26,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: ibidem
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society
- Sprache: Englisch
This timely book offers a fresh perspective on the issue of contemporary migratory labor, otkhodnichestvo, in Russia-the temporary departure of inhabitants from small towns and villages for short-term jobs in the major cities of Russia. Although otkhodnichestvo is a mass phenomenon, it is not reflected in official economic statistics. Based on numerous interviews with otkhodniks and local experts, this stunningly original work focuses on the central and northern regions of European Russia. The authors draw a social portrait of the contemporary otkhodnik and offer a sociological assessment of the economic and political status these `wandering workers` live with.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 637
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015
Ähnliche
ibidem Press, Stuttgart
Table of Contents
Preface
This book addresses the issue of Russian wandering workers—otkhodniks. They are a specific group of internal temporary labor migrants who migrate from small towns and rural areas to major cities and industrial centers. Among them, seasonal and agricultural workers are anegligibleminority. In our view, these Russian labor migrants differ from both circular (circulatory) cross-border migrants and seasonal agricultural migrants, well familiar in many countries of the world. To highlight these differences, we refer to them aswandering workers(in Russian—temporary departers), and avoid using the termscircular migrantsandseasonal workersmore familiar to western researchers. A self-designation for suchwanderingworkers appeared in Russia about three or four centuries ago. People started calling themotkhodniks[from the Russianotkhod—temporary departure], and this is the term they themselves and the Russian scientists still use.
Initially, we planned this monograph as a simple (authentic) translation of our bookOtkhodniks[1], which appeared in Russian at the end of 2013. However, in the past year and a half, while the monograph was being translated, we continued our fieldwork supplementing the existing records by the findings of new expeditions, observations and interviews. At the same time, we refined the conclusions made earlier based on the newly obtained field data, tested new hypotheses, and conceptualized our records. As a result, the English edition differs significantly from the Russian version both by the volume of the presented material, and by its analysis. Actually, it turned out to be a new book about otkhodniks. We have been collecting field data for this book continuously over five years, in summer and in winter. We have revised every chapter, expanded all of them, and added new ones. To the extent possible, the presentation of the material has been adapted for readers unfamiliar with the Russian reality in the sphere of labor behavior. In particular, wherever necessary, we have provided an explanation of the terms and events, which was not required for the Russian readers. We have also provided a US dollar equivalent not only for all our estimates but also for the cost of various types of work and wages received by the otkhodniks. For this purpose, we applied the average official USD/RUB exchange rate effective at the time of the surveys, which was 30–32 rubles per 1US dollar (although, obviously, the purchasing power of the ruble in the Russian province was at that time substantially higher).We are extensively quoting our respondents, and we have retained all the original colloquialisms, slang, andphonetics. To the extent possible, the translator has tried to convey this manner of speaking in the English text.
The co-authors contributed to this book as follows. Juri Plusnin supervised the research and development of the structure and content of the monograph, and co-wrote all the sections of the book. With the technical and editorial assistance of Natalia Zhidkevich and Artemy Pozanenko, he also re-wrote the entire text of the 2013 monograph, significantly amended and supplemented every chapter, and added two new chapters. Yana Zausaeva participated in writing chapters 4, 9, and 10 herein. Natalia Zhidkevich wrote chapter8 and participated in writing chapter 5. Artemy Pozanenko took part in writing chapters4 and 10, and was the principal author of chapters 5, 6, and 7.
Preface to the 2013 Russian edition
Otkhodnichestvo as a phenomenon is not just a matter of academic interest for us. The senior co-authorishimselfan otkhodnik and experiences first-hand alltheadvantages and hardships of a"migratory"lifestyle. The three junior co-authors are involved in the matter in another way. For thepast threeyears, we have traveledextensively; we have visited dozens of small towns and villages and knocked on hundreds of doors. We are looking for, finding, and trying to engage in conversation a mostly unknown, however, extremely interesting and charismatic type of person who calls himselfotkhodnik—an archaic and seemingly long-forgotten (even by sociologists) term—and who leads a busy and productive life filled with hard work and weary household chores.
We have spent many hours amid the otkhodniks talking to them and their families. As a result, we have adopted their viewpoints and to a certain extent even started identifying ourselves with them. Apart from an advantage, this also poses the threat of losing a researcher's impartial approach. Nevertheless, we did our utmost to maintain a clear perception and present our findings primarily as sociologists. It could be that in certain instances we deviated from this principle.
The book provides a sociological phenomenological (not statistical) overview of contemporary otkhodnichestvo and relies on the findings of our fieldwork. We chose to present only this aspect ofthe recurrentlabor migration in Russia—a one-sided approach does not always hinder research.
Writing the book turned out to be a long and complicated process; it was not easy tooutlineand summarize the interviews we had taken. Probably, partly due to this we failed to achieve all our objectives and feela certaindissatisfaction with some aspects of our work. However, we count on the benevolence of our readers who chose at least to leaf through this book about otkhodniks, which is based on their words, stories and experience.
Acknowledgements
Three sponsors contributed to our empirical research of contemporary otkhodnichestvo. This enabled us to make many expeditions to different small towns across Russia.
The Khamovniki Foundation for Social Research was our principal sponsor. Initially, it allocated funds for our studies in 2010–2011; subsequently, in 2011–2012,it provided aspecial grant fortheresearch of otkhodnichestvo (Project 2011-001,Otkhodniks in small towns).Twoseparate projects supported by the Foundation and implemented in 2012–2013contributed to the research. These projects are:The social portrait of the contemporary Russian otkhodnik, led by Natalia Zhidkevich;The social structure of local communities territorially isolated from public authorities, led by Artemy Pozanenko.Thus, thediverseand lasting support of the Khamovniki Foundation enabled us to focus on thefieldwork. In addition, the Foundation sponsored the publication of the monographOtkhodniksin Russian and financed its translation and issue in English. Such a supportive (friendly) attitude to our research of labor migration gave us the opportunity to realize our ideasfully. We are very grateful to Alexander Klyachin, Khamovniki Foundation Chairman of the Board, for his interest in the research of otkhodnichestvo and his understanding of the challenges involved. His position allowed us to perform extended field research in spite of the many difficulties facing such an ambitious project. We would like to express our gratitude to Cholpon Beishenalieva, Khamovniki Foundation Director, for her attention to our problems, her patience when it came to inevitable disruptions, and her ongoing support and encouragement. We are certain that the success of our researchislargelya result ofher efforts.
