Olga Vasilieva:

"I am against opposing the Soviet and post-Soviet religious studies..."

Olga Vasilieva - Head, Chair of State-Confessional Relations, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Moscow, Russia). nwgav@mail.ru

The conversation with Olga Vasilieva is devoted to the history of the Chair of State-Confessional Relations (RANEPA), and its predecessor, the Institute of Scientific Atheism. The interview marks the occasion of the double anniversary: fifty years of the Institute and twenty years of the Chair. Vasilieva discusses the issue of succession between the Soviet and post-Soviet studies of religion, as well as new tasks facing the Chair now.

Keywords: study of religion in the USSR, Chair of State-Confessional Relations, Institute of Scientific Atheism.

This year, RANEPA is celebrating two anniversaries related to the study of religion: the fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of the Institute of Scientific Atheism (INA) and the twentieth anniversary of the creation of the Department of State-Confessional Relations. Are these anniversaries related to each other only formally, or is there a direct continuity between the department and the INA? If this continuity does exist, how does it manifest itself?

In my opinion, we are talking about direct succession. I'll explain exactly what it is. This is not just about personnel continuity: Yuri Petrovich Zuev, Remir Alexandrovich Lopatkin, Friedrich Grigoryevich Ovsienko, Lema Akhmadovich Bashirov and many others are people who came to the Institute of Scientific Atheism as very young specialists,

page 296
and they worked there, and then in the department, for the rest of their lives. That is, they are an embodied succession.

But still, the main factor of continuity is the continuation of the scientific school. Here it is important to make an explanation: in the perception of the layman, "scientific atheism" was something very scary, but in reality the picture was much more complicated. To begin with, no matter how anyone treats atheists today, this is a certain paradigm that a significant number of citizens adhere to, including in our country. But the main thing is a scientific approach. The INA was not a completely open division, since the day of its foundation, the institute's employees were engaged in a very important thing-monitoring and evaluating the religious situation in the country, and those scientific studies that were conducted within its walls were classified as chipboard, that is, "for official use". Thanks to the efforts of William Schmidt, the best scientific works were declassified and published not so long ago - the public should know and remember what exactly the institute was doing. The stigma attached to" scientific atheism " is unjustified. If you look at the works of INA employees, they are quite objective and deep in content.

In other words, you are fundamentally opposed to the position that the creation of the department is a completely new stage in the development of Russian science of religion in general and the science of religion within the Academy in particular?

No scientific school appears from scratch. The department is just a new stage, but the origins still go back to the past. Therefore, I am against the opposition of Soviet and Russian science of religion. Russian humanities is strong because of the continuity of its schools.

But there was also an obvious ideological component, which is hard to deny...

But we are not going to identify ideology with science. We are talking about science. If you discard the cliches, then INA worked quietly, painstakingly, unnoticed all these years. The results of this work formed the grain that was developed in the new historical conditions.

page 297
Where is the INA archive stored? Was everything saved?

The archive is located in RGAN, almost all of it. The foundation is open, it remains only to find a researcher. But those materials that were stored at the department were, alas, lost.

For what purpose was the Department of State-Confessional Relations established on the basis of the Russian State Pedagogical University twenty years ago in 1994?

On October 25, 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation abolished all legal documents regulating relations between the state and religious organizations in the country. A new stage of religious life began, when everything that had been forbidden for many years began to flourish. New challenges required new answers, both applied and theoretical, respectively, the creation of the department under the leadership of Nikolai Antonovich Trofimchuk was quite natural. In particular, during this period, the direction of state-confessional relations begins to develop quite quickly.

The goals that the department had at the time of its creation, are they the same today?

The goals, of course, largely coincide. However, today I would like to draw attention to the following fact: religious and national values have been inextricably linked for the last decade and a half. In other words, it is no longer quite correct to separate ethnic and confessional elements, but it is more correct to develop an ethno-confessional approach. I think the main focus should be on this.

In other words, we are talking about a certain shift in research accents...

Yes, from state-confessional to ethno-confessional research. This is what life itself dictates, it is not an artificial displacement. Ethnic and religious overlap: I am Russian and I am Orthodox, I am an ethnic Muslim and I profess Islam.

page 298
But in addition to the research task, the department also served for a long time as a link between people involved in the religious sphere from all over Russia.

Yes, firstly, there was a constant training of officials involved in this topic, and secondly, since the 90s, courses for clergy have been organized. It was a good experience - both Orthodox, Muslims, Buddhists, and Protestants were taught. And this gave positive results: the program, which consisted of 72 hours, meant not only theoretical training, but also acquaintance, including with relevant committees and executive authorities. That is, a direct connection was established. It paid off. The Department is proud of the fact that its graduates work in almost all regions of the country.

But at some point, the program failed. What is the reason for this? With the commercialization of education?

There are some industries that are subsidized by definition, and when our programs became paid in the 2000s, not everyone had the opportunity to pass them. Over the years of commercialization, we have lost many partners, because, as a rule, these are not the most affluent people and this is not the most prestigious specialty - not law, not psychology, not economics, this is a very special segment of humanitarian knowledge. Although life shows that where people with specialized education work, the ethno-confessional situation is more or less calm.

Should the department take part in the development of the state's religious policy? How would you describe Russia's current religious policy, if there is one at all?..

I'm not sure that we can talk about a single approach in this area. Rather, we are talking about various regional variations that are reactive in nature: there is a problem, there is a search for its solution. I think we should work ahead of schedule. The potential of the scientific school is there, and there are prospects for consolidation-

page 299
work is underway to develop a new state-confessional policy.

In fact, the department has already made efforts in this direction. I am referring to the" Concept of State religious Policy of the Russian Federation", developed in 2003 - 2004 by the then employees of the department Alexander Kyrlezhev and Alexander Zhuravsky under my editorship. In my opinion, the concept has not yet lost its relevance. It is worth re-evaluating it in the context of today and considering what can be done to improve it.

What key problems, approaches, and trends in the science of religion could you highlight? In addition to the already mentioned ethno-confessional issues.

First of all, it is necessary to understand the paradox of religious consciousness: if we take sociological surveys, then up to 87 percent of respondents call themselves believers, and persistently call themselves believers. However, registered religious organizations simply do not have such a percentage. And there are no practicing believers in such numbers either. It turns out that we are dealing with a kind of hidden religiosity that requires its own understanding. In addition, religious organizations are now becoming quite important for the life of society (the phenomenon of "public religions"). And here there is both a negative and a positive. And this requires study - including field research. But here we are already facing an organizational problem-there are no personnel. We are losing scientific staff - many have left, many have stopped working due to their age. The specialty of religious studies can hardly be considered prestigious. I don't know how to fix this - perhaps it should include advertising and stories about how important this specialty is. I hope that interest will soon start a new wave, at least the objective need for this interest has already been formed.

As for personnel, I can only note that their absence is a consequence of the lack of social elevators - young religious scholars, even the most talented, face an objective shortage of jobs after graduation...

page 300
Yes, a large number of specialists are not required. However, sooner or later the situation will settle down - more and more applied bets will be opened. Life dictates its own rules. In the regions, people with specialized education are already quite successfully employed. I would advise others not to forget about related specialties.

And, probably, the last question - what is your attitude to theology as a scientific discipline?

This is a university discipline that has existed in European universities since the end of the XIII century. When I was at Trinity College, Oxford, I was surprised by the fact that theology programs are in high demand. And when I asked why this is happening, I received a paradoxical answer: if we teach theology,we can teach everything else. This is a worldview. So if you can make competent programs, then why not, including in the walls of our Academy.

Interviewed by Dmitry Uzlaner

page 301

Permanent link to this publication: