Ethnic relations can also take a third form of interethnic relations on one territory: parasitism. In this case, one side is the passive element and the other gains as a result. Moreover, the parasitized ethnos can without loss to itself and even with great gain free itself from the parasitizing ethnos, which will then be at risk of dying out completely.367
Shirokogoroff emphasizes that all of these kinds of relations can change dynamically in the process of the development of interethnic ties; commensalism can become cooperation, cooperation parasitism, etc.
Ethnoses and War
Another form of ethnic interaction, according to Shirokogoroff, is war. This is an extreme but constant form of interaction relations. The ascending ethnos raises under itself a stable or falling ethnos. Since ethnoses on the whole always pulse dynamically, mix in space, alter, transform, and adapt cultural codes, master different types of economic management, acquire new technological skills and lose former ones, war very often flares up among them, alongside the other three types of coexistence.
When describing war as an ethnic process, Shirokogoroff (poorly, in our opinion) resorts to the concept of the “biological” in the spirit of “Social Darwinism,” even though the entire structure of his ethnology corresponds on the whole much more with a sociological approach. Shirokogoroff writes: “War is the natural aspiration of a (mentally) increasing ethnos, which manifests in this way its biological might. War is a purely biological function of the ethnos, taking diverse ideological forms, depending on the general cultural condition [of the ethnos]. Finally, since territory has its absolute limit, as does population density (…) the limitless growth of culture is possible only at the expense of territory, and, hence, the growth of culture beyond the limits where absolute population density and the use of the entire territory have been reached must inevitably lead humanity to death through the loss of territory and likely its occupation by other animal species.”368
The Psychomental Complex and Shamanism
We should pay special attention to Shirokogoroff’s late research in the sphere of what he called the “psychomental” complex, the steady supra-individual structure comprising the paradigm of ethnic being in its spiritual and intellectual dimensions.369 “Psychomental complex” recalls Frobenius’ “paideuma” or Joubert and Mauss’ “categories of the imagination.” We can also compare it to Jung’s “collective unconscious,” only with the difference that for Shirokogoroff this category has a unique configuration for each ethnos. In this sense, Shirokogoroff fits perfectly into the general program of Ethnosociology and Cultural Anthropology, which insists that it is unscientific and incorrect to evaluate one culture from the position of another culture. Thus, Shirokogoroff writes: “The application of terms from one cultural complex for the interpretation of another cultural complex does not always facilitate understanding of the actually existing functions of the latter.”370
Shirokogoroff made his main theoretical generalizations concerning the “psychomental complex” as one of the major categories for the study of the ethnos in his last book, The Psychomental Complex of the Tungus. In it, he presents a monumental description of the ethnic world-picture of the Tungus, including a detailed exposition of their rites, myths, economic practices, productive technologies, and interactions with all three environments, natural, cultural, and interethnic.
He pays special attention to the phenomenon of shamanism as a central element of ethnic existence. It was Shirokogoroff who drew the attention of ethnologists and anthropologists to the fundamental social function of the shaman in archaic societies, in which the shaman fulfills key vital operations necessary for the maintenance of ethnic existence and transmission of the “ethnographic complex.” Shirokogoroff’s book was received in Europe as a real breakthrough. Mühlmann, for instance, wrote about it as follows: “As soon as the book The Psychomental Complex of the Tungus was released in 1935, it became clear to me that by this work Shirokogoroff had shattered the limits of Ethnography (in the previous understanding of this word) and placed himself among the leading theoreticians of Ethnology.”371 In it, Shirokogoroff asserts in particular that the shaman’s trance cannot be considered a psychic illness, first because in the culture of the Tungus and other archaic tribes there is no strict equivalent to the concept of “psychic illness.” Second, the shaman is characterized by the fact that he controls himself, his actions and his state even in the trance condition; i.e., in being otherwise than usual, his psychic condition composes a kind of norm. Third, among the representatives of archaic narods, one does meet with phenomena that indeed call to mind the psychic disturbances of people of complex societies, but the latter sort of people very rarely become shamans.
Following Shirokogoroff and relying in many ways on his studies of shamanism among the narods of Siberia and the Far East, the historian of religion, Mircea Eliade wrote his classical work Shamanism: The Archaic Practices of Ecstasy.372
Shirokogoroff’s Formulation of the Main Points of the Study of Ethnoses
Let us cite the end of Shirokogoroff’s programmatic book, where he laid out the principles of Ethnology systematically for the first time.373 “The development of the ethnos does not take place through the complication of each phenomenon, but through the adjustment of the whole complex of phenomena — ethnographic, psychic (physiological), etc., with the aim of preserving the ethnos; as a result, alongside the development (complication) of certain phenomena a reduction can also occur.”374 This thesis is extremely important, since it clearly formulates the law of social reversibility, on which Ethnosociology is built.
