Антропология и “славистика” (взгляд отсюда)

SUMMARY:

Sergey Abashin, one of the most prominent Russian anthropologists of his generation and a member of the Editorial Board of the leading anthropological journal, Etnograficheskoe obozrenie (The Ethnographic Review), treats Katherine Verdery’s address as an example of the America-centered approach that simplifies, standardizes, and even ignores European and Russian ethnographic traditions. He points out the presence of an “imperial” trend in the pre-revolutionary Russian ethnography, alongside a nationalizing one, and the tendency toward theoretical reflection in Soviet ethnography. Abashin brings examples of original Russian ethnographic research (on the images of “the other” in Russian history and culture and on the gender self-representations in Nagorno-Karabakh) that are downplayed or ignored by Western anthropologists, for whom Russia is a depopulated “desert” to be conquered by cultural anthropology. Abashin reminds us of the double scholarly affiliation (“Eastern” and “Western”) of many modern Russian and Western scholars, including anthropologists. The best example is Sergey Ushakin, whose role in the Russian academic context is completely ignored in the address. Abashin also questions the neutrality of cultural anthropology in the region. He starts by deconstructing the notion of the “Second World” as a new object of anthropology. This “world” has its own “Third World” (Central Asia, Caucasus, partly – Volga region) and even its own “Indians” (the population of Siberia and the Far East), not to mention the contested borders between the “metropolis” and “borderlands” within the eastern European region as a whole. The constellation of power in this region is so complex and the political interests of the US and Russia are so strong that anthropology can hardly be viewed as a neutral agent. The danger also comes from within the anthropological method, which is sensible to the voices of the “subaltern others” and thus capable of fixing and objectifying new emerging identities and groupings.

Finally, Abashin raises doubts about the special scholarly potential of anthropology in the region, stressing the problem of generalizing the results of micro-level anthropological research. He sees the need for a new program for Slavic studies in the modern world, yet warns Russian readers against an uncritical reading of Verdery’s address.