• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

A STRUCTURAL AHALYSIS OF SOBRAi-lMA: DOUKHOBOR AND RUSSIAN ORTHODOX by CLAIRE MARION NEWELL B.A., University of British Columbia, 1C69 and TERRELL POPOFF B.A., University of British Columbia, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology Vie accept tin's thesis as conforming to the required standard Claire Newell Terrell Popoff THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1971 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Ant.hronr.1ngv and Sociology The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date September 20, 1971 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Anthropology and Sociology The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date 20 September 1971 ii ABSTRACT Ttie thesis investigates the Doukhobor meeting which has been treated in the literature as the religious-economic-social-political institution- Previous writers have assumed that Doukhobors do not differentiate their activities. A failure to recognize that there are several distinct kinds of meetings can lead to a definition of the community meeting as a "multi• purpose" meeting9 a definition which, the thesis maintains, is not con• sistent with the Doukhobor definition. In the literature the Doukhobor meeting has been referred to as the "community meeting," "prayer service," "business meeting" or sobranie. In determining the characteristics and the precise nature of the meeting, ambiguities arise. In the thesis one approach used to explain the varia• tions in the descriptions of a sobranie is the reconstruction of a meeting as it took place in the nineteenth century. Discrepancies between the accounts can, in part, be understood in terms of deviations from the his- "• y.) torical prototype. Some variations peculiar to three Doukhobor factions can be explained by historical developments within each of the separate groups. However, a comparison with the historical accounts does not com• pletely explain the differences that are apparent among meetings presently held. It is therefore necessary to consider other ways of explaining the variations among these meetings. This thesis argues that the "community meeting" does not encompass such a diverse range of activities as is suggested in the literature. Further, it is demonstrated that Doukhobors distinguish several types of meetings which are held on separate occasions and that unique terms are Hi designated to each of these meetings. By constructing a folk taxonomy of gatherings it is shown that Doukhobors distinguish several types of special purpose meetings. On the basis of this, it is argued that there are two levels of contrast to the term sobranie and that Doukhobors differentiate the Sobranie or 'Community Meeting'1 from the molenie or 'prayer meeting.' The various Doukhobor meetings are subsequently classi• fied according to the participants' categorization of activities. This has important implications with regard to the manner in which meetings and activities are classified by the various Doukhobor factions. There is a presumed historical relationship between the Doukhobors and the Russian Orthodox Church, implying that there are, or were, connec• tions between the two. Given that Doukhobors dissented from the Russian Orthodox Church, differences are assumed by definition, while similarities may either persist or not. When a relationship can be shown to exist between some activities and others, this not only demonstrates the connec• tion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Doukhobors but also suggests hypotheses which explain the behavior of the latter in terms of the former. Because Doukhobors and Russian Orthodox members are both Russian speakers, a comparison of their taxonomies is made to ascertain whether or not they order their meetings and activities in a similar manner and Vfhether they are making similar classifications with either the same or different terms. Briefly, the concern of the thesis lies with the activities which lThe distinction between sobranie and Sobranie is an analytical one and 1s discussed at length In the thesis. 1v occur at a Doukhobor Sunday meeting. The thesis also examines the terms used to describe the activities and the meetings. Comparisons are made among the meetings held by the various Doukhobor factions and these in turn are compared with the Sunday meeting of the Russian Orthodox Church. V TABLE OF CONTENTS PRELIMINARY PAGES T 1 L>1 G 0306 •O0*»aos«o*ao«»ooaoaoooa»i>o* i i>J Sl*l^ClCt oooo6aoooao*a»ooae*oeoao«ooooa ii Tab! e of Contents ........ v l_ 1 S C Q I Cl L> 1 (} S • a»oooaaaaeaeaae«a«»aoo« vii List of Diagrams and Figures ...... vlii Acknow! edrpents ix Hote to the Graduate Studies Corrsnittee IiiTuODUCTIOr! A. Outline ............... 