Who Are You, Friend Of Steppes, Kalmyk?

(Ethnic And Cultural Identity Of The Kalmyks)

Dr Liubov Chetyrova

Oh, West is West, East is East, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God′s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of
 the earth!

(Rudyard Kipling. The Ballad of East and West)

Introduction 

"The Kalmyks are the youngest of the European nations" - joked the Secretary of the Communist party in Kalmykia the General Basang Gorodovokov. The joke has a piece of the truth. It does not means that the Republic of Kalmykia is in the territory of Europe. The Kalmyk`s culture is a nomadic culture and was transformed by Russian culture. In this case we have a question on a belonging of Russia to Europe. I would not like to discuss now it, because this question is a difficult and debatable problem. I would like to analyze the question on the cultural and ethnic identity of the Kalmyks, a small ethnic group living in Russia. When the Kalmyks try to define their identity in the context of Russian culture they quote Alexander Pushkin’s words on the pedestal of his monument in Moscow - the friend of steppes, Kalmyk.

The Kalmyks came to Russia twice. At first the west Mongolian nation, the Oyrats from whence there were Kalmyks, came with Chengiz khan. The influence of culture on another culture is estimated differently and is dependent on the point of view. The influence of the Mongols on Russian culture is estimated in Russian historiography negatively. Eurasian theory estimates the influence of the Mongols on the culture of Russia positively opposite to official Russian historiography. One of my colleagues in St.-Petersburg has joked Chengiz khan was the first Russian Emperor, he ruled an Empire whose boundaries were from Japan up to Hungary.

My purpose is to consider the problem of Kalmyk identity in a context of a problem of East and West. The life of the Kalmyk people has developed on a boundary of two cultures - Russian and Kalmyk, which existed in the context of the Soviet, and nowadays – the Russian culture. Kalmykia is a place, where East and West stand face to face.

Rudyard Kipling’s statement about incompatibility of West and East, about impossibility to understand each other, as if proclaimed by Kipling is one of the widespread clichés of mass consciousness. But I think, the famous writer and poet meant an absolutely different thing. If the epigraph to the Ballad and the Ballad itself is read up to the end, it is clear, that the position of Kipling is opposite. He wrote how they can understand each other in interpersonal dialogue, how the twain shall meet in understanding such values – as honor, dignity, boldness, friendship, life. My field is the communication of people of Eastern and Western cultures and different ethnic identities and how they understand each other.

The problem of the Soviet culture and Soviet people is very interesting to study in this context.  The classics of Greek antiquity spoke of the past as not present, no less than future, there is only the present concerning which they exist.  History is made by the people in the present and grows out of designing of events, facts, which we put in the past.  Is it possible to trust in such case to memoirs? It is more important for our present, than for the description, and can be the justifications of the past. I suggest calling aoristodicy[1] an experience of the justification of the past. I think it is necessary for definition of identity of the human person, group, and people in modern Russia.  As far as for theology the XII century was urgent in the justification of the God.  An explanation of the presence of evil in the world, is so urgent, I suppose, nowadays for Russians, an intellectual elite the justification of the soviet past.

On December 28, 1943, the Kalmyks were deported to Siberia. There were the old men, women and children. Half of them were lost on the way and on arrival in Siberia. The men battled on the Second World War’s fronts. The Kalmyks were accused in collaboration because part of the Kalmyks supported the German fascists and battled against the Soviet authority. The Germans organized the Kalmyk corps of horse. Nevertheless most part of the Kalmyks battled against the German fascists. However all solders were removed from the front and were sent to camps of the GULAG. The problem of collaboration was traumatic for Kalmyks but actually it is a question concerning Kalmyk identity.  Kalmyks considered themselves as a Soviet citizens or fighters with the Soviet authority.          

 In Siberia the Kalmyks lived 13 years. Thanks to Nikita Khruschev Kalmyks could return to Kalmykia in 1956 and were restored to national autonomy. The trauma of deportation was ignored a long time because of ideology as in common life. The Kalmyks did not discuss this painful theme of treachery, fault, undeserved sufferings and the death of half nation.

