International Journal of Sociology, vol. 31, no. 4, Winter 2001-2002, pp. 64-78. © 2002 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0020-7659/2002 $9.50 + 0.00.
ANNA ENGELKING
The Mentality of Kolkhoz Inhabitants Research Notes from the Grodno Region of Belarus Anna Engelking, Ph.D., is an ethnographer, cultural anthropologist, and associate professor in the Department of Belarusian Culture at the University of Bialystok in Poland. She conducts empirical research in Belarusian kolkhoz villages [agricultural collective farms], studying the problems of national identity of their inhabitants. She is also involved in ethnosociological research in Belarus. Translated by Jerzyna Slomczynska.
ABSTRACT: The article is based on ethnographic and sociolinguistic research conducted since 1993 in kolkhoz villages of the Grodno region in northwestern Belarus, using qualitative methods aimed at elucidating the commonly shared opinion among the interviewed villagers that "the kolkhoz has to stay " because "people would perish without it." By analyzing the kolkhozniks' opinions that were recorded during the fieldwork the author offers a number of possible explanations for the acceptance of kolkhoz life at the grass-roots level. She demonstrates that, in the Soviet system, which, in a way, preserved the structure of the feudal estate, a mythological way of thinking and the elements of a feudal outlook on life survived as well. The author points to peasant stoicism and pragmatism as well as fatalism to explain people's adaptation to uneasy kolkhoz reality. This is the result of accepting the reality of life because of a mythological belief in the world structure and order. In this belief, God is perceived at the top of a hierarchical structure of the world as its ultimate ruler. The corresponding human reality, that is, the social structure, is also hierarchical—with the president, or the government, at the top, their representatives and officials in the middle, and the simple folks—the kolkhozniks— at the bottom. In presenting the establishment of kolkhozes into the life of Belarusian peasants, the author demonstrates how the Soviet authorities overcame peasant resistance against the new system and how the defeated people perceived their action—as a violent coup of the antisacrum against two fundamental values of peasant culture: religious faith and the farmer's work. Describing further transformation that eventually produced a peculiar symbiosis of the kolkhoz and the kolkhozniks—a complicated system of mutual services, benefits, and dependencies that blurred the distinction between what
belonged to the kolkhoz and what belonged to the people—the author demonstrates that this symbiosis also involves the district and the church. In Belarusian reality, both the kolkhoz and the church are postfeudal and post-Soviet institutions. Together they encompass and organize the life, work, and religious practice of the villagers in focusing on basic values of their culture. A direct interdependence between their way of life and mentality, on the one hand, and the functioning of the kolkhoz and the church, on the other hand, attests to the prolonged life of the feudal model, which cannot escape the researcher's attention.
The kolkhoz has to stay. People would perish without it. Common belief in "The Bright Way" kolkhoz Since 1993 I have been engaged in conducting ethnographic and sociolinguistic research in rural Belarus. Groups of students from the University of Warsaw are also involved in the fieldwork. We often go together to kolkhoz1 villages located in the Grodno region in northwestern Belarus. Our research is stationary and it requires several returns to the same locality. In the field-work we apply qualitative techniques, in particular, directed conversations and interviews based on a questionnaire involving open questions. Participant observation is also an important research tool in our study (Engelking 1999). We focus not on objective reality, but on a culture-dependent perception of this reality, that is, on a system of beliefs, opinions, values, and conscious or unconscious stereotypes that are more or less verbalized in a given community. We gain insight into this perception of reality by initiating conversations with members of the culture we are studying and by making observations about their behavior. Gradually, we get to know the communities under study more thoroughly and obtain insight into the inner system of this culture (Guriewicz 1987: 13). So far, we have conducted 400 conversations with the inhabitants of three kolkhozes and one sovkhoz.2 In Belarus there are no villages without either a kolkhoz or a sovkhoz. Farmers who have taken over land ownership from the state—which has been legally possible since the early 1990s—are still a rarity in the Belarusian countryside. During our eight years of research, we encountered only two individual farmers. Among our respondents in the kolkhozes of the Grodno region—a very interesting area for its borderline characteristics of ethnicity, language, and religion—there were 1 Kolkhoz is a Soviet word denoting an agricultural farm or enterprise that is collectively owned by its members-farmers. Since the kolkhoz was founded as a form of cooperative, membership in it was— theoretically—voluntary. Practice, however, was quite different; it is discussed in this article in the section under the subheading "The Beginnings of Kolkhozes." Sovkhoz is a state-owned equivalent of a kolkhoz, that is, a Soviet agricultural enterprise in which the farmers are regular employees. Kolkhozes and sovkhozes were the sole forms of farming business in the Soviet era; privately owned farms did not exist. 2 We conducted our research in the Chapayev kolkhoz in Vaverka in Lida county, the kolkhoz in Boltsishki in Voranava county, and the "Svetlyi Put'" [The Bright Way] kolkhoz in Nacha in Voranava county, as well as in the sovkhoz in Malaie Mazheikava in Lida county.
Catholics, Orthodox, Old Believers, and Muslims; there were those who identified themselves as Belarusians, Ruthenians, Poles, and Lithuanians. We tried to interview individuals of all generations, including children. However, because the villages of the Grodno region are inhabited for the most part by old people, the majority of our respondents—about 80 percent— were persons over sixty years of age. We also interviewed more women than men: our most typical respondent was an elderly widow living alone. Does the Kolkhoz Have to Stay? Inhabitants of kolkhoz villages cannot even imagine how they would live without the kolkhoz. A young technician [M, 23, '98]3 from "The Bright Way" kolkhoz expressed a commonly shared opinion by saying, "The kolkhoz has to stay. People would perish without it." The words "The kolkhoz has to stay" are spoken everywhere like a leitmotif, or, perhaps, like a magic spell. We heard them not only from local authorities but also from ordinary kolkhozniks— both from elderly retirees and very young children. We encountered only one respondent who expressed the opposite opinion that kolkhozes could—or even should—be dissolved: The time must come when they will be dissolved. . . . Such a giant as our kolkhoz cannot do well because there is just one administrator who cannot control everything. Therefore, something must be done about that. Our kolkhoz is just too large It has to be divided into smaller units. Perhaps those farms should be started here, or something. . . . This must be something that people will own, that's the point. [M, 70, '931 Why does the kolkhoz have to stay? The simplest answer would be that it has.-to stay because it cannot be dissolved. Because it was established against the people's will by an authoritarian regime, it cannot be dissolved against the will of the rulers. However, the simplest answer does not reveal the whole picture. It does not reveal the astonishing, commonplace acceptance of kolkhoz reality. This acceptance appears to be shared by everybody involved, not only by local authorities in their official settings but also by ordinary people who speak informally. Among the present kolkhozniks there exists a grass-roots acceptance for the institution of the kolkhoz, despite their predecessors' common resistance against it at the time when it was first introduced, despite all the traumatic events that took place at the initial stage of its functioning, and even despite the current ambivalent attitude toward the specifics of kolkhoz life. Those attitudes are ambivalent, to say the least, because the kolkhozniks often say: "We don't live, we rot," or, "Let God spare you from the kolkhoz," and they do whatever is possible to push their children out to the city, or at least to a small town. They say, "Thank God, at least we sent the children out of the kolkhoz; they all have apartments in the city. . . . Let's provide the children with a good education to allow them 3 Information in parentheses after each quotation reveals the sex of the respondent, male (M) or female (F), his or her age, and the year of the interview.
to leave this hell" [M, 74, '98; F, 68, '98]. If this description is sincere and adequate, do we face an acceptance of a hell? In seeking to comprehend this phenomenon of acceptance, we reach to its roots: to the system of beliefs, norms, and myths, and the ways of reasoning that constitute the collective unconscious, or, in other words, the mentality of the kolkhozniks. Kolkhozes have existed for more than fifty years already and living in them has altered the mentality of their inhabitants. For instance, the mentality is quite different from that of Polish peasants who own their farms. Moreover, the Soviet system, and, in particular, the Soviet kolkhoz system, has—in some peculiar way—preserved the structure of the former feudal estate, sustaining the archaic and mythical way of thinking and various elements of a feudal serf mentality. The Beginnings of Kolkhozes They wept bloody tears and yet they volunteered to go ahead with that. An old man from "The Bright Way" kolkhoz In Western Belarus the kolkhozes started to appear between 1946 and 1952 (Mironowicz 1999: 179-82). By that time, the villages were already depleted of their elites: the village intelligentsia, the clergy, and the most affluent farmers. They suffered a lot of wartime harm and terror from the Nazi and the Soviet occupants. Immediately after the war ended, a large part of the Belarusian village population was either deported to distant locations within the Soviet Union or moved to Poland en masse—so-called repatriation. For all these reasons, the villages of Western Belarus remained depopulated and intimidated. Still, their inhabitants resisted state-imposed efforts to introduce the kolkhozes—they had to be forced to accept them. Some villages sank into despair: In Nacha—presently "The Bright Way" kolkhoz— during the first harvest under the kolkhoz "the women wept as if they mourned someone's death" [F, 56, '98]. Some other villages displayed organized, solid resistance, for example, Papernia—presently the Chapayev kolkhoz—which started a kolkhoz as late as 1953. There was a regular war there, because the Papernia folks did not want to join the kolkhoz. When harassed and forced by state officials, they joined the kolkhoz temporarily, just for three years. They sustained a lot of torment because of their resistance. Yet, the Papernia folks held their ground; they brew vodka and sold it on the market, this is how they lived. [F, 70, '97] They sowed their rye and refused to sign the property documents prepared by the Bolsheviks. . . . Surely, in order to reap their own rye. . . . They blocked the [officials'] cars with their own bodies by lying down or sitting in the road. They did all this until the harvest was over. Only then the kolkhoz was started—only after they had reaped their crops for themselves. [F, 63, '97]
To force the village farmers to join the kolkhoz, the Soviet authorities used a method that was already practiced with success in the 1930s in Eastern Belarus: they imposed on those farmers such high taxes and compulsory deliveries of crops that the farms went bankrupt. We had no money to buy the bread so we brewed bootleg vodka. . . . Right after the warfront passed over, we still owned the land; this was from 1944 to 1948. We were doing worse and worse because the taxes were enormous. ... And later on? Later on, there was nothing left, nothing at all. [M, 70, '94] According to the Soviet ideology, joining the kolkhoz had to be "voluntary." Each farmer completed an application that he had to sign. "They [the farmers] did not want to turn in their land or to join the kolkhoz. But in the documents they wrote that they were applying for admission into the kolkhoz" [F, 63, '97]. Another respondent described the behavior of the Soviet officials: They beat [the people] with clubs, they plundered, they prosecuted and tried [the innocent]—this is what they did. What [terrible things] happened . . here! They [the officials] grabbed the cows, the horses, everything. They •would take you to the district office—"apply to join the kolkhoz!"—and that was that. You had to do it. They would sign you in and you had to cdoperate with them, you had no other choice. You could do nothing under threat of a club. . . . Any excuse was good enough for them to strangle a man. [M, 70, '93] Initially, each village became a kolkhoz; the president was "elected" by the villagers4. People turned over their land, their animals, and their farming tools to the kolkhoz. Individual barns were disassembled and the recovered materials and elements were used to build the kolkhoz barns. Whatever remained after completing the construction was simply burned. When they [the officials] started the kolkhoz they grabbed everything—the carts, the horses. You had a bam? Then you had to keep the pigpen for yourself and give them your barn. And they burned those bams [in their heating stoves]. [M,70,'94] Kolkhozniks received small lots of about 30 ares in area. They were paid for their work in grain rather than cash. Total workdays were counted for each worker throughout the year, and, according to the count, he or she was paid once per year. Well, you work in this kolkhoz ... and how much did we earn in this kolkhoz then? . . . For the whole year I earned only 96 kilograms of barley, nothing else. No rye for bread at all. It was like digging a grave for oneself. [M, 74, '97] In kolkhoz villages people tell the following anecdote: How did the Soviets understand 4 In time, the structure of the kolkhoz changed. Several villages and smaller territorial units were combined into one kolkhoz. Currently, up to thirty villages may belong to a single kolkhoz. Each village makes a separate "brigada" [gang] headed by its own "brigadir" [foreman]. Kolkhoz officials and specialists [agronomists and mechanics] are professionals with college education in agriculture and agromechanical engineering; only the kolkhoz president belongs to the party-state nomenklatura.
