Gadfly: Dr. Yanitsky. The influence of
American culture as I have seen it in St. Petersburg and Moscow is an
embarrassment to visiting Americans who have other than business
interests. How does this conspicuous American presence affect Russian
attitudes toward the United States, and particularly, how is this
affecting the possibility of environmental cooperation.
Dr. Yanitsky: I cannot answer as a
scholar, since I am unaware of any empirical research on the subject. But speaking informally, I feel that the majority of our population
shares a positive attitude toward Americans in general. This is a
reversal, for before perestroika we had more negative
attitudes. But these negative attitudes were more politically and
ideologically inspired, and the rank and file people were either
neutral or positive, because they knew about American from films,
drama, literature. The general attitude, then, is positive. And the
onslaught of American businessmen, has not strongly altered this
positive attitude.
Regarding the environmental issues, I think we should talk about a
relatively closed international environmental community, where mutual
attitudes are highly positive. Americans now are the first to give
real and tangible aid to environmentalists in Russia and the Former Soviet Union
(FSU), and
of course this has provoked a positive attitude. After all, American
agencies and the US government are the major donors to the
environmental movement in the FSU. Indeed, this movement is dependent
upon US aid.
Gadfly: In your very excellent book,
Russian Environmentalism, you write that "the environmental
situation in Russia will keep getting worse for a long time to come."
Why do you believe this is so?
Yanitsky: I think there are a lot of
reasons. Let me mention just a few. First, the whole economic system
is very resistant to change. Second, as I have mentioned, the
government has no strategy of ecological modernization of our
industry and of the society at large. Third, both the state and the
regions can survive only at the price of consuming still more natural
resources, for selling, trading, and otherwise disposing of these
resources is key to their survival. Nobody wants to work hard, and
the majority of our businessmen and officials want to sell these
resources. Fourth, the developed countries, including the US, will
benefit greatly if Russia remains a source of raw materials and a
deposit for waste -- particularly, radioactive wastes imported from
these countries. For us, this is a great problem. Most Americans whom
I have met repeat that stereotyped phrase, "Yes you are good friends;
but as you emerge from your crisis, you will appreciate that you are
a rich country in terms of resources. And this will be very good for
you." But this bears dark implications, for it suggests that our
foreign "friends" are regarding us as their source of unrenewable and
raw resources. And in turn, our businessmen and government economists
share this attitude. Fifth, I think that ethnic conflicts will
postpone serious ecological programs and projects. Finally, I think
that in the popular consciousness, nature is still regarded as
something external to a society. People do not want to acknowledge
that risk is a necessary condition of modern society.
Gadfly: Dr. Yanitsky, how do American
environmentalists and journalists misperceive environmental problems
and the environmental movement in the former Soviet Union?
Yanitsky: I will answer as a
scholar. There is, I think, a general and inevitable law: If anyone
wants to tell something about a country, or to offer recommendations
to it, he should know the country in question as well as he knows his
own. But unfortunately, this is not the case in practice. The
majority of your colleagues do not know the Russian language, and
thus can never deal with the original documents. Instead, they use
secondary materials, or reviews, and so they do not have access to
the real events, and thus seldom go in depth into what is going on. Moreover, many of your scholars and journalists persist in the
attitude that "America is best." Also they are not inclined to
examine our concepts or research techniques. This is my personal
feeling, after many contacts with American researchers, businessmen,
and some officials. Even worse, many such individuals regard Russia as a
testing ground for concepts and theories developed in the USA.
Next point -- the "case study" approach of my American colleagues
is often casual and superficial. They do not try to identify
regularities. For example, when the Chernobyl accident took place,
there was a lot of reportage in the American press about the details, but
much less about the "underground" factors which preceded this event:
factors such as irregularities in the industry, in technical policy,
in the mind and the way of the life of the operators -- the base of
the iceberg. Regretfully, I must cite Feshbach and Friendly's book, Ecocide in the USSR, as an example of a work which presents
many cases, events, and statistics, but not a deep analysis.
Gadfly: I fear that you are encountering
a problem which we share in our country as well. When we have an
environmental problem or emergency, journalists like to interview
people for the "human interest" aspect of the story, but they do not
get into the institutional, social and economic factors, which are
not that interesting to the ordinary reader or viewer.
