At the recent Congress of Young Scientists, experts in history, linguistics, and digital technologies discussed how the rapid evolution of the digital environment has transformed the way we work with historical sources. The discussion revealed a key paradox of our time: the more advanced our technologies become, the more pressing the question of how human emotion and personal interpretation shape our understanding of the past.

Andrey Fursenko, Aide to the President of the Russian Federation, emphasized a deeply human tendency to perceive events through the lens of emotion:
“Such a source as emotions often outweighs factuality. This happens everywhere — not only in politics, but in science as well. It is not a distortion but rather one’s own understanding of how everything should be, based on certain premises. And that is precisely why it is so important to return to primary sources, rather than rely on interpretations that can lead us far from the essence.”

This idea draws attention to a fundamental question: Is objective study of the past possible if human emotional nature inevitably shapes the way we interpret facts?

Continuing the discussion, Natalia Tretyak, CEO of the Vyzov Foundation for the Development of Scientific and Cultural Relations and a recipient of the Vyzov Award for her contribution to advancing scientific and cultural dialogue, highlighted a new dimension in working with sources: “When we speak about sources, we primarily mean the transmission of information. But we almost never talk about the transmission of emotions. In an age of new technologies, when digital tools often replace human presence, introducing this concept becomes especially important, because nothing is more significant in human life than emotions.”

The ideas voiced during the discussion are already reflected in contemporary research practices, where scholars aim to combine the accuracy of factual data with the transmission of an era’s emotional context. This approach opens new perspectives for understanding historical processes and advancing intercultural dialogue.

A practical example of such work was presented by Anna Khlopova, Associate Professor at MSLU. She spoke about a large-scale project carried out in cooperation with the Sochi Dialogue Forum — the creation of an Austrian–German–Russian associative dictionary of core values. Its presentation took place in December 2024 at the National Centre Russia.

According to Khlopova, “this dictionary represents a model of the worldview held by representatives of a given linguoculture. By understanding the value system of another culture, we can build successful intercultural communication.”
The project demonstrates how scientific developments can become a practical tool for fostering mutual understanding between people and cultures.

A critical perspective on today’s information landscape was offered by Galina Ershova, Head of the Yuri Knorozov Mesoamerican Centre “Today’s information space consists of semi-literate bloggers — and then artificial intelligence that retells what these semi-literate bloggers say. It’s a disastrous situation.”
Her words highlight the need to establish new standards for working with data in an era of digitalization.

Speaking about the methodological dimension of the relationship between science and technology, Ekaterina Yatsishina of the Kurchatov Institute noted:
“Historical materials science is an international field where natural-science methods and humanities knowledge merge.”

Andrey Sorokin, Academic Director of Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, offered a vivid metaphor to describe the challenge of working with vast bodies of historical data: researchers sometimes “can no longer see the forest for the trees,” losing a sense of the bigger picture.

The philosophical dimension of the discussion was outlined by Andrey Polosin (The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration), who raised the issue of the right of peoples to historical memory — a topic that is becoming increasingly relevant in a changing world.

Concluding the discussion, Daniil Anikin (The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration) emphasized:
“In a multipolar world, it is dialogue between voices — including historical ones — that becomes the key factor enabling this world to be built.”

The Congress discussion showed that the digital transformation of working with historical sources requires not only new technologies, but also a profound rethinking of the very nature of knowledge. At the intersection of disciplines, new approaches emerge — approaches capable of bringing together facts and emotions, tradition and innovation, the past and the future.

• RU:  Цифровая эпоха и исторические источники: между эмоциями и фактами. Сессия «Источник в мире традиций, новых технологий и диалога культур»
• DE:  Das digitale Zeitalter und historische Quellen: zwischen Emotionen und Fakten. Tagung "Quelle in der Welt der Traditionen, neuen Technologien und des Dialogs der Kulturen"