The South Caucasus or the former Transcaucasia is a Russian and Soviet legacy in the sense that it started its formation as a region and geopolitical unit along with the Southern expansion of the Russian Empire and retained its status under the Soviet Union. It has lived in a context of continuous and complex relations with the Southern neighbors of Russia, i.e. Iran and especially Turkey, as well as the West, however indirectly.

Even K. Marx wrote that the Caucasian mountains divide Southern Russia from Georgia and the adjacent territories it liberated from Muslims and registers that this cuts off the legs of the enormous empire of its body. Commenting on Marx’s above-mentioned observation, the Soviet Armenian scholar Ashot Hovhannisyan notes (1959) that the gradual union of Transcaucasia countries with Russia and the strengthening of ties between the Russian and Transcaucasia peoples allowed Russia to stand up firmly on its feet, which also allowed Transcaucasia to tear apart from Iran and Turkey and to avoid the prospect of becoming an Anglo-American colony.

Throughout the 19th century the relations between Turkey and Russia were those of principle for the latter. This was a period when the Russians were striving for redefining their identity in the language of Western concepts, to act as a nation that was becoming modernized in the European sense and as a country that was part of Europe. In this case Russia that was being westernized perceived Turkey as the East it was trying to differentiate itself from. Hence, Turkey is presented as the Oriental “Other” for Russia and the civilized world, in general. In this context a civilizing mission was ascribed to the Russian expansionism.

Russia was looking at the Eastern and Southern peoples of the Empire with a Westerner’s look. The Caucasus, in this context, was acting as an intermediate zone, a transit space between the West and the East that was becoming civilized with Russian mediation, that had its peculiarities (ethic and religious, landscape and climate) and commonalities (the existence of Christian nations).

It is clear that such a picture of the Caucasus was far from being unconditional; it was full of uncertainties and contradictions, if we choose to refrain from qualifying those as paradoxes. Of course, the westernization strivings in the Caucasus were increasing the possibilities for the so-called “Russian orientation,” especially if we take into account the fact that the alternatives were Iran and Turkey, and Russian domination could be seen as a lesser evil. However, on the other hand, Russia itself was perceived as a semi-Western semi-Oriental country, as a transit zone between the West and the East. Moreover, based on the fact of age-long historical relations with the West, many Caucasian peoples (Armenians, Georgians) could call themselves “more Western,” than the Russians…

In his book entitled “Orientalism” Edward Said showed how the East was constructed as a cultural and geographical unit by the West. He defines Orientalism “as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient¦”. Among other things “Orientalism is a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between “the Orient” and (most of the time) “the Occident.” Thus a very large mass of writers, among whom are poets, novelists, philosophers, political theorists, economists, and imperial administrators, have accepted the basic distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, “mind”, destiny, and so on. This Orientalism can accommodate Aeschylus, say, and Victor Hugo, Dante and Karl Marx.”

Russian Orientalism

Said’s book generated other similar studies regarding other regions, e.g. Africa (V. Y. Mudimbe’s “The Invention of Africa”), the Balkans (Maria Todorova’s “Imagining the Balkans”), and Eastern Europe (Larry Wolff’s “Inventing Eastern Europe”). There are also a number of articles and books on the pre-Soviet period of Russian Orientalism and the orientalization of the Caucasus. Studies on the Soviet era are fewer. As in other cases, here too, the diverse and mixed region is attributed unity and homogeneity, being ascribed backwardness, lack of civilization, barbarity and other labels. Hence, the idea of Russia’s “civilizing mission” that was quite appropriate from the perspective of justifying imperial expansionism and colonization, was substantiated and was approved of by many representatives of the Russian intelligentsia. They considered that Russia was carrying enlightenment and civilization to the Caucasus and other territories seized from the Ottoman Empire. It should be added that this is how the Russian presence was perceived by many in the Caucasus (among them such central figures of the Eastern Armenian Modern Literature as Kh. Abovyan and H. Tumanyan).

It is known that literary texts were diversely linked with the imperial and colonial practices (this is also what the above-mentioned passage from Said’s book is about). Particularly the writers contribute to the development of the general attitude that takes the Empire for granted. Besides, literary texts form, spread and, as a matter of fact, legitimize the seized lands and peoples to present viable forms from dominating positions.

After the Caucasus was conquered by Russia, the list of the names of Russian and Soviet writers who visited the Caucasus for various reasons became very long: Griboyedov, Pushkin, Lermontov, Bryussov, Yesenin, Belyi, Mandelshtam, Pasternak, Bitov, and so on… Young Tolstoy did his military service in the Caucasus.

The Caucasus was one of the everlasting topics of the Russian literature, generating writings of various genres from poetry to travelling notes. Certainly, none of these authors was an advocate of the Tsarist colonialism or Communist ideology, but already back in the early 19th century some topics, stereotypical forms of presentations and metaphors came forth in the writings of Pushkin, Lermontov, and others that presented the Caucasus as a periphery of the expanding Russian Empire, contributing to the colonization of the Caucasian peoples and the establishment of Russian cultural dominance.

