4.Bessire L., D. Bond 2014. Ontological anthropology and the deferral of critique // American Ethnologist 41(3): 440–456.

5.Burns G.L. The Host Community and Wildlife Tourism. Chapter 7 in Wildlife

Tourism. Impacts, Management and Planning, Higginbottom, K., ed. Altona, Vic: Common Ground, 2004. – Pp. 125–145.

6.Byvshego 11.06.2013. Byvshego omonovtsa, podozrevaemogo v ubiystve na reke Ponoy, poymali v tundra. URL: www.b-port.com/crime/item/106990.html#ixzz2 VyaGBVYQ.

7.Castree, N. and B. Braun, eds. 2001. Social Nature. Theory, Practice, and Politics. Oxford, etc.: Blackwell.

8.Connor, M. 2005. The invention of Terra Nullius: Historical and legal fictions on the foundation of Australia. Sydney: Macleay Press.

9.Cronon, W., ed., 1996. Uncommon Ground. New York: W.W. Norton.

10.Currie, B. 2000. Kharlovka Diary June 26 – July 3, 1999, Atlantic Salmon Review, 5(1–2): 9–13.

11.Dallman, S., M. Ngo, P. Laris, D. Thien 2013. Political ecology of emotion and sa-

cred space: The Winnemem Wintu struggles with California water policy. Emotion, Space and Society 6: 33–43.

12.Dating of electronic sources is by day of access 2 ТвЮЧ’К 02.06.2014. 2 ТвЮЧ’К ob’yavleno dnem traura po pogibshim. URL: www.b-port.com/news/item/130802.html.

13.Deconstructing the poaching phenomenon. A Review of Typologies for Understanding Illegal Hunting. Brit.J.Criminol. 54: 632–651.

14.Demeritt, D. 2001. Being constructive about nature, in Social Nature. Theory,

Practice, and Politics, N. Castree and B. Braun, eds., Oxford, etc.: Blackwell, pp. 22–40.

15.Dentith, S. 1995. Bakhtinian Thought. An Introductory Reader, London, etc.: Routledge. Dubovskiy, S. 1999. Kharlovka-99 [PA].

16.EХТКsШЧ, S. 2012. FrШЦ ЭСО KТЧР’s НООr ЭШ К МКЩТЭКХТsЭ МШЦЦШНТЭв: A sШМТКХ СТsЭШri-

cal analysis of the poaching law. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 36(2): 133–148.

17.Essen, E. von, H. Hansen, H. Nordström Källström, M. Peterson, and T. Peterson 2014.

18.Eurasia. Hanover and London: Dartmouth College.

19.Fishing 11.01.2015. Fishing Tours Murmansk Region. URL: www.murman.ru/ guide/tourism/fishing-eng.shtml?print=1.

20.Forsyth, C. and T. Marckese 1993. Folk outlaws: Vocabularies of motives // International Review of Modern Sociology 23: 17–31.

21.Forsyth, C., R. Gramling, G. Wooddell 1998. Game of Poaching: Folk Crimes in Southwest Louisiana. Society & Natural Resources 11: 25–38.

22.Franklin, A., 2008. The ‘animal question’ and the ‘consumption’ of wildlife, in Tourism and the Consumption of Wildlife: Hunting, Shooting and Sportfishing. B. Lovelock, ed. London: Routledge.

23.Frontiers 11.01.2015a. Frontiers International Travel. Brevyeni Camp. URL:http:// www.frontierstrvl.co.uk/index3.php?p=the_brevyeni_camp.

24.Garth, C., ed. 1978. James HКаФОr’s journal. A Victorian poacher. Oxford, etc.: OUP.

25.GЮrТЧК, N. 1982. VrОЦвК, ЯrОгКЧЧШО Я ФКЦОЧ’. Iг ТsЭШrТТ НrОЯЧТФС ХКЩХКЧНЭsОЯ. MЮrЦКЧsФ: MЮrЦКЧsФШО ФЧТгСЧШО ТгНКЭОХ’sЭЯШ.

