Edited by A. Aghajanyan, K. Rousselet. Moscow: Vse mir, gon. - 368 p.

The collection of articles written by the participants of the Russian-French project "Twenty Years of Transformation: Religious and social practices of Russian Orthodox Parishes" is a completely successful attempt at a balanced and scientific analysis of one of the main components of modern religious life in Russia - Russian Orthodoxy, or rather the forms of its local existence within its primary forms - communities, primarily parochial ones. The task assigned to the authors was "a multidimensional analysis of various forms of modern Orthodox sociality", therefore, according to the authors ' plan, all articles to one degree or another touch on several cross-cutting topics: "the ratio of the parish to the Orthodox community".-

page 253
congregations (whether or not they coincide with parishes), an attempt to typologize these associations; the composition of parishioners and clergy, their relationships; types of religious authority (including the authority of the parish priest, confessor, and elder); the roles of priests and laity within parishes and communities; the main liturgical practices (during and outside the liturgy); the relationship between the church and the clergy. collective and individual practices in the church subculture; processes of formation of parish (community) identity; interrelations between communities and the surrounding society" (p. 13).

The first chapter of the collection is devoted to "Historical Perspective"; the author (Alexander Aghajanyan) introduces the reader to the problems of studying and perceiving the parish and parish life over the past hundred years. The author identifies the key problems that connect the beginning of the XX century with the beginning of the XXI century. These, in his opinion, are the autonomy/dependence of church institutions in relation to the state; the role of the laity in the church; the degree of independence of the parish clergy from the hierarchy; the rethinking of the parish in terms of the intensity of intra-parish solidarity, in terms of the structural tension between the concepts of "parish" and "community": the "saturation" of a purely administrative-territorial concept with social and mystical content through joint participation in religious practices and community life.

All other chapters are case studies of various kinds. The section "Logic and Dynamics of restoring parish life" presents examples of parish life in parishes restored in different Russian regions in the 1990s. Ksenia Sergazina, who conducted research in the north-eastern Moscow region, suggests a typology of modern Orthodox parishes, paying attention, first of all, to what "makes up the center of the parish", cements it: it can be a "shrine" (for example, a miracle-working icon), a charismatic leader, or a community that is united due to its longer existence (for example, in a preserved parish, not a revived one). Olga Sibireva makes interesting observations about the peculiarities of parish life in Shatsk, "the most Orthodox city in the Ryazan region": despite the fact that the majority of parishioners are neophytes who had no experience of religious life in the Soviet era, their religiosity is largely based on ideas that have been formed in the past.-

page 254
at that time: "the emphasis on asceticism, the need for spiritual care among the elders, the desire for isolation from the outside world" (p. 78).

The same section contains a rather biased article by Roman Lunkin, " Parishes and Monasteries of the Russian Orthodox Church: the Hidden Power of Russian Society." At the beginning of the article, the author asks the question: "is the Church capable of changing society and its consciousness, making it more socially oriented and democratic?" and as a result, he gives an unequivocally positive answer to it. Moreover, "society and the Church mutually influence each other - the ROC democratizes as it becomes involved in social life" (p.139). However, it seems to me that the author's conclusion is too optimistic. On the one hand, religious institutions, despite their inherent conservatism, are indeed capable of changing, and these changes can be caused, among other things, by processes taking place in society. However, as a rule, it is a strong exaggeration to speak of "democratic" tendencies in traditional religions, and even more so to consider them as the main agents of civil society formation.

