The troop’s home is a town a few hours train-ride from Moscow. It is a medium large town and the majority of the population (80%) are Russians. It is a ‘scientific town’ with many
educational institutions, a university, and many famous research institutions, especially in the fields of nuclear physics, space physics, engineering and the construction of military
equipment.103 The local research assistant described the town as characterised by a high cultural level and many cultural activities for young people: ‘The youth of this town are well- educated, they are self-reliant and self-conscious and have a high intellectual level’ (DT2). The troop was founded in 1991 by the present troop leaders. In addition to their experiences in the youth organisations of the Communist party, they had both been volunteers for many years at a tourism centre for children (outdoor activities for children), and learned about Scouting when the country was opened to the West. They did not find out about Scouting from Moscow, they said (with some pride), but from their American twin city, Lacrosse (an American couple, who were Scout leaders, happened to come to the town and told them about Scouting). Later some Australians came. The two leaders worked out everything from regulations to programme. However, it is not easy to recruit new leaders. In today’s difficult economic situation, most people have to give priority to work in order to survive, which leaves little time for voluntary work. For this reason it was not yet possible to offer general admission to the troop. Instead, they were trying to develop it by establishing groups at intervals of a few years so that the older ones could become leaders for the newcomers. The first group of Scouts (to which the local research assistant belonged) were in their early 20s, the second was our troop, the third was a brand-new group of seven girls, aged 10 (the group that was sceptical about boys). The leaders regretted that they did not have the capacity to offer a programme for the senior age section (16-18 years). Young people this age want more serious hikes and outdoor activities, such as skydiving and motorbike racing, and money for such equipment is not available.
The troop consisted of 6 girls and 8 boys, all Russians, all aged 14-15. Most of them had been schoolmates for eight years, and had been in Scouting together since the 5th grade. Three boys from other schools later joined the troop. The young people came from upper and lower middle- class families (mirroring the social classes of a university town), and many of them came from single-parent families (cf. the high divorce rate in Russia). Girls participated less than boys in camps and hikes for ‘family reasons’. This means that their families made higher demands on them, while boys seldom had such problems. In addition, parents were less willing to pay for leisure activities for girls than for boys, and perhaps they also found the activities a bit too strenuous for the girls.
Earlier, the troop consisted of two mixed patrols (one led by a girl and one by a boy), but they now spent most of the time together and the two patrol leaders did not see themselves as leaders anymore. The two troop leaders were a woman in her mid-40s who was the head teacher of the young people when the troop started, and a man in his mid-50s. In addition, there was a young female troop assistant - who also functioned as our local research assistant.
Programme
The general programme of the Moscow region troop emphasised outdoor camping, life in
nature, boating, excursions, culture, history and local lore – in addition to general Scout training and special features such as computer training. A special feature was the combination of history and expeditions - an important source of troop activities was a programme called ‘History of Russia through travelling’. Scouting offered opportunities to travel abroad – the young people in
103 The town’s fascinating history sweeps us through parts of the history of the Soviet Union: the marshlands on which the city is now located were chosen in 1934 as the location of some of the most feared of Beria’s prison camps for political dissidents. When the prisoners were set free as WWII approached, many of them could not return to their hometowns and thus stayed in the town – which is believed to have offered fertile conditions for the later development of the famous research laboratories in the town. The place became a centre for nuclear physics and military engineering after WWII and the researchers stayed in the condemned prisoners’ barracks until better housing was provided. When the city was officially founded in 1956, the researchers had just succeeded in constructing the world’s first atom accelerator – which again became the decisive technological condition for the Soviet lead in the space race from 1960 (known in the West as the ‘Sputnik-shock’). The city was closed to the public until the onset of perestroika. Today, the research laboratories are part of worldwide collaborating scientific networks and enjoy a high international reputation. The economic difficulties, however, have led many of the researchers to leave their positions in favour of business or emigration. This year the town will be declared a ‘scientific city’, which will mean lower tax rates. The pride in earlier and contemporary intellectual and cultural achievements was conspicuous in the adults and young people to whom I talked.
the troop had already travelled much more than their parents and their peers. The name of their troop denoted a sail vessel and was associated with sea adventures. It thus indicates the kinds of activities they engaged in, which were centred around boating, canoeing, swimming and hiking. The troop normally met twice a week. In the information I have of the programme from September 2001 to May 2002, activities such as hiking, orienteering and outdoor
competitions constituted the largest group of meetings, followed by meetings devoted to planning or duty activities, and meetings of a more social and relaxing character. In addition, there was a trip to the theatre and the celebration of a national day. Some of the activities were arranged together with the school. One meeting was for girls only (fortune-telling), while another one was initiated and carried out by three boys alone who dressed in their Scout uniforms and laid flowers on the tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
Compared to the six areas of development in RAP104, they judged their programme to score high in the physical and intellectual dimensions. Both adult leaders enjoyed the outdoor activities. The TL(m) especially appreciated the physical training, and the mathematics of orienteering and knots. The TL(f) also emphasised the possibilities for travelling and
communication. Least developed in their programme was the spiritual dimension. They had links with a priest, but he left, and they did not know much about this themselves – Russia is such a secularised country, they said. They emphasised that religious activities should be an individual choice, not something forced on children:‘our children don’t like this push in the religious direction (...) I think every person must decide it for themselves’. They tried to bring in this dimension in other ways: studying religion as part of history, learning how to behave in church, perhaps by listening to music.
