1869, Ep. 114 with Vera Michlin-Shapir, author of Fluid Russia

8:51PM Dec 15, 2021

Speakers:

Jonathan Hall

Vera Michlin-Shapir

Keywords:

russia

putin

book

identity

russian

vera

globalization

people

global

national identity

insecurity

calendar

holidays

neoliberal economics

western

unifying

speak

literature

leader

national

Welcome to 1869, The Cornell University Press Podcast. I'm Jonathan Hall. This episode we speak with Vera Michlin-Shapir, author of Fluid Russia: Between the Global and the National in the Post-Soviet Era. Vera is a Visiting Research Fellow at The King's Centre for Strategic Communications, King's College London. We spoke to Vera about why the Western conventional wisdom about Russia is fundamentally incomplete, why Russia can be considered "patient zero" when it comes to the populist wave of anti globalization and the rise of neoauthoritarian regimes, and why Putin's regime is a political system actually depends very much on Russia being part of the global world. Hello, Vera, welcome to the podcast.

Hello, Jonathan.

It's pleasure to have you on the podcast and we want to congratulate you and your new book, Fluid Russia: Between the Global and the National in the Post-Soviet Era. love the quote that you have in the beginning of the book by Zygmunt Bauman, which says, "We live in a globalizing world. That means that all of us consciously or not depend o n each other." Now, there's a conventional wisdom about Russia's national identity right now. And in your case, you think the conventional wisdom needs to be updated. Tell us what the conventional wisdom, how that inspired you to write this book?

Yes, so indeed, actually, Zygmunt Bauman was one of the inspirations he's writing was one of the inspirations for writing this book. And I was served researching this topic, Russia national identity for quite a while and, and the reason that I was researching it for so long is that there is a very rich debate, both academic and public, in Russia and in the western Russia national identity. And there is a kind of common understanding that it is in crisis. Russians themselves speak about their national identity as an identity that is in crisis. And then there are two groups of thoughts of thought of this. So one group is saying basically, Russian national identities in crisis because this there is a historical continuity to that. So since the Romanovs since the Russian Empire, this identity was always crisis ridden. And it's because of Russia's geography and Russia's history. And Russia's and the Tsar, and then the Soviets. And it was always sort of America, the American situation for Russian identity. And so now we see the continuation of that in the form of this post Soviet national identity crisis. And then there is the other group that is saying, well, actually, there's something quite novel here. And this is the collapse of the Soviet Union. And the collapse of Soviet Union sort of prompted this big identity crisis that is linked to, well, what is often described as kind of the Weimar, it's a certain Weimar, German syndrome, yes, so "Weimar" Russia, so lost in the Cold War, they lost the Cold War, humiliation, loss of territory, population, resources. And so this is the kind of this is what sets the grabbed the field for discussion, Russian identity, national identity. And for me, specifically, when I was reading, when I was reading literature on current identity formation, and challenges to identity formations, formation in the global world, I felt like there was a disconnect between this debate between the debates that were going on in the West, and the debates that were going on in Russia, and Russia, for me, it was very obviously part of this global world, but kind of there was a disconnect in terms of the literature of the of the discussion. And it was also strange for me that there was constant talk about Russian identity crisis. But for me, identity is always a question mark. Identity always needs to be defined. So why is it so strange that the Russians, the Russians also need to define their identity? It's a process. And so the literature this, this theoretical literature by Sigmund Bauman and Anthony Giddens very much inspired me to sort of try and write the Russian, the Russian path and the Russian question mark around its identity into this global story. And to bridge this, this gap in the literature.

So Excellent. Well, your book very definitely ties Russia's authoritarian politics to the shortcomings of globalization and neoliberal economics. Within this new understanding, you describe Russia as patient zero, of the anti-globalist populist wave and the rise of neoauthoritarian regimes. Tell us more about this.

Yes. So this is a very kind of important point to make here, which is that I am constantly in the introduction. And when I speak about the book, I say that there is actually nothing that abnormal about Russian current identity search and the feeling that it is that there is some kind of crisis. But the fact that it's not abnormal doesn't make it fine. Yes, doesn't make what happens in Russia and Russian politics, what happens with the current regime and Russia, it doesn't kind of whitewash the problems that are there. Actually, in fact, what I'm saying is that I'm refocusing the problem. So the problem is not necessarily with what happens within the walls of the Kremlin, or what happens in Russian politics. But the problem is, is broader. And the problem is the disruptions that are created by kind of this uneven globalization. And specifically, well, specifically, in our kind of transition between classical modernity where the state was more involved in people's lives. And late modernity, when the state withdraws and allows neoliberal economics to sort of manage society, but it doesn't really manage society, it leaves a lot of insecurity. And this insecurity basically, kind of creates almost intrinsically creates this calls for more confirmer hand and inserts the ground really for new authoritarian regimes. So in Russia, actually, what we saw is that, and this is a really, I think, a fascinating example of this, because everything happened so fast, in the 90s, Russia open almost kind of it wasn't in a day, but it was such a such a baptism by fire, sort of how Russia open to the global world with with radical new liberal economic reforms, and society was just forfeits, transforming so rapidly, but also the pushback came very, very quickly. Yes. So this, this kind of pushback of, of going off well, for Russia is going back with this gravitation towards authoritarianism. And it happened also very, very fast.

