Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2023.2211460
James Krapfl
Russia’s dramatic escalation of its war against Ukraine in February 2022 compelled many people at last to realize that the Russian “Federation” is in fact an empire. Despite hope in the early 1990s that Russian citizens might transform their country into a genuinely democratic federation, conditions were not auspicious, and particularly after Vladimir Putin succeeded Boris El′tsin (Yeltsin) as president in 1999, limited achievements were gradually enervated. If there was any doubt, the imperial nature of the post-Soviet Russian state should have been obvious following Russia’s occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014 – and it was particularly telling that Putin was reported to have been avidly reading eighteenth-century Russian history just before his little green men appeared on Ukraine’s Black Sea peninsula. The problem, of course, is not just Putin. As Maksym Sviezhentsev and MartinOleksandr Kisly argue in their contribution to this forum, “de-occupation” may be achieved militarily, but decolonization is first of all a process of the mind, in which both colonizers and colonized – together with “bystanders” – must recognize and overcome imperialist patterns of thought. While Sviezhentsev and Kisly sharply criticize 240 years of Russian colonial practices in Crimea, they also warn their fellow Ukrainians that they risk reproducing patterns of imperialism if they do not recognize the claims of Crimea’s indigenous people, the Crimean Tatars, in the creation of a post-occupation order. Agnieszka Jezyk, in her contribution, likewise points out that interwar Poland – a country freshly reunited and independent after 123 years of partition – harboured a strong movement to imitate one of Poland’s former colonizers (the German Empire) and establish overseas colonies. As far as the bystanders are concerned, Andriy Zayarnyuk has forcefully argued that many Western scholars “enabled” Putin’s aggression against Ukraine by reproducing and normalizing imperialist ways of seeing post-Soviet space. It is in the hope of decolonizing minds – in Slavic and related area studies, in the areas we study, and beyond – that this forum is offered. Discussions of decolonization in the Americas have usually not imagined Europe as a space subject to colonialism, since the perspective from beyond Europe’s shores tends to elide the colonial powers of the continent’s western periphery with the continent as a whole. Denis Diderot, however, saw no essential difference between British schemes to settle Germans in America and Catherine II’s policy of settling them in the Volga valley,
{"title":"Decolonizing minds in the “Slavic area,” “Slavic area studies,” and beyond","authors":"James Krapfl","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2023.2211460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2023.2211460","url":null,"abstract":"Russia’s dramatic escalation of its war against Ukraine in February 2022 compelled many people at last to realize that the Russian “Federation” is in fact an empire. Despite hope in the early 1990s that Russian citizens might transform their country into a genuinely democratic federation, conditions were not auspicious, and particularly after Vladimir Putin succeeded Boris El′tsin (Yeltsin) as president in 1999, limited achievements were gradually enervated. If there was any doubt, the imperial nature of the post-Soviet Russian state should have been obvious following Russia’s occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014 – and it was particularly telling that Putin was reported to have been avidly reading eighteenth-century Russian history just before his little green men appeared on Ukraine’s Black Sea peninsula. The problem, of course, is not just Putin. As Maksym Sviezhentsev and MartinOleksandr Kisly argue in their contribution to this forum, “de-occupation” may be achieved militarily, but decolonization is first of all a process of the mind, in which both colonizers and colonized – together with “bystanders” – must recognize and overcome imperialist patterns of thought. While Sviezhentsev and Kisly sharply criticize 240 years of Russian colonial practices in Crimea, they also warn their fellow Ukrainians that they risk reproducing patterns of imperialism if they do not recognize the claims of Crimea’s indigenous people, the Crimean Tatars, in the creation of a post-occupation order. Agnieszka Jezyk, in her contribution, likewise points out that interwar Poland – a country freshly reunited and independent after 123 years of partition – harboured a strong movement to imitate one of Poland’s former colonizers (the German Empire) and establish overseas colonies. As far as the bystanders are concerned, Andriy Zayarnyuk has forcefully argued that many Western scholars “enabled” Putin’s aggression against Ukraine by reproducing and normalizing imperialist ways of seeing post-Soviet space. It is in the hope of decolonizing minds – in Slavic and related area studies, in the areas we study, and beyond – that this forum is offered. Discussions of decolonization in the Americas have usually not imagined Europe as a space subject to colonialism, since the perspective from beyond Europe’s shores tends to elide the colonial powers of the continent’s western periphery with the continent as a whole. Denis Diderot, however, saw no essential difference between British schemes to settle Germans in America and Catherine II’s policy of settling them in the Volga valley,","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"141 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41841818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2023.2200680
Kevin P. Riehle
{"title":"The Soviet suppression of academia: the case of Konstantin Azadovsky","authors":"Kevin P. Riehle","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2023.2200680","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2023.2200680","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"267 - 268"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44048316","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2023.2202999
Kelsey Rubin-Detlev
culture, and nationalism, Rampton identifies differences in the approaches of representatives of the liberal philosophical tradition to the constitutional experiment in revolutionary Russia and thus explores in more detail the variations of liberalism(s) among prominent Russian intellectuals. Chapters 5 and 6 complete the contradictory picture of late imperial liberalism(s) with four key liberal thinkers, namely Bogdan Kistiakovskii, Pavel Novgorodtsev, Maksim Kovalevskii, and Pavel Miliukov. Reconstructing the intellectual biographies of the four thinkers, who drew on different Western philosophical ideas, Rampton once again emphasizes the importance of transnational experiences for late imperial liberalism as well as the highly conflicting and competing nature of liberalism(s), which ultimately prevented the movement from taking a significant place during Russia’s post-imperial transformations. Thus, Rampton concludes that in the context of fin-de-siècle Russia, one cannot speak about only one liberalism. Since liberalism is “a persistent compromise between sometimes competing claims” (185), scholars should study numerous liberalisms that reflect how Russian thinkers perceived and comprehended various aspects of positive and negative freedoms. Liberal Ideas in Tsarist Russia draws a complex picture of the failure of the liberal movement in imperial Russia. Even though many prominent thinkers were involved in this movement, it failed to find broad social support during the revolutionary period. The main reasons for this failure were disagreements and contradictions among liberal intellectuals, fragile and shortlived alliances between them, and repressive measures against liberal actors that forced them to flee the country. Despite the similarity and even universality of the reasons for the failure of liberal movements in preand post-Soviet Russia, as Rampton shows, this is not evidence of a deterministic rejection of liberalism in Russia. On the contrary, the experiences of various liberal movements continue to offer a glossary and tools for adapting ideas of freedom and liberal practices even to seemingly hopeless political contexts.
{"title":"Catherine the Great and the culture of celebrity in the eighteenth century","authors":"Kelsey Rubin-Detlev","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2023.2202999","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2023.2202999","url":null,"abstract":"culture, and nationalism, Rampton identifies differences in the approaches of representatives of the liberal philosophical tradition to the constitutional experiment in revolutionary Russia and thus explores in more detail the variations of liberalism(s) among prominent Russian intellectuals. Chapters 5 and 6 complete the contradictory picture of late imperial liberalism(s) with four key liberal thinkers, namely Bogdan Kistiakovskii, Pavel Novgorodtsev, Maksim Kovalevskii, and Pavel Miliukov. Reconstructing the intellectual biographies of the four thinkers, who drew on different Western philosophical ideas, Rampton once again emphasizes the importance of transnational experiences for late imperial liberalism as well as the highly conflicting and competing nature of liberalism(s), which ultimately prevented the movement from taking a significant place during Russia’s post-imperial transformations. Thus, Rampton concludes that in the context of fin-de-siècle Russia, one cannot speak about only one liberalism. Since liberalism is “a persistent compromise between sometimes competing claims” (185), scholars should study numerous liberalisms that reflect how Russian thinkers perceived and comprehended various aspects of positive and negative freedoms. Liberal Ideas in Tsarist Russia draws a complex picture of the failure of the liberal movement in imperial Russia. Even though many prominent thinkers were involved in this movement, it failed to find broad social support during the revolutionary period. The main reasons for this failure were disagreements and contradictions among liberal intellectuals, fragile and shortlived alliances between them, and repressive measures against liberal actors that forced them to flee the country. Despite the similarity and even universality of the reasons for the failure of liberal movements in preand post-Soviet Russia, as Rampton shows, this is not evidence of a deterministic rejection of liberalism in Russia. On the contrary, the experiences of various liberal movements continue to offer a glossary and tools for adapting ideas of freedom and liberal practices even to seemingly hopeless political contexts.","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"246 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41444935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2023.2200681
Christopher J. Ward
policies to counteract Russian imperialism and incorporate the people of the former Russian Empire into the new Soviet Union. These aspirations took place amid periods of profound transformation, upheaval, and violence, and, as Avrutin argues, the Soviet internal passport, with one’s nationality designated on line five, “facilitated the systematic identification, removal, and, in some cases, physical execution of entire populations by ethnic criteria” by Stalin and by the Nazis during World War II (65). While racial violence decreased after World War II and Stalin’s death, Avrutin writes that everyday experiences of racism persisted, despite Soviet disavowals of race and racism. In the final chapter, Avrutin analyzes the rise in xenophobic attitudes and racial violence in post-Soviet Russia. While he contextualizes these changes with respect to the socioeconomic trauma and demographic transformations of the 1990s, this period still seems like a sudden break between the Soviet disavowal of race and celebration of diversity and the turn towards white power that emerged in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Serguei Oushakine’s The Patriotism of Despair: Nation, War, and Loss in Russia (2009), Viktor Shnirel′man’s “Porog tolerantnosti”: Ideologiia i praktika novogo rasizma (2011), and Vladimir Malakhov’s body of work provide insight into this period, but there is a gap in the literature more broadly on understandings of race and ethnicity during the late Soviet period (for an exception, see Jeff Sahadeo’s Voices from the Soviet Edge: Southern Migrants in Leningrad and Moscow, 2019). Finally, while beyond the scope of Avrutin’s book, paying attention to shifting notions of Russianness and its relationship to whiteness is especially important as a future line of research, as made only too clear by Russia’s recent acts of violence and genocide against Ukraine. Throughout the book, Avrutin captures the complexities of processes of racialization, balancing how Russia fits within global discourses while also paying attention to local dynamics. Short and accessible, yet rich with detail, Racism in Modern Russia would therefore work well in a variety of Russian and Soviet history courses as well as in social science courses that focus on contemporary Russia or on comparative studies of race globally.
{"title":"A short history of the Russian Revolution","authors":"Christopher J. Ward","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2023.2200681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2023.2200681","url":null,"abstract":"policies to counteract Russian imperialism and incorporate the people of the former Russian Empire into the new Soviet Union. These aspirations took place amid periods of profound transformation, upheaval, and violence, and, as Avrutin argues, the Soviet internal passport, with one’s nationality designated on line five, “facilitated the systematic identification, removal, and, in some cases, physical execution of entire populations by ethnic criteria” by Stalin and by the Nazis during World War II (65). While racial violence decreased after World War II and Stalin’s death, Avrutin writes that everyday experiences of racism persisted, despite Soviet disavowals of race and racism. In the final chapter, Avrutin analyzes the rise in xenophobic attitudes and racial violence in post-Soviet Russia. While he contextualizes these changes with respect to the socioeconomic trauma and demographic transformations of the 1990s, this period still seems like a sudden break between the Soviet disavowal of race and celebration of diversity and the turn towards white power that emerged in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Serguei Oushakine’s The Patriotism of Despair: Nation, War, and Loss in Russia (2009), Viktor Shnirel′man’s “Porog tolerantnosti”: Ideologiia i praktika novogo rasizma (2011), and Vladimir Malakhov’s body of work provide insight into this period, but there is a gap in the literature more broadly on understandings of race and ethnicity during the late Soviet period (for an exception, see Jeff Sahadeo’s Voices from the Soviet Edge: Southern Migrants in Leningrad and Moscow, 2019). Finally, while beyond the scope of Avrutin’s book, paying attention to shifting notions of Russianness and its relationship to whiteness is especially important as a future line of research, as made only too clear by Russia’s recent acts of violence and genocide against Ukraine. Throughout the book, Avrutin captures the complexities of processes of racialization, balancing how Russia fits within global discourses while also paying attention to local dynamics. Short and accessible, yet rich with detail, Racism in Modern Russia would therefore work well in a variety of Russian and Soviet history courses as well as in social science courses that focus on contemporary Russia or on comparative studies of race globally.","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"265 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45246475","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2023.2199556
A. Golubev
ABSTRACT This paper discusses Soviet Marxist historical narratives of the 1920s and early 1930s that sought to reframe Russian history as a process driven by commercial capital and analyzed Russian territorial expansion and its historical scholarship in terms such as settler colonialism and indigenous erasure. As of now, the corpus of works by early Soviet Marxist historians still represents the most massive and sustained effort to challenge imperial narratives of Russian history from within the Russian academic community. Resonating with current conversations about Russian imperialism and colonialism, this intellectual tradition represents a major contribution to the postcolonial turn in studies of Russian history.
