Consequently, the mass of ethnographic data, collected over more than two centuries in Russia, demands, in the framework of Ethnosociology, fundamental reconsideration, reclassification, and critical re-examination, not on the basis of ideological dogmas, but proceeding from recognition for each ethnos, simple or complex, large or small, of its fundamental right to possess its own, unique cultural sense and structure, and to follow its own path.
It is precisely such an approach, in fact, which became the beginning of Russian Ethnosociology, which is becoming a scientific discipline only now. At the same time, we see the first serious steps of this formation in Ethnology and the structuralist studies that were developed on the periphery of Soviet society, at the center of the scientific sphere of which there dogmatically dominated the evolutionary (orthogenetic), class, and progressivist approach, incompatible with the humanistic paradigm of the equality of cultures and, accordingly, excluding the very possibility of Ethnosociology as a science.
II. The Creation in Russia of Systematized Ethnology as a Science
The Role of Sergei Mikhailovich Shirokogoroff in the Creation of Ethnology
The elaboration of the first theoretical positions of ethnology as an independent science, which can be considered the beginning of Ethnosociology proper, was the work of the outstanding Russian scientist, sociologist, ethnographer, and ethnologist Sergei Mikhailovich Shirokogoroff (1887–1939).355 Shirokogoroff was the first to introduce into scientific use the concept of the “ethnos,” which was adopted both in Russian-speaking science and in the West. It is significant that the eminent German ethnosociologist Wilhelm Emil Mühlmann denoted Shirokogoroff, whom he considered his teacher and inspiration, as the founder of “Ethnosociology.”356 Shirokogoroff’s ideas also exerted a decisive influence on another eminent ethnologist, Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev, and although Gumilev formally assessed Shirokogoroff critically, his basic approaches to the ethnos as a system (and indeed the very concept of the “ethnos”) were something he borrowed principally from Shirokogoroff.357
Shirokogoroff received an education in philology at the Sorbonne in France. When he returned to Russia, he set off on an ethnographic expedition to the Far East to study one of the oldest ethnoses of Eurasia, the Tungus (Evenki). In 1922, he was sent on a scientific mission to China, from which he never returned, because of the establishment of Soviet rule in the Far East. From then on, he lived in China until he died, continuing to engage in scientific activity and publishing his works in foreign languages, including Chinese.
In China, he researched local ethnic groups and produced detailed, documented scientific studies about them.
Throughout his entire life, Shirokogoroff was helped by his wife Elizabeth Nikolaevna, who shared her husband’s scientific interests and actively helped him establish contacts with the ethnic groups he was researching.
The Introduction of the Concept of the “Ethnos” and Ethnology as a Science
Shirokogoroff’s principal accomplishment was the introduction of the concept of the “ethnos” as a separate sociological and scientific category, on which he offered to build, as a broad scientific program, a new discipline, “Ethnology.” We have repeatedly mentioned Shirokogoroff’s definition of the ethnos, but will recall it once more: “The ethnos is a group of people who speak one language, acknowledge a common origin, and possess a complex of customs and ways of life preserved and sanctioned by traditions and differing from the customs of other groups.”358
It is important that Shirokogoroff isolated another fundamental marker of the ethnos: endogamy, i.e., the legitimate possibility of entering into a marriage within the group. We saw with Lévi-Strauss the great significance of the principle of inter-lineage relations for the structure of society.
Contained within the principle of endogamy is the fact that the ethnos consists as a minimum of two exogamous groups (lineages), which distinguishes it qualitatively from a broadened notion of lineage.
Shirokogoroff, on his own account, came across the idea of the “ethnos” in 1912, after observing in his field studies among the diverse tribes of the Far East (Tungus, Manchurian, Oroqen, Ulch, Nivkh, etc.) that all the societies he was encountering, whatever their cultural or linguistic differences, possessed a number of stable and constantly recurring markers, met with in any society, whether archaic or modern. Thus, the idea of the “ethnos” emerged as a scientific concept, generalizing certain anthropological, cultural, and social features.
Social Organization
Vitally important in considering the problem of the ethnos is Shirokogoroff’s understanding of “social organization,” which is a “complex of ethnographic elements, regulating the functioning of society as a constant conglomerate of people who form, in turn, a complex with a certain inner equilibrium, giving the ethnic unit a chance to reproduce itself and preserve its economic system, material culture, and mental and psychical activity, i.e., to ensure the continuity of existence of the ethnic unit in its integrity.”359
This definition forms the core of Ethnosociology. Most important in it is the definition of society (“social organization”) through the ethnos. At the same time, Shirokogoroff purposely speaks not of “ethnic” but of “social” organization and describes it in terms of “ethnographic elements,” “ethnic units,” etc. Society, according to Shirokogoroff, is in the first place the ethnos. We called this kind of identification the “koineme.” Essentially, this is nothing other than the development of Shirokogoroff’s thoughts and his understanding of “social organization.” In the context of Cultural Anthropology, an analogous function is assigned to the concept of “culture,” and in Structural Anthropology, to “structure.”
