The second part of the interview. First part is blogged here. Transcript lightly edited for readability. Once again, a huge thanks to Sean and Rusana for the chance to talk about the book this is based on.

 Sean: Yeah. So let’s talk about these characters, other than Navalny and Putin, the protagonist and the antagonist of this drama. Let’s talk about your interlocutors. You treat your interlocutors as co-creators. You even revise the manuscript based on their comments. So can you tell us a bit more about them and their place in your book?

Jeremy: This book is full of very, very different people from different walks of life, and I, I hope that’s a strength of it. So I have people that I knew before I started doing ethnographic work who live in Kaluga region, people who work in factories, people who work just in the local authority, pensioners, students. And they gradually became part of my work. obviously the whole point of doing anthropology/ethnography is that you don’t hide the fact that you’re a researcher, although of course now I have to obscure things. You know, I can’t officially be doing research there. I would get into trouble for that, but there’s nothing to stop me talking to people, chatting to people and remembering what they’ve said to me. So there’s this kind of very difficult methodological dilemma going on, an ethical one as well. But largely, you know, I’m talking to people, some of whom I’ve known for 25 years.

They know that I’m gonna write something and that they may feature in that. And then there’s people in Moscow that are also part of this book in contrast to the previous book. and that was also important to kind of gauge the whether or not people in Moscow generally had different attitudes towards the war or not. And actually what I guess is surprising is that you find the same people in equal measures everywhere. You know, there isn’t this strong pro-war, bias in small, disadvantaged places where people think they’re gonna do well. There’s just as many “loyal xenophobes” in the upper middle class in Moscow, that are like, yeah, we like this war. We, you know, we’re gonna make Russia great again. You know, it’s a lot of stereotypes that we have to get over, get away from.

But when it comes to your question about including people In the research, this is what anthropologists are supposed to do. They’re supposed to have some kind of, reflexivity and feedback from the people that they are extracting resources from. I’m gaining things and I can never give back what I have got from these people. When it came to my previous book, I went around and gave people copies of this book and people translated it. and now with the internet and with AI, when I write something very often I say to people, look, you know, you told me about this ,Andrei ,working in a turbine factory making; you told me this right? I’ve written about it. I send them a link and I say, you tell me where, whether I was right or wrong. And sometimes they’ll say, “yeah, this is fine. sometimes they’ll say, that’s not what I meant. You got it completely wrong. You’re an idiot.” But that’s part and parcel.

And again, in this book, I have people that I wrote about before in depth, and I can almost do a kind of oral history of their life with them, because I’ve known them for 25 years or 15 years. And I could see how they’ve completely changed. And I document that in the book. People, especially people who have working biographies that I’m really familiar with. I talk a lot about their job prospects and how they feel about changing jobs and retraining and the opportunities. But also the risks that the war brings, particularly for blue collar workers, in these de-industrializing and now re-industrializing places. And I’m in a constant dialogue with many people about this. Now, of course, the war complicates that because some people are scared, rightly and wrongly about talking to me, whether it’s over Messenger apps or in social media, or even in person sometimes. So that complicates it. But still I’m trying my best to involve people in a dialogue. and that’s the best you can really hope for. And I would say that I’m probably the only person doing social research on Russia that is trying to do that.

Sean: since the war has come up repeatedly, let’s talk about that. ’cause that is one of the big questions that people who even pay attention to Russia are interested in. And you say that in response to the outbreak of the war, which you say was shocking to many people, and you have this concept of defensive consolidation. What does that mean?

Jeremy: It’s not a perfect formulation. I started with this very early in the war and I’ve adapted it and kind of tinkered with this term, but really it’s a response to what is very a Anglocentric imposition of the term “rally around the flag”.

So there’s all this work done on rally around the flag and how after 9/11 Americans rally around the flag and they strongly supported military intervention in Afghanistan. Iraq’s a little bit different as we know, but there’s this idea that there was a strong consensus, a rallying around the leader, massive increase in the popularity of Bush. And so, partly, rightly, partly wrongly, anglophone political scientists kind of impose this model on Russia because they see that Putin is super popular.

