Substances of Relatedness and the Narrative Division of Labor in the Dacha Household

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The article discusses the discursive dimension of a modern urban household on the basis of interviews with garden plot owners in the Leningrad region. I proceed from the premise that the household is reproduced in everyday communication among its members, and consider communication as a meeting point between the fluid and unstable individual narrative universes and the more rigid material and practical reality of the household. This approach enables one to pose questions to the discursive material that go beyond the discourse: What is contemporary urban household? What processes and relations does it consist of? What is the role of economy and subsistence within it? How to define its boundaries? How to describe its temporality? How are economic and kinship relations interconnected? I argue that, at least while dachas in the households under consideration perform the recreational function rather than subsistence, dacha everyday chores are not about the necessities of subsistence, but rather create and maintain, formalize and organize relations in the family and especially between spouses. Each time talking about the dacha, relatives give new meanings to the dacha materiality of the past and present and propose and discuss reference points for the future.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Alexandra K. Kasatkina

Higher School of Economics – Saint Petersburg Branch

Author for correspondence.
Email: alexkasatkina@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8827-9696

к. и. н., доцент

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

References

  1. Bakhtin, M.M. 1975. Slovo v romane [The Word in the Novel]. In Voprosy literatury i estetiki [Questions of Literature and Aesthetics], by M.M. Bakhtin, 72–233. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura.
  2. Bruner, J. 1987. Life as Narrative. Social Research.54 (1): 11–32.
  3. Caldwell, M. 2011. Dacha Idylls: Living Organically in Russia’s Countryside. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  4. Carsten, J. 2000. Introduction: Cultures of Relatedness. In Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship, edited by J. Carsten, 1–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Casimir, G.J., and H. Tobi. 2011. Defining and Using the Concept of Household: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Consumer Studies 35: 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01024.x
  6. Chekhovskikh, I.A. 2000. Gorodskie semeinye strategii v neformal’noi ekonomike: trud na dache [Urban family Strategies in the Informal Economy: Work in the Country]. PhD diss. University of Economics (St. Petersburg).
  7. Clarke, S., et al. 2000. The Myth of the Urban Peasant. Work, Employment and Society 14 (3): 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170022118536
  8. Duranti, A. 2003. Language as Culture in US Anthropology: Three Paradigms. Current Anthropology 44 (3): 323–347. https://doi.org/10.1086/368118
  9. Galtz, N.R. 2000. Space and the Everyday: An Historical Sociology of the Moscow Dacha. PhD diss. University of Michigan.
  10. Kasatkina, A.K. 2017. Intonirovanie pozitsii v issledovatel’skom interv’iu, ili muzyka so smyslom [Intonation of Positions in a Research Interview, Or Music with Meaning]. Praktiki i interpretatsii 4: 83–93. https://doi.org/10.23683/2415-8852-2017-4-83-93
  11. Kasatkina, A.K. 2017. Sadovyi domik i ego stroitel’ v razgovorakh s sadovodami nachala XXI v. [A Garden House and Its Builder in Conversations with Gardeners at the Beginning of the 21st Century]. In Experto crede Alberto: sbornik statei k 70-letiiu Al’berta Kashfullovicha Baiburina [Experto crede Alberto: Collection of Articles for the 70th Anniversary of Albert Kashfullovich Bayburin], edited by A. Piir and M. Pirogovskaia, 195–215. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo EUSPb.
  12. Kasatkina, A.K. 2019. Dachnye razgovory kak ob’ekt etnograficheskogo issledovaniia: razrabotka metoda (na materiale interv’iu ob osvoenii sadovykh uchastkov v 1980-е – 1990-е gg.) [Dacha Conversations as an Object of Ethnographic Research: Development of a Method (Based on Interviews about the Development of Garden Plots in the 1980s–1990s)]. PhD diss., Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography.
  13. Kasatkina, A. 2021. Zur Aufhebung der Unterscheidung von Arbeit und Freizeit im Marxismus (am Beispiel der postsowjetischen Datscha) [On the Elimination of the Distinction between Work and Leisure in Marxism (Basing on the Example of Post-Soviet Dacha)]. In Verordnete Arbeit – Gelenkte Freizeit. Musse in der Sowjetkultur? [Prescribed Work – Controlled Leisure: Leisure in Soviet Culture?], edited by E. Cheauré, 489–508. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
  14. Lovell, S. 2008. Dachniki. Istoriia letnego zhit’ia v Rossii, 1710–2000 [Summer Residents: History of Summer Living in Russia, 1710–2000]. St. Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt.
  15. Melnikova, E.A. 2020. Derevnia v gorodskikh proektsiiakh sovremennykh rossiian [Village in Urban Projections of Modern Russians]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 6: 5–11. https://doi.org/10.31857/S086954150013117-8
  16. Mikheeva, Z.A. 2012. Suburbanizatsiia kak instrument resheniia zhilishchnoi problemy Sankt-Peterburga i Leningradskoi oblasti [Suburbanization as a Tool for Solving the Housing Problem of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region]. PhD diss abstract. St. Petersburg State University.
  17. Ochs, E., and T. Kremer-Sadlik, eds. 2013. Fast-Forward Family: Home, Work, and Relationships in Miiddle-Class America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  18. Ochs, E., and T. Kremer-Sadlik. 2015. How Postindustrial Families Talk. Annual Review of Anthropology 44: 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-014027
  19. Razumova, I.A. 2001. Potaennoe znanie sovremennoi russkoi sem’i [Secret Knowledge of the Modern Russian Family]. Moscow: Indrik.
  20. Ries, N. 2005. Russkie razgovory: kul’tura i rechevaia povsednevnost’ epokhi perestroiki [Russian Talk: Culture and Everyday Speech of the Perestroika Era]. Moscow: NLO.
  21. Rose, R., and Y. Tikhomirov. 1993. Who Grows Food in Russia and Eastern Europe? Post-Soviet Geography 34 (2): 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/10605851.1993.10640922
  22. Seeth, H.T., et al. 1998. Russian Poverty: Muddling Through Economic Transition with Garden Plot. World Development 26 (9): 1611–1623.
  23. Smith, A., and A. Stenning. 2006. Beyond Household Economies: Articulations and Spaces of Economic Practice in Postsocialism. Progress in Human Geography 30 (2): 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132506ph601oa
  24. Southworth, C. 2006. The Dacha Debate: Household Agriculture and Labor Markets in Post‐Socialist Russia. Rural Sociology 71 (3): 451–478. https://doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070671
  25. Strathern, M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  26. Wilk, R. 1991. The Household in Anthropology: Panacea or Problem? Reviews in Anthropology 20 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00988157.1991.9977987
  27. Young, K. 1987. Taleworlds and Storyrealms: The Phenomenology of Narrative. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
  28. Zavisca, J. 2003. Contesting Capitalism at the Post-Soviet Dacha: The Meaning of Food Cultivation for Urban Russians. Slavic Review 62 (4): 786–810. https://doi.org/10.2307/3185655

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2024 Russian Academy of Sciences