69

26.Gutsol, Natalya, Svetlana Vinogradova, Anna Samorukova 2007. Pereselennye

РrЮЩЩв ФШХ’sФТФС sККЦШЯ, AЩКЭТЭТ: KШХ’sФТв ЧКЮМСЧТв ЭsОЧЭr.

27.Höchtl, F., S. Lehringer, W. Konold 2005. “Wilderness”: what it means when it becomes a reality – a case study from the southwestern Alps. Landscape and Urban Planning 70: 85–95.

28.Hunter, B. 2000. Focus on Kola Peninsula, Atlantic Salmon Review, 5(1–2): 6–9; 14–24.

29.Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.

30.Kharuzin, N. 1890. Russkie lopari. Ocherki proshlago i sovremennogo byta. Izvestiya imperatorskogo obshchestva lyubiteley estestvoznaniya, antropologii i etnografii. Tom LXVI. Trudi etnograficheskogo otdela. Tom X, Moscow.

31.Kolpakov, E.M., V.Ya. Shumkin 2012. Petroglify Kanozera. SPb: Iskusstvo Rossii.

32.Konstantinov, Y. 2015. Conversations with power. Soviet and postsoviet developments in the reindeer husbandry part of the Kola Peninsula. Uppsala: Uppsala University [in press].

33.Konstantinov, Y. and V. Vladimirova 2008. NOMAD’s Last Round Up – Harvesting Season ’07/’08, Fieldnews Edition 24, 31 January 2008 [IPY Project 408 Blog] http://www.polarjahr.de/NOMAD-Blog-und-forum.196.0.html.

34.Krupnik, I. 1993. Arctic Adaptations. Native Whalers and Reindeer Herders of Northern.

35.Krushenie 31.07.2013. Krushenie vertoleta v Murmanskoy oblasti proizoshlo iz-za razrusheniya zadnego uzla krepleniya shassi – MAK. URL: http://www.b- port.com/news/item/110379.html#ixzz38vEQyqn0.

36.LКРОr’ 13.01.2015. LКРОr’ ’BrОЯОЧЧвв’. RвЛКХФК Т rвЛШХШЯЧвО ЭЮrв ЧК KШХ’sФТв poluostrov. URL: http://dudkin-co.com/?page_id=696.

37. Lajus, J. 2008. Frozen frontier in the Russian North in historical perspective, in Heading north, heading south: Arctic social sciences research in global dialogue. Conference proceedings. Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle.

38.Likhachev, V. 2011. Risunki Kanozero. Otkrytie, izuchenie, sokhranenie. Apatiti: IP Likhachev.

39.LЮФ’вКЧМСОЧФШ, T. 1971. MКЭОrТКХ’naya kul’tura saamov (loparey) Kol’skogo poluostrova v kontse XIX–XX vv, M.: Nauka.

40.Murmanskie 13.01.2014. Murmanskie politseyskie i OMONovtsy vyekhali v ocherednuyu komandirovku na Severnyy Kavkaz. URL: http://www.b- port.com/news/item/121823.html#ixzz2qM4WCIAD/.

41.Muth, R. and J. Bowe 1998. Illegal Harvest of Renewable Natural Resources in

North America: Toward a Typology of the Motivations for Poaching. Society & Natural Resources 11: 9–24.

42.Na meste krusheniya 21.06. 2014. Na meste krusheniya Mi-8 naydeno telo. www.b-port.com/news/item/131965.html#ixzz35LR1qYxz.

43.Nakhshina, M. 2012. Community interpretations of fishing outside legal regulations: A case study from Northwest Russia, in Fishing People of the North: Cultures, Economies, and Management Responding to Change, C. Carothers et al., eds. Alaska Sea Grant, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

70

44.Ogarkova, M. 2007. Organisatsiya sportivnogo rybolova na territorii Murmanskoy oblasti (Na primere ZAO “Reka Ponoy”), Diploma paper, Vologda: Vologodskiy gosudarstvennyy tekhnicheskiy universitet, [Unpublished MS, PA].

45.Øian, H. 2013. Wilderness tourism and the moralities of commitment: Hunting and

angling as modes of engaging with the natures and animals of rural landscapes in Norway. Journal of Rural Studies 32: 178–185.

46.OMON 14.07.2014. OMON vernulsya iz komandirovki na Kavkaz. URL: http://www.b-port.com/news/item/133382.html#ixzz37VpwXGRB.

47.Osherenko, G. 1998. The Ponoi River Report: sport fishing in the Kola Peninsula. A Project of the Circumpolar Conservation Union [Unpublished MS, PA].

48.PОrОМСОЧ’ ДЮЧНКЭОНЖ. PОrОМСОЧ’ ЭЮrТsЭФТФС rвЛШХШЯЧвФС ЛКг, rКsЩШХШгСОЧЧвФС ЧК rОФКФС KШХ’sФШРШ ЩШХЮШsЭrШЯК ДАТЭС ЦКЩ, PAЖ.

49.PОrОМСОЧ’ 2010. PОrОМСОЧ’ ЭЮrТsЭФТФС rвЛШХШЯЧвФС ЛКг KШХ’sФШРШ ЩШХЮШsЭrШЯК

[Tourist information brochure], www.murmantourism.ru.

50.Polanyi, K. 1957. The Economy as Instituted Process, in Trade and Market in the Early Empires, K. Polanyi et al., eds. New York: Free Press, pp. 243–270.

51.Ponoi 13.01.2015a. Ponoi River Co. Ryabaga, Brevyeni, Purnache. URL: http://www.ponoiriver.com/publicWrapper.php?p=infoDatesPrices.

52.Ponoi 13.01.2015b. Ponoi River Co. http://www.theflyshop.com/travel/kola/ponoi- river-company.html.

53.Reydy 8.11.2013. Reydy v Kovdorskom, Kirovskom i Lovozerskom rayonakh vyyavili narusheniya Pravil okhoty. http://www.b-port.com/officially/item/118382. html#ixzz2l4GhCuIu.

54.Ries, N. 1997. Russian Talk. Culture and conversation during Perestroyka. Ithaca and London: Cornell University.

55.SЮšК, O. 1999. The Ecological Problem in Modern Society: Solidarity, Conflict and

Human Dignity. Human Dignity: Values and Justice. Czech Philosophical Studies, 3: 111–149.

56.Took, R. 2004. Running with Reindeer. Encounters in Russian Lapland. – London: John Murray.

57.UshКФШЯ, I. 1998К. KШХ’sФТв SОЯОr Я НШsШЯОЭsФШО ЯrОЦвК. IгЛrКЧЧвО ЩrШТгЯОНОЧi-

вК, VШХ. 2, MЮrЦКЧsФ: MЮrЦКЧsФШО ФЧТгСЧШО ТгНКЭОХ’sЭЯШ.

58.UsСКФШЯ, I. 1998Л. KШХ’sФКвК sЭКrТЧК. IгЛrКЧЧвО ЩrШТгЯОНОЧТвК, VШХ. 3. – Mur-

ЦКЧsФ: MЮrЦКЧsФШО ФЧТгСЧШО ТгНКЭОХ’sЭЯШ.

59.Yankelowich, D. 1981. The New Rules: Searching for Self-fulfillment in a World Turned Upside Down. New York: Random House.

71

. .

. .

. ,

,.

E.D. Korkiya

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Moscow, Russia

CULTURAL PHENOMENON IN SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT IN RUSSIA

Abstract. In the present article substantiates that scientific thought problematic phenomenon of culture is the object of scientific discourse, in which the researchers suggest a multifactorial understanding of culture. This article points out and emphasizes that despite numerous studies, culture as a phenomenon of modern development, however, remains largely secondary to economic and political factors of civilizational development.

Key words: the phenomenon of culture, science, society, scientific discourse, civilization and values.

72

73

75

76

77

M.E. Lipatova

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Moscow, Russia

THE ROLE OF EDUCATION IN THE YOUTH LIFE STRATEGIES

Abstract. The article considers the place and the role of education in the construction of youth life strategies, its role in the life plans of youth. The category of uncertainty is introduced as the most important characteristics of modern Russian society.

