An ironic young man ... may be viewed as a pest to society.

- Carlyle

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Guide to Reading Western Reporting on Russia--Without Reading It


Scott G. Frickenstein (USAF): The Resurgence of Russian Interests in Central Asia. From Gottingen Journal of International Law, a special issue on Russia and international law, from the North Pole to the Caucasus. From EJSS, Scott Nicholas Romaniuk (Carleton) and Joshua Kenneth Wasylciw (Calgary):Russia’s Authoritarianism in Strategic Perspective; and Помаранчева революція: The Disintegration of Ukrainian Political Identity. From History Today, three hundred years ago, Russia emerged as a major power after a clash of armies in the Ukraine — Peter the Great’s victory had repercussions that last to this day. Is Russia doomed to be always the part of the European jigsaw that doesn't fit or, to put it another way, to what extent is Russia part of Europe? Russia's new diplomatic strategy is cheap and counterproductive, but playing the pest is the only way for Moscow to claim relevance. Russia’s attempts to reassert influence over its neighbours are understandable and inevitable; such behaviour is hardly unique among former empires, including our own. From World Politics Review, a look at why Russia still matters in the Asian Century. An interview with Andrei Maylunas on books on pre-revolutionary Russia. A hidden history of evil: Why doesn’t anyone care about the unread Soviet archives? An interview with Lyubov Vinogradova on books from the KGB archives. Even before the first effects of glasnost kicked in, Soviet artists influenced by pop art but driven underground by censorship began to show new confidence as western collectors flocked to buy their work. Russia has been accused of abandoning its literary past after it emerged that the Kremlin has no plans to mark the centenary of Tolstoy's death, and an acclaimed film of "Anna Karenina" has failed to find distributors.
This singularly awful collection of links prompted me to write this little guide, just in case you are confused about what it all means. Why is there so much written about Russia, and why does it all sound the same? How can you tell reliable articles from unreliable ones? Interesting ones from uninteresting ones? Follow these simple guidelines and you're sure to succeed!

1. If the author's last name is Russian, don't read it.
All Russian who write in English about Russia are either a) shilling for the government, b) expressing their inchoate quasi-nationalistic intuitions with little English and even less sense of perspective, or c) angling for a cushy spot in a Western foreign-policy think-tank, where they will work the Russia beat to the bone, writing the same article over and over again, propping up their Bush Doctrine-era ideas (and just a touch of Realpolitik) with the "ov" or "vsky" or "in" at the end of their names. There is also a slight possibility that you're dealing with a bitter former hardliner or a bitter former dissident, although, God be thanked, alcoholism and senility are rendering this less and less likely as you read this. (The bitter current dissidents are either dead, in prison, or have sold out in some obscure but soon-to-be-revealed way.)

2. If the author's last name belongs to a former Soviet nationality, but especially Georgia (-dze, -shvili), Ukraine (e.g. -enko), or the Baltic States (-as, -is, something Finnish-sounding with lots of Us and Os), don't read it. This also goes for certain former Warsaw Pact nations, notably Poland (-ski).
All members of former Soviet nationalities hate the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire, and think that when Russia objects to their joining NATO, this has something to do with its imperial legacy. Who'd-a thunk it? In any event, the article is most likely just a thinly-disguised plea for more American military bases. The shortest route there is, apparently, always to paint a picture of the Evil Empire that would have George Lucas shitting his pants. EXCEPTION: Eastern Ukrainians. In that case, see a) and b) for Russians above.

3. If the author's capsule biography discloses an affiliation to a human rights organization, don't read it.
Come on, what are you expecting to get from this article? You already know about how shitty it is to be a dissident/Chechen/dissident Chechen. Nothing ever changes in the Amnesty world. Wouldn't you rather go have a beer or something? Oh, okay, fine. Here, sign this petition. I hope you're proud you made an effort.