In 2011, when the project was alreadyunder way,supportedbythe Khamovniki Foundation, we received assistance from the public Russian Foundation for Humanities in the form of a grant for field research of otkhodnichestvo (Grant No.11-03-18022e,Otkhodniks in Russian small towns). Thisallowed ustocollect additionalfield data.
In 2012–2013, we received fundingfrom theAcademic Fund of the National Research University—Higher School of Economicsfor the research of a particular aspect of the matter—interaction of the otkhodniks with the municipal authorities(Grant No.11-01-0063,Will the economically active population become an ally of the municipal authorities?Analysis of disruptions in the relations between the local communities and the authorities, led by J.M.Plusnin).
In 2014, on our own initiative, we continued collecting additional data on otkhodnichestvo wherever possible; we conducted observations in the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East.
We are grateful to OlgaV.Smirnova, director of the Kologriv local history museum, for her attention to our requests and the assistance she provided when we were working in the archive of the Kologriv branch of the Kostroma state museum reserve.
Many assistants helped us in the fieldwork and in the primary analysis of collected data. It is with great pleasure that we thank all the participants of the work, many of whom were at that time students, post-graduate students, and staff of the National Research University—Higher School of Economics. Among them are: Irina Popova; Sergey Pyzhuk; Sergey Sergeev, MSc; Evgenia Shardakova, MSc; Vasily Skalon, MSc; Anna Baidakova, MSc; Galina Babkova, PhD in history; Ivan Kokovin, PhD in history; and Jaroslav Slobodskoj-Plusnin, PhD in biology.
Obviously, we would have been unable to prepare this text without the information thatwe obtained fromthe local experts and the otkhodniks themselves.We mention the names of the local experts (with their permission) in the texts of the interviews with them. We refer to our otkhodnik respondents by name and the initial of the surname, or even anonymously, because that was theirprecondition for giving the interview. We would like to extend our deepest gratitude to the several hundred people, who agreed to talk to us and patiently listened to our boring questions, provided explanations, swore and joked out of despair, and laughed atthemselvesand at us: everything thatis written inthis bookwas expressed and suggested by them.
Introduction
"We have good people, patient and smart people.
They suffer, suffer, and suffer!
They hear everything and see everything.
However, they know that yelling and screaming will not change anything. No one will bring them bread; no one will give them money. The rich get everything. The poor have to survive. And they survive. They work wherever they can find a job. And they are happy when they get paid on time—thank God!"[2]
Otkhodnik, otkhodnik crafts and trades, otkhod—these notions, which had already become archaic in Russia in the first third of the twentieth century, are back in use. After the end of the Soviet period of Russian history, when such a phenomenon could not exist in principle, otkhodnichestvo as a special form of labor migration re-emerged in Russia. Certainly, the new form differs from the one that existed a century ago, but it has such significant similarities with the previous one, that some researchers were compelled to return to the old, long-forgotten, termotkhodnichestvo[temporary departure from home to earn money elsewhere].
Otkhodnichestvo is an amazing phenomenon of our social and economic life. Primarily, it is amazing by its invisibility. Not only ordinary people in big citiesknownothing about otkhodnichestvo and the otkhodniks, but also the authorities and untilrecently,the scientistswere unaware of them. In the meantime, this is a mass phenomenon: according to our rough and conservative estimates, out of approximately 55million Russian families, at least 10–15million, or maybe even 20million families live off otkhodnichestvo of one or even both adult members. In other words,the otkhodniks providea considerable proportion of the economic potential of the country, butthisremains unrecorded by statistics;moreover,it cannot be recorded, because the otkhodniks as market participants seem to be non-existent.[3]
For the authorities they do not exist as a target of social policyeither.They are not recorded inlocalofficial accounts and not reflected inlocaleconomic indicators (but at least half of them are registered in the economy at the place of employment). They do not work according to their professional background and, perhaps,they havereceived free public vocational education and training for nothing. They pay no taxes; therefore, they do not expect to receive any pension. They are never sick, so they do not benefit from public healthcare services. Moreover, they do not need any social support from the state, because they rely only on themselves. Although the otkhodniksmay bethe most active part of the Russian population, they actually remain outside politics—the public authorities do not notice them. Not only are they non-existent for the government bodies as an object of governance, the local authorities do not take them in consideration either, even if they are aware of them.Although the otkhodniks are those very residents, for whose sake the municipal authorities are implementing the worthiest of all theories of management—"the art of clearing the streets of manure".[4]
Sadly, so far the otkhodniks have also been non-existent for Russian sociology: we have no ideawhothey are, what life they lead, what they eat, what drives them, and what they dream of. We know nothing about their familiesorthe way they bring up their children. We have nocluewhat distinguishesthem from the families of their non-otkhodnik neighbors. We are continuing to study the exceptionally important phenomenon of Russian otkhodnichestvo, but we are doing it as historians rather than sociologists.However, rare sociological studies of the late Soviet (e.g., Islamov, Travin, 1989; Shabanova, 1992a and1992b; Shabanova, 1993) and contemporary (e.g., Florinskaya, Roschina, 2004; Florinskaya, 2006; Roshchina, 2007, 2008; White, 2007, 2009; Employment and otkhodnichestvo, 2008; Kapustina, 2008, 2013; Velikiy, 2010; Baranenkova, 2012) otkhodnichestvo do exist. The most frequent and comprehensive coverage of otkhodnichestvo and its aspects can be found in studies devoted to internal temporary labor migration as a demographic process - in recent years, increasingly (e.g., Badyshtova, 2001, 2002; Florinskaya, 2001; Zayonchkovskaya, 2001; Moiseenko, 2004; Zayonchkovskaya, Mkrtchyan, 2007; Mkrtchyan, 2009; Mkrtchyan, Karachurina, 2014; Florinskaya et al., 2015). Researchers of the Russian village and peasantry have also mentioned this topic in passing (e.g., Fadeeva, 2002, 2012; Nikulin, 2004; Kalugina, Fadeeva, 2009; Kalugina, 2012; Nefedova, 2013). However, these studies are still incompatible with the magnitude of the phenomenon.