Key words: education, life strategies, risks, uncertainty, values, youth.

78

.

79

81

.

,

,

82

6.

83

84

//- . – 2013. – № 2399. URL:

P. Mankova

University of Tromso – The Arctic University of Norway

Tromsø, Norway

SMALL PEOPLE, REMOTE PLACES, AND BIG POLITICS: CONSTRUCTION OF RECORDS AND RECORDING CONSTRUCTIONS OF INDIGENEITY IN THE FILM “THE TUNDRA TALE”

Abstract. The documentary film “The Tundra Tale” claims to be a record of an indigenous community on the Kola Peninsula. In fact it is a record of a particular way of thinking about “indigeneity”. By shedding light on some of the inconsistencies in the film, I would like to address how the popular images and the visual documents are also made of ideological messages.

Key words: indigeneity, strategic essentialism, non-fiction film, Sami and Izhma

Komi.

Films, videos and documentaries are common ways of appropriating knowledge both popular and scientific and shape our ideas, ideologies and values. Ethnographic and documentary films have been incorporated in the social sciences, especially in anthropology since its inception. Many anthropologists and ethnographers have produced filmic records in the field, to document their encounters with new and distant cultures and to preserve records of vanishing rituals and traditions. The long history of entanglement of the social sciences with the visual has enhanced our knowledge about the potential, but also about the unintended effects a film could have on the social environment in front of the camera lens. A major wisdom is that watching an ethnographic film or documentary is not the same as observing the reality. We see a representation of the reality constructed in the filmmaking process. The diegetic world, (the coherent image of time and space within the film) does not necessarily correspond to the real world. The film records are form of language and the filmmakers use them

85

to make statements or to forward statements of the people filmed. As I have worked in the field of visual anthropology for many years I would like to put to work some of the lessons from the engagement of social science to mediate knowledge about people, especially people living in distant areas, through visual materials. The reason for that is that I was provoked by a recent film, “The Tundra Tale” by the German filmmaker Rene Harder, made in Krasnoshchele, one of the remote villages in the Lovozero administrative area. I did my fieldwork in this village almost in the same time period. I have known some of the main characters of the film for years, but watching the film I did not recognize them in the way I knew them. In the filmmaking process the reality has become distorted as if the camera lens has played tricks with the proportions of the social life in Krasnoshchele. The film claims to be a record of an indigenous community, but in actual fact it is a record of a particular way of thinking about “indige-

neity”.

FrШЦ К sШМТКХ sМТОЧМО ЩШТЧЭ ШП ЯТОа ТЭ Тs ОКsв ЭШ КЩЩrШКМС ЭСО ЯТХХКРО’s

remoteness as the most significant difference compared to the urban environ-

ЦОЧЭ аО ХТЯО ТЧ, КЧН ХОЭ ТЭ ЛО ЭСО ЩrОЦТsО ШП ЭСО КЧКХвsТs. TСО ЯТХХКРО’s ЩКrЭТМu- larity is that it is not catered by the standard road and electricity infrastructure because of its remoteness. There are two aspects of this remoteness. Firstly, it is often considered drawback for the village. However, many villagers do not perceive the distance negatively and experience the negative representations as unjust. The second aspect is the trend to romanticize – it is often said that time passes slower in the village and ages bygone are preserved there. Although such presentations are often used in the tourist adverts, for me it is unreasonable and unserious to use them in a scholarly context. The people in the village are concerned with their present and their future, and this is clearly stated by the main character of the film. However, her most emotional statement and subsequently the main statement of the film is that the main concern of the people is the fear for the closing down of the village, its possible dissolution. In my opinion, emphasising this fear is both marginalising and disempowering, and unnecessarily so: almost all of the people living in the village are employed, they have been incorporated in the existing social programs, and some of them are co-opted in various state and regional administrative structures. It is true, that there has been an ongoing depopulation of many rural areas in Russia for the past 20 years, but that has not been the case with Krasnoshchele. There are initiatives, as Victor

Tsylev has observed, showing that both the authorities and the people are investing in the future of the village ( 2013).

