Difference between revisions of "Nash chelovek (Russia and FSU)"

|-  

|-  

|style="font-size:1.1em;"|''Nash chelovek'' is one of the most common concepts reflecting informality in Russia (plural: ''nashi lyud''i, or the closely related ''svoi lyudi'' literally translated as ‘our people’). In some contexts a better rendering of ''nash chelovek'' is ‘one of ours’ or ‘one of us,’ though the term is all too often translated as ‘our man.’ Despite the commonality of the concept, an online search, using both Latin and Cyrillic script, reveals that very little has been published on it. Such searches do however indicate that the phrase often makes it into the titles of movies and books, some of which will be familiar to Anglophone readers (for example, the Russian title for Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana), or in videos on Soviet leaders. A Russian play by Aleksandr Ostrovskii, '' ‘Svoi Lyudi – Sochtemsya’'' (usually translated as ‘It’s a Family Affair –  We’ll Settle It Ourselves,’ but referring to the code of a social circle) has been popular in Russia since 1849.  

|style="font-size:1.1em;"|''Nash chelovek'' is one of the most common concepts reflecting informality in Russia (plural: ''nashi lyud''i, or the closely related ''svoi lyudi'' literally translated as ‘our people’). In some contexts a better rendering of ''nash chelovek'' is ‘one of ours’ or ‘one of us,’ though the term is all too often translated as ‘our man.’ Despite the commonality of the concept, an online search, using both Latin and Cyrillic script, reveals that very little has been published on it. Such searches do however indicate that the phrase often makes it into the titles of movies and books, some of which will be familiar to Anglophone readers (for example, the Russian title for Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana), or in videos on Soviet leaders. A Russian play by Aleksandr Ostrovskii, '' ‘Svoi Lyudi – Sochtemsya’'' (usually translated as ‘It’s a Family Affair –  We’ll Settle It Ourselves,’ but referring to the code of a social circle) has been popular in Russia since 1849.  

Linguistically, the use of ''svoi ''is more restricted than that of nashi, and similarly the circle of ''svoi lyudi'' is narrower in comparison to that of nashi ''lyudi''. ''Svoi'' connotes belonging (as opposed to ‘stranger,’ ‘foreigner’ or ‘outsider’ (''chuzhoi''), whereas ''nash'' implies ‘solidarity’ (the opposite of ‘alien’ or ‘extraneous’ [''chuzhdyi'']). The words can however be used interchangeably. The divisive meaning of both'' nash chelove''k and ''svoi lyudi'' points to the ever-shifting and thus hard-to-pin-down borderline between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ The confrontation between ‘one of us’ and '' ‘not'' one of us’ appeared in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel ''The Brothers Karamazov'' (1880). Following an altercation with his second son (Ivan), the father of the three Karamazov brothers, Fyodor Pavlovich, tells his youngest son (Alyosha) that rationalist Ivan ‘is not one of us in soul…. Ivan is not one of us. People like Ivan are not our sort, my boy.’

Linguistically, the use of ''svoi ''is more restricted than that of nashi, and similarly the circle of ''svoi lyudi'' is narrower in comparison to that of nashi ''lyudi''. ''Svoi'' connotes belonging (as opposed to ‘stranger,’ ‘foreigner’ or ‘outsider’ (''chuzhoi''), whereas ''nash'' implies ‘solidarity’ (the opposite of ‘alien’ or ‘extraneous’ [''chuzhdyi'']). The words can however be used interchangeably. The divisive meaning of both'' nash chelove''k and ''svoi lyudi'' points to the ever-shifting and thus hard-to-pin-down borderline between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ The confrontation between ‘one of us’ and '' ‘not'' one of us’ appeared in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel ''The Brothers Karamazov'' (1880). Following an altercation with his second son (Ivan), the father of the three Karamazov brothers, Fyodor Pavlovich, tells his youngest son (Alyosha) that rationalist Ivan ‘is not one of us in soul…. Ivan is not one of us. People like Ivan are not our sort, my boy.’

In Soviet times, ''nash chelovek'' was most often used pejoratively with the word ‘not’ in front of it, usually meaning someone who does not share the same view of the world and emphasising certain ideological connotations. The frequency of negative usage may be interpreted as an expression of Russian ‘negative identity,’ defined by what it is ''not'' rather than standing for its own set of values (Gudkov 2004<ref>Gudkov, L. 2004. ''Negativnaya identichnost’: Stat’i 1997-2002 godov''. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie</ref>). The intricacies of crossing the ‘us versus them’ border are depicted in an early film by Nikita Mikhalkov '' ‘Svoi Sredi Chuzhikh, Chuzhoi Sredi Svoikh’'' (1974; the title is usually translated into English as ‘At Home Among Strangers,’ though a more literal translation would be ‘One’s Own Among Strangers, A Stranger Among One’s Own’). In the post-Soviet context, and particularly in contemporary Russia, understanding of continuity and change in the usage of the term presents a challenge: what does it mean to Russians nowadays; how do people view divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’; and do their perceptions reflect on the private/public division, the ‘Russian idea’ in Putin’s Russia,  or wider societal tendencies?   

In Soviet times, ''nash chelovek'' was most often used pejoratively with the word ‘not’ in front of it, usually meaning someone who does not share the same view of the world and emphasising certain ideological connotations. The frequency of negative usage may be interpreted as an expression of Russian ‘negative identity,’ defined by what it is ''not'' rather than standing for its own set of values (Gudkov 2004<ref>Gudkov, L. 2004. ''Negativnaya identichnost’: Stat’i 1997-2002 godov''. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie</ref>). The intricacies of crossing the ‘us versus them’ border are depicted in an early film by Nikita Mikhalkov '' ‘Svoi Sredi Chuzhikh, Chuzhoi Sredi Svoikh’'' (1974; the title is usually translated into English as ‘At Home Among Strangers,’ though a more literal translation would be ‘One’s Own Among Strangers, A Stranger Among One’s Own’). In the post-Soviet context, and particularly in contemporary Russia, understanding of continuity and change in the usage of the term presents a challenge: what does it mean to Russians nowadays; how do people view divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’; and do their perceptions reflect on the private/public division, the ‘Russian idea’ in Putin’s Russia,  or wider societal tendencies?