Advertisement

Heritage Statecraft: Transcending Methodological Nationalism in the Russian Federation

  • Gertjan Plets
Chapter

Abstract

The nation and theories of nationalism still largely dominate the methodological toolkit and conceptual lexicon of many investigations from the fields of heritage and memory studies. Although it is true that the past continues to be an important asset in constructing appropriate national identities legitimizing political structures and administrative frameworks, post-structural theories about governing and statecraft show that culture is not only the domain of the nation-state but serves a variety of agendas. Drawing on two case studies exploring the social, cultural, economic, and diplomatic entanglements of heritage politicization in the Russian Federation, this chapter encourages its readership to transcend their focus on the nexus heritage-nation-building and explore the imbrications between heritage and statecraft. By looking at how international players and private companies use the past in their efforts of crafting appropriate institutional landscapes and governable subjects adhering to convenient regimes of truth and power structures, this chapter encourages researchers from the field of heritage and memory studies to diversify their theoretical and methodological toolkit in investigations of the use of history in modern politics.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Berber Bevernage and Nico Wouters for their extensive feedback on this chapter. Different versions of this chapter were presented at various occasions and roundtable discussions; I would like to thank the participants for their productive commentary. First I would like to acknowledge Lynn Meskell and the members of the Stanford Heritage Ethics lab for commenting on a previous version. Financial support from Stanford University was also essential during the data collection phase of this project. Second, the staff of the Aleksanteri Institute (University of Helsinki) is also acknowledged for providing feedback on the first preliminary version of this chapter during my visiting scholarship at their prominent research institution.