What is Russia's new otkhodnichestvo? Why did it suddenly re-emerge in contemporary Russia after decades, as if from a clean slate? The matter has long appeared important to us, but we were able to launch a systematic and detailed study of otkhodnichestvo only a few years ago. We realized the magnitude of the phenomenon, but also understood that the problem could not be"tackled"using standard scientific techniques: select from the array of official statistical data; describe based on the findings of a mass survey, by completing questionnaires, recording sporadic field observations, or by drawing parallels with the historical otkhodnichestvo. The only way to get a close look at contemporary otkhodnichestvo and grasp its essence is to collect meticulously individual data obtained in the course of direct communication with the representatives of this category of labor migrants. That is exactly what we engaged in. We immersed ourselves for several years in fieldwork. We traveled across the country to small towns and rural areasseeking out such people on an individual basis in order to meet with them and ask about their lifestyle; the underlying circumstances; the goals they pursue; the threats and risks they encounter on the way; as well as about their families and children; relatives and bosses; neighbors and authorities. As we can judge, they were rather frank with us, because the views of numerous people living in several dozen locations dispersed over thousands of kilometers proved to be similar and like-minded. Based on conversations with these people and their families and on observations of their behavior, we were able to get an idea of their permanent and temporary living environment; household and economic activities; everyday life; as well as relations in society and the nature of interaction with the authorities. We tried to describe the diversity of their occupations and draw the portrait of a typical otkhodnik.
Using various indirect methods, we attempted to assess the scope of the phenomenon. We now believe that when launching the research of otkhodnichestvo, we clearly underestimated its magnitude. The phenomenon may be much broader and deeper than what we managed to describe in this book. We are only carefully assuming that the immediate and remote economic, social, cultural, and political implications of contemporary otkhodnichestvo will be crucial for the development of Russia.Probably, not only Russia, given the proliferation of such phenomena in the modern world.
In the meantime, we do not overestimate the significance of our work: it is quite fragmentary, as any scientific study can be. We see our shortcomings and anticipate that we have made quite a few erroneous judgments. Moreover, within the team of authors, there is no complete consensus as to the interpretation of facts and their generalizations. Over the years of work, we havedevelopedclose links withour brainchild; however, the text manifests a difference of opinions on certain issues. We believe this to be a natural outcome of the work on depictingthe phenomenon of otkhodnichestvo—tremendous in scope and at that same time barely visible forthe contemporaries. This book contains no statistical data (demographic, migration, financial, etc.) usual for the analysis of historical otkhodnichestvo, or for economic analysis. Our task was to highlight the phenomenon and to capture its substantial features.
The structure of the monograph follows the pattern of a phenomenological description, where we define the phenomenon of otkhodnichestvo distinguishing it from other forms of labor migration, and consider it in a historic context. We also compare the Russian phenomenon with similar processes in the global labor market (chapters 1 and 2). Chapter 3 deals with the methods applied to identify and study otkhodniks and otkhodnichestvo. Here we provide a description of therecords, which served as a basis for further generalizations. Chapter 4 proposes different approaches to estimating the population of otkhodniks in Russia. Chapter 5 reviews theemploymentdestinations targeted by the otkhodniks and their principal occupations, as well as the regional specialization by type ofcraft. Chapters 6 and 7 address the otkhodniks' labor motivation and economic behavior; the working conditions and living arrangements at the workplace; their earnings and spending patterns. Chapter 8 describes the otkhodnik as a social type and demonstrates his behavior at home, as well as relations within the family and with neighbors.Chapter 9 deals with the rather obscure relations between the otkhodniks and the public authorities—the state and local self-government bodies.The final tenth chapter is an attempt to assess the socio-cultural and political significance of otkhodnichestvo for Russian society. We are trying to determine the consequences that mass otkhodnichestvo of the most active part of the population can have for Russia.
Chapter 1Thephenomenon of оtkhоdniсhestvо
"The likes of us, even in this godforsaken place, are all old hands, and live off Petersburg"[5]
We areconsideringthe new, contemporary otkhodnichestvo as a special type of labor migration. What grounds do we have to transfer the old and long-forgotten name"otkhodnichestvo"to our current reality? Moreover, the name that used to characterize a specific Russian reality of the past centuries. Herein, we will try to justify this position through an in-depth overview of оtkhоdniсhestvо expressly as a Russian phenomenon. In addition, we will provide its comprehensive definition. Furthermore, we believe that otkhodnichestvo, as a special type of labor migration is currently specific by far not only to Russia. It definitely exists in many post-Soviet republics. Some of them, like Turkmenistan or Lithuania, are less affected,whereas in some of the others, like Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus,Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, оtkhоdniсhestvо in the form of cross-border migration is as widespread as in Russia today, and even wider. Besides, quite a few other countries demonstrate examples of seasonal interregional circular migration of"labor resources".Although here it is mostly an issue of cross-border migration of seasonal agricultural workers.Оtkhоdniсhestvо, however, initially meantinternallabor migration, rather than the cross-border one. Nowadays, the development of transportation and communication, and the easing or lifting of visa requirementsfacilitate (and in many cases trigger) otkhodnichestvo.Herein,we would like at least to mention otkhodnichestvo elsewhere in the world.
1.1.The phenomenon of Russian оtkhоdniсhestvо
Otkhodnichestvo existed in Russia for many years—three-four centuries, or even longer. At the end of the 19th–beginning of the 20th century it became so widespread, that it drew the attention of local statisticians followed by scholars and politicians. Numerous studies have been devoted to the previous Russian (now already historical) otkhodnichestvo, and many special monographs have been written (see,e.g.,Chaslavsky, 1875; Yezersky, 1894; Rudnev, 1894; Vorontsov, 1895;Ponomaryov, 1895, 1896; Shakhovskoy, 1896; Kirillov, 1899; Molleson, 1901;Mints, 1926; Vladimirsky, 1927; Kurtsev, 1982; Burds, 1998; Smurova, 2003, 2008; Vodarsky and Istomina, 2004; Perepelitsyn, 2005). Numerous publications of the imperial, Soviet, and current periods contain detailed descriptions of all the elements and attributes of оtkhоdniсhestvо. The key reasons that triggered the departure of the peasant population from the places of their permanent residencehave been identified (Chаslаvsky, 1875;Ponomaryov, 1896; Mints, 1926;Savelyev and Potapov, 1928;Danilov, 1974; Akhsyanov, 2013). Different local and regional features specific to rural otkhodnichestvo from the northern, central, and southern provinceshave been considered (Krzhivoblotsky, 1861;Chaslavsky, 1875; Bezobrazov, 1885; Rudnev, 1894;Ponomaryov, 1895;Varb, 1898;Kirillov, 1899;Information on otkhodnichestvo..., 1899; Molleson, 1901; Kurtsev, 1982; Perepelitsyn, 2005; Nikulin, 2010). Various types of otkhodnik occupations have been depicted (Chaslavsky, 1875; Vorontsov, 1895; Yezersky, 1894; Vladimirsky, 1927; Smurova, 2003; Yefebovsky, 2007; Bashutsky, 2007; Ogloblin, 2010; Sablin, 2008). Different methodologies have been applied to estimate the population of otkhodniks (Chaslavsky, 1875; Vesin, 1886;Ponomaryov, 1895; Vladimirsky, 1927; Mints, 1929; Ryndzyunsky, 1970; Burkin, 1978; Danilov, 1974). The social structure and character types of otkhodniks have been described (Rumyantsev, 1887; Kachorovsky, 1900;Lurie, 1995;Smurova, 2008), as well as their impact on the local peasant community, especially on the cultural stereotypes and traditional behavior (Zhbankov, 1887; Vorontsov, 1892; Kazarinov, 1926; Burds, 1998; Smurova, 2003; Kurtsev, 2007; Alexandrov, 2008). The most detailed analysis has been made of the economic behavior and labor activities of the otkhodniks in the capitals and the industrial centers of the Russian Empire. Based on the findings, some researchers and statisticians predicted the future political implications of the large-scale labor mobility of the Russian peasantry (e.g.,Vesin, 1887; Vorontsov, 1895; Lenin, 1971; Kuznetsov, 2005; Tyumenev, 2005; Smurova, 2007;Alexandrov, 2010;Selivanov, 2011). Unfortunately, their assumptions materialized: from starving St. Petersburg andMoscow,the otkhodniks flooded back to the village bringing with them"the virus of revolution"; ultimately, they became"the nucleus of concentration"consolidating massiverural support for the Bolsheviks (Suvorov, 1913;Volin, 2005).
Finally, the scholars have reconstructed the history of otkhodnichestvo as a specific Russian phenomenon of the 16th-20th centuries (e.g.,Lensky, 1877; Karyshev, 1896; Kachorovsky, 1900; Mints, 1926;Burds, 1998;Smurova, 2008).It was triggered bythe special relations between the state and its subjects;relations based on the principle of autocracy,which consisted in the reciprocal service of all social estates (sosloviya) (for details on the social estate structure and inter-estate relations in imperial and contemporary Russiarefer toMironov, 2003; Kordonsky, 2008; Ivanova and Zheltova, 2009).
The phenomenon of оtkhоdniсhestvо wasalsoreflected in folklore (e.g.,Sindalovsky, 1994; Smirnov, 2002), and in numerous"peasant stories", many of which remained unpublished (as, for example, the autobiographical story of Yu.Sokolov about an otkhodnik family in the Kostroma Province, where the men and boys went from village to village making coatsfrom fur and homespun fabrics).It was mentioned intravel notes, memoirs of landowners,andinlocal historical documents.Following are some sources of the 19th century(original, reprinted, or reissued and reproduced in recent works)relating to the areas of our fieldwork: Kornilov, 1861 (1994);Crafts in the province…, 1994; Dokuchaev-Baskov, 1996; Toropets…, 1996;The olden times of Dorogobuzh…, 2000;Facts about the history…ofToropets…, 2001; Kritsky, 2005; Kuznetsov, 2005; Tyumenev, 2005; Belyustin, 2006; Kislovskoy, 2006; Flerov, 2008; Cherdyn…, 2009; Ogloblin, 2010; Smurova, 2010;Figurovsky, 2010;Around Nikolsk…, 2011; Belousov and Morokhin, 2012; Toropov, 2012; Tolstoy, 2013).
What reason do we have to believe that rather than dealing with a new phenomenon, we are currently witnessing the comeback of the old one, with many, if not all, of its inherent attributes? Let us compare the key features of the historical and contemporary оtkhоdniсhestvо in Russia.
Quite a few historical and historical-sociological publications, issued both by researchers of the 19thcentury, and our contemporaries, contain a comprehensive definition of оtkhоdniсhestvо and otkhodnikoccupations(see, e.g.,Lensky, 1877; Vesin, 1887; Karyshev, 1892; Tikhonov, 1978; Smurova, 2003, 2008; Vodarsky and Istomina, 2004; Perepelitsyn, 2006;The North-West in the rural history of Russia, 2008). The definitions can also be found in encyclopedicdictionaries, which meansthat this phenomenon was previously well known. Thus, the pre-revolutionary Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary defines"otkhodnikoccupations"("otkhozhiye promysly") as"one of the sources of income of the peasant population.The reasons to depart for earnings can be either of a lasting nature (shortage of arable land or nonproductive land), or temporary (poor harvest, demand for labor due to major construction projects, etc.).The peasants depart primarily from the central provinces—they go south and to the capitals. Otkhodnik occupations are numerous: agricultural labor, mining, industrial labor, construction (stone-masons, plasterers, painters, paving slab layers, and carpenters), horse-drawn transportation, rafting, barge hauling, peddling, delivering, etc."(Small Encyclopedic Dictionary…, 1907–1909; also: Brockhaus and Efron, 1897,entryby N. KaryshevOtkhodnik occupations:http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/ЭСБЕ/Отхожие_промыслы). Since at that time otkhodnichestvo in Russia was a mass phenomenon, the short dictionary entry refers to the impracticability of estimating even roughly the otkhodnik population. Itprovides comprehensive information about the social structure of otkhodniks—they were exclusively peasants (actually, at that time peasants accounted for nearly eighty percent of Russia's population). It alsoindicates the reasons and destinations of otkhodnichestvo (inaccurately—the principal destinations were the capitals and the industrial, rather than the southern, areas, however, the author of the article researched otkhodnichestvo only in the southern provinces) and the main types of otkhodnik occupations.
In the Soviet times, otkhodnichestvo disappears in the early 1930s.This is reflected in the briefness of the references to the term and the phenomenon itself, which are being gradually erased from the social memory (among others, the reasons for this are considered in the monographs anddissertations of L.E. Mints, 1929; V.P. Danilov, 1974;Establishing the foundations…, 1977; A.N.Kurtsev, 1982; and also a very informative monograph written by E.A. Andryushin (Andryushin, 2012, pp.205–232) based on the analysis of numerous official documents of the early Soviet period). Thus, the Ushakov Dictionary already gives a very laconic definition of the disappearing phenomenon:"temporary departure from the village to the city for seasonal work"(Dictionary of the Russian language…, 1935–1940,http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ushakov/916266). Just ten years later, the respective entry in the Ozhegov Dictionary defines otkhodnichestvo simply as"engaging in otkhodnik occupations"and marks it"archaic"(Ozhegov and Shvedova,1949–1992;http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ogegova/148230).
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia provides a brief but comprehensive definition of otkhodnichestvo as"the temporary departure of peasants from their permanent residences in villages to earn money in regions where industry and agriculture were well developed. This practice arose in the period of late feudalism because of intensified feudal exploitation and the increasing importance of cash obrok (quitrent), and it played a significant role during the rise of capitalism. When engaged in otkhodnichestvo, the peasant temporarily became a hired laborer.Having emergedin the 17thcentury on a small scale, otkhodnichestvo increased sharply in the second half of the 18thcentury becoming one of the signs of the decline of feudalism. It flourished in the Central Industrial Region, the Urals provinces, and the northern provinces, all of which were unsuited for agriculture and offered opportunities for nonagricultural earnings"(GSE,http://bse.sci-lib.com/article085855.html).Thisdefinition of otkhodnichestvo provides most of its attributes, namely: the temporary and seasonal (generally) nature of labor migration; a permanent residence where the otkhodnik always returns;employmentdestinations—the regions where industry and agriculture are well developed, primarily the capitals and the southern areas; the reasons for departure—initially, the need to earn money in order to pay quitrent, later—povertyor the opportunity of high (non-rural) earnings at the"construction sites of the century"in the 18th-20th centuries. All researchers point out the evident external features of otkhodnichestvo, but very few indicate a very significant internal aspect—the more widespread this phenomenon becomes, the more often it is triggered not by need (although the majority of researchers identified such motives among the peasantry, the most prominent among the being: Zhbankov, 1891; Shingarev, 1907;andLenin, 1971), but by the desire to raise the living standards and ensure the well-being of the family (this is expressly stated by Vesin, 1887; Vorontsov, 1892; Mints, 1926; Kazarinov, 1926; Vinogradov, 1927;Burds, 1998;Smurova, 2003; and Nikulin, 2010). Actually, even the definition provided in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia and reproduced in many other current definitions of otkhodnichestvo, implicitly mentions well-being as a motivation.
Thus, among the many types and forms of labor migration we can identify a certain set of features that determine a special type of labor migration—otkhodnichestvo. Researchers classify the types and forms of labor migration rather arbitrarily, generally, phenomenologically.They"capture"one or two specific distinctive features and attribute them to a respective type of labor migration (Cf., e.g., the classification of labor migration types in the thesis ofT.G. Roshchina: Roshchina, 2008,p.9,orRuben, 1992;European migration…, 1994; Cordell, Gregory, Piche, 1998;Work and migration, 2002; Bauder, 2006). The use of colloquial terminology is common. Thus, reference is made to"guest workers"("Gastarbeiter"),"shuttle traders"("chelnoki"),"shabashniks","recruits"("verbovannye"),"rotation workers"("vakhtoviki"),"bums"(bichi") and, finally,"otkhodniks". Formal sociological terms are far less expressive. They are also poorerbycontent, as they reflect only a certain external feature, which is not always significant (for example,"commuters","circular migrants","cyclical migrants", and"cross-border migrants"). As opposed, the common term"otkhodnichestvo"exactly captures the essence of this type of labor migration—its definitelyrecurrent nature (in Russian,"otkhod"means temporary departure always followed by a return back).
Photo1.AteamofloggersandraftsmenontheVetlugaRiverin Nizhny Novgorod Province;first half of the 19thcentury.Suchteamswereactuallyartelsconsistingofoneortwogroups of related families(peasant clan).The15picturedmenareagedfrom12–14to40–50years.Theteamsleftinwintertofell trees anddeliverthe logs to a river.Inspring,thementiedthelogsintoraftsandfloated them to the nearest big timber market.ForVetluga,itwasthetownofKozmodemyansk located on the bank of the Volga opposite the confluence of the two rivers.ZinoviyVinogradov,aprominentRussianphotographerofthe first half of the 19thcentury, captured the team of otkhodniks in late spring sittingon the riverbank on some roped logs.At the time, theotkhodnikswerewaitingforthespringfloodandhad little to do.Therefore, they are posing in white linen shirts, new bast shoes, smart peaked caps,and holding a garmon (accordion) and even tea saucers.PhotocourtesyofProf.N.V.Morokhin(NizhnyNovgorod).
1.2.Definition of оtkhоdniсhestvо as a special typeof labor migration
Otkhodnichestvo, as a mass labor behavior (both previously and currently), is determined by a set of significant features (attributes), which characterize this very form of labor activity. Thus, it forms a clearly defined type of labor migration.
Can we say that the currently existing forms of migration are similar to the old otkhodnichestvo, or do they just slightly resemble it? We believe (and our opinion is in line with the views of certain other sociologists and economists.See:Shabanova, 1992; Shabanova,1993;Smurova, 2006a; Dyatlov, 2010; Shvartsburd, 2011; and Baranenkova, 2012) that the different forms of labor migration observable currently in Russia also include otkhodnichestvo as close or even similar to the old otkhodnichestvo, which disappeared in the 1930s. We personally are of the opinion that contemporary otkhodnichestvo is similar to the historical one. It is no coincidence, that back in 2007 and then later, the current residents (labor migrants) of the areas where historical otkhodnichestvo used to be widespread—namely, the regions of Kostroma, Vologda, and Arkhangelsk,—told us that they were exactly the same otkhodniksastheir grandfathers and great-grandfathers. They were engaged in the same occupations and followed the same lifestyle with its pattern of seasonal wanderings.