Yanitsky: Superficiality is a
distortion, of course. At first glance, many things are seen as quite
similar in our two countries: meetings here and there, protest
actions, litigation. But this leads us to forget that all these
things are happening in quite a different context in your country
than in our country. For instance, while the process of litigation in
the United States is well defined by the three separate branches of
government, in our country, the courts, up to now, have been
essentially meaningless. Moreover, the economic, cultural, political
contexts are utterly different. But these "contexts" are just those
"background" factors which case-study analysis and journalistic
reporting tend to ignore. It is a paradox, but environmentalists
often ignore their "environment" in the larger sense of the word:
social, political and economic. They like to talk about
"environmental events," but not the context in which these events
take place. Among my American colleagues, the only person who can
escape these misconceptions is Douglas Weiner, the University of
Arizona historian. But Weiner has earned his credentials through more
than ten years of hard work, frequent visits, and extended residency
in Russia. Weiner is a real insider, fluent in Russian, who deals in
depth. Most of your visitors are outsiders, looking in.
Gadfly: Turning to another issue: How
was it possible for an environmental movement to arise in Russia, out
of a climate of political repression and stagnation?
Yanitsky: There are several reasons and
possibilities. First, notwithstanding the repressions, some key
people still survived, and I think that people are as important to a
movement as organizations. In our country, this is especially so. Second, if these key people were exiled but not killed, then when the
repression was eased or removed, these individuals formed cells of
the environmental movement all over the country, in testing stations,
in reserves, where they were sent by Stalin. And to these cells, our
universities sent students, which initiated a feedback and
networks.
Gadfly: Who were some of these
people?
Yanitsky: Felix Shtilmark comes to mind. But also many anonymous people, sent to places like Turkmenistan,
where Svet Zabelin, now the head of the Socio-Ecological Union,
worked for many years. And then a network emerged.
Then the Universities played a crucial role in the networking, for
the University was a social structure which supported them
financially and morally. Even in the times of Lysenko, there were
botanical journals which were in a position to publish quite
different viewpoints
A second point is that the Universities served as supporting
structures to very small eco-groups, which later evolved as a network
for the whole environmental movement. These were small nature clubs. Yablokov, Shvarts, Zabelin -- all our key individuals emerged from
these clubs.
The next point: the government, along with their official
ideology, allowed such organizations as the All Russian Society for
Nature Protection to exist. Such organizations maintained, not only
official functions, but also served as a base for shaping a kind of
nature protection group. Formally, such organizations were
sanctioned, but of course it was under the umbrella of the party
ideology. But no one within was covered by the official ideology. Within these groups were processes which were in effective opposition
to party ideology. Of course, the emerging movement never openly
acted against the state or the state bodies. Instead, they acted
covertly or latently along with the principle, "nature must have her
adherents everywhere." It was a principle of utmost transparency --
first in the pores of the state bodies, then later acting in the
cells of the environmental movement.
In addition, the student nature protection teams played a
significant socio-psychological role, not only as a part of the
movement, but as a brotherhood allowing the members to overcome the
feeling of alienation and to gain a sense of community.
After the repressions ended and social control weakened, the
movement gained new possibilities and resources to act. But it partly
lost its initial character as a brotherhood. It became more diverse,
formal, and bureaucratized. So those earlier times were the times of
the brotherhood, the community. Now these are the times of a more
official structure with a hierarchy, more definite roles within the
movement.
Gadfly: You speak of how the
environmental movement evolves from a brotherhood to a bureaucracy. But as a sociologist, wouldn't you expect this, as almost an
inevitable evolution of a social group -- such as a religious society
into a church, a political action group into a party?
Yanitsky: I think this is a
common tendency, and that is inevitable. There is only one difference
that Russia, in terms of human resources, is really exhausted. In
your country, if one layer of activists and dissidents becomes
"co-opted" and bureaucratized, there is below it another layer of
activists to take its place. But I observe in Russia that there is
now a void -- a lack of people who can act as vigorously as those
earlier activists who became politicians and bureaucrats. There is,
in short, no fund of "human resources" to renew the movement.
Gadfly: How strong is the
commitment of the Russian government to environmental protection and
restoration, in particular, that of the executive and President
Yeltsin, and then of the Parliament?