In what follows I do not question the authenticity of the claims or dispute

the utterances in the film, but show how the filmmaker seems to be bound by his

ШаЧ ТНОШХШРТМКХ ЭТОs. TСО ПТХЦЦКФОr’s МСШТМОs sООЦs ЭШ ЛО РШЯОrЧОН Лв ЭСО Кu-

dience he chooses to address – in this case the liberal Western audience and its

‘ЩШХТЭТМКХ’ ОбЩОМЭКЭТШЧs. TСО rКЭСОr ЛКЧКХ sМСОЦО ШП “indigenous people on the brink” is limiting the insights from the otherwise rich possibilities of the film

86

media. Furthermore, the narrative of the film is marginalising the majority of the population in the village. Resolved to emancipate the indigenous population of the Sami people in Russia, the film rather than pointing to the social problems in situ, is pointing away from them.

“The tundra tale” is presented as a record of the “indigenous voice”, the influential discursive frame where the public articulation of indigenous identity by activists, community leaders and public intellectuals, is governed by genre conventions (Tsing 2007). The film might also fit the genre conventions of the “activist imaginary” described by George Marcus as the “uses by subaltern, silenced and marginalised groups of new media technologies and new possibilities in their distribution, raising fresh issues about citizenship and the shape of public spheres within the frame and terms of traditional discourses on polity and civil society” (Marcus 1996). Even if well intended the result is an activist objectification of culture. The objectification is achieved through assembling a totality consisting of Sami culture, reindeer herding, tradition, and the village. The short description of the film by its producers states: – the family bonds are almost absent and in the film she rarely interacts with them. Her figure becomes a symbol for the Sami political activist. This is further emphasised through her voice-over narrations throughout the film. In many cases the images serve as visual background and illustrations for her statements. The voice-over is detached from the body and becomes rather abstract. We hear her saying that saving the village is of vital importance for the people who live there and number 500. The next sentence is that there are 2000 Sami left on the Kola Peninsula. The third sentence is that it is the only village in Europe keeping on a traditional lifestyle and a traditional use of nature. Such a sound montage creates the illusion that the village is a Sami village and builds further on the indivisible unity of herding, tradition and Sami-ness. The filming style is observational and we never see a presence of or a reference to the filmmaking process or the camera. This has an immediate effect on the viewers. The film scholar Paula Rabinowitz has argued that “[i]n this way the camera view is dehistoricised, while the filmed

bodies are simultaneously over-invested with meaning and deprived of agency.

TСЮs, Лв rОЩrОssТЧР ЭСО sТРСЭ ШП ЭСО ПТХЦЦКФОr’s ЛШНв ЭСО ТЦЩХТМТЭХв ЦТННХО- class, masculinist and white perspectives of the filmmakers are eclipsed” (Rabinowitz 1993).

While Sasha has a central presence throughout the film, the film is not about her person. The film captures a moment of the ethnopolitical awakening in Russia, and its attempt to become a part of the international indigenous movement. For the past 40 years the Sami people in Norway, Sweden and Finland have politically mobilised and achieved great degree of self-governance on many vital issues and distinguished themselves as proactive in the international institutionalisation of the indigeneity. Within their ethnopolitical mobilisation the concept of Sapmi has been central. Sapmi indicates a sense of belonging to a territory indicating and a nation across national borders and without statehood

87

(Eidheim, Bjørklund et al. 2012). The contacts and the collaboration between the Sami have gradually intensified and consequently the concept of Sapmi has also been transferred and adopted by a number of Sami activists in the Russian part of Sapmi, among them Sasha. The Sami parliament of Russia, the organisation Sasha represents, is an organisation that has been established after the model used in the Scandinavian countries, and is working towards the recognition of the whole Kola Peninsula as a traditional area of the Sami (per today four administrative units are recognised as indigenous territories) and for securing land

property rights. Sasha is more politically at home among the western Sami than

КЦШЧР RЮssТКЧ ЩШХТЭТМКХ КМЭШrs. AЭ ЭСО РШЯОrЧЦОЧЭ’s ШППТМО ТЧ MЮrЦКЧsФ, SКsСК is met with indifference and coldness. However she is received full-heartedly by the head of the Sami Parliament in Norway, who shows his understanding of the threats both from the extraction industries and from the administration that creates governmental NGO-like structures. The arguments made through the film show the expansion of the western-centric ideas of indigeneity and the indigenous voice: framed by claims of self-determination, and cultural autonomy, as well as environmental conservation (Tsing 2007). Sasha expresses all these three aspects directly in the film and the filmmaker has emphasized her importance and righteousness by calling the German version of the film “The Guardian of the Tundra” (“Die Hüter der Tundra”)?

