Ethno reviewEthno reviewЭтнографическое обозрение0869-54153034-6274The Russian Academy of Sciences67236110.31857/S0869541524060017VUEHWBSpecial Theme of the Issue: Economic Anthropology of Household Outside Metropolitan Areas in Contemporary RussiaСпециальная тема номера: Экономическая антропология домохозяйства современной России за пределами мегаполисовResearch ArticleEconomics, Oikonomia, Domostroi: Introduction to the Anthropology of HouseholdЭкономика, ойкономия, домострой: заметки об антропологии домохозяйстваhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7521-6912Ssorin-ChaikovNikolay V.Ссорин-ЧайковНиколай Владимирович
Russian Federation

PhD, доцент

nssorinchaikov@hse.ruHigher School of Economics – Saint Petersburg BranchНациональный исследовательский университет “Высшая школа экономики” в Санкт-Петербурге15122024652227022025Copyright ©; 2024, Russian Academy of SciencesCopyright ©; 2024, Российская академия наук2024Russian Academy of SciencesРоссийская академия наукhttps://journals.eco-vector.com/0869-5415/article/view/672361

This article is an introduction to the issue’s special theme on “Economic Anthropology of Household Outside Metropolitan Areas in Contemporary Russia”, featuring contributions by Lidia Rakhmanova, Aleksandra Kasatkina, Daria Tereshina, and Polina Yarovaya. This article contributes to rethinking economic anthropology in terms of culturally specific categories under study. It does so by revisiting the role of household in the genealogy of “economy,” and specifically by looking at Russian terms domokhozaistvo and domostroi. The article shows how domokhozaistvo harks back to oikonomia as Aristotile’s “art of running household” and the new testament’s divine management of the world as god’s home. In turn, domostroi evokes the name of the 16th century Moscow courtly instructions that combine these classical Greek and Christian connotations. The article also suggests thinking through the implications of the Aristotilian categorical foundation of the “economy” in ways in which it is part to an oikonomic ethical judgement based on the state of exception. This allows us, on the one hand, to rethink economic anthropology as part of the anthropology of ethics, and, on the other, to reconceptualize its ethnographic methodologies which “case studies” frequently follow the non-typical and are not necessarily representative.

Настоящая статья представляет собой введение к специальной теме номера: “Экономическая антропология домохозяйства современной России за пределами мегаполисов”, в которую вошли статьи Л.Я. Рахмановой, А.К. Касаткиной, Д.В. Терешиной, П.Р. Яровой. Экономическая антропология возникла как проекция рыночной модели экономики и рыночной рациональности на любую жизнедеятельность. Данная статья вносит вклад в переосмысление этой дисциплины в регистре “эмных” культурно-специфических понятий исследуемых сообществ. При том что в современной России за пределами административного языка реестра домовладения категория “домохозяйство” является “этной”, она представляет исторически важную часть “эмного” значения экономики. Статья привлекает внимание читателя к генеалогии понятия “экономика” в аристотелевском “искусстве управления домом” (ойкос), в новозаветной “икономии” – божественном управлении миром как Своим домом и во вполне “эмном” российском “домострое”, который восходит к наставлениям Московской Руси XVI в., соединяющим язык “ойкономии” и “икономии”. Статья следует за Аристотелем в рассмотрении и того и другого как этики, точнее, к суждению на основании состояния исключения. Эта формулировка обрела популярность в антропологии суверенной власти благодаря К. Шмитту и Дж. Агамбену. Но состояние исключения касается также (если не в первую очередь) работы наших собственных аналитических понятий. Мы как этнографы часто имеем дело с исключительным, единичным, нетипичным, следующим духу, а не букве репрезентативности. В статье предлагается “ойкономическая” антропология в единстве предмета и метода исследования.

economicsoikonomiadomostroihouseholdeconomic anthropologyanthropology of ethicsэкономикаойкономиядомостройдомохозяйствоэкономическая антропологияантропология этикиРоссийский научный фондRussian Science Foundation23-18-00962Afanasiev, A.N. 1850. Ob arheologicheskom znachenii “Domostroia” [On the Archaeological Significance of the “Domostroi”]. Otechestvennye zapiski 7: 33–46.Афанасьев А.Н. Об археологическом значении “Домостроя”// Отечественные записки. 1850. № 7. С. 33–46.Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Забелин И. Домашний быт русских царей в XVI и XVII столетиях: государев двор, или дворец. М.: Litres, 2019.Agamben, G. 2005. State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Колесов В.В. Домострой как памятник средневековой культуры // Домострой / Ред. В.В. Колесов, В.В. Рождественская. СПб.: Наука, 1994. С. 301–357.Agamben, G. 2011. The Kingdom and the Glory: For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and Government. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Кондратьева Т. Кормить и править: о власти в России XVI–XX вв. М.: РОССПЭН, 2006.Barth, F. 1959. Segmentary Opposition and the Theory of Games: A Study of Pathan Organization. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 5–21.Лихачев Д.С. Литература “государственного устроения” (середина XVI в.) // Памятники литературы Древней Руси: середина XVI в. / Ред. Л.А. Дмитриев, Д.С. Лихачев. М.: Художественная литература, 1985. С. 5–16.Bentham, J. 1791. Panopticon, Or the Inspection-House. Dublin: T. Payne.Рахманова Л.Я. Рыбаки и контролирующие инстанции на Оби: правоприменение в тени локальных правил игры // Этнографическое обозрение. 2019. № 4. С. 45–60.Cessario, R. 1996. Epieikeia and the Accomplishment of the Just. In Aquinas and Empowerment: Classical Ethics for Ordinary Lives, edited by G. Simon Harak, 170–206. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1996.Слёзкин Ю. Дом Правительства. М.: Litres, 2019.Cheal, D.J. 1988. The Gift Economy. London: Routledge.Соболевский С.И. Введение (к “Домострою”) // Ксенофонт. Сократические сочинения. М.; Л.: Academia, 1935. С. 247–249.Englund, H. 2006. Prisoners of Freedom: Human Rights and the African Poor. Berkeley: University of California Press.Шестаков С.П. Византийский тип “Домостроя” и черты его сходства с “Домостроем” Сильвестра // Византийский временник. 1901. № VIII. C. 38–63.Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Юдина Т.Н. Новый домострой. Конституирующая универсальная перспективная экономическая система России. М.: ТЕИС, 2014.Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality. Vol. I, An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.Agamben G. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.Foucault, M. 2007. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège De France (1977–1978). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Agamben G. State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.Foucault, M. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collége De France (1978–1979). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Agamben G. The Kingdom and the Glory: For a Theological Genealogy of Economy and Government. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011.Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Barth F. Segmentary Opposition and the Theory of Games: A Study of Pathan Organization // The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 1959. No. 1. P. 5–21.Kolesov, V.V. 1994. Domostroi kak pamiatnik srednevekovoi kul’tury [Domostroi as a Literary Monument of Medieval Culture]. In Domostroi [Domostroi], edited by V.V. Kolesov and V.V. Rozhdestvenskaya, 301–357. St. Petersburg: Nauka.Bentham J. Panopticon, Or the Inspection-House. Dublin: T. Payne, 1791.Kondratieva, T. 2006. Kormit’ i pravit’: o vlasti v Rossii XVI–XX vv. [To Feed and to Govern: On Power in Russia of the 16th–20th Centuries]. Moscow: ROSSPEN.Cessario R. Epieikeia and the Accomplishment of the Just // Aquinas and Empowerment: Classical Ethics for Ordinary Lives / Ed. G. Simon Harak. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1996. P. 170–206.Kotsonis, Y. 2014. States of Obligation: Taxes and Citizenship in the Russian Empire and Early Soviet Republic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Cheal D.J. The Gift Economy. L.: Routledge, 1988.Lambek, M. 2010. Toward an Ethics of the Act. In Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action, edited by M. Lambek, 39–64. New York: Fordham University Press.Englund H. Prisoners of Freedom: Human Rights and the African Poor. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.Levi-Strauss, C. 1987. Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss. London: Routlege; Kegan Paul.Foucault M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. N.Y.: Vintage Books, 1977.Likhachev, D.S. 1985. Literatura “gosudarstvennogo ustroeniia” (seredina XVI v.) [Literature of the “State Building”]. In Pamiatniki literatury Drevnei Rusi: seredina XVI v. [Literary Monuments of the Ancient Russia (the Middle of 16th Century], edited by L.A. Dmitriev and D.S. Lihhachev, 5–16. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura.Foucault M. The History of Sexuality. Vol. I, An Introduction. N.Y.: Vintage Books, 1978.Malinowski, B. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: G. Routledge & Sons, ltd., 1922.Foucault M. Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège De France (1977–1978). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.Foucault M. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collége De France (1978–1979). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.Mauss, M. 1990. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: Routledge.Geertz C. The Interpretation of Cultures. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1973.Merridale, C. 2013. Red Fortress: The Secret Heart of Russia’s History. New York: Metropolitan Books.Kotsonis Y. States of Obligation: Taxes and Citizenship in the Russian Empire and Early Soviet Republic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014.Miller, D., ed. 2001. Home Possessions: Material Culture Behind Closed Doors. Oxford: Berg.Lambek M. Toward an Ethics of the Act // Ordinary Ethics: Anthropology, Language, and Action / Ed. M. Lambek. N.Y.: Fordham University Press, 2010. P. 39–64.Moore, H.L. 1992. Households and Gender Relations: The Modelling of the Economy. In Understanding Economic Process, edited by S. Ortiz and S. Lees, 131–148. Lanham: University Press of America.Levi-Strauss C. Introduction to the Work of Marcel Mauss. L.: Routlege; Kegan Paul, 1987.Paxson, M. 2005. Solovyovo: The Story of Memory in a Russian Village. Boomington: Indiana University Press.Malinowski B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. L.: G. Routledge & Sons, ltd., 1922.Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Rinehart.Marshall A. Principles of Economics. L.: Macmillan, 1890.Rakhmanova, L.Y. 2019. Rybaki i kontroliruiushchie instantsii na Obi: pravoprimenenie v teni lokal’nykh pravil igry [Fishermen and Supervisory Instances on the Ob’ River: Law Enforcement in the Shadow of Local Rules of the Game]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 4: 45–60.Mauss M. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. L.: Routledge, 1990.Robbins, L.B. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.Merridale C. Red Fortress: The Secret Heart of Russia’s History. N.Y.: Metropolitan Books, 2013.Rogers, D. 2006. How to be a Khoziain in a Transforming State: State Formation and the Ethics of Governance in Post-Soviet Russia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 4: 915–945. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001041750600034XMiller D. (ed.) Home Possessions: Material Culture Behind Closed Doors. Oxford: Berg, 2001.Schmitt, C. 1985. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Moore H.L. Households and Gender Relations: The Modelling of the Economy // Understanding Economic Process / Eds. S. Ortiz, S. Lees. Lanham: University Press of America, 1992. P. 131–148.Shestakov, S.P. 1901. Vizantiiskii tip “Domostroia” i cherty ego skhodstva s “Domostroiem” Sil’vestra [Bizantian Type of “Domostroi” and Its Similarities with the “Domostroi” by Sil’vestr]. Vizantiiskii vremennik VIII: 38–63.Paxson M. Solovyovo: The Story of Memory in a Russian Village. Boomington: Indiana University Press, 2005.Slezkin, Y. 2019. Dom Pravitel’stva [The House of Government]. Moscow: Litres.Polanyi K. The Great Transformation. N.Y.: Rinehart, 1944.Sobolevskii, S.I. 1935. Vvedenie [Introduction]. In Sokraticheskie sochineniia [Socratic Writings], 247–249. Moscow: Akademiia, 1935.Robbins L.B. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. L.: Macmillan, 1932.Strathern, M. 1988. Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems With Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.Rogers D. How to be a Khoziain in a Transforming State: State Formation and the Ethics of Governance in Post-Soviet Russia // Comparative Studies in Society and History. 2006. No. 4. P. 915–945. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001041750600034XTereshina, D. 2021. Managing Firms and Families: Work and Values in a Russian City. Munster: Verlag.Schmitt C. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985.Tyler, S. 1986. Post-Modern Ethnography. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, edited by J. Clifford and G. Marcus, 122–140. Berkeley: University of California Press.Strathern M. Gender of the Gift: Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.Weber, M. 1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. New York: Free Press.Tereshina D. Managing Firms and Families: Work and Values in a Russian City. Munster: Verlag, 2021.Wilk, R.R., ed. 2019. The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production. London: Routledge.Tyler S. Post-Modern Ethnography // Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography / Eds J. Clifford, G. Marcus. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. P. 122–140.Yan, Y. 2012. The Gift and Gift Economy. In A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, edited by J.G. Carrier, 246–461. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Weber M. The Methodology of the Social Sciences. N.Y.: Free Press, 1949.Yanagisako, S.J. 1979. Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups. Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 161–205.Wilk R.R. (ed.) The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production. L.: Routledge, 2019.Yudina, T.N. 2014. Novyi domostroi. Konstituiruiushchaia universal’naia perspektivnaia ekonomicheskaia sistema Rossii [New Domostroi: Consitutitive Universal Economic System of Russia]. Moscow: TEIS.Yan Y. The Gift and Gift Economy // A Handbook of Economic Anthropology / Ed. J.G. Carrier. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012. P. 246–461.Zabelin, I. 2019. Domashnii byt russkikh tsarei v XVI i XVII stoletiiakh: gosudarev dvor, ili dvorets [House life of Russian Tsars of the 16th–17th Centuries: The State Court or Palace]. Moscow: Litres.Yanagisako S.J. Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups // Annual Review of Anthropology. 1979. No. 1. P. 161–205.Zeitlyn, D. 2003. Gift Economies in the Development of Open Source Software: Anthropological Reflections. Research Policy 7: 1287–1291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00053-2Zeitlyn D. Gift Economies in the Development of Open Source Software: Anthropological Reflections // Research Policy. 2003. No. 7. P. 1287–1291. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00053-2