Neo-Traditionalism in Self-Identification in Modern Mongolia1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 Neo-Traditionalism in Self-Identification in Modern Mongolia1 Prof. Tatiana D. Skrynnikova Head of the Department of Central and South Asia, Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg, Russia Abstract This article deals with the national language-discourse of post-socialist Mongolia, based on the symbolism of the “roots” and “blood and soil” typical of the identity’s practices of the modern Mongolian society. The self-identification is realized in accordance with the existing common ideas of belonging to some larger whole. The formation of the Mongolian identity by the ruling elite in the late 20th century was based on the historical paradigms of self-identification worked out much earlier. The language of that discourse is not solely designed by the national elite and reflected in the media, scholarly publications, and literature; it finds its way into everyday life. The language gets saturated with archaic ideas supplemented with the “invented tradition”. For most of the Mongolian world, especially important for the reconstruction of the identification notions are presently the lexemes “Mongolian Empire” and “Chinggis-Khan” which have acquired a high semiotic status in forming the ethnic self-identification and political mythology. They have become mythologemes or ideologemes implicitly restoring the textual myth with its symbolism and ritual. Keywords: language-discourse, self-identification, Mongolia, “roots”, “blood and soil”, Mongolian Empire, Chinggis-Khan. 1 This research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation via grant № 14-18-02785. http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1670 Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 With the USSR having been disbanded and the Soviet people as a unity eliminated along with the socialist block, there started evolving processes of national and cultural renaissance requiring new discourses of identity and correspondingly a new language suitable for the tasks never faced before. At that, the language does not so much exist in everyday communication as gets structured by the intellectual elite for the media, scholarly publications, and literature. It can be noted that it is already possible to speak about the national language-discourse of post-socialist Mongolia, based on the symbolism of the “roots” and “blood and soil” typical of diverse strata of the Mongolian society. In that country, the primary symbol of its political identity is presently seen in the ethnic politonym khalkha forming the so-called khalkha identity. Ethnicity could therefore be understood as a symbol of political identity of the Mongolian Republic as a nation state with the ethnonym of Khalkha being an essential boundary marker. Like a lot of other symbols and images in today's Mongolia, the ethnonym is linked with the country's glorious past. B.Ya.Vladinirtzov wrote: «As is well known, the Mongolian tribe Xalxa «the Khalkhas» forming the majority of the population in modern Khalkha (presently, the Mongolian Republic. - T.S.) had originated as the so-called «seven Khalkha generations» Doluγan otoγ Xalxa occasionally referred to as the «Seven northern (rear) Khalkha generations» aru-yin Doluγan otoγ Xalxa. At that, we know that those generations were given to Geresenje jalayir xong tayiji, the younger son of Batu Möngke Dayan xaγan’а (the mid-16th century). Since in documented cases the words «generation» otoγ and «property, military district, division banner» xosiγun were synonymous, along with the phrase Doluγan otoγ Xalxa there emerged also Doluγan xosiγun Xalxa or «Seven khoshuns» used in regard to entire Khalkha and all Khalkhas» (Vladimircov, 2002, 285). The fall of the Mongolian Empire was followed by a struggle between two tendencies, one centripetal, the other centrifugal; of them, the latter was predominant. In the 15th century, thanks to Batu-Munke's (b. in 1460, ruled in 1479-1543), a.k.a. Dayan-khagan, victory over his contenders, the clashes stopped for some time («Then Dayan-khagan assembled and united six tumen-uluses and made the entire Mongolian ulus peaceful and happy. He had occupied the throne for seventy-four years and died as a man of eighty» (Erdeni-yin tobči, 1990, 130). One can say that Batu-Munke Dayan-khagan united the Mongols and restored the title of “khagan” as the marker of the supreme authority existing while the nation had been a great one. While Southern and Inner Mongolia was conquered by the Manchurians (the last Mongolian khagan, Ligdan-khagan, was defeated in 1636) and incorporated into the Chinese Empire, Khalkha remained independent through the late 17th century and was referred to as Northern or Outer Mongolia. The well-known «Eight laws of the steppe» were written between the late 16th century and 1639 by the leaders of four, six, or seven khoshuns of Khalkha (Nasilov, 2002). Within the framework of the Mongolian national renaissance there are formed common interests, goals and tasks; the national intellectual elite outlines the ethnical borders, i.e. defines the indicators used as symbols of group identification. The self-identification is realized in accordance with the existing common ideas of belonging to some larger whole. Most creators of ethnic ideology themselves follow the mythological stereotypes which they include into the ideological set, and thus are fairly honest: they do not design the discourse, but rather apply existing mythologems adapting them to the modernity. That results in an obvious uniformity in regard to the attitudes towards certain processes, and a uniform language with only varying emotional load and style, plus the set of topics never exceeding the established limits. The ethnic tradition contains a vast archaic cultural hoard suitable for a new mythological structure devoid of internal contradictions, in which the archetypes acquire new textual shape following the logics and historical essence of the basic myth. At that, one should also take into account the evolution of ethnic ideas about the nation, as those who shape http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1671 Volume 3 Issue 2 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND September 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 modernity are to various degrees bound with the preceding political experience. Thus, the formation of the Mongolian identity by the ruling elite in the late 20th century was based on the historical paradigms of self-identification worked out much earlier. Today's myths emerging in the time of socio-cultural crisis and transformation tend to merge the ratio with the archetypes representing the only stable system opposing the chaos invading the individual and collective conscience. Although a new myth offers archaic ways of perceiving the world, the modern mind must rationally adapt and understand the newer and wider senses of old mythologems. The discourse of ethnic political identity is always realized under specific historical conditions; it legitimizes the present and defines the collective memory. History itself becomes a cultural process producing that identity: the course of national and cultural renaissance demands newer identity discourses and a set of necessary mythologemes/ideologemes suitable for the new tasks. At that, the language of that discourse is not solely designed by the national elite and reflected in the media, scholarly publications, and literature; it finds its way into everyday life. The language gets saturated with archaic ideas supplemented with the “invented tradition”. For most of the Mongolian world, especially important for the reconstruction of the identification notions are presently the lexemes “Mongolian Empire” and “Chinggis-Khan” which have acquired a high semiotic status in forming the ethnic self-identification and political mythology. They have become mythologems or ideologems implicitly restoring the textual myth with its symbolism and ritual. The personality of Chinggis-Khan is especially important, as the great state of the past and a hero represented by a real person perform a major part in the ethnic ideology. In this context, of great interest is the way in which the image of Chinggis-Khan gets used in modern practices of identification requiring a set of symbols. United in a language, they serve as a tool of political socialization and determine its contents so that the collective thought was penetrated by the idea of constancy and truthfulness of the statement saying that the ethnos and its culture can only be preserved inside a unified state having centuries-long history and traditions. Within the conceptual framework of the “blood and soil”, a new cosmos becomes a reality, with the Mongolian Republic being its sacral center. It is well known that cosmologization of an area should start with its sacralization, the fixation of its Center. This idea was also common inside the historical and cultural discourse of the national renaissance during the late 20th century. According to the tradition, a human being (a socium) is placed in the world Center, the most sacral place; this demands some hierophany, involvement of something sacral. Traditional culture can use various objects for the purpose of sacralizing an area; primarily it is Chinggis-Khan himself (= “the sacred ancestor”). Cosmogenesis was accompanied by the necessary repetition of spatial-temporal mythologems or paradigms of the political discourse