Attitudes toward Ancestors in Space: Povinelli’s Anthropology vs. Russian Cosmism
Keywords:
Soil, ancestors, exchange, compost, scale, place, Earth, cosmism, space exploration, biosphereAbstract
Imagining a cosmic future touches on many topics, but typically avoids the topic of death, burial, and attitudes toward deceased ancestors. Most ofthese developments concern life-supportsystems. This article analyzesthe debate between American anthropologist Elizabeth Povinelli and Russian cosmists. The subject of this debate is immortality and attitudes toward ancestors in the context of space exploration. Povinelli analyzes Russian cosmism in the context of her experience researching and living with Australian Aborigines. For the cosmists, space colonization was a high priority. Russian visionary philosopher Nikolai Fedorov believed that it was necessary to leave Earth, firstly, to resurrect ancestors—it was necessary to collect particles from across the universe. Secondly, space exploration was necessary to disperse resurrected ancestorsto other galaxies: there wouldn’t be enough room for everyone on the spaceship Earth. In contrast, Povinelli’s geontological concept suggests “not looking up.” The researcher opposes the colonization of space, as her model of immortality presupposes the localization of descendants. This immortality is based on mutual material exchange between ancestors and descendants. People “feed” their ancestors with their excrement, and in return, receive assistance from the spiritsin theirlocal existence. In thissense, all failures and obstacles are explained by the intervention of ancestors. The article proposesresolving this aporia by reconciling two models ofrelationships with ancestors—that of cosmism and that of Povinelli’s anthropology. Currently and in the near future, space exploration takes place within the closed circuits of space stations, ships, and settlements. In such biospheres, releasing the deceased into outer space would be practically unprofitable. Most likely, ancestors and descendants will feed each other, and funeral rituals and exchanges with ancestors could become part ofthe maintenance ofthe biospheres of space settlements.Downloads
References
Богданов А. (2015) Праздник бессмертия. В: Гройс Б. (сост.) Русский космизм. Антология. М.: Ад Маргинем Пресс, pp. 320‒343.
Вивейруш де Кастру Э. (2017) Каннибальские метафизики. Рубежи постструктурной антропологии. М.: Ad Marginem.
Дойч Д. (2015) Структура реальности: Наука параллельных вселенных. М.: Альпина нон-фикшн. EDN: VRTEBH.
Кон Э. (2018) Как мыслят леса: к антропологии по ту сторону человека. М.: Ad Marginem, 2018.
Повинелли Э. (2021) «По-настоящему публичны только фильмы». Интервью. Spectate. Доступен: https://spectate.ru/povinelli
Повинелли Э. (2022) Предки навсегда! Бессмертные миры Антона Видокле. Смирнов Н. (ред.) Граждане космоса: русский космизм в фильмах Антона Видокле. М.: Ад Маргинем Пресс, pp. 162‒173.
Повинелли Э. (2025) Умеют ли скалы слышать? Культурная политика понимания труда австралийских аборигенов. Социология власти, 37(1), pp. 188‒221. EDN: VJTHNK.
Салинз М. (1999) Экономика каменного века. М.: ОГИ, 1999.
Сетницкий Н.А. (2008) О смерти и погребении. В: Гачева А. Г., Семенова С. Г. (сост.) Н.Ф. Федоров: pro et contra: В 2 кн. Книга вторая. СПб.: РХГА, pp. 392‒396
Сивков Д.Ю. (2020) Места и масштабы: онтологии освоения космоса. Сибирские исторические исследования, (1), pp. 75‒96. EDN: AXJMDP. https://doi.org/10.17223/2312461X/27/5
Сивков Д.Ю. (2022) Онтологический поворот в антропологии и технологические изменения в индигенном коллективе. Логос, 32(2), pp. 193‒225. EDN: ZIQWRT. https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2022-2-193-224
Федоров Н.Ф. (1995) «Человек есть существо погребающее». В: Федоров Н.Ф. Собрание сочинений: В 4-х тт. Том II. М.: Издательская группа «Прогресс», с. 64.
Федоров Н.Ф. (2000) Астрономия и архитектура. В: Федоров Н.Ф. Собрание сочинений: В 4-х тт. Дополнения. Комментарии к Т. IV. М.: Традиция, с. 5‒7.
