Татары о татарском: Бунтующая этничность по Е. О. Хабенская (review)

Abstract

374 Рецензии/Reviews Recent research on the Cold War tends to look beyond the fundamental differences between the US and the USSR in political and social institutions and traditions. The Cold War impacted US daily life, political behavior, and even academic thinking , in many barely explored ways. The cultural exchanges (involving up to 100,000 persons since 1958) are part of that larger story and thus the real question is not whether Soviet citizens involved lost their faith in the communist system. The current book provides a wealth of information , but merely scratches the surface of many interesting questions. Only one chapter, for instance, pays attention to the American critics of the exchange programs (most prominently Richard Perle), but instead of analyzing and contextualizing their arguments, the author sets out to refute their assertions passionately. History may have proven him right, but this should never be the objective of history writing. At this point professional historians ought to take over from those personally involved. Matthew ROMANIELLO Е. О. Хабенская. Татары о та- тарском: Бунтующая этничность. Москва: Изд-во “Наталис”, 2003. 206 с. ISBN: 5-8062-0063-9. According to the author, the purpose of this study is to explain the components of Tatar national identity, in particular the relative importance of its various dimensions – language, culture, tradition, and religion. Her research includes numerous interviews with self-identified Tatar nationalists in Kazan, Saratov, and Moscow, and the book reproduces many of these interviews with extensive quotations that in fact comprise much of its text. Her approach is sociological rather than historical, pushing her to search for models or patterns of nationalism among her subjects. In her introduction, the author explains that contemporary Tatar nationalism is an ongoing reaction to the economic, social, political, and psychological crises that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union. Khabenskaia argues that the post-Soviet economy allowed a new group of intellectuals to rise from the ranks of the professionals based on their ability and talents, displacing the previous Soviet intellectual group. The new intelligentsia includes scientists, politicians, and the artistic elite, from which 375 Ab Imperio, 1/2005 Khabenskaia draws her interview subjects. Khabenskaia’s subjects experienced the same Soviet decline, but responded to it in different ways, creating diverse opinions about the nature of Tatar nationalism and the relative importance of its cultural components. While her conclusion attempts to classify the divergent opinions about Tatar nationalism into several distinct “types,” her material reveals a different division arising from geography – Tatars inside Tatarstan as opposed to those outside. The general consensus of those interviewed from Kazan is that Tatar nationalism must serve an agenda of state-building and eventual independence from Russia. Tatars in Saratov and Moscow believe that Tatar nationalism does not necessarily have a political component, but instead grows from a respect for Tatar traditional culture, including its folklore, language, and religion. Khabenskaia does not address the basic divide between political and cultural nationalists, but her evidence reveals this essential delineation in the ensuing debate about the future of Tatarstan. In her first chapters, Khabenskaia indirectly reveals her own position in this debate in her assessment of education’s role in developing Tatar nationalism. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Tatars defined their own unique culture in opposition to the dominant Russian culture, which Khabenskaia argues failed to prepare the Tatars for independence from Moscow’s influence. Therefore, a primary education in Tatar is the necessary prerequisite toward embracing “traditional ethnic culture,” which the political nationalists believe will result in their independence. This statement of intent reiterates the conclusion of the “Conception of the Development of Tatar National Education” that Tatarstan’s Ministry of Education adopted in 1991. Furthermore, Khabenskaia’s subjects believe Tatarstan’s nationalist education must extend beyond the region’s boundaries, in order to rebuild the ethnic diaspora of Tatars into a larger, unified community, thereby overcoming differences that have developed among Tatars in Bashkortostan and in the Russian provinces of Nizhegorod and Penza. The remaining chapters examine the various components of Tatar nationalism and identity and the resulting differences of opinion between Kazan on the one hand, and Moscow and Saratov on the other. All of the Tatars interviewed agree that there is nothing more important for developing future Tatar nationalism than basic...