However, this term and concept, “Orthodox liberalism”, is itself complicated. A polemic between a journalist for a liberal-leaning online media platform - Snob and a famous, and at times controversial, Orthodox scholar of religion with a focus on cults - Aleksandr Dvorkin - illustrates this complexity. Artem Naryshkin, “Khristianstvo i Patriotizm. Prodolzhenie Polemiki Artema Naryshkina i Aleksandra Dvorkina,” Snob., March 12, 2020, https://snob.ru/entry/189985/; Aleksandr Dvorkin, “Aleksandr Dvorkin: Est' Li Raskol v Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi? Otvet Artemu Naryshkinu,” Snob., March 10, 2020, https://snob.ru/entry/189872/; Aleksandr Dvorkin, “Net Ni Liberala, Ni Fundamentalista. Prodolzhenie Polemiki Artema Naryshkina i Aleksandra Dvorkina o Raskole v RPTs,” Snob., March 17, 2020, https://snob.ru/entry/190137/; Artem Naryshkin, “Artem Naryshkin: Fundamentalisty Protiv Liberalov: Protivostoianie Vnutri RPTs,” Snob., February 28, 2020. The journalist, Artyom Naryshkin argues that the ROC is split between "liberal" or "humanist" Christians and "fundamentalists". He lists Fr. Georgii as the first example of such a "liberal" priest. Dvorkin effectively attacks the entire premise of Naryshkin's argument that simply classifies ROC leaders into two distinct camps. One of his main examples: Fr. Georgii, whose views are so unique that he would be in strong disagreement on most social, political and theological points of almost all others Naryshkin listed as "liberals". Dvorkin, rather, refers to Fr. Georgii's movement as a "reformist group". Dvorkin, “Net Ni Liberala, Ni Fundamentalista. Prodolzhenie Polemiki Artema Naryshkina i Aleksandra Dvorkina o Raskole v RPTs.” And the Brotherhood, too, rejects the idea of it being “liberal” - which it associates with its second enemy within the church - secularism. “Tserkvi Nuzhno Ne Reformirovanie, a Vozrozhdenie,” Preobrazhenskoe Bratstvo, January 27, 2020, https://psmb.ru/a/tserkvi-nuzhno-ne-reformirovanie-a-vozrozhdenie.html. However, Dvorkin does not do this out of any sense of loyalty to the Brotherhood.

There is a strong perception within the ROC of the Brotherhood as a “sect” (a term used in Russia that generally means cult or cult-like group). Googling the Brotherhood reveals that this same claim litters what seems like hundreds of Orthodox websites. This accusation can likely be seen partially as a result of political and theological differences. Dvorkin and the aforementioned sites can also be generally classified as belonging to the “conservative” faction of the ROC, partially explaining their insistence on such criticism of Fr. Georgii and his movement. But it is more than just that, in the articles above Dvorkin describes Fr. Georgii as the “creator of a very tough group in which there is only one Supreme authority -- himself.” Dvorkin, “Aleksandr Dvorkin: Est' Li Raskol v Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi? Otvet Artemu Naryshkinu.” In an interview given almost a decade earlier, Dvorkin claimed that many elements of Fr. Georgii's movement resemble a "totalitarian sect". The Brotherhood rejects such a claim and has a longstanding feud with Dvorkin over such insinuations. For evidence of this feud, see this article published on the Brotherhood's website decrying Dvorkin's role in a committee set up by the state to oversee religious affairs back in 2009: Roman Lunkin, “Iustitsiia i Inkvizitsiia. Moskovskaia Patriarkhiia Vziala Na Sebia Otvetstvennost' Za «sektovedcheskuiu» Deiatel'nost' Dvorkina i Ko,” Preobrazhenskoe Bratstvo, April 9, 2009, https://psmb.ru/a/yusticiya-i-inkviziciya-moskovskaya-patriarhiya-vzyala-na-sebya-otvetstvennost-za-sektovedcheskuyu-deyatelnost-dvorkina-i-ko.html. Agadjianian steers clear of such derogatory language, but makes clear that the Brotherhood's “liberalism” is not in its form of community - for he finds them an “authoritarian community” based around their leader, Fr. Georgii - but rather in their “uniformity of innovative agenda”. Agadjanian, “Reform and Revival in Moscow Orthodox Communities”, 89-90. From the outset of building his movement Fr. Georgii saw “spiritual guidance” as “rigid” and was deliberate in the creation of his “chain of memory” claiming historical precedents within the ROC of “strong, real, highly autonomous community.” Agadjanian, “Reform and Revival in Moscow Orthodox Communities”, 79. As a result as a community, they are a "tightly-knit, boundary-conscious, authoritarian community. Agadjanian, “Reform and Revival in Moscow Orthodox Communities”, 79. Agadjianian sees Fr. Georgii as reproducing “a more conservative authoritarian pattern found in the Russian tradition.” He understands this aspect of their community through the framework of Sociologist Daniele Hervieu-Leger's idea of the “substantive” trend of religious modernity. This trend creates homogenous communities through creating "small worlds of certitudes which ensure an efficient way of putting-in-order individual experiences; therefore, such a community promotes homogeneity of shared truths, a common code of both beliefs and practices, and fixed group boundaries” (Agadjanian, “Reform and Revival in Moscow Orthodox Communities”, 89-91.). In my fieldwork, I noted similar tendencies within the Brotherhood though far from the idea of "totalitarian sect" advanced by Dvorkin.

