooses the practice of preserving Soviet icons or will dispose of them. In the final part of the article, the authors analyze the influence that researchers (historians, anthropologists) can have on “moderators”, communicating with them during expeditions and voluntarily or involuntarily provoking them to changing/switching between semiotic ideolgies.

The article deals with the practices of venerating icons among Old Believers in the context of anti‑religious policy in the USSR and their transformation after the end of religious persecution. The data comes from ethnographic observations and memories recorded from 2008 to 2023 among the Old Believers of the North‑Western Black Sea region as well as migrants from this region to other parts of Russia. Since the narrativization of personal experience occurs with the support of material objects, ethno‑confessional symbols play an important role in autobiographical memories of manifesting everyday religiosity. The article shows the role of icons in the perception of religious experience, transmitting ideas about one’s faith as well as rules of interaction with an icon in different contexts. During anti‑religious campaigns, the veneration of icons was transferred to a safe space hidden from the external environment, and the most significant thing for a believer, judging by the interview materials, was the very fact of the presence of the sacred objects in the home space. After the end of religious persecutions, new rules were formulated that allow for a freer arrangement of icons in the house, with less rigid regulating rules. Still there are prohibitions on placing a bed under the icon, or placing a mirror or mobile phones next to it, or placing a TV set at the sacred corner / under the icon / opposite the icon, etc. An important function of home icons is to preserve memory about the past. The choice of the most revered images is determined by events significant for family history, often associated with overcoming a difficult past, which is clearly manifested in the tradition of “serving a holiday” / “taking a holiday into the house,” thus establishing a votive holiday, which is then passed on from generation to generation.

The article analyzes the evolution of the «sacred corner» and its structure in the Russian peasant tradition from the point of view of vernacular functions that it performed in the peasant house of the 19th — early 21st centuries. The work was carried out at the intersection of ethno‑linguistic, ethnographic and cultural methods. The material for the work comes from field research of the last two decades in the Lower Volga region and in the northwestern regions of Russia as well as ethnographic data of the 19th–20th centuries. The evidences of foreigners who visited Russia in the 16th–18th centuries are used to understand the history of а sacred corner formation. A pragmatic analysis of the available data makes it possible to consider the sacred corner (in the form in which it has been known since the 19th century) as a complexly structured locus of a peasant dwelling. The sacred corner performed broader mental and information functions besides the sacral one. The sacred corner was a symbolic center that reflected the intellectual interests and the worlview of the house owner. The sacred corder retained and expanded the status of an information and communicative center in the 20th century in spite of atheistic persecution it now included both a radio or TV sets as well as the most important information, from psalms and the Bible to medical prescriptions and notes with ritual spells.

The article describes two religious ritual practices widespread in the Catholic‑ Orthodox borderland and formed under the influence of (para)liturgical practices as a kind of “replica” of them. The use by the rural community of a cross similar to the cross carried during processions and funerals probably began during the Soviet period, when church funeral processions were banned and then the churches were closed. These crosses, made by locals, are kept in the homes of those revered as religious leaders and belong to the entire village community. When someone dies in the village, this cross is taken to the house of the deceased and then it is carried with the coffin to the cemetery. Another rite called the Rite of the Candle is the veneration of an icon or a special candle belonging to whole village community. On a certain Christian holiday, the “Candle” is carried from the house where it has been located during the year to another where it will be located through the next year. The rite was apparently formed at the time of the spread of the Union of Brest and on the territory where it was in force. In Soviet times, this rite, which retained its main features, has been considered by local residents as a substitute of church services. The rite reflects liturgical and paraliturgical practices that are widespread: the proskomidia, the consecration of bread, wine and oil, the collection and use of material evidence of piety, and the passing under the shrine. The very moment of carrying the “Candle” from house to house resembles a procession. At the same time, in the attitude to the place of the Candle’s stay we can see the construction of a sacred space replacing inaccessible temples: as long as the “Candle” is in the house, this house is open to any visitor at any time. Any person, even those who do not know the owners, can come there, pray, light a candle, ask for help. Both the cross and the icon or candle are regarded as common property, not belonging to anyone in particular, but representing an undoubted sacred object with which the rural community associates itself. At present, rituals are being reborn and adapted to new conditions.