Yanitsky: This is a rather
large and complicated question, and I am not a political man. Thus my
answer will be somewhat short and subjective. In general, I am
convinced that the commitment is not sufficient or as strong as it
should be. Why? Because there is no environmental policy at all. By
"policy" I don't mean a set of laws or regulations, but rather
principles and strategies of eco-development. As far as I know,
nobody in the government or the parliament has ever tried to apply
the concept of sustainable development to the Russian soil. The more
Russia is regionalized, the more severe competition of local or
regional social actors for the key resources -- for land, urban
infrastructure, raw materials, etc.
Let me give one example: When the book "Our Common Future" by the
Brudland Commission was published, I asked a set of high officials
and politicians how they perceived this book and if they intended to
use it. The general response was that of total indifference. They
don't bother. They thought of it as just another book, but never
considered it as a program or a scenario of eco-survival. I asked
some persons in 1987, at the dawn of perestroika, can you
use this book in your everyday political activity? No, they said. It's too general. The only questions of interest are those asked by
the Central Committee of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet
Union). So they never considered it as a workable document. Because I
was in Norway at the time, I can compare the reaction of the
Norwegian Parliament to our former parliament. The Norwegians
disseminated this book throughout the world, and asked for individual
and concrete reactions from each parliament. There was no official
reaction from our parliament.
So my feeling is that our official commitment is rather small. Our
officials act only as a machine which is reactive rather than
proactive -- responding only to consequences, but with no strategy
oriented to the future.
Gadfly: Does
the environmental movement in Russia have much political
influence?
Yanitsky: To my mind, it has. But the movement's activity is mostly latent, according to the
above-mentioned principle that nature must have advocates everywhere. They supply information to influential individuals such as Zabelin at
the Socio-Ecological Union, or Yablokov [formerly] in
Yeltsin's cabinet. I believe that in one way or another the
environmental NGOs (non-governmental organizations) took part in the
drafting of laws concerning the environment. But at the same time, it
is understandable that environmental problems that have accumulated
for twenty years, cannot be solved at once. So recently, one may
observe a strong tendency for local environmental executive bodies to
merge with environmental NGOs. I have personally observed this
process. This is a new process, and it is not clear what will be the
outcome. I am afraid that it will be a bureaucratization of the
movement. But at the same time, it will be a further step in the
changing of environmental policy. But now I speak only about the
regional and local levels.
Gadfly: In a previous issue of
our Newsletter, your colleague, Irene Khalyi writes that "the
environmental movement's survival is essential to the development of
a civil society in the country." Here she uses a term, "civil
society," which I find is extremely important in your book. There you
write, in an eloquent passage, that with the advent of perestroika
and the rise of the environmental movement,
Ordinary citizens were no longer willing to display
enthusiasm for building an illusory "shining future," but began,
independently and very actively, to fix up the present. Moreover,
they did this in such a way as to ensure that they themselves
could enjoy the fruits of the efforts they had invested. The
participants in the "grass-roots" movements thus rejected yet
another dogma -- about the priority of public (read: state and
[bureaucratic]) values over personal ones. Instead, they
affirmed that a society develops only when those who build it
develop themselves and achieve satisfaction. It seems to me that this
represents a complete revolution in our consciousness and in society
as a whole, a revolution which so far we have sense only dimly. (Russian Environmentalism,
35-6)
Would you please explain this term, "civil society," and its
significance in Russia?
Yanitsky: This is an important
point. I argue that in contrast with many other movements which are
struggling for political power, the environmental movement tends
first to form and maintain the cells of civil society -- working, so
to speak, not "from the top down" in society, but "from the bottom
up." It is a more creative approach. Thus the movement not only looks
for and consumes resources for its own survival, but also to produce
resources -- human, material, organizational and otherwise. They
organize small enterprises and centers, as in Nizhny Novgorod
[formerly Gorkii], and other places. The major organizational
centers of the environmental movement are not political headquarters. They are the NGOs, which definitely produce material, financial and
intellectual resources. The last point is quite important. They
teach, they organize, they collect information, they act as mediators
between the populations and the local bodies. They sometimes have
their own small businesses. In sum, the green NGOs act as independent
subjects. I think that the green NGOs are the most independent social
actors in our society. Other civic groups are usually tied either to
national organizations, or to local communities, or to charitable
organizations. They have to belong! But to my mind, the
environmentalists belong either to themselves, or to the
international community.
Gadfly: I believe you told me
that the environmental movement is the only civil movement that has
survived in all the republics following the collapse of the Soviet
Union.
