THE POWER OF THE UNBURIED:  : QUASI-INDIGENOUSNESS, LIMITED CITIZENSHIP AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF RUSSIANS  IN MONGOLIA AND CHINA

Ivan Peshkov

doi:10.23858/ethp.2024.45.3794

Published: 2024-12-17

Vol. 45 (2024)

THE POWER OF THE UNBURIED:

Ivan Peshkov

Ethnologia Polona

Section: Main topic of the issue

https://doi.org/10.23858/ethp.2024.45.3794

Abstract

Using the experience of repatriates from Inner Asia as an example, this article examines the specifics of Soviet practices of suspicion, fixing the border population in a situation of inevitable political and racial impurity. Despite the gradual withdrawal of the state from the mass persecution of people in border areas after 1953, the emotional experience of living near the border is relevant, not only in new post-Soviet contexts but also as a way to understand the past. This experience will be considered in two aspects: (1) the citizenship regime for repatriates as it, to a greater or lesser extent, related to the community and (2) the specifics of the community’s responsibility for armed resistance to Soviet power. The narrative shift in the study of Stalinism and Soviet citizenship has provided a broad theoretical view of the value system and epistemology of the Soviet subject. It should be noted that this theoretical generalisation can be filled with empirical content thanks to anthropological studies of the border communities from the eastern part of the USSR (Transbaikalia). To write this article, material was used from field research conducted in Mongolia, Inner Mongolia and the Chita region in the autumn of 2012, 2016 and 2021.

Keywords:

inner asia, suspicion, border regions, citizenship

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Peshkov, I. (2024). THE POWER OF THE UNBURIED: : QUASI-INDIGENOUSNESS, LIMITED CITIZENSHIP AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF RUSSIANS IN MONGOLIA AND CHINA. Ethnologia Polona, 45, 19–41. https://doi.org/10.23858/ethp.2024.45.3794

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Ablazhej, Natalia. 2007. S Vostoka na Vostok. Rossijskaia emigraciia v Kitae [From Vostok to Vostok. Russian emigration in China]. Novosibirsk: RAN.
Google Scholar

Agamben, Giorgio. 2015. Stasis: Civil War as a Political Paradigm. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Google Scholar

Alexandrov, Yuri, 1999. Perekhodnaya ekonomika: Rossiyskaya versiya. [Transition Economy: The Russian Version] Moscow: RAN.
Google Scholar

Fitzpatrick, Sheila. 1976. “Culture and Politics under Stalin: A Reappraisal.” Slavic Review 35 (2): 211–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2494589
Google Scholar

Humphrey, Caroline. 2002. “Stalin and the Blue Elephant: Paranoia and Complicity in Postcommunist Metahistories.” Diogenes 49 (194): 26–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/039219210204919405
Google Scholar

Kotkin, Stephen. 1997. Magnetic mountain: Stalinism as a civilization. Los Angeles: University of California Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520918856
Google Scholar

Loraux, Nicole. 2002. The divided city: on memory and forgetting in ancient Athens. New York: Zone Books.
Google Scholar

Mihalev, Alexei. 2008. “‘Russki‘ kvartal’ Ulan-batora: kollektivnaia pamiat‘ i klassifikacionnye praktiki.” [Ulaanbaatar’s Russian Quarter: Collective Memory and Classification Practices] Vestnik Evrazii 2, pp. 6–28.
Google Scholar

Miller, Jacqueline. 2001, “Imperial Designs? Citizenship and Russia’s Policies in the Former Soviet Union.” PONAR Policy Memo 240 (1): 1–4.
Google Scholar

Oushakine, Sergei. 2013. “Remembering in Public: On the Affective Management of History.” Ab Imperio 1: 269–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/imp.2013.0000
Google Scholar

Radu, Cosmin. 2010. “Beyond Border-‘Dwelling’: Temporalizing the Border-Space Through Events.” Anthropological Theory 10 (4): 409–433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499610386664
Google Scholar

Perminov, Vadim. 2008. Nakazanie bez prestupleniia. [Punishment without Offence] Chita: CHGI.
Google Scholar

Peshkov, Ivan. 2012. “Politization of Quasi-Indigenousness on the Russo-Chinese Frontier”, In Frontier Encounters: Knowledge and Practices at the Russian, Chinese and Mongolian Border, edited by Franck Bille, Gregory Delaplace and Caroline Humphrey, 165–183. Cambridge: Open Book Publisher. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0026.09
Google Scholar

Peshkov, Ivan. 2014. “Usable Past for a Transbaikalian Borderline Town. ‘Disarmament’ of Memory and Geographical Imagination in Priargunsk.” Inner Asia 16: 95–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/22105018-12340005
Google Scholar

Sablin, Ivan. 2018. The Rise and Fall of Russia’s Far Eastern Republic, 1905–1922, London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429455278
Google Scholar

Scott, James. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Google Scholar

Sinyavsky, Alexandr. 2003. Urbanizatsiya Rossii v XX veke. Rol v istoricheskom protsesse, [Urbanisation of Russia in the XX century. Role in the historical process] Moscow: Nauka.
Google Scholar

Vishnevsky, Anatolii. 1998. Serp i rubl. Konservativnaya modernizatsiya v SSSR. [The Sickle and the Ruble. Conservative modernisation in the USSR] Moscow: OPI.
Google Scholar

Zahra, Tara. 2010. “Imagined noncommunities: national indifference as a category of analysis.”Slavic Review 69: 93–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0037677900016715
Google Scholar