4. If the author's capsule biography discloses affiliations to the National Review, Heritage Foundation, etc., don't read it.
These articles come only in two flavors. a) "Russia is trying to expand and protect its sphere of influence. What outdated, nineteenth-century thinking! We must expand and protect the sphere of influence of liberty and democracy by expanding NATO and building American military bases." b) "Communism was evil. Boy, communism sure was evil. Why doesn't anyone care? Communism! Evil! STALIN=HITLER! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" (Naturally, this rule also goes for people whose cited books are subtitled "Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.")

5. If the spelling is British, or the article is published in a major British publication, don't read it.
All British writing about Russia will leave your metaphorical desktop drenched with the many, many salty tears it sheds for '30s intellectuals whose half-assed Orientalist alexandrines about Ancient Egypt no one has ever read or will read. If you drink a thimbleful of Zubrovka every time the word "gulag" is employed, you can be sure of one thing: by morning you'll wish you'd been sent to the White Sea Canal instead.

6. If the article uses the word "totalitarianism," don't read it.
This should knock out a good half of them. No matter how many times they invoke Hannah Arendt, just keep in mind: "totalitarianism" is the pseudo-scholarly equivalent of "Amerikkka" and "Micro$oft." And using it to refer to the era of Khrushchev and his successors--that is, half of Soviet history--is like calling Washington the Whig Occupational Government. So click the X if you know what's good for you.

For the remaining, more obvious giveaways, I have created a handy pictorial guide. Enjoy!


(In fact, you should probably stop reading Western reporting on Russia altogether.)

15 comments:

  1. From the "abandoning its literary past" link:

    Tolstoy is better appreciated in the West, academics claim, even though Western readers discovered classics such as War and Peace a good century after their Russian counterparts.

    what

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm sorry, I was too engrossed in Orlando Figes's excellent analysis of Russian culture, "Natasha's Dance," to pay any attention to what you were saying.

    But as far as I can tell, Dostoevsky and Akhmatova and ballet = REAL Russia. Peasants and communism = what a drag.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm very disappointed in you. What an appalling list of stereotypes. Show me, please, all those alcoholic dissidents writing about Russia for the Western press. Or show me how, say, Illarionov is wrong and ill-informed about Russia. And yes, of course, human rights are just such a bore. How silly to care if journalists get killed because they are writing about local corruption, or that innocent business people are tortured and killed in jail. Yawn.
    The moral of all this seems to be: everything being written about how bad things in Russia is a bore? Or wrong? How lovely of you, living comfortably in America, to condemn with the broadest brush all the people analyzing and criticizing the mess and lawless horrors of Russia today. Come and live here for a year or two, and then write about coverage of Russia today.
    I think you thought this was bright and witty, but it really beneath you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's not about writing bad things about Russia. It's about constantly returning to the same old tropes, good or bad. (I suppose that "the Russian soul" is a positive trope, for instance, but that doesn't make it any less pernicious.)

    As far as "caring" is concerned--that's precisely the problem. You think "caring" is somehow useful in and of itself, while actually well-meaning "analyzers" and "critics," especially of a liberal stamp, have never actually accomplished anything worth talking about in Russian history--even to give them credit for toppling the Soviet Union is historically wrong. The idle show of concern gives you a rhetorical moral high ground, maybe, but that's about it.

    Which of Illarionov's pieces did you have in mind?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't, of course, deny that Russia has many crippling problems, tragedies are happening every day, and so on. It's just that solutions and analyses of these problems are totally pointless if they rely on the same old tropes, especially hollow formulas like "democracy" and "rule of law."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Right, democracy is just such a hollow formula. The idea that people might have the right to information about what their government is doing, might have the right to hold, say, a demonstration or rally to publicize their views, might have the right to write a newspaper article about corruption or the flaunting of laws, might have the right to bring a court case against an official who is breaking the law and expect an independent judiciary, might have the right to vote for a variety of candidates in an election, might in fact have the right to vote for their governor -- yeah, just so old-fashioned.

    I think you've just built a bunch of straw men about tropes and memes. You don't like the same old same old in analysis? Well, unfortunately it's the same old same old in violations of people's rights. What Chechen terrorists are you talking about? I'm talking about getting a decent salary, being able to fight your utlity company when it raises your heating bill by 78 percent. About driving on roads that are decent (and not 10 cm narrower than the law requires because the contractor pocketed the difference). About having some kind of recourse when some rich jerk wants your land and pays a cop $5K to plant dope on you or your kid. Or when some competitor wants your business. Yeah, that's democracy and rule of law. Live without it for awhile and see how you like it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I never said anything about Chechen terrorists. (Although they do, pretty clearly, exist.)

    Whether or not democracy or rule of law is good in some abstract sense is irrelevant for Russia, which has never had either and most likely never will (at least in the same sense it exists in, say, France). Formulations such as yours are all well and good, but sighing and handwringing about how bad things are and how good they would be if only democracy were around are totally idle. (I'm leaving myself open to a pious lecture about activism and civil disobedience here, I know. Spare me.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, how about a pious lecture about rereading Russian history? Never existed in any form? I don't think so. And even if that were true, and it isn't, so... that's it, huh? Russians are doomed forever to live under the tsar? No country ever in the history of the world has changed its form of government? France has always been a democratic, secular republic, right?

    What do you want? We shouldn't read Russian emigres (or Soviet emigres, or Brits) on Russia, because it just the old tropes. On the other hand, the old tropes are kind of true, it's just that nothing can or will change. Are you talking about actions or analysis? And who are you to decide, for Russians, what their lives will be?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, I'm a graduate student in Russian history. Whether that means anything is up for debate, but I have read enough books on the subject to determine, at least to my satisfaction, that there are powerful enough structural and historical factors at play in Russia that overcoming them to build something that looks like France is a very dicey proposition. At present I see no forces that are both capable of something like that and are willing to do it, so I'm forced to conclude that it's unlikely to happen, at least within my lifetime.

    If only it were in my hands to decide what the lives of Russians will be. It's not, so all I can offer is a plea for a more nuanced understanding of what makes a society like Russia tick and what distinguishes it from other societies. For the sake of satirical exaggeration I didn't mention any writers on the subject that I find compelling, but they definitely exist--say, Keith Gessen's profile of Khodarkovsky in the LRB, which isn't perfect but is miles ahead of the rest.

    As for Illarionov, he seems to be a classic example of type (c) above--he's a Cato Institute fellow, for chrissake!

    I haven't been back to Russia in seven years, but I'm going back for a little bit in June. Suffice to say that my inability to go back was not a matter of choice for me. With any luck, I'll be able to spend a year or two there starting in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Greg, you wrote a snarky little post filled with "satirical exaggeration" about how awful Western reporting on Russia is. I don't know who you are talking about -- what former dissidents write for the Western press? What former dissidents are alcoholics and slipping into senility? What Brits obsessed with Orientalism are you talking about? What emigres write about totalitarianism?

    And then you switch to: nothing can change. So you're not talking about reporting, you're talking about Russia. Or not.

    If you want a more nuanced understanding of what makes a society like RUssia tick, you ought to begin with a more nuanced critique of reporting about Russia, not just a lot of yucking it up over those silly Amnesty people, who get so upset when someone is killed in prison.

    Yes, Illarionov is at the Cato Institute. But before that he was Putin's economic adviser who resigned over Khodorkovsky. So he actually knows what makes this place tick. Why do you write him off?

    Look me up when you're in Russia (if you'll be in Moscow). I can show you all the laws being broken in the construction-from-hell next door to me and explain why there's nothing we can do about it. And also tell you about cases when people did do something about what's going on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If "'30s intellectuals whose half-assed Orientalist alexandrines about Ancient Egypt no one has ever read or will read." is a reference to Mandelshtam, then fuck you, you rotten son of a bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No, of course not. Mandelstam--это святое. I think what I had in mind was Briusov, who loved that kind of crap. (Although he didn't really write alexandrines.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm not sure which resonates stronger here...your naivety, or that you're a pretend academic.

    ReplyDelete