Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 6 – Russian officials
from Vladimir Putin on down routinely celebrate the fact that nearly 100
percent of the population of the Russian Federation speaks Russian, but in
fact, historians Mikhail Velizhev and Timur Atnashev say, the country “suffers
from the lack of ‘a common language’” because different groups in fact do not speak
the same Russia.
As a result, the Higher School of
Economics and Russian Academy of Economics and State Service specialists say,
tensions increase because “different social groups do not understand one
another as they are ‘speaking different languages’” even though all say they
are speaking a common Russian (rosbalt.ru/moscow/2019/05/05/1779440.html).
Velizhev points
out that “a common language is a stable collection of words, arguments and
expressions with the help of which various groups of society and influential
actors regularly discuss significant questions with the help of which people
argue and discuss decisions. We are involved in this issue as historians but of
course, we observe the current situation with interest.”
He observes that in Arkhangelsk, the
governor and those protesting plans to dispose of Moscow’s trash there couldn’t
find a common language. Instead, the governor replied with force and described
those against him as “’trash,’” thus precluding dialogue and any possibility of
reaching an agreement.
Indeed, Atnashev continues, “the
conflict intensified.” Had the governor spoken with rather than at the protesters
some agreement might have been possible. Because he didn’t, none is at least as
yet – and the dangers of separation into two worlds divided by a nominally
common language increase.
When speaking about “sharp questions,”
he says, “it is sometimes correct not to argue” about them directly but rather
to agree that they should not be discussed in public at all. Moving religion
from the public space to the private one, Atnashev argues, was the way in which
democracy emerged in Western Europe, for example.
That can serve as a model for Russians
as well: “Internal conflicts in families and among friends in discussions about
Crimea have led to a situation in which often people begin by agreeing to put a
taboo on such a hot subject. That is a good decision.”
An equally significant fight involves
the word Rossiisky, the non-ethnic
term for citizens of the Russian Federation. Before 1917, these words were
synonyms for Russky, the ethnic term,
but not now, and the differences in terms have become a political divide in
Russian society, Atashev says.
He continues: There was a short
period at the end of Soviet times when Gorbachev and some of his aides came to
believe that “it was very good to speak with and debate with people.” But
because that proved so difficult and because the Soviet Union collapsed, many associate
debate with destruction and thus oppose it as such.
To make discussions and debate
possible takes a lot of practice, Velizhev says. But it is worth it as “we know well from history
that societies which aren’t able to communicate are condemned to harsh
conflicts, which destroy the existing institutions and language.” That requires
working with small issues first and then moving on to larger ones, Atashev
adds.
Choosing a political language is
hard. Until recently, the powers that be in Moscow used the language of
contemporary Western liberalism, but now, they have turned away from that. And
those Russians who had become used to that language have passed into the
opposition, the historians say.
Atashev notes that “as long as there
is no conflict, political language isn’t very much needed. But with the growth
of conflicts, language will either promote its further escalation or become one
of the mechanisms, not magical or capable of working overnight of acknowledging
the opinion of the other side” and moving toward a resolution.
Sometimes this can be promoted by
the way in which people meet or sit together. The British House of Commons
encourages dialogue: summoning people to one’s office and lecturing them as in
Russia does not. But neither do social
media which are typically unidirectional and reinforce divisions rather than
promote genuine interaction.
The Arkhangelsk governor is an
object lesson of what leaders should not do. But there are positive models to
be found elsewhere in Russia. In smaller settlements in Siberia, for example,
the historians say, people reach agreements by coming together in communal
meetings, almost the way the zemtsva
did before 1917.
“We live in a complex and quite
varied society, where there coexist groups which know little about one another,
and almost do not have experience of interaction.” It is thus no surprise that
they lack “a common language” for discussions. Russians need to learn how to
speak with each other not formulaically but in ways that allow both sides to retain
their dignity.
No comments:
Post a Comment