“Ethnoses adapt to the environment in two ways: first, by changing their needs or their organs and peculiar characteristics; second, by changing the environment itself.”375 Here he anticipates the concepts of anthropologists and sociologists (Leroi Gourhan in particular) about the dual code of social relations toward the surrounding space and about the “production of space” (Lefebvre’s theory).376
“The ethnos’ movement during settlement and its being always flow along the path of least resistance. Moreover, one of the forces is the ethnos itself, which in deciding (and this is each time a fact it is aware of in part or in whole) is connected with external conditions (the environment), the sum of knowledge (culture) and character (biological might).”377 Here it is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the initiative in the historical decision is ascribed precisely to the ethnos, which contrasts with the class-based or technological approaches of other scientific paradigms.
“The ethnos’ awareness of its relations to the environment, together with its awareness of the process of movement in settlement and existence, comprises the content of the spiritual culture of the ethnos, whose development depends above all on the quantity of material received for observation, which in its turn is conditioned upon the degree of complexity of relations and the intensity of the process of movement.”378 This point suggests that we consider the ethnos as a mobile dynamic unit, forming its “ethnographic complex” historically in the process of movement.
Later, Shirokogoroff makes a futurological prediction on the basis of the ethnographic method:
“Man’s future, to the extent that it can be seen in the movements of ethnoses, has a certain limit, with approximation towards which either the further development (complication) of culture must cease, or a reduction of territories must occur, which is equivalent in either case to the death of ethnoses, and thereby also the contemporary species of man. By analogy with the other animal species, we can surmise that: (1) the contemporary species of man must have a lesser duration of existence than other species and (2) its end must come as a result of the impossibility of adapting to conditions of the primary environment, which have a tendency to change; (3) the immediate expression of the end of man will likely be manifest in the hypertrophy of his cultural and intellectual development, suppressing the natural performance of his biological functions; (4) the form in which this suppression will take place, one m
ight think, will be man’s interference in the regulation of his self-reproduction, i.e., in the conception and birth of progeny. Moreover, physical adaptation to changing organs apparently occurs slower than changes in the organs themselves, and humanity will not have time to adapt physically.”379
This fragment from 1925 is striking in its relevance. The first point in this prognosis is established by analogy with biological species, which seems doubtful. But then the second point reproduces exactly the position of contemporary ecological movements and groups, which, like Shirokogoroff almost a hundred years ago, predict humanity’s death from ecological catastrophes as a result of the inability to adapt to the primary environment. The third point is a prediction about the coming of the information society, in which digital technologies and virtual networks will gradually displace man’s organic manifestations, replacing them with simulacra. The figure of the cyborg, depicted in certain postmodern manifestos (in particular, Donna Haraway’s) is a stark example of the fact that this prognosis is coming true before our eyes. And finally, the fourth point realistically describes both the “birth control” introduced in China and the progress of genetic engineering.
Shirokogoroff’s Ethnology and Ethnosociology
Most of the main points of Shirokogoroff’s theory lie at the basis of Ethnosociology as a discipline, which stems directly from Ethnology itself. However, there are a few points that should be clarified.
1. Shirokogoroff considers man a biosocial entity, distinguishing in him natural and cultural elements in the spirit of classical Western dualism, introduced by Descartes, where everything is based on the dichotomy “subject-object.” This is the source of the numerous points in Shirokogoroff that can be interpreted biologically. These points do not touch and all the more so do not comprise the essence of his teaching. As we saw, in his definition of the ethnos he does not speak of a common origin, but of “belief in a common origin,” i.e., of a social or symbolic relation. Nevertheless, the appeal to Biology or Zoology is inadmissible for Ethnosociology, and those statements or theoretical constructs that can be interpreted in this light should be corrected, interpreted more adequately, or (if they do not admit of either interpretation or correction) rejected. It is precisely here, where the border between ethnology and Ethnosociology lies: Ethnosociology considers man from an anthropological coordinate system and society from a social one. Biology is not drawn in as an independent authority for the explanation of human, cultural, and social phenomena, and the comparison of human and animal communities can only be a metaphor.
2. Shirokogoroff does not recognize a specific conceptual significance behind the term “narod” (“laos”), considering it superfluous. In this way, he misses a very important moment in Ethnosociology: the transition from ethnic society to its derivatives, with the corresponding transformations of social structures. As a result, Shirokogoroff himself often uses the term “ethnos” where he can only be talking about the narod, nation, or even civil society. “Ethnos” and “nation” are often synonyms for him. In consequence, Shirokogoroff applies the method of “Primordialism” where it is not appropriate or only partially appropriate. This terminological and methodological point should be taken into account when considering his works. And here, a correction is called for. In some cases, what he calls the “ethnos” should be referring to the “narod,” and sometimes even to the “nation.” This is another major difference between Ethnology and Ethnosociology.
3. Shirokogoroff interprets some ethnic phenomena materially, supposing that the multitude of processes in the ethnos can be explained by changes in the surrounding environment as an entirely independent natural phenomenon. Moreover, it is implied that man’s prime motivating factor is the search for resources for material survival. Here we again encounter the notion of the object and objective biological needs as an independent factor influencing the ethnos.
