Russian Places of Memory in Contemporary Harbin: Imperial Meanings and Soviet Symbols

Abstract

Introduction. The study analyzes Russian places of memory in contemporary Harbin. Goals. The paper seeks to answer the question if a memorial consensus regarding the Russian heritage in China is possible, the term ‘memorial consensus’ as such denote a certain formal or informal agreement — between governments or within the community — whether to accept or reject certain symbols of the past, and how to interpret the historical events. That would guarantee conflict-free attitudes to places of memory and their due use for ritual purposes. Moreover, such an agreement regulates how certain memorials or memorable dates associated with a common history may be used in a way most acceptable to all the parties. And the present-day war on monuments around the world makes the study timely enough. In this regard, the Chinese experiences of forming a model for accepting a common past are of essential interest. Materials and methods. Methodologically, the work clusters with memory studies. The paper relies on the concepts ‘places of memory’ and ‘cultural memory’ to apply them to empirical materials of Heilongjiang and focus on toponyms, monuments, cemetery, museum exhibitions, architectural monuments, including Orthodox Christian churches. The discussion shall comprise not only monuments associated with White Russian émigrés but also later Soviet memorials. The paper investigates topographic data, visual materials, reference books dealing with historical and cultural landscapes, and historical works. Discussion. In terms of academic disciplines, the study involves historical, political science, sociological, and cultural approaches. This makes it possible to combine the analysis of the position of memorial objects with political changes in the region. Results. The work shows that a memorial consensus about the ‘Russian past’ has been formed in Harbin to meet tourist needs within the city’s image. This has been facilitated by the rapid development of domestic tourism in China. An important role in finding a memorial consensus was played by the constant dialogue between leaders of the two countries. The study identifies a total of three periods when relationships between national leaders had positive impacts on the policy towards the past. The first period is the time of the union between I. V. Stalin and Mao Zedong, the second period is the dialogue between B. N. Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin, and the third one is the tandem of V. V. Putin and Xi Jinping.

Keywords

• memory space
• policy
• memorials
• oblivion
• russian diaspora
• inner asia
• memory policy