In these circumstances, pinpointing exact socio-political or theological positions of ROC groupings is difficult and unnecessary. Suffice it to say, its position within the church is complex. However, its ultranationalist enemies within the church, and stances of “religious modernity” put it towards the other end of the political spectrum.

1.2 The Brotherhood's Historical Consciousness

I use the term historical consciousness to refer to the Brotherhood's beliefs and assumptions about the past and how they see these assumptions as relating to the present and future. As Sahlins wrote: “different cultural orders have their modes of historical action, consciousness, and determination - their historic practice." Sahlins, “Other Times, Other Customs: The Anthropology of History”, 518. I examine the Brotherhood as a micro-community with its own microculture. I examine three aspects of their historical consciousness. They are all important to gathering a holistic understanding of how the Brotherhood sees the past. Firstly, the Brotherhood believes firmly in and uses historicist historicity. Secondly, the Brotherhood has nonhistoricist beliefs stemming from their religious beliefs. Lastly, they have developed a unique understanding of memory and authenticity that dominates their narratives and perceptions of the past.

1.2.1 The Brotherhood's Historicist Historicity

Historicist history is history that fundamentally sees temporality as linear. In historicist historicity the past, present, and future are entirely separated spheres. They are knowable only through evidence and research. Palmie and Stewart outline this picture more fully:

The main tenets of historicism: (1) the assumption of temporal linearity; (2) chronological code; (3) basis in objective evidence/objectivity; (4) intentionally produced on the basis of research, usually in writing (historiography); (5) the separation of temporal zones--past, present, future; (6) the assumption that events are contingent and unpredictable; (7) the avoidance of anachronism--the past must be understood on its own terms; (8) causality as a standard mode of explanation. Palmié and Stewart, “Introduction: For an Anthropology of History”, 210.

Historicity is the common-sense idea of time that dominates Western society and “pathologizes” nonhistoricist views of seeing the past. Palmié and Stewart, “Introduction”, 18. Historicist history is held up by academicians and intellectuals as true history in the face of what many feel like today is a populist onslaught against facts. For examples of this kind of language see the following academic articles and news articles: Oscar Barrera et al., “Facts, Alternative Facts, and Fact Checking in Times of Post-Truth Politics,” Journal of Public Economics 182 (February 2020): 104123, doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104123; “Ten Alternative Facts for the Post Truth World | Books | The Guardian,” accessed April 17, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/12/post-truth-worst-of-best-donald-trump-sean-spicer-kellyanne-conway. Though the Brotherhood is a religious community, they are also an intellectual community. They take great pride in their historicist history work with and within intellectual and academic communities.

The first thing you see when you walk into the Brotherhood's public space in St. Petersburg, dubbed "Pokrovskii Ostrov", is a bookshelf that spans the height and length of the wall. Their entire foyer doubles as a bookstore/ library; filled with books - many of them authored by persons associated with the Brotherhood and published by small Brotherhood-affiliated publishers. This place is called Pokrovskii Ostrov which in their own words on its social media page is a “volunteer's project, made by people who believe in the power of education”. “KPTs `Pokrovskii Ostrov,'” accessed April 17, 2020, https://vk.com/pokrov_ostrov. It holds a small library, a medium-sized auditorium with a small backroom and kitchen. Here they held their conference, “Ethics after the Gulag”. This conference serves as a major point of research for this chapter and should thus be introduced here.

The 50 to 70 participants of the conference seemed to be mostly Brotherhood members. And this is despite attempts by the Brotherhood to invite people from outside the Brotherhood. They were diverse in age and gender (though there were more people over 40 than under 40 and more women than men) though almost exclusively ethnically Russian. This conference also exposed me for the first time to the Brotherhood's historical consciousness. This self-dubbed “applied academic” conference was entitled “Ethics after the Gulag” and consisted of two parts. The plenary session with a series of lawyers, historians and theologians speaking on the topic, “Moral and Spiritual Norms Historically and Today” and then breakout groups of three roundtables (one for representatives of the Church, the other for representatives of education and culture and the last for representatives of volunteering and social work) discussing “Who and How are the Spiritual and Moral Norms of Society being formed?” n.a., “Programma Nauchno-Prakticheskoi Konferentsii `ETIKA POSLE «GULAGa»,'” May 6, 2019. I received the invitation to the conference through a forwarded email from professors at both the European University of St. Petersburg and the Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg. They received the email as part of the Brotherhood's attempt to make the conference both academic and interdisciplinary despite its obvious religious, moralizing, and spiritual overtones. Overtones found in the conference program that opened with a Bible verse from Proverbs “Wisdom has Built Her House”. These overtones are important to the Brotherhood's understanding of the past as a concept.

As mentioned previously the conference brought a range of speakers, mostly but not exclusively Brotherhood members, but also others: two professors of Culturology, one holding the equivalent of a Ph.D. in history. People who doubtless hold historicist historical views of the past. They partner and work with people from that framework.

Another example of this is a program the Brotherhood runs in St. Petersburg called “Historical Conversations.” This is a monthly seminar given by a panel of historical and cultural experts about controversial topics from Russia's 20^th century. Though 1-2 out of the 4 or so experts are usually from within the Brotherhood, the rest are university professors from well-known and less well-known universities, museum directors, etc. Again, all people whom it is assumed to understand history through the historicist paradigm. And these lectures not only illustrate how the Brotherhood hosts events within the broader historicist historicity framework but also is accepted by people from those circles as being legitimate.

In a similar vein, at this conference, the Brotherhood impressed with the high level of historical knowledge shown by speakers and participants in general, too. As someone who feels that I know the history of Russia in the 20^th century well, I have never encountered a group of people who knew it so well. In many ways, though, this should not have surprised me. In Moscow, their activity largely centers around their St. Philaret's Christian Orthodox Institute. On its website, it is self-described as "a secular institution of higher learning". St. Philarets Christian Orthodox Institute, “About Us,” accessed February 24, 2020, https://sfi.ru/en/about.html. It's four departments include one on “Russian social history” and it lists as its priorities aside spiritual studies, “history of the Russian Church and Society in the 20^th century." And this is not just any history. In this institute, they do historicist history. It follows the rules of temporal linearity. It is document and evidence based. Many of the Brotherhood's members are members of secular academia. And they work closely with intellectuals and academicians outside of the Brotherhood, most tellingly, perhaps, is their partnership with Theodore Shanin. This partnership lasted until his recent passing away. “«On Znal, Chto Takoe Pravda i Spravedlivost' Ne Dlia Sebia» | Preobrazhenskoe Bratstvo,” accessed April 17, 2020, https://psmb.ru/a/on-znal-chto-takoe-pravda-i-spravedlivost-ne-dlia-sebia.html.

Perhaps the most obvious way in which the Brotherhood publicly uses and agrees with historicist history is in their “Prayer of Remembrance” event wherein they have the names of the victims of the Soviet Repressions read aloud. In St. Petersburg they partner closely with the Russian National Library (more on this later in the thesis) and use its extensive historical work documenting all those from Leningrad and St. Petersburg repressed by the Soviet state. This is a huge historicist historical work and the basis for all the names that are read that day. The Brotherhood does more than just associate with persons using the historicist historicity framework, they actively use it themselves.

As mentioned earlier, an important part of nonhistoricist historicity is how it has been “pathologized”. Thus, if the Brotherhood was broadly seen as understanding history nonhistoricistly than it is not likely they would be able to so easily mingle with secular and academic historians. Of course, other factors contribute to these partnerships, not just their historicist historicity. They give a platform to the public for scholars, something scholars often find lacking. Their work as memory actors - promoting a narrative condemning of the Soviet Repressions - also likely endears them to many of these same people. The term "Soviet Repressions" used throughout this thesis needs defining. This term is taken from Russian historiography as it is rarely used in English-language works. It is a broad term that encompasses all repressive mechanisms used by the Soviet state against its people for political reasons. In Russian these Soviet Repressions are often called "political repressions". In popular perception, the term is most often used to describe the crimes of Stalin's regime (often called "Stalinist Repressions"). But in my work, I take the broader understanding - which includes any political repressions of Soviet authorities from 1917 to 1991 - because this is a viable definition, and the definition used by the Brotherhood whose memory acting is the subject of this thesis. As I was told repeatedly in interviews, the Brotherhood promotes “authentic history” as opposed to the fake history, presumably propagated by the state and ROC hierarchy. Interview with Anna Lepekhina, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 22, 2019. This is a goal that many academics and liberals would support. The irony is that the Brotherhood itself promotes a less than controversial understanding of the past - if not in content, than in form. However, an important part of their historical consciousness is historicist in the academic sense of the word, and this is shown by their work and their partnership with people who understand the past in that way.

1.2.2 The Brotherhood's Christian Historicity

Stewart and Palmie indicate that even in Western society that the historicist historicity paradigm of understanding the past is likely not the dominant mode of seeing the past. Though the opposite is often assumed. They propose recognizing society's “plurality of historicities and their fusions”. Palmié and Stewart, “Introduction: For an Anthropology of History”, 229. This “fusion” can be found in the Brotherhood's historicity. Their historical consciousness works often works within historicist paradigm, but in significant ways it differs, too.

