Introduction

This paper is based on a conversation with Tatyana Moldanova, a Khanty ethnologist, who has provided the majority of the input. Art Leete acts as a provocative problem-maker and topic controller. This conversation took place at Tatyana Moldanova's home in a flat in a large block of flats in Khanty-Mansiysk, Tyumen oblast on 26 April 1996.

The author has transcribed the text from the tape recording, translated from Russian into Estonian, as well as edited and provided some necessary footnotes for the paper. The main idea of the paper is to communicate Tatyana Moldanova's ideas. This is also the reason why additional sources have not been included, although this might have provided a more comprehensive overview of the subject.

The main issue addressed in this paper is whether the peoples living in arctic and sub-arctic forest and swampy areas have special attitudes caused by the environment (henceforth called arctic hysteria).

I admit that I am not competent in psychiatry and psychology, the aspect which would not ease an overall treatment of the topic. Rather, it would be inevitable for examining this topic. Therefore, ethnological aspects are addressed here, explaining the life in the forest then through cultural phenomena. The interpretation of "arctic hysteria" is based on Tatyana Moldanova's experiences of the life in the forest area and thus intuitive psychological interpretations are also included.

Since the year 1960, the term "cross-cultural psychiatry" has been used. Ethnic psychologists and psychiatrists are confined to the emotional conduct of different nation groups, excluding intellectual, memory and thought differences (Vahing 1998: 1732).

Vahing also describes arctic hysteria, considering Eskimos (mostly women) as an example. "The initial signs are tiredness and depression, which then become despair, uncomprehending explosion of rage, desperate excess of movement. This is then followed by rolling one's body in the snow, smashing up things, tearing off clothes from one's upper body. These are glossolalia (inarticulate sounds), echolalia, echopraxia, coprolalia. The duration may range from a few minutes to an hour or two in a few cases. As with hysteria in general, it does not cause any injury or damage, only temporary loss of consciousness and total loss of memory. Good recovery, complete remission" (Vahing 1998: 1735).

Vahing also gives possible explanations for arctic hysteria, e.g.: insufficiency of calcium and consequent convulsions, conflicts with other people, cultural depression, oppressive impact of culture (Vahing refers to S. Freud), it may also be caused by an extreme autosuggestion with a sexual implication. Other people nearby, as being afraid of evil spirits, avoid contact with a victim and refuse to provide any assistance for him (Vahing 1998: 1735).

Vahing concludes his discussion of arctic hysteria by reaching three conclusions, e.g.:

1. In the case of arctic hysteria, we cannot speak about an illness or a hysterical psychopath.
2. If considered at all, arctic hysteria can be regarded as a hysteric reaction or a hysteric explosion, similar to the arcus hystericus.
3. According to international classification, arctic hysteria does not belong to neuroses. Rather, it is considered to be "dissociative disorder" (Vahing 1998: 1738).

H. M. Sampath claims that the contemporary idea of the depression of Inuites is based on Hippocratic ideas about the impact of the northern environment on the human psychic (Sampath 1981: 519). Hippocrates (500 BC) shared the idea that the surrounding environment influences both culture and psyche (Tokarev 1978: 32). He has provided the following description of the native country of Scythes around the Black Sea, e.g.:

"Seasons are not very distinct and different from one another but are quite similar; as a result of this, people also look alike in appearance. They eat similar food, wear similar clothes both in winter and summer. [---] They do not have any physical exercise because one cannot develop one's body or soul where there are no great changes" (Tokarev 1978: 34).

Research about emotional disorders in non-western cultures, carried out in the 1950–60s, revealed that the depression rate is much higher in western cultures than in traditional communities. More recent research in the 1960s, however, did not confirm this. It was assumed that many languages, including the Inuit language, do not have the ability to express depression. In the 1970s, they claimed that the language has the vocabulary for expressing depression. They have plentiful methods for expressing depression (Sampath 1981: 519). Sampath also ascribes the mental disorders of Inuites to their family problems, including the death of close relatives (ibid.: 519–520). Sampath concludes that the universal conception about depression also applies to Inuits, as with people in general (ibid: 521).

