Paganism, Traditionalism, Nationalism

Narratives of Russian Rodnoverie

Kaarina Aitamurto

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• eBook ISBN: 9781317084426
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Politics

Rodnoverie was one of the first new religious movements to emerge following the collapse of the Soviet Union, its development providing an important lens through which to view changes in post-Soviet religious and political life. Rodnovers view social and political issues as inseparably linked to their religiosity but do not reflect the liberal values dominant among Western Pagans. Indeed, among the conservative and nationalist movements often associated with Rodnoverie in Russia, traditional anti-Western and anti-Semitic rhetoric has recently been overshadowed by anti-Islam and anti-migrant tendencies. Providing a fascinating overview of the history, organisations, adherents, beliefs and practices of Rodnoverie this book presents several different narratives; as a revival of the native Russian or Slavic religion, as a nature religion and as an alternative to modern values and lifestyles. Drawing upon primary sources, documents and books this analysis is supplemented with extensive fieldwork carried out among Rodnoverie communities in Russia and will be of interest to scholars of post-Soviet society, new religious movements and contemporary Paganism in general.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9781315599304-1

More than ten years ago, when I began to study contemporary Paganism, the first thing that drew my attention was the fact that it seemed such a timely phenomenon. Many studies demonstrated that contemporary Paganism was one of the fastest growing new religions in the Western hemisphere. In addition, it seemed to resonate with a wide variety of concerns and fashions of contemporary society. Partially, these were simply some vogues ranging from ‘tribalism’ to magic. However, the timeliness of Paganism was not limited to such superficial currents, but its argument also appeared to be in tune with the times. On numerous issues with which people today were struggling in some traditional religions – such as strict authoritarianism or dogmatism, attitudes toward sex and women, or an ecological point of view – Pagans seemed to provide answers that were quite modern. I also learnt that Pagans themselves argued that their religion well-suited our modern times. They claimed, for example, that after a long period of patriarchy, people needed to rediscover great goddesses or that the threatening ecological catastrophes compel us to reappropriate the old nature religion. These observations were not particularly original. In fact, several scholars have analysed Western Paganism, in the framework of sociological literature on late modernity, as a movement that exemplifies some central features of contemporary religiosity, such as individualization and subjectivization of religiosity.

In Western post-industrial societies, despite some contradicting impulses, traditional religious institutions have lost both members and influence on social and political matters. Due to the societal differentiation, globalization and liberal ethos of modernity, traditional churches are not able to control the pluralization of religiosity (Bruce 2000, 223; see also Spickard 2006). In late modernity, people do not necessarily or automatically appropriate their native religious tradition or pay obedience to any religious authority. Instead, they feel free to create unique and personal religious outlooks. In a modern urban environment, you cannot expect that even your nearest neighbours share your frame of values, culture or religion. Conversely, if you do not feel comfortable with the religion, culture or values of your home, you will probably have no difficulties in finding co-heretics, or alternative communities that provide support for your views.

The subjective turn in the humanities has had its effects on the study of religion as well. For example, in the study of new religious movements, the sovereignty and agency of the religious ‘consumer’ have been brought to the fore (Hamilton 2000, 192–3). Heelas and Woodhead (2005, 3–10) link what they call the ‘subjectivization of religion’ with similar tendencies in other domains of life. As educational ideals have become ‘pupil-centred’, medicine ‘patient-centred’, there is a growing trend in modern religiosity to shift the focus from transcendental authorities and universal models on to personal dogma and personal experience.¹ While traditional religiosity sets internal, predetermined roles for people to live ‘life-as’ these models suggest, the subjectivization of religion refers to listening to and following subjective emotions, intuition and reason, Heelas and Woodhead argue. For example, in traditional religions, wives are expected to live as God determines the role of a wife to be. Modern subjective spirituality, however, encourages one not to repress individual needs but to seek personal ways to be a wife including the option of abandoning the role altogether if it feels detrimental (Heelas and Woodhead 2005, 4).

Contemporary Paganism has been seen as a religion that corresponds well with the post-modern ironic attitude toward life but also as part of the modern need for identity construction in a post-traditional society. Sociological themes related to late modernity have indeed often been employed in analysis of the topic. Thus, Pagan anti-authoritarianism and its stress on personal dogma have been seen in the context of modern individualization. At the same time, many scholars noted the aim to create communality and identity as a form of belonging (Reid and Rabinovitch 2004).

Despite many similarities, contemporary Paganism in Russia proved to be in several ways quite different from Western Paganism. While nationalism is the feature in Rodnoverie that is usually the first to be discussed, the majority of Western Pagans support liberal values (Berger et al. 2003; Lassander 2009).² The fact that most of the study of contemporary Paganism has focused on the Western, and especially the Anglo-American, world affects the understanding of the religion as such. For example, for many Western scholars, Paganism is innately connected with tolerance and a liberal social outlook. Racist Odinism has often been excluded from the mainstream Paganism as a marginal or exceptional phenomenon; some scholars have even questioned whether such movements can be regarded as Paganism (Berger et al. 2003, 21; York 2003, 164). It might be suggested that the case of Rodnoverie and Eastern Paganism encourages the discussion to take a new interest in the issue of nationalist and racist forms of contemporary Paganism.