 Brief History

XVII - XVIII century was a time of expansion of the Russian state eastward to Siberia, which transformed as Empire. Simultaneously towards moved Oyrats or Kalmyks. The Kalmyks were separated from the Oyrats of Jungaria at the beginning of the XVII. They moved into the area between the Volga and Don rivers to the North Caspian Sea region. From this moment began the experience of a collision of two cultures[2]. Oyrats were advancing on the West and establishing relations with the Russian State. Eventually their interests coincided. The Oyrats-Kalmyks received the right to reside in the territory of Bottom Volga and had to carry the border security of the Russian Empire. The Empire was tasked to establish acceptable relations with different ethnic groups because the Russian government and the Kalmyk elite had a mutual interest in rapprochement. In the interest of boundary security and development in the Volga region was the movement here of groups of nomadic peoples considered loyal to the Russian state, in particular the Kalmyks. The Kalmyks were born soldiers and executed boundary functions, protecting the borders of the Empire from others nomadic groups.  

The Kalmyks rendered a large influence on political processes occurring in the area of the Caspian Sea and Northern Caucasus. The Kalmyks agreed to be a boundary army saha ulus. The Southern border of the Russian state (A. Solzenicyn called it the “soft underbelly”) was vulnerable. The Kalmyks were useful for the Russian state because they were a strategic ally on this major direction of geopolitical interests. There was an important quality in that the Kalmyks were Buddhist instead of Muslims as were the other peoples surrounding Russia.  

The Kalmyks had a national sovereign – the Kalmyk khanate. It was liquidated in the end of the XVIII century because two thirds of the Kalmyks and the Kalmyk Khan  Ubushi migrated to Jungaria. After the October revolution of 1917 the Kalmyks received national autonomy, which was liquidated in 1943. The national autonomy was restored in 1956. Nowadays the Republic of Kalmykia is a part of the Russian Federation. Kalmyk President Iliumzinov is also President of FIDE.

The culture of the Kalmyks is Buddhist by origin[3]. Kalmyks belong to the tradition Gelug (yellow hat order) however Kalmyks syncretic worldview have also accepted some traditions of Sakja and Kagju.  Part of the Kalmyks was baptized. The presence of the Orthodox Church was explicable by political reasons and Orthodox Church missionaries. By the way, my own great-grandmother was a baptized Kalmyk. Before the October revolution in Kalmykia there were 105 temples and monasteries (khuruls), with 5200 inhabitants. All of them were destroyed during the Soviet era. Nowadays there remain only the ruins of Khoscheutov churul near Astrakhan[4].

 II. Variety of images of the Kalmyks in Russian culture.

Colonization carried out by the Russian Empire differed on the ways and results from British colonization, for example. The Russian Empire was not a metropolis and colonies but there were autonomies within the framework unit’s State. Russia was built, or if to use the terms of Russian philosophy, was collected (S. Solovjev) of peoples of the Empire in a whole. The phenomenon of Voluntary connection was rather widespread in the experience of Russian colonization. That the Kalmyks came on the territory of Russia voluntarily differs from other Russian nations.

The collision of cultures and their experience can be distinguished according to the purposes which put those who came in other culture. There were the ethnographers, missioners and also "the State people ", who collected and described the facts concerning other culture and represented interest for the Russian state. One of them was G.F. Miller. The Russian State and Science was received by Miller representations cultures and shapes of the peoples which have got in sphere of the Russian Empire’s influence.

The collision between Russian and Kalmyk cultures during the shaping of the Russian Empire is suggested to analyze the methodology of social constructivism (P. Berger, T. Luckmann), revealing social construction. There were created by (P. Bourdieu). Created semantic constructions are real only if accepted by the majority ethnicity. The reception is successful if the construction corresponds to the spontaneous images of other people.

The interaction of settled and nomadic cultures came into the conflict by reason of land resources because settled people need development tillage and nomadic people need pastures. The historical sources of the period of the Russian’s empire creation evidence the showing of conflicts caused by robberies, and ruin of Russian settlements[5]. This is the description of the Siberian archives collected by Miller during his ten years' travel in Siberia. The Miller documents describe not only conflicts between the settled and nomadic peoples, in this case Kalmyks, but also describe an overall view of the relations between them.