In addition to psychologists, anthropologists have also studied extreme personality concepts. In her book "Patterns of Culture", first published in 1934, Ruth Benedict considers psychological unity as a central cultural model. She also includes the so-called extreme cases. According to Benedict, the Zuni Indians in New Mexico are Apollonian, (well balanced in character, worshipping), while Kwakiutl Indians in Vancouver are Dionysian (ecstatic and frenzied character), and the Dobus in Melanesia are Yagosian (mysterious and schizophrenic character). These models are based on Nietzsche's and Spengler's ideas, as well as those of psychoanalysts and gestalt psychologists (Benedict 1947).

R. Benedict notes the primary importance of the whole model of the individual over separate symbols within a culture. Also, she highlights the importance of reasons behind the motives and emotions institutionalised by the culture (ibid.: 45).

Benedict also notes, e.g.:

"Any configurational interpretation of culture is also their presentation in terms of the psychology of the individual, yet it is dependent on history and psychology aspects" (ibid.: 215).

Benedict also states that cultural configurations are applicable on a local scale only (ibid.: 216). Each culture can choose a different type of deportment/conduct (ibid.: 235), and a very "unstable personality type" can be valued highly within a culture (ibid.: 249, 254). Such drastic personality types represent the extreme development of the local cultural model (ibid.: 255).

Nowadays R. Benedict's basic ideas supporting totally culture-specific personality types are not considered to be topical among personality researchers. They, however, have their place in the history of anthropological personality studies.

Forest life moods: an interview

Art Leete: Some researchers² have claimed the arctic environment to cause psychic disorders in people. This is said to have diverse reasons. For example, the Northern people may suffer from lack of vitamins, long and dark polar nights, and a dull landscape. Also that for a long time people can communicate with a limited number of people only etc (Konakov 1983: 176; Sidorov 1997).

These supposed mental disorders are said to express themselves in people's emotional instability. People may also stolidly go in the same direction for a long time without a specific reason, or do something else unnatural or pointless.

Such approach probably has ethnocentrist reasons behind it. Peoples inhabiting the areas south of the arctic region or even further away describe arctic hysteria as if the phenomenon was inherently and naturally pertaining to Northern peoples. This can be stereotypical: very often that arctic peoples themselves do not feel any emotional disorders.

Tatyana Moldanova: The problem is what are the prevailing moods when you live in the north all alone.

I do not think life has been easy. At first, the environment might have influenced the psyche. When I observe the way people behave, it seems to me that the culture has provided us with an adaptation mechanism. People have developed the means for not getting into such moods. I am sure of it.

When I was young, I lived in the forest with my granny. And I remember it very well that it was too peaceful there. I have, then, my personal experience. When I lived with granny, everything was peaceful and the world was big, very big. Much bigger than it is now when I live in town.

Then I thought why the world was so huge. My granny never let me have hunger for information. She worked and guided me. She took me from one situation to another…

We were there in a way very sensitive, particularly susceptible to new experiences. Even when you have a kind of sensory deficiency there, when the amount of information about things is limited, this hunger increases and the brain is constantly active. The brain, then, works creatively and is constantly activated.

Therefore, when you are a child and growing up, you have not got the time to get nervous or do something different. The brain is constantly operational and continuously charged. And you are getting bigger, bigger and bigger.

Later, I remember from my childhood, the world was wide, very wide. But when it is your world, created by yourself, it is kind to you, you know. I mean wherever you go, originally it is a good place. There is no emptiness. That is what I felt.

How do I feel about the present situation? When we were to go through the boarding school system – parashka (wooden-seated, metal emptiable toilet) and all that – then these mechanisms started to dismantle the existing world. This world was disclosed, naked. Everything that was within you moves out of you. But it is awful to live in the naked world. Then fear starts. But fear causes hysteria. Fear that the world is a terrible place.

And now that we can live in towns or somewhere else, the former world returns to us. Before I thought that spirits are alive. But when did they disappear? They disappeared when I went to school. They were not around any longer. And tonight when I sleep, fall asleep, I see them all alive, you know. And because we did not collapse in the present-day world, and get in such… For me, it is one and the same environment.

For me, considering hysteria, it is more dangerous in town than in the forest. Because in the forest my "switching changes". And I start actively doing something, thinking out something. You pick berries and the whole world is with you. And it goes through you. Everything is peaceful and nothing would impose itself on you, everything goes smoothly. As if you had been taught to realise these things. Say there are cloudberries, insects and you are all alone. As if you have experiences, someone has taught you, told you. And have evidently felt the same somewhere. And it is terrific.