Social organization (koineme) is distinguished by a number of characteristics.
It consists of a “complex of ethnographic elements” (Complex-1); which regulate “the functioning of society”; society is defined as a “constant conglomerate of people,” which, in its turn, forms a (secondary) complex (Complex-2), the main purpose of which is to preserve “inner equilibrium,” which, in its turn, gives the “ethnic unit” (ethnos, society) the possibility to:
• Reproduce itself;
• Preserve (ensure continuity and integrity) itself as:
— an economic system;
— a material culture;
— mental and psychic activity.
We can present this intricate definitional construction in the following way:
Figure 12. Society according to Shirokogoroff.
An analysis of this figure shows that the “ethnographic complex” is an instance preceding all subsequent points and stages and, consequently, comprising the essence of the ethnos. This first complex is the ethnos in its fundamental sense. It precedes a concrete “conglomerate of people” on principle and logically it exists “before” it. We can call this “ethnographic complex” an ethnostatic structure, the ethnos as a constant and invariable (regulating) phenomenon. Both natural and cultural factors are included in this ethnographic complex as a kind of inseparable whole.
Society as a “conglomerate of people” (i.e., a group of people living at a certain time and in a certain space) is located under the determining, regulating influence of the “ethnographic complex.” This influence makes a “conglomerate of people” (society) an ethnos. The result of this influence (the content of which is strictly invariable) is the production of a second complex (the complex of equilibrium). In a certain sense, this complex is composed of the reactions of a “conglomerate of people” on its ethnicity. In a normative (normal) case this reaction consists in the direct reconstitution of equilibrium and its instruments, which in their turn will act as an “ethnographic complex” (Complex-1) for the next (generational and historical) conglomerate of people.
Social organization can be considered in different situations. When the ethnos is in a stable and balanced state, Complex-2 coincides with Complex-1 almost entirely. The principles and guidelines accepted in accordance with tr
adition and the decisions and actions built on their foundations coincide completely and are in a state of strict harmony. People and groups act as the ethnic culture (“ethnographic complex”) demands and transmit to the next generation — not only through education or instruction, but through a system of small and great actions, decisions, and deeds — that same ethnic culture. In this case, the gap between Complex-1 and Complex-2 is minimal. The statics of the “ethnographic complex” correspond with consistency to the second complex of equilibrium, which effectively preserves and recreates the main moments of society, ensuring continuity.
But in certain circumstances this process can be disrupted. And then the secondary complex (of equilibrium) can differ from the first (ethnographic) complex with corresponding changes in the model of equilibrium and transformations of traditions and customs. This is the structural explanation of social and historical changes occurring in ethnoses and consequently in societies.
Later we shall show how this model works and its significance for the study of the transformations of ethnoses and others derivative types of society.
Theory of the Equilibrium of Cultures — The Coefficient of Ethnic Equilibrium
Shirokogoroff formulated the important law of the equilibrium of cultures. The main idea consists in observing, on the basis of the field study of ethnoses, the connection between three factors:
1. The quantity of members of an ethnic unit.
2. The territory it inhabits.
3. The level of cultural and technological development.
Shirokogoroff proposed the following formula for the study of these regularities:
q/ST=ω
In this formula, q is the quantity of the population of the ethnic group, S is the relative level of culture (according to complexity and technological development), T is the area of territory the ethnos inhabits, and ω is a constant, which Shirokogoroff called the “coefficient of ethnic equilibrium.”360
On the left-hand side of this equation are variables that can take on different values. If we assume that the quantitative composition of the ethnos is constant (the ethnos is not dying out), then the two remaining variables are in an inverse relationship to one another: a decrease in the ethnic territories implies (provokes, demands) an increase in the level of culturo-technological development; expansion in settlement space can lead to a decrease in the culturo-technological level. The actions of this regularity are easy to trace in the examples of urban and rural spaces.
If we assume that the settlement space of the ethnos is fixed by external conditions (geographic, political, etc.), then increase in population is directly proportional to growth in culturo-technological level. To provide for the greater number of people on the same resource base, it is necessary to improve techniques and learn to extract more necessary products with fewer expenditures from the same natural environment.
And, finally, in the case of the maintenance of a constant cultural level, population growth is directly proportional to territorial increase.
Shirokogoroff considers this law universal. In fact, it is entirely applicable when dealing with the ethnos in its pure form, but not with its derivatives (the narod, nation, civil society, etc.). It describes entirely adequately the main regularities in changes of the life of an ethnos.
Applying the law to concrete cases, Shirokogoroff notes that, notwithstanding the opinions of evolutionists, cultural level is reversible and is liable to both growth and decline. He adduces as evidence the example of the Tungusic tribes, who in the era of compact settlement in Manchuria possessed iron and copper processing and also the rudiments of the cultivation of cattle and agriculture, and subsequently, being pushed away into the northern Taiga zones, finding themselves in big, open spaces, lost these skills and transitioned to the economic techniques of hunters and gatherers. Thus, the formula of ethnic equilibrium is an obvious confirmation of the more general law the reversibility of social development.
