The article analyzes how new year festivities in the media controlled by occupation administrations reproduce the social functions of a known holiday in the temporarily occupied territories of southern Ukraine. It is investigated how public celebration is being used to legitimize the political regime, to socialize children and youth, to perform symbolic control, and what kind of Ukrainian cultural identity remains visible against the background of the official discourse. The material comprises 68 photographs and 11 video clips, published in Telegram channels run by the Russian occupation administrations. The unchanged methodological approach includes qualitative content analysis, visual-semiotics, and comparative analysis of symbols, roles of participants, location of events, and accompanying descriptions. The material evidences the consistent dichotomy of administratively orchestrated visibility and culturally relevant participation. Official representations unite festive decoration of the civic space, festive gift giving, ceremonials at schools, patriotic-military rhetoric, and pictures of orderly audience in the claim of stability of the social life that occupation created. However, restricted audience, the role of officials and organizations, and transfer of celebration to private and online sphere weaken this claim. Ukrainian colors, orientation to the time of Kyiv, family celebration, and closed online communication maintain the affiliation without making the public acts visible. The conclusion is made that new year festivities cannot establish the common festive order in the conditions of occupation. They generate dual order where public celebration legitimizes the political order and socializes youth, while private and digital sphere ensures cultural continuity and moral distance from the occupation, social links with Ukraine.
The article analyzes how new year festivities in the media controlled by occupation administrations reproduce the social functions of a known holiday in the temporarily occupied territories of southern Ukraine. It is investigated how public celebration is being used to legitimize the political regime, to socialize children and youth, to perform symbolic control, and what kind of Ukrainian cultural identity remains visible against the background of the official discourse. The material comprises 68 photographs and 11 video clips, published in Telegram channels run by the Russian occupation administrations. The unchanged methodological approach includes qualitative content analysis, visual-semiotics, and comparative analysis of symbols, roles of participants, location of events, and accompanying descriptions. The material evidences the consistent dichotomy of administratively orchestrated visibility and culturally relevant participation. Official representations unite festive decoration of the civic space, festive gift giving, ceremonials at schools, patriotic-military rhetoric, and pictures of orderly audience in the claim of stability of the social life that occupation created. However, restricted audience, the role of officials and organizations, and transfer of celebration to private and online sphere weaken this claim. Ukrainian colors, orientation to the time of Kyiv, family celebration, and closed online communication maintain the affiliation without making the public acts visible. The conclusion is made that new year festivities cannot establish the common festive order in the conditions of occupation. They generate dual order where public celebration legitimizes the political order and socializes youth, while private and digital sphere ensures cultural continuity and moral distance from the occupation, social links with Ukraine.
