Power, Resistance, and Security: Papers in Honor of Richard G. Condon, Steven L. McNabb, Aleksandr I. Pika, William W. Richards, Nikolai Galgauge, Nina Ankalina, Vera Rakhtilkon, Boris

Redefining Tradition and Renegotiating Ethnicity in Native RussiaAuthor(s): Debra L. SchindlerSource: Arctic Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 1, Power, Resistance, and Security: Papers in Honorof Richard G. Condon, Steven L. McNabb, Aleksandr I. Pika, William W. Richards, NikolaiGalgauge, Nina Ankalina, Vera Rakhtilkon, Boris Mymykhtikak, and Nikolai Avanum (1997),pp. 194-211Published by: University of Wisconsin PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316433 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 03:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Wisconsin Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to ArcticAnthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 03:59:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uwisc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40316433?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


REDEFINING TRADITION AND

RENEGOTIATING ETHNICITY IN

NATIVE RUSSIA

DEBRA L. SCHINDLER

Abstract. Social theory in the Soviet Union provided a context for the classification and study of ethnic groups throughout time and space. Ethnic process could be used not only to understand the interactions between different ethnosocial communities, but also to transform those communities. This paper addresses the changing nature of interethnic relations in the Chukchi Autonomous Okrug within the context of economic and political reform in Russia. The research discussed is part of a larger project concerning theoretical and applied considerations of cultural process directed by global industrialization and mediated through cultural diversity.

Introduction

For the second time in the twentieth century the Native peoples of Russia are being challenged to either embrace an alien socioeconomic order or disappear. The first challenge to their survival came with forced collectivization and resettlement under the Communist regime of the Soviet Union. The second challenge is underway today, as the Soviet regime crumbles and Native peoples struggle to find their place in Russia's emerging capitalist political economy.

The Soviet theory of "ethnos" provided a context for the classification and study of diverse peoples. It also provided a typology of ethnic processes which could be used not only to explain the interactions between ethnic communities in historical perspective, but also as a guide for effecting changes in present-day ethnic communities. Marx- ist historical materialism, as the basis of this theory, provided the engine of change in the forces of production, and identified cultural traditions as potential cogs in the machinery of socioeconomic

change. Regardless of academic debates on Marx- ism or on the nature of ethnic identity which have occurred over the past 70 years, an evolutionary, economic determinist interpretation has remained the framework within which policies toward Na- tive peoples are crafted in the former Soviet Union.

Was there, in fact, ever really a place for Na- tive peoples, their cultures, and economies under Soviet-style socialism? Just as traditional economies were encompassed within the national economy of the Soviet Union, Native peoples were enfolded into the concept of the "Soviet people." Is there a place for indigenous life-ways within global capitalism? Does democracy offer more than the authoritarian system of the USSR? How can the West, and particularly the United States, preach affirmative action abroad while at home it dismantles the legal safeguards against racial and ethnic discrimination? How can pride in being "Chukchi" be asserted without offending the Rus- sians who worked hard to "civilize" and educate them to be "Soviet," which by definition was sup-

Debra L. Schindler, Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755-3560

ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 194-211, 1997



Schindler: Ethnicity in Native Russia 1 95

posed to be better than Chukchi. And, how do the Russians in Chukotka, many of whom came to the Far North believing they would save Native peoples from their "primitiveness," react to being blamed for cultural extinction?

This paper addresses the changing nature of Native and non-Native economic and ethnic relations in Chukotka. The Chukchi, as the titular group of the Chukchi Autonomous Okrug, are at the center of the discussion, but other indigenous groups in the Okrug have special significance as well. Theoretical constructs that have been pro- jected into the arena of policy are discussed, with special attention given to the defining characteristics of economic change and ethnic identity. In post-Soviet ethnography1 attention is divided between the development of theory and method and. the application of theory and method in resolving, or at least understanding, contemporary society. In the streets, however, within the broad context of "reform" in the former Soviet Union's economic imperatives, First Nation rights and ethnic Russian self-interest are defined and negotiated not in theory, but through a combination of peaceful media- tion and violent conflict.

Theoretical and Applied Considerations

The ethnos [etnos), which has been and for many scholars in Russia today continues to be the primary focus of Soviet ethnography, is defined as a social group of people whose collective existence is a function of their particular place in history. Each ethnos originated in a specific territory, pos- sessed specific socioeconomic and political com- ponents, and had relatively stable linguistic and cultural features resulting in a collective self-con- sciousness or samosoznanie which was fixed in an ethnonym, or samonazvanie (Bromlei 1971; Brom- lei and Kozlov 1975; Shirokogorov 1923). In some cases "race" has been used as a defining characteristic of ethnos, especially when physical features aid in making "us/them" distinctions between groups (Bromlei 1973). Psychological structure, as a concept tied to biological race, has also been an important defining characteristic of ethnos (Dro- bizheva 1971; Kozlov 1969). 2

In Soviet theory three ethnosocial communities were classified in accordance with the five historical stages or socioeconomic formations of Marxist historical materialism: (1) the tribe, characteristic of the primitive communal formation; (2) the narodnosV, characteristic of the slave-owning and feudal periods; and (3) the nation, characteristic of capitalist and socialist societies. The relationship between ethnic phenomena and socioeconomic phenomena was very important, in

that ethnosocial systems were seen to "change primarily under the impact of socioeconomic factors" (Bromlei 1977:47).

This broad definition of ethnos, and the context in which ethnosocial communities were ob- served, formed the officially accepted and publicly promoted view of ethnic communities and their historical relations throughout the tenure of Iulian Bromlei (1965-1989) as director of the Institute of Ethnography and Anthropology, and as a man with important political connections (Basilov 1992; Kozlov 1995). Although disagreement within the Academy certainly existed regarding most, if not all, aspects of ethnos, a "unified" theory of ethnos was called for by the Party apparatus and a unified theory was delivered. In a similar and related vein, the Communist Party wanted the "national question" resolved, not discussed, and so it was resolved in theory, if not in fact (Cheshko 1994; Filippova and Filippov 1992). The history of the development of the "theory of ethnos," as this work is called in the Russian-language literature, neither began with Iulian Bromlei nor ended with the fall of the Soviet Union (see Kozlov 1995), but this history is well beyond the bounds of the present article. Of particular importance here is the socioeconomic and political significance which has accrued to ethnos over the years in both theoretical and applied contexts.

The hunting, gathering, and herding peoples of Chukotka posed a number of problems in the official classificatory scheme of historical materialism. In some ways they could be viewed as rem- nants of the primitive communal formation, but many elements of this past - such as clan organization, egalitarian social and economic relations, and the absence of private property - had by and large either been destroyed or tainted by inter- action with the Tsarist state and Western capitalism. Their socioeconomic characteristics obviously did not place them into either the slave-owning or feudal formations, and the low level of development of their productive forces, and likewise the level of their cultural development, clearly denied their status as nations, on a par with the Russian nation.

Although the term narodnosV was generally used to refer to the basic ethnic subdivisions of pre-capitalist class societies, it was extended to include "other" ethnosocial communities under capitalism and socialism, such as the numerically small narodnosti Severa, or peoples of the North (Agaev 1965; Bromlei and Kozlov 1975). The inter nal cohesiveness of contemporary narodnosti such as these was said to be weaker than the bonds the} had to their associated nation. Thus, the Chukchi, Yupik, and other northern peoples as narodnosti were seen to exist only in relationship to the Rus- sian nation (Arutiunov and Cheboksarov 1972).



1 96 Arctic Anthropology 34:1

Even as the exploitation of Chukotka's Na- tives by nineteenth century capitalism was de- plored in the Soviet literature it greatly simplified the application of theory to policy. Economic inequalities could be clearly labeled as evidence of exploitation, and the state identified the same classes among the Chukchi as it had defined for the peasantry in central Russia: bedniaki (poor peasants), sredniaki (middle peasants), and kulaky (kulaks or wealthy peasants who exploited others). An oppressed proletariat was thus born. Kulaky in the form of "wealthy" Chukchi reindeer herders with large herds, Yupik and Chukchi traders, and shamans together constituted the exploiting class which had to be eliminated (Garusov 1966). Where there were classes, there was class struggle and thus, although their language had no words to ex- press these concepts, the Chukchi were provided with entrance to the socialist revolution on at least an ideologically equal field with the peasantry. In real life, however, even from the earliest days of the Soviet state, Native peoples were considered incapable of making the leap to modernity on their own and so were placed under the stewardship of the state (Kuznetsov 1990).

The economic path to socialism for Native cultures and economies in Chukotka was viewed as dependent on the transformation and incorpo- ration of natural economies (i.e., traditional production for direct consumption) into the Soviet national economy (i.e., production for sale as com- modities) and the industrial development of the extractive industries. Collectivization of the means of production would shift the principle economic unit of society from the family to the society as a whole, and as a result ethnic identity would be replaced by an identity based on the organization of labor. The fact that you were born Chukchi would not mean that you were automatically a reindeer herder or hunter. Commodity production, with its division of labor based on profession and its rapid technological development, would replace natural production. Therefore, industrialization of the means of production and democratization of the relations of production were expected to resolve social and economic inequalities and injustices between Natives and non-Natives.

In Chukotka, however, the replacement of kin-based labor organization has always been difficult to effect. Several factors have contributed to this problem. Foremost, perhaps, was the state's failure to understand the holistic nature of traditional subsistence systems as dynamic systems of social, economic, and political relationships through which Native peoples maintain the viabil- ity of their distinctive cultures (Chance 1987; Fienup-Riordan 1990; Wenzel 1991, 1995). In- stead, kinship was viewed by the state simply as a primitive exploitative relationship based on gen-

der inequality and resulting in unequal access to resources; economy was a distinct phenomenon analytically isolated from the entanglements of culture and therefore eminently more manipulable. A second, related factor was the failure of the state to understand the roles of gender and sec- ondary production in traditional economies, where activities such as fishing and gathering plant foods fulfilled important dietary needs and secured relationships among kinfolk and between non-kin. These activities were often viewed by the state only as emergency measures needed to cover periods when the hunt or reindeer herds failed to provide necessary food, rather than as regular seasonal aspects of the subsistence economy which added considerable variety to the Native diet. A third, and more pragmatic, problem was that in the earliest years of collectivization, settlements and nomadic camps were comprised of individuals who were all related to one another in some fashion, which made organizing labor based on some principle other than kinship impossible.

Ethnic transformations were just as important, and worked in tandem with economic transformations in building communist society. Ethnic processes, as defined by Soviet social scientists, could be guided toward the elimination of sociocultural disparities, and, in combination with the "objective laws of economic development" (Brom- lei 1977:154), the creation of a Soviet people living in a communist society bearing Russian culture would ultimately be achieved.

Evolutionary processes result in a significant change in one or more specific ethnic parameters. The creation of a written language for the Chukchi, the development of Chukchi-Russian bilingualism, and the replacement of traditional clothing and foods by manufactured goods are all examples of evolutionary ethnic processes. In concert with changes in specific ethnic characteristics were changes (at least in theory) in class -professional structure which were said to accompany industrialization and the collectivization of agriculture in the Soviet Union (Kozlov 1982).

Transformational processes led to a final change of ethnic membership, as reflected in a change of ethnic samosoznanie and samonazvanie. Divisive processes result in multiple ethnic communities forming from a single ethnic community, and were considered most characteristic of the primitive period (Bromlei and Kozlov 1975). Unifying processes (especially assimilation and in- tegration) were perhaps the most important for the Soviet academicians, ethnographers, and party workers whose task it was to design and imple- ment policy. These processes draw together [sblizhenie] and eventually merge [sliianie] the peoples of interacting narodnosti and nations (such as the Chukchi narodnosV and the Russian




nation) in sociopolitical, cultural, linguistic, and other relations.3 In the Soviet Union the ideological base common to all peoples was expected to provide a strong foundation from which to effect the final unification of many disparate peoples into one ethnos, "the Soviet People" (Bromlei and Kozlov 1975; Kozlov 1969, 1982).

Intra-national processes are processes of ethnic consolidation, in which two or more ethnic or ethnographic groups (related by language, origin, and culture) merge. The consolidation of ankal'yt (coastal Chukchi) and chavchyvat (reindeer Chukchi) into a single Chukchi group is one example of this process (Gurvich 1977). During the early years of Soviet rule, such consolidations among northern Native peoples were not infre- quent, but were in fact no more than administrative acts. A rationale based on the only theory available, however, was easy to find, since processes of consolidation could be explained simply as the dialectical negation of divisive ethnic processes which had occurred during the "primitive communal period" (Bromlei and Kozlov 1975; Koz- lov 1969).

By definition, the Chukchi narodnosV and the Russian nation set out on the road to communism on unequal ground. Economic and ethnic transformations were expected of all peoples on this road, but the demands varied for different peoples. It was the duty of the Russians to uplift and enlighten, and imperative for the Chukchi that they catch up and convert. Both socioeconomic and ethnosocial processes appeared to be directly manipulable by the state through universal education, collectivization, resettlement, and ethnic in- tegration. As recent Eurasian history has made clear, however, changes in language, occupation, religion, clothing, and other features of the ethnos do not (even after 70 or more years of strident effort) always culminate in that final change of identity or samosoznanie. The Chukchi are still Chukchi.

Redefining Tradition As used by the Soviet, and now Russian, government, "traditional" is an abstract concept referring to reindeer breeding or sea mammal hunting without context or content beyond herder and deer or hunter and prey. In this way the state considers reindeer breeding and sea mammal hunting before, during, and after socialism to be "traditional" branches of the indigenous economy. In the conduct of these activities, however, there was no ab- straction involved: industrial theories and methods of labor management and resource utilization were applied by force to activities which continually defied those theories and methods.

Although some Soviet scholars and politicians recognized the successful adaptation of Na- tive peoples to the harsh northern environment, others did little to conceal their contempt for Na- tive people. In both camps there was little doubt that the ultimate goal of communism could not be attained by living in skin tents and eating walrus meat. Until traditional Chukchi lifestyles could be replaced by a Soviet industrial lifestyle, traditional economic activities would have an important role to play. Indigenous hunting, fishing, trapping, and reindeer herding were expected to provide food for Native and non-Native residents as well as employment and a cash income for local people. In- dustrialization and the expansion of the extractive industries in Chukotka would need the support of local agricultural production. Traditional economies, supplemented by European livestock and cultigens, were expected to fulfill this need. Furs were still an important source of hard currency revenue for the state, and their production eventually would receive special attention through the creation of fur farms to augment hunting (Budarin 1968; Gurvich 1961; Taksami 1967).

Lenin's vision of multiple forms of coopera- tive enterprises existing together within one unifying national economy was expressed in the 1920s in Chukotka by the organization of consumers' co- operatives, production unions, associations, and artels4 for trade, seasonal hunting, women's sewing, and the common pasturage of reindeer (Dikov 1974; Leont'ev 1973; Menovshchikov 1964; Sergeev 1955). By 1930 proposals sympathetic to a gradual, independent transition to socialism had been replaced with a more radical and forceful policy of agricultural collectivization. Interest in recruiting and training cadres for administrative work waned, although the Soviet program of na- tivization continued to appoint Natives to figure- head positions, while power and authority were retained in Russian hands.

Collectivization was conducted in some cases as an administrative exercise and in other cases as a military maneuver. Herders made significant ef- forts to avoid and thwart the new collectives by refusing to sell deer to the Russians, refusing to attend political lectures, and refusing to send their children to school. The activities of shamans in both the tundra and coastal communities were also significant in disrupting Soviet activities (Garusov 1966; Kulikov 1967).

By 1940 the kolkhoz (collective farm; plural kolkhozy), a step up from simpler collective forms, had become the mainstay of collectivized agriculture in Chukotka. The administration of the kolkh ozy was, at least in principle, democratic; production was often higher, and financial accounting was expected to be more responsive to economic conditions both locally and nationally.



1 98 Arctic Anthropology 34 :1

Self-accounting [khozraschet) and the brigade con- tract [podriad] were introduced to stimulate production and to give labor brigades more responsi- bility for their own organization and the conduct of work.

In 1950 Khrushchev launched a major reorganization of the kolkhoz system in order to strengthen the Party's control over agriculture. Not only did this reorganization eventually cripple agricultural production, it also devastated Native cultures (Chichlo 1981, 1990; Grant 1995; Krush- anov 1987; Vakhtin 1993). The consolidation of kolkhozy into progressively larger enterprises pro- ceeded rapidly throughout the Soviet Union and spanned the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s in Chukotka. Ukrupneniia or "strengthening" of the kolkhozy through consolidation was expected to increase production, decrease administrative costs, and facilitate mechanization. "The smaller number of farms made possible an increase in the proportion of farms with party organizations of their own, while the reduction in the number of farm chairmen made it easier to fill these posts with party members or persons considered reliable by the party" (Shapiro 1971:521). By now, the only reliable personnel in Chukotka, in the opinion of the Communist Party, were Russian.

Agricultural policy continued to move traditional activities up the socialist ladder of development to the sovkhoz (state farm; plural sovkhozy), wherein both the means and relations of production were the property of the state. During the 1940s and 1950s, 44 kolkhozy were organized in Chukotka;5 during the 1960s, all kolkhozy were transformed into sovkhozy; and by 1985, all of these enterprises had been consolidated into 28 sovkhozy. Along with the consolidation of kolkhozy and sovkhozy went the razing of Native villages and the forced resettlement of their residents (Chichlo 1981; Leont'ev 1973; Schindler 1992; Slezkine 1994). There was no longer any intention of training local people to administer local affairs. The Russian-dominated centralized command system of administration, which bypassed local peoples and local conditions, was viewed as the most expedient means of redefining Chu- kotka's traditional economies as part of the national industrialized economy.

The sovkhozy in Chukotka failed miserably both in theory and in practice. The system of self- accounting was seriously undermined in the sovkhozy by large sums of money received from the state budget and aimed at improving both the means and relations of production. The social and economic distance between Natives and non-Na- tives in Chukotka widened on all fronts. Increas- ing production in the extractive industries necessi- tated more skilled labor than was available in the Okrug. Gulag labor contributed significantly to the

development of Chukotka's mining industry, as did laborers attracted from outside the Okrug by high wage differentials and benefits (Shabad 1983; Slezkine 1994). More workers meant that more housing and goods were needed in the Okrug, but they went to non-Native workers' settlements and regional [raion) centers where non-Native administrators and their families lived and worked.

Economic and political reform in post-Soviet Russia has created a chaotic situation for local economies and government organs in Chukotka, which at the village level are very closely en- twined. Sovkhozy and sei 'so vety (rural soviets) each supervised their own construction projects, schools, stores, and other infrastructure organizations often within a single village. In 1993 all sovety (rural and city) were dissolved by presiden- tial decree and all of their functions were trans- ferred to local administrations. In essence this generally meant only that titles and names changed; the chairperson of the seVsovet became the chief of administration. De jure power was granted to local authorities with the intention that they carry out reform measures and solve their own problems without waiting for government assistance. De facto power is the reality of local government which can no longer totally depend on the Com- munist Party or the Moscow government, but must look for independent sources of funding. Laws and economic policies intended to guide reform measures were written to have broad applicability across Russia's extremely diverse landscape. Wherever Moscow's law is ambiguous, administrations at the okrug, oblast', and even raion level make their own interpretations in accordance with local conditions. These interpretations become the rules. Thus, for example, when laws guaranteeing the shipment of goods to northern villages fail, ad- herence to the rules can put fresh produce from Alaska in Chukotka's shops.

Directives for the reorganization of the sovkhozy and privatization of state agricultural enterprises were set out in late 1991. In early 1994 all of Chukotka's 28 sovkhozy were still in operation as sovkhozy, although some had begun to re- organize and a few groups of herders had created private enterprises outside the sovkhoz structure. Most so vkhozy have at least divested themselves of jobs and facilities (construction, electrical gen- erating plants, schools, etc.) not directly related to agriculture. The day-to-day operation and administration of sovkhozy have changed very little, although sale of products to the state has been sharply curtailed and other avenues through which to realize production are few. This has re- sulted in furs which hang unsold in sheds, meat on the hoof, and meat stockpiled in freezers with no buyers in sight. If farm products cannot be sold, wages cannot be paid and as is true throughout




Russia, many workers go for long periods without being paid.

A number of alternatives are viewed as possible for reorganization of the sovkhozy: family-clan communes [semeino-rodovoi obshchiny), associations [tovarishchestva), and farms [fermerskye khoziaistva - an intermediate form between the sovkhozy and obshchiny). Other options are also being explored in reindeer herding, such as the creation of joint stock companies [aktsionernye ob- shchestva) and leasing enterprises [arendnye pred- priiatiia; Sovetskaia Chukotka 18 January, 1992). The Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation has proposed keeping kolkhozy and sovkhozy in regions where Native peoples live. The sovkhozy and kolkhozy would aid in the organization of communes, associations, and farms, provide technical support, and facilitate the storage, prepara- tion, and sale of goods on a negotiated basis (Klokov and Koriukhina 1994a).6 All new forms of enterprise require substantial changes in the way operations are carried out and decisions made. For example, how will membership in a family-clan commune be determined, and on what terms can other people work for the commune? How can pasture be divided and allotted for use by different organizations? How can reindeer herds be ac- quired? In contrast to the Yamal region, where 48% of the reindeer were in private hands in 1992, in Chukotka in that same year only 12% of the herds were privately owned {Sovetskaia Chukotka 19 January, 1993). The acquisition of reindeer is a difficult problem. Sovkhoz directors have been extremely reluctant to sell animals or equipment to herders trying to establish private enterprises. The Chukchi whose deer, or whose parents' deer, had been confiscated by the state, respond with the question "Whose deer are these anyway?" The few independent herding enterprises which have been formed are viewed as short-lived experiments doomed to failure. Russian administrators and sovkhoz chairmen wait for these attempts at privatization and independence to fail, basing their expectations on the belief that the Chukchi no longer know how to manage herds on their own. Chukchi herders clearly have a different opinion on this matter.

An important part of redefining tradition today involves increasing economic opportunities and employment among the Native population. Local people see little conflict between being Chukchi or Yupik and being an accountant or a teacher. Both of these nontraditional occupations (and others) can serve the community and strengthen it. Recommendations, however, for resolving labor problems have changed little in the post-Soviet period. More schools and more education are said to be needed to provide individuals qualified to fill positions in industry, education,

administration, etc. This is the same prescription given in the Soviet literature for resolving the "problem of labor resources" in the Far North. What researchers and politicians fail to ask is why so few young Chukchi or Yupik students continue their education beyond the 8th or 10th class, and why many of those who do move away to school fail to complete their educations? One reason is the lack of sociocultural support in cities where educational institutions are located. Young people who travel to Magadan, Moscow, or even to Anadyr' leave behind the emotional and material support of family and friends and find themselves in an environment where ethnic Russian domina- tion is even stronger than it was at home. This may be more than a sixteen or seventeen year old can handle alone. A second reason is lack of employment opportunities at home, and again a reluctance to move to a city where opportunities might be better, but where there are no sociocultural networks for support.

Renegotiating Ethnicity The Soviets dictated ethnic relations within the context of developing the relations of production, and policy reflected the ideological need to replace kin relations with labor relations. The completion of this phase of socialist construction was a credit to Soviet nationalities policy: "the division of labor has everywhere come to be based on professional and not national identity of population groups, on regional economic and not ethnic features" (Bromlei 1977:154). Soviet ethnography supported this conclusion perhaps a bit prema- turely in light of recent Soviet history (Alekseev and Bromlei 1968; Antropova 1972; Arutiunian and Drobizheva 1987; Dikov 1974; Guboglo 1989; Iusupov 1979; Kistanov 1972; Kozlov 1989; Sher- stobitov 1979; Vainshtein and Arutiunian 1975).

In the post-Bromlei, post-communist, post- Soviet period, these conclusions are being reexam- ined both within and without academia. The subject matter and direction of research and theories of ethnos are themselves are being critiqued, renegotiated, and personalized by some scholars (Alek- sandrenkov 1996; Arutiunov 1995; Basilov 1992; Cheshko 1994; Guboglo 1995a,b; Kozlov 1992, 1995; Shchedrovitskii and Piskoppel' 1994; Se- menov 1996a,b), while others question the very existence of ethnos and the future of their science (Kolpakov 1995; Kon 1993; Tishkov 1992a). Other aspects of the current upheaval experienced by post-Soviet scholars (also discussed in the works cited above) include the difference between ethnography and ethnology, the politicization of research, definitions of "ethnos" [etnos] as op- posed to "ethnicity" [etnichnost'), and the role



200 Arctic Anthropology 34:1

of biology in ethnic identity (Arutiunov 1995; Cheshko 1994; Kozlov 1995). Although even a brief discussion of this new and exciting material is impossible in this paper, one thread that runs throughout the recent literature has special relevance here.

In discussing ethnic conflicts in Russia and the CIS there seems to be little disagreement that ethnographers have a principal role to play, and even an obligation to work toward resolving the "national question." The theoretical foundations and methodological tools may be changing, and terminology may be taking on a western appear- ance, but the outcome of academic endeavors remains the same as it was in the Soviet Union. The focus of research is on understanding how ethnic groups are formed, how they survive, and how ethnic processes work in order to direct or manage interethnic relations to preserve the internal cohesiveness of the Russian state (Arutiunov 1992; Ko- zlov 1995; Sokolova 1990; and others).7

One other aspect of the current debates also has special relevance here and that is the biological characterization of ethnic groups and of ethnicity (Cheshko 1994; Gumilev 1989; Klokov and Ko- riukhina 1994a,b).8 These discussions seek to remove any ambiguity regarding the identification of ethnic groups or the definition of ethnicity by removing the subjective cultural aspects of ethnic self- awareness [samosoznanie] - aspects such as language, dress, ritual, etc. - from the debate. "What's left?," they ask. "Biology" is their answer. The implications of this reductionism are obvious.

Collectivization and resettlement were not only expected to further the economic goals of socialism, but to facilitate the manipulation of ethnic processes. Diverse economic activities concentrated in centralized settlements would be stronger and the marketability of local products would im- prove. It would be easier to develop new branches of the economy, providing jobs for women and men (released from traditional occupations by im- proved labor organization), and thus changing the class/professional structure of Chukchi society. Villages in which members of various ethnic groups (and socioethnic categories: narodnosti and nation) lived, worked, and studied together would facilitate both evolutionary ethnic processes through the replacement of traditional material culture and beliefs with modern Soviet culture and transformational ethnic processes, eventually resulting in a whole new "Soviet" ethnos (Gurvich 1971; Leont'ev 1973; Vdovin 1973).

Today, in the multiethnic villages of Chukotka there has been little "drawing together" or "merging" [sblizhenie or sliianiie) and there is no confusion regarding anyone's ethnic identity. A clear segregation of labor and associated privilege based on ethnic identity is in evidence for all to

see. Sovkhoz directors are exclusively non-Native in Chukotka, sel'sovet (village administration) and office personnel are predominantly Russian, as are entrepreneurs, and kinship often binds administrative and managerial personnel. Jobs in hunting, herding, sewing, and fur farming are held by Na- tives under non-Native supervision. Preferences to work with kin are expressed in all of these activities and whenever possible such arrangements are made.

Kin networks are still extensive within and sometimes between villages. The obligations and duties of kin groups are extremely important in the daily life of the Chukchi: consumer goods and foodstuffs flow from kin in the village to those in the tundra, while meat and hides flow from tundra to village. Among non-Natives in the villages, kin relations are supplemented by relations based on ethnicity. Russian women save places in line for one another, buy goods for one another, and, as managers of stores, share first information on new goods and supplies that enter the village. Intereth- nic marriages, expected to play a critical role in assimilation and thus to mediate ethnic differences, are not uncommon, but such marriages are be- sieged by problems in the villages. Kin obligations and expectations in the village bind one partner but not the other. Social relations include one partner but not the other. The children of Native/ non-Native marriages are caught in the middle.

Economic and social stratification, despite Soviet claims to the contrary, are significant between Natives and non-Natives, and the gap between these two groups is rapidly growing wider as Russians are able to realize more economic opportunities through privatization. In spite of the recent mass exodus of non-Native peoples from Chukotka, the majority of the population remains non-Native and Russian (Motrich 1995). Real and perceived privileges granted to the non-Native population exacerbate ethnic tensions in the villages. Interethnic conflicts are found over a wide range of other issues as well, from priority land- use and environmental degradation to government subsidies for health care, housing, and education (Schindler 1996a).

Alcohol (sales, abuse, treatment, related crimes, etc.) is a serious source of ethnic tension and sometimes violent conflict in Chukotka. Rus- sians blame local people for producing and selling a nasty homemade brew, while local people say it is the Russians who produce and sell alcohol to their people. Russian and imported vodka also flow freely from Russian komersanty (entrepreneurs) who illegally sell their stock in the Native villages and in the tundra. Local police are all non-Native and, hence, are suspected, often with good reason, of collaborating with their fellow Russians in these matters. In one village in 1994,



Schindler: Ethnicity in Native Russia 201

police spent considerable time and effort arresting Natives who were publicly intoxicated, but did not pursue the Russians who were known to be illegally supplying the alcohol.

Ethnic tensions are evident and significant in education and the provision of health care. Al- though there are both Native and non-Native teachers in schools, non-Natives hold the administrative positions and there are strong feelings of fa- voritism toward Russian teachers and discrimination against Native teachers. There is also, of course, a long history of ethnic discrimination in the schools which taught that indigenous lifeways were inferior and were to be replaced by a modern Soviet (i.e., Russian) lifestyle. Primary physicians are almost exclusively Russian, and the lack of respect often expressed by them for Native peoples and lifestyles contributes to the reluctance of some individuals to seek medical help.

The formal organization of Native peoples into associations which demand that these issues be addressed has also increased ethnic tensions among Native groups and between Native and non-Native residents in Chukotka (and throughout Russia). Activity proceeds on various levels and with varying degrees of effectiveness. At the local village level, most individuals are struggling to support their families and their immediate attention is on employment, access to the natural resources from which they can make at least a par- tial livelihood, controlling alcoholism and associated violence, education of children, and health care. This is especially true in Chukotka, where Native unemployment has soared, and supplies of consumer goods, foodstuffs, medical supplies, and fuel (particularly in winter) are seriously inadequate. Cultural activities, although viewed as important, are difficult to sustain finan- cially. From the regional [raion] to national levels there is considerably more focus on political par- ticipation and the organization of aboriginal self- government,9 environmental protection, priority land-use claims, and development strategies for the long-term survival of Native communities (Fondahl 1995; Luk'ianchenko and Novikov 1991; Osherenko 1995). In Chukotka self-government is still nonexistent, the priority of Native land use is asserted but takes a back seat to the powerful extractive industries, and environmental protection is a firmly stated policy with little muscle or money to effect. At the national and international levels discussions focus on political power, constitutional (Russian) guarantees, and the legal position of Russia's indigenous groups within the Rus- sian Federation and within the larger international contexts of human rights and environmental protection (Arutiunov 1992; Kornilova 1992; Popov 1995; Sokolova 1990). These issues have also been the focus of discussions regarding a draft law writ-

ten by ethnographers, "Foundations of the Legal Status of Indigenous Peoples of the North" (Murashko 1995; Schindler 1996b; Sokolova, Novikova, and Ssorin-Chaikov 1995). 10

Within this last level of organization, foreign and domestic policy issues often collide. The traditional Soviet classifications of "indigenous" and "numerically small peoples" [korennye and malochislennye narody), with their numerical crite- rion in Russia of 50,000 individuals or less, have been both challenged and defended by various authors (Arutiunov 1992; Karapetian 1993; Sokolova, Novikova, and Ssorin-Chaikov 1995). The use of a numerically qualified definition and its subse- quent entrenchment in Russian law and policy have been criticized as discriminatory, unconstitu- tional, and in violation of international norms defining indigenous peoples and rights.11 Other scholars have questioned other definitions and have concluded that international criteria are not relevant in Russia and that international conven- tions (specifically ILO 169; see van de Vlist 1994) are also irrelevant and inappropriate (Tkachenko and Koriukhina 1995). When "indigenous peoples" are defined by internationally recognized criteria of residence on primordial homelands, having no other homeland anywhere in the world, and having no state formation at the level of international law, then the corpus of indigenous peoples in Russia swells from the official (in the 1989 census) 26 indigenous peoples of the North, to ap- proximately 100, and includes not only numerically small groups such as the Yupik with a population of roughly 1500, but also numerically large groups such as the Tatars with a population of about 5.5 million (Arakchaa 1996).

While such a redefinition within Russia is viewed by some as placing small groups on an equal footing with larger groups, especially those having their own national territorial organizations (republics, okrugy, etc.), it also creates problems. Quite often the extremely small numerical size of indigenous groups, such as the Yupik, is used by those groups to plead for special attention and ex- traordinary measures in order to prevent their cultural, and perhaps even physical, extinction. The distinction of being "numerically small," with its arbitrary population ceiling of 50,000 individuals, is therefore a difficult fence on which to sit: a fall to one side may result in being swallowed by the sheer number of other indigenous individuals and groups; a fall to the other side may provide privileges and garner public sentiment, but may also send the group back into the paternalistic fold of the state.

The renegotiation of ethnicity is taking place throughout Russia, within the Native communities and between Native and non-Native populations in villages and cities throughout the former Soviet




Union (Arutiunov 1992, 1995; Guboglo 1995a,b; Pika and Prokhorov 1994; Tishkov 1992b; Vakhtin 1993; Zdravomyslov and Matveeva 1996). Native discussions today focus on the loss of control over their lives and life-ways, and the need to restore a world view which provides meaning and support for society and individuals. It is the context and content of "traditional" which the Native peoples of Chukotka are seeking to reassert and redefine today. Native organizations address the control of traditional economic activities and associated resources and indigenous involvement in new nontraditional economic spheres as priorities. The focus of control then expands to include a renegotiation of ethnicity through Native rights to appropriate education, language instruction, and socialization in the values and life-ways of Native peoples [Materialy 1990; Omrypkir 1993; Ustav i programma 1990).

The development of Russian ethnic identity and samosoznanie are no less important to Native peoples than to the Russians themselves (Zdra- vomyslov and Matveeva 1996). Russian identity is being renegotiated at local and national levels in various terms, although usually within the context of nationalism - a criminal sentiment under the Soviets, a patriotic duty for many in Russia today. In the "near abroad," Russians are often portrayed as victims of oppression and discrimination; in the Baltics they were an occupying force; in Siberia and the Far East they have been labeled colonial- ists, conquerors, and saviors. In the villages of Chukotka they are all of these things and more. Sometimes they are husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers.

Underlying negotiation, however, is unac- knowledged, institutionalized, ethnic and racial discrimination. To renegotiate the Soviet "brother- hood of nations" will require measures no less painful than those employed in the United States during the earliest days of the Civil Rights Move- ment. In practical terms in Chukotka this means affirmative action in very broad terms: the granting of priority in employment to Natives; financial support for all Native students in technical schools and higher education; curriculum revision in the schools; grants, loans, and special training for Na- tive entrepreneurs in nontraditional fields; priority of land use and technical support for traditional hunting, herding, and gathering activities; support for cultural activities; indigenous self-government, etc. The measures needed to first establish and then protect indigenous peoples and rights in Rus- sia have been extensively discussed in academic and popular forums but the practical results of such discussions are not readily apparent in villages and herding camps.12

Indigenous people in Chukotka constitute ap- proximately 10% of the total population of the

Okrug. What realistic chance do proposed measures such as these have? If subject to Western democratic processes, none. A closer look at the proposals and a little rewording may render these suggestions into nothing more than the Soviet nationalities policy declarations of the past 70 years. Soviet communism could not manage to level the ethnic playing field either. What possibilities remain? The curtailment of the rights of non-Natives to employment, to education, to property, to engage in commerce? Obviously not. Human rights extend to all humans. And yet it is in these con- frontational terms, "us" (Natives) vs. "them" (Rus- sians), that the dialogue on Chukotka's future is often conducted. The public argument has become oversimplified and most people would acknowledge this. The Russian people have made significant contributions in Chukotka, not least of which is health care. The Chukchi (and other Native groups) have proved remarkably adaptive to rapidly changing circumstances and expect to continue this course. The public argument in the Okrug center of Anadyr' and in raion centers has also become politicized and with very little sub- tlety politicians play to their supporters and special interest groups. Why would we (especially those of us in the U.S.) expect this aspect of democracy to work any differently in Russia? To date the only successful recourse for some Native groups (e.g., the Nentsy on the Yamal Peninsula and the Udegei in Primorskii Territory) has been through international channels and in attracting media attention (Shnirelman 1993).

Discussion Chukotka's economy today can be characterized by its two competing, ethnically distinctive land use strategies.13 Extensive land use practices primarily encompass the traditional subsistence activities of the Native peoples. Herders, hunters, and fishermen have considerable knowledge and expertise regarding the wide variety of landforms and marine conditions found in and around Chuk- otka. For thousands of years, this knowledge allowed Native peoples to provide themselves with food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities of life. Extensive land use practices were reflected in a variety of settlement patterns and population mobility in accordance with seasonal procurement strategies (Krupnik 1993).

Industrial development in Chukotka can be characterized as intensive because it is focused on specific areas and resources which are nonrenew- able. The mining of nonferrous metals and coal is a strict regime of labor-intensive activity conducted almost exclusively by non-Natives who are concentrated in settlements and towns close to the mines and administrative centers.




Soviet plans for Chukotka's industrialization, the creation of a permanent resident non-Native labor force, and the assimilation of Native peoples into this labor force have not been successful. The Russians, Ukrainians, and others who came by force or by choice to Chukotka generally had no vested interest in the land and their intentions to leave were clear to everyone. They came as prisoners or for the high wages and other special benefits given to workers in the harsh arctic environment. Many of these people returned "home" during every vaca- tion; they sent their children to live with relatives where they could attend schools at "home"; they purchased deficit goods specifically consigned to the North (e.g., refrigerators that were impossible to find in the central parts of the country) and then shipped them back to their "real" homes in the central parts of the country; and they left for good as soon as life at home had been made secure. More recently, when the Soviet Union collapsed and life in the central parts of the country (and in the newly independent states) became insecure, even more of these people left Chukotka to reestablish their claims na materike (on the mainland).

Transformational ethnic processes which were intended to draw Russians and Natives closer together were thwarted at every turn by theoretical constructs and government policies which institutionalized a position of inferiority for Native narodnosti with respect to the Russian nation. The educational system taught both Chukchi and Rus- sians their respective places in the classification of socioeconomic formations: one subordinate to the other. Native traditions, including dress, food, and belief systems, were all denigrated with the intent of forcing children to choose a Soviet life instead of a Chukchi life. In many respects this aspect of policy was successful, as children grew up learn- ing very little about their own cultures, economies, and lands (Rytkheu 1988; Sangi 1988).

Agricultural production intended to feed Na- tives and non-Natives alike failed miserably as did the state's attempt to modernize the Native diet, which was considered unhealthy (see for example Efremov 1970). Few Russians eat the products of the hunt: seal, walrus, whale. Reindeer meat is more acceptable to some, but it is still "uncivi- lized" food. To satisfy non-Native demands and modernize Native diets, dairy cattle, chickens, and pigs were brought to Chukotka and greenhouse vegetable farming was established at thermal springs. The import of food (as well as fodder for domestic animals) has always been extremely expensive, adding to northern debt. Today, the products of the hunt and herds are more important than ever to Native peoples in the villages, where although there may be food on the store shelves, a market economy without heavy government subsidies makes such food very expensive.

A global market teases Chukotka. Its mineral wealth could bring substantial profit to the Okrug, but these resources remain under Moscow's control. The Okrug government is limited at present to the marketing and distribution of products which issue from the traditional economies of the Chukchi, Yupik, and other Native peoples: reindeer meat, velvet antler, furs, and ivory. With the exception of perhaps furs, and to a lesser extent ivory, these are not glamorous products, are ac- cordingly given little attention or respect, and yet their export is tightly controlled by the Okrug government. A more profitable avenue for local government and Russian entrepreneurs is the import of consumer goods and foods from abroad (especially Alaska) and their resale in private shops in Chukotka. Privatization and commerce are dominated by Russians who have capital, friends in government (for loans, special privileges, compen- sations, etc.), and a good relationship with the bor- der guards (Schindler 1996a).

The Chukchi today are presented with legislative possibilities to regain some measure of control over their homelands, with cultural out- reach opportunities to revitalize cultures and economies which have suffered from policies of assimilation, and with the lure of open communi- cation to engage in dialogues with other indigenous groups worldwide in the hope of effecting the changes necessary to accomplish these goals. Native organizations such as the Association of Native Peoples of Chukotka (and its branches in the villages) work in cooperation and no doubt in some competition with academic institutions such as the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology (Moscow), the Scientific Research Center "Chu- kotka" (Anadyr'), institutes in Magadan and St. Pe- tersburg, and others to advise and direct reform measures and to control research within Chukotka (see for example Galanin 1994).

The renegotiation of ethnic identity must go even further than Native organizations in Chukotka now propose. All parties - academic, governmental, indigenous - must acknowledge the institutional obstacles to "cultural rebirth," "development of the indigenous economy," and "autonomy" (in any form) and then work to change these conditions. There is an understandable reluctance to discuss racism and ethnic discrimination as societal problems, rather than as discrete, isolated incidents between individuals. Discus- sions in academic journals, newspapers, and on the street indicate that enough dirty laundry has been aired for the West to see and such matters should now be handled quietly and internally.

A tradition of Russian paternalism, which continues even today (e.g., Boiko 1989; Klokov and Koriukhina 1994a), even if it is renamed "state protectionism" (Popov 1995:91), 14 will help Na-




tive peoples no more under capitalism than it did under socialism, and the expectation that a market economy and democracy will somehow level the ethnic playing field is unrealistic. Economic altru- ism is an emotion generally absent in Soviet or post-Soviet socialism, or in capitalism, where human rights do not take precedence over the safe- guarding and expansion of economic interests. In some cases (e.g., Tkachenko and Koriukhina 1995) the argument is made that indigenous rights as defined through international convention (especially regarding ownership of land and natural resources) infringe on Russian sovereignty, making economic reform a highly political and emotion- ally charged subject. Political power in the hands of the Native peoples is the only way they can de- cide for themselves on issues of cultural and economic importance. What purpose, then, can democracy serve where ethnic minorities are so overwhelmingly outnumbered (and outvoted) in their own homelands? Can economic and political spheres be sufficiently isolated to allow the economic and cultural autonomy of minorities among a politically revitalized majority of Russians? And further, can economic activities be segregated by culture? Can Russians mine for gold while Chuk- chi herders move through the tundra with their reindeer, and what happens when the edge of the pasture meets the entrance to the mine? Today, at this intersection in Chukotka, reindeer are stolen by hungry miners or illegally traded for alcohol. The Russian majority has little incentive to stop such activity and the Native minority has no power to prevent it.

These questions lead to even thornier issues, such as the relationship between individual and group rights. Cheshko (1994), Karapetian (1993), and others contend that circumstances within Rus- sia are not the same as in other parts of the world, where organizations such as the United Nations have attempted to eliminate institutionalized racial and ethnic discrimination of minority groups. They argue that "self-determination" refers to individuals, not groups, and that only when every individual has the right and freedom to choose his or her own path in life (and identity along that path) can the groups that they belong to have those same rights and freedoms.

The privatization of small businesses, joint ventures, a growing interest in tourism, and revenues from the extractive industries are expected to provide financial inputs into the social welfare and civic infrastructure upon which Native and non-Native residents depend. Chukotka's two competing land use strategies polarize economic development and infrastructure problems. Geo- graphic divisions between agricultural communities and industry (mining settlements and associated towns) are sharp. While mining companies

would be willing to provide for the needs of their own workers and families, they are reluctant to send money to other parts of the Okrug where they have no interests or influence. Tourism, in many cases, is expected to focus on Native peoples and the resources needed to sustain their economies: land, fish, and game. In other cases, such as the proposed national park at Lake El'gygytgyn in Anadyrskii raion, Native peoples seem to be an afterthought (Belikovich 1994). Revenues from tourist activities might be equally difficult to chan- nel into local communities if those communities do not control the activities.

As is true in all the circumpolar countries, the cost of supplying northern communities with basic services and goods and maintaining their infrastructure will always be high and will require government support (Osherenko 1995; Popov 1995). The majority of Native households in Chu- kotka today receive some form of transfer payment from the government for pensioners, people with physical or mental disabilities, mothers of large families, widows, etc. These payments help support not only the individuals to whom they are directed, but their families as well. Unemployment and the failure of many enterprises to pay their employees for months at a time mean that transfer payments have to be stretched to support more people than intended. Unfortunately, ethnic tensions between Native and non-Native groups are exacerbated in this area when scholars assert that a Native ethnic identity is adopted primarily in order to receive government welfare and privilege (Klokov and Koriukhina 1994a; Tkachenko and Koriukhina 1995). Increased funding to local gov- ernments and industry alone will not resolve the basic conflicts between traditional and industrial cultures. Native peoples in Chukotka must have the political power to assert their will, the will of a minority, over the Russian majority who live in their homeland.

It is unlikely that democratic processes will provide them with such power, but legal title to land would help and the marketplace might be more accommodating to Native control than a command economy. Native producers of fish, fur, reindeer products, and handicrafts must be allowed to control their activities through all phases: production, marketing, and distribution in both national and international arenas. Equity shares in northern sea route shipping and extractive industries could also be provided to Native peoples. Nontraditional spheres of economic activity such as tourism should be under the control of Native peoples, whose lands, fish and wildlife, and cultural monuments are the foci of tourist interest. Guidelines for tourism which is both ecologically sound and culturally sensitive should be enacted in cooperation with Native organizations through-




out Chukotka to protect archaeological and sacred sites, reindeer pastures, hunting, and fishing grounds. A portion of the proceeds from tourism should return to the local communities to support Native cultural activities and education (Osherenko 1995; Osherenko et al. 1996). Legal rights are worth- less, however, if appropriate mechanisms to en- force compliance with regulations regarding tourist activities, land use violations, and environmental abuses do not exist and are not accessible to all individuals and groups. It must also be recognized that many Native individuals wish to engage in nontraditional spheres of the economy: education, health care, government, etc. This does not mean that they have given up their belief systems, their cultural preferences, or their identity as Chukchi.

Conclusions In Chukotka, northern narodnosti and the Russian nation came together in what was by definition a relationship of theoretical inequality, official ideological parity, and material dependency. The inter- action of indigenous narodnosti with higher order and more "progressive" socioeconomic formations (capitalist or socialist) and their associated ethnosocial communities (nations) was expected to increase the productive level of traditional activities naturally, through increased access to technology, more progressive forms of labor organization, and the completion of transformational ethnic processes. If the "objective laws of economic development" are continually working to transform lower order formations into higher order formations, how could societies practicing traditional economic activities ever coexist with socialist or capitalist political economies? The answer to this question lies in the way the Chukchi, Yup'ik, and other Native peoples of Chukotka view the concept of traditional and in the ways they identify themselves as Chukchi, Eskimoskii, etc.

Traditional economic activities are indivisi- ble from social relations. Hunting, herding, gathering, and fishing are all ways in which people provide the necessities of life for each other within a cultural framework that gives meaning, value, con- tinuity, and a sense of individual and community self-affirmation. Reciprocity and exchange in all their introductory textbook forms were, and continue to be, facts of life, augmented but not replaced by commercial transactions. In times of social and economic crisis, kinship and ethnic community serve a critical, life-sustaining role for the Chukchi: your kinfolk, friends, and neighbors, not the state, come to your aid when you are hungry or ill and join you in times of celebration. Only when traditional activities become "jobs" and the people who conduct them become "employees," as they did in the sovkhozy, can economy be sepa-

rated from the society that created its various aspects. In this manner industrialization has spread throughout the Third World with similar destruc- tive effects.

The alienation of people from the land, its resources, and from each other through an educational system that attempted to destroy Chukchi cultures and replace them with Russian culture has had a devastating, but perhaps not fatal, effect on the Chukchi people. Among some of the small groups of Yupik in Chukotka, the situation might not be so favorable. Soviet paternalism was based on the belief that indigenous peoples were not only culturally and economically at a lower level on the evolutionary scale, but also physiologically and intellectually lower than the Russian people. Alcoholism, poor performance in school, disci- plinary problems, and disease are still today often explained privately by some Russians in terms of physiological and psychological weakness inher- ent in Native peoples. These beliefs actually do far more than rationalize paternalism. In the eyes at least of ordinary Russians, they make the caretaker state essential to and responsible for the survival of indigenous peoples. A missionary perspective is, of course, not unique to Russia or the Soviet Union.

Russian nationalism and global capitalism threaten the survival of Native peoples in Chu- kotka just as much today as the Soviet march toward communism did in the past. The multina- tional character of Russia is still denied, and the central government's need to regain control of the national economy often comes into conflict with local governmental attempts to assert the differing value systems and lifestyle choices of non-Russian nationalities. Russian minorities in the former republics demand protection from Moscow, and most politicians freely promise to look after their "own." Regional Russian politicians also eagerly promise to protect their own (even when Russians already constitute an overwhelming majority, as they do in Chukotka), and at the same time, promise more power to Native groups. Within the context of Native rights in Chukotka, many Rus- sians feel threatened when the "achievements of socialism" wrought by Russians in the North among Native peoples are denounced, and by what they see as the potential for excessive privileges being granted to Native people.

First Nations peoples throughout the world have been forced to accept dominance by a foreign elite, to adopt its language, attend its schools, abide by its laws, and participate in its economy. As industrialization and the drive to consolidate and concentrate wealth continue to sweep across the globe, searching harder and reaching deeper for more resources and new markets, "national in form, socialist in content" can just as easily be




written "national in form, capitalist in content," with the same result: destruction of alternative world views and forced assimilation or even anni- hilation of Native peoples. Racism, realized as ethnic discrimination, is not an insignificant factor in social, economic, and political spheres where it has historically been a defining characteristic of many government policies. Within the current cli- mate of Russian nationalism throughout the former Soviet Union, it will continue to be a major factor in the redefinition of traditional economies in a global marketplace and the renegotiation of Native identities and First Nations rights in Chukotka.

End Notes 1. 1 use the term ethnography in this paper in its traditional Soviet-period usage, which makes it roughly equivalent to sociocultural anthropology in the United States.

2. There was always disagreement in the Academy of Sciences as to the relative importance of the individual factors involved in defining ethnos (see, e.g., Agaev 1965; Arutiunov and Cheboksarov 1972; Gumilev 1989; Kozlov 1979, 1986), although the definitions of ethnos provided by Bromlei (1972) and Kozlov (1969) reflect the generally accepted usage of these terms in the "official" theory most often presented in the Soviet social science literature. Their acceptance is also evident in the application of theory to policy, as will be discussed below. The main point of contention found in the Soviet literature concerned the formational aspect of typologies: the traditional triad of ethnic communities and their membership within the five-stage scheme of socioeconomic formations (Agaev 1965; Cheboksarev 1967; Kriukov 1986; Tokarev 1964).

3. Interethnic marriage between Natives and non- Natives was expected to have a significant effect on indigenous samosoznanie, resulting in children who considered themselves members of the domi- nant ethnos (Russian). Recent research in Chu- kotka and Kamchatka demonstrates that this has not been the case and children of mixed marriages consider themselves members of their Native naro- dnosV (Kuznetsov and Missonova 1990). 4. Artels were informal associations, usually func- tioning as seasonal labor groups. These types of groups existed prior to Soviet rule (Sergeev 1955).

5. Two kolkhozy were created in the 1930s (Leon- t'ev 1973).

6. This article by Klokov and Koriukhina appears two times (1994a and 1994b) in slightly different

forms. I do not know which version was written first, but there are interesting differences. For example, the first version cited here is a very patronizing discussion of what has happened to Native peoples in Russia and what needs to be done in their regard. The tone of the second version cited here is somewhat milder and less patronizing, although the suggestions offered still focus on the need for the state to play the role of guardian for less capable peoples within its geographical pur- view. In addition, both authors are noted as being affiliated with the Ministry of Labor in the 1994a article, in which the Ministry's opinion on the fate of sovkhozy and kolkhozy is specifically cited. The 1994b article omits all reference to the Ministry of Labor and modifies its suggestions regarding economic reorganization. 7. This is not so mysterious a state of affairs con- sidering that the Russian Academy of Sciences is funded by the government. Scholars throughout the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology find themselves forced to justify their positions and the value of their work in order to maintain their jobs. In this matter they have something in common with many of their U.S. colleagues whose tenure system is also under fire.

8. Biological anthropology in Russia also makes a connection between race as a biological concept and ethnos (e.g., Zubov 1996), but on a different basis than these authors.

9. In other parts of Russia, such as the Sakha Re- public, the creation of aboriginal forms of self-government has been much more successful and is due to the establishment of regional political and economic power (Poelzer 1995).

10. Various drafts of the "draft law" have been cir- culated for comments by scholars in Russia and abroad: only a few are cited here as illustration. More comments can be found in the "Applied An- thropology" section of the journal Etnografich- eskoe Obozrenie, beginning in 1995.

11. The term "indigenous numerically small peoples" is used in article 69 of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation in the context of guaranteeing their rights within internationally recognized contexts [Konstitutsiia 1993, p.26). Two international organizations whose work is often cited by Native groups in Russia are the Interna- tional Labor Organization and the United Nations.

12. To list specific references for these discussions would require more space than is available in this article. Some references have already been cited (e.g., Pika and Prokhorov 1994), and a survey of both Russian and English language journals such as Etnicheskoe Obozrenie, Severnye Prostory, Sur-




viving Together, Cultural Survival, Post-Soviet Ge- ography, Arctic Anthropology, and others provide the reader with many more articles on this subject. In addition, there are numerous publications from regional research institutions in Russia which are generally unavailable in the United States and these materials often address the specific needs of local indigenous populations.

13. David Anderson (1996) has developed this characterization of land use for the lower Enisei Valley and it is equally relevant in Chukotka.

14. Popov (1995) reports on government policy recommendations for the North as expressed by V.R Kuramin, first deputy Minister of the Russian Federation on nationality affairs and regional policy. Kuramin supports strong, centralized government control in this area.

Acknowledgments. Field research in Russia re- ported in this paper was undertaken between 1990 and 1994 and supported by: (1) the International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), with funds provided by the National Endowment for the Hu- manities, the United States Information Agency, and the U.S. Department of State; (2) the National Academy of Sciences, Interacademy Exchange with the USSR, with funds provided by the Na- tional Science Foundation; (3) the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research; (4) the International Scientific Center "Arktika," Magadan; (5) the Scientific Research Center "Chukotka," Anadyr'; and (6) the government of the Chukchi Autonomous Okrug and the people of Chukotskii raion. None of these organizations is responsible for the views expressed in this document.

References

Agaev, A.G. 1965 K voprosu o teorii narodnosti (On the issue of

a theory of narodnosti). Zakonomernosti sot- sialisticheskogo razvitiia narodnostei v SSSR. Dagknigoizdat, Makhachkala.

Aleksandrenkov, E.G. 1996 "Etnicheskoe samosoznanie" ili "etnicheskaia

identichnost"? ("Ethnic samosoznanie" or "ethnic identity"?) Etnograficheskoe Obozre- nie 3:13-22.

Alekseev, V.R, and Iu. V. Bromlei 1968 K izucheniiu roli pereselenii narodov v

formirovanii novykh etnicheskikh obshchnostei (Concerning the study of the role of migra- tion of peoples in the formation of new ethnic communities). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 2:35-45.

Anderson, David 1995 Indigenous Peoples and Development of the

Lower Yenesei Valley. INSROP Working Paper No. 18-1995 for Project IV.4.1. Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway.

Antropova, V.V. 1972 Uchastie etnografov v prakticheskom osushch-

estvlennii Leninskoi natsional'noi politiki na Krainem Severe, 1920-1930 gg. (The role of ethnographers in the implementation of Leninist nationalities policy in the Far North, 1920-1930). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 6:19-27.

Arakchaa, Kara-kys 1996 Korennye Narody Rossiia (Indigenous Peo-

ples of Russia). Informatsionnyi Biulleten' No. 1. Informatsionnyi Tsentr Korennykh Nar- odov Rossii "L'auravetl'an" (Informational Bulletin No. 1, Informational Center of the In- digenous Peoples of Russia, "L'auravetl'an"), p. 2. Published in conjunction with Severnye Prostory, Moscow.

Arutiunian, Iu. V, and L.M. Drobizheva 1987 Mnogoobrazie kul'turnoi zhizni narodov

SSSR (The multifaceted cultural lives of the peoples of the USSR). Mysl', Moscow.

Arutiunov, S.A. 1992 Malochislennye Narody Rossii: optimizatsiia

mezhnatsional'nykh otnoshenii (The numerically small peoples of Russia: optimization of international relations). Etnopoliticheskii Vestnik Rossii 1:107-113.

1995 Etnichnost' - ob'ektivnaia real'nost' (Ethnic- ity as objective reality). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 5:7-10.

Arutiunov, S.A., and N.N. Cheboksarov 1972 Peredacha informatsii kak mekhanizm

sushchestvovaniia etnosotsial'nykh i bio- logicheskikh grupp chelovechestva (The transmission of information as a mechanism for the existence of ethnic and biological groups of mankind). Rasy i Narody 2:8-30.

Basilov, V.N. 1992 Etnografiia: est' li u nee budushchee?

(Ethnography: does it have a future?) Etno- graficheskoe Obozrenie 4:3-17. English translation in Anthropology and Archaeology of Eurasia 1994-95, 33(3):40-65.

Belikovich, A.B. 1994 Rekreatsionnye resursy raiona predlagaemogo

natsional'nogo parka "Ozero El'gygytgyn" (Recreational resources in the region of the proposed national park "Lake El'gygytgyn"). Vestnik Dal'nevostochnogo Otdeleniia Rossi- iskoi Akademii Nauk 3(55): 57-63.




Boiko, V.I. (editor) 1989 Kontseptsiia Sotsial'nogo i Ekonomicheskogo

Razvitiia Narodnosti Severa na period do 2010 r. (Conception of the Social and Eco- nomic Development of the Narodnosti of the North in the Period up to the Year 2010). Novosibirsk.

Bromlei, Iu. V 1971 K kharakteristike poniatiia "etnos" (Toward

an understanding of the concept "ethnos"). Rasyi Narody 1:9-33.

1972 Opyt tipologizatsii etnicheskikh obshchnostei (A method of typologizing ethnic communities). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 5:61-81.

1973 Etnos i Etnografiia (Ethnos and Ethnography). Nauka, Moscow.

1977 Soviet Ethnography. Main Trends. Nauka, Moscow.

Bromlei, Iu. V, and V.I. Kozlov 1975 Etnicheskie protsessy kak predmet issle-

dovaniia (Ethnic processes as a subject of in- vestigation). In: Sovremennye etnicheskie protsessy v SSSR, edited by Iu. V. Bromlei, pp. 9-23. Nauka, Moscow.

Budarin, M.E. 1968 Put' malykh narodov Krainego Severa k kom-

munizmy (The path of the small peoples of the Far North to communism). Omsk.

Chance, Norman A. 1987 Subsistence Research in Alaska: Premises,

Practices, and Prospects. Human Organiza- tion 46(l):85-89.

Cheboksarov, N.N. 1967 Problemy tipologii etnicheskikh obshchnostei

v trudakh sovetskikh uchenykh (Problems of typologies of ethnic communities in the works of Soviet scholars). Sovetskaia Etno- grafiia 4:94-109.

Cheshko, S.V. 1994 Chelovek and etnichnost' (Man and ethnic-

ity). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 6:35-49.

Chichlo, Boris 1981 La collectivisation en Sibèrie: un problème de

nationalités. In: L' experience soviétique et le problème national dans le monde (1920-1939), Volume 1, pp. 279-307. Langues O, Paris.

1990 La premiere victoire des "petits peuples." Questions Sibériennes 1:44-56.

Dikov, N.N. 1974 Ocherki istorii chukotki s drevneishikh vre-

men do nashi dnei (Essays on the history of Chukotka from the most ancient times up to the present day). Nauka, Novosibirsk.

Drobizheva, L.M. 1971 Sotsial'no-kurturnye osobennosti lichnosti i

natsional'nye ustanovki (Sociocultural features of personality and the national question). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 3:3-15.

Efremov, V.V 1970 Rationalizing nutrition in the North. Prob-

lemy Severa 14:186-197.

Fienup-Riordan, Ann 1990 Eskimo Essays. Yup'ik Lives and How We See

Them. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick and London.

Filippova, E.I., and VP. Filippov 1992 Kamo Griadeshi? (Quo Vadis?) Etnografich-

eskoe Obozrenie 6:3-17.

Fondahl, G. 1995 The Status of Indigenous Peoples in the Rus-

sian North. Post-Soviet Geography 36(4) :2 15- 224.

Galanin, A.V. 1994 Kul'tura, iazyk i traditsii chukchei Severo-

Vostoka Rossii (Culture, language and traditions of the Chukchi of Northeastern Russia). Vestnik Dal'nevostochnogo Otdeleniia Rossi- iskoi Akademmii Nauk 3(55):89-93.

Garusov, I.S. 1996 Sotsialisticheskoe pereustroistvo seVskogo i

promislovo khoziaistva Chukotki, 1928-1952 gg. (Socialist reconstruction of the agricultural and industrial economy of Chukotka, 1928-1952). Dissertation. Academy of Sci- ences, USSR, Siberian Division, Far Eastern Branch, in the name of VL. Komarova.

Grant, Bruce 1995 In the Soviet House of Culture. A Century of

Perestroikas. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Guboglo, M.N. 1989 Natsional'nye gruppy i men'shinstva v sis-

teme mezhnatsional'nykh otnoshenii v SSSR (Ethnic groups and minorities within the system of interethnic relations in the USSR). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 1:26-41.

1995a Tri linii natsional'noi politiki v postkommu- nisticheskoi Rossii (Three trends in nationalities policy in post-communist Russia). [Part 1] Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 5:110-124.

1995b Tri linii natsional'noi politiki v postkommu- nisticheskoi Rossii (Three trends in nationalities policy in post-communist Russia). [Part 2] Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 6:137-144.

Gumilev, L.I. 1989 Etnogenez i biosfera zemli (Ethnogenesis and

the biosphere of the land). Leningrad.




Gurvich, I.S. 1961 O putiakh dal'neishego pereustroistva

ekonomiki i kul'tury narodov Severa (On the path of further reconstruction of the economies and cultures of the peoples of the North). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 4:45-57.

1971 Osushchestvlenie ¡eninskoi natsional'noi politiki u narodov Krainego Severa SSSR (The re- alization of Leninist nationalities policy among the peoples of the Far North USSR), edited by I.S. Gurvich. Nauka, Moscow.

1977 Etnokul'turnye protessy u narodov Severa i Dal'nego Vostoka (Ethnocultural processes among the peoples of the North and Far East). Rasy i Narody 7:143-166.

Iusupov, E. Iu. 1979 Natsional'naia politika KPSS v deistvii (Na-

tionalities policy of the KPSS in practice). Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Karapetian, L.M. 1993 Malochislennye narody i natsional'nye

men'shinstva (Numerically small peoples and national [ethnic] minorities). Etnopolitich- eskii Vestnik Rossiia 1(3):36-41.

Kistanov, V. 1972 Leninskaia natsional'naia politika i ekonomi-

cheskoe raionirovanie v SSSR (Leninist nationalities policy and economic regionalization in the USSR). Voprosy Ekonomiki 12:56-65.

Klokov, B.F., and A.V. Koriukhina 1994a Sotsial'no-demograficheskoe razvitie i zani-

atost' narodov Severa (Social-demographic development and employment of the peoples of the North). Vestnik DaVnevostochnogo Ot- deleniia Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 3(55): 94-102.

1994b Osnovnye problemy sotsial'no-demografich- eskogo razvitiia i zaniatosti narodov Severa (Basic problems in the social-demographic development and employment of the peoples of the North). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 5:64-76.

Kolpakov, E.M. 1995 Etnos i etnichnost' (Ethnos and ethnicity).

Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 5:13-23.

Kon, I.S. 1993 Nesvoevremennye razmyshleniia na aktu-

al'nye temy (Unreasonable reflections on ur- gent problems). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 1:3-14.

Konstitutsiia . . . 1993 Konstitutsiia Rossiiskoi Federatsii, priniata

vsenarodnym golosovaniem 12 dekabria 1993 g. (Constitution of the Russian Federation Adopted by a Nationwide Plebiscite, 12 De-

cember 1993). Iuridicheskaia Literatura, Moscow.

Kornilova, Z. 1992 Malochislennym narodam- pravovuiu i sot-

sial'nuiu zashchitu (Legal and social defense for numerically small peoples). Etnopolitich- eskii Vestnik Rossii 1:67-70.

Kozlov, V.I. 1969 Dinamika chislennosti narodov (The dynam-

ics of numerical strengths of peoples). Nauka, Moscow.

1979 O klassifikatsii etnicheskikh obshchnostei (On the classification of ethnic communities). In: Issledovaniia po obshchei etnografii, pp. 5-23. Nauka, Moscow.

1982 Natsionarnosti SSSR. Etnodemograficheskii obzor (Nationalities of the USSR. Ethnodemo- graphic survey). Financy i statistiki, Moscow.

1989 Natsional'nyi vopros i puti ego razvitiia (The national question and the path of its resolu- tion). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 1:59-73.

1992 Mezhdu etnografiei, etnologiei i zhizn'iu (Be- tween ethnography, ethnology, and reality). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 3:3-14.

1995 Problematica "Etnichnosti" (The Problem of "Ethnicity"). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 4:39-54.

Kriukov, M.V. 1986 Eshche raz ob istoricheskikh tipakh etnich-

eskikh obshchnostei (Once more on the historical types of ethnic communities). Sovet- skaia Etnografiia 3:58-69.

Krupnik, Igor 1993 Arctic Adaptations. Native Whalers and Rein-

deer Herders of Northern Eurasia. New En- gland Press, Dartmouth.

Krushanov, A.I. 1987 Istoriia i kuVtura Chukchei (The history and

culture of the Chukchi). Nauka, Leningrad.

Kulikov,M.I. 1967 Osnovnye etapy sotsial'no-ekonomicheskikh

preobrazovanii u narodnostei Chukotki (The basic stages of the socioeconomic formations among the peoples of Chukotka). In: Istoriia i kul'tura narodov Severa Dal'nego Vostoka, pp. 111-115. Nauka, Moscow.

Kuznetsov, A.I. 1990 Avtonomiia ili samoupravlenie? (Autonomy

or self-government?) Sovetskaia etnografiia 2:3-14.

Kuznetsov, A.I., and L.I. Missonova 1990 Metisatsiia i etnicheskoe samosoznanie ko-

rennogo naseleniia Kamchatki i Chukotki



21 0 Arctic Anthropology 34:1

(Metisization and ethnic self- awareness among the indigenous population of Kamchatka and Chukotka) . Sovetskaia Etn ografiia 1:50-65.

Leont'ev, V.V. 1973 Khoziaistvo i kul'tura narodov Chukotki,

1958-1970 (Economy and culture of the peoples of Chukotka, 1958-1970). Nauka, Moscow.

Luk'ianchenko, T.V., and N.I. Novikov 1991 O rabote Uchreditel'nogo S'ezda Narodnykh

Deputatov ot Malochislennykh Narodov Sev- era, Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka (On the work of the Constituent Congress of Peoples' Deputies of the Numerically Small Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East). Etnografich- eskoe Obozrenie 6:134-138.

Materially . . . 1990 Materialy s'ezda malochislennykh narodov

Severa. Moscow.

Menovshchikov, G.A. 1964 The Eskimos. In: The Peoples of Siberia, ed-

ited by M.G. Levin and L.P. Potapov, pp. 836- 850. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Motrich, E.L. 1995 Demograficheskoe razvitie. Dinamika i

razmeshchenie naseleniia (Demographic development. Dynamics and distribution of population). Dal'nevostochnogo Otdelenie Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 5(63):51-66.

Murashko, O.A. 1995 Obsuzhdenie proekta zakona Rossiiskoi Fed-

eratsii "Osnovy Pravovogo Statusa Koren- nykh Narodov Severa" (Discussion of the draft law of the Russian Federation "Founda- tions of the Legal Status of Indigenous Peo- ples of the North"). Etnograficheskoe Obozre- nie 3:166-121.

Omrypkir, A. 1993 Demokratiei pol'zovat'sia razumno. Krainii

Sever, 9 December 1993, p. 3.

Osherenko, Gail 1995 Indigenous Political and Property Rights and

Economic/Environmental Reform in North- west Siberia. Post-Soviet Geography 36(4):225-237.

Osherenko, G., D.L. Schindler, A. Pika, and D. Bogo- yavlensky 1996 The Northern Sea Route and Native Peoples.

Lessons from the 20th Century for the 21st. INSROP Discussion Paper for Project IV.4.1. Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway.

Pika, A., and B.B. Prokhorov 1994 Neotraditsionalizm na Rossiiskom Severe

(Neotraditionalism in the Russian North). Moscow.

Poelzer, G. 1995 Devolution, Constitutional Development, and

the Russian North. Post-Soviet Geography 36(4):204-214.

Popov, V. 1995 O gosudarstvennoi politike v severnykh re-

gionakh. Parlamentskii slushaniia (Govern- ment policy in northern regions. Parliamen- tary hearings). Etnopoliticheskii Vestnik Rossii 2(8):89-96.

Rytkheu, Iu. 1988 Lozungi i amulety (Slogans and Amulets).

Komsomol' skaia Pravda, 19 May 1988.

Sangi, V. 1988 Otchuzhdenie (Alienation). Sovetskaia

Rossiia, 11 September 1988.

Schindler, D.L. 1992 Russian Hegemony and Indigenous Rights in

Chukotka. Etudes/Inuit/ 'Studies 16(l-2):51-74.

1996a Indigenous Peoples and Development in the Chukchi Autonomous Okrug. INSROP Work- ing Paper No. 51-1996 for Project IV.4.1. Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway.

1996b Obsuzhdenie proekta zakona Rossiiskoi Fed- eratsii "Osnovy Pravovogo Statusa Korennykh Narodov Severa" (Discussion of the draft law of the Russian Federation "Foundations of the Legal Status of Indigenous Peoples of the North"). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 1:91-93.

Semenov, Iu. I. 1996a Obshchestvo, strany, narody (Society, coun-

tries, peoples). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 2:3-18.

1996b Sotsial'no-istoricheskie organizmy, etnosy, natsii (Socio-historical entities, ethnos, and nations). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 3:3-13.

Sergeev, M.A. 1955 Nekapitalisticheskii put' razvitiia malykh nar-

odov Severa (Non-capitalist path of development of the small peoples of the North). Trudy Instituía Etnografii AN SSSR, new se- ries, v. XXVII. Moscow-Leningrad.

Shabad, T. 1983 News Notes. Polar Geography and Geology

7(3):223-230.

Shapiro, Leonard 1971 The Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Vintage, New York.

Shchedrovitskii, L.P., and A. A. PiskoppeP 1994 Paradoksy i kur'ezy otechestvennoi etno-




logicheskoi mysli [chasf 1] (Paradoxes and curiosities of native ethnological concepts, Part 1). Etnometodologiia: problemy, pod- khody, kontseptsii 1:113-127.

Sherstobitov, V.P. 1979 Natsional'nie otnoshenie v SSSR na sovre-

mennom etape. Na materialakh respublik Srednei Azii i Kazakhstana (National relations in the USSR in the contemporary period. On the basis of materials from the Central Asian republics and Kazakhstan). Nauka, Moscow.

Shirokogorov, S.M. 1923 Etnos (Ethnos.) Shanghai.

Shnirelman, V.A. 1993 Are the Udege People once again faced with

the threat of disappearance? IWGIA Newslet- ter 1993(l):31-35.

Slezkine, Y. 1994 Arctic Mirrors. Russia and the Small Peoples

of the North. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Sokolova, Z.P. 1990 Narody Severa SSSR: proshloe, nas-

toiashchee, i budushchee (The Peoples of the North of the USSR: past, present, and future). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 6:17-32.

Sokolova, Z.P, N.I. Novikova, and N.V. Ssorin-Chaikov 1995 Etnografy pishut zakon: kontekst i problemy

(Ethnographers write law: context and problems). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 1:74-88.

Taksami, Ch.M. 1967 Nivkhi (The Nivkh). Leningrad.

Tishkov, VA. 1992a Sovetskaia etnografiia: preodolenie krizisa

(Soviet ethnography: overcoming the crisis). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 1:5-19. English translation in Anthropology and Archaeology of Eurasia 1994-95, 33(3):14-39.

1992b Dilemmy razvitiia Rossii (Dilemmas of developing Russia). Etnopoliticheskii Vestnik Rossii 1:76-85.

Tkachenko, A. A., and A.V. Koriukhina 1995 K probleme ratifikatsii Rossiiskoi Federatsiei

Konventsii MOT No. 169 "O Korennykh Nar- odakh in Narodakh, Vedyshchikh Plemennoi Obraz Zhizni v Nezavisimykh Stranakh" (The problem of ratification for the Russian Feder- ation of the ILO Convention No. 169 "Indige- nous Peoples and Peoples Leading a Tribal Life in Independent Countries"). Etnografich- eskoe Obozrenie 3:122-132.

Tokarev, S.A. 1964 Problemy tipov etnicheskikh obshchnostei

(Problems in the types of ethnic communities). Voprosy Filosofa 11:52-43.

Ustav i programma . . . 1990 Ustav i programma. Assotsiatsiia mal-

ochislennykh narodov Chukotki i Kolymy (Statutes and program. The Association of Numerically Small Peoples of Chukotka and Kolyma). Anadyr'.

Vainshtein, V.P., and Iu. V. Arutiunian 1975 Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskie usloviia razvitiia

etnicheskikh protsessov v SSSR (Socioeco- nomic conditions for the development of ethnic processes in the USSR). In: Sovremennye etnicheskie protsessy v SSSR, edited by Iu. V. Bromlei, pp. 103-134. Nauka, Moscow.

Vakhtin, N. 1993 Korennoe naselenie Krainego Severa Rossi-

iskoi Federatsii (The indigenous population of the Far North of the Russian Federation). Minority Rights Group, European House, St. Petersburg.

van de Vlist, Leo (editor) 1994 Voices of the Earth. Indigenous Peoples, New

Partners and the Right to Self-Determination in Practice. Proceedings of the Conference. Ap- pendix III: International Labor Organization Convention No. 169, Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, pp. 317-331. International Books/NCIP, Utrecht.

Vdovin, I.S. 1973 Legislative, Economic, Social, and Cultural

Policies of the U.S.S.R. to Encourage the De- velopment of the Chukchi and the Eskimo. The Musk-Ox 13:41-48.

Wenzel, George 1991 Animal Rights Human Rights. University of

Toronto Press, Toronto.

1995 Ningiqtuq: Resource Sharing and Generalized Reciprocity in Clyde River, Nunavut. Arctic Anthropology 32(2):43-60.

Zdravomyslov, A.G., and S.Ia. Matveeva 1996 Mezhnatsional'nye konflikty v Rossii (Inter-

national conflicts in Russia). Obshchestven- nye Nauki i SovremennosV 2:153-164.

Zubov, A.A. 1996 Problemy termina "rasa" i rasovykh klassi-

fikatsii v sovremennoi fizicheskoi antropologii (The problem of the term "race" and racial classification in modern physical anthropology). Etnograficheskoe Obozrenie 1:15-24.



Documents

Power, Resistance, and Security: Papers in Honor of Richard G. Condon, Steven L. McNabb, Aleksandr I. Pika, William W. Richards, Nikolai Galgauge, Nina Ankalina, Vera Rakhtilkon, Boris