the lettering "K + M + B"5 that was written with holy chalk on people's doors and windows on the Epiphany holiday? "When the Soviets came here and saw on each house an inscription 'K + M + B,' they decoded it as the 'kolkhoz must be' " [F, 70, '93]. This anecdote can be seen not only as an ironic play on words but also as a testament to the cultural clash of two realities—the traditional culture of the peasant way of life that observes old customs and holidays and the imposed hostile culture that brings in its own rules: a clash of the sacrum with the antisacrum, of order with antiorder, of the cosmos and the chaos. Terror and captivity entered the traditional peasant world. Our respondents recalled: My father wasn't a poor man either. But the Bolsheviks gunned down my father, too. He was rich and he didn't want to join the kolkhoz. . . . They burned my father's house there—in Radzivonishki. [F, 59, '93] When they [the Soviets] came here, they closed the churches, they subjugated the priests, they deported them, they prosecuted them, and they sentenced the priests to ten years [of prison] each. So the priests weren't here, they were in jail One could say that this was not a Soviet government but a hell, a hellish hell! [M, 70, '93] When reporting on those events and their own experience the respondents often repeated certain phrases; particularly the words "they took away everything," which sounded like a leitmotif. They often called on God, or Jesus Christ, or the Virgin Mary, and they used lexical or phraseological references to the Bible, and, in particular, to the Passion. They drew on the stylistic conventions of peasant complaints and funeral laments, as well as on religious litanies and funeral songs. Their statements demonstrated the highest emotions; they also revealed a link to the mythical patterns of contrast, such as good vs. evil, or God vs. the devil. Our "liberators" came.... They took away everything, everything but a few cows. . . . They took away the land, they took away the horse, they took away the cart, and that was it. This is how we were left. [F, 70, '97] And there was no bread, they took away the crops, and they took away the land, and they took away everything: Everything that was needed for farm ing: the plows, the harrows, the horses, the barns Oh, it was so hard. This kolkhoz. They rummaged through everything; nothing was left in order. These were affluent folks, so they wanted them ruined, or dead. They took away everything, they dragged them deep into Russia. [F, 69, '98] People became dead tired of this life. They tormented us so much. My God, we were so afraid! You couldn't escape anywhere and they would make you shake, they would frighten you, they would threaten you, so you trembled like a leaf. . . . The 5 According to a Catholic custom, before the holiday of the Epiphany, people write the letters K + M + B with holy chalk on their doors and windows to commemorate the three Magi, Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, who brought offerings to the infant Jesus.