{"title":"No natural colonization: the early Soviet school of historical anti-colonialism","authors":"A. Golubev","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2023.2199556","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2023.2199556","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper discusses Soviet Marxist historical narratives of the 1920s and early 1930s that sought to reframe Russian history as a process driven by commercial capital and analyzed Russian territorial expansion and its historical scholarship in terms such as settler colonialism and indigenous erasure. As of now, the corpus of works by early Soviet Marxist historians still represents the most massive and sustained effort to challenge imperial narratives of Russian history from within the Russian academic community. Resonating with current conversations about Russian imperialism and colonialism, this intellectual tradition represents a major contribution to the postcolonial turn in studies of Russian history.","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"190 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42647935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2023.2197383
Katherine Bowers
done the volume better justice if they had been more careful with the above-mentioned ideological questions in the volume title and introduction. Despite its focus on only one post-Soviet country, the range of languages studied in the papers with regard to their contact with Russian is truly broad: Ugro-Finnic, Uralic, Turkic, Caucasian, and Sinitic (Chinese) – most of them being minority and indigenous languages of Russia. In addition, several studies explore the influence of languages spoken in countries neighbouring Russia (such as Georgian and Azerbaijani) on languages of Russia’s border regions. This is a valuable addition to a volume that, according to its back cover, “investigates the impact of Russian” alone. It would have been beneficial if more donor languages along with Russian had been considered for comparative analysis, especially as the authors claim to focus on the whole of the former Soviet Union. The editors themselves suggest that, if the focus of research is Slavicization, it would be useful to add other Slavic languages for comparison (283). The themes discussed in the chapters include phonetic, lexical, syntactic, and discourse consequences of language contact as well as such sociolinguistic questions as language ideologies, language policy and planning, language maintenance, and standardization. Language contact and change are examined through a wide array of methods, such as wordlist and text analysis, elicitation tasks, grammaticality judgements on test sentences, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. Another noteworthy characteristic of the volume is how the discussion of significant sociolinguistic issues is woven into the book fabric. All studies provide an extensive summary of historical and social processes that have led to the current sociolinguistic landscape of the described regions. In their discussion of study results, the papers discern important connections between differences in the linguistic outcomes of language contact and varying sociolinguistic circumstances, opening new avenues for research. A number of studies point to the problem of certain minority language speakers in Russia having no access to native language classes as a result of recent language policy changes, by which the study of minority languages at schools has become “optional.” This is one of the driving forces of language change, the consequences of which are presented by the volume’s chapters. Such publications are an important contribution to debates on questions of language policy and planning in Russia. Therefore, the volume may be of interest not only to scholars researching language contact in Russia, but also to language policy practitioners – as well as to lay people eager to learn more about the social and cultural diversity of Russia, its various regions, and its languages.
{"title":"Self-conscious realism: metafiction and the nineteenth-century Russian novel","authors":"Katherine Bowers","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2023.2197383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2023.2197383","url":null,"abstract":"done the volume better justice if they had been more careful with the above-mentioned ideological questions in the volume title and introduction. Despite its focus on only one post-Soviet country, the range of languages studied in the papers with regard to their contact with Russian is truly broad: Ugro-Finnic, Uralic, Turkic, Caucasian, and Sinitic (Chinese) – most of them being minority and indigenous languages of Russia. In addition, several studies explore the influence of languages spoken in countries neighbouring Russia (such as Georgian and Azerbaijani) on languages of Russia’s border regions. This is a valuable addition to a volume that, according to its back cover, “investigates the impact of Russian” alone. It would have been beneficial if more donor languages along with Russian had been considered for comparative analysis, especially as the authors claim to focus on the whole of the former Soviet Union. The editors themselves suggest that, if the focus of research is Slavicization, it would be useful to add other Slavic languages for comparison (283). The themes discussed in the chapters include phonetic, lexical, syntactic, and discourse consequences of language contact as well as such sociolinguistic questions as language ideologies, language policy and planning, language maintenance, and standardization. Language contact and change