The article examines two objects that spread in the Russian Empire in the first half of the XIX century and, it would seem, had little in common: Christmas trees and kiotki icons (religious images in wooden kiotki decorated with foil). As the author shows, from the very first decades of their existence, these hybrid artifacts turned out to be related to each other in many ways. They were united by the materials used — foil, paper, chromolithographic images, etc.; The principles of decoration are, first of all, imitation of precious metals, the use of inexpensive sparkling decorative elements; crafts and production practices that supplied them with these elements. The morphology and symbolism of the Christmas tree were closely tied to the Christian context and obviously converged in this with the icon. Finally, the practices of interacting with these objects and the emotional registers associated with them also had a lot in common. The religious and near‑religious home object developed along similar trajectories throughout the 19th century. After the revolution, in the wake of anti‑religious campaigns, the Bolsheviks tried to destroy these artifacts and the rituals in which they were involved. However, both the icon and the Christmas tree survived the persecution of the 1902s and 1930s, and adapted to new cultural and material conditions. The morphology of the Soviet Christmas tree and the Soviet icon turned out to be related again. Later, the icons began to borrow elements first from pre‑revolutionary, and then from Soviet Christmas trees, which brought these bricolage objects even closer. Finally, in recent decades, the Soviet Christmas tree toy and the Soviet icon have been experiencing similar scenarios, turning into a cultural, scientific and museum object.

The object of the study is decoration and votive embellishment of the Russian icons from the mid‑19th to early 21st centuries; the subject of the study is the rizas, halos and crowns of the foil‑made and underfoiled images. The co‑authors see the novelty of the posing the question in two aspects: a) the “Bryansk case” that is clearly limited by one region and has not yet come to the attention of iconologists is used; b) attention is focused not so much on the result of decorating the icon boards with foil, but on the subtleties of the technological process of producing parts from which the finished icon case is constructed, which allows us to distinguish local methods of processing foil and correctly attribute the surviving monuments of folk crafts. The main research methods are maintained within the framework of the material, iconic and semiotic turns in human sciences, with participant observation, description, case study, and complex religious studies as the main methods. The authors come to the conclusion that the current state of the foil (folezh) craft in the Bryansk region allows us to confidently speak about the continuing succession of generations of masters, while the detailed expertise of the processing of foil and available materials contributes to the up‑to‑date museumification and art history attribution of foil‑covered and foil‑covered icons.

The authors focus on how faith‑based groups, either affiliated with the Church, or those whose connection to Orthodoxy may be uncertain, provide patriotic education primarily through paramilitary activities and instruction in martial arts (sports). The article seeks to answer the question: why faith‑based groups are increasingly interested in military‑ patriotic education and why this education is predominantly implemented through activities like sports and martial arts. The authors posit that patriotic activity serves not only as a means of obtaining financial support, but also as a way to legitimize the existence of groups that may be in conflict with the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Patriotic education also reflects faith‑based groups’ intention to return to the ritualistic origins of sport and other physical practices, presenting them as a form of worldly asceticism. The article is based on a close‑up study of the former Pokrov Fraternity (Perm), the Center “Spas” (Obninsk), and the all‑Russian movement “Sorok Sorokov”, not being limited to them.

Contemporary sociology of religion interprets the weak religiosity of the Orthodox Christians in Russia either as a “nominal” membership in Orthodox Church, or as a particular stage on a linear path to full churching. Both views oversimplify rich religious experience. The boundaries between the main oppositions (sacred‑profane, religious‑secular), on which the sociology of religion was based, are no longer obvious in the modern world. We are trying to discover new themes and analyze the contribution of both traditional church piety and new values of self‑realization, environmental friendliness, body, etc. The analysis is carried out within the framework of Q‑methodology: 30 respondents, analysis of prototypes of religiosity based on Q‑sorts of a set of 136 cards and in‑depth interviews. The “Weak Religiosity” Q‑set was developed based on the ideas of T. Luckmann’s “Invisible Religion” and represents 8 spheres. Each sphere is actualized through a set of statements that describe potential experiences of the transcendent at different levels or indicate the importance of this experience. Statements (136 in total) are formulated in the third person. The paper describes eight prototypes: 1) “classical” religiosity, 2) civic and political engagement, 3) relationships with other people, 4) spirituality, 5) body and a healthy lifestyle, 6) creativity and personal self‑realization, 7) self‑development and the common good, 8) work. We argue that these prototypes can be interpreted as specifically religious, irreducible to any non‑religious factor.