Like Western Pagans, Russian Pagans also argue that Paganism is ‘needed’ in the contemporary world. I was even surprised how prominent ‘sociological themes’ were, for example, in the interview material. More than one of the interviews mentioned the contemporary Russian ‘vacuum of values’ as the first reason for the revival of the ancient faith. Apparently then, Rodnovers themselves have a tendency to regard issues of religiosity in a ‘sociological’ context and are used to employ corresponding terminology. Nevertheless, some themes that are common in the rhetoric of Western Pagans rarely appear in Rodnoverie texts, which, for their part, contain arguments that are seldom used in the West. For example, while feminism is an important part of Western Paganism, Russian Pagans are more inclined to reflect conservative currents in Russian society. The ‘timely’ nature of Paganism seemed to be a feature that permeated the whole international movement, even though the content of the arguments occasionally seemed internally quite contradictory. However, it is also possible to detect the interdependency and dynamics between such seemingly opposed tendencies as individualization and the appeal of conservative and essentialist values. A similar interplay also characterizes the ‘glocalization’, the growing importance of both global and local. As my analysis of the Rodnoverie movement will show, it is exactly such dynamics that characterizes much of the discussion in modern Paganism.

Hervieu-Léger suggests that in a fragmented, rapidly changing modernity, religion endures because it functions as an antidote or remedy to modern anxieties. According to Hervieu-Léger (2000), as far as modernity cuts the memory of people, religious traditions can recreate feelings of connectedness to history and community thereby functioning as an ‘anamnesis’. Hervieu-Léger's notion demonstrates that religion often functions as a remedy or vehicle for adapting to modern changes, occasionally even when the intent rather seems to be to struggle against these changes.

In previous literature, Rodnoverie has usually been analysed as part of other phenomena, such as nationalism, ultra-rightist movements, lay interpretations of history or part of New Age spirituality. In the study of religion, Rodnoverie has often been examined from a critical, confessional perspective and in these cases it may be difficult to distinguish the analytical approach from the purely polemical one (Aitamurto 2011b, 70–7). Regarding Rodnoverie, the collapse of the Soviet Union naturally forms the context in which the rise of the movement has usually been reflected. Here it is possible to find some interesting variance in the emphasis of interpretations. While the post-Soviet religious renaissance is usually understood in terms of liberation, the popularity of new religious movements is most often interpreted as being engendered by social crisis (Kanterov 2006, 122–31). The phenomenon of new religious movements is usually looked at in terms of deprivation; disillusionment with earlier ideologies, social insecurity and the weakness of solid religious tradition and education. Among scholars that have studied Rodnoverie, two points are usually made: the boom of nationalism generated by the collapse of socialist ideology, and the resultant vacuum of values. In addition to these, some supplementary reasons have been mentioned, such as the growing concern regarding ecological issues, the popularity of the mythical or archaic. It has also been noted that many people find the teachings of traditional Christianity irrelevant or difficult to apply to modern life (Koskello 2005; Kavykin 2007; Shevtsov and Kirilenko 2004, 288–9).

Western and Russian explanations of the revival of contemporary Paganism reflect the diverging nature of the movement in these areas. On the other hand, they have some affinities as well even if they are interpreted differently. For example, while in Western studies, Paganism has been seen as a phenomenon that exemplifies modern pluralization, Rodnoverie is mainly regarded as a counterreaction to this phenomenon. Nevertheless, I am not completely convinced that these projects are so ‘oppositional’; both Eastern and Western Pagans are engaged in constructing their religious and ethnic identity in circumstances of modern pluralization that blur traditional ethnic, national and class identities but, at the same time, open up an opportunity to participate in such a deviant religion as Paganism or to construct a completely individual religious framework.

The research question of this monograph addresses the issue of Paganism as a ‘modern religion’ and specifically, a ‘modern religion’ in the Russian context. The aim of this study is to analyse how Rodnovers explain the popularity of their religion in the contemporary Russia and to reflect these explanations in the framework of sociological discussion of late modern religiosity. The question of the research is twofold. First, the analysis assesses Rodnoverie strategies in the light of sociological study of late modern religiosity. Second, detecting the strategies that Rodnovers have found efficient, the study asks to what extent various theories of late modern religiosity can be seen as relevant in the Russian context.

