Anna M. Kerttula’s “Antler on the Sea” Essay

In her book, Antler on the Sea, Kerttula discusses how Soviet government policies aimed to integrate the northern peoples of the USSR in reality helped the convocations to maintain their identities as they defined themselves in opposition to one another. According to Kerttula, in Sireniki, the very system that seek to control and homogenize difference reinforced it (155). Kerttula illustrates the extent to which much of the autochthonal culture has survived the Soviet period. This tr cease is particularly prevalent as Kerttula progresses by dint of her descriptions of Yupik, Chukchi, and Newcomer lifestyle and practices. The development of collective group identity and heathenish transformation among northern indigenous peoples in the Soviet Union was heavily influenced not only by the social system of the Soviet system tho too by the provoking of oppositional relationships between the groups. Kerttula effortlessly explains the interrelationships of the many fence forces t undra and sea, Yupik and Chukchi, natives and newcomers, and old and new ways in the North. These relationships were based on antecedent cultural forms, symbols and meanings but as a result of Soviet influence, topical anesthetic cultural boundaries were transformed and the ensuing dialogue of difference was encouraged. As Kerttula asserts, it is the we/they duality that for many anthropologists defines an ethnic group (152).The Soviet state, with its ideological, political and economic goals, changed the structure of the interactions between local and immigrant groups, but was unable to change the cultural fill of their discourse. According to Kerttula, historically the Yupik, Chukchi and Russians had very limited contact with one another. precedent to forced relocations and settlements that occurred with collectivization, the Yupik lived at Sireniki and met with the Chukchi occasionally for the limited purpose of trade (123). afterward collectivization the three groups we re forced to live in a oneness locality and thus new dynamics and an increased frequency of interaction changed the ways that the Yupik, Chukchi, and Russians (Newcomers) worked unitedly.As Kerttula points out, the cultural definitions and descriptors of the three groups were not always in agreement quite often they clashed. For example, Kerttula generalizes on the Newcomers feelings of high quality to the Yupikand Chukchi. Accordingly, this attitude of superiority was intensified by the physical separation of the three groups, both at their place of work and in their free time (152). It was the Newcomers familiarity with the Russian social structure that in particular led to this so-called superiority (152). Similarly, the Yupik and Chukchi view one another as, for instance, receiving favouritism in their language instructions at the local school. Parents are cited as believing the other group to be receiving better instruction The Chukchi complained that there were more Yupi k lessons than Chukotkan, and Yupik parents complained that the quality of the Yupik lessons were substandard (154).Unlike the Nivkhi described by Grant, the Yupik and Chukchi do not express a feeling of culturelessness. As both groups realize been able to maintain dominant aspects of their traditional lifestyle, the sense of loss seemed to be felt to a lesser degree (although they did lose language and the independence to hunt whales). The Yupik could remain defined primarily by their affinity for and connections to the sea while the Chukchi could remain defined primarily by their affinity for and connections to the tundra. modernism within the community of Sireniki was integrated in a way that was preferential for the people. As Kerttula points out however, instead of questioning the governments collectivist tactics, most looked more locally to the others in the community (151, 153).These collective identities enabled the Yupik, Chukchi, and Newcomers to fancy Soviet designat ed social and economic conditions by infusing these conditions with their own cultural knowledge, reservation them meaningful and reproducible. Kerttula captures the disharmony tolerated by indigenous people in the Soviet period as they retained their own beliefs and customs while adapting to altered environments and economic change. As Kerttula reiterates many times, modernity has brought many unexpected and unwanted changes. Most importantly, the state has used the discourse of modernity to once over again portray indigenous peoples in a way that suits their needs as an administrative body. Instead of looking to the heavy restrictions enforced by the Soviet system, the people of Sireniki focused their discourse on apiece other and looked to each other as being a source of some of their problems (155).Toward the end of her book, Kerttula points out a fundamental problem in the collective group definitions if the groups defined their identities in opposition to one another, wha t happens to those who married cross-culturally? In her intelligence of possible division within the community into different associations, this problem came to the forefront. As one of Kerttulas informants asks, to which association would the child of both Yupik and Chukchi parents belong? (152). theoretically the three groups existed separate from the other two. In reality though, intermarriage and the entry of friendships were relatively common inter-ethnically.The individual cultures were not only subjective, but also laden with political and social questions of identity and personhood (151). What makes the case at Sireniki ludicrous is that three distinct cultural groups were essentially forced to live together in relative peace while each simultaneously sought-after(a) to prolong and promote their own traditional practices and beliefs. Kerttulas investigation and compendium is of how collective identities were facilitated among the two indigenous groups and one immigrant g roup in prescribe to maintain their cultures in the face of rapidly changing social and solid circumstances (153).