Yanitsky: Yes. But this doesn't
mean that it can produce the civil society at once. Nevertheless, it
is still, so to speak, in the pores of these republics, which later
on can emerge as the nesting cells of a civil society.
This is how it was with Russia. Just before Perestroika, such
"grass roots" flourished in Russia. Before there was "Democratic
Russia" or other nationalistic movements, these small cells of civil
society flourished in neighborhoods as grass roots, as civic
initiatives. It was a rather interesting period during which the
government removed the pressure -- not deliberately, but because it
became weaker.
Gadfly: What time, exactly?
Yanitsky: It began with the
death of Brezhnev but became pronounced near the end of Andropov's
life. A lot of local clubs, organizations, groups, initiatives -- in
cleaning streets, teaching children, club lectures -- the real stuff
of civil society. They were independent and the felt independent.
Gadfly: I was of the opinion
that perestroika made civil society possible. But you are saying that
the reverse is the case. And thereafter, it was a "positive feedback"
whereby each reinforced the other.
Yanitsky: Yes, exactly!
Gadfly: How important and effective is electronic
communications (e-mail etc.) in the work of Russian environmentalists
-- in the effectiveness of their work and the growth of the
movement.
Yanitsky: Extremely important. First of all they create an information skeleton of the movement. They enable it to mobilize its rather modest human resources very
quickly and very effectively. This gives to the members a sense of
belongingness, of community. And what is most important, the e-mail
gives them a sense of belonging to a global community -- a great
community of environmentalists all over the world. And e-mail
democratizes communications, making the environmental movement
members informed before the discussions become known to the media or
ordinary people. So they feel themselves in advance of events. All in
all, e-mail is a powerful resource that makes the environmental
movement actually independent.
However, there is only one serious potential threat: it is the
inequality of those who have access to the network and those who do
not. And therefore this raises the possibility for the leaders of the
movement, when they became bureaucrats, to put pressure on some
deviant groups. Those leaders who become members of the government
still hold in their hand the e-mail devices, and usually say to the
groups, "if you proceed as I tell you, you can keep the e-mail. If
not, I will switch you off."
Gadfly: Can the government do
this?
Yanitsky: Not the government. I
mean a local leader, previously a leader of an NGO, who now becomes a
leader of a local ecological department of an oblast (local
province). Still he is a leader of the SEU, and holds in his hands
the e-mail system. Now he can manipulate it, deciding how has access
to it and who has not. This is a potential problem. But I repeat: in
total, there is much more benefit than loss in electronic
communication.
Gadfly: How would you
characterize the most pressing organizational challenges facing the
environmental movement in Russia?
Yanitsky: First, we must
understand that there has been a radical restructuring of the
movement, stimulated by the new economic and political conditions. Before and at the beginning of perestroika, environmental activity
dealt mainly with nature protection. Now it has been very quickly
transformed into an "environmental movement," with a great widening
of the scope of things it must deal with. The movement must deal with
such huge things as radioactive contamination, disarmament of
chemical weapons, the Chernobyl accident, etc. And it is quite
natural that all this requires new knowledge, new technology, and
even new strategy. Besides, many core activists have become
politicians and have left the movement, and this has evidently
weakened the movement.
The movement has to learn to form an environmental lobby, to draft
laws, and so on. All in all, such challenges are quite new, and thus
there have been great changes both outside and within the movement. So I would not say that the movement is "in crisis." Rather, these
losses and difficulties which it faces are the inevitable result of
the transformation of the movement. Of course, there was a negative
reaction by some militants who were disappointed by the results of
perestroika and the ongoing reforms, but I think its normal for some
people to drop out from the movement, as others come in.
Gadfly: We had the same
phenomenon after our first "Earth Day" in April, 1972. There was a
great expression of citizen concern, and inevitably it cooled. And
eight years later, Ronald Reagan was elected President -- a political
disaster for the American environmental movement. Only recently has
the movement become reactivated in the US.
A friend of mine, a researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences,
offered this reflection on the current state of the environmental
movement. I'd like to hear your response. He said that there are two
very practical factors that are damaging the impact of the
environmental movement: time and place. First,
time, in the sense that given the difficult economic
conditions, Russian citizens in general have little time for anything
other than earning money and surviving. Secondly, place
since with privatization it becomes very difficult of groups to meet
and administer their activities, since prices are becoming unbearable
and meeting places impossible to find. Is this true?
Yanitsky: I agree, but only
partly. Because, as I told you, the movement is not poor -- it has
financial resources. Concerning time, yes, but again if the movement
has resources, it can hire help. In general terms, people have less
time. But if they are paid, then they do have time. In this sense,
things may become better. If the masses of people are seriously
affected, they will put aside their work and go to the streets. A
lack of time and space will not be significant.
Gadfly: In spite of the
economic difficulties of which we spoke, are you on balance
optimistic about the effectiveness of the environmental movement in
improving the condition of the Russian environment?
Yanitsky: This depends first of
all on the tactics adopted in the near future by the movement. To my
mind, it would be much better if the movement not involve itself in
political activity, but rather continue its latent work with which
they are well acquainted and well trained. If they do become involved
in political activity, I can not foresee the results. But as a
political force, the environmentalists are unknown on the Russian
stage. So it means that they must join with other movements. I think
that the role of the movement as a kind of an underground apolitical
force is much more effective, than that of an open partisan in the
political struggle. If environmentalists do become political, they
will be attacked from both the left and the right.
Gadfly: What is the role of the
international environmental community in supporting the Russian
environmentalists?
Yanitsky: I think that the role
is very important, perhaps even decisive. This includes the exchange
of information, training, building an e-mail network, joint projects,
financial support for all kinds of local activities -- expeditions,
conferences, green press publishing, etc. Second is moral support. Think of the late eighties, when environmental concern of the rank
and file society sharply decreased. So the Russian and other former
Soviet environmentalists urgently need a feeling of belonging to the
global environmental community. They need financial and moral support
to maintain themselves as the carriers of environmental values. I see
this as a key point. To this day, there is no other supporter of the
environmental values in our society. So the global community makes a
great input when it supports the environmental movement. They in turn
maintain the environmental values in our society. This is most
important because the environmentalists are opposed to the growing
consumerism of our society. But the more our environmentalists
integrate into the world environmental community, the more the danger
that they will be accused as "non-patriots" -- as adversaries of
reforms. In other words, the integration of the Russian environmental
movement into the world community could be interpreted here in Russia
as "uprooting." This is ironic, since, up to this time, society
considered our environmentalists as the most rooted of people,
because they were concerned with the immediate environment. But now
as they deal more and more with the global issues, they may be
accused of losing their feelings of place.
Gadfly: My final question has
several parts. In general, the question is this: how might the West,
and the United States in particular, best assist the Russian
environmental movement? Now to the parts: first of all, how might
scholars and scientists best assist the movement?
Yanitsky: They have already
done a lot. And I would very much appreciate it if they would develop
environmental theory, particularly in sociology and politics, jointly
with their Russian colleagues, and to develop these as independent
disciplines. Clearly, in our society, following seventy years of
unchallenged dogmatism, the very basic foundations of sociology
should be re-examined. In particular, a new environmental paradigm
must be devised to adapt to Russian conditions, recognizing that the
society is in a stage of transformation.
Gadfly: And the educators?
Yanitsky: As for educators, I
can only say that they must continue their activity.
Gadfly: And the environmental
activists?
Yanitsky: The ties should be
maintained and strengthened. Every part of Russia and the former
Soviet Union should be covered by the network of the global
environmental community.
Gadfly: The government
officials?
Yanitsky: Your officials, when
they deal with our government and urge economic reforms, should be
aware of environmental and ecological considerations. Up to now,
nothing. Only very general words. I think you should stress to our
top officials that they should think more and think conceptually
about sustainable development, and about ecological
modernization.
Gadfly: The Media?
Yanitsky: They do a lot. Only
one request: it would be very good if the Western media gave more
access to Russian environmentalists, thus allowing them to speak to
American audiences. As it is, you are getting the impressions of your
journalists and environmentalists, not ours. So you should give the
microphone to Zabelin, to Shvarts, to Yablokov, and so on.
Gadfly: Finally, ordinary
citizens?
Yanitsky: My great interest is
to facilitate contacts, because this is very practical. We should
find the means to maintain our personal ties. Not only in the
capitals, but also in the small cities and towns. Direct contact
between "sister cities" has proven to be especially useful and
productive.
Gadfly: Dr. Yanitsky, this has
been an extraordinarily insightful conversation. On behalf of our
readers and environmental scholars and activists throughout the
world, I thank you for your time, your wisdom, and for your
dedication to our common concerns.
