Revitalizing Buryat Culture Through Shamanic Practices in Ulan-Ude Justine B
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: [73.167.119.229] On: 31 July 2015, At: 05:36 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG Problems of Post-Communism Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mppc20 Finding “Their Own”: Revitalizing Buryat Culture Through Shamanic Practices in Ulan-Ude Justine B. Quijadaa, Kathryn E. Graberb & Eric Stephenc a Department of Religion, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA b Departments of Anthropology and Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA c Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA, USA Published online: 30 Jul 2015. Click for updates To cite this article: Justine B. Quijada, Kathryn E. Graber & Eric Stephen (2015) Finding “Their Own”: Revitalizing Buryat Culture Through Shamanic Practices in Ulan-Ude, Problems of Post-Communism, 62:5, 258-272, DOI: 10.1080/10758216.2015.1057040 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2015.1057040 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 62: 258–272, 2015 Copyright © 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1075-8216 (print)/1557-783X (online) DOI: 10.1080/10758216.2015.1057040 Finding “Their Own” Revitalizing Buryat Culture Through Shamanic Practices in Ulan-Ude Justine B. Quijada,1 Kathryn E. Graber,2 and Eric Stephen3 1Department of Religion, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA 2Departments of Anthropology and Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA 3Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge, MA, USA The shamans working at the Tengeri Shamans’ Organization in Ulan-Ude, Republic of Buryatia, claim that their work is devoted to reviving “traditional” Buryat culture, despite local criticism of the “nontraditional” institutional nature of their practices. Ethnographic and survey data collected in 2012 confirm that this is in fact the case for the urban Buryats who are drawn to the organization. Shamanic healing at Tengeri requires patients to learn family genealogies and revive clan rituals, and it offers both practical opportunities and encourage- ment for the use of the Buryat language, thereby providing a locus for cultural revitalization. INTRODUCTION (Bolotova 2012, 2). Some local residents, however, con- sider institutional forms of shamanism to be, by their very “Why didn’t they go to their own (Rus. k svoim)?” Katya nature, “nontraditional.” In this article, we analyze survey asks me, referring to the people who visit the Tengeri and interview data collected during the summer of 2012 at Shamans’ Center, a relatively new enterprise serving a lar- the Tengeri Shamans’ Organization in Ulan-Ude, Republic gely urban population in Ulan-Ude, the capital of the of Buryatia, that substantiate Tengeri’s claim. Republic of Buryatia. Although she now lives in Ulan- Survey data collected at five of Tengeri’s public ceremo- Ude, Katya grew up in a small fishing village by Lake nies indicate that participants at Tengeri maintain lower rates Baikal. Katya’s maternal uncle is a shaman in that village, of Buryat language attrition than average in Buryatia, and that Downloaded by [73.167.119.229] at 05:36 31 July 2015 and when she has a problem, she goes to Uncle Vova. She is a significant number of participants who did not participate in both fascinated and confused by the idea of a shaman center. shamanic rituals as children now attend clan offering rituals This article is an attempt to address the implications of her (Bur. tailgan). Participants who spoke Buryat as children deceptively simple question.1 tended to keep speaking Buryat as adults, which is unusual Practitioners of shamanism, which is increasingly taking in and of itself, but in addition, 20 percent of those who did on institutional forms, proclaim shamanism to be a locus not speak Buryat at home as children state that they do now. for reviving Buryat “traditional culture” more broadly. Likewise, those who grew up in families that engaged in Tengeri, for example, in one of their infrequently published shamanic practices tended to continue to attend clan rituals, newsletters, describes the primary mission of the organiza- but more than half of those whose families did not participate tion as the “rebirth of religious shamanic traditions and in shamanic activities as children have begun to attend clan customs of the Buryat people … [and] … the preservation rituals. In sum, participation in shamanic rituals at Tengeri 2 and development of the cultural heritage of the republic” correlates with the revival of these cultural practices. What is most interesting about this revival is that, despite rhetoric in Tengeri’s publications, most people do not turn to “ ” Address correspondence to Justine B. Quijada, Department of Religion, Tengeri or shamanic practices in order to revive traditional Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA. forms of knowledge. Rather, most of the people in Ulan-Ude E-mail: [email protected]. with whom the authors have engaged over many years of Color versions of the figures in this article can be found online at www. fieldwork seek shamanic intervention to solve problems tandfonline.com/mppc. REVITALIZING BURYAT CULTURE 259 rooted in contemporary life: physical and mental illnesses, of 272,910 (Rosstat 2004), to 43 percent, or 122,882 out of alcoholism, or family and business troubles.3 “Traditional” 286,839 (Rosstat 2012–13, 212).5 More subtly, Buryat has forms of knowledge are revived in the process, almost as a been receding from public life. Despite a considerable by-product of shamanic treatment. These findings have amount of Buryat-language media production and well- implications for other populations invested in reviving cul- institutionalized Buryat language education, the domains tural heritage. One cannot speak to one’s ancestors if one of usage are restricted (Dyrkheeva 2002, 2003; Graber does not know them, nor do Buryat ancestors speak Russian. 2012). In a recent survey of language attitudes among Since shamanic interventions involve communicating and Buryats, only 2.4 percent of respondents in Ulan-Ude negotiating with ancestors, Buryat language, genealogical reported using Buryat in work or school (Khilkhanova knowledge, and traditional kinship customs become practical 2007, 81), laying bare one of the main reasons that the and necessary. For those seeking shamanic treatments, tradi- language is not seen as necessary or practical for socio- tional forms of knowledge that were once discouraged, and economic success. deemed useless vestiges of the past by the Soviet state, are Religious practices and their relationship to family ties revalued as practical matters of life or death. were also profoundly affected. During the initial years of Katya’s question, “why didn’t they go to their own?,” the Soviet Union, in the 1920s and 1930s, violent reli- must be seen in relationship to a history of Soviet moder- gious repression decimated the ranks of both shamans and nizing initiatives in Buryatia that produced a highly edu- Buddhist lamas, and drove much religious practice out of cated urban population, whose ties to rural kinship networks the public sphere. Family relationships and geographically vary widely. At the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth grounded kin-type mutual aid relationships (Rus. zemlia- century there was a nascent Buryat intelligentsia (see Rupen chestvo) remain important to contemporary Buryats, but 1956). Building on this early intelligentsia, and a literate the ways these relationships are manifested, once monastic population, intensive state-sponsored moderniza- grounded primarily in ritual, have changed dramatically. tion initiatives in the postwar period turned a predominantly Soviet institutions fostered civic, professional, and educa- seminomadic pastoral population into a highly educated and tional relationships, while the religious rituals that had urban nationality. Buryats overwhelmingly embraced the once fostered kinship relations were suppressed (for possibilities offered by the Soviet state and by the 1970s example, see Batomunkuev 2003). Kinship and clan rela- had begun to dominate cultural, professional, and adminis- tionships, always a backbone