Notre étude de cas se focalise sur un village d’Evenki situé assez près de la BAM, célèbre aujourd’hui pour son refus supposé de se connecter par un pont à la ville ferroviaire à proximité. La BAM a impacté les communautés autochtones et reconfiguré l’espace géographique et social de la Sibérie orientale. Le chemin de fer Magistrale Baïkal–Amour (la BAM), construit en tant que projet prestigieux très médiatisé du socialisme tardif, en est un bon exemple.
Un droit à l’isolement ? Un pont manquant et des articulations d’indigénéité le long d’un chemin de fer en Sibérie orientaleįr L’Union soviétique et ses États successeurs ont été de fervents partisans d’un paradigme de modernisation visant à « surmonter l’éloignement » et à « amener la civilisation » à la périphérie et à son peuple indigène « arriéré ». Thus, the article explores constellations of remoteness and indigeneity, posing the question whether there might be a moral right to remoteness to be claimed by those who view spatial distance as a potential resource. Focusing on discourses linking the notions of remoteness and cultural revitalisation, the article argues for conceptualising the story of the missing bridge not as the result of political resistance but rather as an articulation of indigeneity, which foregrounds cultural rights over more contentious political claims. Some actors portray this disconnection as a sign of backwardness, while others celebrate it as the main reason for native language retention and cultural preservation. Our case study, an Evenki village located fairly close to the BAM, is (in)famous today for its supposed refusal to get connected via a bridge to the nearby railroad town. The BAM has affected indigenous communities and reconfigured the geographic and social space of East Siberia. The Baikal–Amur Mainline (BAM) railroad, built as a much‐hyped prestige project of late socialism, is a good example of that.
Systems analysis, in this way, constituted an important intellectual resource for endogenous liberalization of the authoritarian regime.Įn The Soviet Union and its successor states have been avid supporters of a modernisation paradigm aimed at ‘overcoming remoteness’ and ‘bringing civilisation’ to the periphery and its ‘backward’ indigenous people.
This critique is interpreted as an expression of a new normativity about what constitutes good governance it became particularly salient when Soviet scientists were facing infrastructural projects in the global South. It argues that systems analysis constitutes a form of infrastructural knowledge that enabled Soviet scientists to criticize governmental policies, particularly largescale, top-down infrastructure projects. The article analyzes the development of governmental, managerial, and industrial applications of systems analysis in the Soviet context, as well as the transfer of Soviet systems expertise to developing countries. Systems expertise is largely missing from existing work on the history of Soviet infrastructure. This article explores the political effects of the development of systems analysis as a form of “infrastructural knowledge”-that is, as a form of knowledge concerned with infrastructure, and an infrastructure of knowledge-that contributed to internal dissensus among scientific experts in the Soviet Union.
0 kommentar(er)