Soviet power ... put its hand [over us] and tightened it into a "net" ["no"]. It sent all these communists here and gave them power over the nation. [F, 78, '97] Kolkhoz Fatalism Our fate is such that the Soviets came here. And we were born when they were here, And we live here, and we have to. . . . An old woman from the Chapayev kolkhoz After the initial period of terror, Soviet rule became easier for the kolkhoz population. Beginning in the mid-1960s, earnings were no longer paid in grain—the kolkhozniks started to receive normal wages and pensions. They were no longer ascribed to the land like medieval serfs because they did not have the identification papers necessary for travel and work outside their residences. Finally, as the last group of Soviet citizens, they also received their internal passports. We started receiving the passports not so long ago.... [Before that] we were simply the kolkhozniks, worth nothing in the village, having nothing for ourselves. You'd like to go to Lida, for instance, to get work—without a passport they wouldn't hire you. . . . You needed to have permanent residence in the city. . . . City folks got passports from the beginning. In the village, the kolkhozniks had no passports. [F, 59, '93] The time of relative prosperity came under the rule of Brezhnev who is still remembered nostalgically. All our respondents kept saying, "Under Brezhnev we were doing so well that even in America people couldn't do any better!" It was so hard at the beginning, so very hard. .. . until, I guess, 1966. Once we started getting money for our work, it got easier, and easier, and easier ... because for whatever you sold you would earn money to buy the bread, you would get money—you would buy some bread We could do some thing. It got easier and easier and easier. So it was. [F, 70, '97] Finally, a turning point came as well: Gorbachev introduced religious freedom. Gorbachev came; at once he went to America, he went abroad, everywhere, and they told him there that we were God-praising folks, so he accepted God. And he went to see the Pope. And he allowed the people to believe in God. [F, 78, '97] Gorbachev's perestroika even succeeded in changing the image of the enemy— the Soviet power: "There was a law such that the Soviets [had to] live without God, without belief, period. Only when this Gorbachev came along did they start to assume the Orthodox faith" [M, 66, '93]. The former atheistic, anti-religious attitude of the state officials changed into the opposite one. "All our higher-ups go to church. They all go. And earlier—nobody did. They all keep praying now, all of them" [F, 67, '97]. The Orthodox and Catholic churches that had remained closed and ruined were reopened
anew because "the law was now issued that faith was allowed." All local and kolkhoz authorities obey this law, they do not discriminate against believers for their religious practices. As the years went by one aspect of the "phenomenon of acceptance" became clear— people got used to the kolkhoz. When I had just come back home, right after the war, they installed a kolkhoz here. They took away everything: the cows, the bams, the granaries, they took away the horses, and the carts, and the plows, they took away everything and nothing was left. Life was very hard at first, and then we got used to it. All our life since then has been in the kolkhoz. [M, 66, '93] Getting used to something unpleasant often induces passivity, submission, or helplessness. From this point of view one could read the most common kolkhozniks' refrain, "So what could you do with that? You could do nothing," as a testament to their helplessness. However, it could also be read as an expression of pragmatism resulting from a realistic assessment of one's own situation. "One won't go against all" [F, 66, '97]. One may refer to peasant stoicism as well, to peasant persistence demonstrated in the following anecdote: A villager addresses a new kolkhoz president: "You are my eighth." And he explains to the surprised official: "You arrived here and you will leave one day, while I was always here and here I will remain." [F, 56, '98] After the peasant resistance against the new order was crushed, the only thing to do was to stay with whatever was saved, in simple words, to stay alive. The power of antisacrum assaulted two basic values of peasant culture: work and faith. However, it did not destroy the most precious value that is served by both work and faith: it did not destroy life itself. The kolkhozniks say: "Since God gave us our life, we need to live cautiously, one step at a time" [F, 70, '93]. In order to survive, one needs to practice adaptation. In an old woman's story we heard an acceptance of her fate that was generated by her affirmation of life: So what would you do? As it is in an old saying: the one for whom you need to sing a song is the one on whose cart you ride. What would you do? If you want to live, you need to manage things. Or else, what would you do? Where would you go? You won't blow against the wind, will you? [F, 78, '94] Rather than attesting to the peasants' passivity, this acceptance of their fate testifies to the fact that these people accept the rules constituting the order of things in this world. They see this order as a hierarchical structure with God at the very top: the creator of everything else and the ultimate ruler. The kolkhozniks say: "As God allows, so it will be." And they leave to God the business of taking care of everything that is outside their immediate experience, or knowledge, or imagination. When asked directly about such a thing they say, "God only knows." This is why they can say: "Thank God, we're managing somehow... [because] God is making all this, honey. All this money, and all
these people" [F, 71, '93]. "It's God who sent all this. It's God. Just as Sybil wrote. Everything happens according to what she wrote." [F, 71, '93] If we check on Sybil's [prophecy], everything comes true. That the ... those '.". . . kolkhozes would come and everything. . . . That the field boundaries would be erased but the bread would remain as expensive as before. [M, 70, '93] Sybil said that there would be fertile fields and mountains of wheat, yet people would go for miles to find bread. And so it was: the bread, and the wheat, and everything had to be turned into the kolkhoz. People had to turn into the kolkhoz whatever they sowed. And the people did not get anything at all for themselves, only about a pound of rye at the year's end. And this is how the people lived. [F, 68, '98] One can say that it seems the kolkhozes exist because they were supposed to exist. One may refer to Ludwik Stomma's rule governing the isolation of the consciousness— one of the basic determinants of folk culture: "It is as it was supposed to be" [Stomma 1986: 82]. Exactly: the kolkhozes exist because they were supposed to exist. Their inhabitants live in the world of Sybil's fulfilled prophecy. This is another aspect of the "phenomenon of acceptance"—the affirmation of reality based on mythical reasons for world order. The reasons stem from accepting God's will described by the prophecies that get fulfilled. Kolkhoz Feudalism Life is hard for the red lord. The president of "The Bright Way" kolkhoz Let us now turn from the mythical unconscious to the realities of life in order to find yet another different answer to the question of why the kolkhoz has to exist. This answer is suggested by a specific symbiosis of the kolkhoz and the kolkhozniks—a complicated system of mutual services and dependencies that blurs the division between what belongs to "the people," that is, the individual kolkhozniks, and what belongs to the kolkhoz. With respect to this issue we often heard another commonly repeated phrase: "If the kolkhoz helps us, we will help the kolkhoz," or, just the opposite: "If we help the kolkhoz, the kolkhoz will help us." The kolkhoz became an organizer of the entire life of the kolkhozniks. It has provided them with jobs as well as with living quarters. The kolkhoz would even build a house for you if you paid for it with your work for the kolkhoz. The kolkhoz provides meals for the workers either served in a kolkhoz diner or delivered to the fields. It provides transportation: a kolkhoz shuttle-bus is often the only means of transportation, and, if gas is available, its services are not limited to transporting the workers to and from the workplace. The kolkhoz provides the infrastructure: it builds gas lines, roads, and social centers. It provides goods that are inaccessible at the market, such as grain, flour, and sugar. In a sense, the president of the
kolkhoz emulates the paternalistic duty of a former feudal lord feeding his subjects at the time of shortages before the harvest. The "people's" property may become the kolkhoz property and vice versa: one may sell his cow to the kolkhoz or one may buy a cow from the kolkhoz. At the time the kolkhozes were first established, it sometimes happened that someone could get his barn back from the kolkhoz if he offered them his cow in return. The kolkhoz cows are groomed, milked, and grazed by the kolkhoz workers employed at the cowshed, and, at the same time, all kolkhoz families who own a cow have to graze the "people's" cows. Nobody, not even the kolkhoz president, is free of this duty when his or her turn comes. When the kolkhoz cows get sick a village witch woman comes to cure their sickness by removing the spell that caused it. The kolkhoz cowshed workers keep the kolkhoz plowing horses in their own stables, just as the feudal serfs kept their lord's plowing oxen in their own cowsheds. The same horse may, therefore, work for both the kolkhoz and the people. Everybody works on the kolkhoz beets, in return receiving the hay for their cows. Work with the beets is necessary because without it there is no way to