The University of Manchester Research
Individuals, Institutions and Discourses: Knowledge and Power in Russia's Iranian Studies of the Late Imperial, Soviet and Post-Soviet Periods
Document Version Final published version
Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer
Citation for published version (APA): Volkov, D. V. (2015). Individuals, Institutions and Discourses: Knowledge and Power in Russia's Iranian Studies of the Late Imperial, Soviet and Post-Soviet Periods. Middle East - Topics & Arguments, 2015(4), 61-79.
Published in: Middle East - Topics & Arguments
Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version.
General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Takedown policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing relevant details, so we can investigate your claim.
Download date:28. Sep. 2021 FOCUS 61
duced. However, in Europe, the scholarly contemplation of this topic dates back to I ndividuals, Institutions and the end of the nineteenth and the begin- Discourses: Knowledge and Power ning of the twentieth century—the period of the genesis of various social theories in Russia’s Iranian Studies of the and the beginning of scholarly attempts at conceptualizing the nation-state. Natu- Late Imperial, Soviet and rally, while these developments shared a number of common features that were Post-Soviet Periods the same across all the Western coun- tries in which they occurred, there were also marked differences and characteris- tics that were specific for each individual Denis V. Volkov country. In this regard, Russia, which had always been distinct from both Europe The scholarship on late Imperial Russia’s my and his concept of two-vector relations and Asia, is a case in point (Hirsch 25-30, Oriental studies is divided by a disagree- between knowledge and state power. It 44; Gerasimov and Kusber 3-23, 229-72; ment over the applicability of Edward offers a new reading, based on the decon- Vucinich xiv, 5-14, 30-34; Slezkine 388- Said’s Orientalism to the Russian case. struction of the interplay of the manifold 90; Krementsov 13-16). Moreover, in a broader sense, since the multi-vector power/knowledge relations The issue of distinctions in possible mid 1990s, Western scholarship has not that is clearly identifiable in Russia’s long modes of social development directly in- been unanimous on the applicability of twentieth-century Iranian studies.1 fluencing all other spheres within differ- the underlying Foucauldian notions to ent nation states was also considered by late Imperial and Soviet Russia. While pre- Keywords: Power / Knowledge; Iranian Russia’s intellectuals at the end of the senting a systematic study of Soviet and Studies; Soviet Oriental Studies; Russo- nineteenth and the beginning of the post-Soviet scholarship (mostly unfamiliar Iranian Relations twentieth century. A good illustration of to Western readership), this article offers this can be found in the words of Bogdan an assessment of the institutional and in- Russia and the Foucauldian Kistiakovskii, a renowned social philoso- dividual practices adopted within Russia’s In today’s social sciences and humani- pher and legal scholar of Ukranian orgin Oriental studies from the late nineteenth ties, few scholars, if any, would deny that in late Imperial Russia, who had stated as century to the present. The article aims to there is a strong correlation between early as 1909: provide an analysis that goes far beyond scholarly knowledge and the social con- There are no same unified ideas of the Saidian restrictive East-West dichoto- text within which this knowledge is pro- personal freedom, of legal system,
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 62
of constitutional state, identical for all the social effects of this process on societ- his influence is clear in a great deal of peoples and times, just as there is no ies, the role that science and scholarly post-structuralist, post-modernist, fem- capitalism or any other economic or knowledge play for a particular country or inist, post-Marxist and post-colonial social order identical for all countries. a society, and for mankind in general. In theorizing. The impact of his work has All legal ideas acquire unique color- the second half of the twentieth century, also been felt across a wide range of ation and their own tinge in the con- the issue of the relationship between sci- disciplinary fields, from sociology and sciousness of each separate people. entific and scholarly inquiry and their so- anthropology to English studies and (Author’s translation) cial context and, especially, the role of history (Mills 1). However, against the backdrop of various state power in this relationship became Foucault’s concepts of power, knowledge kinds of national specificities, there were the subject of the scrutiny of social phi- and discourse caused heated debates in common general tendencies and factors, losophers and historians. They also pon- the 1960s and 1970s and had a consider- namely at the social, economic and po- dered the question of the place of scien- able impact on the further development litical levels, in all Western societies which tists and scholars in the complex and of critical thinking at the end of the twen- were considered by many historians to entangled grid of multi-branch reciprocal tieth and at the beginning of the twenty- be major influences on science and influence between individuals and vari- first century. Among Foucault’s main con- scholarly knowledge and their develop- ous forms of knowledge, social institu- cepts, his insistence on the absence of an ment (Graham 1; Tolz 6; Hirsch 25-30; tions and state power.3 absolute and pure truth is most notewor- Beer 3-8; Slezkine 388-90; Krementsov Among them, Michel Foucault’s (1926- thy. Taking an approach to the study of 13-16; Kotkin 14, 21-23). These general 1984) work is of particular interest. His the production of knowledge that he tendencies and factors were clearly ap- ideas on power relations within the pow- conceives of as archaeology,5 he argued parent in Russia throughout her long er/knowledge nexus, the notions of that the process of striving for ultimate twentieth century.2 épistème and discourse deeply influenc- truths through conventional scholarly ac- Generally, twentieth-century European ing the process of scientific/scholarly tivities throughout the course of human thought witnessed major international knowledge production and perception of history had always been subject to the debates on the philosophy and social his- various truths by society, the role of intel- influence of a vast range of factors, which tory of scientific and scholarly knowledge. lectuals and the phenomenon of resis- led him to conclude that all truths are Since the beginning of the century, hu- tance are the most pertinent to the subject conceived or, to be more precise, con- manities scholars studying the history and of this study.4 Foucault’s work is character- structed rather than being absolute and present of science, and scientists them- ized by a high level of inherent inconsis- ultimate. Therefore, according to Fou- selves, particularly in those countries tency and a lack of theoretical totality and cault, there are no objective, constant which were in the vanguard of the rapid cohesion, but especially by its iconoclastic and independent truths within the system development of science, had been pay- and challenging nature. However, what of human knowledge, especially in the ing further attention to questions such as goes without saying is that human and social sciences.
