EDITH KURZWEIL
455
ism and nationalism, as well as meeting the challenges of education and
globalization. How was PR addressing these troubles? I was asked.
As Professor Shestopal summarized later on, we did end up covering
such topics as tradition and innovation, utopia and religion, genera–
tional changes and multiculturalism, education and the position of elites
in democracies, the influences of economic and cultural differences,
problems of gender, and the victim mentality. I was as frustrated having
to jump from topic to topic, and unable to expand on any of them, as I
was by my inability to understand any of the occasional asides in Russ–
ian, and therefore the underlying politics. As our discussion progressed,
and my interlocutors realized that I was sincere (or naive???), they
tended
to
open up, and
in
the end we agreed that in spite of all the dif–
ferences in our personal and national histories and cultural givens, we
shared common concerns about the future. I was particularly struck by
their recurrent worries, and implied helplessness, when wondering
about what to teach students in order to prepare them for the new
global world.
More than one participant talked eloquently and in depth about reli–
gious practices and beliefs, which
in
Russia had soared after the fall of
communism. Professor Zonova spoke of her and her (Russian Ortho–
dox) students' close contact with Italian Catholics, but regretted not
knowing anything about American Catholics. Again, I tried to explain
the vast differences
in
historical and cultural contexts, the diverse loca–
tions of religions within countries, and the meaning of religious devo–
tion to individuals. (No one,
it
occurred to me later on, ever mentioned
Judaism or Jews, or the Middle East.)
Calling religion a personal problem elicited a mention of Marxism,
which, in turn, brought forth laughter, along with the explanation that
some Marxists had been liberals, others Christian Orthodox or non–
Orthodox. Professor Zubov no longer recalled "the time when [he] was
a Marxist"-because "in [hisl heart [hel knew that the ways of life are
different from Marxist politics." By way of anecdotes, he exemplified
convincingly that some traditions are not as bad as had been assumed.
He then differentiated between retraditionalization and revivalism: the
former is an attempt to return to religious expression, whereas the lat–
ter, especially since September
II,
is not a Muslim revivalism, or real
fundamentalism, but an attempt to change the culture. He eloquently
explained why he favored a change in Russians' way of life, closer to
their own religious tradition. (I could not fault him, but asked whether
he was not talking about creating a more ethical society, where children
would learn to internalize, and live by, the morals taught by religion.)