obtain hay. Everybody, including teachers and even school principals, as well as retirees, faces this duty without exception: "All of us here are retirees, only retirees. .. . But we keep helping, working with the beets. Both for the kolkhoz and for ourselves. Everybody does what they are able to do" [F, 70, '97]. Since the kolkhozes began, the kolkhozniks have been stealing the kolkhoz's property, especially grain, openly declaring that this is not a sin. They call it "wangling." Without this "wangling" it would be hard to survive: "I don't even know how we manage. We have to wangle" [M, 74, '98]. A kolkhoz truck serves as a hearse at each funeral in the village. The kolkhoz trucks and buses drive groups of altar boys to Poland and they also bring the building materials for a cemetery wall constructed by the local priest. The kolkhoz plants the priest's potatoes: "Once upon a time, the priest used to own the land. And he had his own horses, and everything. Nowadays, he doesn't. Only the kolkhoz would plant potatoes for the priest, not much—a few acres, so he wouldn't die of hunger" [M, 52, '94]. The kolkhoz president finances the construction of a new chapel while the sovkhoz director provides the wooden boards for the chapel and the iron sheets for the [Orthodox] church as well, as a sovkhoz apartment for the Orthodox priest and his family. At the harvest festival in the church, the kolkhoz officials sit in the first row of seats, together with the officials of the district committee while the district president offers to the priest "a loaf of white bread on a white cloth" [M, 70, '98]. The presence, and even the active participation, of local state officials in the religious life of the community became a natural thing, as did the priest's reliance on the help provided by the state and kolkhoz institutions. Both the district president and all others do their best in working for religion. The district president, a very fine girl, respects and obeys the priest. She keeps working, singing, and praying, and reading the Bible. Oh, they've all converted to religion nowadays. They observe the holidays. They've all converted to religion, my dear. [F, 80, '93]
We learn that the priest visits the local social center to hear the confessions of older people. Below is a fragment of an interview with an old kolkhoznik: Is there a social center in this village? There is one. Right in our village. ... It was built when the kolkhoz was already here; the kolkhoz president built it. What is this center for? For parties? Dances? Yeah, people play and dance here; and even the priest came here a few times. He came here a few times. The priest? Why did he come? Oh, he came to hear older people's confessions. [M, 74, '97] Kolkhoz symbiosis encompasses not only the kolkhoz and its people but also the district and the church—business, administration, and religion, all together. The three institutions encompass and organize the entirety of life, work, and religious activities of the villagers concentrated around agricultural work and the Christian faith, which constitute the basic values of their culture, the so-called core values (Smolicz 1987: 59). This explains the direct interrelationship between the way of life and the mentality of the kolkhozniks, on the one hand, and the functioning of the kolkhoz and the church, on the other hand, in modern Belarusian reality, which is both post-Soviet and post-feudal. This rare phenomenon of the prolonged existence of the feudal model cannot escape the attention of researchers engaged in fieldwork in Belarus; this is especially the case when contemporary ethnographers are hosted by the kolkhoz, or the parish, or the school, just as their nineteenth-century predecessors were hosted by the former landowners in their facilities. With luck, the present ethnographers were able to befriend not only the kolkhozniks but also a kolkhoz president, who sometimes invited them for a drink and engaged with them in informal, sincere conversation: "Life is hard for the red lord." In the times of a deepening crisis, it is more and more difficult to manage the kolkhoz. The managers' opinions about the indispensability of the kolkhoz are similar to those of the kolkhozniks: If the kolkhoz falls apart, the people will be the most hurt. The people will bear the worst consequences. It's not good for a person to be left alone. It's worse for a person to be alone than to stay in the kolkhoz. It's better for a person to be in the kolkhoz. [M, 23, '98] In spite of these concerns about the uncertain future, it seems that as long as Alaksandr Lukashenka, a former sovkhoz director,6 remains the president of Belarus, there can be no serious threat to the kolkhoz: 6 Alaksandr Lukashenka graduated from the Agricultural Academy as a specialist in the organization of farming. Before becoming president of Belarus, he served as director for the "Haradok" sovkhoz in the Shklovsk region.
