Forgetting ethnos and nation: Ethnographic discussions and expertise on the “national question” during Perestroika

Abstract

The article considers theoretical and applied aspects of the development of Soviet ethnography and expertise on the “national question” in the USSR in the 1980s. The author observes that during Perestroika a number of ethnographers grew dissatisfied with the opportunism of expertise on the national question. M. V. Kryukov was the scholar who brought new momentum to discussions of the theory of ethnos in the 1980s. He was skeptical about the Marxist classification of ethnic groups (tribe - nationality - nation) and called for a revision of the theory of ethnos on the basis of the study of ethnic identity (self-consciousness). Approximately during the same period the theory of ethnos was attacked through a report to M. S. Gorbachev by a specialist in the theory of nation, M. I. Kulichenko, who called for abandoning the term ethnos. The politics of Glasnost led to the first uncensored debates on the state of interethnic relations among ethnographers and “national question” experts. Ethnographers were aware of the sorry state of these relations and suggested a slow dismantling of the system of “national republics”. They advocated a reform, which included equalizing the status of all ethnic territorial units, creation of cultural ethnic associations, and contemplated a transition to a regional administrative system as a mechanism for “depolitisation” of ethnicity. This approach was taken by both the theorist of ethnos Iu. V. Bromlei and his successor in the office of the director of the Institute of Ethnography, V. A. Tishkov, who adhered to the constructivist theory of ethnicity. This shows that the theory of ethnos in Bromlei’s version was not inherently nationalistic in its political application.