The first way the Brotherhood's historical consciousness differs relates to the Christian faith in general. Certain religious beliefs, held by the Brotherhood but common to almost all Christian religions, logically contradict the secular historicist historicity understanding of the past. This point is controversial because scholarship rightly points out that an aspect that made Christianity unique when it first appeared was how it contrasted with local understandings of temporality. For instance, the Greeks and Romans believed in time, not as something with a definite end and start, but rather as cyclical. Christians saw things differently. Time had a start - Creation - and a proposed end - Christ's Second Coming and mankind was in progress between the two points. See, for example, this argumentation: “To the Greeks and the Romans, history was an operation against time, an attempt to save human deeds from the futility of oblivion. Time was seen as cyclical, an order embodied in Nature to which men must submit the rhythm of their lives. To defeat time and gain the permanence of the natural universe would mean to enter into the everlasting, to insert the mortal into the realm of cosmic immortality. For Christians, on the other hand, time is linear, beginning with Creation and closing with Christ's Second Coming and the day of Last Judgement, and bifurcated in the middle by the central event in the Christian scheme of the world, the Incarnation - the appearance of Christ - which gives meaning to the time which preceded and the time which succeeds His Coming. Man is no longer trapped in the treadmill of a meaningless revolution of events but locates himself within the human economy of salvation represented by the progress of human history" (Lloyd Kramer and Sarah Maza, eds., A Companion to Western Historical Thought (Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., 2002), doi:10.1002/9780470998748, 81.) This, though doubtless true, does not mean that all of the Christian beliefs fit the historicist paradigm of the past. I identify three closely related elements of Christian religious beliefs held by the Brotherhood that contradict historicist historicity. The first is the belief in spiritual, non-visible, forces that act in history. The second is the belief in an eternal, unchanging God who created time and exists outside of time. The last is the belief in the eternal life of all humans - life after death. Both of these beliefs impact the Brotherhood's historical consciousness.

A Brotherhood leader illustrated how they see spiritual forces as actors in the past and present in conversation with me. “We say that we do not have much historical time, and the spiritual situation decides [the fate of] everything.” Interview with Anna Lepekhina, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. August 22, 2019. She then said that we can only change the situation with prayer - politics [and political solutions] is all pride. A political scientist cannot and will not undertake to measure prayer as a factor affecting change in the present. The Brotherhood sees it as a spiritual factor affecting the present and the past. Their references to 1917 call it not a political or even social disaster but rather a “spiritual catastrophe” or “spiritual treason.” Interview with Anna Lepekhina, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 22, 2019. A historian cannot and will not undertake to measure prayer as a factor affecting change in the past. This understanding of the past is not based on evidence or objectivity, a major tenet of historicist historicity. The Brotherhood does because of the spiritual way they see the present and the past.

The second way the Brotherhood's Christian religious beliefs significantly impact their historical consciousness is their belief in a timeless God. In one interview I was told that "God gave us time and history; these are the gifts of God.” Interview with Anna Lepekhina, Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. August 22, 2019. But though the Christian God exists outside of time - He and other spiritual forces are also considered a historical actor at all times. As mentioned previously, the “treason” against God in 1917 is seen as a factor, if not the primary factor that caused the revolution. This, of course, cannot be proven in any sort of historicist paradigm. But this does not bother the Brotherhood.

The more important implication of the belief in God is one that ties directly into one of the central themes of their memory acting - repentance. According to their beliefs, the Christian God that they worship exists not only now, but He existed in 1917. And this is a God betrayed by Russia and her people. Logically, meaning He is owed repentance for this treason. Fr. Georgii's words spoken the end of a huge international conference hosted by the Brotherhood on the occasion of 100 years since the Russian Revolution illustrate this kind of thinking:

We walk on bones. Tens of millions of victims cry out to the sky, whether we want it or not, whether we have a desire to take revenge or not - all the same, this blood cries out to God. "I have forgiven"? You can forgive the murderers of your father, your grandfather, but you can't forgive the murderers of 65 million people! Only God can. www.ogkochetkov.ru, “K Itogam 1917-Go Goda. Chast' 1. Kto Vinovat?,” Preobrazhenskoe Bratstvo, accessed February 24, 2020, https://psmb.ru/a/k-itogam-1917-go-goda-chast-1-kto-vinovat.html.

Fr. Georgii sees repentance as important not just because of God's timelessness and guilt before Him (though this is implied), but also because in Fr. Georgii's thinking He is the only one capable of forgiving these past crimes. This quote also brings us to the last point about their Christian religious historicity - their belief in life after death.

Fr. Georgii makes it clear that the blood of these people cries out to God. His words give agency to people who are dead. People the historicist framework denies agency to. This same thought was expressed differently at the end of the conference in a way that even secular persons might agree with. The president of the Brotherhood, Dmitrii Gasak shared: “We have a responsibility to those in the past, to have solidarity with them [to uncover the truth about the past].” Summary remarks at “Ethics after the Gulag” conference by Dmitrii Gasak, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 06, 2019. This quote can be explained spiritually or not spiritually - though he spoke in a context that emphasized the spiritual dimension. On the other hand, perhaps the potential secular nature of this quote points to the resilience of nonhistoricist thinking even among secular persons.

As practitioners of the historic Christian religion, the Brotherhood holds spiritual and religious understandings that impact their historical consciousness. Despite a strong grounding in the historicist historicity paradigm. Their belief in invisible and unmeasurable spiritual forces in history, their belief in the eternal and timeless God, and life after death all have implications that contradict this paradigm.