are examined through a wide array of methods, such as wordlist and text analysis, elicitation tasks, grammaticality judgements on test sentences, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. Another noteworthy characteristic of the volume is how the discussion of significant sociolinguistic issues is woven into the book fabric. All studies provide an extensive summary of historical and social processes that have led to the current sociolinguistic landscape of the described regions. In their discussion of study results, the papers discern important connections between differences in the linguistic outcomes of language contact and varying sociolinguistic circumstances, opening new avenues for research. A number of studies point to the problem of certain minority language speakers in Russia having no access to native language classes as a result of recent language policy changes, by which the study of minority languages at schools has become “optional.” This is one of the driving forces of language change, the consequences of which are presented by the volume’s chapters. Such publications are an important contribution to debates on questions of language policy and planning in Russia. Therefore, the volume may be of interest not only to scholars researching language contact in Russia, but also to language policy practitioners – as well as to lay people eager to learn more about the social and cultural diversity of Russia, its various regions, and its languages.","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"255 - 257"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49414536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2023.2200669
Victoria Donovan
ABSTRACT This article engages Asia Bazdyrieva’s idea of the “resourcification” of Ukraine – that is, the reduction of Ukraine in Soviet and Western geopolitical imaginations to a mere extraction resource – to develop and criticize the idea of “academic resourcification.” The author argues that Western researchers have often treated Ukrainian (and other non-Western) subjects as extraction resources, mining their expertise and knowledge, without acknowledging their agency or contributions in their work. The article argues for the decolonization of Western academic practice in the form of “delinking” from such exploitative and extractivist paradigms of knowledge production and instead aspiring, in the words of the decolonial scholar Walter Mignolo, to “thinking and doing otherwise.” Asking what it means to decolonize academia, the article turns for inspiration to Ukrainian decolonial researcher-artist-activists, considering the ways in which these individuals are modelling more equitable and ethical forms of knowledge production. The article ends by advocating collaborative methods – that is, the co-production of knowledge with local thinkers, rather than about them – as a productive model for Western scholars in their efforts to decolonize their research.
{"title":"Against academic “resourcification”: collaboration as delinking from extractivist “area studies” paradigms","authors":"Victoria Donovan","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2023.2200669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2023.2200669","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article engages Asia Bazdyrieva’s idea of the “resourcification” of Ukraine – that is, the reduction of Ukraine in Soviet and Western geopolitical imaginations to a mere extraction resource – to develop and criticize the idea of “academic resourcification.” The author argues that Western researchers have often treated Ukrainian (and other non-Western) subjects as extraction resources, mining their expertise and knowledge, without acknowledging their agency or contributions in their work. The article argues for the decolonization of Western academic practice in the form of “delinking” from such exploitative and extractivist paradigms of knowledge production and instead aspiring, in the words of the decolonial scholar Walter Mignolo, to “thinking and doing otherwise.” Asking what it means to decolonize academia, the article turns for inspiration to Ukrainian decolonial researcher-artist-activists, considering the ways in which these individuals are modelling more equitable and ethical forms of knowledge production. The article ends by advocating collaborative methods – that is, the co-production of knowledge with local thinkers, rather than about them – as a productive model for Western scholars in their efforts to decolonize their research.","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"163 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42557596","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2023.2198361
A. Averbuch
ABSTRACT This article discusses sociolinguistic aspects of belonging through the phenomenon of Russophone Ukrainian authors who have either switched to Ukrainian or continued using Russian during the Russo-Ukrainian War. It draws on a survey that the author has conducted over the past several months of 30 such authors. Fifteen respondents, who during the war have opted to withdraw from their main language of creativity in favour of another, are compared to a second group of 15 respondents, who continue using Russian as their language of creativity. The article engages with these authors’ reflections and reasoning as to why they have given up (or not given up) the Russian language in favour of Ukrainian, and it offers some considerations on the sociopolitical implications of making (or declining to make) such a switch, as well as questions of self-decolonization, linguistic affiliation, and sociocultural peripheries and marginality.
{"title":"Russophone literature of Ukraine: self-decolonization, deterritorialization, reclamation","authors":"A. Averbuch","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2023.2198361","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2023.2198361","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article discusses sociolinguistic aspects of belonging through the phenomenon of Russophone Ukrainian authors who have either switched to Ukrainian or continued using Russian during the Russo-Ukrainian War. It draws on a survey that the author has conducted over the past several months of 30 such authors. Fifteen respondents, who during the war have opted to withdraw from their main language of creativity in favour of another, are compared to a second group of 15 respondents, who continue using Russian as their language of creativity. The article engages with these authors’ reflections and reasoning as to why they have given up (or not given up) the Russian language in favour of Ukrainian, and it offers some considerations on the sociopolitical implications of making (or declining to make) such a switch, as well as questions of self-decolonization, linguistic affiliation, and sociocultural peripheries and marginality.","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"146 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42980502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-08eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.3897/BDJ.11.e97864
Sofia M Green, Alex Hearn, Jonathan R Green
Whale sharks Rhincodontypus frequently appear to interact or associate with other species, which vary depending on the community structure and the demographic of the whale sharks at each location globally. Here, we present the species sighted frequently around whale sharks in the Galapagos Archipelago and reported by dive guides and scientists and also in earlier publications. These associated species include cetacean species: bottlenose dolphins Tursiopstruncatus, other shark species: silky sharks Carcharhinusfalciformis, Galapagos sharks Carcharhinusgalapagensis, scalloped hammerhead sharks Sphyrnalewini, tiger sharks Galeocerdocuvier and teleost fish species: remoras Remora remora, yellowfin tuna Thunnusalbacares, almaco jacks Seriolarivoliana and black jacks Caranxlugubris. The recording of interspecies associations and interactions may lead to better understanding of the natural history of whale sharks and can show important symbiotic relationships or interdependence between different species.
{"title":"Species associated with whale sharks <i>Rhincodontypus</i> (Orectolobiformes, Rhincodontidae) in the Galapagos Archipelago.","authors":"Sofia M Green, Alex Hearn, Jonathan R Green","doi":"10.3897/BDJ.11.e97864","DOIUrl":"10.3897/BDJ.11.e97864","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whale sharks <i>Rhincodontypus</i> frequently appear to interact or associate with other species, which vary depending on the community structure and the demographic of the whale sharks at each location globally. Here, we present the species sighted frequently around whale sharks in the Galapagos Archipelago and reported by dive guides and scientists and also in earlier publications. These associated species include cetacean species: bottlenose dolphins <i>Tursiopstruncatus</i>, other shark species: silky sharks <i>Carcharhinusfalciformis</i>, Galapagos sharks <i>Carcharhinusgalapagensis</i>, scalloped hammerhead sharks <i>Sphyrnalewini</i>, tiger sharks <i>Galeocerdocuvier</i> and teleost fish species: remoras <i>Remora</i> remora, yellowfin tuna <i>Thunnusalbacares</i>, almaco jacks <i>Seriolarivoliana</i> and black jacks <i>Caranxlugubris</i>. The recording of interspecies associations and interactions may lead to better understanding of the natural history of whale sharks and can show important symbiotic relationships or interdependence between different species.</p>","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"63 1","pages":"e97864"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10848626/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78710771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/00085006.2022.2164672
K. Walker, A. Harbus
ABSTRACT This article shows how the cognitive theory known as “predictive processing” can expand our understanding of the ways in which readers are primed by textual cues in Lev Tolstoi’s Anna Karenina to predict story developments, and how this process is linked to narrative momentum and affective engagement. In turn, this study expands the applicability of predictive processing, which relies on the idea that the human brain routinely predicts and updates information in unfolding scenarios, to literary contexts, in productive combination with narrative theories of foreshadowing and schema usage. The authors examine how these systems of cues motivate and shape involvement in the fictional scenarios of Anna Karenina and how they contribute to the text’s foreboding narrative draw – most notably with regard to the redolent motif of suicide by train.
{"title":"Trains of thought: narrative foreshadowing and predictive processing in Anna Karenina","authors":"K. Walker, A. Harbus","doi":"10.1080/00085006.2022.2164672","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00085006.2022.2164672","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article shows how the cognitive theory known as “predictive processing” can expand our understanding of the ways in which readers are primed by textual cues in Lev Tolstoi’s Anna Karenina to predict story developments, and how this process is linked to narrative momentum and affective engagement. In turn, this study expands the applicability of predictive processing, which relies on the idea that the human brain routinely predicts and updates information in unfolding scenarios, to literary contexts, in productive combination with narrative theories of foreshadowing and schema usage. The authors examine how these systems of cues motivate and shape involvement in the fictional scenarios of Anna Karenina and how they contribute to the text’s foreboding narrative draw – most notably with regard to the redolent motif of suicide by train.","PeriodicalId":43356,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Slavonic Papers","volume":"65 1","pages":"72 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43240684","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：