Art Leete

(2nd International Congress of Russian Anthropologists and Ethnographers in Ufa, June 1–5, 1997).

The forum was attended by 300 researchers working in 19 groups. There were, in addition to Russian and CIN scientists, people from the USA, Germany, France, Finland and Estonia participating in it. It would not be possible to give an overall survey of the event: only a few aspects can be highlighted here. The output of the workshops there provides us with information about the current developments in Russian ethnography.

For example, there were workshops on ethnopolitics and national politics. Ethnopolitics or national politics is among the main concerns of Russian ethnography today. This was also the most discussed topic in the plenary session of the Congress. Present were R. G. Abdulatipov, Vice-chairman of the Federation Council of Russia and V. Y. Zorin, Head of the Committee for External Relations of the Russian State Duma who also gave speeches. The question of nationality was also an important topic of discussion in the first workshop on general issues of ethnography. The topic of national politics has been extensively researched in the last few years in Russia. As S. M. Tshervonnaya, a doctorate in ethnography and art, stated at the banquet after the Congress, "Nowadays all people (i.e. all ethnographers – A. L.) should examine ethnopolitics".

In Russia, 'anthropology' traditionally denotes physical anthropology, whereas 'ethnography' signifies ethnology or cultural anthropology. Yet the links between Russian ethnography and ethnology and cultural anthropology outside Russia are not adequately clear. However, this was also among the burning issues discussed in the Congress. Nowadays in Russia 'ethnology' seems to be synonymous with 'ethnography'.

V. N. Basilov, an ethnographer from Moscow, emphasized the uniqueness of Russian ethnography in the workshop on general issues of ethnography. He considered it of paramount importance to maintain its distinctive qualities. He referred to the terms of contemporary Western ethnology as scientific slang and warned about implementing them in Russian ethnography.

However, Basilov admitted that there is a crisis in Russian ethnography: the former underlying theory based on evolutionism has become old-fashioned, whereas there are no theories to replace them with. Thus, there is a certain chaos and vacuity in the theoretical basis of Russian ethnography. Should anybody look for it in the Western experience is regarded as unacceptable.

Basilov compared Russian ethnography with the work done in Turkey and Finland, considering them to be regional studies rather that ethnography. The criterion could be the scale of it, i.e. the number of ethnographers in a country, and possibly the size of the territory in which they operate.

Basilov's plenary speech provided an important topic of conversation. Considering the possibility for a new underlying theory for Russian ethnography, M. Balzer from Washington, DC stated that this was not the right time for developing a new theory. At times chaos can be useful. "Chaos can be better than one may think," she said. She also stated that the Western and Russian approaches are becoming increasingly similar (not exactly the same).

Secondly, the national question touched in Basilov's speech also caused lively discussion. His main statement in this field was that all small ethnic groups are happy about their life in Russia, at least not too unhappy. Civilization introduced by the Russians has considerably developed many primitive nations. He provided a striking example of peoples' friendship: during the Caucasus wars, last century, A. P. Yermolov, a Russian general, after having seen the complete destruction of a mosque in Chechnya, immediately ordered it rebuilt. And this happened to the locals' delight.

Many ethnographers-ethnologists present there argued against Basilov's statement about the minorities question. Y. V. Chesnov was most vociferous in his argument against it. He recalled that Yermolov, "friend of small nations", has provided a paraphrase of a well-known statement applying to the Indians: "Only a dead Chechen is a good Chechen." Also, "scorched earth" tactics employed by Yermolov in Chechnya were highlighted.

Also, Chesnov stated that "scientists of our "prosperous" country (i.e. Russia – A. L.) have also something to do about the recent events in the Caucasus". Then Chesnov talked about the ethnographers' responsibility to the researched peoples. He stated that in some cases they should not publish everything they know about the locals (unless (s)he is adequately informed about the particular culture), as it may come to be dangerous in some cases.

For example, in a book published in the beginning of the 1980s there was a statement that the Abkhaz had arrived at their present settled area later than the Georgians. Therefore, when the Georgians read the book, on "scientific grounds" they started to consider the Abkhaz to be invaders. Later in fieldworks Chesnov asked a Georgian how many Abkhaz there are – "One could place them in two troop trains," he said.

S. A. Arutyunov, an ethnologist from Moscow, had a different viewpoint about the small ethnic groups. He spoke about the need for training their own ethnologists. According to him, research projects carried out by themselves would considerably broaden the horizons of science.

D. Nesanelis, an ethnographer from Syktyvkar, argued against this, saying that it would be irresponsible to encourage the representatives of small ethnic groups to take up ethnography. Experiences show that their lives have become very tragic.

Arutyunov agreed that the lives of the intelligentsia in small ethnic groups may become very tragic. However, this cannot be an argument against training them: this is not the question about the ethnic group. Very often there is conflict between the researcher and his/her ethnic group on the one hand, and their surroundings (neighbouring large nation(s), cities, industry, mass communications, etc.) on the other. The solution could be providing small ethnic groups with a favourable intellectual milieu.

For the first time in the history of Russian ethnography forums a workshop on urban ethnography was held in Ufa. The main issue for Russian urban ethnographers is modelling ethnic processes, rather than examining marginal urban subcultures. This rests on a supposition that in earlier times ethnic processes evolved only outside cities. The people who settled down in cities were ethnically established already. Nowadays ethnic processes also develop in cities. In urban areas people become ethnically conscious. How these processes develop is among the main concerns of urban ethnography in Russia.

The workshop on urban ethnography was quite small and only lasted half a day. However, this is a promising and developing phenomenon in Russian ethnography.

At this Congress the workshop on museum affairs was not among the most important issues and thus it can be said this is not a burning question in Russian ethnography today. However, the topic is vitally important outside Russia, as also indicated by the participation of people from the National Museum of Finland and Estonian National Museum in this workshop. People from the Novosibirsk oblast museum of regional studies were among the most eminent Russian ethnographers. They talked on the subject of museum information systems (electronic catalogues and designing a home page for a museum).

Ildikó Lehtinen, curator of the National Museum of Finland, spoke on the meaning and functions of museum pieces, as well as on the criteria for collecting them. According to Baudrillard, a French sociologist, he divided the pieces into two groups:

1. symbolic, functional pieces;
2. marginal pieces, without a specific function.

Museum pieces are marginal. They do not have authentic functions. Any piece can have this only when properly used in the right place and time. Museum pieces are mostly symbolic.

In earlier times museums collected mostly curiously interesting and aesthetic items. Museums displayed objects that were no longer used, or else were never used at all.

The National Museum of Finland started expeditions to the Finno-Ugric peoples in 1856. According to I. Lehtinen, at that time mostly textile pieces, especially those with elaborate ornamentation, were collected. When there was a Finno-Ugric exhibition at the National Museum of Finland in 1920, the beauty of the pieces was among the main criteria for putting on the exhibition.

At present, there are 16,000 pieces collected from the Finno-Ugric territories at the National Museum of Finland. Many beautiful, but "dead" museum pieces that are out of context can be "revived" by fieldworks and further documenting.

This was a brief and fragmentary overview of the topics discussed at the Congress of Russian ethnologists and anthropologists in Ufa. While participating there, the author of the present article got some idea about the exciting processes currently evolving in Russian ethnography, and hopefully, was able to highlight them in this paper.

Translated by Epp Uustalu