1.2.3 The Brotherhood's Understanding of Memory

The Brotherhood's understanding of pamyat (memory) further sets their historical consciousness apart from academic historicist historicity. Through this concept the Brotherhood sees itself as "touching the past". Palmié and Stewart, “Introduction”, 2.

Our goal is to “restore podlinnyi (authentic) memory” of these events, I was told in one interview. Interview with Anna Lepekhina, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 22, 2019. What my interviewee mean by “authentic memory”? Dmitrii Volnenko, a high school literature teacher, moderated one of the panel discussions at the second part of the conference, and his words help shed light on the answer to this question. He said the following: “[In our panel discussion] we talked about how memory is a source of virtue, alongside literature and poetry, etc.” Summary remarks at "Ethics after the Gulag" conference by Dmitrii Volnenko, a Brotherhood member. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 06, 2019. Thus he refers to memory as a source of virtue. Understanding this concept is difficult but important. Here he compares it to literature and poetry - sources from which people can learn about how to live and the difference between right and wrong. For Orthodox Christians, especially the Brotherhood, the Bible and church tradition is customarily considered a source of virtue. But here Dmitrii is elevating memory, as understood by the Brotherhood, to also be a source of virtue - a place where the bearer of the memory can learn how to live morally. This memory thus is not quite what the word means in its common usage. It's something more than personal memories, and in this sense is more similar to the academic understanding of "cultural memory," especially as understood by Jan Assmann.

Cultural memory, according to Jan Assmann - one of the foremost scholars on this topic - is the memory that helps humans make sense of a “multimillennial temporal horizon and a specific universe of meaning, as well as a concept of--however diversified and heterogeneous--individual and collective identity.” Jan Assmann, “Memory and Culture,” in Memory: A History, ed. Dmitri Nikulin (Oxford University Press, 2015), 325-49, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793839.003.0016, 325. It is the memory that is "embedded in cultural frames, such as the landscape or townscape we grew up in, the texts we learned, the feasts we celebrated, the churches or synagogues we frequented, the music we listened to and, above all, the stories we were told that shape how we live." Assmann, “Memory and Culture”, 332. In this sense, it is distinct from history or historicity but in the case of the Brotherhood, it plays an important role if not in their historicity than at least their historical consciousness. Knowing this helps us make sense of references such as the following one by Fr. Georgi.

People have no memory, let them know - here was a Cathedral, so little authentic is left, we need to take the crumbs and creatively work with them. This is all the restoration of norms - which norms? - remembering those who died. Teach[ing] people how to live by their consciences. “Ethics after the Gulag” round table discussion speech by Fr. Georgii Mitrofanov, a ROC priest but not a member of the Brotherhood. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 06, 2019.

Here Fr. Georgii exposes the Brotherhood's focus on cultural memory through their fixture on toponomy.

They are quite bothered by the fact that so many streets throughout Russia bear not their pre-Revolutionary name, but the name given to them during the Soviet regime. And Fr. Georgii sees this as a problem. In his opinion, this causes people to “have no memory.” Renaming streets, rebuilding cathedrals (or memorializing the fact that they used to stand here) would, in his opinion restore “authenticity” to the landscape, and thus restore Russia's “memory”. And this loops back to the Brotherhood's idea of memory as a source of virtue. Restoring these names and this “memory” will help “restore norms” and “teach people how to live by their consciences.”

This brings us back to our starting point, my conversation with Elena over dinner at the end of the conference. She told me that the memory was considered a virtue by the Brotherhood. But she added, “alongside other Christian virtues.” She then went on to tell me what I already mentioned, that the “memory” of her ancestors who were Orthodox brought her “back” to the Church. And her use of the word memory here seems to go beyond the bounds of an academic understanding of personal, communicative, or cultural memory. This is a mystic memory - a memory with agency - that came into her personal life, presumably uninvited, and brought her to the Church, to God. But its source was personal, it was her ancestors. Somehow their memory lived in her. Such an understanding of memory is part and parcel of their understanding of the past, of their historical consciousness. This is largely inexplicable but points to the Brotherhood - as a Christian religious organization - as having a multidimensional understanding of memory.

During the plenary session of the conference, one priest, a member of the Brotherhood, spoke about the Brotherhood's long (over a year) catechism process for interested and potential future members of the Brotherhood. "This catechism destroys myths. People lived as if God did not exist, but He did. As a result of this catechism, people get the gift of memory… without God, it is impossible to restore memory." Speech between reports at “Ethics after the Gulag” conference by Iulia Balakshina, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 06, 2019. If it seems impossible to restore personal memory and (at the very least difficult) to restore cultural memory - then God can. Christian teaching, including Orthodox teaching, relies on the New Testament, which records Jesus as saying, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matt. 19:26 ESV And this seems to be an example of the Brotherhood attempting to believe and achieve the impossible - the restoration of memory (and authenticity). Thus, the Brotherhood proclaims a spiritual gift of memory that can only be given by God. A gift from God that is essential to their Christian faith. The significance of this belief cannot be overappreciated for it, in turn, impacts their understanding of the past and how they live that out.