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 63
This inherent feature of human knowledge tangled with each other (Simons 36-41; zation, the regime of “power/knowl- is reckoned by Foucault as the conse- Mills 42-52; Kotkin 21-23). edge” never came into its own in the quence of the constant interplay of power Notwithstanding the seeming universali- Russian context (225). relations comprising the various compo- ty of these theoretical notions, it must be It appears that Engelstein’s reasoning nents and factors of both those on the noted that their applicability to the analy- takes into consideration only the general highest level of structures organizing hu- sis of late Imperial and Soviet Russia has organizational modes of modern Western man societies (for instance, state power, been questioned since Foucault arrived society, as discussed by Foucault, and op- social and cultural structures, academic at his conclusions through the study of erates with very narrow definitions of and other communities) and those of less the late European juridical monarchies structures when exploring the applicabil- complexity (relations between individuals, and liberal states, a grouping to which ity of the power/knowledge nexus to Rus- their personal viewpoints, endeavors, pas- Russia arguably did not belong.6 The very sia’s late imperial and Soviet societies. Her sions). All these shaped or indeed con- applicability of the Foucauldian to Russia, focus is on the outward appearance and structed knowledge, which therefore can- in general, was questioned by such schol- the concrete shape of structures. Howev- not be considered truly impartial, constant ars as Laura Engelstein in the 1990s. er, I would argue that what are really at and objective (Mills 33-42, 48-52). Moreover, somewhat overstating the Rus- stake here are not structures, but princi- Hence, another crucial Foucauldian no- sian case’s “otherness,” Engelstein comes ples. Indeed, although Russia had consid- tion, namely ‘governmentality’ that deals to conclusions which might also partially erable distinctions from its Western con- with “the technologies of domination of reflect a residual Cold War mentality. She temporaries in terms of social organization, others and those of the self” (Foucault, emphasizes that Foucault stresses the un- the principles according to which power “Technologies of the Self” 19). It demon- derlying difference between the so- relations operated and permeated the strates the tight interconnections and rela- called Old Regimes, where the state is whole society were quite similar (Beer tionships between power exercised to- the sole source of power, and liberal so- 205-09; Kotkin 21-23). wards individuals by institutions or a state cieties in which power regulates activi- Indeed, more recently scholars have ar- and that which is exercised by individuals ties, based on scientific/scholarly knowl- gued convincingly in favor of the Foucaul- towards themselves. These processes im- edge, and is realized by means of dian approach to the study of Russian his- ply interaction between aspects of politics disciplinary practices permeating society tory emphasizing the universality of and human ethics. There are conduct reg- (Engelstein 224). She therefore con- Foucault’s thoughts on power relations.7 ulation rules and techniques in our society cludes on the Russian case that Drawing on the insights provided by that are designed and applied from the … [a]lthough Western culture pen- these scholars, the theoretical framework top, but, simultaneously, there are also etrated the empire’s official and civic of this article will be informed by the rules and techniques exercised by indi- elites, and the model of Western in- above-mentioned Foucauldian notions. viduals in order to control and arrange stitutions to a large extent shaped the While surveying the main common fea- their own conduct, and they are tightly en- contours of state and social organi- tures and distinctions of the process of
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 64
Orientological knowledge production these domains, namely academic schol- tutional activities of the War Ministry re- during the above-mentioned historical ars and practical experts of Persian stud- garding the establishment of Oriental periods, I will trace the presence of Fou- ies. In addition, despite the great system- studies on the periphery of the Russian cauldian power relations in the context of ic shift, which took place in 1917 and led to Empire at the turn of the twentieth century. Russian society of the time. As a subaltern sequential significant changes in all For example, the successful initiative of outcome, certain parallels of the same in- spheres of the life of Russian society, there Staff-Captain Ivan Iagello (1865-1942) terplay of power/knowledge relations will were strong continuities on the structural aimed at the creation of the courses of be drawn within present-day Russia’s level of early Soviet Oriental studies and Urdu, Arabic and Persian in Turkestan Iranology. Thus, I will demonstrate the va- also in discourses, which were wide- dates back as early as 1897. In 1908, the lidity of Foucault’s relevant concepts for spread among the Orientologists of a courses evolved into a full-scale Officers’ the student of Russian history. new generation. School of Oriental Languages in Tashkent, The issue of the formation of Russia’s Ori- where history, geography and Islamic law ental studies after 1917 was initially dealt were also taught (Oriental Studies and From Persian Studies to Iranology with in the works of Muriel Atkin, Nina Foreign Policy). The involvement of Russia’s Orientolo- Kuznetsova, Wayne S. Vucinich, Semen The publication of the works by Schimmel- gists8 in the intense manifold interactions Agaev and Richard Frye. They all empha- penninck, Tolz and Kemper also resurrect- between the Russian Empire and Persia sized the mainly new, different from late ed the slightly outdated debate on the ap- during the period from the late nine- Imperial, nature of early Soviet Oriental plicability of Edward Said’s Orientalism teenth century to 1917 predominantly took studies, particularly on the institutional concept to the Russian case, which had place within the main four professional level (Atkin; Kuznetsova and Kulagina; Vu- been initiated by Nathaniel Knight, Adeeb domains, namely academic scholarship, cinich; Agaev; Frye). For example, Atkin Khalid and Maria Todorova at the turn of the military, diplomatic service and the ascribed the establishment of Oriental this century (Knight, “Grigor’ev,” “On Rus- Orthodox Church’s missionary activities. studies in Central Asia to the Bolshevik re- sian Orientalism;” Khalid; Todorova; Given the nature and the historical devel- gime (229). Later, the scholarship repre- Schimmelpenninck, “The Imperial Roots;” opments of this interaction, the extent of sented by Marshall, Schimmelpenninck, Andreeva; Bartol’d, “Istoria izucheniia the involvement of each domain in ques- Tolz and Kemper argued in favor of the Vostoka,” “Vostok i russkaia”). Unfortunate- tion was different, as was their impact on presence of strong organizational conti- ly, the above-mentioned debate failed to Russo-Persian relations of the period (Vi- nuities throughout all the Soviet Oriental break through the bounds of the Saidian gasin and Khokhlov 7-8). However, there studies of the 1920s-30s. This has also two-vector relations of “the complicity of were also well-discernible commonalities been supported by the archival docu- knowledge with imperial power,” whereas in the organizational set-up and practices ments only recently brought into scholarly the scholarship of Tolz, Schimmelpen- of these domains as well as in the roles of circulation (Volkov, “Persian Studies and ninck and Kemper succeeded in qualita- individuals involved in the activities of the Military”). They shed light on the insti- tively transforming the debate into a
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 65
broader debate on Russian Orientalism, sionary domain is evidenced by the activ- Soviet foreign policy on the development engaging with Foucault’s genuine notions ities of the Russian Orthodox Orumie Mis- of economic and trade ties with Iran, and of the productive interplay of power/ sion and the Russian Orthodox the contribution of Soviet trade represen- knowledge multi-vector relations between ministers-Orientologists Ilminskii, Masha- tations of the time to the accumulation of individuals, institutions, state and dis- nov and Ostroumov. The forth (academic) Orientological knowledge on Persia, the courses (Tolz; Schimmelpenninck, Russian domain of late Imperial Persian studies is trade domain could have supplemented Orientalism; Kemper; Marshall; Volkov, represented by the scholars of world the remaining three domains of early So- “Persian Studies and the Military”). fame, such as Zhukovskii, Bartol’d, Zarud- viet Persian studies.12 However, given the The study of the late Imperial period dem- nyi and others.9 fact that the personnel of Soviet trade rep- onstrates that all four domains of Russia’s Considering the Soviet Oriental studies of resentations, as a rule, consisted mainly Oriental studies were organisationally de- the 1920s-1930s, it is possible to conclude of experts, assigned from Narkomindel, veloped enough and remarkably self-reli- that they kept the overall pre-revolution Razvedupr and INO OGPU,13 the trade ant. At the same time, their organisational organizational structure, with the under- activities with their organizations, person- activities were deeply interconnected with standable exception of the missionary do- nel and practices cannot be marked out each other and their institutional practices main. The demise of this domain was pre- as an institutionally self-reliant domain were much alike. This productive mutual determined by the militantly atheistic of Oriental studies.14 Therefore, during interpenetration at the level of institutions nature of the Bolshevik ideology and was the early Soviet period, Persian studies, and individuals which was inherent to all stipulated by Article 15 of the Russo-Per- or Iranology, was predominantly repre- four domains is extremely illustrative of sian Treaty of Friendship, according to sented by the academic, diplomatic and the presence of power/knowledge rela- which Soviet Russia repudiated all Russian military domains. tions (Volkov, “Persian Studies and the Mil- Church property in Persia in 1921 and Taking into account that “[i]n the early itary” 932). Based on the character of Rus- pledged not to undertake similar activities years of its existence, the Soviet regime sia’s presence in Persia during the late henceforward.10 However, in actual fact, perceived a need for people with area ex- Imperial period, it appears that the above- the once powerful presence of the Russian pertise to work in the government, party, mentioned state of affairs within the four- Orthodox Church in Persia had ceased to and military in Asian regions of the country domain structure becomes particularly exist by 1918 because of the hostilities in and to advance Soviet interests elsewhere clear when studying the example of Per- the West and North-West of Persia and the in Asia” (Atkin 229), the emphasis of Ori- sian studies. In the case of the diplomatic eventual devastation of the Orumie Mis- entological training radically changed. and military domains, this can be support- sion by Turks and Kurds.11 Stressing the crucial importance of the ed by the scholarly and professional ac- Simultaneously, judging by the immense- practical usefulness of Oriental studies to tivities of such individuals as Gamazov, ly high activity of the Soviet-Iranian trade state needs, the Bolsheviks replaced the Zinoviev, Minorsky and Tumanskii, Iagello, relations during the 1920s and the first former emphasis on gathering linguistic, Smirnov, Snesarev, accordingly. The mis- half of the 1930s, the strong emphasis of ethnographic and cultural information for
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 66
the study of Persia with enhanced political ship was inherited by the Persian studies namely Pastukhov, Osetrov and Gurko- and, particularly, economic components. of the early Soviet period. Konstantin Kriazhin—the leading Iranists of the new Though, similarly to the late Imperial pe- Chaikin17 taught Persian to Yakov Bliumkin generation.20 riod, academic Oriental training was at the Military Academy of the Red Army The study of the late Imperial period has shared by all domains, this time, it was the of Workers and Peasants, founded by the also revealed the presence of an under- Military Academy of the Red Army of former Tsarist Lieutenant-General Andrey lying discourse throughout all Persian Workers and Peasants that played the Snesarev.18 In 1920, although simply for studies. All four domains were rather leading role in the Oriental training of the sake of surviving, the former Tsarist united in the promotion of Russkoe delo practical experts on Persia during the Colonel Ivan Iagello, a specialist in Per- (“The Russian Cause”), which also in- 1920s, contrary to the former leading role sian and Urdu and the founder of the cluded the notion of the Russian civiliz- of Russia’s Imperial Ministry for Foreign Af- Tashkent Officers’ School of Oriental Lan- ing mission in the Orient. The spirit of pa- fairs in this field.15 guages, accepted Frunze’s invitation to triotism, boiled down to the promotion The study of the late imperial period also restore and to again take the lead of Ori- of imperial Russia’s state interests and demonstrates that the eventual produc- ental studies in Tashkent (Lunin 111-13). Russian culture in Persia, was generally tion of knowledge within Persian studies Furthermore, during the 1920s and the inherent to the activities of all domains. greatly benefited from the tight individu- early 1930s the scholars of the so-called Notwithstanding the fact that all this was al and organisational interrelationship new “practical” school of Persian studies taking place in the context of the intense between all four domains of Russia’s Ori- were enthusiastically involved in both the rivalry with European powers, the con- ental studies. As is clear from the re- activities of the Commissariat for Foreign ception of a civilizing mission was solid- search, scholarly active diplomats and Affairs and the academic and scholarly ac- ly based on Russia’s sense of superiority military officers used their professional tivities related to Persian studies. This pe- towards Asians that was caused by their postings for obtaining new area-study riod in the whole history of Russia’s Orien- perceived belonging to the so-called Eu- material and made immensely significant tal studies can rightfully be regarded as ropean civilization. However, simultane- contributions to the activities of various the most straightforward illustration of the ously, most late Imperial Russia’s Orien- Orientological societies, members of amalgamation of scholarly knowledge tologists strongly believed in the greater which they were. On the other hand, the and state power, hence, the supreme capability of Russian culture, in contrast main Russian scholars of Persian Studies manifestation of Said’s Orientalism.19 In to the West, to interact with the Orient played the underlying role in the Orien- 1926, during one of the sessions of the because of Russia’s geographical and tological training of officers and often car- Party Central Committee, Georgii cultural immediate proximity to the lat- ried out the narrowly specified assign- Chicherin was accused of losing control ter.21 As was first emphasized by Knight, ments of their diplomatic and military over Persian affairs, and that even the gen- such discursive manifestations were colleagues during their scholarly mis- eral guidelines of the Soviet Eastern policy particularly widespread within the aca- sions to Persia.16 The same interrelation- had been shaped by his employees, demic domain of late Imperial Oriental
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 67
studies and were passed on to their dis- among the most deprived, illiterate Asians, knowledge relations, namely their ‘pro- ciples in diplomatic and military services with the aim of nurturing efficient experts ductivity’ (Foucault, “Truth and Power” 113- (“Grigor’ev” 81; Tolz). and practically useful scholars.25 14, 120; “Prison Talk” 52; Mills 33; Tolz 70; Discourses of a similar nature were also In actual fact, this motion was the industri- Volkov, “Persian Studies and the Military” inherent to Oriental studies of Soviet Rus- alized development of what had initially 932). sia. The representatives of the new Orien- been offered by Vasilii Grigorie’v long be- Along with that, after 1917, the new politi- tological school continued to look down fore—as early as the mid-nineteenth cen- cal ideology predetermined the creation on Persia, this time because of the fact that tury (Knight, “Grigor’ev” 95-97)—and trans- of a new discourse, which seriously affect- Russia became the first society of the vic- ferred to the Bolsheviks through Viktor ed the relationships between main com- torious socialist revolution in the whole Rozen’s disciples, academicians of Orien- ponents of the Foucauldian power grid— world. Hence, the civilizing mission was tal studies Vasilii Bartol’d and Sergei academic and expert knowledge, state, replaced by the proliferation of socialist Ol’denburg, deeply involved with the ear- institutions and individuals. This implied revolution.22 The developments of 1919- ly Soviet nationalities’ policy (Tolz 3-4, the making of practical use of Oriental 1920 in Europe and the Orient, including 7-19).26 So, the massive engagement of all studies—the discourse which challenged the failed attempt to sovietize Persia, led three Orientological domains with native the very right of physical existence for to the conclusion that Persian and other agents became one of the most character- scholarship that was unable to yield im- eastern societies had not sufficiently de- istic features of the Soviet period that orig- mediate practical returns (Kemper 2-3; Ro- veloped and were not ready for an imme- inally derived from late Imperial Russia. In dionov 47, 51-52). The expert Persian diate revolution.23 So, the above-men- support of further refutation of the univer- scholarship of Pavlovich, Pastukhov, Ose- tioned discourse transformed into the sality of Said’s Orientalism that was so ad- trov and Gurko-Kriazhin not only crucially belief in the necessity of a significantly vocated by Khalid, the above-mentioned affected the activities of early Soviet diplo- more protracted process of cultivating interplay of power/knowledge relations macy and the military towards Persia but Persians for social conversion. Both dis- proves that the Russian/Soviet case was also put aside the still-existing classic courses predetermined that the agents of devoid of any racist component whatso- scholarship of Persian studies, which had the Bolshevism Cause with relevant Orien- ever. It is also maintained by Vladimir Mi- been influencing Russia’s foreign policy tological expertise and, hence, a better norskii’s private diaries, dated from the towards Persia since before 1917, albeit in- understanding of the oppressed Orien- time he was Head of the Russo-Brito- directly but rather successfully. However, tals, be trained in required quantities.24 In Turko-Persian Quadripartite Commission this state of affairs in Persian studies lasted addition to the Oriental section of the Mil- for the demarcation of Persia’s western merely until the mid-1930s, by which time itary Academy, this goal was also pursued border in 1913.27 Furthermore, and most almost all the representatives of the “old by the foundation of the Communist Uni- important, the above-depicted interplay school” and of revolutionary expertdom versity of the Toilers of the East in Moscow, supports the presence of one of the fun- (practical Orientologists of the first wave) which preferred to accept students from damental elements of Foucault’s power/ had either died from natural causes or
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 68
been dismissed from their posts and ex- After the understandable slack of 1940s- which, however, almost did not engage ecuted during Stalin’s purges. By that time, 50s in the activities of Oriental studies, it with archival materials and was based to- the academic domain had been staffed is possible to discern a period from 1960 tally on Soviet secondary sources. Its em- with the graduates of newly established to the mid-1980s when Soviet Iranology phasis on the development of Soviet Ori- institutions and, in general, the interaction turned into a monotonous uniform schol- ental studies, and Iranology therein, in between the domains had significantly di- arship in full conformity with the Commu- strict accordance with the Party resolutions minished (Tolz 6).28 nist Party’s ideology. In view of the above and the government decrees as well as on and given the self-censorship of that time, its “Marxist-Leninist foundations” (35) sig- ‘Governmentality’ and Intellectuals inculcated from the top, the works by Iva- nificantly reduces its historiographical val- Given the hampered access to the archival nov, Kuznetsova, Kulagina and Agaev ue. However, due to its scrupulous, some- documents of later periods in Russia, were overwhelmed with relevant ideolog- times mechanical description of the which has become even more restricted ical underpinnings and are lacking in events, this study still remains one of the since 2000, the study of the mature Soviet analysis (Kuznetsova and Kulagina; main references regarding the organisa- period has had to confine itself to merely Agaev). For example, one of the central tional changes of Soviet Oriental studies. the analysis of published works. Another figures of the Soviet Iranology of the time, It therefore can be concluded that know- reason for this is the much deeper profes- Mikhail Ivanov (1909-1986), focused on ing the social and political conditions of sional specialization of practical domains the Iranian “anti-feudal” movements of the time in which they were written, the that has not allowed diplomats and mili- the nineteenth century and the Iranian works of this period, nevertheless, are to tary officers to have enough time for schol- revolution of 1905-1911, heavily drawing be studied as scholarly valuable sources arly research since the 1930s, and the area- on Vladimir Ulianov-Lenin’s writings (M. of factual historical material. For example, study information professionally produced Ivanov, Iranskaia revoliutsiia; “Sozyv per- Ivanov’s works extensively drew on archi- by them has not been allowed into the vogo iranskogo;” Antifeodal’nye). During val materials, since the author’s adminis- academic domain, either. On top of that, the 1950s to 1980s, he also occupied key trative positions, deeply embedded into the level of their academic Orientological administrative positions, including Head Soviet science bureaucracy and party training could not be compared to that of of the Leningrad Institute of History of the structures, granted him additional unre- the pre-1917 period, and very few people Soviet Academy of Sciences and Head of stricted access to the archives of the So- would come into academia after their re- the Moscow State Institute of Internation- viet foreign affairs entities, hence securing tirement from military or diplomatic ser- al Relations affiliated with the Ministry for more operational autonomy for him. vice. Therefore, the study of the main Foreign Affairs of the USSR.29 The developments in the political and so- scholarly works, published only within the In 1970, Nina Kuznetsova and Liudmila Ku- cial life of the Soviet Union in the late academic domain after the 1930s, is quite lagina published a very detailed study Iz 1980s opened more archival documents representative of Soviet and post-Soviet istorii sovetskogo vostokovedeniia (“Of even for the Soviet researchers with a less- Oriental studies as a whole. the History of Soviet Oriental Studies”) er operational autonomy and allowed for
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 69
new approaches in their study (Mamedo- O sovetskom vtorzhenii v Iran i Bukharu rial Russian diplomat-Orientologist Pavel va, “O nekotorykh” 40-41). For Soviet v 1920-1921 godu (“The Timid Interven- Vvedenskii, whose expertise as a scholar Iranology, this moment was marked by the tion: The Soviet Invasion of Iran and was used by the Bolsheviks in a classical publication in 1988 of collected archival Bukhara, 1920-1921”). The word zas- discursive mode à la Foucault while he materials on the modern history of Iran. tenchivaia (“timid”) symbolically bridged was imprisoned. On balance, Genis’ The collection, called Novaia istoriia Irana the reticent and uncertain nature of the scholarship can be distinguished by the (“Modern History of Iran”), was edited by Bolsheviks’ attempt to sovietize Persia in scrupulous saturation of previously re- Ninel’ Belova and other renowned Soviet 1917-1921 and the state’s efforts, aimed at stricted archival materials and is im- Iranists. It contained a new portion of pre- suppressing the matter within Soviet his- mensely valuable for researchers in terms viously intact documents which had been toriography.30 As the current hampered of guiding them towards new, unconven- spotted in the Soviet archives, including research into this and other similar issues tional for present-day Russia’s historiogra- the one of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, in Russian archives illustrates, present- phy, areas of research (Genis, Krasnaia which became slightly more open during day Russia’s authorities resumed the So- Persiia; Nevernye slugi rezhima; Vitse- Gorbachev’s proclaimed policy of glas- viet discursive practices of the politics of Konsul Vvedenskii).32 nost. As if pushing forward the official au- history in the early 2000s.31 It is also worth noting that the 1990s’ rela- thorities, the editors remarked that “the In this sense, the works by Vladimir Genis tive openness of Russian archives was collection of documents that would repre- became a logical and timely continuation hardly asked-for by Russia’s mainstream sent the whole period of the modern his- of Persits’ initiative, based on the access historians of Iran, who are mostly based in tory of Iran had been published neither in to the documents, opened in the 1990s, or around the Moscow Institute of Oriental the USSR nor out of its borders. However, shedding light on the early Soviet policy Studies of Russia’s Academy of Sciences. the need in this kind of edition [was] im- towards Persia, Afghanistan and Central They concentrate their scholarship on tra- mensely great” (3). The edition still bore Asia. Genis’ books, in detail and for the ditional, mainly Soviet, perceptions of Rus- the imprint of ideological self-censorship, first time in Russian historiography, high- sian-Iranian relations, while trying to avoid although to a considerably lesser extent lighted such topics as: the role of Bolshe- topics leading to the negative interpreta- compared with previous works. viks in the establishment of the Gilan So- tion of Russian/Soviet impact on Iran. Their However, it was the work of Moisei Pers- cialist Republic and the winding-up of this analysis of historical and contemporary its which was truly groundbreaking; this abortive enterprise; the destiny of the first developments mainly moves in full confor- work was based on the declassified ar- Soviet plenipotentiary to Persia and Af- mity with Russia’s foreign policy priorities. chives mainly of the Comintern and saw ghanistan, Nikolai Bravin, and the Soviet It could be supported by such works as the publication of two series in the 1990s. politics of history around him, still sup- Granitsa Rossii s Iranom: Istoriia formirova- The author gave a really symbolic name ported by the Russian state establish- niia (“Russia’s Border with Iran: The History to his book: Zastenchivaia interventsiia: ment; and, finally, the destiny of the Impe- of Shaping”) by Liudmila Kulagina and
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 70
Elena Dunaeva; “Operatsiia ‘Sochustvie’ i the legally substantiated legitimacy of the nalist articles in the very beginning as the reaktsiia na nee presidenta Ahmadinezha- Soviet occupation of Iran, contrary to proof of “many publications about Russo- da cherez 70 let” (“Operation ‘Sympathy’ those of Great Britain and the United Iranian relations in the West,” the article and the President Ahmadinejad’s Reaction States, and also for the profound histori- does not contain a single reference to in- towards It after 70 Years”) by Vladimir cal benefits of this action for Iran (Sazhin, dependent scholarly or media sources Sazhin; and “Russo-Iranian Political Rela- “Operatsiia ‘Sochuvstvie’” 145-51). (443, 447-48, 452, 455). Not engaging tions in the First Decade of the Twenty- The author then follows with a rather dubi- with independent sources on Russian-Ira- First Century” by Elena Dunaeva. ous formula holding that the occupation nian relations at all, and not bothering her- The first one became a factual response of Iran “secured its sovereignty and inde- self with too many references, in general, to the Iranian old public discourse, ques- pendence as well as its decent place in the the author is content with emphatically re- tioning the legitimacy of the Golestan post-war world” (146). ferring to her counterparts on the Iranian and Turkmenchay peace treaties, and, on The third one can be regarded as an ar- side—certified “spokesmen” on Russia— top of that, it appeared at the time when chetypal sample of Russia’s Foreign Af- Mehdi Sanaie and Jahangir Karami, as well Russia came across serious difficulties fairs’ propaganda on contemporary Rus- as to the representatives of Russia’s main- during the negotiations with Iran on the sian-Iranian relations, albeit rather stream Iranology. All this makes the lan- delimitation of the Caspian Sea (Dunaeva, sophisticated and enshrined into a schol- guage of the article declarative and remi- “Formirovanie granitsy” 63, 75, 77-88; arly form. Having been written in the con- niscent of a foreign policy communiqué “Kaspiiskaia diplomatiia Moskvy” 66-77). text of the recent, most intense stage of which can also be explained by relying It is noteworthy that the work begins with the age-old triple interplay (the West-Iran- almost totally on the official documents of a thesis reflecting the widespread dis- Russia), the article was targeted at an Eng- Iranian state organizations and, particu- course within Russian historiography that lish-language scholarly readership and larly, of Russia’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs the territorial gains of Russia in Trans- championed the thesis of the mostly bilat- and Russia’s President Office, the fact Caucasus and Central Asia took place as eral productive nature of Russo-Iranian re- catching the eye even without a brief lan- a result of the ‘voluntary entry’ of those lations during the last dozen years and guage discourse analysis (444, 447-49, areas to the Russian Empire (Kulagina their future great potential, both of which, 451-52, 454-57, 459-61, 465-68). and Dunaeva 5). I would argue, have simply never existed Notwithstanding the fact that some Rus- The second one was published shortly af- (Dunaeva, “Russo-Iranian Political Rela- sian Iranists themselves acknowledge that ter Iran’s former President had tried to ini- tions” 468-69).33 It is also noteworthy that the development of present-day Russia’s tiate a discourse on Iran’s integral right to the article draws solely on the sources of Iranology has become a hostage of the claim reparations for the country’s occu- the state establishment of the two coun- triangle-shaped relations between the pation by the allied forces during WWII. tries and avoids engaging with third-party USA, Russia and Iran (Mamedova, “O The author put forward an argument on views. Except for one book and three jour- nekotorykh” 43), such a state of affairs can-
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 71
not be regarded as a support to the Said- case of Russian Iranology, this vacuum in and The Thirtieth Anniversary of the Is- ian rather limited model of two-vector re- the Foucauldian power grid has been lamic Republic of Iran, have been pub- lations between knowledge and state filled since the second half of the 1990s lished only by virtue of Iran’s Embassy power. By no means I am arguing that the by the result of a thoughtful approach of (42). It is also illustrative that some of the above-mentioned works were merely pro- the Iranian Embassy in Moscow and its works have been co-edited by the head duced according to a straightforward sections in other cities. This is also point- of Iran’s Islamic Culture and Relations Or- state order, though for a significant num- ed out in Mamedova’s insightful article, ganization, Abuzar Ebrahimi Torkaman ber, that cannot be ruled out, either. Rath- in actual fact, unintentionally demon- (Mamedova and Torkaman; Mamedova, er, I would maintain that those works be- strating that the Iranian government has Dvadtsat’ piat’ let Islamskoi; Mamedova came the organic brainchild of that virtually taken Russia’s Iranology on its and Sanai), and Iran’s current Ambassador interplay of power/knowledge relations payroll (“O nekotorykh” 41-42). to Russia, Mehdi Sanaei (an Iranian politi- which, in this particular case, is an interac- In addition to sponsoring the equipping cian well known in relevant circles, an tion of institutional and public discourses, of the so-called “Iranian closets” in Rus- IRGC veteran of the Iran-Iraq war and a knowledge, state power and ‘governmen- sian universities and institutes, enabling former cultural attaché of Iran’s Embassy tality’ (Simons 82; Mills 33, 58; Krementsov students and scholars to watch the broad- in Moscow (1999-2003), he was a member 4-5, 29-30). In this sense, Persits, Genis and casting of Iranian official channels, and of the Iranian Parliament’s National Secu- suchlike scholars,34 on the contrary, repre- providing a year abroad for Russian stu- rity and Foreign Policy Committee and sent the examples of the Foucauldian in- dents, as well as sponsoring Russian head of the IRAS, the Institute of Iran-Eur- tellectual, breaking discursive institutional scholars’ trips to Iran, the Iranian Embassy asian Studies,the former Iranian Center practices and overcoming ‘governmental- has been actively participating in the for Russia, Central Asia and Caucasus ity’ (Simons 36-41; Kotkin 21-23).35 scholarly activities of Russian Iranology in- Studies).36 It goes without saying that such Another manifestation of this interplay is stitutions, including tangible assistance in a status quo inevitably tells upon the cho- the close interaction of various branches organizing thematic conferences and sen subject area and the content of pub- of Russia’s Iranology (the Academy of publishing special editions on Iran and lished articles and books on Iran which, Sciences, universities, scholarly societies, Iranian studies with the participation of thereafter, results in the acute scarcity of etc.) with Iran’s political state structures. Iranian “authorized” scholars. For in- comprehensive scholarly analysis in pres- It is common knowledge that Russian sci- stance, the Russian-language works with ent-day Russia’s Iranology. entific and scholarly institutions have the titles that speak for themselves, The Seriously lacking in critical approach, the been seriously underfunded by the state Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Islamic chapters of these edited collections put since the 1990s. As Loren Graham states, Revolution in Iran; The Islamic Revolution: forward the overall positivist thesis regard- “science never proceeds in a political Past, Present and Future; Iranology in ing the events of the modern and contem- and economic vacuum” (27), and, in the Russia and Iranists; Iran: Islam and Power porary history in both countries and their
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 72
interaction. In so doing, some of them im- Bagger’s timely work that, having been edge nexus is more straightforward and plicitly (Fedorova 60-71; Polishuk 118-25; published in 2007, in fact predicted the can potentially be highlighted in more Kulagina and Akhmedov 116-27; Mamedo- further development of “Putin’s humani- precise colors in the case of those working va, “O nekotorykh” 40-41)—others explic- ties,” particularly within the walls of the on the modern and contemporary issues itly (Dunaeva, “Iran i Tsentral’naia Aziia” Russian Academy of Sciences (Bagger). of Iranian politics, economy and culture. 126-33; “Politicheskoe zaveshanie” 78-81; Simultaneously, it, certainly should be not- This is particularly justified under the cur- Kulagina 43-52; Sazhin, “Dialog tsivilizat- ed that in any country, Iranian studies as a rent conditions of inaccessibility to archi- sii” 62-65)37—underpin the idea of inherent scholarly domain does not consist only of val documents related to contemporary historical and present-day unity of the Rus- the experts of Iranian contemporary his- institutional activities. Hence the emphasis sia-Iran nexus against the third-party forc- tory and politics. In germano- and russo- of the given study of the post-Soviet es in the region and worldwide. The char- phone countries this domain is much Iranology has been on this particular acter of the used sources is also more organizationally united and homo- group within the Moscow Institute of Ori- noteworthy. Solely drawing on either Ira- geneous at the institutional level in com- ental Studies of the Academy of Sciences nian or Russian primary and secondary parison with their anglophone analogues as embedded into present-day Russia’s sources, the above-mentioned works (Fragner and Matthee). A leading Russian power/knowledge nexus with greater in- completely ignore sources originated in Iranist-linguist, Professor Vladimir Ivanov, tensity. third countries. Even in the most recent denotes the domain of Iranian studies in a edited collection, Iran: Istoriia i sovremen- broad sense as nost’ (“Iran: History and Modernity”), a complex of humanities which study Conclusion which is immensely interesting in terms of the mode of life, history, literature (folk- Thus, when analyzing Russia’s Iranian stud- the diversity of topics discussed, the works lore), material and spiritual culture, mu- ies scholarship during late Imperial, Soviet authored by scholars possessing full com- sic and singing, written artefacts (man- and post-Soviet periods, it appears that mand of English in the book section “The uscripts, rock inscriptions), religion and there has been a common and mainly un- Present” do not engage with the relevant beliefs, socio-political situation, econo- derlying discourse throughout all three literature or primary sources from other my and languages of the iranophone periods. Regardless of whether it was con- countries (Kulagina and Mamedova). peoples (V. Ivanov 35) scious or unconscious, Russian Iranists With regard to the Russian case of the and in a narrow sense, as “the study of the have been seeing their scholarship in a long twentieth century, the issue of politi- above-mentioned disciplines specifically tight concurrence with their own country’s cizing historiography is not new. Its re- in application to Iran” (35). While the Fou- interests. The representation of such inter- sumption during the course of the hectic cauldian concept of power relations ap- ests is conventionally usurped by the po- pursuit of the ‘expedient’ national identity plies to all representatives of the whole litical institutions of the ruling power—the in the 2000s was studied in detail in Hans domain defined above, the power/knowl- status quo that eventually results in the in-
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 73
strumental use of knowledge in the inter- VCheKa-KGB).38 However, in spite of all late Imperial, Soviet and post-Soviet soci- Denis V. Volkov ests of current state power, as is also sup- this, scientists and scholars also managed eties. The technicalities of the power/ ported by Alexander Morrison (629). to play their own game. knowledge operation, embracing dis- received his PhD in Middle Eastern In further rebuttal of Engelstein’s thesis, While it was considered important to courses, institutional practices, resistance, Studies from the University of it is also feasible to conclude that “opera- protect oneself as much as possible and the relationships between state pow- Manchester, UK. After graduating from tional autonomy” in its Western form was against ideological attack from philos- er and the intellectual—all these elements, Moscow State University (MA in Oriental not that developed in Russia, especially ophers or professional competitors, it in other words, the components of the Studies) in 1995, he spent almost 15 years in the Soviet Union since the end of the was also recognized that party approv- Foucauldian ‘power relations grid’ (Fou- in Iran, working in the field of interstate 1920s, but as such it existed nonetheless al did not in fact depend ultimately on cault, “Truth and Power” 113-14; Kotkin 21- economic cooperation between Russia with the disciplinary mechanisms of self- ideological factors, but rather on the 23)—can easily be seen in the Russian case. and Iran. Now his research interests control and self-regulation being of a dif- ability of scientists to play politics… However, what is most surprising in the include the history and the present ferent kind (A. Vucinich, Empire of Knowl- (Fortescue 18) present-day Russian case is that the Fou- of Russian-Iranian relations, Russia’s edge 123; Krementsov 31-36; Beer 207; Notwithstanding the lack of totality and cauldian methodological approach has Oriental studies, intellectual history, Kotkin 23). Moreover, the power/knowl- comprehensiveness of the analysis the not yet been employed or even studied in Russian and Iranian nationalism, and edge nexus, which definitely existed in post-Soviet period in terms of sources and Russian social sciences and humanities as Russian émigrés after 1917. the Russian case, had its specificities and groups studied in this article, it appears a theoretical tool. Though the above-men- email: [email protected] its unique sophistication within late Im- that during the period in question, along tioned refutes, in its essence, Engelstein’s perial Russia’s Oriental studies and even with the significant diversification of po- thesis on the non-applicability of the Fou- during the Soviet period. Soviet scientists litical forces on the scene, the interplay of cauldian to Russia, it is nevertheless perti- and scholars would act not only under the power/knowledge relations became more nent to quote her in a slightly supplement- pressure of various discursive and ideo- entangled and intense. ed form in the end, saying that, for certain, logical stipulations, imposed by the party Irrespective of the issue of the level of “in- in the field of humanities, “Russia is a soci- and creatively developed by some of their dividual operational autonomy,” Foucault ety that has yet to generate the luxury of a ideologically driven colleagues, but also was particularly interested in power rela- Michel Foucault to push it to consider the under the vigilant control of special insti- tions and how they influenced the devel- incitements of paradox” (“Combined Un- tutional structures (from the party com- opment of knowledge. As it appears, derdevelopment” 236). mittees—partkomy—in workplaces to the these power relations and their productive monitoring by political security entities— impact can be equally found at work in
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 74
Notes 5 In brief, it can be defined 9 The Archive of 12 Russia’s State Archive 16 AV, f. 17, op. 2, d.50; d. 34; as analyzing scientific and Orientologists (IVAN in St. of Socio-Political History d. 29; f. 17, op. 2, 64; op. 1, 1 This research was supported scholarly notions and the Petersburg) (henceforth (henceforth RGASPI), f. d. 168. See also Bartol’d, by BRISMES, BIPS, CEELBAS process of their production AV), f. 134 (Private archive 85 “Secret Persia,” d. 63 “Istoriia izucheniia Vostoka” and BASEES. The earlier in the social context of a of Minorskii); f. 115 (Private (Materials on Soviet trade 446; Marshall 24, 164-65, 168; version of this paper was particular historical period archive of Snesarev); The with Persia); f. 532, d. 350, Vigasin 128-29. presented at the ASMEA within a certain society. Georgian National Centre l. 11 (data on economic Sixth Annual Conference, of Manuscripts, f. 39 (Private issues, collected by Trade 17 Konstantin Ivanovich Washington, DC, 21-23 6 For the debates on the archive of Smirnov); Russia’s Representations). Chaikin (1889-1938), November 2013. feasibility of application State Military Historical Zhukovskii’s disciple, of Foucauldian ideas and Archive (henceforth RGVIA), 13 The People’s Commissariat graduated from the St. 2 The author defines notions to the Russian case f. 409, op. 1, d. 172812, p/s for Foreign Affairs; Military Petersburg Faculty of Russia’s long twentieth see Beer 3-8, 16-26, 202-08; 148-610 (Service Record of Intelligence; the Foreign Oriental studies in 1916. In century between Nicholas II Kotkin 21-23; Engelstein. Tumaskii); The Archive of Section of the United State the 1920s-1930s he worked ascension in 1894 and the Foreign Policy of the Russian Political Directorate (political in early Soviet various annexation of the Crimea in 7 In the first instance, such Empire (henceforth AVPRI), f. intelligence). Orientological institutions 2014. scholars can be named Central Asian Desk, op. 485, as an academic. The then among them as Nikolai d. 706, l. 1-3 (Argiropulo to 14 The Archive of Foreign ‘spokesmen’ of Soviet Iranian 3 In this context, the names Krementsov, Loren Graham, Gartvig about Miller, 1902). Policy of the Russian studies, Evgeny Bertels of such prominent scholars Alexander Vucinich, Vera Federation (henceforth (1890-1957), would criticize (who this or that way touched Tolz, Michael Kemper, Daniel 10 The Russo-Persian Treaty of AVPRF), f. 08 “The Secret Chaikin for “being under upon these issues) as Beer, Peter Kneen, Nathaniel Friendship, 1921, Article 15. Archive of NKID. Karakhan,” the influence of Western- Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995), Knight, Stephen Kotkin,
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 75
––› 19 RGASPI, f. 159 “Chicherin. 26 On the engagement of the 32 On the phenomenon of 37 In his profound monograph of the People’s Commissars Persia,” op. 2, d. 51. academicians of the “old” Soviet sharashki that was published in Russian with (SNK). In connection with the Orientological school in the widely spread in the 1930s the help of Nina Mamedova formation of the USSR, on 15 20 RGASPI, f. 159, op. 2, d. 51, l. Bolsheviks’ state-run projects and 1940s see Krementsov in 2014, a veteran expert November 1923 GPU was re- 180, 182 (Chicherin’s notes); f. of nationality policy see also 3. The word was an informal on Russia, Iranian diplomat, organized into OGPU (United 85 “Secret Persia,” d. 106 (Ten Hirsch; Baziiants 50. name for the secret research Mohammad Hasan Mahdian, State Political Directorate), Persian letters of Vardin), l. laboratories which were is sincerely cunning in his again subordinated 8ob., 16ob., 260, 267. 27 AV, f. 134, op. 1, d. 803, l. 1. organised for imprisoned assertion that “Iran has never directly to SNK. On 10 scientists and scholars had doubts regarding Russia July 1934 it was merged 21 AV, f. 115, op. 1, d. 70 28 Pastukhov, Osetrov, within the Soviet GULAG implementing its obligations with NKVD, becoming its (Snesarev’s manuscript Soltanzadeh, Tardov, Chaikin, concentration camps system. for supplying Iranian nuclear Chief-Directorate of State Attitudes toward the Asiatic Smirnov were executed. power plants with fuel” (154). Security. It existed until 3 world). See also Tolz 5, 30. Bartol’d, Ol’denburg, 33 Additionally, on the During the annual meetings February 1941 when it was Pavlovich, Gurko-Kriazhin, character of the Russian- of the Intergovernmental again separated from NKVD 22 Russia’s State Military Snesarev, Iagello died Iranian relations see Volkov, Commission on Russian- and became NKGB (the Archive (henceforth RGVA), (Sorokina and Vasil’kov). “The Iranian Electric Power Iranian economic People’s Commissariat of f. 157 (Revolutionary Military Industry” 5. See also cooperation, the author of State Security). During the Council), op. 8, d. 7, l. 11 29 Moscow State University “Ahdnameh-i golestan” this article was many times war, it suffered a series of (Trotskii’s cable), 58ob. of International Relations, published on the BBC approached in private by transformations and turned “Rektory”
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 76
––› Works Cited Beer, Daniel. Renovating ---. “Russo-Iranian Political ---. “Prison Talk.” Power/ Frye, Richard N. “Oriental Russia: The Human Sciences Relations in the First Decade Knowledge. 37-54. Print. Studies in Russia.” Russia Agaev, Semen. Sovetskoe and the Fate of Liberal of the Twenty-First Century.” and Asia: Essays on the iranovedenie 20-kh godov. Modernity, 1880-1930. Iranian Studies 46.3 (2013): ---. Power/Knowledge: Influence of Russia on the Moscow: Nauka, 1977. Print. London: Cornell University 443-69. Print. Selected Interviews and Asian Peoples. Ed. Wayne S. Press, 2008. Print. Other Writings, 1972-1977. Vucinich. Stanford: Hoover Andreeva, Elena. Russia Engelstein, Laura. “Combined Ed. Colin Gordon. Transl. Institution Press, 1972. 30-51. and Iran in the Great Game: Belova, Ninel, and Vladislav Underdevelopment: C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Print. Travelogues and Orientalism. Zaitsev, eds. Novaia istoriia Discipline and the Law in Mepham, and K. Soper. New York: Routledge, 2007. Irana. Moscow: Nauka, 1988. Imperial and Soviet Russia.” London: Harvester, 1980. Genis, Vladimir. Krasnaia Print. Print. Foucault and the Writing of Print. Persiia: Bol’sheviki v Giliane. History. Ed. Jan Goldstein. 1920-1921. Moscow: MNPI, Atkin, Muriel. “Soviet and Dunaeva, E. “Iran i Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. 220- ---. The Archaeology 2000. Print. Russian Scholarship on Iran.” Tsentral’naia Aziia: evoliutsiia 36. Print. of Knowledge and the Iranian Studies 20.2/4 (1987): vzaimootnoshenii.” Discourse on Language. New ---. Nevernye slugi 223-71. Print. Dvadtsat’ piat’ let Islamskoi Fedorova, A. S. “Ideologiia York: Pantheon Books, 1972. rezhima: Pervye sovetskie Revoliutsii v Irane. Ed. Nina i praktika sovremennogo Print. nevozvrashetsy, 1920-1933. Bagger, Hans. “The Study of Mamedova. Moscow: Institut islamskogo gosudarstva.” Moscow: Avtorskoe izdanie, History in Russia during the vostokovedeniia RAN, 2005. Dvadtsat’ piat’ let Islamskoi ---. The Order of Things: An 2009. Print. Post-Soviet Identity Crisis.” 126-33. Print. Revoliutsii v Irane. Ed. Nina Archaeology of the Human Scando-Slavica 53 (2007): Mamedova. Moscow: Institut Sciences. London: Routledge, ---. Vitse-Konsul Vvedenskii: 109-25. Print. ---. “Politicheskoe zaveshanie vostokovedeniia RAN, 2005. 1989. Print. Sluzhba v Persii i Bukharskom imama Khomeini: vyzovy i 60-71. Print. khanstve. 1906-1920. Bartol’d, Vasilii V. “Istoriia ugrozy islamskomu rezhimu.” Fragner, Bert G., and Rudi Moscow: Sotsial’no- izucheniia Vostoka v Evrope 30 let Islamskoi Respublike Fortescue, Stephen. The Matthee. “Islamic-Iranian politicheskaia MYSL’, 2003. i Rossii.” Collection of Works. Iran. 74-81. Print. Communist Party and Soviet Studies and Studies Print. Vol. 9. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. Science. London: The Concerning Iran in the Islamic 199-484. Print. ---. “Formirovanie granitsy Macmillan Press, 1986. Print. Period in German-Speaking Gerasimov, Ilya, and Rossii, SSSR, SNG s Iranom.” Countries: Federal Republic Jan Kusber, eds. Empire ---. “Vostok i russkaia nauka.” Granitsa Rossii s Iranom. Foucault, Michel. of Germany, German Speaks Out: Languages of Collection of Works. Vol. 9. Liudmila Kulagina and Elena “Technologies of the Self.” Democratic Republic, Austria, Rationalization and Self- Moscow: Nauka, 1977. 534- Dunaeva. Moscow: Institut Technologies of the Self: A and Switzerland.” Iranian Description in the Russian 45. Print. vostokovedeniia, 1998. 60-88. Seminar with Michel Foucault. Studies in Europe and Japan Empire. Boston: Brill, 2009. Print. Ed. Luther H. Martin et al. 20.2/4 (1987): 53-98. Print. Print. Baziiants, Ashot. “Iz istorii London: Tavistock, 1988. 16- Sovetskogo vostokovedeniia ---. “Kaspiiskaia diplomatiia 49. Print. Graham, Loren R. Science in v 1917-1922 gg.” Stanovlenie Moskvy.” Iran: dialog Russia and the Soviet Union. Sovetskogo vostokovedeniia. tsivilizatsii. Ed. Nina ---. “Truth and Power.” Power/ Cambridge: Cambridge Ed. Ashot Baziiants. Moscow: Mamedova and Mehdi Sanai. Knowledge. 109-33. Print. University Press, 1993. Print. Nauka, 1983. 29-84. Print. Moscow: Muravei, 2003. 66- 77. Print. ––›
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 77
––› Hirsch, Francine. Empire Khalid, Adeeb. “Russian Krementsov, Nikolai. Stalinist Lunin, B. V. “Vostokovedenie Marshall, Alex. The Russian of Nations: Ethnographic History and the Debate Science. Princeton, NJ: v respublikakh Srednei Azii General Staff and Asia, 1800- Knowledge and the Making over Orientalism.” Kritika: Princeton University Press, posle Velikoi Oktiabr’skoi 1917. London: Routledge, of the Soviet Union. New Explorations in Russian and 1997. Print. Sotsialisticheskoi revoliutsii.” 2006. York: Cornell University Press, Eurasian History 1.4 (2000): Stanovlenie sovetskogo 2005. Print. 691-99. Print. Kulagina, Liudmila “Rossiia vostokovedeniia. Ed. Ashot Mills, Sara. Michel Foucault. i Iran v 90-e gody: itogi i Baziiants. Moscow: Nauka, London: Routledge, 2005. Ivanov, Mikhail S. “Sozyv Kistiakovskii, Bogdan. “V perspektivy sotrudnichestva.” 1983. 85-130. Print. Print. pervogo iranskogo medzhlisa zashitu prava: Intelligentsiia i Iran: Dialog tsivilizatsii. 43-52. i bor’ba za ustanovlenie pravoznanie.” Vekhi: Sbornik Print. Mahdian, Mohammad Morrison, Alexander. osnovnogo zakona.” Iranskii statei o russkoi intelligentsii. Hasan. Istoriia “‘Applied Orientalism’ in sbornik. Ed. M. N. Ivanova Ed. Mikhail Gershenzon. Kulagina, Liudmila, and mezhgosudarstvennykh British India and Tsarist and G. M. Petrov. Moscow: Moscow: Novosti, 1909. Web V. Akhmedov. “Rossiisko- otnoshenii Irana i Turkestan.” Comparative Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk 25 Sept. 2013.
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 78
––› Rodionov, Mikhail. “Profiles Simbirtsev, Igor. Spetssluzhby Vigasin, A., and A. Khokhlov, ---. Oriental Studies and Archives used Under Pressure. Orientalists pervykh let SSSR, 1923-1939. eds. Istoriia otechestvennogo Foreign Policy: Russian/Soviet in Petrograd/Leningrad, 1918- Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, vostokovedeniia s ‘Iranology’ and Russo-Iranian GARF (Gosudarstvennyi 1956.” The Heritage of Soviet 2008. serediny XIX veka do 1917 Relations in Late Imperial Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii): Oriental Studies. London: goda. Moscow: Institut Russia and the Early USSR. The State Archive of the Routledge, 2011. 47-57. Print. Simons, Jon. Foucault and the vostokovedeniia RAN, 1997. PhD thesis. Manchester: Russian Federation Political. London, New York: Print. University of Manchester, Russo-Persian Treaty of Routledge, 1995. Print. 2014. Print. AVPRF MID RF (Arkhiv Friendship, 1921. Article 15. Volkov, Denis V. “Ahdnameh- Vneshnei Politiki Rossiiskoi Web. 12 Mar. 2013.
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015 FOCUS 79
––› AV (Arkhiv Vostokovedov): The Archive of Orientologists of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts
GNCM: The Georgian National Centre of Manuscripts (Tbilisi)
ISSN: 2196-629X urn:nbn:de:hebis: 04-ep0003-2015-108-25219
Middle East – Topics & Arguments #04–2015