A further question is whether Sasha is incorporating and articulating the

АОsЭОrЧ ТНОКs Шr ЭСО ПТХЦ rОЯОКХs ЭСО ПТХЦЦКФОr’s аТsС ЭШ ТЦЩШsО СТs ШаЧ АОst- ern liberal ideas about how indigenous affairs should be regulated in the Russian North. There is no clear answer. Although the film had good intentions – to empower Sasha as politician, and indeed, shows the main character embraced by the international arena and as the main hope for the future, I would argue that the films fails in its project. According to Tsing: “(t)o make a political difference, indigenous leaders must address the nation state. They must use cultural and political frames that are comprehensible within the nation” (Tsing 2007). Presenting Sasha as a political leader speaking with the indigenous voice but not relating to historical facts and the existing regional and federal legislation, makes it difficult to enable the dialogue and the empowerment of the community and regretfully, to use the film as an activist instrument.

Francesca Merlan has described how the international validity of indigeneity has grown from the post-war engagements of the Anglo-American settler colonies and the Scandinavian countries and has pointed out that in many contexts the state created the institutional frame under the pressure to “modernise their internal social relations” (Merlan 2009). However they were not applicable for all contexts as she points out in many countries in Latin America there was little openness for international influence. In the case of Russia it is easy to blame the lack of openness. Nevertheless one should not forget that an institutional frame has existed for a long time – as the multinational Russian empire established a policy towards its minorities already in the 19th century, which af-

88

ter the October revolution was redesigned by the Soviet authorities and further reworked in the period after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

The regional government supports eight Sami organisations and 32 obshchinas (private enterprises owned by indigenous collectives engaged in traditional activities as reindeer herding, fishing and gathering). There are several regional laws that endow the Sami with different rights: “On the reindeer herding”, “On the state subsidies for the indigenous small people of the North” and “On the distribution of fishing quotas”. It must be said that the regional laws often are not fully harmonised with the federal laws and the practice of implementing the laws might be difficult. Also the process of distribution of fish quotas has been controversial on the ground. To what extent it is a malfunction of the legislation or insufficient knowledge of the administrative and juridical procedures is out of the scope of my discussion here. It has been argued that the main problems come from the neoliberal legislation that recognises only individual not collective rights(Gausset, Kenrick et al. 2011). But it might also be a problem of the how collectives are conceptualised and defined. The federal legislation in Russia operates with a numerical definition of indigeneity – as indigenous it recognises only the small-numbered people with a maximum limit of 50 000 persons. This categorization of indigenous small-numbered people “forces a dichotomisation into small-numbered versus non-small numbered peoples” (Donahoe, Habeck et al. 2008). As mentioned above the film deliberately undercommunicates the presence of other cultures, most notably the Izhma Komi in the village. The Izhma Komi on the Kola Peninsula are descendants of the Komi who in the period between the late 1880ies to the early 1930ies migrated to the Kola Peninsula. Most of the Izhma Komi live by reindeer herding, which distinguishes them from the majority of Komi people. The Komi people number approximately 500 000 and live in the Komi autonomous republic thus by Russian definition they are not indigenous. Most of the Izhma Komi live in close proximity with other groups (Nenets and Sami) who also live by reindeer herding but are recognised as indigenous. Preferences given to the Sami are often experienced as unjust and there has been political mobilisation also among the Komi. The introduction of the law for “small-numbered indigenous people” in 1999 placed them in an unfavourable situation. In the early 2000 there was a motion

