Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet Symbols

Introduction. The study analyzes Russian places of memory in contemporary Harbin. Goals. The paper seeks to answer the question if a memorial consensus regarding the Russian heritage in China is possible, the term ‘memorial consensus’ as such denote a certain formal or informal agreement — between g...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Alexey V. Mikhalev
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Российской академии наук, Калмыцкий научный центр 2023-04-01
Series:Oriental Studies
Subjects:
Online Access:http://kigiran.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/4237
_version_ 1797840321774616576
author Alexey V. Mikhalev
author_facet Alexey V. Mikhalev
author_sort Alexey V. Mikhalev
collection DOAJ
description Introduction. The study analyzes Russian places of memory in contemporary Harbin. Goals. The paper seeks to answer the question if a memorial consensus regarding the Russian heritage in China is possible, the term ‘memorial consensus’ as such denote a certain formal or informal agreement — between governments or within the community — whether to accept or reject certain symbols of the past, and how to interpret the historical events. That would guarantee conflict-free attitudes to places of memory and their due use for ritual purposes. Moreover, such an agreement regulates how certain memorials or memorable dates associated with a common history may be used in a way most acceptable to all the parties. And the present-day war on monuments around the world makes the study timely enough. In this regard, the Chinese experiences of forming a model for accepting a common past are of essential interest. Materials and methods. Methodologically, the work clusters with memory studies. The paper relies on the concepts ‘places of memory’ and ‘cultural memory’ to apply them to empirical materials of Heilongjiang and focus on toponyms, monuments, cemetery, museum exhibitions, architectural monuments, including Orthodox Christian churches. The discussion shall comprise not only monuments associated with White Russian émigrés but also later Soviet memorials. The paper investigates topographic data, visual materials, reference books dealing with historical and cultural landscapes, and historical works. Discussion. In terms of academic disciplines, the study involves historical, political science, sociological, and cultural approaches. This makes it possible to combine the analysis of the position of memorial objects with political changes in the region. Results. The work shows that a memorial consensus about the ‘Russian past’ has been formed in Harbin to meet tourist needs within the city’s image. This has been facilitated by the rapid development of domestic tourism in China. An important role in finding a memorial consensus was played by the constant dialogue between leaders of the two countries. The study identifies a total of three periods when relationships between national leaders had positive impacts on the policy towards the past. The first period is the time of the union between I. V. Stalin and Mao Zedong, the second period is the dialogue between B. N. Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, and the third one is the tandem of V. V. Putin and Xi Jinping.
first_indexed 2024-04-09T16:13:03Z
format Article
id doaj.art-14c86d8fc7124886b1f2fecd05e0d060
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2619-0990
2619-1008
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-09T16:13:03Z
publishDate 2023-04-01
publisher Российской академии наук, Калмыцкий научный центр
record_format Article
series Oriental Studies
spelling doaj.art-14c86d8fc7124886b1f2fecd05e0d0602023-04-24T07:59:47ZengРоссийской академии наук, Калмыцкий научный центрOriental Studies2619-09902619-10082023-04-0116115316210.22162/2619-0990-2023-65-1-153-162Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet SymbolsAlexey V. Mikhalev0https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7069-2338Banzarov Buryat State UniversityIntroduction. The study analyzes Russian places of memory in contemporary Harbin. Goals. The paper seeks to answer the question if a memorial consensus regarding the Russian heritage in China is possible, the term ‘memorial consensus’ as such denote a certain formal or informal agreement — between governments or within the community — whether to accept or reject certain symbols of the past, and how to interpret the historical events. That would guarantee conflict-free attitudes to places of memory and their due use for ritual purposes. Moreover, such an agreement regulates how certain memorials or memorable dates associated with a common history may be used in a way most acceptable to all the parties. And the present-day war on monuments around the world makes the study timely enough. In this regard, the Chinese experiences of forming a model for accepting a common past are of essential interest. Materials and methods. Methodologically, the work clusters with memory studies. The paper relies on the concepts ‘places of memory’ and ‘cultural memory’ to apply them to empirical materials of Heilongjiang and focus on toponyms, monuments, cemetery, museum exhibitions, architectural monuments, including Orthodox Christian churches. The discussion shall comprise not only monuments associated with White Russian émigrés but also later Soviet memorials. The paper investigates topographic data, visual materials, reference books dealing with historical and cultural landscapes, and historical works. Discussion. In terms of academic disciplines, the study involves historical, political science, sociological, and cultural approaches. This makes it possible to combine the analysis of the position of memorial objects with political changes in the region. Results. The work shows that a memorial consensus about the ‘Russian past’ has been formed in Harbin to meet tourist needs within the city’s image. This has been facilitated by the rapid development of domestic tourism in China. An important role in finding a memorial consensus was played by the constant dialogue between leaders of the two countries. The study identifies a total of three periods when relationships between national leaders had positive impacts on the policy towards the past. The first period is the time of the union between I. V. Stalin and Mao Zedong, the second period is the dialogue between B. N. Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, and the third one is the tandem of V. V. Putin and Xi Jinping. http://kigiran.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/4237memory spacepolicymemorialsoblivionrussian diasporainner asiamemory policy
spellingShingle Alexey V. Mikhalev
Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet Symbols
Oriental Studies
memory space
policy
memorials
oblivion
russian diaspora
inner asia
memory policy
title Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet Symbols
title_full Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet Symbols
title_fullStr Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet Symbols
title_full_unstemmed Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet Symbols
title_short Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet Symbols
title_sort russian places of memory in contemporary harbin imperial meanings and soviet symbols
topic memory space
policy
memorials
oblivion
russian diaspora
inner asia
memory policy
url http://kigiran.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/4237
work_keys_str_mv AT alexeyvmikhalev russianplacesofmemoryincontemporaryharbinimperialmeaningsandsovietsymbols