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

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. 

1. Anikin D. A. Trajectories of social memory in the global world: Between confrontation and competition (Russia and China). Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki (Proceedings of Kazan University. Humanities Series). 2013. Vol. 155. No. 1. Pp. 7–14. (In Russ.)

2. Bliakher L. E., Bliakher M. L. A city in the shadow of empires: Life, death and afterlife of the imperial city of Harbin. Politeia. 2022. Vol. 104. No. 1. Pp. 131–161. (In Russ.)

3. Borokh O. N., Lomanov A. V. China: A return of the Mandate of Heaven. Pro et Contra. 2009. Vol. 13. No. 3–4. Pp. 65–88. (In Russ.)

4. Ding X. Monuments of Russian architecture and culture in Harbin. Culture and Civilization. 2018. Vol. 8. No. 5A. Pp. 37–44. (In Russ.)

5. Doronin B. G. China: Historical memory as the foundation of the national state (A view of a Chinese historian). Dialogue with Time. 2016. No. 54. Pp. 137–149. (In Russ.)

6. Efremenko D. V., Malinova O. Yu., Miller A. I. Politics of memory and historical science. Rossiiskaia istoriia. 2018. No. 5. Pp. 128–140. (In Russ.)

7. Khubrikov B. O. Historical politics in the era of Xi Jinping. The New Past. 2020. No. 1. Pp. 66–83. (In Russ.)

8. Korneva L. V. Detachment № 731 Crime Museum — Harbin’s saddest museum: Impressions of a person and a museum expert. Prepodavanie istorii v shkole (Teaching History to Schoolchildren). 2022. No. 3. Pp. 40–44. (In Russ.)

9. Kradin N. P. Harbin — a Russian Atlantis. Khabarovsk: A. Khvorov, 2001. 352 p. (In Russ.)

10. Kuras L. V. Russian military-political emigration in Manchukuo (On the materials of the Soviet intelligence). Humanitarian Vector. 2016. Vol. 11. No. 4. Pp. 163–173. (In Russ.)

11. Mikhaleva A. A. Russian clubs in East Asia and usable past for compatriots. Bulletin of Perm University. Political Science. 2020. Vol. 14. No. 4. Pp. 127–137. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.17072/2218-1067-2020-4-127-137

12. Nora P. The problematics of memory space. In: Nora P. Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 1999. Pp. 17–50. (In Russ.)

13. Peshkov I. In the shadow of ‘frontier disloyalty’ at Russia–China–Mongolia border zones. History and Anthropology. 2017. Vol. 28. No. 4. Pp. 429–444. (In Eng.)

14. Remnev A. V. Far Eastern Russia: The Imperial Geography of Power, 19th – Early 20th Centuries. Omsk: Omsk State University, 2004. 552 p. (In Russ.)

15. Smirnov S. V., Buyakov A. M. Mikhail Natarov, the Russian “hero” of the Battle of Khalkhyn Gol. Journal of Economic History and History of Economics. 2019. Vol. 20. No. 1. Pp. 54–65. (In Russ.)

16. Staroselskaya N. D. Everyday Life of Russian China. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardiya, 2006. 384 p. (In Russ.)

17. Usov V. N. People’s Republic of China, 1976–1984: From ‘Cultural Revolution’ to Openness and Reform. Moscow: Institute of Far Eastern Studies (RAS), 2003. 189 p. (In Russ.)

18. Zabiyako A. A., Zabiyako A. P., Levoshko S. S., Khisamutdinov A. A. Russian Harbin: Arranging Life in a Far Eastern Frontier. Blagoveshchensk: Amur State University, 2015. 461 p. (In Russ.)

19. Zuenko I. Yu. Russian toponymics in China (Heilongjiang and Inner Mongolia). In: The Harbin We Love — a City of Russia-China Friendship. Jubilee conference proceedings (Harbin, 16–18 June 2018). Vladivostok: Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service, 2019. Pp. 59–68. (In Russ.)