They also see that the annexation of Crimea led to a spike in his popularity and that his popularity supposedly is now also higher, as high as it’s ever been. Now, I think that’s misleading. I think that’s problematic on multiple levels, but defensive consolidation is my way of saying “Yeah, sure. When a country goes to war and it’s big war with a lot at stake, regardless of how people feel about the justifications and aims and the decision that the leader made, they fundamentally come to have to deal with that in their daily lives. But also they have to deal with that and thinking about the future of their society.”

And so defensive consolidation for me is a way that the war actually kind of makes people much more reflective on what they would like their society to look like in the long term, and indeed what is lacking and what potentialities are missing. and so here then defensive consolidation links back to history and all the lost opportunities of the last 37 years, back to the break up of the Soviet Union. And so it’s this longue durée: So it’s defensive because it prompts people to look to what they think the government could be doing and isn’t doing. And it’s consolidating also because they look to each other and they look to local sources of authority and leadership in this time of crisis as well. So it’s not rally around the flag. Because a positive sense of patriotism in the service of war is missing. That isn’t to say that people don’t become more patriotic, but as I’ve said, there’s a difference between nationalism and patriotism which goes back to George Orwell. There’s an essay by George Orwell on English patriotism where he, he tries to kind of, recover, recuperate patriotism in a non-aggressive way. I’m not saying that he’s totally successful, and I’m not saying that my concept is perfect, but it’s just this alternative to rally around the flag because fundamentally, I don’t believe, and the more I talk to people, the more I become, firmly convinced of this. I don’t believe that a majority support anything to do with the war. That is to say they don’t want to see more Russian people die. And they don’t want to see more Ukrainians die, actually.

I mean, I think we’re at the point now where most Russians would accept peace on terms short of the, the indictment of the leadership, the loss of territorial integrity of Russia as it was [after 2014], the loss of Crimea. They wouldn’t want that, but most Russians would accept a ceasefire. and that’s something, I mean, again, it, it’s a million miles away from I think what is still the dominant kind of paradigm, which is that Russians are enthusiastic for the war.

Sean: Mm-hmm. Yeah. No, they, they change all the time as we, as we know here too, Ana.

Rusana: I tell you this, I’m gonna borrow your term defensive consolidation for my work too, because I was doing field work during the war. So part of it was before the war, and then part of it was after the war started. And I also had a very acute sense of like, you know, I was trying to find like kind of a spectrum of opinion, even though like my work is not about the war at all.

But among the people I worked with, my interlocutors, I was looking for some sort of spectrum. And then I felt like after the war there was some sort of consolidation. You had to be, at least in the group of people I work with, you had to be pro-war, but not necessarily like you were saying because people felt like it was a good cause.

But more so in the face of this enemy, you kinda had to unite despite your sort of smaller differences in opinion, you had to unite because there is this kind of external threat.

Jeremy: And it could be both. It’s flexible. It’s what Sara Ahmed calls a sweaty concept. It’s emotional and it’s flexible, right? It’s, it, you could be pro-war and defensively consolidate. And I also document that in the book. You know, I know plenty of people that, again, they, they don’t like the war. They don’t want, they didn’t want the war, but it’s happened. And, you know, we’ve gotta do something to support Russian soldiers because actually they’re also the victims in the eyes of some of my interlocutors, they’re not seen as aggressors. They’re seen that way often especially if they’re mobilized and not volunteers. There’s very little sympathy and empathy for volunteers who are seen as kind of making a mercantile decision.

But there also is defensive consolidation around people adamantly opposed to Putinism and who who’ve been reinvigorated in a defensively consolidating way. They’re like, okay, this actually makes it even more important to think about making the future better for our country when peace comes and when there is a transition. And then there’s people in the middle,who again, it’s kind of trying to get away from this idea that they’re apolitical. So again, people much more willing to volunteer to get involved with things like ecoactivism. That’s also an example of defensive consolidation. Like we have to do something to make things better for our country because our country is in crisis and a disaster, a geopolitical disaster has unfolded. We didn’t get a say in it, but we have to do something.