The Ethnos and Cycles
One variant of the general principle of reversibility in Ethnosociology is the idea of the cyclical development of ethnoses. It was formulated by Shirokogoroff, who interpreted the ethnos as a living organism. And as a living organism, the ethnos passes through periods of growth, flourishing, and decline. The different phases depend on many factors, both internal and external, but the simple observation of ethnic processes shows that we can identify fundamentally different conditions in the ethnos, correlating with some degree of “life-forces.” This is most often visible in a quantitative indicator: growth in the number of the ethnos’ members. In agreement with the law of ethnic equilibrium, this process should automatically result in either increase of the controlled territories or increase in the culturo-technological level. In this way, the formula of ethnic equilibrium acquires an additional dimension. The ethnos’ quantity depends on the qualitative parameter “life-force.” An increase of territories or burst of cultural innovation (if increase of territories is for some reason difficult or impossible) can occur only if the life-forces are present and growing. Then the quantitative increase of the ethnos occurs, together with the processes connected with such growth. At the same time, population growth can be accompanied by either spatial or cultural growth (or by both, but in lesser proportions, if there is the possibility for expansion in both spheres).
The ethnos’ decline is expressed in the reduction of the population, but it can also be seen in the decline of the culturo-technical level, if the quantity of the population remains fixed.
The cyclical character of the life of the ethnos was one of the crucial points of Shirokogoroff’s Ethnosociology and would subsequently become the main foundation for Gumilev’s theory of ethnogenesis.
Ethnoses and Their Environment
Shirokogoroff distinguished three environments in which an ethnos lives. Each of these environments exerts tremendous influence on it. The ethnos works out its strategies, its being, on the assimilation of some of the elements of these environments, rejection of others, and a certain kind of response still to others, and so on.
The initial environment is the natural environment.361 It is embodied in the variable “T” in the formula of ethnic equilibrium and can be synthesized in the notion of qualitative space.362 Interaction with the environment — with climate, geography, flora, and fauna — comprises a very important dimension of ethnic being and forms the content of the “ethnographic complex.”
The second environment consists of social institutions, culture, technology, and economic mechanisms and is in harmony with the first environment.363 The structural unity and harmony of the first and second environments, the ecological orientation of culture, is the characteristic distinction of ethnic societies in their most archaic and simplest state. In the formula of ethnic equilibrium, the second environment is the variable “S.”
The third environment is the interethnic environment, i.e., the field in which interactions among ethnoses occurs.364 The differences among ethnic cultures (“ethnographic complex”) give rise to a gap, a differential in this ethnic environment, which is the reason for many social phenomena.
Types of Interethnic Interaction
Shirokogoroff proposed considering three types of ethnic interaction:
Commensalism: from the French commensal, “table companion” — a form of symbiosis (cohabitation) of two ethnoses, which interact with one another, where this interaction and exchange are not fundamental for either and where no real harm will be done to either if interaction ceases;
Cooperation: when each of two ethnoses is vitally interested in the other, and both will suffer greatly in the case of a break in ties;
Parasitism: when one ethnos lives at the expense of another; and if their alliance is broken up, the parasite will die, while the host will regain health.
Shirokogoroff describes Commensalism in the following way: he writes,
The weakest connection between two ethnoses is Commensalism, i.e., when both live o
n one territory, do not bother each other, and are on the whole good for one another, and when the absence of one does not at all adversely affect the successful life of the other. Thus, for instance, it is entirely possible that a farmer living in a local area without wild animals exists together with a hunter, who nourishes himself with the animals he hunts. Although each of the commensalists can be independent of the other, they can also see a mutual benefit: the hunter can be supplied with the farming products in the case of a temporary bout of hunger, and the farmer can have some of the products of hunting — meat, fur, skin, etc. The Russian settlers of Siberia and the local aboriginals provide an example of such relations, as do the ethnoses of South America, getting along with one another on the same territory: the farmers and hunters of Brazil.365
Of the other forms of interethnic ties, Shirokogoroff writes as follows:
Cooperation is a form of relation of two ethnoses in which one cannot live without the other, and both are equally interested in each other’s existence. Such relations exist, for instance, among the Indian castes or among conquerors of a noble or chivalric estate (for instance, the Germans) and local populations (Gauls, Slavs). In cases of such cooperation among ethnoses, they select the form of social organization which is equally suitable for both sides. Depending on ethnic stability, the biological or cultural absorption of one ethnos by another can also occur, while the social organization continues to exist. We can see this, for instance, in certain Indian castes and elsewhere; but with transition to another form of social organization through mixing or absorption, the full loss of ethnic peculiarity may occur.366
The Foundations Page 26