On April 6th, Irina Prokhorova, Head of Editorial Board of the journal Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie [New Literary Observer] presented in EUSP an issue that was released a year ago under the name “Antropologiia diaspory: kul’turnie mekhanizmy konstruirovaniia identichnosti [The Anthropology of Diaspora: Cultural Mechanisms of Constructing Identity].”
A diaspora is a kind of self-isolating community in which the cultural elements of the homeland come into conflict with a new cultural and social environment, thus changing, in an intricate way identities within the diaspora. In these communities, new forms of identity is developed that can be quite flexible — they adapt as part of the group’s strategy for survival. Only groups of repatriates who have settled in two or more different territories can be considered diasporic. They preserve historical memory and develop myths about their country of origin, which is considered to be their true home. Members of diaspora would like to return there when circumstances permit. They feel isolated in their new society and maintain ties with their historical homeland.
The “Anthropology of Diaspora’s” primary task was an attempt to inscribe the history of Russian migration within the global context of diaspora studies. At the center lies the phenomenon of the 20th century Russian diaspora. Scholars now identify four waves of Russian migration, each of which has had its own unique experience. Nevertheless, this rich empirical material has yet to be analyzed sufficiently, and has not been examined systematically so far.
According to Irina Prokhorova, the study of diasporas is extremely important for understanding the history of a state—especially with regards to Russia. Study of diasporas allows us to consider the country of origin in a new perspective and to see how society has changed there over time. Some phenomena exist in the country of origin in latent forms and are exposed only in the study of its diaspora, as the diaspora often tries to preserve certain codes inherent to the forsaken homeland. The study of various waves of emigration and a comparison of the changing identities of emigrants of various generations allows us to understand large-scale cultural changes that occurred in 20th century Russian society.
The study of diasporas also helps us understanding how identity is formed. Emigrants of the post-revolutionary period refused to recognize immigrants from the Soviet Union as compatriots; representatives of the third wave of emigration (1960-1980) Vasilii Aksenov, Anatolii Gladilin and PeotrVail met first-wave emigrants (1918-1923) in the United States and the identities of first and third wave migrants were different despite the fact that their homeland was the same. From this we can conclude that national consciousness is neither unified nor indivisible.
In the mid-1920s, Maria Vrangel collected information about the living conditions of Russian migrants residing abroad. She documented a change in identity among these migrants comparable to those who had lived in tsarist Russia. If previously the basic components of identity had been language and religion, they later become a person’s attitude toward Bolshevism, faithfulness to the Emperor, citizenship, and the idea of a great Russian culture.
Diasporas invent traditions and homeland without preserving old customs and beliefs. Various phenomena arise within diasporas, and with time are imported by and successfully implimented in the country of origin. For example, so-called “Russian fascism,” embodied in the concept of Eurasianism, first arose in diaspora, where after several decades it was exported to the USSR. Diasporas can form with or without the existence of a homeland, as it is demonstrated by the Sith.
Drawing attention to diaspora studies is necessary as an anthropological paradigm that can offer new approaches to the study of history, allowing us to move beyond a narrow conception of history as part of national-imperial essentialist discourse.
Sofia Lopatina
