Interview with Professor Eduard Ponarin on His Business Trip to Kazan

Eduard Ponarin: In Kazan I had a meeting with the colleagues from the Institute of Modernization Studies. This is a new institution that is being created right now. The first discussion of this idea with the principal of the Kazan University happened in September 2010, and they plan to sign all the papers this March.

Veronica Kostenko:  Will you please tell us about your business trip to Kazan?

Eduard Ponarin: In Kazan I had a meeting with the colleagues from the Institute of Modernization Studies. This is a new institution that is being created right now. The first discussion of this idea with the principal of the Kazan University happened in September 2010, and they plan to sign all the papers this March.

 V.K. Who has decided to create it?

E.P. It was an idea of Sergey Erofeev who used to be the head of international department of the Kazan University and now works for the European University at St.Petersburg as foreign programs director.

V.K. Will it be a state-financed institution?

E.P. Right, it will be a department of the University of Kazan but headed by the Principal personally. They are preparing Master program in sociology. The faculty is English-speaking professors with certain international experience. I will be in faculty part-time as well. These scholars are known in their fields. These are, for example, I. Jasaveev (D.Se), M.Mogilner, the editor of “Ab Imperio” academic periodical, etc. Howard Davis from the University of Wales in Bangor is chief academic supervisor of the Institute. He develops critical theory from neo-Marxist point of view. The board of trustees will be formed of the prominent foreign scholars.

V.K.  What is the main purpose of this institute?

E.D. We are doing our best to make it innovative in comparison to the University of Kazan where the humanities grew up from the former Marxist-Leninist studies. We want the faculty to publish their works in the best peer-reviewed journals and participate in international conferences, seminars, etc. The idea was to minimize bureaucratic hurdles; that‘s why the institute is headed directly by the Principal of the Kazan University. This will provide more mobility and independence for the scholars.

 V.K. Will it be linked with LCSS somehow?

E.P. I have discussed this point with Ronald Inglehart. We’ve originally planned to study nationalism in the Ural region where we have already collected the database of 2005 survey. This year we want to continue these studies to make a longitude survey. We’ve got some interesting results after 2005 survey. Using factor analysis we’ve proved that there are 2 types of nationalism.

The first is “ethnic” nationalism when e.g. Tatars don’t like Russians. This nationalism is evidently negatively associated with modernization. For the most part people who choose it lack education and status. “Political” nationalism differs from “ethnic” as elites exercise it. It usually understood as growing separatist trend. This is a matter to think of nature of nationalism and about the theories of nationalism.

We have also collected amazing data on religious attitudes and found out that religiosity is associated with nationalism. We have shown that religious Tatars believe that Bashkirs are of the same ethnicity with themselves as Islam unites them into one super-ethnos. Those Tatars who are less religious feel hostile towards Bashkirs because in Bashkortostan Tatars represent disadvantaged minority.

It means that ethnic tension definitely exists, but religion makes it irrelevant. This is an example of negative correlation between nationalism and religiosity.

Speaking of Tatar-Russian relations we argue that religiosity positively correlates with nationalism. E.g. religious Tatars are still against intermarriages. 

V.K. Are you speaking about political or ethnic nationalism now?

E.P. I would classify it as ethnic.

V.K. Do you mean that there are no separatist trends in this region currently?

E.P. Political elites in Tatarstan are still not influenced by Islamic fundamentalism, so the answer is “no”.

V.K. Are they going to study religion in this new institute?

E.P. Yes, of course. Actually, the aim of the institute is to become a bridge that culturally unites East and West. On the one hand, they want to establish a “European Centre” like one in St. Petersburg. On the other hand, they are developing Asian studies. They have ties to Organization of the Islamic Conference, Turkey, Iran and to CIS. For example, every year sociological conferences of Turkic peoples are held. This is a chance to meet Turkmen scholars. Turkmenistan is a fairly unopened country, so these conferences are important speaking about WVS expansion to this region.  

V.K. Is this region not covered by WVS yet?

E.D. No, the survey still not conducted in Central Asia and we definitely want to include it. Turkmenistan is a very specific region in this sense as practically no surveys or inquires were held there in the past decades. We have discussed it with M. Safiullin, the assistant principal of the University of Kazan, who has some ties with Turkmen scholars. He says that it is possible to invite them to Kazan to a seminar and they may come. Some kind of cooperation may emerge. I’m not sure that it will be possible to launch a wave of WVS there immediately, but at least some surveys could be made to start working there.

V.K. Do you mean that this new institute will represent the interests of WVS in this region?

E.D. This is something I want to do. Of course, the institute is being created for other reasons, many scholars work there and all of them have their own projects and ideas. But still I plan to use this opportunity for the development of our laboratory.

This is all I want to tell about this business trip to Kazan in a nutshell.