“Дети империи” в постсоветской Центральной Азии: Адаптивные практики и ментальные сдвиги (русские в Киргизии, 1992–2002) по Н. П. Космарская (review)

356 Рецензии/Reviews Steven SABOL Н. П. Космарская. “Дети импе- рии” в постсоветской Централь- ной Азии: Адаптивные практики и ментальные сдвиги (русские в Киргизии, 1992-2002). Москва: “Наталис”, 2006. 596 с. Приложе- ния. Именной указатель. ISBN: 5-8062-0212-7. When the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, many commentators speculated about the consequences for the diasporic Russian population living throughout the southern tier, most particularly in Central Asia. Chiefly, the focus seemed to be on the so-called “brain-drain” that would be created when Russians and other intellectuals left the region in droves, causing social and economic hardships throughout the already impoverished CentralAsian традиционной установкой кото- рых является положение о том, что “вхождение” России в Европу состоялось еще в начале века, при Петре Великом, то есть в момент установления постоянных кон- тактов, серьезного культурного и политического влияния, которое испытала Россия, и особенно после Северной войны (1700-1721 гг.), завершившейся победой над од- ной из сильнейших европейских держав – Швецией. Лиштенан, ограничиваясь ди- пломатической стороной вопроса и выбирая в качестве переломного момента войну за австрийское на- следство (1740-1748 гг.), не только не проясняет свое отношение к общепринятой в литературе точке зрения, но и полностью игнори- рует ее. Суть этой проблемы, вероят- но, заключена в не вполне кор- ректной расстановке акцентов. Монография Лиштенан – это повествование о том, как Европа (в понимании автора – прежде всего Франция, Пруссия, Австрия и Англия, а не, скажем, Швеция или Голландия) открыла для себя Россию. Наличие серьезной, едва ли не конкурентной борьбы за влияние на позицию России в во- просе о новой европейской войне является как раз свидетельством перелома в восприятии Европы, а отнюдь не самой России, для ко- торой подобный сдвиг произошел, по крайней мере, на полстолетия раньше. 1995; C. H. Whittaker. The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in the Eighteenth-Century Russia // Slavic Review. 1992. Vol. 51. No. 1. Pp. 77-98. 357 Ab Imperio, 4/2007 the fate of Russians, and Russian “speakers,” that fled Central Asia only to return to Kirgizstan or to the point of their initial departure. The author, an ethno-sociologist with the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Russian Academy of Sciences, traveled throughout the region interviewing “people from the street” in order to understand the socio-economic reasons behind not only the reasons to leave Kirgizstan but, and perhaps more importantly, the decisions to return. The author stresses that her approach to this work was to emphasize Western “qualitative sociology” techniques, utilizing independent sources such as interviews with migrants, politicians, journalists, and scholars. Moreover, Kosmarskaia acknowledges that Western scholars have addressed the issue of the Russian diaspora in a manner that was fundamentally different from how former Soviet scholars have approached similar studies. She criticizes the “alarmist” conclusions that have permeated much writing in Russia during the decade and a half since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Kosmarskaia describes these phenomenona as having been essentially ignored by scholars. Her innovative approach is unique; the book’s character grounded in its thematic substance and its empirical foundation. “Alarmist” themes have often been noted in both print and elecrepublics . Little if any attention was given to the consequences for Russia. Could it absorb this population ? Could the new immigrants find work, housing, or adjust to an environment that was discernibly different? Many commentators feared, perhaps justifiably, that Moscow might be easily seduced by the temptation to interfere in the internal affairs of the Central Asian republics. The concern was that Moscow would find it extraordinarily difficult to ignore this significant population living as minorities in the newly established, independent Muslim states. Would Russians be mistreated? Would their rights be violated? Many outside observers feared that Russia might eventually use this population as a pawn to reassert its hegemony over the region; that this new geopolitical environment was simply a pretext that could lead to instability in a region that lacked political legitimacy, social cohesion, and economic capacities. Russia’s concerns about its brethren , however, was soon mitigated by another pressing issue – namely, the exodus that might occur back to Russia by those seeking refuge from living in a region that seemed eager to reject its Russian-Soviet past, a situation that the motherland was unprepared to face and reluctant to embrace. Natalia Kosmarskaia’s work, The Children of Empire, examines 358 Рецензии/Reviews What observers have failed, to this point, to understand is why a significant percentage of Russians have either stayed where they currently live, or why they returned “home” after migrating to Russia. She notes that most Russian commentators initially defined the problem as economic in nature – that the living conditions in the territory of origin had deteriorated enough to compel an individual or family to uproot and move to a place that was considered more stable or prosperous . There were push-pull forces at work in the decision made by many migrants. The economic assumption evokes images of earlier migration patterns from Russia to Central Asia a century before. George Demko, in his work Russian Colonization of Kazakhstan,2 described this process as the “push” factor. Prospects to settle on unlimited land push Russian migrants to make the arduous journey. Ethnic-national identity was a “pull” factor in the post-Soviet era. What this meant was that Russians would feel more at “home” in an environment where their physical and linguistic traits more closely matched that of their neighbors. It assumed a degree of social...