ABSTRACT

Now that my story has been told and the journey is almost completed, it is time to reflect upon the major patterns that have emerged. What did my respondents recount and what kinds of pickles did I produce from the metaphorical can? What did my findings indicate concerning predominant national self-images in the regions? All told, there is reason to confirm the initial assumption that the image of what Russia is and what it ought to be is not uniformly held across the four cities under scrutiny. Rather, it would actually seem as though the national self-image is most vividly held regarding the past dimension, whereas, as far as contemporary times are concerned, regional belonging has shown itself to be more important. This in itself is a rather discomforting thought. There seems to be precious little affective glue to be found in the present dimension. Instead, the apparent emotive mobilisers are to be found further back in time. As was noted above, the Great Patriotic War retains its forceful appeal across the generational, regional and political spectra. Also, the feats undertaken by Peter the Great continue to inspire widely different quarters, albeit with some added caveats. However, this raises some broad but crucial questions: Is this really enough? Are common historical myths and memories, no matter how inspiring, sufficient for welding the bonds of togetherness that, in the longer run, are necessary to keep such a vast state polity together? Will there not have to be some forceful unifying strength that identifies common tasks to be performed in the present for the sake of achieving a better tomorrow? Or is belonging to this particular state polity really defined only by default, brought about merely by a conspicuous lack of alternatives? These are demanding questions, and I doubt if they can ever be answered. What can be said, however, is that the bonds of togetherness, suggested by my respondents' national self-images, stand out as rudimentary and fragile indeed.