Yes, it certainly did certainly did a kind of a whiplash effect. So you're the book is titled, you've called it Fluid Russia and fluidity - one of the things when I think of fluidity, I think of time, and you have a fascinating example of Putin attempting to unify the Russian calendar by promoting two types of holidays, military and religious. Tell us about this initiative. And how successful was it in unifying the country?

Yes. So when putting comes to power, he actually he see, I mean, he's almost as described in the book, it's almost kind of a natural. And this is what people who lived in Russia in the late 1990s described, it was kind of a natural flow of events, yes, all this insecurity. And suddenly, there was a person who saying, well, trust me, I can fix this, you know, just just let me fix this for you. And so he's kind of rice flour is is is I mean, not smooth, but you know, relatively like he is the right man in the right in the right time, in the right place. And one of the things that he finds is that is that this insecurity around the identities often is often connected to time, into the construction of time. And when I write about time, I write about historical time, national time, personal time, these are all things that are kind of bounded, or that are interconnected in the analysis. And it's very, very crucial. So actually, the book, it looks at different spheres of policy, it looks at immigration, and citizenship and media discourse. But I finished the book with with with analysis of the national calendar, and they're both in the 1990s, but specifically under putting a lot of interesting things are happening because he really shapes and molds the national calendar to help people sort of fixate their identity to help people feel more secure. And the reason that the footing kind of takes military and religious issues and forms the national calendar around them is that actually because they're quite popular, and there is quite a lot of reciprocity in Putin's regime, what kind of popular trend as was described in the book by Samuel Green and Graeme Robertson, Putin Versus People. So he takes these two themes, and he tries kind of almost a Durkheimian kind of like Emile Durkheim described what High Holidays work. So Emile Durkheim's understanding of holidays is that every day we go on our daily business and then during holidays, we all perform the same routines we all unifying, we all kind of bind ourselves together as a collective—holidays are very important first for asserting collective identity. And And with Putin, I mean, he really he saw that in the 1990s, the, the calendar was kind of unraveling. And he was gathering it around things that are already popular. And one excellent example are celebrations of Victory Day in Russia ninth of May, which became kind of it was very popular in the 1990s, actually, but they became very sort of a big national holiday for Putin, it's kind of a new sanctity in Russia. And for many people, this becomes kind of an example for how how put in was able to, you know, to, to refer refer kind of reformulate and use strong, assertive Russian national identity. But when you look and how I described it in the book, and Fluid Russia, when you look at the kind of traditions that developed around this Putin's Victory Day, let's go and put in Victory Day, they're very much in line with with global trends, they're very individualized or personalized. And people who follow the new traditions, the new rituals of victory days are for instance, there is the immortal regiment, which is people are marching with photos of their relatives who perished and who died in the in the war, or veterans who perished who died since then. And this is an extremely kind of late modern, personalized, global way to celebrate the holiday. It's my holiday, it's my family, it's my history, and yet we're together. So in that way, it's it is it is very successful. Yes, he is very successful. And I mean, he's actually taking over this, this ritual, but but he doesn't really changed. He doesn't really reform, reformulate the society, the society remains very integrated into into global trends.

Yeah, I can see see why he will pick on the calendar, as you said, it's such a shared experience by everyone. And when it comes to fluidity, I also think of Putin, he's a Judo expert. He's really good at taking things that come towards them, and then using them in the best way that benefits him. And so using that analogy, you know, the media reports kind of coming full circle to what we were talking about the beginning, the media reports in the West, they have Putin, as you know, this aggressive leader, isolationist leader, and what I think is fascinating about your book, the conclusions in your book, that we actually have to understand that Putin is trying to have Russia be part of the global world, that that Putin's regime is built on integration with global financial markets, and that its aggression from the western point of view, is actually in Putin's own mind, that he's striving for international recognition, rather than being isolationist. Tell us more about that.

Yeah, so definitely, I mean, what I'm trying to impart it to encourage the readers in the conclusions of the book is to is to stop seeing this kind of well, actually, is to stop seeing put in as an outside player that there is some kind of global order, and he tries to undermine globalization, he tries to be at the forefront of a populist wave to undermine sort of the post cold war global order or the post Second World War, global order, or there are so many, there are so many formulations to it. But actually, what I tried to encourage a readers to see is how he is intrinsic to this order. Yes. I mean, he was born out of the insufficiencies of globalization. He never fully took Russia outside this context, because I mean, his regime is built on being part of it. Yes, he's deriving it. Yes. He's mocking, he's mocking the international kind of Western liberal order. But he, he has to have it. This is I mean, this, he can't, he can't sort of exist without it. And you mentioned the financial markets, this is an extremely important thing, the offshorization of the Russian economy. And, and I mean, when you look now with the escalation in Ukraine, it's so curious for me that the recent escalation now, it's so curious for me that all the Western analysts, the indie, they speak in the Stone of here, put in this aggressive leader who tries, you know, push does more and more the West and kind of more and more isolationist in his own world. And actually, all the Russian analysts, all the Russian commentators, whether they're liberal or conservative, whether I'm put inside or opposition, they all say, well, actually what he wants is he wants to get recognition that he is an international leader that he, you know, he wants this phone call with Joe Biden who wants to meet with him he wants to get he wants to get this permission. And I think that this kind of, I think this kind of should challenge also to think, not only not to think of just putting as a leader that he's not an outside force that attacks globalization from the, from the outside, but rather also to think of kind of there is the national and there's the global. And these are two poles. Yes. And there is like kind of swing between them, that you have Putin on the one hand, and you have Biden, who is more like liberal globalist leaders, but actually the maybe to the electric, so it's not one or the other. It's a struggle. It's an electric within, within the kind of globalization in which in which we currently live.

Yes, yes. We're so grateful that you've written this book that you've spent years of research, creating it, because it does, you know, the, the conclusion is counterintuitive, particularly, you know, seeing the Western media reports, you think, particularly with this Ukrainian situation, that, you know, an invasion is eminent and, you know, we're on the cusp of, you know, a new hot, cold war, or maybe even a real war. So, there's a lot of saber rattling, and your book kind of gives us the much larger picture that can only enhance understanding. So we really appreciate that.

Thank you. Yeah, no, I mean, the fact that I mean, again, this is and I said it in the beginning, but I'm going to repeat it is that this doesn't whitewash Putin - this doesn't say that what he does is all right. And the book is actually very critical of a lot of things that any I think reasonable freedom, you know, a loving person would would be critical of and and you know, the aggression in Ukraine happened. And annexation of Crimea happened. The incursion in eastern Ukraine happened, all these things, you know, the, I mean, use of chemical weapons on British I am based in London on each territory. So all these things happened. It's just that we we need to understand their context. Yes. So all these crimes happened, and maybe he will invade Ukraine? Yes, maybe he will. But the context is that he is not he's doing it because he has to almost because if he doesn't, then he's like an athema. He's out, you know, he becomes a nobody.

Why does he have to do it?

Because he, he was born out of this, in my opinion, he was born out of this dialectic he was born out of the struggle. And if it doesn't continue, yes, it's it's sort of, and I'm sure that he, he is he is a galleon in his understanding because he was, he was raised in the Soviet Union. So this is an understanding of history of history as a dialectic as a struggle, and he has to fulfill this place. And if it doesn't fulfill this place, he believes that that's it, he will, he will perish, he will disappear, he will become nobody.

Someone else will replace him to continue that struggle.

Yes. So he has to, he almost has to take this role. And when you listen to how he speaks about Russia, and Russia's mission and his mission, I believe him he thinks that, you know, he, he has a certain mission. And if he doesn't fulfill it in history, then he has no place in history.

Yeah, so this is this is what I was going at, as far as this is I was wanting to tap into that this other perspective that that we can understand because we're blinded by our own ideologies and our own viewpoints to be able to bridge that gap. And obviously, neither side in the conflict is an angel, even though they think they might be or they're on the side of the good. And the other side, you know, this is a classic war, whoever, whoever wins gets to write the history. Yeah. But to be able to see that other perspective. I think it's fascinating, and we need more of this type of analysis. So thank you for writing this book Fluid Russia: Between the Global and the National in the Post-Soviet Era. It was such a great pleasure speaking with you.

Great, excellent. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for this.

That was Vera Michlin-Shapir, author of Fluid Russia: Between the Global and the National in the Post-Soviet Era. If you'd like to read Vera's new book, use the promo code 09POD to save 30% on our website. If you live in the UK, use the discount code CSANNOUNCE and visit the website combined academic.co.uk Thank you for listening to 1869, The Cornell University Press Podcast.