Alexei Yurchak: ‘Gumilev’s ‘passionarity’ is not scientific but very problematic and political’

'The very concept of 'passionarity' is often substituted by the words 'passion' or 'active behaviour'

What theories of ethnicities exist in the West?

Western scientific theories considerably differ from, for example, the Gumilyov theory of ethnogenesis, which is not scientific. Different ethnicities appeared historically. Undoubtedly, habitat was important too, but it is a historical process.

What do you opine about Gumilyov's theory?

Gumilyov's theory is not scientific but very problematic and political. It is a kind of pseudoscientific discourse. The very concept 'passionarity' that entered our Russian language is often substituted by the words 'passion' or 'active behaviour'. Welcome to use it this way. But if you do it as Gumilyov did, it results in non-scientific things. This theory became popular here because the sphere connected with anthropology in Russia was quite isolated from the scientific community and was not criticised by other scientists.

Why is eugenics gaining in popularity now?

It seems to be popular among those who support Gumilyov. These theories are very conservative and nationalistic that are popular among the racists. But I'm not sure it is winning popularity.

What theories are popular now in Russia?

In fact, there are many of them now in Russia. There were good theories among the old ones: critical sociology, anthropology, history.

'The very concept 'passionarity' that entered our Russian language is often substituted by the words 'passion' or 'active behaviour'. Welcome to use it this way. But if you do it as Gumilyov did, it results in non-scientific things.'

Could you name the trends in anthropology?

Anthropology studies a human being and society via a person. It used to study traditional societies – it was the difference of anthropology from sociology that studies the modern institute. This division fell behind: anthropology studies the modern society too. For instance, I research the USSR – it is normal for an anthropologist. Contemporaneous Russia is also studied: I have students who do research on the financial market as anthropologists – the construction of price in the financial market, where the greatest amount of virtual tools is, construction of morality, the concept of trust, risk, safety, how they change historically. Now these concepts considerably differ from their previous definitions.

When did this change take place?

In recent 20-25 years concerning market affairs. A great deal of neo-liberal reforms have been carried out around the world, and production is often transferred to other countries. Consequently, for example, the United States of America become a kind of virtual economy that frequently depends on financial flows, not production.

'French peasants did not consider themselves as French, they were peasants'

You have probably seen a video of Momondo where volunteers' DNA was analysed as a result of which it turned out the participants of the experiment who frankly hated certain nationalities had common roots with them. What do you think about this project?

It was a good idea to show we are not the people we think of. On the other hand, a strong simplification is the problem of the video: it is possible to determine a person's descent via our genes like this descent differs from what you think, but there is a true descent. It is the problem because a biological combination doesn't make you a representative of a nationality.

'Today's problems are that we have a nationality, [different] cultures and we need to conserve them. I don't say it is bad – we are living at a historical moment when it is important, though it is not in some places.'

As for the descent of a human being, great attention is paid now to nationalism.

Nationalism and ethnicity are new concepts. French peasants did not consider themselves as French, and they had some local feudal. The concept 'French ethnicity' is modern. It appeared due to political changes, formation of the modern country, penetration of the modern law system that united everybody. There were groups who spoke the same languages, practised different religions, of course. But they are historical unions too. In the Middle Ages, people of different roots were considered as 'Tatars; they might grow up speaking one language and consider themselves as a part of a unit at a moment. Then some migration, wars, transformation could take place so that someone turned out in another region – in two centuries, they became completely different people who speak Russian and feel Russian. It is not political but a historical process.

What about a popular idea of conservation of national identity?

Today's problems are that we have a nationality, [different] cultures and we need to conserve them. I don't say it is bad – we are living at a historical moment when it is important, though it is not in some places. Indeed nationalism is very developed throughout the world, including its negative development when you consider yourself as too different person and start to be suspicious of other people. However, it cannot be said it is the only tendency. In the United States, no matter where you come from: all people are mixed in this new American ethnicity.

There is a tendency towards globalisation – many people consider themselves global citizens and people who are able to quickly change their cultural and language environment. It is one of the good features of globalisation. It sometimes becomes the opposite of nationalism.

Is the interest in nationalism in Russia connected with the policy of the government?

First of all, it is linked with the policy of the government and patriotic declamations. The idea is that we are offended, we are not worse, etc.

'There is a tendency towards globalisation – many people consider themselves global citizens and people who are able to quickly change their cultural and language environment. It is one of the good features of globalisation. It sometimes becomes the opposite of nationalism.'

Did it exist in the Soviet Union as well?

There was a Soviet commune, there were not nationalistic relations between people of different nationalities, though it existed. We cannot say it did not take place. There was a normal attitude to Uzbek, Tajik emigrants who were few – people used to come to work, study at universities in big Russian cities. The attitude that has appeared now can be called nationalism or chauvinism.

