|
Sergiy TaradajkoThe Horde’s Calamity[1] Translated from
Ukrainian by Camilla Khromova The German will say: ‘You are Mongols’. ‘Mongols, that is plain!’ T.Shevchenko. To my fellow-countrymen, in Ukraine and
not in Ukraine, living, dead and as yet
unborn my friendly epistle (Translated by Vera
Rich) ‘A Thousand Plateaus’ by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari
is probably the latest great
book on philosophy. What is the most
striking, the book, as if remembering
classical examples, proves it possible
to create your own world view. What
is more, this can be done without any of well-known ‘categories’ and
philosophical notions. All their
‘concepts’ and multiple
terms were taken from some
other
sciences staying too far from
philosophy, but used here
in a much wider sense. What can be taken as an example is the confrontation between ‘the Sedentary’ and
‘the Nomadic’. Though these
well-known notions refer to different
ways of living (in a historical and very concrete sense), Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari extend
them to conceiving any social relations and, what is more, to certain
modes of thinking. Literally, these
notions are concerned
with
the position on the earth
ground. ‘The
Sedentary’ indicates
the permanent and even
habitable place, while ‘the
Nomadic’ evidently suggests continual moving. Already from
here onward many
things
can
be inferred. Notice, the
sedentary state not only determines the forms of living, but also changes and transforms the earth
itself. Even the first sign of the sedentary life,
a dwelling, highly affects
the way the environment is perceived.
It is a starting point for a new day
to begin every morning – since it is
just from here on that the four cardinal points of the world are determined, certain directions and distances.
Weird as it might seem, but such small and humble a dwelling can arrange the
comprehension of the whole world. The best analogy
of this viewing can be Descartes’
coordinate system. It concerns
with
a limitless surface determined from virtually a single point where the
entire axis cross. In a sense, the point has no value, being nothing but a ‘zero’, however,
it is from this very point that the whole surface is determined. By the way,
the given perspective
proves how greatly the sedentary life has influenced our world view. Evidently, it was on the landscape that the noted
directions and guide-lines initially
emerged,
with paths laid and roads built. Like lines, strokes and furrows, they came as if drawn on the ground
to define the space. Already in ‘Anti-Oedipus’, their previous work,
Gilles Deleuse
and Felix Guattari
wrote about ‘the inscribing socius’, a basis of
social life which is registered, marked and recorded on
‘the
full body of the earth’ (Vol.1). Though
in the other context, yet one can feel so close a relation between
these ground marks and the
regulations of a social order. To make the point clear, let us remember that the
sedentary life
involved definite activities, above all, farming, so the mentioned furrows were really
made on the ground. However, what is crucial is not this. In fact, every
plot and site was virtually limited, that is surrounded
with boundaries. They are set
between
the cultivated and uncultivated land,
or between the land cultivated by a one
person and that cultivated by some other. In this way the boundaries and furrows
were increasingly getting related
to the private property. Moreover,
just remember how slow a job the farming is. After sowing seeds a farmer had not only to wait for the harvest, but also to reserve his right to harvest. No doubt,
different cultures and civilizations handle the issue differently, but a general tendency
is already felt. In fact, the state of
sedentary leaves such
marks and tracks on the territory which eventually turn into the forms of (in the widest sense) ‘legal’
regulation. It may well be said that
civilizations of the kind were originally apt to literacy, that is, to the written word. It is not without reason, that G.Deleuze
and F.Guattari contrasted ‘the Sedentary’
with ‘the Nomadic’ by taking into account precisely the presence (or absence) of these clearly
drawn marks. In the first case, it is a ground with boundaries
or ‘a striated space’, though in the
other case, it is ‘a smooth
space’, an unmarked surface. The idea of ‘the Nomadic’ being treated in terms
of an open space is quite
comprehensible. In contrast to ‘the
Sedentary’ there is
no definite point for all the roads to come
from, nor any clearly cut
marks; and the dwelling actually
appears mobile like a tent or a caravan. You can stop anywhere you choose and any
moment you can set about going further.
This certainly resulted from the very
essence of the
economy based on cattle breeding. The territory here is primarily a pasture. As it tends to get exhausted
very quickly, you have to move to a new one. That is why there is
really
no marks and signs,
which
could
anyhow be fixed on the
surface. It is the very nature
of a steppe to be
vast and boundless. What is essential
is its ability to serve as a pasture. The
entire
strategy is quite evident: more territories and pastures
are to be found and occupied. (Let us return to this
point later.) In addition, the practice of herding
is no less remarkable. The main job is to prevent
the flock from scattering, thus to make the
animals keep together. To be controlled the
livestock must be counted. As was earlier
said, ‘the Sedentary’
had long
been apt to word. So ‘the Nomadic’
was obviously apt to
number. And
finally, such live masses
can be more handily and easily
herded and moved only when ‘governed’
by one and a single will… Thus ‘the Sedentary’ was enrooted in a delimited
space, where some divisions, debates and arguments were inevitable
to occur. This, in turn, forced to search
the ways of legal regulation. Of course it was not the law forms of nowadays, but rather a tendency. ‘The
Nomads’ as we have seen, were not concerned
with delimitation and therefore persistently pushed up to new pastures. It should be noted, that contrary to ‘the
Sedentary’ world, where
introduction
and awareness of one’s rights as
if stirred the development of an individual, ‘the Nomadic’ world was somewhat crowd-like,
throng-like and even herd-like.
Hence, the
despotic forms of government were known to be widespread there. It might be remembered
that Gilles Deleuze
and Felix Guattari
laid their emphasis on some other sides
of the issue. They perceived
‘the Sedentary’, in its full
maturity, as ‘the State mechanism’, while they
considered ‘the Nomadic’ as ‘a war machine’(Vol.2). Quite
noticeable, they regarded the state aspect of ‘the
Sedentary’ with less, if any, favor. When it comes to ‘the Nomadic’,
however, what is felt is slightly
romantic but quite definite
sympathy.
It is not too hard to explain. In fact, the similar feelings are rather
typical of European intellectuals. Anything related to a State
(with its disposition to order and bureaucracy) is treated as limits
to freedom. Not surprisingly, ‘the Nomadic’ might
well be seen as a proper way to avoid limits. The feeling can well be appreciated, but it fails to account for the
historical opposition between ‘the
Sedentary’ and the ‘Nomadic’. To show how it happened, it is not enough to set
various examples. What should be found
out is, primarily, some events in history when ‘the Sedentary’ and ‘the
Nomadic’ worlds really had to collide, when, as Oswald Spengler puts it, ‘the
men of two Cultures have looked into one another’s eyes’ (1928: 87). The strongest collision took place in the 13th century
when Europe got aware of the
Mongol danger and the Rus had the severest impact
of invasion. It was there that
‘the Sedentary’ and ‘the Nomadic’
clashed. What must immediately be said is that the first instances of the Rus
mentioned in written chronicles (it is precisely where its history originates
from) were closely related to
the State
emerging. Anyhow but the occasion makes ‘the
Varangians’ come to mind. The times passed forever when
‘the patriots’ among historic scholars challenged
‘the Normans theory’ on account that it
allegedly treated the Slavic people as unable
to create any state. Today there
is no doubt left, that it was really these Scandinavians, who introduced the State and
Law in the Rus. Let us turn to the story about the ‘Varangians being invited’. Quite evidently, they
would not wait for invitation and thus came there on their
own will. Then, how should the words
of chronicle be interpreted? Remember that, sick and tired of intestine wars and disorder, the native
people said to themselves: ‘Let us seek
a
prince who may rule over us and judge us according to the Law’ (1953: 59). Quite evidently, it was not those who ‘invited’ but rather the chronic-writer
himself who formulated the
above statement. Much later after
the event, he wanted to explain the nature of such a ruling power… The attention
has commonly been drawn to this ‘rule
over’.
Closely examined, however,
the statement appears to touch upon the way the power
was exercised. Take this: ‘judge us according to the Law’.
It is ‘to the Law’ that proves the
most important. Apparently, a medieval chronic-writer must have interpreted
the law much more differently
than a modern man. But in the given
context, it should be admitted that the State introduction was directed to
the type of ruling founded just on the
Law. It was actually in accord with the European standards which
were virtually brought by the
Scandinavians. As for the Rus, it
should
not be regarded as a unitary
state. Otherwise, it might
be a naïve transference of later perceptions, either of
Russian or Soviet kind, to utterly different an epoch. It should be admitted, there were
really a great variety of tribes,
with innumerous peculiarities of their own. In addition,
with Prince Rurik’s kin branching, his off-springs, who initially ‘sat’ in Novgorod and Kiev, at length came to create a
lot of new ruling centers. Again, this absence
of entity should be acknowledged without any regret for ‘the feudal disunited
state’, (for it would be the earlier
noted attribution of foreign criteria
to the middle age). Evidently, the disunity of the sort was but a
manifestation of ‘the Sedentary’, liable by nature to
delimitation and demarcation. It is just the
features, that lead to creating any
notions of property and legal regulations. But the events turned the other way; the disaster of 1237-1240 broke out…’ The Sedentary’ clashed with
‘the Nomadic’. To underline again, the nomads’ policy and lifestyle
surprisingly resembled pasturing. Primarily all those masses had to move to
more and more new territories, after devastating everything around. Their army and enormous transport were strikingly
consolidated. The unity and
unanimity of the enormous crowds was even more firmed by the subunits’ organization
order. It was on the number that the nomads’ army was built, with the subunits named
‘tens’, ‘hundreds’, ‘thousands’ and ‘t’mas’(ten thousands). The nomads, however, appeared
to have enough features common to those of the sedentary
people. First of all it is the
way the power was inherited. Similarly, a strong ruling dynasty was
set up, with Genghis Khan descendants
not only exercising power but also
obtaining great (and clearly delimited)
‘uluses’ or their own plots of land, spacious enough to contain whole countries. The sons
of Genghis Khan were the first to obtain such plots
of land and it was the
eldest son, Jochi,
who was granted the western
areas. That is how the
‘Ulus of Jochi’ emerged,
later
named ‘The Golden Horde’. Then it was
the
son of Jochi, Batu,
who eventually led the military
campaign towards the
Rus and further to the
western
countries… As is known, a great number
of tribes from many
sides collided at the time. Therefore, in
perceiving and depicting the age,
one should refrain from either favor or (what is worse) hostility to certain ethnic groups and nations. Otherwise,
one could not but have a distorted and perverted picture. Hence the concepts of ‘the
Nomadic’ and ‘the Sedentary’
are better to be held to so that to ensure both
integral understanding
and required open-minded approach. In terms of the armed forces,
it was the nomads who had a great and
absolute advantage. Different
researches are known to stress, above
all, their numerical superiority. However, the cited quantity, on the first hand, is rather doubtful, for
it is deduced by collateral indexes. On the second
hand, it is only ‘an armchair scientist’, so
to say, who can regard this superiority as a key factor. On a battle it is not the number of
troops to be decisive but their
mobility and rush. Those were the
features which distinguished the
nomads from origin, from birth. It is
where
their formidable and mighty weapon
came
from; the weapon that was
to change the
course
of
history – the horseman fight
(1987). No less important, of
course, was the already noted consolidation. In case of the war,
this quality
ensured
both extraordinary martial
discipline and
absolute
control, and, above all, coordination
of every unit and element’s action. It was precisely what the armed forces
defending
the sedentary world were known to miss out for. It would be worth repeating that
there is no point in complaining
about the disunity of the feudal state,
for this feeling could but indicate a historic misunderstanding of the
epoch and ‘the Sedentary’ itself. It was the sedentary life style that originally created
delimitation and natural separation. Hence,
any armed forces were too difficult
to be gathered and brought to the
battlefield. Even more difficult was to provide joint actions, while
in the
war time it is primarily consolidation, coordination
and utter
obedience to the order that are
the most decisive. In a word, the sedentary world
seemed unfit to wage wars. On the
contrary, it was in the warfare, that
‘the Nomadic’ proved at its best. (Not surprisingly, Deleuze
and Guattari named it a ‘war machine’). Actually such a
fighting on the battlefield occurred not so often.
The nomadic forces, like an avalanche, simply advanced on the planes, taking
over all
settlements and towns… It was here
again that the profound opposition
between
‘the Sedentary’ and ‘the Nomadic’
appeared the most
acute. In fact, an ancient Russian town was a settlement surrounded either
by banks, or walls, or at least paling. To think
generally,
there again a boundary, a limit or a mark to be easily noticed, thus
an essential manifestation
of the sedentary lifestyle. When a town refused to surrender voluntary, it was at once besieged, and the nomads set about preparing
for the assault. They drew out mighty machines capable to hurl stones.
Presumably borrowed from China,
those machines served to weaken, to
breach and finally to break down the
walls. So it was on the wall boundary that the ‘sedentary people’
set their last hope for salvation. This
confirmed once more how essential that
boundary was. In contrast, the
Nomads viewed those walls and boundaries as
something fully unnatural, and, therefore, obliged to be destroyed. It might well be said, that those lands were doomed. Certainly, there revealed itself the already
familiar strategy of the
nomads, that of persistent moving
to new pastures. Therefore the
goal of their seizing
new territories was exclusively plunder. It could
be property, particularly live-stock, or people, whether for working,
or selling or, more often for new wars. Not accidentally, the
first step Batu Khan took was census, – here again tens, hundreds, thousands and ‘t’mas’ (ten
thousands). In addition, those lands were
laid under tribute… One could ask: ‘What is so special
about
this practice?’ Were not wars for plunder (including the live labor force) and tribute rather common at the time? Did not
the earlier discussed Varangians practice the same?
However, in case of the nomads all these features were at most essential
and decisive. Having taken so many
lands, ‘Ulus of Jochi’ turned into a powerful state, with the real capital, the City
of Sarai, built
up on the Volga bank.
All these might seem the signs
of ‘the Sedentary’. Actually, however, the super-state,
set up by the
nomads all but reproduced the already known
features of ‘the Nomadic’. It also took over new lands, kept them
in ‘a single ruling hand’, secured obedience and consumed resources. Whatever mighty, such a state appeared
short-lived. Interestingly, it was the principle of the
Sedentary that ruined it. Not
that the enslaved tribes took the
courage to revolt, but because the
signs of ‘the Sedentary’
emerged
just in the middle of the ‘Nomadic’
world. Indeed, new and new Genghis Khan’s off –springs put claims on his inheritance, and
The Horde eventually saw division
into separate ‘uluses’.
Here
again the familiar
delimitation, the key sign of ‘the Sedentary’,
which
inevitably brought
forth arguments and hostility.
It is from this point that the
most interesting things began.
Though the Horde finally broke down, something queer occurred
on the lands where it had been present for so long. A
new state came into being with
‘the nomadic’ practice revealing
itself on the entirely ‘sedentary’
background.
The practice must have been firmly adopted since the time
of
the Horde’s dominance. All these happened just on
the lands
of the North-Eastern Rus. In accord with
the nomads’ nature already
depicted here, the new state
began
expanding to the adjacent territories
and at length took over a spacious area comparable with Genghis Khan’s empire.
The expansion was not a single and temporal action. Because in this case such a striving to ‘gather lands’ was
getting obsessive (and even threatening).
As though the history stopped; and the state, in spite of all the following changes, seemed
to merely reproduce its ‘nomadic’
features. Thus: ‘It is true that the nomads have no history;
they only have geography’ (Vol.2: 393). By the way, the South-Western Rus, which too suffered from the nomads’ invasion, had far less impact
of it further. It was already in
the 14th century that those
lands
got dominated by Lithuania,
and later by Poland. It was a hard time either, but all the
occasions took place in the sedentary
environment, so the culture backbone was not broken. It was
then that the North-Eastern and
South-Western Rus went each its own
way. This proves how indefinite and
conventional the very
notion of the Rus is, though this statement may, of course,
sound
uncommon… To return to the ‘nomadic’ inheritance, the new
lands ‘gathering’ aimed not merely at
joining them but at destroying any clear-cut boundaries. The nomads, perhaps unconsciously,
accepted those boundaries as unnatural
and, what is more, hostile. Not accidentally, what they boasted of was
just their lands being vast
and boundless (‘one sixth of
the globe’). Noticeably,
it was not only the spaciousness of
area to be meant here,
but rather
the absence of any borderlines and bounds. Not surprisingly, for every bound and boundary as if
reminds
of ‘the Sedentary’ and therefore is really
alien and hostile to ‘the Nomadic’. It
is quite clear, that in order to
be completed ‘the new lands
gathering’
had to expand worldwide, to
reach a global scale. Not
without reason the 20th century was concerned with (and rather
seriously)
the ‘world revolution’. Generally speaking, ’the Russian communism’ can be said
to have few, if any, ideas
and practices common with
Karl Marks’ learning. In terms
of ‘the Nomadic’, however, everything seems quite clear. First of all, again the
formidable crowds of people are
gathered and consolidated,
– in hostels and hut, in barracks and camps. It was probably
to remove people from ‘the Sedentary’ that these
dwellings were intended to. All
the people got moved and mixed out,
so there is again
breaking down any boundaries,
limits and bounds, whether of social, or of
linguistic, or of property kind. What
is required is wholly
amorphous and utterly obedient
crowd. It is not surprising that the most hostile personage for a resent
‘nomad’ is a common farmer,
an individual peasant, a ‘kulak’. It is
he, who, by cultivating his land,
restores ‘the sedentary’ world.
That is why he must be the
first to be utterly destroyed. It is quite clear that the
same events happen as before;
all vital resources are taken away from the peasant
and he is doomed to awful starvation. We must notice that there was nothing particularly
outstanding about such a ‘taking away’. The terms
‘confiscation’, ‘nationalization’, simply ‘withdrawal’ and
‘expropriation’ were firmly enrooted in the lexicon of the time. Any legal, so to say, grounds of the given
actions were not
even
regarded. This is the
manifestation of totally
different civilization – of the ‘nomadic’
forms of life. As we have already seen, the Law
can arise only in the ‘sedentary’ environment, with the delimitation of different
persons’ interests. In the ‘nomadic’ world, with its natural
desposition to crowds and throngs, this could not occur. Moreover, ‘the Sedentary’ originally aimed at certain productivity:
that is
agriculture, crafts, industry. Hence there is a
tendency to further demarcation
of labor (the other, by the way, form of delimitation) and to
development of commerce. The commerce itself always rested
on the legal outlook, for any selling and buying
activity
was based
on mutual obligations, those of the seller, who provided the required
goods, and of the buyer, who guaranteed payment. The nature of ‘the Nomads’ was
absolutely different. Born on the pasture, they were apt not to produce, but to pick up and
take away anything available. The history indeed
stopped here. The vital resources
were obtained in one and the same way; either by ‘confiscating’ the estates of the previous land lords,
or by expropriating the treasures of the
Church, or by taking away all the bread
of peasants; or, for example, by exploiting
the cheapest labor force, or, like today,
by extracting oil and gas.
As we have already noticed,
‘the Nomadic’ was always inclined to concentrate power
and mostly in one and only hands. However, with the territory so vast and boundless,
the absolute power
was rather hard
to actually and practically exercise.
Some deputies were required, like
those ‘Darughachi’ of the
Horde, who virtually supported the interests
of that supreme power. They made up a caste, which took place between the supreme ruler and the population. On the one side, they cringed and groveled before
the Khan to receive ‘a jarlig’ (a document to confirm the obtained
authorities); from
the other side, they, so to say, redeemed at their heart’s
content
all the humiliations at the cost
of subordinate lands. It was only loyalty that the supreme power
found
important, that is why it did not take into account any
abuse or outrage. Of course, the injustice and
lack of rights were at large here.
Not the lack of particular persons’ rights,
but the absence of the Right
and
Law
itself. To remember, born on the
pasture, the first thing the ‘nomads’ did was to lay the
conquered lands under tribute. They
were
wonderfully ingenious in establishing requisitions
and exactions. As a matter of fact,
it was primarily for collecting
tribute that the ‘Daranghachi’ were required. Thus ‘to
obtain’, ‘to charge’, and ‘to collect’ became the sense of existence for
all kinds of officialdom which formed there later. Corruption was
assuming such a scale
that eventually it was accepted as natural. As though recalling their
old nature, ‘the Nomads’, with already familiar persistence,
are moving up to the neighboring lands.
In the same way they are seeking
to concentrate these lands
round a single center, to restore
the
seemingly long forgotten super-state.
However,
in perceiving the nature of these inclinations,
one important issue should be pointed
out: ‘the Nomadic’ is possible
to be withstood and resisted.
What we must do is to guard and
defend our boundary – the
essential sign of the ‘Sedentary’. At length neither mere delimitation,
nor separation, nor simply going
other
way proved enough. Far more important
(and complicated) is
to gain this internally. The centuries under the Horde’s order
could not but affect the consciousness,
because the enforced concentration prevented the
ideas of sovereignty and absolute value of an individual.
It resulted in deeply enrooted disrespect
for the human being’s most
essential rights. Thus, the
foundation
for any valid and actual legal relations is absent. Still nowadays the proprietary rights appear,
so to say, uncertain; and obtaining property
on entirely artificial ground as
well as
dispossessing it looks too ordinary. Quite obviously, this profound delimitation should
involve not only land ownership relations.
For it is probably the most important principle of modern and civilized life. Remember a classical caution
of separating power into judicial, executive and legislative. These are again
forms of delimitation without which no social mechanisms can
work. Certainly, the most essential
is to ensure the rights of
this, so to say, ordinary person.
It must be the concern not only of the
person but, first and foremost, of
the whole society. Bibliography Cardini, F. (1987) Alle radici della cavalleria
medievale, Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2004) Anti-Oedipus,
London and New York: Continuum. Vol. 1 of Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. 2 vols. Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F. (2004) A
Thousand Plateaus, London and New York: Continuum. Vol.
2 of Capitalism
and Schizophrenia.
2 vols. Spengler,
O. (1928) The Decline of the West,
New York: Alfred A.Knopf. Vol. 2. The Russian
Primary Chronicle, Laurentian Text (1953), Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of
America. |