Негативная идентичность. Статьи 1997–2002 годов по Лев Гудков (review)

469 Ab Imperio, 4/2006 the only author who does not follow the course proposed by the editors. Jonathan Daly emphasizes that “… Russia lagged behind some, but not all, Western European counterparts ,”21 and refers to “…Russia’s economic and social backwardness” when trying to explain comparative leniency in late imperial Russia.22 In light of the project, this rhetoric simply cannot be considered as an occasional slip into the conventional and convenient methodological framework. Even if the contributors of the programmatic volume cannot help but rely on the concept of “backwardness” as a tool, can it be the sign that the tool itself is more useful than the editors allow themselves to admit? Nevertheless, as the editors of the volume agree, the debate on Russia’s place in Europe is an infinite one (P. 3). There are no definite answers, correct positions, or incontestable approaches in the confrontation between the Enlightenment rhetoric of unity and the modern episteme of difference. What the participants in the discussion can hope for, however, is to present a consistent argument. And the editors and the contributors to the Russia in the European Context have attempted to accomplish this with their praiseworthy effort. 21 Daly. Russian Punishments in the European Mirror. P. 161. 22 Ibid. Pp. 161, 176. Marina PEUNOVA Лев Гудков. Негативная иден- тичность. Статьи 1997–2002 го- дов. Москва: “Новое литератур- ное обозрение”, 2004 (=Серия: Библиотека журнала “Неприкос- новенный Запас”). 816 c. Указа- тель имен. ISBN: 5-86793-300-8. In the words of the illustrious Sovietologist Alec Nove, Soviet sociologists were, despite the ideological constraints imposed upon them by the principles of Marxism-Leninism, “constructive dissidents” who went against the grain and anticipated social change.1 This progressive tradition pre-empted perestroika,2 and continued through a multitude of homegrown sociological works that have complemented Western studies on post-Soviet transformation.3 1 Alec Nove is cited in: E. Weinberg. Sociology in the Soviet Union and Beyond: Social Enquiry and Social Change. Burlington , 2004. P. 137. 2 For an overview of Soviet sociology during perestroika and sociologists’ contribution to the reform process see: D. Shalin. Sociology for the Glasnost’ Era: Institutional and Substantive Changes in Recent Soviet Sociology // Social Forces. 1990. Vol. 68. Pp. 1-21. 3 For interdisciplinary discussion of postSoviet transformation see: T. I. Zaslavskaia . Sovremennoe rossiiskoe obschestvo: Sotsial’nyi mekhanizm transformatsii. Moscow, 2004;A. G. Zdravomyslov. Sotsiologiia rossiiskogo krizisa. Moscow, 1999; Yu. A. Levada. Ot mnenii k ponimaniiu: Sotsiologicheskie ocherki, 1993–2000. Moscow, 2000. 470 Рецензии/Reviews Ranging from descriptive analyses based on opinion polls to theoretically grounded works,4 these inquiries provide a rich source of knowledge on post-Soviet society. To their polyphony of voices, and in continuation of the tradition of intellectual dissent, Lev Gudkov’s Negative Identity is a welcome contribution. In this collection of articles written in 1997–2002, Gudkov, a former student of Yurii Levada – himself a “constructive dissident” during the Soviet era – presents a full-frontal exposure of post-Soviet malaise. Using results of opinion polls conducted with collaborators at theAll-Russian Centre for the Study of Social Opinion as part of the project entitled “The Soviet Ordinary Person,” as well as his exhaustive knowledge of Western sociological theory, Gudkov subjects post-perestroika society to an uncompromising scrutiny.5 Although these works were written within the span of five very different and eventful years in Russian contemporary history, they present a uniform, if somewhat redundant, set of arguments that cover such interconnected topics as Russian national identity, the rise of nationalism and xenophobia, the Chechen imbroglio, neotraditionalism, the impact of globalization, as well as the overall degradation of life including but not limited to the crisis of the education and legal systems. In his attempt to decipher postSoviet society, Gudkov identifies the main precepts of Russian national identity throughout the collection. According to the author, the postSoviet collective mass subconscious is characterized by a concoction of nostalgia for the past, disillusionment with the present, resentment, apathy, and a combination of envy and admiration towards the West – feelings that can be best described as self-deprecating exceptionalism. This gloomy condition is further aggravated by the “eternal Russian ennui and reverie, Manilov-like sentimentality and lisping about high but ‘dead’culture, an all-surpassing ‘spirituality’, along with a drunken tear about ruined and spoiled – by others...