But in town at times I feel terribly isolated, being yearning and lonely, although there are lots of people around. It seems that not all of them are humans, you know. You are not in contact with them. In the forest, when you go there where you know some trees, they seem to be alive. As with everything else there. You feel closer to them than to people in town, as if townsfolk did not have this warmth.

Or you can put it this way: whatever place, when you have become used to it, somehow becomes warm. This is pleasant and joyful when you recognise that place. Later when you return, again that joy comes to you. In the forest that kind of mechanism works.

But when you are in town, or suppose that our people have not got married, then the above mechanism, it seems to me, works even better. I just feel it, you know.

Common Law

Art: Is not it so that during the Soviet period, by law Khanties practised poaching in the forest? They hunted, although prohibited by the authorities, unless they did not hand over their catch. When one cannot behave honestly and tell the truth but has to lie all the time, this also has its influence on the psyche. This is also a sign of hysteria when a person lies. That they cannot be honest with the state authorities may also have the influence on people themselves.

Tatyana: You know, I bring the following example. Our world-view has been worked out completely, has not this. Basically, when you look at it, we have got spirits, hoimaz³ who always give you some fish. You caught fish, but they give it away. And when you at least lived in such a world as a child, you do not have conflicts whatsoever.

As with poaching and lying – this is a completely different world. There the boss makes his laws. For Khanties, there is no such a thing as inner conflict.Their bosses act and do what they want. But locals have their own laws and there are no basic conflicts.

You know, many of us are imprisoned, almost all men. Before I asked myself, why, what do they think. You see what comes out. We have got a song, saying that only the highest of spirits As tij iki⁴ will be punished for sins or bad deeds, Mir susne hum⁵ in Mansi people.

Only he can do it. But if a human was imprisoned… There is a song, e.g.:

"…when you were caught in fatal trouble with the Russians,
when you fell in the house with tiny windows,
I stretch out my divine arm and pull you out of it".

It comes out, then, that the laws written by Russians are simply "fatal trouble". Fatal trouble, unhappiness. Yet As tij iki can punish. It means, your surroundings, your laws, your community, when you break them, there will be disharmony. Why people drink nowadays? The reason is that they breach the laws of their life, not because they break Russian laws. This means that these social laws are primary.

An outing through the swamp

Tatyana: We have a special kind of character. Because mixed marriages tend to be unhappy. Suppose other people consider you to be nervous. But when you get married to someone from among your people, and you become different, peaceful. I mean you may become a totally different person.

Let us consider myself and Timofei⁶. Once we came out of the forest.⁷ We had to go for 70 kilometres. It was 7 November. This means, it was a cold season already, everything was frozen.

Then all of sudden everything became shallow. I have put on some weight when living in town. I just almost drowned in the swamps. And there was about 5 kilometres to go. We could have taken a roundabout path of 15 kilometres. But Timo said that we could take a direct one, as everything is frozen. We then started to go, but the swamp had melted there. And I got in the middle of it, about 2 kilometres. And I could not go any further. I had no strength whatsoever. I stood up and fell at once. As I fell I could have some rest. But there was water. I sunk into it. I had kis, winter boots on. My kis were soaked, and I was wet to the skin. And I could not go on. We had come two kilometres and we had three more to go. And I did not know in which direction to go. I had a rucksack and Timo had a rucksack. But Timo did not sink in there. He could go along the thin ice so. But I only stood up – fell down and again stood up and fell.

And then I thought that if he had said a single bad word, I would fall there and never stand up again. Never, understand? But Timo only stood there, smoking. He waited as I was lying there. Then I stood up again. I went on. Later I started to roll myself from side to side. Then it came that I could not go any further. Looked at him, thought:

"Now go on reviling! Then I roused myself to anger. I would not go on!"

But he waited. Stood silent. I saw he was also tired. He took his rucksack further. Then he came back and took my rucksack further. But I then moved on crawling. It was there a kind of extreme situation.

In certain serious cases there is never an explosion. It can be that we see things differently. But I am 100% sure that we perceive things in different ways. We cannot have the life different from what we have got. Only a few of us are capable of this.

In that world I like everything, because all feelings are pure there. But here in town even joy is exaggerated, sorrow is the same. But there in the forest joy and sorrow are somehow transparent, penetrative.

I bring an example. That same place, when we went with Timo in the swamp, I finally got out of it. We got to an island. This was in the middle of the swamp. Such a small island. We cut wood there. I undressed. It was winter already, snow everywhere. And I dried all my clothes.

And I was so cheerful. The joy was really sky-high. Everything was joyful, beautiful. I felt as if having had a good rest. I felt very high!

Later when we left. I came across a swamp again! I nearly drowned again! I began to feel it – by now it is well. I thought to myself what then if I took a step? I took – did not sink! I was so happy, you know, it was a state of absolute euphoria. Great! Great! Then I took another step. And still I did not sink. I felt blessed indeed! I felt so great! I felt so very dry! I felt so warm. I stood on this step and – oh! – I sank in there. I sank into it with that leg, with that one leg. But the other leg was still dry! The dry leg! One leg was dry! I pulled my leg out and I had such a feeling. I took a step and I did not sink in again. I felt great again. With the next step I sank in with that same leg again. And again joy! Great joy! It ended so well, heavenly, you see! What happiness, I thought, standing with my leg in the water. I sank into the water with that same leg! But the other leg was dry. What a blessing! Pure joy!

This was what I wanted to tell you, so that you could see what our lifestyle was like. In a life different from that, one cannot have such a joy, because this is not confined either from the top or bottom.

Conclusions

This paper would not pursue any clear-cut explanations to arctic hysteria or moods of forest life. Yet it, presumably, has contributed to the overall research of these subject areas. And has done so from its original point of view.

This is not a discussion in the true sense of the word. It rather includes a couple of random stories on moods of forest life. As with the presented opinions that as if turned up unexpectedly. What came into one's head during this short interview.

Yet a couple of hypothetical regularities of forest life attitudes occurred despite that the material is not overwhelming. First, that in the cultures of hunters and reindeer herders, traditional regulations of common law are more important than people's feelings subject to constant change. World-view of forest peoples is a whole that would not allow any mental hesitation or dialectical controversies within it.⁸

Second, it is the change of surroundings, rather than the surroundings itself that influence the "overall" attitudes of humans. Emotional problems may also have problems of human relationships behind them, while the influence of surroundings cannot be distinguished so clearly.

¹ This article has been prepared by support of the Estonian Science Foundation. Grant No. 3134.

² See Leete 1996.

³Hoimaz, heimas `producing spawn' (in the Khanty lng.). According to Khanty mythology, a spirit who lives in an area around the lower course of the river Ob and splinters wood which then become fish. Splinters cut in winter become squirrels, sables, reindeer and other animals. Hoimaz is the master of fish and water. Hoimaz's wife is called Kasum imi `Kazym woman' (in the Khanty lng.) (Moldanova 1999: 61, 82; Moldanov 1999: 33–34, 67), Goddess – ancestor of Kazym Khanties. She is considered to be daughter of Numi Torum. She manifests herself in the form of a sable or cat. Among Mansi people this goddess is known as Kasum nai ekva (Moldanova 1999: 105–106, 140; Moldanov 1999: 27, 79).

⁴ As tij iki `old man of the upper course of the Ob River' (in the Khanty lng.), grandchild of Kaltash, son of Torum, among the most important Ob-Ugric gods. Also Mir vantty he `Man watching the world' (in the Khanty lng.). He lives near Khanty-Mansiysk and rides a white horse. As tij iki sets moral standards for people (Moldanov 1999: 33, 39, 41, 58, 64, 124).

⁵ Mir susne hum `person watching the world' (in the Mansi lng.).

⁶ Timofei Moldanov (b. 1957), Khanty ethnologist and folklore researcher, Tatyana's husband.

⁷ This happens on the river Kazym.

⁸ In this respect Tatyana Moldanova's viewpoint can be compared with Claude Lévi-Strauss' structural concept of a myth which says that one of the roles of myth is to regulate human coexistence and exchange opposition of nature to culture (Lévi-Strauss 1967: 202–227; Puhvel 1996: 28).

References