Obviously, it is necessary to identify and separately consider the features of contemporary otkhodnichestvo and compare them with the above definition of the classical old otkhodnichestvo.
Otkhodnichestvo originates from the province.The overwhelming majority of contemporary labor migrants, who call themselves, and whom we call otkhodniks, reside in small towns and villages. Many small Russian towns are actually rural settlements with respective household and economic arrangements (see: Treyvish, 2009; Lappo, 2012;Nefedova, 2012). Therefore, the families of most of these people are engaged in subsidiary farming; many of them live in private houses with adjacent garden plots (Nefedova, Treyvish, 2010). Generally, the income such people receive in their hometowns orvillages isinsufficient to provide a decent (sometimes even normal) life for the family.They have no highly paid jobs in the public sector, nor do they have sources of income in the private sector, be it manufacturing or services. Frequently, they have even no chance of finding a local job that would be in line with their vocation. Quite a few families live in economically doomed settlements, the so-called"escheated"townships and villages (Kordonsky, 2010), where there are no jobs whatsoever, on the one hand, and no one to offer self-produced goods to, on the other hand.
Such residential features of contemporary labor migrants resemble the situation of peasants in many non-blackearthand northern, including Ural, provinces of Russia, who engaged in non-agricultural otkhodnichestvo, since this phenomenon was widespread only among peasants of those provinces where either the soil was poor (in the north), or the landallotmentstoo small (in the south and west)[6]. Similar to the former otkhodniks, the contemporary ones are almost exclusively residents of rural areas and small towns"deep"in the province. We are not aware of any historicalcases of otkhodnichestvo from big towns. Nowadays, such otkhodniks exist, and weeven encountered some of them. However,their cases are isolated. They are either rotation workers (i.e.,"recruits"using the Soviet terminology—people who were recruited on an organized basis for specific, usually seasonal, work), or specialists, whose vocation is not in demand in their hometown, but they do not want to downgrade their skills.
Loyalty to the"small homeland".In addition to thisfirst andimportantadministrative-territorial feature of otkhodnichestvo—it originates from theprovince;—we must immediately distinguish a significant related motivational aspect. Like the former,"historical", otkhodniks, the contemporary ones have no intention whatsoever of moving house for the sake of a new job and relocating to the city"for good".[7]Even if a significant part of the otkhodnik's family spent most of the time in the city, their wives and the eldest and youngest family members—the old people and children—continued to live in the village. Family relations were maintained not only through regular cash remittances to support the household, but also because the otkhodniks returned home at least once a year to take care of the farm work needed to sustain the family. However, we believe the most important circumstance to be the many children constantly born inotkhodnik families(see, e.g.,the autobiographical story of Alexander Zinoviev, where he describes a typical otkhodnik family from Chukhloma district, whose men worked in Moscow—Zinoviev, 1999; or a slightly less lively picture of an otkhodnik family from Yarensky district presented by prominent sociologist Pitirim Sorokin—Sorokin, 1991). Consequently, besides the economic functions of the family, the оtkhоdniks maintained also its reproductive functions. That initselfmade the family's permanentplace ofresidence the center of attraction for the оtkhоdnik.
The underlying reasons for not wishing to relocate to the city can differ and we are unlikely to single out the principal one.The researchers of the past completely omitted this aspect and we have to reconstruct the otkhodniks' motivation for maintaining residence in the village almost exclusively based on the observations of their contemporaries,onpeasant letters, peasant stories, and the memoirs of the otkhodniks' descendants (see,e.g.,Rumyantsev, 1887; Maximov, 1901; Sorokin, 1991; Zinoviev, 1999;At the Church of our Saviour churchyard (U Spasa na pogoste), 2002; Gerasimov, 2006;Around Nikolsk…, 2006; Flerov, 2008; Smirnov, 2009; Toropov, 2012; and many others, including discovered unpublished materials, like the manuscript of Yu. Sokolov, peasant of the Kologriv district (Kostroma Province)Volokoskin's Memoirsor collected archive documents of the 19th century discovered and reprinted by a schoolteacher in Lyoma villageofZuevka district, Kirov Region). Obviously an important factor was the severe shortage of housing in the city, which made it impossible for the otkhodnik to bring his family (usually, fellow villagers—otkhodniks and their sons—shared one tiny basement room in the city, so each of them was entitled to about one square meter of the floor). Less important, but also significant was the high rent of urban housing. It appears that the essential factor wasthe inability ofthe otkhodniktoprovide enough food, water and fuel (firewood) for a big family(i.e. and additional five-six or even more mouths) in the city. These goods were too expensive and of very inferior quality[8], whereas Russian villagers never experienced any shortage of water and fuel, if not of food.[9]
The families of contemporary otkhodniks, just as they themselves, do not intend to leave their villages and small towns. The reasons for refusing to move differ (including such commonplace ones as the high cost of urban housing), but they are everywhere supported by the psychological reluctance to change the environment and to lose the status and opportunities—the privileges of being an"insider"and the preferences granted to the"locals"—that any local community providestoitsmembers. Further, we will discuss this issue in detail. It is unexpected for an urban reader who is generally convinced that all"provincials"simply dream of becoming city-dwellers.
The lack of desire (and much less often—the lack of opportunity) to change residence for the sake of a job is the most important pre-condition for a person to become an otkhodnik. That distinguishes him from a guest worker, who has changed his residence for the sake of potential better opportunities for work and life.[10]
The seasonal nature of otkhodnichestvo.Job seeking drives the inhabitants of small towns to large cities, regional capitals, and Siberia. There they find sufficient means to sustain the family. However, the presence of the family and homestead in a different location determine the nature of employment—seasonal and rotational. The temporary, seasonal nature of departure (otkhodnichestvo) is determined by the essential return home. Regularly and with a certain frequency, the people return home from work to relax and manage the household. Depending on the distance to the workplace, they may return homeeveryweekend, or for two weeks off monthly (this is the schedule of almost all otkhodniks engaged as security guards, who work rotation shifts with two-week intervals). Often, the job requires a more extended absence from home—from one to two months—with short visits in between (log home buildersworking by thepiece). Those who find employment at a great distance from home may return in six months or even every one to two years. In a sense, such labor migrants are a marginal group among otkhodniks, since their work is no longer seasonal; its cycle is close to or in excess of an annual one. Gradually, such people either leave home for good or quit the job. By the way, this rhythm is also specific to female otkhodniks who find employment as domestic staff (domestic helpers, nannies, cleaners, etc.), since their work is neither seasonal, nor cyclical. Nevertheless, they are still otkhodniks, as they have left their home and household in the care of other family members and know that they will definitely go back.
The seasonal nature of work away from home, in summer or in winter, is complemented by accommodating the work schedule to important and urgent domestic matters. Primarily this concerns potato planting and harvesting, and less frequently,other farm work (in this, the small town inhabitants differ from the villagers—for the former, seasonal work involves mostly potatoes; for the latter—more large-scale seasonal work in the fields and at home). Unlike their non-otkhodnik neighbors, the otkhodnik families in small towns do not have large farmsteads (if any); however, many of them have a kitchen garden and potato field. The village otkhodniks also actively help their relatives with such work.
Contemporaries and historians similarly described the seasonality of otkhodnichestvo in the past. The otkhodnik, usuallyaman, left the native village after work in the fields was over—in autumn and in winter—and returned in time for the spring sowing. His wife, children and parents stayed home and managed the considerable peasant household, where the otkhodnik retained and from time to time exercised the functions of the master of the house and manager. The otkhodniks' persistent absence resulted in a notable development; their wives gradually took their place not only in domestic and social affairs, but also in administration and even wrongdoings. L.Kazarinov portrays Chukhloma women, who in the absence of men are managing all domestic affairs,including frequentingtaverns(Kazarinov, 1926. pp.15–17).In his travel notes,landowner I.P.Kornilov gives a similar characteristic to the wives of Kostroma otkhodniks:"Peasants from Kokoryukino live in St. Petersburg and other cities, where they work as stone masons, carpenters and painters; some are even engaged in commerce as clerks. The Kokoryukino women, according to my coachman, are no worse than theirhusbands arewhen it comes to farming.They plough and sow and thresh."Kornilov, 1860,1994, p.39). N.M.Alexandrov refers todocumentson changes in the demographic behavior of otkhodnik families in the Yaroslavl Province.The wives of the numerous otkhodniks had to cope with the whole scope of agricultural work and made no distinction between male and female duties. Eventually, they began participating in governance on the commune andvolost[lowest territorial and administrative unit in the rural area]level. Womeneven participatedin local self-government bodies. Theyalso started committing purely"male"offences, like, for example"theft of forest products"—they stole wood from state forest estates for their household needs and heating (see: Alexandrov, 2012. pp. 339–342).
However, quite a few оtkhоdniks (generally from the labor-abundant central provinces) engaged in non-agricultural otkhodnichestvo also in the summer season, finding jobs as loading hands, barge haulers or day laborers (Karyshev, 1896; Kirillov, 1899; Ogloblin, 2010). Agricultural otkhodnichestvo—day work in spring and summer—was morecommonin the southern blackearthregions (Chaslavsky, 1875; Sazonov, 1889; Shcherbina, 1892–1894;Ponomaryov, 1895 and 1896;Shakhovskoy, 1896; Information on otkhodnichestvo…, 1899; Kurtsev, 1982; Perepelitsyn, 2005).
Seasonality was less typical for female otkhodniks, who were numerous in the central provinces relatively close to Moscow and St. Petersburg. Theyfrequentlydeparted for longer periods due to employment inthedomestic service or at factories.Often,they were not involved in seasonal work at home. There are examples of such female otkhodniks also from thenorthernprovinces—Vologda and Arkhangelsk,—who worked as servants in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and even Tiflis.Such women left home for a year or two and took no part in seasonal works (see,e.g.,Gerasimov, 2006). Presumably, оtkhоdniсhestvо among peasant women startedexpandingonly in the early 20th century, driven to a certain (unknown) extent by the World War, when many men were called up to the front. It was suspended in the 1920s. However, already in the early Soviet years, women (includingyoung girls and adolescents) worked in winter at logging camps and in summer—at peat fields. This also determined the seasonal nature of female otkhodnichestvo. It appears that in general (we have not found any direct evidence thereof yet and are judging only by the above indirect indications), females engaged in non-agricultural otkhodnichestvo were less involved in household work. At present, the situation seems to be similar. Many women, especially from the central and southern regions of European Russia, do not,and even cannot,haveany periodicity in their work due to employment in the service sector (nannies, domestic help, cleaners, etc.).
A typical male otkhodnik today follows the same seasonal pattern as was described by researchers in the 19th–early 20th centuries. This is particularly true for those оtkhоdniks, who rather than offering their labor, market self-made products—log frames and ready-made houses, sawn timber, and wild-growing plants. Such production is itself seasonal.
Naturally, nowadays,for different reasons,a significant part of the otkhodniks works periodically rather than seasonally. If previously, horse-drawn transportation used to be mostly a winter occupation, now, freight and passengers are carried all year round (cargo transportation by river is still seasonal, however, nowadays, business activity in this market segment is unfortunately close to zero. The state totally controls this segment, but for whatever reason is not interested in developing it itself and is reluctant to open the market for private business).
Rather than being bound by the seasonal nature of outside occupations, contemporary otkhodniks now depend more on the seasonality of their domestic work—planting and harvesting potatoes and other vegetables, haying, procuring firewood,makinghome improvements, etc. Therefore, as in previous years, they adjust theirlabor rhythm to the tasks of providing the family with the necessities that can be produced locally, at home. In this sense, the provincial Russians diligently retain the archaic subsistence pattern, which came to the rescue in the crisis years of the 1990s (see speciallyPlyusnin, 2001;as one of the authors has already written,"a Russian always has a store of potatoes in the cellar, a potbelly stove in the junk room, and a Berdan rifle in the attic").
Like centuries ago,theessential seasonal domestic workdeterminesthe seasonality of the contemporary otkhodniks' outside occupations.Italso underlies the compulsory nature of otkhodnichestvo, both in the past and now. Thus, recurrent seasonal (monthly) migration of a person, who does not want to live where he works, but who has no chance of finding a decent job (one that meets the needs of the family andis in line withthe person's skills) in the hometown or village and is forced to return home not only to relax but also to take care of seasonal domestic chores, is another important determining feature of otkhodnichestvo.
Photo2.RaftsmenontheVetlugaRiverintheKostromaProvince;first half of the 19thcentury.ThepicturemadebyZinoviyVinogradov,aphotographerfromNizhnyNovgorod, shows Vetluga raftsmen at work collecting logs from a smashed raft and tying a new raft right on the water(the remains of the raft are roped to the bank of the backwater where there is no current).Theyhadtodothiskindofworkoftenbecausetheswiftspringcurrent of the winding Vetluga smashed the rafts against the riverbanks and islands.PhotocourtesyofProf.N.V.Morokhin(NizhnyNovgorod).
The wage and industrial nature of the otkhodniks' labor.An important hallmark of historical оtkhоdniсhestvо was its wage and industrial nature. Additional earnings on the side were provided either by different crafts and trades or by wage labor. The otkhodniks manufactured and sold items of various handicrafts—from felt footwear and fur overcoats to log houses—and engaged in timber rafting. They also performed different jobs in the city (guards, janitors, and domestic servants;see:Volkov, 2000; Lurie, 1995a; 1995b; Alexandrov, 2010) or in the rich industrial and southern agricultural areas (barge haulers, loading hands, day laborers, etc.;see:Chaslavsky, 1875;Reports and research on home crafts in Russia, 1892–1912; Varb, 1898; Razgon, 1959).Among contemporary otkhodniks, quite a few also manufacture goods (log cabins, for example) or provide services (transportation services on their own vehicles—taxi drivers and long-haul truckers) and market them themselves. However, they are by far outnumbered by wageworkers, who are often engaged in unskilled labor (security guards, gatekeepers, watchmen, janitors, cleaners, etc.); just as peasant otkhodnichestvo of the past was marked by low-quality labor. Moreover, similar to the social and demographic structure of otkhodnichestvo, which developed in the industrial areas of the Russian Empire by the late 19th century, contemporary female otkhodniksalsotarget this sphere of low-skilled labor (see: Nikulin, 2010).
Initiative and independence.Finally, we would like to point out an attribute of otkhodnichestvo that we believe is a distinguishing feature, which determines whether a person has the potential to become an otkhodnik. We are referring to a pro-active approach and the ability to act independently. In the past, every person, who managed to"procure a passport"or"receive a leave permit"(see specifically:Register of trade and craft certificates and permits..., 1881–1887; Baiburin, 2009;as well as: Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated 16March 1930; Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated 17March 1933; and Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR dated 19 September 1934),found jobs in the capitalsthrough relatives and acquaintances. Nowadays, such peoplefind lucrative jobsbypullingstrings,and without having to"procure anypassports",they leave their home area for a period from one-two weeks to a year in order to market their skills, either through employment or by offering handicraft goods for sale. Otkhodniksfrequently used todepart for work in teams consisting of several family members, usually brothers or fathers with grown-up sons. Such teams were narrowly focused,representingone single"vocation"or type of activity. They could, for example, make felt boots (valenki), sew fur overcoats or peddle across the country as independent"traveling salesmen"selling icons, books, and other"intellectual"goods (Rumyantsev, 1887; Vorontsov, 1895; Tyumenev, 2005; Smurova, 2007).
For the contemporary otkhodnik, independence is also a critical factor in the search for work; the initiative comes from the person himself. He either markets products of his labor (acting as a self-employed worker-entrepreneur, quite similar to the handicraft industry of the past), or takes up various jobs, most of which do not require high skills.
Well-being rather than need.The forced nature of contemporary оtkhоdniсhestvо in the province is due to a lack or poor quality of jobs available in the local labor market—in fact, a lack of on-site resources necessary for life. However, we constantly note that this forced nature is relative: the well-being of otkhodnik families, both contemporary and former, is significantly higher than that of their non-otkhodnik neighbors. This is related to the important circumstance that the otkhodnik is driven not only by need; he is driven by the desire to raise the living standard of his beloved ones and to ensure that the family is well provided for. This is a very important feature: nowadays,mostlythe wish to improve the well-being of the family rather than needtrigger labor migration.Nowadays, the majority of оtkhоdniks from small towns can theoretically find employment locally, since jobs are available everywhere. The situation is different for rural otkhodniks, whose numbers are growing, but even they canfind work ascloseas the district center. However, few otkhodniks accept such terms, as they are used to wages that are three to four times higher; even the psychologicalstrainof constantly traveling back and forth doesnot deter them.Of course, there is a significant group among оtkhоdniks—security guards, most of whom have lost both their professional skills andthe very desire to work, but they are a special category. In their mass, the otkhodniks are motivated to maintain high living standards for the family, and no one wants to lower the bar.
Initially, we thought that the motivation to improve the well-being of the family was that specific feature, which distinguished contemporary otkhodnichestvo from the pre-revolutionary one; however, an analysis of historical literature and the works of researchers of the time convinced us to the contrary. Researchers have long noted that from the middle of the 19th century until the early 20th century, increasing numbers of peasants started departing for earnings not due to poverty but for the sake of raising the living standards of the family, whichby rural standardswere already quite high (Zhbankov, 1887; Kazarinov, 1926; Vladimirsky, 1927). Jeffrey Burds, a current researcher of Russian оtkhоdniсhestvо, even tried to typologize this phenomenon by highlighting the transition in the goals of otkhodnikpractices from"a culture of need"to"a culture of acquisition"just at the turn of the century (see: Burds, 1998, p. 181 et seq.). Amazingly, we are witnessing exactly the same situation and the same motivations in the 2000s! Otkhodnichestvo re-emerged in the 1990s in various forms, including distorted ones (like"shuttle trade"), but it was mainly motivated by need. Just ten to twenty years later,we are constantly registering everywhere that the otkhodnik departs to work for the sake of a better life for the family and not due to need. What implications can these changes in the labor behavior of such an enormous mass of people have? We do not know, we can only assume.
