The Heritage of Soviet Oriental studies

Abstract

Michael Kemper and Stephan Conermann, eds. The Heritage of Soviet Oriental Studies. Routledge Contemporary Russia and Europe Series, 25. London: Routledge, 2011. 352 pp. Index. $150.00, cloth.The present volume brings together twenty scholars from the West and the post-Soviet space with the goal of providing an integrating view on Soviet Oriental (p. 1). The latter is understood in the double sense of presenting these studies as a single discipline and relating them to the on-going discussion of Orientalism. Against the prevailing perception of Soviet Orientology as hopelessly isolated and ideologized, the editors and contributors to the volume argue that it fits rather well Edward Said's view of Western Orientalism as peculiar nexus of knowledge and power. At the same time, Soviet Oriental studies had a number of important peculiarities and legacies that make them a subject worthy of investigation. The volume is divided into two parts, of which the first, including nine articles, traces the evolution of Oriental and Islamic studies in Moscow and Leningrad/St. Petersburg. The seven articles of the second part of the volume examine Oriental studies in the republics of the former Soviet Union and two provincial centres of the Russian Federation.The objective set by the editors is quite timely: after Kritika broke new ground by organizing a discussion on pre-revolutionary Russian Orientalism ten years ago, it was only logical to ask similar questions about its Soviet successor. Although the volume focuses on the Soviet period, several articles briefly discuss pre- 1917 developments, while David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye' s piece is devoted entirely to the peculiarities of imperial Orientology. These included, among other things, the division of labour between the more academically oriented Oriental studies of St. Petersburg versus the more practical profile of the Kazan and the Moscow schools, the desire of the government to impose advisory functions upon Orientalist scholars and their resistance to this pressure in the name of scientific objectivity.The most important pre-revolutionary legacy was of course the Orientalists themselves. Similar to other bourgeois experts during the early Soviet decades, prerevolutionary Orientalist scholars went through hardships and travails, which are discussed by Mikhail Rodionov and several other contributors. Still, Soviet terror was mixed with opportunity, as Michael Kemper notes in the introductory chapter. In the context of Soviet policy, Orientalists were supposed to produce the ideologically correct historical narratives for the titular nationalities of the republics of the USSR. This phenomenon is discussed in detail in Aifa-Alua Auezova's chapter on Kazakh historiography of the 1 920 s and 1 930 s and receives some attention from other contributors to the second part of the volume.While Orientology had a special role in the Soviet nationality policy, the latter in rum influenced the Oriental scholars in a number of ways. First, there occurred a significant nativization of Oriental studies in comparison with the pre-1917 period. The number of indigenous scholars from the borderlands (traditionally high in Imperial Russia) became even higher under the Soviets. Second, nativization policies determined the distribution of centres of Oriental studies. Alongside Moscow and St. Petersburg/Leningrad, these were created in Tashkent, Baku, Tbilisi, Dushanbe, and Yerevan (which were all the capitals of Eastern union republics), but not in Kazan or Makhachkala (which were and continue to be the capitals of the autonomous Tatar and Dagestan republics within the RSFSR/Russian Federation), despite important prerevolutionary traditions and/or strong local initiative.The Soviet encounter with Islam was another major conditioning factor for the development of Soviet Oriental studies. In a highly interesting contribution, Vladimir Bobrovnikov addresses the relations between Soviet Orientology and anti-religious propaganda. …