Mark Ames is up to something when he writes:
"Part of the hostility to Pussy Riot is that they’ve become a cause-célèbre in the West. Russians have not had a very good historical experience with things the West think Russia should do, going back a few centuries — the memory of America’s support for that drunken buffoon Yeltsin while he let the country and its people sink into misery is still raw — "a painful memory" like John Turturro's character says in "Miller's Crossing," a memory woven tightly into the Russian RNA’s spool of historical grievances. And nothing triggers that reactionary Russian live-wire gene like an earful of Westerners moralizing about any topic, even the most obvious topic, even the topic where it’s 100% clear we’re on the right side for once."
However, he misses another dark aspect of the Russian soul - sexism. If the stunt in question was done by a bunch of young men, the mob's reaction would certainly be very much different.
To be sure, counter-cultural protesters receive a raw treatment from the police and mainstream society in most so-called democratic countries, including the US and Canada. David Graeber makes a good point about it in his book "Direct Action." The reason is that such protest questions the tacit authority relations in society and this pisses a lot of people off, because it reminds them how much they suck up to authority in everyday life and call it "choice" and "freedom". They are being spat in their faces by their bosses and the powers that be and they think it is raining, but as soon as someone unmasks those power relations for everyone to see, their self-image is shattered, they get mad and curse the messenger.
But it also matters who the messenger is, especially in predominantly "traditional" societies where stereotypical gender roles are still an integral part of the popular culture. If the questioning of tacit authority relations that requires guts and taking personal risks is done by men - it goes with the sexist stereotype of male "bravery," fearlessness, boldness, chutzpah etc. It is therefore more acceptable in such societies, even if it reveals some inconvenient truths. But the situation changes dramatically if such acts are performed by women - which not only reveals some inconvenient truths but also goes against deeply embedded gender roles. A good Russian woman is supposed to be prone, accept her fate and pray - especially in church - not to fight back. Acting against this stereotype is not just inconvenient - it touches a raw nerve.
As Barrington Moore observed in his book "Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy", to maintain traditional value systems, “human beings are punched, bullied, sent to jail, thrown into concentration camps, cajoled, bribed, made into heroes, encouraged to read newspapers, stood up against a wall and shot, and sometimes even taught sociology. To speak of cultural inertia is to overlook the concrete interests and privileges that are served by indoctrination, education, and the entire complicated process of transmitting culture from one generation to the next."
This is particularly evident in many countries of Asia or Africa, especially those facing the challenges of modernization. In Saudi Arabia, Iran or Pakistan they punish women for far less serious "offences" against the so-called "public morals." Going medieval and insisting on strict adherence to "tradition" or rather its caricature created for propaganda purposes seem to be a common reaction of mobs being threatened by social change. I do not think Russia is a particularly outrageous example of this. However, Russia is not seen as a "backward third world country" but rather as a relatively modern world power. Hence such a medieval reaction against a rather benign act of three women appears more shocking. I am pretty sure, however, that similar attitudes can be found in the so-called industrialized democracies of Western Europe or America - they just do not get as much publicity.
No comments:
Post a Comment