Ethnosociology sets aside this “axiom” of the materialistic worldview, dominating science in the 19th century, as a mere hypothesis, the positive content of which has almost been exhausted. If we are ready to recognize the competence of archaic society and its “ethnographic complex” as equal to others and as an authentic sociological paradigm, then we must admit that the ethnic unit (simple society) knows neither object, nor material, nor material dependence at all, and even the approximate equivalents to these notions are absent from the languages and cultures of ethnoses. If we think that the reason for the migration of some ethnos, for instance, is the desertification of earlier fertile pastures, and we reject the explanation of these tribes themselves (for instance, that an evil spirit, Erlik, was incensed at them for their sacrifices to the heavenly god Tengri) as irrelevant nonsense, we behave no better than colonizers, racists, and imperialists, convinced in our infinite superiority over “barbarians” and “savages.” Instead of explaining to the ethnoses he studies who Aristotle and Darwin were, the Ethnosociologist should first learn who Erlik is. Only complete and equitable reciprocity can be the basis for a full-fledged dialogue of cultures, which is the scientific field of Ethnosociology.
Lev Gumilev: A New Stage of Ethnology
The famous Russian history Lev Nikolaevich Gumilev introduced into the development of Ethnology, designated and constituted by Shirokogoroff, numerous entirely new points, elaborated in his own original teaching. Today there are arguments over the extent to which Gumilev followed Shirokogoroff’s ideas and approaches and the extent to which he rejected and criticized them. It is not disputed that Gumilev, working in the USSR, knew Shirokogoroff’s books, which were inaccessible to the majority of Soviet historians and were practically never mentioned or taken into account. Gumilev not only mentioned Shirokogoroff; an entire series of the most important points of his own doctrine, beginning with the basic term “ethnos,” the theory of ethnic cycles, and the idea of the symbiosis of the ethnos with the surrounding environment and ending with his concepts of interethnic processes, is the development or refinement of the Ethnological principles announced by precisely Shirokogoroff, both in the context of Russian-language research and on a global scale. We saw that one of the main theoreticians of the German school of Ethnosociology, in turn, called Shirokogoroff his inspiration and teacher.
Gumilev’s theories are a development of Shirkogoroff’s ideas, although Gumilev received many aspects critically and tried to overcome and excel them.
We can say that Gumilev’s theory is a superstructure over Shirokogoroff’s teaching. At the same time, we must also take into account the influence on Gumilev of the Eurasian school, which was also entirely closed and inaccessible to the remainder of Soviet scholars.
Gumilev’s Definitions of the Ethnos and their Ambiguity
Lev Gumilev’s major work is Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth.380 In it, Gumilev sets out his notion of the emergence, establishment, and degradation of ethnoses. In this sense, it develops a scientific model that Gumilev himself considered the next stage of the development of ethnology.
We must note at once that the definition Gumilev gave of the ethnos is doubtful and contradictory and falls short of the clarity of Shirokogoroff’s formula. In some places, Gumilev says that “the ethnos is not a social phenomenon, because it can exist in several formations.”381 The idea itself is correct, since it shows that the ethnic dimension is present not only in simple societies, but also in complex ones. But if we accept it too literally and deny that the ethnos is one of the forms of society, we will lose scientific precision and will come to a contradiction. True, Gumilev writes elsewhere of the ethnos as a “form of collective being, characteristic only of man.”382 This is entirely correct: the form of collective being is society and a social phenomenon.
In another place Gumilev defines the ethnos as “a stable and naturally formed collective of people, opposing itself to all such analogous collectives and distinguished by its peculiar stereotypical behavior, which changes regularly in historical time.”383 Here we see the clear influence of Sumner (“w
e-group,” “they-group”), reference to “naturalness” (the primordialist approach), and the regularity (i.e., ordered quality) of historical dimensions (this last point comprises the specific character of the Gumilevian approach).
At the same time, Gumilev is clearly inclined to consider man a biological species. Thus, he asserts that man “as a large predator … is subject to natural evolution.”384 Gumilev considers many ethnic processes through the prism of evolution and biological materialism. From the point of view of Ethnosociology, this detracts somewhat from the significance of Gumilev’s theories, in which it is easy to recognize the evolutionary and biosocial approach, characteristic of the theories of the 19th century which were overcome in German Ethnosociology, Boas’ school of Cultural Anthropology, the Social Anthropology of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, and the French Sociology of Mauss and Lévi-Strauss. However, we should not be too strict towards such formulations. Gumilev wrote his scientific works in the Soviet era, when materialistic and evolutionary dogma dominated in science, and he was obliged to take them into account, though all the points of his theory were directed in a completely different direction. So Gumilev’s theory of ethnogenesis should be considered in its historical context, and we should try to distinguish in it the most valuable and significant intuitions and insights, setting aside certain definitions, formulations, and methods, which can seem doubtful or opposed to Ethnosociology’s main positions. It is much more important to include Gumilev in the Ethnosociological corpus on the basis of the fact that his theories make an authentic and substantial contribution, rather than to exclude him on the basis of some saying or other which does not fit into the Ethnosociological context.
The Foundations Page 27