The question of the differences between Russia and Europe has been raised many times over the years. The issue was hotly debated during the 19th century in particular, when Russian society was divided into two main groups: Westernists – people who believed that Russian culture was similar to that of Europe, and Slavophiles, who believed that Russia was a country with a unique mix of European and Asian culture. And while it might seem like a contradiction, some Slavophiles, such as the well-known Russian novelist and philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky, did not entirely reject the idea of a common Russian and European culture. They believed that Russian culture had its roots in Europe.
However, these debates stopped after the Soviet Revolution, when Russia was almost totally isolated from Europe and the rest of the world during the communist era. Now, more than 20 years after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the issue of Russia and Europe is being discussed once again.
A few years ago, one of Russia’s largest survey companies, WCIOM, carried out research into what Russian people think about Europe. The results of their study suggest that while Russians generally tend to believe that they have more in common with European culture than American culture, nearly half of them think that if Russia is a part of Europe, it is more in terms of geography and history than culture.
Culture is a set of values and practices that creates meaning for society.
Meanwhile in Europe, some politicians are starting to wonder why Europe should spend time and money on cultural, educational and civil society initiatives in Russia if these programmes do not bring any immediate benefits to the people of their own countries.
However, I believe that it is only through exploration, exchange and mutual enrichment through each other’s values that we can build a solid foundation for joint relations and create a system of mutual security and trust – something that is important to both sides. This kind of dialogue has many different aspects, so I would like to focus here on some specific cultural and educational issues.
To a certain extent, culture is a set of values and practices that creates meaning for society. Cultural dialogue is therefore a cornerstone for building bridges between nations. It helps governments to create a foundation of trust and mutual understanding through people-to-people contacts.
There is a general feeling that there is a huge demand for European culture in Russia. Indeed, Russian people really enjoy attending guest performances by European theatre companies, concerts by European music stars and exhibitions borrowed from European museums. Although famous British theatres have yet to visit Russia, their performances are shown in the cinema here. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that some of the most profitable events put on by the Aurora cinema in St. Petersburg were live broadcasts from the National Theatre in London: Frankenstein by Danny Boyle with Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller; The Audience with Helen Mirren and Hamlet with Rory Kinnear in the title role. The Russian public’s obvious interest in British and European theatre was clearly demonstrated by the many people who queued up to buy tickets for the various performances.
It was not only the live broadcasts from the National Theatre that proved to be popular. The first International Winter Theatre Festival in December 2013 also attracted several thousand people, with all the performances playing to packed houses. During the festival, there was a much anticipated performance of Thomas Ostermeier’s version of Death in Venice. Not surprisingly, the actors involved in the story about the love of an old man for a young boy were worried about the possibility of being fined on account of the new Russian anti-gay law. But instead of being punished, they were simply greeted with applause.
Russia has enough facilities to hold these kinds of events. The Alexandrinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg has a new stage where contemporary performances can be shown; there are many creative projects (such as the ETAGHI loft project in St. Petersburg, the Ural Vision Gallery in Yekaterinburg, the Perm Museum of Contemporary art, etc.); and there is a plethora of places in Russia’s regions where creative industries could be developed.
Unfortunately, there are also some obstacles that can make it difficult for all these great plans and ideas to survive. First of all, the Russian government is not in favour of supporting these initiatives. Last year, for instance, Russian president Vladimir Putin blamed the ‘creative classes’ for the decline in reading standards and over-complicated school curricula. Secondly, travelling to Russia is extremely expensive and it is difficult to get a visa. However, some cultural figures are now using a new way to enter Russia without a visa – new regulations make this possible for people travelling by ferry from Helsinki.
Thirdly, the minority rights situation in Russia is highly unsatisfactory and discriminatory, especially with regard to the LGBT community.
Education, of course, is one of the most important drivers of progress. It helps to promote cultural, economic, political and social development. Despite the initial enthusiasm of Eurooptimists with regard to the Bologna Process, this initiative has not become the driver for the kind of change, openness and cooperation within the European-Russian perspective that was expected.
It is important to encourage European universities – which are themselves struggling with challenges occasioned by curricula and financial reforms – to establish new links with Russian universities at different levels. This should be done not only through the regular admission process, but also through short and long-term academic exchanges, dual degrees and doctoral programmes.
While one might argue that this is something that could be dealt with by each university on an individual basis, we still believe that it is important to create some kind of framework agreement and infrastructure, similar to the Erasmus Mundus Programme, for example. This could help to increase the mobility of academics, students and young researchers at all levels.