to recognise the Izhma Komi as an ethnic group on its own and also as indigenous population – СШаОЯОr ЭСОв НТНЧ’Э sЮММООН ЛОМКЮsО ЭСОв аОrО ЧШЭ rОМШg-

nised as such by the regional authorities in the Komi autonomous republic where the majority of them lives. The lack of recognition has had its effect on the selfdetermination: while during the census of 2002 15 607 people defined themselves as Izhma Komi, in 2010 it was only 6 420, a fact which speaks of declining ethnopolitical mobilisation. To solve the problems by legislative measures has proved to be unfruitful. In fact both groups have the same interest in preserving the environment and the traditional way of reindeer herding. In this case the use of the indigenous rhetoric is rather splitting and weakening the commu-

89

nity and its political engagement, rather than strengthening it.

My starting point was the popular image of the indigenous people in the film “The Tundra Tale” presented as an aestheticised and idealised whole where inconvenient categories of people as the Izhma Komi do not have any place. Such idealised “conceptualisation” has also marked the definition of indigeneity that informs the international and the national legislative practices concerning the indigenous populations. The indigeneity is a question of the individual selfdetermination and as James Clifford asserts “It is difficult to know, sometimes even for participants, how much of the performance of identity reflects deep belief, how much a tactical presentation of self” (Clifford 2013). Then the question is – is it possible to make a film record of indigenous group without essentialising and objectifying it, without making a political statement in one direction or

another and how to show it?

IЧ ЭСО ПТХЦ ЭСОrО Тs К sМОЧО ПrШЦ ЭСО СОrНОrs’ СЮЭ ТЧ ЭСО ЭЮЧНrК аСОrО VХa- НТФ, SКsСК’s ЛКМСОХШr ЛrШЭСОr Тs аШrФТЧР. OЧО ШП the herders has heard that a girl

from Murmansk is coming for Vladik at the winter festival. But he is not telling to Vladik, because then Vladik, who is shy by nature, might decide not to go to the village for the festival. Such gestures of care and concern in the everyday life are what strengthens the small community, not the big questions of politics and policies. I wish there were more examples of these gestures in the film.

Filmography

“The Tundra Tale”, director Rene Harder, 84 minutes / Color / HD, DCP 24 fps, Blu-ray, Lichtblick Film, 2013.

Bibliography

1.Clifford, J. (2013). Returns, Harvard University Press.

2.Donahoe, B., Joachim O. Habeck, A. Halemba and I. Sántha (2008). “Size and Place in the Construction of Indigeneity in the Russian Federation”. Current Anthropology 49(6): 993–1020.

3.Eidheim, H., I. Bjørklund and T. Brantenberg (2012). “Negotiating with the Public – Ethnographic Museums and Ethnopolitics”. Museum & Society 10(2): 95–120.

4.Gausset, Q., J. Kenrick and R. Gibb (2011). “Indigeneity and autochthony: a couple of false twins?” Social Anthropology 19(2): 135–142.

5.Gupta, A. (1998). Postcolonial developments: agriculture in the making of modern India. Durham, Duke University Press.

6.Marcus, G.E. (1996). Connected: Engagements with Media, University of Chicago Press.

7.Merlan, F. (2009). “Indigeneity”. Current Anthropology 50(3): 303–333.

8.Rabinowitz, P. (1993). “Wreckage upon wreckage: history, documentary and the ruins of memory”. History and Theory: 119–137.

9.Tsing, A. (2007). “Indigenous voice”. Indigenous experience today: 35–68.

90

10., . . (2013). “

(4 (66)): 9.

91

. .

. .

. ,

1

А.

E.N. Novoselova

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Moscow, Russia

CHILDFREE AS A CONTEMPORARВ CITIГEN’S

REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY

Abstract. The article analyzes the impact of urbanization on the transformation of the institution of the family, in particular, on the formation of voluntary childlessness – a new phenomenon for Russia. The author traces the history of the child-free in Russia and in the world and examines the role of the contemporary consuming society in this process.

Key words: depopulation, reproductive behavior, reproductive strategy, child-

free.

,

, .

.

.

–

.

92