The dispute between director Alexander Sokurov and the leader of Russia’s Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, has attracted the attention of many commentators in recent days. Kadyrov called Sokurov’s attacks against him «nationalistic,» to which Sokurov responded that «anyone who thinks about himself, his family, his people and his culture can be called a nationalist» and that this is a «worthy and decent term.» We’ll return to nationalism later, but for now, let’s remember the words Sokurov used to begin everything.
In this short speech, several messages should be highlighted, and then we should consider the link that connects them — their author. For example, Sokurov’s speech resonated in the Ingush community because he had indeed raised the urgent issues of the Ingush people, who lack any national subjectivity within the current Russian «federation» and whose civil society is under pressure because of their desire for it and the defense of their rights. Note, however, when and how Sokurov raises the Ingush question. He does so after his attacks on Chechnya, in order to contrast «bad Chechens» with «good Ingush».
Moreover, in principle, it must be acknowledged that what Sokurov says in this speech about the need to rethink federal relations, the nature of the Russian state, the meaning of the Caucasian war, and open discussion of all these issues — is absolutely correct. These issues are being actively discussed today among the thinking representatives of the peoples of Russia, and Sokurov is not the first to raise these questions, he has just raised them loudly, using his fame.
However, the question arises — is he the person with whom these questions should be discussed? And from what perspective is he doing it, «judging» some nations and «protecting» others?
Sokurov himself, in response to Kadyrov, proudly claimed the title of «nationalist». But which nation’s nationalist is he, and on behalf of which nation does he engage in such a delicate sphere as interethnic dialogue?
According to Sokurov’s official biography, he comes from an ancient Kabardian clan. But he does not seem to speak as a Kabardian. It is reasonable to assume that he considers himself Russian, and no one can forbid him from doing so, especially since he was born and raised in a predominantly Russian environment. Assimilation, that is, the transition from one nation to another, has always existed and will continue to exist, and if it is voluntary rather than forced, it is perceived in the modern world as the right and responsibility of the individual. But then the question arises — if Sokurov considers himself a Russian, what is the nature of his interest in the Caucasus?
In this sense, the world view of one of Sokurov’s most famous students — the young director Kantemir Balagov, who is also of Kabardian origin — seems revealing. In particular, he describes in this excerpt from an interview:
— «You come from a Kabardian family?»
— «Yes, both my mother and father are Kabardian.»
— «Do you feel like a Kabardian? Or rather, does it matter to you? We are sitting here in an Internet cafe in St. Petersburg discussing your movie that was shown at the Cannes Film Festival…»
— «I didn’t feel like a Kabardian before all this. I have no attachment to these traditions, to this culture. I don’t even know the Kabardian language.»
— «But you are making a movie about people who are deeply rooted in these traditions and culture?»
— «Because this rootedness is in everyone who grew up in the Caucasus. We all carry it within us.
In other words, we are dealing with someone who is «rootless» in his own culture, but who cannot simply move to another nation and forget it, and who constantly returns to it without connecting to it. Could this be the case with Sokurov’s attitude to the Caucasus?
Here is what Sokurov said in one of his interviews: «Europe today is being destroyed by the fear of admitting that nationality is above internationalism. I call it an infection. The infection has entered the body and made it sick. For the Christian and Muslim worlds to exist in harmony and accord, a clear line must be drawn that neither side can cross. We cannot allow the cultures to mix. This cannot happen without conflict, because culture is a code, a worldview. And the second rule is not to violate the norms of the root people. There must be modesty on the part of the guest, which is usually lacking. It cannot be said that Europe will disappear if mosques appear everywhere. But culture will undoubtedly perish. Europeans forget that civilization must be protected, that this combination of national and Christian norms must be preserved».
As can be seen, Sokurov is very concerned about the threat of «Islamization» and the «loss of European culture,» with which he associates himself. In what capacity — as a Kabardian Christian, as a Russian Christian, or as an abstract person of European culture — remains unclear.
Again, he is a creative individual, and it is his personal business to see himself as anyone and to associate himself with anything. The question is different — why do such individuals of unclear origin and identity take it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the peoples of Russia, labeling some as «bad» and others as «good»?
This situation perfectly illustrates Sokurov’s own words about the lack of open discussion of such important issues in Russia. It is only in such an abnormal situation that the «advocates» of the Ingush people in Russian politics turn out to be not their prominent public leaders, who are in detention and in exile, but a bohemian cultural figure of dubious affiliation, who is allowed to raise federalist issues because of his connections. The same applies to the Russian people — if we are talking about real nationalists, it is worth noting that the Russian nationalist Dmitry Demushkin, for example, traveled to Chechnya and met with Ramzan Kadyrov, finding understanding with him as a Russian with a Chechen. Demushkin was later sentenced for refusing to follow the Kremlin’s orders in Ukraine, then released, but he lives under surveillance, and you will not see him speaking in the Kremlin on behalf of the Russian people and Russian nationalists — such an opportunity is given only to figures like Sokurov.
So, of course, one can agree with the director about the need for the most open and intensive discussion on these issues. But it must be clearly stated that when it becomes possible, representatives nominated by the peoples of Russia must speak on their behalf, not «prosecutors» and «advocates» from inside or outside.