The Baikal Territory as Realization of
Co-natural and Political Coexistence
Irina
Boldonova
Buryat State
University, Philological Faculty (Ulan-Ude, Russia)
In each separate case of politics a
phenomena is created by certain reasons, certain nations, people, cultural and
historic traditions. Separately taken
phenomena and processes of a political world can be interpreted in a
general context of the civilization’s political view.
Reflection upon
historical fortune of great and small nationalities and nations, their destiny,
role and place in the history of the mankind lead to thinking of historical and
political logic on a way of progress. The Buryats are no exception.
The Buryats, speaking in
details the Buryat-Mongols are the northern part of Mongolian nation. During
many centuries they lived in most of countries, appeared in Central Asia (for
example in a great empire Hoonnu). All the time the Buryats lived around Lake
Baikal, though the territory lies further than recent Krasnoyarskiy region in the
West, and in the East as far as the Amur river.
The Buryat nomads freely
moved from Lake Baikal to the Khalkha lands and back season by season. In
various circumstances they were under the Russian administration or the Mongol
rulers’ control. Because of border transparency among Mongol local territories,
then between Qing China and Russia, many Buryats freely moved in neighboring
Mongolia. There was a certain dependence of Buryat traditional economy and
lifestyle on land resources of the neighboring lands [1].
The only way to
understand the phenomena of the nation is to study its history and it gives the
chance to understand the way how archetypes and codes of civilization are
reflected in modern political conditions. The Buryat-Mongols were involved in
participation of Central Asian, later world
great events in the XIII century, following the ancient cultural and
political traditions, rich experience of nomadic statecraft, owing unique value
system, spiritual culture, ethics and law, which regulated international communication in Central and
Eastern Asia, including negotiations, searching for international
interreligious consensus.
Specific characteristics of Central Asian
civilization were in the principle of co-natural coexistence and it was
declared in the desire to combine nomadic and stable ways of living,
cattle-breeding with agriculture and handicraft, production. It is well-known
that since the time of Hoonnu till the Mongol epoch in Central Asia there were
appeared several writing systems. There was also a high culture of spiritual
development and ways of communication.
The Mongol people,
including the Buryats, were part of Central Asian cultural traditions and in
particular, religious traditions. Shamanism, which had been a leading pagan
religion of the Buryats for a long time, had very much in common with shamanism
of other Central Asian peoples. The same can be said of Buddhism. The Mongols
began studying Buddhism at the beginning of the XIII century, but it was not consolidated at that time and
began spreading among the Mongols only at the end of the XIV century. Buddhism
made a strong influence on the Mongolian and Buryat mentality: it teaches
humanism and tolerance, the possibility to solve contradicting problems and conflict resolution through dialogue.
The Cossacks
colonization of Siberia in the XVII century was not peaceful, actions of
violence made the Buryats defend themselves, fight and resist in the form of
refusal in paying tribute, escaping, migration to Mongolia.
In the process of
contacts between representatives of different cultures there can be
contradiction of different cultural-specific views upon the world, while at
first each of the partners doesn’t realize the difference in opinions and
attitudes [2]. Everybody considers his own position as the only true one, not
the position of another. Something ordinary and normal from this point of view
opposes something also normal from the other point of view. Such an example of
an open misunderstanding in intercultural communication contains a hidden
dangerous tendency, which can lead to the development of ethnocentrism.
In the history of
intercultural development there always have been three various stages of
conflicts: a pre-conflict stage,
conflict behavior, a stage of conflict resolution, a post-conflict stage.
Conflict resolution means completion through achieving agreement with the help
of negotiation, new balance in the relationship is usually established between
the conflicting sides. The best variant of conflict resolution is consensus and
integrated cooperation. In the history of international relations and
intercultural communication in Buryatia political consensus and interethnic
understanding was established.
The memory of the Steppe
civilization keeps the facts that nomadic people (the role of the Buddhism
should be taken into account) complicated problems were solved by means of
negotiations, which can be proved by a unique diplomatic mission - a trip of
the Buryat delegation to the Russian Tzar
Peter the Great in 1702-1703. The purpose of the visit was - to defeat
the Buryats from violence of top executives at local administration and then,
to defeat from the Mongolian and Manchzhur invaders.