The description is not yet designing of the reality carried out by the professionals of representations. It is based on the image of nomads as enemies. In this case is had a construction of the first order. The Russian peasants used various distinctions of nomads of a different ethnicity they contacted. They recognized a nomadic ethnicity not according to external shape or clothes but according to territorial habits, attitude to murders during attacks and capture in captivity[6]. The Kalmyks stole cattle but never killed and did not take other ethnicities into captivity. This fact is explained probably from distinctions in religious legitimating of murder.  As Buddhists the Kalmyks considered that murder is possible only during wars.

 The attitude of the Russian administration to the nomads is expressed through the documents described by Miller. The administration was guided by a task of expansion and a task of expanding imperial influence. The selection of the facts in the written documents is based on the certain intention and testifies to construction of that reality which satisfies the purpose of Empire. The Miller documents express at first, an aspiration of the Kalmyks to establish diplomatic relations with Russia, secondly, the attitude of the Russian administration to the Kalmyks, thirdly, connecting the Kalmyks with other peoples of Siberia.

The creation of the construction in this case was carried out for realization of a task to establish of the Empire’s acceptable relations with Nonindigenous peoples. The mutual interest of Russian government and the Kalmyk elite was congruent in this case. The Russian state got the Kalmyk’s soldiers which carried out boundary service and participated in the military campaigns of Russia. The Kalmyks received the possibility to move beginning from Samara up to Astrakhan.

Later the professionals of representations created the Kalmyk’s image as a fighter defending the frontiers of Empire. This positive construction was submitted in the book "The Military past of ours Kalmyks" by G.N. Prozritelev. He was a historian and public figure. Prozritelev reconstructed an image of the soldier defending frontiers of Empire and tried to comprehend the reasons which resulted in the transformation of this image to the image of the ingenuous cattle-stealer and the drunkard[7]. The ethnologic field has various positions where are designed images of other peoples.

A completely other position was held by Russian Orthodox clergy. They created semantic constructions of the other sort, which were submitted in the reports of Russian Orthodox Church missions and also in the bishopric sheets. The trip into the other religion was a question concerning an orthodox faith for missionaries. The conversion of Kalmyks in the Russian Orthodox Church was some measure of their civilization and was used in designing an image of the Kalmyk. So The Astrakhan bishopric sheets describe an image of the Kalmyk before their entry into the Russian Empire. The Kalmyks knew neither honour, nor morals, spoilage in their opinion[8]. The mass communications proved the importance of Christianity for a process of the Kalmyk’s civilization. For another thing “Don newspaper” (1876) recommended the founding of a special administration, development of an industry, irrigation, etc.

Christianization of nomads was carried out by the Russian government for the transformation of them into loyal citizens and reliable defenders of the Empire’s boundaries. In accepting Christianity Kalmyks pursued also a political purpose. Kalmyk elite used this resource for a personal eminence. One of the grandsons of Ayuki Khan was baptized by Peter the First and his wife baptized by Empress Anna[9] . The fortress of Stavropol on the Volga was grounded for baptizing Kalmyks. The plebian were occurred a transition into Christianity by the prince. Some times runaway Kalmyk vassals were escaped thus from their princes. Russian Orthodox could not execute those tasks for the Kalmyks who practiced Buddhism. The baptized Kalmyks performed only formal orthodox rites and practiced Buddhism secretly in the Samara region. In 1905 baptized Kalmyks of Orenburg’s Cossack army had submitted an application for returning to Buddhism[10].

The semantic constructions of traveling articles were formed by travelers in a context of transformation of the nomadic Kalmyks’ culture in settled culture. N.Nefedov drew an image of the Kalmyk after watering of cattle everyone remained in perfect idleness: smoke tobacco and wander to neighbors tents in hope to find somewhere meat or vodka... So passes the life of these people, alien all raised[11]. The positive image of the civilized Kalmyk was an image Hero of 1812 War the Prince Serbejab Tiumen. He had an excellent European house, had an orchestra of good musicians and excellent cooks, and did not concede in the style of life of the Russian landowners[12].