For the Brotherhood “memory” is more than one's memories but also more than just cultural memory. And it is integral to their historical consciousness. For them, it is a source of virtue that can restore “authenticity” and moral norms. It also entails a spiritual and/ or mystical element. And in this sense, they see it as a gift from God, exclusively. Interestingly enough, I finished my conversation with Elena telling me that everyone in the Brotherhood works on history and memory, as it is important for them. For her part, she sews traditional Russian dresses as a form of “keeping memory alive.” Informal Conversation with Elena, a Brotherhood member. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 6, 2019.

Memory lies at the heart of their understanding of the Christian faith. And this complex understanding of memory plays an important role in their understanding of the past.

1.3 Conclusion

This chapter answers these two questions: what is the Brotherhood? and what is their historical consciousness? The answer to the first question is simpler. The Brotherhood is a ROC community and organization that primarily gains members through a religious process of catechization. However, they are also a community of faith that see history/ memory as important to their faith. Thus, they actively promote an understanding of Russia's history (as they understand it) among their members, the ROC and society as a whole. The answer to the second question is more complex. The Brotherhood's historical consciousness is grounded in the world of historicist historicity. Yet, it is also distinct. Elements of their Christian faith - belief in a timeless God, life after death, and in the idea of spiritual forces as actors in history and today - led to nonhistoricist interpretations of the past. Moreover, they understand memory as a gift from God, as something with agency (perhaps from God) that is central to the spiritual (re)birth process. This also contradicts aspects of historicist historicity.

Their understanding of memory, as mentioned previously, is largely similar to cultural memory as defined by Jan Assmann. But it is more complex and more spiritual than that definition, too. In some ways, this chapter echoes the work of the famous criticism of Chakrabarty about Western historicism. He claims that historicist historicity could not take seriously the world of Indian peasants in the 19^th century who believed in “gods and spirits”. Historicity is implicitly and explicitly affected by such beliefs. Historicities affected by these beliefs should be investigated seriously - as they are likely found far more commonly among peoples even of the Western world than some type of “purer” historicist historicity, as argued by Stewart and Palmie. Palmié and Stewart, “Introduction”, 6.

I do not go so far as to claim that the Brotherhood operates outside of historicist historicity, but simply that aspects of their historical consciousness, strictly speaking, conflict with some of the primary tenets of historicist historicity. And in this way, the Brotherhood is mixing historicities and can be classified as a form of “hybrid historicity.” Palmié and Stewart, “Introduction: For an Anthropology of History”, 227. This is a classification that impacts how scholars can better understand how they view what happened in the past and how they propagate this understanding. Before looking at those two latter concepts, though, it was essential to examine their historical consciousness. As Stewart points out, it is all too easy for researchers to “highlight the political content of counterhistories and neglect the particular principles and practices on which they depend.” Stewart, “Historicity and Anthropology”, 81. Now that these principles have been examined it's appropriate to examine both the content of the Brotherhood's counterhistory and its practices.

2. The Brotherhood's Critical Memory

Victory Day and memory of the Great Patriotic War is sacred in Russia. It is Russia's foundational myth. It is so not only because of relentless promotion by the Russian state. The trauma and heroism of the War are strongly ingrained in the personal family memory of most Russians. A great body of authors and researchers agree on this, here follows a list of the main authors and their works where this idea is found: Nikolay Koposov, “The Politics of History in Post-Soviet Russia,” n.d., 23.Elizabeth A. Wood, “Performing Memory: Vladimir Putin and the Celebration of World War II in Russia,” The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review 38, no. 2 (September 1, 2011): 172-200, doi:10.1163/187633211X591175; Galina Mikhaleva, Alexei Miller, and Ivo Mijnssen, “History Writing and National Myth-Making in Russia,” ETH Zurich, 2010, doi:10.3929/ethz-a-006248988, 6; Olga Malinova, “Ofitsial'nyi Istoricheskii Narrativ Kak Element Politiki Identichnosti v Rossii: Ot 1990-kh k 2010-m Godam,” Polis. Politicheskie Issledovaniia, no. 6 (November 2016): 139-58, 155.; Mark Edele, “Fighting Russia's History Wars: Vladimir Putin and the Codification of World War II,” History and Memory 29, no. 2 (2017): 90, doi:10.2979/histmemo.29.2.05, 107. In this light, these words by a Brotherhood leader shocked: “this [Victory in the Great Patriotic War] is more of a tragedy, a reason to repent.” Such rare and bold statements risk not only state censure but public outcry. Perhaps the most famous example of this is when a politically liberal cable news channel lost the right to broadcast after a questioning a tenant of this heroic narrative of the Great Patriotic War (“Telekanal `Dozhd''": Blokada Massovoi Informatsii :: Obshchestvo :: RBK,'” accessed April 17, 2020, https://www.rbc.ru/society/04/02/2014/570416f89a794761c0ce6571.) and that was before the passing of a law on the “protection” of historical memory of the Great Patriotic War (“Podpisan Zakon, Napravlennyi Na Protivodeistvie Popytkam Posiagatel'stv Na Istoricheskuiu Pamiat' v Otnoshenii Sobytii Vtoroi Mirovoi Voiny * Prezident Rossii,” accessed April 17, 2020, http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20912.). Yet, the Brotherhood does not hide this view. At the conference “Ethics after the Gulag”, Fr. Mitrofanov, a seminary professor at the ROC's St. Petersburg Spiritual Academy and friend of the Brotherhood, called the contemporary celebrations of Victory: “pobedabesiye”. This is a portmanteau that combines the Russian words for victory and demon. It is possibly connected to the word “mrakobesiye” (a word often associated with fundamentalists within the ROC - those who hate progress and science) or “gortanobesiye” (gluttony - an obsession with food)) implying the way Victory is celebrated is obsessive to the point of a loss of sanity. “Ethics after the Gulag” round table discussion speech by Fr. Georgii Mitrofanov, a ROC priest but not a member of the Brotherhood. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 06, 2019. (It turns out this word has been popular for almost 5 years in circles that criticize the state's narratives and ways of celebrating Victory but was likely coined by Fr. Mitrofanov in 2005 (For evidence of this see: “Khronika - Pobedobesie,” accessed April 17, 2020, https://pobedobesie.info/.).) As a researcher, I could not understand why the Brotherhood so easily crossed this cultural norm. A norm held tightly by the court of public opinion, and in the court of law, too. However, the more I researched the more I realized that such statements were a logical outcome of their historical memory narratives.

The Brotherhood promotes a subversive historical memory narrative - its proposed shared vision of Russia's history - that contend with the historical memory narratives offered by both the ROC hierarchy and top leaders in the Russian state. Firstly, a brief note on my definition of the “Russian state” - defining this term, as it represents a huge entity with a high level of internal diversity, is difficult. I will, however, unless otherwise stated, be referring to the state as the highest officials and those generally accepted to be empowered to speak on the state's behalf. This is in line with studies of memory politics of the state that analyze Putin or other top officials to understand the state's memory politics (for examples of this type of usage see these works: Wood, “Performing Memory: Vladimir Putin and the Celebration of World War II in Russia”; Miguel Vázquez Liñán, “History as a Propaganda Tool in Putin's Russia,” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 43, no. 2 (June 2010): 167-78, doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2010.03.001.) This is in line with a scholar of memory in the Spanish context who defines historical memory as a group's constructed “selective representation of its own imagined past.” (C P Boyd, “The Politics of History and Memory in Democratic Spain,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 617, no. 1 (May 1, 2008): 133-48, doi:10.1177/0002716207312760, 134.) It is a narrative that rejects these narratives, promotes alternative visions of the past, and sees the past as tainting Russia's present. Their historical memory narrative paints the ROC hierarchy and Russian state as largely "inauthentic" and "illegitimate" due to their connections to this "tainted past". Their narrative is particularly subversive because it doubly undermines the authority and power of the Russian state and ROC hierarchy. Firstly, it attacks the historical memory narratives propagated by these institutions, ones these institutions use to secure a sense of legitimacy. Secondly, it promotes a narrative that intentionally calls them out as illegitimate. As the Brotherhood understands, only by embracing their historical memory narratives - a past which implies the necessity of repentance - can “authenticity” and “legitimacy” be restored to these institutions and Russian society as a whole.

In this way, their historical memory can be considered a form of critical memory. I transfer this term, originally coined by Houston Baker Jr. - a writer, literary critic, and distinguished African American academic, from the field of literary criticism. Critical memory promotes narratives of past injustice and fighters for justice and connects them in different ways to the present day. Its memory that demands action but also proposes new heroes. And it's politically subversive not just to the hegemonic memory narratives and memory actors but also the powers that be.

This chapter attempts to answer the following research questions. What exactly are the Brotherhood's historical memory narratives in the context of more dominant historical memory narratives? How do they see them as connecting to the present?

2.1 The Brotherhood's Narrative

Myths are the building blocks of narratives. Myths, in the academic sense of the word, is neither a falsehood nor a truth. They are “simplified and emotionally coloured narratives,” according to Malinova. Malinova, “Politika Pamiati Kak Oblast' Simvolicheskoi Politiki”, 32. The Brotherhood's myths, simplified, follow. Before 1917 the ROC and Russia represented "authentic" Russia despite problems. Then came the Revolutions. They led to a revival of Church life through the first Church council held in centuries. These proved short-lived and were followed by harsh Soviet Repressions. The Brotherhood sees the Revolutions and their resulting Bolshevik regime with its persecution of the Church as the logical outcome of a “spiritual crisis”. Conversation with Dmitrii Volnenko, a Brotherhood member. St. Petersburg, Russia. August 22, 2019 The Brotherhood's narrative continues: the ROC hierarchy unsuccessfully resisted the Soviet government. Eventually they compromised themselves spiritually by working with the Soviet state. In their opinion only Orthodox brotherhoods and informal spiritual communities successfully resisted the Soviet state's attempts to stamp out religious life. Within this context the Soviet state martyred “authentic" believers who refused to compromise in the 1920s and 1930s. Historiographically the Great Patriotic War marks the period when the Soviet state changes its stance towards officially the allowing the ROC to exist. The Brotherhood's narrative admits this change but says that the state only used this as a means to control Church life even more. Interview with Anna Lepekhina, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. August 22, 2019. The narrative also claims that outside of the Church the Soviet state - as not just an antichristian phenomenon, but as an anti-Russian phenomenon - destroyed much of “authentic” Russian culture. Through destroying the ROC, but also through its destruction of peasant life and its persecution and driving out of the intelligentsia. These are their myths about Russia's 20^th century, in short. These are myths that paint the whole Soviet period as a period of Repressions.

This narrative might not appear particularly unique or interesting unless seen in the context of other memory actors' narratives and myths. In many ways, their narrative of Russia's 20^th Century is not too different from that promoted by Memorial and other politically liberal segments of society. Olga Solodnikova, “«Ob"ediniat' Narod, Voskreshaia Pamiat'»,” Preobrazhenskoe Bratstvo, October 24, 2018, https://psmb.ru/a/obediniat-narod-voskreshaia-pamiat.html. Just as these narratives contend with the publicly known and accepted narratives, so too the Brotherhood's narrative. As Khazanov points out, on a whole the Russian public refused to accept any sense of “collective guilt” for the crimes of the Soviet Union. Anatoly M. Khazanov, “Whom to Mourn and Whom to Forget? (Re)Constructing Collective Memory in Contemporary Russia,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 9, no. 2-3 (June 2008): 293-310, doi:10.1080/14690760802094917, 299-300. One of the most famous scholars on Russia's public memory of the Soviet Repressions, Andrew Etkind, uses one word to describe the public's stance towards them: “apathy.” Alexander Etkind, “Post-Soviet Hauntology: Cultural Memory of the Soviet Terror,” Constellations 16, no. 1 (March 2009): 182-200, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8675.2009.00527.x, 187. Whereas the Brotherhood sees "working through the hard past" - borrowing from the post-WWII German memory experience - as essential. This is the opposite of indifference and apathy, in their opinion. And they actively call for Russia to "work through its hard past," - work most evidence in a recently commissioned sociological survey using some of Russia's top scholars and the launch of an accompanying website. “Preodolenie Trudnogo Proshlogo: Stsenarii Dlia Rossii,” accessed April 17, 2020, http://trudnaya-pamyat.ru/#rec146554905.

Still, the Brotherhood's narrative is distinct from other memory actors, including Memorial and even other Orthodox groups - though at times there is much overlap. In my research, I found my contact and interviews with two persons - Anna Lepekhina and Dmitrii Volnenko - to be especially helpful in understanding the Brotherhood's narratives and bringing them to life.

The first was my primary contact - Anna Lepekhina. She is one of the main local leaders of the Brotherhood and, as I mentioned earlier, a student of history through the Brotherhood's St. Philaret's Institute. I first met her at the conference, “Ethics after the Gulag” and found her excited to share with me when I arranged our first interview. I always found her open, informative, and aware of not just the Brotherhood's local activities, but also its goals as a national organization and the ins and outs of their religious, philosophical and historical underpinnings. In this sense, I can safely claim that she spoke not just as a representative of the St. Petersburg branch, but of the whole organization.

On top of this Lepekhina is more than aware of the Brotherhood's historical memory, as she participates in the historical work that underpins some of it. She is currently doing her master's thesis research on the fate of the different Orthodox brotherhoods and informal spiritual communities that formed in the early 1920s. She hypothesizes that they continued to exist in the 1960s and 1970s (and thus represented the survival of the "authentic" church). Her first Masters, also completed at their institute, studied the process of the New Martyrs and included sharp criticism of the process and result. Interview with Anna Lepekhina, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. May 22, 2019. However, her most interesting work is that of building bridges between different individuals, groups, institutions, and organizations that see Russia's historical memory similarly. For example, when I met up with Lepekhina for our second interview, she asked that we meet at the Dostoyevsky Memorial Museum in St. Petersburg.

The museum was hosting an exhibit made by the Brotherhood entitled “Man at the Break.” The exhibit highlighted the tragedy and evil of the Revolutionary events of 1917 and 1918 - a mainstay of the Brotherhood's historical memory narratives. Interview with Anna Lepekhina, a Brotherhood leader. St. Petersburg, Russia. August 22, 2019. According to her narrative, the exhibition was made not by professional historians from recognized academic or cultural institutions but made through the collective work of members of the Brotherhood. Conversation with Dmitrii Volnenko, a Brotherhood member. St. Petersburg, Russia. August 22, 2019 Here I talked with Dmitrii Volnenko, a high school literature teacher and figure mentioned in chapter 1, who also gave me an informal guided tour of the exhibit. He also shared his understanding of the Brotherhood's historical memory narratives. This proved an invaluable source, too.