Interpretation of historical and political facts and events presupposes restoration of
the past political event and
interpretation of each political event with the aim of restoration of the whole
picture. Historical and political picture of the nation is worth restoring not
only for understanding the facts themselves, but mainly for understanding
reasons and motives. As it was stated above, not all the political, historical
facts can be understood in the rational way. It can be interpreted
hermeneutically, because the world of political culture is formed by a variety
of currents and tendencies, both rational and irrational [3].
In 2002 there will be
the 300-year anniversary of the well-known horsed voyage of the Buryat
representatives to Moscow. In March 2003 there will be the 300 anniversary
of Peter the Great’s Decree “The
Honored Tzarist Given Gramota”, according to which the nomadic original lands
of the Buryat people were attached. The
horsed voyage of eleven Buryat representatives had the following advantages:
n it helped the Buryats to consolidate
as the united single ethnos
n it helped to establish strong
economic, cultural ties between the Russians and the Buryats.
These historical events can be interpreted
in different ways. It is possible to evaluate “pro” and “contra” of the trip
and consolidation and entry process. From the historical and temporal distance,
from the contemporary point of view it is possible to doubt the effectiveness
of peaceful joining the Buryats. The other variant could be joining Mongolia
and reunion of all the Mongolian tribes.
Our opinions depend on official policy of
our political leaders. The conclusion is - the diplomatic mission of 1702-1703
was in the spiritual tradition of the Steppe civilization, the tradition of the
Buryats, the trip successfully developed the tendency to solve conflicts by
means of negotiations and political dialogue. So the temporal distance in this
case helps to understand the cultural, spiritual, historical foundation of a
nations’ mentality.
The nations’ culture
presents a complex system of values, it is impossible to analyze the alien
culture from the point of view of the own original culture’s norms and values.
Interpretation of the other culture is realized in contradiction of usual and
unusual.
Deep understanding is
possible when the sides participate in a political dialogue with the world of
the other culture, step by step interpreting archetypes and codes, meaning
encoded in these codes. In the XVIII-XX century interaction between Russian and
Buryat cultures was obvious in the field of agriculture, cattle-breeding, house
architecture, family relations, folklore. There were the results of the Buryat-Mongol and Russian population
synthesis, adjustment to each other and changed environmental, economic
situation. Penetration to the daily routine of the other political culture is
connected with interpretation of facts and circumstances, which make influence
on stereotypes formation of political consciousness and intercultural
communication.
So, cooperation during
many centuries and economic, cultural interactions of Russians and Buryats made
a specific form of international consensus, which is a typical feature of
contemporary political development of
Buryatia.
In contemporary society,
when a number of countries and cultures demonstrates their obvious hostility to
cultural and political changes, it is important to think of dialogue. Reforms
led to changes in the society of Russia, which, unfortunately, became the arena
of international hostility in many national regions of the former Soviet Union.
In such a situation of open hostility to the Russian population, Butyatia
demonstrates an example of a political dialogue, roots of which go deep into
the past.
Historical experience of
the XX century and prognosis to the XXI century shows that the time of
monological cultures passed away, M.M. Kagan underlines: “ dialogues envelope
more or less wide range of touching, interactions, coming together in the past, in the present and in the
future, it was typical for all transitory periods, although according to M.
Bakhtin and following him V. Bibler, each culture is dialogical, that is
because of its inherent quality; real process of history demonstrates that
different cultures reflected its quality in different ways so that it is
well-known the existence of some cultures, where you can find not a dialogical but a monological attitude to the
others. Dialogical appeares in searching for something new without destroying old,
in cooperation with other, in the desire to mutual understanding with a
Partner, which goes from assumption a relative, not an absolute truth.” [4].
A dialogue of a human
being with another human being, one culture with another culture, a political
system with another one, a human being with nature becomes more and more
obvious and leading way of mankind’s co-existence and a leading way of
organization a life together on the planet.
[1] I. Urbanaeva, Man by Lake
Baikal and the World of Central Asia. Ulan-Ude, Buryat Science Center,
1995.
[2] M. Bakhtin, Aesthetics of verbal creativity. Moscow, Iskustvo, 1979.
[3] I. Vasilenko, Political Globalistics. Moscow, Logos, 2000
[4] M. Kagan, Esthetics as a
philosophical science. – Saint Petersburg, 1997, pp. 532 – 534.