Original scientific paper
The Aboriginal Challenge − the Post-Soviet Response: Can the Aboriginal Peoples of Russia Be Rescued from the Modernisation Shock?
Vladislav Steljmah
; Russian Institute for Cultural Research, Ministry of Culture, Moscow, Russia
Natalija Skorobogatyh
; Institute of Oriental Studies, Moscow, Russia
Abstract
The paper treats the theme of aboriginal/native peoples in Post-Soviet Russia. First the authors ask: how is a people to be defined as aboriginal, or else how can such a people be distinguished from "small ethnic groups" or "ethnic minorities"? They find an answer in Convention No. 169 of the International Labour Organisation, which gives two criteria: a) a social type in which pre-state forms are maintained, a more or less traditional economy and remains of collective land ownership, b) a specific view of the world, sacralisation of nature, the land and its resources. According to this, 26 ethnic groups in the North and Far East of the Russian Federation can be termed aboriginal. Their total number does not surpass 9% of the population of these areas. Their present situation is marked by crisis, caused, inter alia, by the demise of former economic forms and general deculturation, unequal participation in the modern economy, demographic catastrophe, a poor health situation, aggravated by alcoholism, with also an increase of suicides and depression. The authors find the reasons for this crisis in: 1) the modernisation shock which traditional societies always suffer when coming into contact with industrial or post-industrial societies, 2) crude interference in the Soviet period into traditional modes of livings, 3) an undefined legal status and system for the protection of aboriginals and 4) years of ignoring the opinions of the latter regarding their position in the broader society. The authors identify three models of adaptation to modemisation: full adaptation, partial adaptation and no adaptation. The first is typical of individuals, but on the group level does not preserve ethnicity. The third leads to ethnic self-isolation, which is rare in Russia. The third model dominates − it entails rejection of marginalisation and a striving to be included into the broader society, but not at the expense of ethnic specificity. This was expressed by the Declaration on the Free Development of Northern Peoples, accepted during the International Conference of Northern Peoples in 1990. The Declaration emphasised: 1) preservation of ethnic specificity, 2) transformation of native peoples from objects of modernisation processes into their active subjects, 3) a balance between general civil rights and rights of native peoples. Typical is also the relationship to the surrounding milieu, since native peoples see their own laws, customs and ways of using natural resources as part of their cultural wealth. Along with general human rights and basic freedoms, the Declaration made also special requests (respect for the dignity and particularity of culture, history, traditions, financial and technical aid, protection of traditional intellectual forms − literature, drawings, etc., creation of aboriginal education systems). Yet, innovations in daily life often mean abandoning a part of traditional culture − as was shown in the economy. If it cannot find special productive niche, the traditional economy either declines or becomes only "ethnographic business" (the seasonal production of souvenirs, etc.). "Convention 26" formulated in 1990 by the Yakut Soviet of the Association of Small Northern Peoples laid out a programme for gradual integration into modem society. It upheld: 1) the right of northern peoples to their ancient lands and sea shores, 2) creation of reserved zones in their historical territories, 3) legalisation not only of private but also of tradition communal-kinsman land use as well as former tax exemption. The creation of institutions (councils of kinsmen) for the protection of culture was also upheld. Aboriginal status was to be guaranteed by the federal government, which would provide legal support for selfgovernment and financial assistance for aboriginal initiatives. The authors label "Convention 26" neotraditional, in that revitalisation of traditional culture is not pursued to combat all "outside" influences but to provide stability in the new conditions. However, the response of Post-Soviet society was not adequate. Since legislation was not enacted in due time on the federal level, regularisation had to be left to the regional levels. One of the first examples was the 1991 law by the Republic of Buryatia "On the legal status of Evenki village soviets". In 1992 followed the "Regulation on the status of kin property" by the Hanti-Mansi Autonomous Region and the "Regulation" of the Koryak AR. Different was the 1992 law of the Republic of Yakutia "On nomadic kin communities among small peoples of the North". It treated the teritorial-kin community as an institution of civil society between the individuals and the state authorities. The authors evaluate this regional legislation as positive. For example, the return of the kin community after a break of some 60 years creates more stabile foundations for the introduction of innovations among disorganised and disoriented aboriginal minorities. Yet solving general problems on the regional level does not ensure integration of the legislative sphere. Regions must find both conceptual and practical solutions, although general experience in the world has shown that it is best to divide the two between federal and regional authorities. With the breakdown of co-ordination the modernisation process that effects the aboriginal population is left without effective and complete regulation.
Keywords
aboriginal/native peoples; Russia; modernisation; ethnicity; legislation
Hrčak ID:
126510
URI
Publication date:
30.10.1998.
Visits: 2.070 *