Фуко М. (2006) Другие пространства. В: Фуко М. Интеллектуалы и власть: избранные политические статьи, выступления и интервью. Ч. 3. М.: Праксис, с. 191‒204.
Циолковский К.Э. (1967) Исследование мировых пространств реактивными приборами (1911). В: Циолковский К.Э. Труды по космонавтике. М.: Машиностроение, 1967, с. 59‒100.
Циолковский К.Э. (2017) Цели звездоплавания. В: Циолковский К.Э. Избранные произведения: в 2 т. Т. 1. М.: Книжный Клуб Книговек, с. 335‒372.
Чекрыгин В. (2008) О Соборе Воскресающего Музея. В: Гачева А. Г., Семенова С. Г. (сост.) Н.Ф. Федоров: pro et contra: В 2 кн. Книга вторая. СПб.: РХГА, с. 450‒482
Чижевский А.Л. (1924) Физические факторы исторического процесса. Калуга: 1-я Гостиполитография.
Anker P. (2005) The ecological colonization of space. Environmental History, 10(2), pp. 239‒268. https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/10.2.239
Aronowsky L.V. (2017) Of astronauts and algae: NASA and the dream of multispecies spaceflight. Environmental Humanities, 9(2), pp. 359‒377. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-4215343
Bernstein A. (2019) Thefuture of immortality: remaking life and death in contemporary Russia. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Bird-David N. (1999) “Animism” revisited: personhood, environment, and relational epistemology. Current Anthropology, 40(1), pp. 67‒91. https://doi.org/10.1086/200061
Buchli V. (2025) Low earth orbit: a speculative ethnographer’s guide. In: Beasley Murray T., Bracewell W., and Murawski M. (eds.) Anti-Atlas. Critical area studies from the East of the West. London: UCL Press, pp. 87‒94.
Burgess C., Doolan K., Vis B. (2003) Fallen astronauts: heroes who died reaching for the Moon. Lincoln; London: University of Nebraska Press.
Cutting A. (2009) Ashes in orbit: Celestis spaceflights and the invention of post-cremationist afterlives. Science as Culture, 18(3), pp. 355‒369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430903122992
Damjanov K. (2013) Lunar cemetery: global heterotopia and the biopolitics of death. Leonardo, 46(2), pp. 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00516
Damjavov К. (2015) The matter of media in outer space: technologies of cosmobiopolitics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(5), pp. 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775815604920
Dooren van Т., Rose D.B. (2016) Lively ethnography: storying animist worlds. Environmental Humanities, 8(1), pp. 77‒94. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3527731
Finney B. (1992) From sea to space. Palmerston North: Massey University Press.
Huberman J. Old men, young blood. Transhumanism and the promise and peril of immortality. In: Kneese T., Dawdy Sh.L. (eds.) The new death: mortality and death care in thetwenty-firstcentury. Santa Fe; Albuquerque: School for Advanced Research Press; University of New Mexico Press, 2022, pp. 53‒71.
Jane Young М. (1987) “Pity the Indians of outer space’’: Native American views of the space program. Western Folklore, 46(4), pp. 269‒279. https://doi.org/10.2307/1499889
Kallipoliti L. (2018) The architecture of closed worlds, or What is the power of shit? Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers.
Munns D.P.D., Niekelsen K. (2021) Far beyond the Moon: a history of life support systems in the Space Age. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Povinelli E. Geontologies: a requiem to latelLiberalism. Durham; London: Duke University Press, 2016.
Povinelli E. (2021) The inheritance, Durham; London: Duke University Press, 2021. Reider R. (2009) Dreaming the biosphere: thetheater of all possibilities. Albuquerque: University of Mexico Press.
Terbish B. (2022) State ideology, science, and pseudoscience in Russia: between the Cosmos and the Earth. London; New York: Lexington Books.
Valentine D. (2016) Atmosphere: context, cetachment, and the view from above Earth. American Ethnologist, 43(3), pp. 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12343
ValentineD. (2017) Gravity fixes: habituating to the human on Mars and Island Three. HAU: Journal of Ethnographictheory,7(3), pp. 185–209. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau7.3.012