References

  1. Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso).Google Scholar
  2. Andrew, G. (2013) ‘Counterfeiting the Nation? Skopje 2014 and the Politics of Nation Branding in Macedonia’, Cultural Anthropology, 28(1), 161–179.Google Scholar
  3. Anholt, S. (2003) ‘Branding Places and Nations’ in R. Clifton and J. Simmons (eds.) Brands and Branding (London: The Economist), pp. 213–226.Google Scholar
  4. Arvidson, A. (2006) Brands. Meaning and Value in Media Culture (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  5. Askew, M. (2010) ‘The Magic List of Global Status. UNESCO, World Heritage and the Agendas of States’ in S. Labadi and C. Long (eds.) Heritage and Globalisation (New York: Routledge), pp. 19–44.Google Scholar
  6. Assmann, J. (2006) On Religion and Cultural Memory. Ten Studies (Stanford: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Crews, R. (2014) ‘Moscow and the Mosque’, Foreign Affairs, 93(2), 125–134.Google Scholar
  8. De Cesari, C. and Rigney, A. (2014) ‘Introduction. Beyond Methodological Nationalism’ in C. De Cesari and A. Rigney (eds.) Transnational Memory. Circulation, Articulation, Scales (Berlin: De Gruyer), pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  9. Donahoe, B., Habeck, J. O., Halemba, A. and Santha, I. (2008) ‘Size and Place in the Construction of Indigeneity in the Russian Federation’, Current Anthropology, 49(6), 993–1020.Google Scholar
  10. Eriksen, T. H. (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalism. Anthropological Perspectives (London: Pluto Press).Google Scholar
  11. Erll, A. (2011) Memory in Culture (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
  12. Faller, H. (2011) Nation, Language, Islam. Tatarstan’s Sovereignity Movement (Budapest: CEU Press).Google Scholar
  13. Fergueson, J, and Gupta, A. (2002) ‘Spatializing States. Toward an Ethnography of Neoliberal Governmentality’, American Ethnologist, 29(4), 981–1002.Google Scholar
  14. Filippov, V. and Filippova, E. (1994) ‘The Ethnic Aspect of Problems on the Katun Hydroelectric Station Construction Project’, Anthropology & Archaeology of Eurasia, 33(2), 11–27.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1975) Surveiller et Punir (Paris: Gallimard).Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’ in G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller (eds.) The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press), pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
  17. Gafiyatullina, I. (2016) ‘M. Шaймиeв: “Ecли бы нe былo зaпиcoк Ибн Фaдлaнa, мы бы нe дoкaзaли, чтo в 922 гoдy в Бoлгape был пpинят иcлaм”’, http://islam-today.ru/islam_v_rossii/tatarstan/m-sajmiev-esli-by-ne-bylo-zapisok-ibn-fadlana-my-by-ne-dokazali-cto-v-922-godu-v-bolgare-byl-prinat-islam/.
  18. Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism (Ithica: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Graney, K. (2006) ‘“Russian Islam” and the Politics of Religious Multiculturalism in Russia’ in D. Ruble and B. Ruble (eds.) Rebounding Identities. The Politics of Identity in Russia and Ukraine (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press), pp. 89–115.Google Scholar
  20. Graney, K. (2009) Of Khans and Kremlins. Tatarstan and the Future of Ethno-Federalism in Russia (Plymouth: Lexington Books).Google Scholar
  21. Gupta, A. (2012) Red Tape. Bureacracy, Structural Violence, and Poverty in India (Durham: Duke University Press).Google Scholar
  22. Gustafson, T. (2012) Wheel of Fortune. The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
  23. Hobsbawm, E. (1993) ‘The New Threat to History’, New York Review.Google Scholar
  24. Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (1983) The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  25. Kondrashov, S. (1999) Nationalism and the Drive for Sovereignty in Tatarstan, 1988–92. Origins and Development (New York: St. Martin’s Press).Google Scholar
  26. Larkin, B. (2013) ‘The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure’, Annual Review of Anthropology, 42, 327–343.Google Scholar
  27. Linan, M. Vazquez (2010) ‘History as a Propaganda Tool in Putin’s Russia’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 43, 167–178.Google Scholar
  28. Meskell, L. (2015a) Global Heritage. A Reader (Oxford: Willey Blackwell).Google Scholar
  29. Meskell, L. (2015b) ‘Transacting UNESCO World Heritage. Gifts and Exchange on a Global Stage’, Social Anthropology, 23(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, T. (1999) ‘On Society, Economy, and the State Effect’ in State/Culture State-Formation After the Cultural Turn (Ithica: Cornell University Press), pp. 76–97.Google Scholar
  31. Newcity, M. (2009) ‘Protecting the Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions of Russia’s Numerically-Small Indigenous Peoples. What Has Been Done, What Remains to Be Done’, Texas Wesleyan Law Review, 15, 357–414.Google Scholar
  32. Peck, J. and Theodore, N. (2012) ‘Reanimating Neoliberalism. Process Geographies of Neoliberalism’, Social Anthropology, 20(2), 177–185.Google Scholar
  33. Plets, G. (2015) ‘Ethno-Nationalism, Asymmetric Federalism and Soviet Perceptions of the Past: (World) Heritage Activism in the Russian Federation’, Journal of Social Archaeology, 15(1), 67–93.Google Scholar
  34. Plets, G. (2016) ‘Heritage Statecraft. When Archaeological Heritage Meets Neoliberalism in Gazprom’s Resource’ Journal of Field Archaeology, 41(3), 368–383.Google Scholar
  35. Plets, G., Gheyle, W., Plets, R., Pavlovich Dvornikov, E. and Bourgeois, J. (2011) ‘A Line Through the Sacred Lands of the Altai Mountains. Perspectives on the Altai Pipeline Project’, Mountain Research and Development, 31(4), 372–379.Google Scholar
  36. Plets, G., Konstantinov, N., Soenov, V. and Robinson, E. (2013) ‘Repatriation, Doxa, and Contested Heritages’, Anthropology & Archaeology of Eurasia, 52(2), 73–98.Google Scholar
  37. Putin, V. (2005) ‘Introductory Remarks at the Ceremony for Russian Federation National Awards in Science and Technology and Arts Presentation’.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, D. (2015) The Depths of Russia. Oil, Power, and Culture after Socialism (Ithica: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  39. Salazar, N. and Zhu, Y. (2015) ‘Heritage and Tourism’ in L. Meskell (ed.) Global Heritage. A Reader (Malden: Wiley Blackwell), pp. 240–258.Google Scholar
  40. Scott, J. (1998) Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (Naw Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  41. Shnirelman, V. (1996) Who Gets the Past? Competition for Ancestors Among Non-Russian Intellectuals in Russia (New York: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press).Google Scholar
  42. Slaughter, A. (2004) A New World Order (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  43. TatCenter (2015) “Taтapcтaн плaниpyeт пocтaвлять ‘КAMAЗы’ и вepтoлeты Mи-8 и Mи-17 в Кypдcкий paйoн Иpaкa.” http://info.tatcenter.ru/news/146800/.
  44. Tishkov, V. (1997) Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in and After the Soviet Union. The Mind Aflame (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  45. Tyuhteneva, S. (2009) eмля, вoдa, Xaн Aлтaй. Этничecкaя кyльтypa aлтaйцeв в XX вeкe (Elista: Кaлмыцкий Гocyдapcтвeнный yнивepcитeт).Google Scholar
  46. UNESCO (2014) ‘The Director-General Receives Distinction for Teh Preservation of Muslim Cultural Heritage’, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/the_director_general_receives_distinction_for_the_preservation_of_muslim_cultural_heritage/#.VyFoBqODGko.
  47. Wimmer, A. and Glick Schiller, N. (2002) ‘Methodological Nationalism and beyond. Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences’, Global Networks, 4(2), 301–334.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gertjan Plets
    • 1
  1. 1.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations