JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY， VOL. 15， NO.03， 81-92， 2024 （CN51-1731/C， in Chinese）

DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2024.03.010

Abstract：

China and Russia， as neighboring countries with deep historical ties， have made significant strides in the field of ethnology. This paper takes a chronological approach， aiming to explore the intertwined trajectories of Chinese and Russian ethnology， examining their developmental contexts. This article broadly divides Russian ethnology into three stages： The Russian Empire period， the Soviet era， and the post-Soviet period.

During the Russian Empire period， the theoretical and practical aspects of ethnology adopted a “state presence” research orientation. On the one hand， this was reflected in the collective， planned， and large-scale nature of ethnological research. On the other hand， it was also seen in the applied characteristics of paying attention to societal realities and serving both the state and the people —a legacy that has permeated Soviet ethnology. Despite its relatively limited direct influence on Chinese ethnology during the Russian Empire period， Russian ethnology’s impact was quite far-reaching. Notably， the ethnos （этнос） theory pioneered by ethnologist S. M. Shirokogorov directly influenced Fei Xiaotong’s significant theory of “the Pattern of Diversity in Unity of the Chinese Nation.”

During the Soviet period， a comprehensive “infiltration” of the Soviet school of ethnology into the academic and disciplinary systems of Chinese ethnology laid the foundational groundwork for the development of Chinese Marxist ethnology. On the one hand， this is due to the alignment of the Soviet tradition of serving the state with the academic interests of Chinese ethnology. On the other hand， this connection was also influenced by the political milieu of the 1950s， which advocated “comprehensive learning from the Soviet Union” and “Sinicizing the Soviet experience”. At that time in China， learning from the Soviet Union emerged as a feasible and necessary path for the development of ethnology. The introduction of Soviet ethnology had significant influence on both the disciplinary construction and theoretical aspects of Chinese ethnology， particularly evident in institutions like the Minzu University of China， where scholars such as N. N. Cheboksarov played integral roles in its growth. After the “Reform and Opening-up”， Soviet ethnological theory experienced a resurgence in China in the 1980s. However， by then the influence of Soviet ethnology on China had relatively weakened; while learning from the Soviet Union， the Chinese academic community had already begun charting a distinct path in Chinese ethnology.

In the post-Soviet period， Russian ethnologyfaced a period of “crisis”， which coincided with a diminished influence on Chinese ethnology. Even so， after more than 30 years of exploration， the field of Russian ethnology is gradually stepping out of the crisis. Moreover， in recent years the Russian ethnological circle， represented by V. A. Tishkov， has been increasingly focusing on China. In fact， both China and Russia are multi-ethnic countries that have experienced challenges stemming from social transformation， and share similarities in the discussion of core issues in ethnology and the research orientation of serving society. Whether in the Soviet era or today， the insights of Russian ethnology on the issue of “unity” are merit exploration， particularly in the context of the Chinese academic community’s discourse on “forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese Nation”. Furthermore， given the historical ties and shared objectives of the ethnological circles in both countries， more in-depth academic exchanges and theoretical mutual learning are called for between Russia and China.

Key Words：

Russian ethnology; Chinese ethnological disciplines; Soviet ethnographic school; history of ethnology