The appreciation of democratic values and the emphasis on individual choice and self-
development also made them sceptical about the ‘social dimension’ of RAP, which, in this post- Soviet context, was interpreted as anti-individualistic:
TL(m): We don’t think it’s our direction (...) We simply tell them and they understand it quickly, that every person in our world is individual, he must solve his problems his own way (...)Perhaps, giving privileges to individualism or individual features – nevertheless, when we have a troop or a group – we inculcate collective features as well. Also patriotism.
The ability to function in a group is included rather in the dimension of character development: TL(m): We tell them: You will live in a large collective body, like a people or a nation. But you should also develop independence in yourself. That is, life is an obstacle race, and there are areas, and perhaps not the easiest ones, which we should pass alone. And we must be prepared for it.
The celebration of individual choice also made them sceptical about the norm of obedience. When they outlined the Scout law for their organisation they chose to remain close to the original B.P.-version from 1908, but left out Law No. 7 about obedience:
TL(m): Our child is not obliged to obey his commanders. We have no commanders! It is not in the spirit of democracy. It may be a wrong translation, but in our contemporary situation the word ‘commander’ doesn’t suit us. That’s why we substitute it and say: ‘A Scout is industrious’, ‘A Scout is polite’.105
Law No. 2 was changed from loyalty to king and country, to devotion to God, parents and leaders.106 The troop leaders have experienced a change in the young people’s ability to act as individuals over the last 10 years: the first group could only work as a troop (not in patrols) and it was difficult to succeed in individual work with them. The middle generation worked better when they were alone or in pairs, but had to be organised when they needed to act as a collective body. The youngest group appeared to be too individualised: the boys and girls did not want to be together anymore. This was perceived as a Western influence, and coeducation was seen as something belonging to the Soviet pedagogy.
Another important motivation to become a Scout leader was the importance of working with young people. After perestroika many youth programmes were closed down:
104 RAP: Renewed Approach to Programme, European Scout Region, WOSM 1998.
105 Another sign that Russia is on its way towards capitalism may be the formulation of Law No.3 about helpfulness which, in the Moscow region troop, is phrased: “A Scout is careful and respects the property of others”.
TL(f): We had a certain vacuum; those who worked with children earlier know that children, at least in our country, have a profound need to be together, to do some common things. I don’t know why it is so, but our children can’t be alone (…) our people are collective’. The TL(m) said he was the type of person who liked to pass on his experience to others and liked communicating with children. Children pushed you further – if you wanted to lie on the sofa, the children would say: ‘No, let’s rather go to the forest – get ready and go’. As a teacher, the TL(f) said it gave her an understanding of the other side of children’s development (the development of their personalities), and provided an opportunity to protect them from negative influences.
In their work they tried to take into account the young people’s ideas – they asked them what they wanted, including through questionnaires. Generally, the idea was that adults are
responsible for the programme once they had proposals from the young people. If they wanted to achieve something they did not always need the adults’ initiative – ‘but if they don’t want to, they won’t do it’. This concurs with the observations – there were several planning sessions and, at one meeting, the young people’s enthusiasm for the new snow completely blew away the adults’ plans. Meetings arranged by the young people themselves tended to favour social and relaxing activities.
The summer hike in which I took part was characterised by a very relaxed atmosphere, indeed. The young people seemed to enjoy the situation and each other’s company very much. There was no emphasis on uniform (they just wore their scarves), rules, activities or schedules. There were no signs whatsoever of the ‘military style’ that I observed later at some other camps. They appeared like a group of friends having a good time together. Things seemed to happen by themselves – the tents were put up (and nobody corrected them if they were not standing perfectly), the meals were cooked without instructions or quarrels. The leaders generally encouraged the young people to make their own judgements and decisions. The TL(f) had a motherly attitude with a natural authority – strong and gentle. She gave lots of advice but few commands. The Scouts were very attentive to her and showed great respect. The TL(m) appeared as a quiet and modest man who seldom raised his voice, but took care of practical matters and kept an eye on the boys. The young TA(f) behaved like an older sister – she showed consideration and had fun with the youngsters, especially the boys.
When the young people were asked what they enjoyed in Scouting, both boys and girls alike spontaneously said: camping, hiking, outdoor life, meeting friends and the fact that you learn a lot of new things and broaden your outlook. ‘Scouts are like a big friendly family, where
everyone supports each other. I like that a lot’, a boy said. The boys also stressed sports, games, and competitions: ‘I would like to have more sports activities and games’. The girls mentioned canoeing, travelling to other towns, protecting nature, and cooking over the open fire. One girl said: ‘I wish there were more orienteering activities, obstacle races and trips to different places’. The only negative things they mentioned were connected to the behaviour of the other gender (I’ll get back to this point later). They had a very high opinion of people who were Scouts: they are better than ordinary people, healthier, more honest and have a better life. Scouts were people with strong wills, who could live together with others and survive under hard physical conditions. Those who did not fit were the weak-kneed, lazybones and egotists, people who watched too much TV, or spineless teenagers who wagged their tails like little dogs when anyone struck them. The girls especially stressed that an egotistical person would not fit in as a Scout: people who only loved themselves, who were indifferent to other people’s feelings and needs, who wanted everybody’s attention and admiration all the time and thought they were better than they really were, like ‘I’m such a hero!’. The boys tended to stress weakness and laziness: computer-nerds, people who did not want to work, who ate and slept all day long and watched TV, who could not survive without modern comforts, who were too urban and could not endure the hardship of camp life.
2.3 The troop in Bashkortostan