Memorandum by Professor Michael Holman,
University of Leeds
LOOKING OUT AND LOOKING IN: SETTING TACIS
IN CONTEXT
Rather than examine in detail the workings of
any particular programme or project, I wish briefly to place the
current flurry of know-how transfer activity from west to east
in a broader historical and cultural context. My view will be
macro rather than micro, for only when we understand more about
the mainsprings of Russia, how Russians perceive themselves and
how they perceive us, will we be able to identify where western
know-how can best be made relevant to Russia's needs.
Russia and Ukraine (both Eastern Orthodox),
and the other CIS countries currently coming within the purview
of TACIS, are not greenfield sites waiting to be discovered and
developed by the West. Long before we arrived with our bustling
know-how they were, like us, developing and learning to survive.
They were evolving their own traditions, developing operational
patterns, indigenous structures and above all attitudes of mind
that allowed them to work out their own solutions to their own
particular problems. The Eastern Orthodox Slavs have long experience
of coping with incursion, whether from the East or the West, whether
military, economic or cultural. They pride themselves on their
ingenuity. They are masters of improvisation and accommodation.
Within this overall ability to improvise and
adapt, in the interaction of Russians with the Graeco-Roman world
of Western Europe over the centuries two opposing, but fruitfully
intertwining traditions have developed. The first is the Westernising
tradition epitomised by Peter the Great (1672-1725), who three
hundred years ago this year came to London to learn, gathering
know-how he later put to good use in establishing the new Russian
navy. Peter also built St Petersburg, Russia's new capital city,
providing the empire with, as Pushkin wrote: "a window cut
through into Europe". Peter's tradition looks outwards for
a solution to the country's ills. It accepts that Russia is backward,
a patient with huge potential but currently ailing and urgently
in need of western assistance if it is to be brought back to health
and adequately fulfil itself. Peter's therapy was shock therapy:
it demanded action and change, the sooner the better, the more
the better. For this there was a price to pay. The second is the
Slavophil tradition. This looks inwards and is based more on Moscow
and the Russian heartland. It has more to do with attitude than
with action and seeks remedies within indigenous Russian and Slav
patterns of life. There is a price to pay for this too.
Despite their prescription of contradictory
courses of treatment, each with their downside, followers of the
Westernising and Slavophil traditions are ultimately pursuing
the same proud goal: the sustained and healthy development of
Russia. When seeking support and making our current TACIS-sponsored,
know-how based, western incursions into Russia, we need to be
aware not only of the two conflicting traditions, but also of
the common driving force behind them. Diagnosis and prescription
today have to be made in sympathetic partnership if common agendas
are to be established and an effective plan of action to be put
into practice. Only with a balanced understanding of the context
within which Russia functions—and this will inevitably mean
becoming a little more like Russians ourselves—can we hope
to develop programmes of assistance that stand any chance of succeeding.
Michael Holman
Department of Russian and Slavonic Studies
University of Leeds
3 June 1998
|
