Close QuartersDealing with Difference in the (Post-)Soviet Realm Maike Lehmann (bio) Adrienne Edgar and Benjamin Frommer, eds., Intermarriage from Central Europe to Central Asia: Mixed Families in the Age of Extremes. 344 pp. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2020. ISBN-13 978-1496202116. $75.00. Jeff Sahadeo, Voices from the Soviet Edge: Southern Migrants in Leningrad and Moscow. 273 pp. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2019. ISBN-13 978-1501738203. $46.95. Rustamjon Urinboyev, Migration and Hybrid Political Regimes: Navigating the Legal Landscape. 186 pp. Oakland: University of California Press, 2021. ISBN-13 978-0520971257 (Open Access e-book). The kommunalka as a living arrangement particular to the Soviet Union appeals to researchers as much as it fascinates people who first come across this space with its complex rules and relationships. Its challenge to Western notions of private and public, the coexistence of fierce territoriality and intimate relationships in cramped quarters, which could elicit the whole range of emotions between inhabitants who often hailed from wildly diverging backgrounds and did not live together by choice, has turned the kommunalka into an allegory for the whole Soviet Union.1 As a metaphor, it has also been popular with scholars working on the multiethnic character of [End Page 391] the Soviet Union.2 Very much like the kommunalka, which accommodated people of all classes in apartments taken from the former imperial elite, the USSR came to be in a mostly involuntary fashion. But it afforded all its inhabitants a national home within the borders of the former empire—room to foster national culture and local support for the socialist project. With rooms in the kommunalka often contested and cramped, sometimes further divided by curtains and makeshift walls, they lend themselves easily to a comparison with the disputed borders of national territories between and within republics. In recent years, however, the kommunalka metaphor has been called into question, because it usually called attention to the aspect of territoriality and conflict when reflecting on the multiethnic layout of the Soviet Union, thereby reinforcing the boundaries drawn by the Soviet state and implicitly treating the different rooms as homogeneous while often foregrounding conflict.3 There are solid grounds for this approach. But what happens when we extend the kommunalka metaphor to include forays into how cohabitation and boundary crossing worked out? What were the rules and relationships here? And what did this kommunalka mean to its (former) inhabitants? ________ The three publications under review here address such issues in different ways and for different groups. While the article collection edited by Adrienne Edgar and Benjamin Frommer brings together contributions dealing with intermarriage from Central Europe to Central Asia from the late 19th to the early 21st centuries, the monographs by Sahadeo and Urinboyev explore the experiences of migrants from the (post-)Soviet South to (post-)Soviet Moscow and Leningrad. While the diversity in contexts and perspectives is immediately apparent from the lineup of Edgar's and Frommer's volume, Sahadeo's and Urinboyev's shared focus might suggest the possibility of a long-term perspective on migration across the 1991 divide. After all, a recurring assumption is that the tectonic shifts of the political and social [End Page 392] landscape upon the implosion of the Soviet Union might have brought undercurrents to the surface that previously remained hidden, not the least by the rather idealistic picture of a multiethnic Soviet family painted by official discourse. While for the economic and social sphere, the fundamental change of the 1990s is recognized, the multiethnic makeup of the (post-) Soviet space is often talked about in terms of continuity. The enduring image of the Soviet Union as a breaker of nations is time and again linked to the xenophobic profiling at work in Russia today. The possibility of a long-term perspective could be also expected from certain features the two monographs share: Sahadeo and Urinboyev approach their subjects in large part through interviews (besides contemporary sources in Sahadeo's case and multisited field work in Moscow and the Ferghana Valley, spanning participant observation and exchanges on social media, in Urinboyev's); they focus on their subject's agency while analyzing living situations and everyday experiences...
Read full abstract