The brothers Tiumen had received a European education, were well learned men. They had made to make settled the Kalmyks. There were gardens and vineyard in their manor. They grew grain cultures, made wine, had constructed a brick factory. Tiumen tried to keep the Kalmyks’ national originality by way reception of achievement of the European and Russian culture. They understood, that in conditions of expansion of economic activity the Russian practice of cattle breeding nomadic ways were doomed and tried to teach the Kalmyks in other forms of managing - agriculture, fishing, crafts, etc.

Symbolic of their outreach activities in multicultural space was the Buddhist temple constructed on the donations in honor of the Victory in 1812 War. The uniqueness of this temple consists in its architecture. Tiumen wanted to connect the European, Russian and Kalmyk cultures in architecture. The temple was constructed according to canons of Buddhist architecture at the same time it had some of the elements of Russian Orthodox Church’s architecture such as the Kazansky Cathedral. The Russian architect Voronochin borrowed some elements of the Catholic Basilica of Sacred Peter in Rome.

Later the ethnographic experience of cultures’ collision found very different images of the Kalmyks - “the Kalmyks are people tall and beautiful … it is necessary to look at the son of steppes in his original costume, on national games, at struggle … to admire the excellently outlined forms of the fighter and his body”[13]. Ethnographer made construction were based on a principle of self-value other’s culture and whenever possible tried to avoid estimated construction which are abounded missioners.

Thus the images of the Kalmyks differ depending from the purposes of the professionals representations and are formed with the images which have spontaneously formed in a space of cultures’ collision.

III Soviet period of Kalmyks development

Modern Russia is the successor to Soviet Modern society. Soviet Modern was a great social project. The purpose this project was creation of such society which would be characterized by an absence of any social distinctions including ethnicity. The task consisted in creation of a united international community – the Soviet people. It is necessary to note, the phenomenon of the Soviet people cannot be estimated unequivocally positively or negatively. The purpose of ethnic politics of the Russian Empire was assimilation of the ethnics and finally russification.  The purpose of ethnic policy of the Soviet State was the creation of such a community which would have multicultural aspects. That was coordinated with the tendency of the globalisation of the contemporary world.

The negative aspect of this project was repression. Construction of the modern society was carried out through repressive practice. The project of modern Soviet society realized tasks formulated by the Enlightenment and at the end was carried out by a totalitarian State. М. Foucault had described a process of creation of modern society in Europe in the period of the classical epoch. This process was carried out through repressive practices. This process was finished by the creation of a disciplinary society. It was a prerequisite for a grounded, responsible civil society.

But we should not forget some positive results of the construction of a modern society. The positive aspect of the decision consisted in the creation of a national cultural elite, the formation of institutes of a science and a system of education adequate to a modern society. Thus is realized the inclusion of the Russia’s ethnics in the process of world history. The semiliterate population of the Russian Empire became educated. Ethnics received developments of culture, art, literature, etc. The system of education was effective in the Soviet Union. By the way the official doctrine Narkompros (Ministry of Education) was adaptation of methods propagandized by philosopher John Dewey. For the period from 1917 until 1927 five of his books were translated to Russian[14].

The Kalmyks have themselves felt themselves the repressive practices of the Soviet state to the full. They have gone through the severe experience of deportation to Siberia. The Kalmyk culture has endured the large losses as a result of reprisals - in the arts, sciences and Buddhist religion. Buddhism carried out ontological functions, ensured maintenance of the common life of the Kalmyks. The administrative/territorial division of the Soviet State has changed after the deportation of the Kalmyks and other nations that became one of the reasons of interethnic tension in contemporary Russia. Russia has inherited the unsolved national problem from the Soviet Union. The formation of tolerance in the interethnic relations is one of important tasks of Russian society. The experience of the decision of racial and ethnic problems in USA would be helpful for Russia.

 IV Identity. Preservation of ethnic identity in former Soviet society.

Problems of ethnic existence in context of globalization are urgent not only from the political interest, but also from a position of personal identity concerns. Whether wills globalization to new cosmopolitan or nevertheless ethics will survive in the new world?

The identity and ethnic identity, in particular is not reduced to verbal designations and means several practices - bodily, behavior practice etc. The identity is manifested not so much speaking I am the Kalmyk but through work, leisure, eating, dwelling, choosing the wife or husband, playing wedding etc. (N.Kozlova). Ethnic history is incorporated in the human person who preserves his ethnic identity. His ethnic belonging predetermines his manner to think and to speak. Bodily practices concerning which spoke M.Moss continue to play the important role in cultural identity. 

Enforcement of social structures is defined in sociology by concept of habitués (P.Bourdieu) which at the same time designates a system of organizing principles of action inducing different practice.

Nowadays many small ethnicities have lost their languages. Language is a very important way of ethnic identity. Preservation of ethnics is impossible. But ethnic identity can be analyzed from position concept of habitués. In this case the situation of loss by the ethnics of their native language is not dramatic for preservation of the Kalmyks’ ethnicity At least already a third of the Kalmyks’ does not use their native language but the Russian language. But the Kalmyks have their identity and Kalmyk is Kalmyk in America also. Ethnic identity is proclaimed among young Kalmyks so actively that it leads to funny things. For example, when young Kalmyk is in a polyethnic environment to show his native language he will say that at least he remembers how to count in Kalmyk.

Other way of ethnic identity is the preservation and reproduction of national cultural elite carrying out function of the professionals of representations.  Besides the preservation of the typical categories of perception, behavior scheme will allow the Kalmyks to exist as an ethnicity. 

V. Language as Symbol. Ethnic identity and Russian language

Nowadays contemporary Kalmyks personify themselves as an intercultural interaction of Russian and Kalmyk culture. The Russian culture exists as a galaxy of cultures of hundreds of ethnicities for centuries living side by side on the Euroasian spaces. One part of Russian culture is a culture of Russian-speaking peoples which are heterogeneous, (чужекровцы) culture from other peoples, lands, cosmos and ethnics[15].  The Russian-speaking civilization is obliged with utopian brotherhoods of the nations. It was the great social engineering project of a new society. The role of the phenomenon Russian speaking civilization is not realized by the researchers in Russia to the full. Russian language has appeared in such culture which meanings were formed in dialogue of Russian culture and ethnics’ cultures. V. Tischkov (Director of Institute of Anthropology and Ethnology consider that “Russian language is the cultural property and capital of not only Russian but also the Mordovians, Udmurts, Chuvash, Buryat and many others”[16].  Thus the loss or change of language will not loss of ethnic identity and disappearance ethnic.

At the same time ethnic language is very important resource for ethnic identity. The language is changing a way of performance of this role. It would seem the ethnic culture can not exist beyond the language environment and the preservation of culture requires preservation of language. The native language can be used as a symbolical resource of ethnic identity even under the conditions of losing it by the ethnic. It is revealed due to the language loyalty. Recognizing the native language of one’s ethnic one asserts ethnic identity in such a way. Thus speaking ethnic language is not obligatory. Social linguists say the Kalmyks’ level of language loyalty exceeds 90 %. Actually Kalmyk’ language is spoken some times less. The comparison of results of two last census shows that speaking Kalmyk language has decreased more than by 7 percents from 1989 till 2002, and on the contrary speaking Russian has grown almost by 6 percents.

Biculturalism which is peculiar to the minor ethnics of former Soviet Union as its special case bilinguism was a consequence of national policy of the State. Accordingly the reactions of the members of ethnic groups were compelled to develop appropriate strategy and the practice to survive. Since 19 twenties years the Soviet authority pursued the policy national-cultural autonomy which provided creation of the culture that is national in its form and socialist in its contents. In Kalmykia the newspapers, magazines, books were issued in ethnic language, teaching on the native language in an elementary school was conducted. However this policy was dual in the same period (in the 20-30-ies) the process of replacement of Kalmyk language began[17]. 

The deportation and repression which destroyed national elite played its role in replacement of Kalmyk language from culture and common life of the Kalmyks. Deported people was tried to adapt to severe constraints and to keep themselves as ethnic. One of ways of the adaptation was speaking Russian the knowledge of which was considered prestigious among the Kalmyks. The tragically experience of a survival of the Kalmyks under extreme conditions is embodied in names and patronymics of children 40-ies and 50-ies years of birth. Many of which have two names - Russian and Kalmyk and a patronymic was written with Russian name of the father. There were cases when children born in deportation carried Russian name of the father and children born after the Decree of 1956 were already called as the Kalmyk name of the father. The ignorant people believed that children were born from different marriages of the mother.