In addition, some recent initiatives on the part of the Russian Government, such as grants to attract leading scientists to Russian educational institutions and grants given to leading universities to help them establish their positions in international university rankings, have resulted in a number of Russian universities becoming much more open to this type of cooperation. This is particularly prevalent in new, trending areas such as Data Science, Computational Social Science, Digital Humanities, New Media, and Bioinformatics, where researchers and – more importantly – institutions tend to be more flexible, younger and more willing to cooperate.
In addition to creating a general framework for cooperation, it is also vital to have access to new ideas and approaches to ensure continuing development. This is especially important for the social sciences and the humanities, which explore, promote and expand high ideals of tolerance and equality. Public lectures and special courses by European professors at Russian universities could help to promote public discussion and the dissemination of ideas.
Some experts argue that there are not enough grants and scholarships for outstanding Russian students who want to come back to Russia after finishing their studies. This issue needs to be addressed by the Russian authorities. The whole homecoming issue is a sore point. Europe should try to find ways of preventing these people becoming the migrants of the future. The second problem is the visa issue, which cannot be resolved without high-level intervention. Could students and teachers be given priority when it comes to short-term visas? And to what extent should this policy be implemented? Unfortunately, inertia is a characteristic feature in this area, and years tend to go by before we see any results.
Ask yourself: does the word ‘Russia’ conjure up charming and delightful pictures or horrific images of the mafia, bears on city streets.
Unfortunately, inertia is a characteristic feature in this area, and years tend to go by before we see any results. However, there is one tremendous example of an institution whose work has produced some significant results. It is a private initiative developed to promote Russian culture in Europe, but which could also work the other way round.
Nothing moves unless you move. These words perfectly sum up the current situation. In our opinion, the Russian government is simply not doing enough to help promote intercultural dialogue between Russia and Europe. As a general principle, vacuums tend to be filled and in public life they are normally filled by public initiatives and civil society.
A few years ago, Russian-born economist Nonna Materkova, who had lived in the UK for more than a decade, decided to set up a charitable foundation to promote Russian contemporary art. The idea behind Calvert 22 appeared to face at least two formidableobstacles from the outset: the widespread belief that there was no contemporary art in Russia and the assertion that there was nothing ‘good’ in Russia at all. The media and the ordinary people in Europe had come to accept these myths. Ask yourself: does the word ‘Russia’ conjure up charming and delightful pictures or horrific images of the mafia, bears on city streets and general poverty? The aim of the foundation was to try to explode these myths under the banner ‘Russia is much better than you think’.
Breaking stereotypes is an extremely difficult and almost impossible task. It requires a great deal of strenuous effort and often produces no real results. However, with the right approach it is possible to achieve some fantastic results. The foundation, which in 2009 was no more than a small gallery, is now running several long-term projects relating to Russian modern art: the online Calvert Journal; the Calvert Education programme for outstanding students, artists and academics from Russia; and the Calvert Forum, the biggest creative industries’ think tank, which generates a programme of talks, reports and research on the role of creative enterprise in the economic and social development of Russia and Eastern Europe.
Today Calvert 22 is one of the best-known institutions involved in promoting Russian contemporary art in Western Europe. This example gives us an idea of just how important these new initiatives are for establishing closer links between artists and the public and for developing international creative networks. It represents the kind of path that cultural diplomacy could take and it could certainly be implemented by European cultural institutions.
One of the main causes of conflict lies in the fact that both sides usually just do not know enough about each other. Instead of entering into dialogue, they prefer to entrench themselves, wallow in unsubstantiated mutual suspicions and divide themselves into groups that are ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. This is a vicious circle and helps to create stereotypes that can eventually become impossible to break. To avoid this happening, both sides need to stop making assumptions, open their doors and start talking. We already have a clear and intelligible language that makes it possible for people to find common ground. It is called culture. One day, this may well help us to answer the question of whether or not Russia is part of Europe.
Valery Nechay ist Journalist in St. Petersburg und arbeitet unter anderem für den prominentesten unabhängigen Hörfunksender in Russland, „Echo Moskau“.
Culture has a strategic role to play in the process of European unification. What about cultural relations within Europe? How can cultural policy contribute to a European identity? In the Culture Report Progress Europe, international authors seek answers to these questions. Since 2021, the Culture Report is published exclusively online.