Lukashenka takes care of the people, to let them live. You know, without Lukashenka the kolkhozes here would be destroyed; there would be no order, the land would not be plowed, and the hunger would come. Instead, we have the kolkhozes and they provide, and they feed, and they house, and everything is done. In Lithuania they have no kolkhozes and there is no order there. [M, 70, '981 This concept of order seems pretty clear: It is a hierarchical structure of social reality with the authority—nowadays the state president or the government—at the top, its representatives or officials, including the kolkhoz president, just below the top, and the ordinary people, that is the kolkhozniks, at the very bottom. These are the people who describe themselves in the following terms: "When a person lives in the village, he is just at the very end of everything. People like us, the ordinary kolkhozniks, are not even considered human" [M, 74, '98; F, 68, '98]. This order encompasses various scales. On the macro-scale, it concerns interstate relationships: The Belarusians are just simple folks, the Russians are more knowledgeable; they were more important in the Soviet Union. And Belarus? Belarus was like a village. It was only a republic subordinate to Russia. [F, 68, '98] On the micro-scale, order concerns the local community and the family, which are also perceived in terms of a patriarchic ladder: "Who is the caretaker of the village? The [local] government is, and the parents are the caretakers of their kids" [F, 66, '97]. A fragment of an interview with a kolkhoz villager provides an insight into the postfeudal image of reality and the kolkhoznik's location in this image: Were there any valuable objects of the former landowner left here in this property? Yes, there were. But nothing was left until now; everything was taken away -' or destroyed. People live on this property. They go to work. They work in cowsheds. Whose are the cowsheds? The government's. And what do you have here, a kolkhoz or a sovkhoz? A kolkhoz. And who is in charge of the kolkhoz? People who are prepared for such a job. Some people work and the others manage. Is there a district council here? Yes, yes, there is one. And what is it, this district council? Well, how to say? It's all the government. God forbid being left without the government. Some people would harass others. Instead, we have peace so far. Peace. And who is in charge here? The kolkhoz president is in charge in the kolkhoz. And in the country? Who is the most powerful one?
Well, in the villages? It's the "brigadir" [foreman]. The "brigadir." And in Belarus? Now it's Belarus here, right? Yeah, Belarus, Belarus. . . . But what will it be in the future? For the time being it's Belarus. Let only peace remain here. We don't care We just do our things, step by step, slowly. We keep praying, we go to church, God only knows . .. what they will do. [F, 79, '97] Order and peace belong to the most precious values for these villagers. In this respect, Belarusian society is no different from many others. However, a belief that any kind of government is good enough for as long as it provides society with both peace and order is vintage Belarusian. With such collective mind-set, the mental journey of Belarusians from a patriarchal to a democratic vision of the world can be neither easy nor quick.
References Engelking, A. 1999. "The Natsyas of the Grodno Region of Belarus: A Field Study." Nations and Nationalism 2, no. 5: 175-206. Guriewicz, A. 1987. Problemy sredniowiecznej kultury ludowej [The Problems of Medieval Folk Culture]. Warsaw: PrW. Mironowicz, E. 1999. Historia panstw swiata XX wieku: Bialorus [History of the Countries of the World in the Twentieth Century: Belarus]. Warsaw: Trio. Smolicz, J. 1987. "Wartosci rdzenne a tozsamosc kulturowa" [Core Values and Cultural Identity]. Kultura i spoleczenstwo 1: 59-77. Stomma, L. 1986. Antropologia kultury wsi polskiej XIX wieku [The Cultural Anthropology of the Nineteenth Century Polish Village]. Warsaw: PAX. Tokarska-Bakir, J. 1992. "Hermeneutyka Gadamerowska jako pomoc w etnograficznym badaniu obcosci" [Gadamer Hermeneutics as a Tool in the Ethnographic Study of Alienation]. Polska Sztuka Ludowa—Konteksty 1: 3-17. Wyka, A. 1993. Badacz spoleczny wobec doswiadczenia [The Social Researcher in the Face of Experience]. Warsaw: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences.