Even when they have something positive to say about Iran or Iranians, it is inevitably presented as an exception. Portraying the “Orientals” as inferior, unable to rule over themselves, backward and in need of being “civilized” by a European power is a standard justification for colonization and domination, for taking over other peoples’ resources and lands, and interference in their internal affairs. But the Russian travelers have an additional reason to outdo themselves in this regard. They are constantly aware that they must prove their truly European superiority and one of the ways to do that is to overemphasize the inferiority of their Oriental opponents. Indeed, many of the accusations and criticisms sound laughable coming from the Russians, who seem to have sincerely forgotten about many similar problems back home in Russia.
For example, serfdom in Russia persisted until 1861, basic rights and freedoms did not exist, Russia did not have an elected parliament and a constitution until 1906, and capitalism, especially in the countryside, was backward compared to much of Western Europe. The dirt and poverty in Iran, described with disgust by a number of travelers, undoubtedly matched that found in many Russian villages. One should also bear in mind that, with a few exceptions, the authors did not know Iranian languages and so had to enlist the assistance of various interpreters when available and leave the rest to their imagination. Their relatively brief stays in Iran – between several months and a year on average – did not usually allow them to learn much in depth about Iranian culture, so in many cases their observations were understandably superficial.
One final consequence of the split in national identity is that the Russian travelogues lack any of the Romanticism that characterizes most of British and Western European travelogues about Iran and the East. Instead of a fascination with the exotic and a longing for romantic escape, the Russian travelogues not only reject Romanticism, but often deliberately ridicule it. Beyond the lack of distance necessary to create romance – Iran was, after all, their next-door neighbor, standing in somewhat the same relationship as Mexico does to the United States – this feature again reveals the duality of the Russian national identity. Since Asian elements penetrated Russian culture and the Orient was an integral part of the Russian “Self,” its proximity deprived it of romantic allure.
In sum, although the Russian variant of Orientalism shares many features with Western European Orientalism, it has its peculiar aspects that allow it to be viewed as an exaggerated or grotesque version of Western European Orientalism. Thus this book has two main areas of focus: first, the Russian travelogues of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and the information on Iran and some related topics they contain; and, second, the Russian travelogues as material for the study of Russian Orientalism. The two themes are interrelated because it is impossible to accept the documentary information in the travelogues at face value without first making allowances for the distorting effects of Russian Orientalism. Indeed, the travelogues constitute a convenient fabric for the further study of Russian Orientalism, whose scope is much broader than the Russian travelogues about Iran presented here. It is to be hoped that further scholarship will lead to a more nuanced and differentiated investigation of the general concept of Orientalism, including its Russian variant.
Russian Perspective vs. European Perceptions