Thus, the replacement of Kalmyk language was predetermined by the various reasons, both objective, and subjective.

Ethnic is real as far as it is admitted objective in consciousness of the people belonging to this ethnic. When B.Anderson writes about imagined communities he means symbolical resources allowing community to exist. Community is imagined so far as the members even of the minor nation will never know the majority of the nation members to meet them or even to hear about them while in minds of each of them the image of their commonality exists [Anderson 2001: 31]. The language loyalty is an expression of recognition by the community members of such commonality image. Anderson means the imagined community supported by symbolical resources but not imagined as falsified as it is understood by E.Gellner.  B.Anderson specifies that Gellner is so anxious to show that nationalism is covered with a mask of the false claims that equals the invention to falsification instead of to imagination and to creation[18]. The essential distinction between Anderson and Cellner consists in that for Gellner nations are artificially created formations which do not have connection with a reality of daily experience. While Anderson emphasizes only moment of unity creation of the people incorporated in community which each time proves to be true in experience of daily communication.

From our point of view ethnic aspiring for self-preservation for preservation and development of ethnic culture, forms other mechanisms replacing real functioning of ethnic language. For example, symbolical use of ethnic language in theatrical performances intended for the people not knowing native ethnic language.

Question is how to produce and in what language to perform the plays of European playwright at national theatres, in this case play "Skapen’s tricks" by Moliere is referred to the category of questions about an establishment of sense, about system of interpretation and revealing of motives offering to us this or that interpretation. Russian national theatres use device of wearing national clothes by the actors of creating national environment in the performance of the European classical plays. Theatrical criticism reacted on such liberties ambiguously, the part of them categorically insisted on necessity of preservation authenticity in the production of the plays of the European playwrights. Russian producers explain similar "changing clothes" in the play, firstly, by weakness of national dramatic art, absence of the worthy plays, secondly, that it is easier to the national actors to play in conditions of native environment. The practice of adaptation of the plays of the European playwrights to realities of ethnic cultures is widely spread today.

However raised problem has deeper roots than the national producers think. They intuitively understand impossibility of adequate expression of senses of the West-European theatrical classics by means of national oriental theatre. At national theatre of Kalmykia director B.Manjev produced the play by Moliere written in genre of a comedy del’arto "Skapen’s triks" In which the. action was transferred by the director in oriental culture. The actors played in Kalmyk language. Thus the director intentionally represented oriental culture as some cultural cocktail whipped from components of the Chinese, Japanese, Mongolian, Kalmyk cultures. What for was such cultural monster as oriental culture necessary for him? What did he want to achieve? Probably, due to this plan the director had had an opportunity to create interpretation system of play senses which action occurred in Naples. The translation of the play into Kalmyk language meant the change of language alongside with change of senses incorporated in the play as languages of traditional cultures have no sufficient resources for expression of senses of the European culture.

To whom is the play by Moliere performed in Kalmyk language addressed, who is its recipient? To the spectator speaking only Russian or the spectator personifying itself intercultural interaction speaking two languages being on boundary of two cultures? How and what do they perceive during performance? One thing is if the spectator speaks only one language, then those senses, which are designed in translation process of universal notions of the European culture in national culture, are unambiguously interpreted due to existing cultural background. The interpreter of the play and director, establishing the senses bases of the play, recognize that there is a uniform basis unambiguously establishing senses. The right of interpretation in this case is given to interpreter in the beginning, then to director of the play. If the spectator did not speak Russian he simply would not know other senses and could not make a reduction of sense to authentic sense given by cultural universal notion. The other thing is bicultural spectator speaking two languages familiar with universal notions of the European culture and it creates an opportunity and gives him the right to interpret senses incorporated in performance himself. Thus it is necessary to mean that the spectator actually perceives cultural universal notion transferred into Russian culture being presented no longer in French but in Russian background. The other thing is that Russian speaking Kalmyk not speaking ethnic language for him such performance is a symbolical act of the confidence of the ethnic identity.