1 B. The Transliteration ... 0 0 0 0 a 4 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Aa iS SUrnP"b 1 01 i S oooeeooso«o»a*Ooa«oooo* 13 B. Procedure • a a • 1 21 CHAPTER II. HISTORY OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH . 37 CHAPTER III. HISTORY OF THE DOUKHOCORS CHAPTER IV. CONTEMPORARY DOUKHOBOR MEETINGS 47 A. Setting 48 1. Exterior Setting .......... 49 2. Interior Setting 52 B. Participants 0 • ! J V^G SS ooaoaaeooeoooaaaoaoaaaoaoaeoo 5G 0 SIC »aaeoaeooaasaD0oooeea«ooeao«o G3 E. Sequence of Events F. Historical Prayer Meeting ......... CHAPTER V . CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN ORTHODOX SERVICE 70 5) 0 C C 1 li 0 aoaeaavaaaaaoai 82 1. Exterior Setting . oG 102 b. 2. Interior Setting . 108 C. Participr.nts ......... L.' V* G S S i>oODOOO«aoi>aoaoB IOC MUSIC oeaeoaoaaaoaaaoo llu F. Sequence of Events ... 125 Chances in the Divine Liturgy . CHAPTER VI. DISCUSSION A. Taxonomy of Doukhobor Gatherings 13( B. Taxonomy of Russian Orthodox Gatherings 143 C. Categorization of the Characteristics of Doukhobor Meetings 117 D. Categorization of the Characteristics of Divine Liturgy 150 Spatial Usage and the Properties of Doukhobor Meetings . 162 F. 6!. I!. APPLHDIX Lcumenical CounciIs B. Excerpts from the literature containing the word sobranie C. Modus Operandi n\ r\ccnn\f ^.;L«V- *Js3; .i • I ........ ....... ....... .00.0... ...o... ....... ......... ...... vii LIST OF TABLES PAGE TABLE I. CHARACTERISTICS OF HOLE.iIE AND SOBRANIE 136 TABLE II. CHARACTERISTICS OF HERBISON'S VIEW OF SOBRANYA 139 TABLE III. CATEGORIZATION OF HERBISON'S CHARACTERISTICS ACCORDING TO MOLENIE AND SOBRANIE 140 TABLE IV. CLASSIFICATION OF CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN THE 'THREE TRADITIONAL DOUKHOBOR MEETINGS' 152 TABLE V. CATEGORIZATION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MOLENIE AND SOBRANIE 156 viii LIST OF DIAGRAMS DIAGRAM 1. DOUKHOBOR MEETIMPS HALLS 53 DIAGRAM 2. PLAN OF A RUSSIA;' ORTHODOX CHURCH BASED UPON HOLY TRINITY CHURCH 87 DIAGRAM 3. USE OF SPACE AT SUNDAY MEETINGS 164 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. FOLK TAXONOMY OF DOUKHOBOR GATHERINGS 133 FIGURE 2. TAXONOMY OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOX GATHERINGS 140 FIGURE 3. TRI DUXOBORCESKIX OBRADA— 'THREE TRADITIONAL bOUKKGDGR MEETINGS': 1 1 1 •PRAYER MEETIMS, WEDDINGs' 'FUNERAL .... 149 ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We'wish to extend gratitude to all those Doukhobors who were most hospitable and spent many hours talking with the researchers. Special acknowledgment is given to Peter Legebokoff and William Sukhorev for their comments in the early stages of the investigation and to Eli Popoff for his continued interest and assistance. A study of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Vancouver would not have been possible without the help of Bishop Antonuk and Father Vladimir. In particular, we wish to thank Father Vladimir for his patience and his incisive explanations of the Russian Orthodox Church. Thanks are given to Professor A. Harshenin, of Slavonic Studies, University of British Columbia, who offered his help with the translit• eration. We are also indebted to Drs. Michael Ames, Werner Cohn, Harry Hawthorn and El 1 i kong'as fiaranda, of the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, for their criticisms and suggestions. Dr. Cohn deserves added recognition for his encouragement and discerning comments over the years. None of these people are., however, responsible for any errors or obscurities. NOTE TO THE GRADUATE STUDIES COMMITTEE ON THE JOINT AUTHORSHIP The purpose of this note is to explain the authorship of the various chapters of the thesis. Parts of the research were carried out indepen• dently by one of the two authors and in these cases that author assumes sole responsibility for the material. An indication of the division of labor is given here. The Assumptions (Chapter I, Section A), History of the Orthodox Church (Chapter II), Contemporary Doukhobor Meetings (Chapter IV), Taxonomy of Doukhobor Gatherings (Chapter VI, Section A), Categor• ization of Characteristics of the Divine Liturgy (Chapter VI, Section D), and Spatial Usage and the Properties of Doukhobor Meetings (Chapter VI, Section E) are the responsibility of Claire Newell. The Procedure (Chapter Is Section B), History of the Doukhobors (Chapter III), Contem• porary Russian Orthodox Service (Chapter V), Taxonomy of Russian Orthodox Gatherings (Chapter VI9 Section B)s Categorization of Characteristics of Doukhobor Meetings (Chapter VI, Section C), and Spatial Usage and the Properties of the Divine Liturgy (Chapter VI, Section F) are the respon• sibility of Terrell Popoff.

Load more

  221

Copy Link