Methodologically, my approach draws on the sociological study of narratives, which has focused on the ways in which narratives are used to construct identities, challenge hegemonies and participate in the negotiations on social reality (Richardson 1990, 127–9; Polletta 1998; Fisher 2001; Bruner 2003). Because the narrative form is an inherent way for people to make causal interpretations, narrative is also an efficient way to demonstrate reasoning, arousing emotions and, thereby, mobilize people. In studying social movements, the narrative approach provides insight on such aspects as how the given movement recruits members, how they recover from strategic setbacks and how they seek to influence society (Polletta 1998, 419; Ewick and Silbey 1995). In the study of marginal groups, the focus has been on the capacity of narrative to function as a form of cultural criticism by providing alternative interpretations and making what may for the mainstream seem as deviance understandable. Narratives help to communicate and justify ourselves to the outer world. For example, as Steven Sutcliffe (2003, 203) notes, during recent decades, the image of a spiritual seeker has entered the social mainstream as a legitimate model to explain one's personal preferences and choices (see also Gare 2002).

The term ‘narrative’ does not only refer to the story of the narrative (that is, the plot of the account), but is also composed of discourse, characters and setting (Polkinghorne 1988, 90–1; see also Barthes 1990, 87–8). In examining how Rodnovers explain the revival of their religion I detect arguments, themes and bigger frames of orientation (the narratives); I argue that by reconstructing the encompassing narrative of the presented arguments, the analysis more authentically conveys and is better equipped to examine the persuasiveness of (or the way the narrative is intended to persuade) the Rodnoverie worldview.

Rodnovers themselves often and deliberately use narratives. The claim according to which a change in cultural myths is a prerequisite for any actual social change is repeated in virtually all forms of contemporary Paganism. For example, Rodnovers may reinterpret historical myths or national symbols and imageries to ground and exemplify their social views. At the same time, reinterpreting myths subscribes to a flexible and even relativistic view of reality that Pagans often profess. A well-known Rodnoverie leader, Dmitrii Gavrilov (Iggel’d) even argues that the only way to understand Paganism is to reflect upon it with such multisided tools as myth and symbols (Gavrilov in Nagovitsyn 2004, 18–19). The post-modern notion of the subjectivity of truth also occurs occasionally in Rodnoverie narratives. Narrative as a symbol of this subjectivity is, for example, directly referred to in an article written by Vinnik. He confesses that for him life appears as a ‘story’ or as a ‘myth’. This does not mean, according to Vinnik, that his worldview would be less realistic. He claims that even ‘rationalistic technocrats’ live in a story of their own, the only difference being that ‘technocrats’ do not admit it, which makes their perceptions even more delusional (Vinnik in Nagovitsyn 2005a, 148–58).

First, chapters 2 and 3 present the history of Rodnoverie and give a short summary of its theology and rituals. Next, chapters 4, 5 and 6 analyse three main ways or narratives in which Rodnovers understand their religion and why they see it as needed in contemporary Russian society. The first one of these portrays Rodnoverie as a revival of the native Russian or Slavic religion. The narrative provides a new version of the old Slavophile idea, according to which imitation of the West has misguided Russia and, therefore, Russians should turn to their own tradition. In the second narrative, Rodnoverie is presented as a nature religion that features tolerance and pluralistic values. According to these perceptions, the emergence of Rodnoverie marks the dead-end of the earlier hegemonic universalistic worldviews, the ‘mono-ideologies’. While the nationalist narrative focuses on Russia's national heritage, the third narrative interprets the tradition in more universal terms as an alternative to modern values and way of life. The main argument of this narrative is that contemporary people have become alienated from nature, their roots and their community. The three narratives resemble the typology of Rodnoverie by Gaidukov, who divides the movement into three categories according to their main orientation; the nature-oriented, nationalistically oriented and ‘folkloric-play’ parts of the movement, which he also calls ‘reconstructionists’ (Gaidukov 2000, 29). However, the analysis shows that these different narratives are often mixed. Moreover, for example, the ‘nature-oriented’ Rodnovers may use nationalist themes and nationalist Rodnovers talk about the ‘end of mono-ideologies’.

Within the study of religion, there is a division between scholars aiming to understand religions and those seeking to explain them. These approaches have occasionally been presented in a pointed way as a division between functionalists reducing religion to some other phenomena, such as psychological or sociological theories, and ‘religionists’ refusing to step beyond the interpretations of the believers. Consequently, the first are accused of denying the validity of the experience of believers and of misunderstanding the essence of religion, while the latter are blamed for abandoning the principles of scholarly analysis, which has led to a situation where scholars of religion have very little to contribute to scientific discussions about religion and society (McCutcheon 1997; Spickard 2002; Sakaranaho 2005). Fortunately, the discipline is not entirely entrenched behind such tenacious positions. ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half-Title Page
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table Of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Acronyms
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 History of Rodnoverie
• 3 Some Central Features of the Religion
• 4 Saving the Nation
• 5 The End of ‘Mono-Ideologies’
• 6 Back to the Real Thing
• 7 Discussion and Conclusions
• Bibliography
• Index