'Most Americans have a completely negative attitude to racism'

What about nationalism in America?

Nationalism is likely to be a European invention that expanded around the world. In America, nationalism shows completely different features. It can hardly be called nationalism. For instance, today's Presidential campaign where Donald Trump participates. His views might be called nationalistic – he is going to build a wall separating the United States from Mexico to prevent illegal emigration. All his criticisms of the current American policy stresses that America stops being what it was because different unwanted people whose skin is of another colour, who have another religion, Muslims – the terrorist religion and so on come there. This declamation is a sheer nationalism, it is not a characteristic of America. The history probably had some period when it existed. But, in general, America was different from Europe because this kind of declamation did not work out. And now it raises its head because the situation in the world has changed, and the American policy towards it is such a political hegemon who sends its army to everywhere and thinks it is a bulwark against democracy. There is a small part of the American society (it is mainly inclined to conservatism and votes for the Republicans) whose position on the world might be called nationalistic. It means no illegal emigration because its destroys the American economy and race. But most Americans have a completely negative attitude to racism. Racism is a kind of a very extreme nationalism.

Anyway, for example, nationalism is strongly pronounced in the American cinematography: Mexicans are often demonstrated as a marginal category that is no good for America.

It is chauvinism. Those who are against such a policy not always support illegal emigration. They say there must be rules and regulations, so that people will be able to emigrate legally and adapt. But borders cannot be crossed illegally. At the same time people can be against chauvinistic views. The thing is that America has so many people from Mexico, they are included in the economic system. For example, in California, where I live, almost all gardeners and cleaners are Mexican because their country is very poor, they occupy the same niche the belongs to the people from the Middle Asia in Moscow, Petersburg and Kazan. It is a problem. And many people criticise it and think they should not be nationalist. They simultaneously reproduce this inequity just by hiring these people.

'What is assimilation? The French culture not only swallows and makes them assimilate but also changes itself. It becomes only better – as a result, it has a French and African music, interesting football players, new couples.'

And if we look at the experience of Europe where it was actively told about equity and that it accepted other ethnicities that led to the impossible assimilation of these ethnicities?

Why was it impossible? They always assimilated and will be assimilating.

What about entire districts in France where people are aloof and don't like the natives?

It is the first generation. Now France is yielding fruits of its own colonial policy. This is why, in fact, people go there. France initiated it. For this reason, might it be toast. The fact that people from Asian and African countries don't adapt is wrong. The French society is very international. Look at the national football team of France who is in Euro now. People from Africa, Algeria, Arabic countries have been completely assimilated: great musicians, writers, scientists. They are all French. This is why saying that they all come and cannot assimilate is the nationalists' wishful thinking. There are people who don't like them, but there are those who don't like the white-skinned people, and there is a pile of others whom people don't like. It has not connection with that somebody comes and cannot assimilate but it has with the attitude of France to them. They often are at the bottom of the society. But people don't help them. The majority of them is ready for it. They come for this reason. I don't think the reason is their incapability to assimilate. Moreover, what is assimilation? The French culture not only swallows and makes them assimilate but also changes itself. It becomes only better – as a result, it has French and African music, interesting football players, new couples.

And if we are speaking about emigrants who are on benefits and don't want to work?

It is a nationalistic misconception because actually there are fewer people than the nationalists say. There are more white-skinned unemployed people. The problem is not that they don't want to work but that the country has a high unemployment level. They are ready to work. It is a misconception that is used to heat the degree of nationalism and support nationalistic measures. Actually it does not reflect the reality.

'It is mainly connected with wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. There was a great amount of such wars. Looking at the history (but those who talk about it as a problem don't know the history), there were many migration waves.'

'First of all, all European countries should participate in order to solve the problem'

How do you assess the next migration wave from North Africa, Near East and South Asia to Europe, in general?

It is mainly connected with wars in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. There was a great amount of such wars. Looking at the history (but those who talk about it as a problem don't know the history), there were many migration waves. For example, World War II – all Europe migrated, the colonial period – big territories with population were conquered, it gave money, slaves appeared and so on.

In your opinion, how can this problem be solved?

A democratic attitude is needed, nothing else. Naturally, it is necessary to solve economic problems. So, Germany and France can easily accept such big numbers. It is not much, compared to what happened in history. I think, first of all, all European countries should participate in order to solve the problem. For instance, the Baltic countries refuse, the Czech Republic refuses – all countries should take part in it because it refers to them, in principle.

What about Russia?

The same thing happens in Russia. Assimilation is fast, children of emigrants from the Middle Asia have completely adapted: I know kids next door who go to school – these children already became local. I don't see a grave concern. It is created by those who want to demonstrate Russia as a kind of lodgement conquered by other people. But these – other people – don't exist.