From this perspective the traveling notes by Pushkin called “Journey to Arzrum” and a number of poems that were written after this trip in 1829 are significant. The travelling notes were written in 1835, but still back in 1830 a passage was published in the Literaturnaya Gazeta (Literary Newspaper). A critic writes on the occasion of this publication “We used to think that the great events taking place in the East that surprised the whole world and earned the respect of the whole enlightened world for Russia would fuel our poets’ geniuses, but we were mistaken.”

This statement clearly presents the Empire’s expectations from the poets: to properly praise the “great events,” but one can also clearly see that during its Caucasian invasions Russia could feel the evaluating eyes of the West (the enlightened world) watching its back and was trying to disconnect itself from the East under this stare.

The above-mentioned text by Pushkin was honored with the attention of many scholars. For example, an American scholar of the Russian Literature Eva Thompson points to multiple expressions of Orientalism present in that text. However, in my opinion, one of the most impressive passages is the one in which Pushkin describes the enormity of his excitement when he learnt that he was on the border of the Empire, at the river of Arpachay, and that as soon as he crossed it he would find himself in a foreign land. However, crossing the river the writer found out (disappointedly or happily) that the Russian troops had already conquered that land, and he was still inside the expanding Russian Empire. (It should be noted that the Russian poet that was travelling from the Russian Empire to the Ottoman Empire for the contemporary Armenian reader, was transiting from Eastern Armenia to Western Armenia). There is no direct praise of the Russian conquests here (many circumstances hindered it, including the poet’s complex and tense relations with the authorities and his negative attitude towards General Paskevich), but in fact there is much more here.

The poem “The Caucasus” is a brilliant example of a panoramic view and symbolic dominance, where the vast landscape, the mountainous scene with rivers and fields, snow-crowned peaks and water-falls as well as the locals living there lay before the eyes of the poet watching from even higher that the clouds, at the height of an eagle’s flight. The presence of the locals does not bother the viewer at all; his attention is rather attracted by the furious element of the speedy Terek…

Further Transformation of Russian Orientalism

It may seem that there should have been no place for Orientalism in the Soviet Union among equal republics in the federation. But scholars mention that in the Stalin period in fact the dominating role of the Russian nation was restored in the “big brother – little brothers” model.

In the following years the policy of Russification of the Soviet peoples extended to unprecedented scale, and the educational system and the media were serving this process. Along with this in the 1960s manifestations of nationalism, emphasized interest of the ethnic roots and national cultural tradition became evident in a number of republics. All this could activate Russian Orientalism.

According to the British critic Stuart Hall, stereotyping is a key element in exercising symbolic power and violence through representational practices. A good example of such stereotyping is what is called “a person of Caucasus descent ” for it is both a highly negative evaluation that comprises racist coloring and serves the purpose of giving homogeneity to the extremely diverse space in ethnic, religious, and cultural aspects. A more “friendly” stereotype is “Sunny Armenia (Georgia, Azerbaijan),” that like the word “Transcaucasia” denoted the place whose monopoly it is to name and to give a meaning. In any case in such labeling the local are associated with their past and tradition, reserving civilization and modernity for the Center.

The Caucasus was a desirable place to travel to (this was also the case with Pushkin and Lermontov in terms of running away from the watching eyes of the power) and was an important literary topic also in the Soviet years. Socialism was inevitably dictating its demands, for example, with regard to the topics and forms of representation, but some old topics and stereotypes continued to feed the imagination of the Soviet writers. For example, the topic of “the captive of the Caucasus” that we come across in the writings by Pushkin, Lermontov, and Tolstoy, we see also in the book by Bitov ‘The Lessons of Armenia.’

As I have already highlighted, so far very little has been done with regard to interpreting Soviet authors, but I think that reading Russian and Soviet old and new authors may be very useful for the efforts to understand the current reality.

Summary

As the Norwegian scholar Iver Neumann notes Russia has been prominent for two things in the eyes of the West – its uncertainty (for example, with regard to its prospects or what could be expected from it) and the threat of being before the gates to Europe. Today also Russia is characterized by these two qualities – the uncertainty and the threat (by the way, not only for Europe), but the situation is significantly different: Russia is not identified with the European (Western) projects of the day and it is not perceived as an irreplaceable mediator between the West and the South Caucasus, all the more we should not bring up its civilizing mission that it took up in the 19th century. Such a role seems quite impossible today. At the same time the global cultural flows, penetrating directly into the region, have seriously shattered the Russian cultural dominance in the South Caucasus.

Today the situation is different also in the sense that some pretence for becoming the Westernizing factor is put forth by Turkey, which in some aspects is considered more Western than Russia. The latter is more presented as an alternative to Europe.

This situation creates complex problems for the South Caucasus or individual countries in that region. In the conditions of a complex situation the advocates of the Western orientation of Armenia when answering the question “Europe or Russia?” construct their arguments on the fact of continuous historical and cultural ties between Armenia and Europe, unfortunately overlooking or underestimating the significance of the Russian – Soviet dominance of about 200 years over Armenia. Today it has become more obvious that the expediency of considering the South Caucasus as an “invented” or a culturally constructed region, even more so when we see facts of shifting foreign policy development vectors and notice intentions of doing so.

Translated by Kristine Soghikyan

The article has been provided by “Region” Research Center