As a positive example, R. Lunkin cites the activities of the parish of fr. Dmitry Smirnov, known for his "social and educational activities". And, in addition, he, according to the author, "openly responds to modern trends in Orthodoxy and some innovations in modern culture." However, it is rather strange to characterize the activity of a parish only in terms of its internal organization and social activity, even if it is very effective, without taking into account its ideology (strictly conservative in this particular case); only by evaluating the latter can we draw conclusions and give estimates. However, in academic work, it is better to refrain from such direct assessments. One of the most interesting texts of the book is Zhanna Kormina's chapter " Orthodox Sociality Regimes in Modern Russia: parishioners, pilgrims, networkers." A researcher from St. Petersburg manages to find a convincing explanation for the significant gap between the number of people who declare their Orthodoxy and the number of deeply ecclesiastical people who lead a regular parish life. The author argues that "a parish or community is only one of the 'religious regimes' that exist in modern Orthodoxy " (p. 191). The article deals with three issues:

page 255
Two modes of Orthodox sociality that involve different degrees and ways of involvement in religious life: "regular Orthodoxy", "network Orthodoxy" and "irregular (recreational) Orthodoxy" - and, accordingly, three types of Orthodox Christians that collide and co-exist around the grave of a famous elder on Zalita Island in the Pskov region.

In his article "Reform and Rebirth in Two Moscow Orthodox Subcultures: Two Ways to Make Orthodoxy Modern", Alexander Aghajanyan analyzes the Transfiguration Community of Small Orthodox Brotherhoods and the parish of Sts. Kosma and Damian in a fur coat. These Moscow religious associations, which have a reputation for being" intellectual " and "liberal," stand out markedly from the rest, and they share certain key characteristics: "christocentrism," orientation to "direct communication with the text [of Holy Scripture], deep catechism, the important role of preaching, a pronounced "collective identity", etc. P. In general, the author notes, "both church subcultures seem to have emerged from the same combination of religious and cultural traditions, a similar range of spiritual needs, and appealed to a similar urban environment" (p. 263). However, in the future, these groups diverged greatly: The commonwealth was focused on radical and consistent reforms, which led to conflict with the hierarchy, persecution and, as a result (and partly as a natural development of the original ideas), to the formation of a community more tightly united, more closed and homogeneous. The parish of Cosmas and Damian, which also experienced difficult times in the 1990s, "was forced to change its position somewhat, to seek a compromise; perhaps the price of such a compromise was a certain shift towards a more traditional, although not conservative, parish style" (p. 267). Despite the fact that both groups can be attributed to the modernist wing of the Church, the differences are fundamental: "modernism of the Commonwealth consists in an innovative program within the framework of Tradition <...>, which (the program) is implemented as a unified and mandatory one. In the case of the Kosmodamian parish, we can also talk about "modernism", but in a different sense-as a synonym for diversity and flexibility, openness to modern urban culture", (p. 275)

In the final section of the book "Grammar of Parish Culture", the authors discuss the values and core principles,

page 256
designing the life of parishes. For example, the French researcher Katie Rousselet in her chapter "On the relationship between priests and laity: Obedience and blessing" explores the interpretation of the concepts (and the practices behind them) of "obedience" and "blessing", their role in the life of parishioners and even the structure of the parish. These two concepts are key to characterizing the system of church authority, the whole type of relations within the Church. The author comes to the conclusion that these practices can be attributed to the forms of social connections that Laurent Thevenot called "grammar of the common through the close": "by giving a blessing and imposing obedience, the priest allows a person to become part of a community, a community, whether it is a church, parish or the whole Church, which are the common places he speaks about Thevenot" (p. 314). These attitudes, which are dominant in the Church, can be contrasted with the experience of "liberal grammar", which presupposes "coordination of mutual concessions".

I will not specifically focus on the other chapters of the book. It is only worth briefly mentioning Boris Knorre's interesting analysis of psychological types within the church subculture; Ivan Babaev's paradoxical conclusion about the "sacred individualism" prevailing in Russian Orthodoxy; an unusual case of self-organization of a parish community in Tyumen in the absence of a priest in the text of Roman Poplavsky and other chapters. In general, the book is one of the first attempts to study modern Russian Orthodoxy not at the level of official documents and statements of the ROC leadership, but at the "root" level, at the level of communities and parishes, and this approach immerses us in the real processes taking place in the Church. One can only regret that the collection's completely academic, but too neutral title is unlikely to attract potentially interested readers.

page 257

Permanent link to this publication: