Institute of Mentoring in the Socio-Cultural Space of the Russian North and the Russian Arctic: Traditions and Innovations

DOI:

The study was supported by the grant of the Russian Science Foundation No. 22-28-20502,

The study of the role and place of the institution of mentoring in the socio-cultural space of ethnic and local communities of the Russian North and the Russian Arctic acquires special theoret-

REVIEWS AND REPORTS

Nikolay N. Terebikhin, Marina N. Melyutina, Aleksandra V. Yakovleva ical and practical relevance and significance in the context of the Presidential Decree declaring 2023 the “Year of the teacher and mentor”.

In the methodological toolkit for studying traditional forms of the mentoring institution as a mechanism for transferring sacred knowledge and skills, sacred word and deed, the strongest position is occupied by the semiotic approach and hermeneutics, focused on the interpretation of myths, symbols and rituals, which in their trinity constitute the language of tradition in its syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects.

A vivid example of the effectiveness of such an approach to the study of the process of transferring sacred heritage as the core of tradition is the concept of “cultural-semiotic transfer”, developed by S.S. Avanesov to study the paradigmatic foundations of the transfer of sacred spaces in the arrangement of the topic of the Russian city [1]. The cultural-semiotic transfer forms the core of the traditional institution of mentoring, based on the ideas and images of transmission, transfer, transition, standing, path-road. The mentor is a leader, a guide, an angel, a genius of a person and a social group, leading them along the cyclic horizontal of the myth of eternal return and the vertical of celestial chosenness-transformation.

The mentor is a charismatic leader of the ethnic and local communities of the Russian North and the Russian Arctic, their spiritual leader, a companion in travelling through the initiatory spaces of life and death at the northernmost edge of the Earth. Such a charismatic leader of the Saami and Nenets was a shaman, who “stands in the center of the ethnos and is its main “mask”, “the mask of masks”. The shaman in the ethnos represents its personified and functional synthesis. He performs the main work of the ethnos: he ensures the preservation of the constancy of the ethnic structure. The shaman expresses the balance, what makes an ethnos an ethnos — immutability, continuity, transmission of the code, transfer of knowledge (myths, rituals, traditions), correction of all errors of a social and natural origin that the ethnos encounters. The shaman ensures the permanence of statics, he is the expression of ethnos as a static phenomenon” [2, Dugin A.G., p. 212].

In the archaic societies of Arctic nomads, the shaman as a “cosmo-man” acts as a mentor not only to his twin — student, but also to the entire ethnic group, undergoing a dramatic ritual of dedication (initiation) together with the neophyte (a new chosen one by the spirits). A detailed description and analysis of the status functions of the shaman-mentor in the Nenets shamanic initiation rites are presented in the works of L.V. Khomich [3] and L.A. Lar [4].

The charismatic leader and hero of legends of the forest kingdom of the Komi people was a sorcerer who usurped and acquired the status of spiritual leader from the pagan shamanic idol overthrown by Stephan Permskiy, the apostle of the Zyryans. After the destruction and overthrow of the shamans (“pams”), the sorcerer, who previously occupied a strictly defined and specialized place in the shamanic hierarchy, begins to appropriate functions that were within the competence of the shaman, including stealing his charisma of divine election, and claims the role of spiritual mentor — the leader of the ethnic group. But a sorcerer is a substituted, self-proclaimed shaman,

REVIEWS AND REPORTS

Nikolay N. Terebikhin, Marina N. Melyutina, Aleksandra V. Yakovleva and his mediatory activity brings uncertainty and unpredictability into society, generating constant anxiety and wariness. Since the sorcerer is a transformed shaman, his mythological image is full of quasi-shamanic features. He bears the stamp of chosenness, but he is chosen not by the light heavenly spirits of the Zyryan shamanic ladder, but by the dark chthonic deities of the forest kingdom. The Zyryan “Forest” was that sacred, “mysteriously scary” (P.A. Florenskiy) space that radiated powerful positive and negative energy. The guardian of the sacred forest kingdom and the exclusive expert on its spatial organization was the sorcerer, who, due to his marginal status, was an intermediary between various spheres of the sacred, between the forest and the home. The sorcerer as a marginal personality was “embraced by strangers” in the otherworldly sacred forest world and a “foreign native” in the domestic microcosm, where he was perceived as a spawn of another world, as the embodiment of the back side of the sacred, its dark periphery [5, Terebihin N.M., pp. 27-28].

The significant role of the image of the sorcerer — the bearer of secret knowledge — in the Komi-Zyrian society is evidenced by the fact that the “sorcerer’s” esotericism was adopted even by the mentors of the Old Believer communities. According to the testimony of V.V. Vlasova, a researcher of the institute of mentoring in the Old Orthodox tradition of the Komi, “the ideas of the Komi Old Believers about the mentor reflected both the Christian canon and beliefs dating back to archaic traditions. On the one hand, the mentor monitored the “purity of faith”, read and interpreted sacred texts, was the leader of the religious community; on the other hand, he possessed secret knowledge” [6, p. 67]. In this regard, the institution of mentors among the Komi Old Believers differed in the most fundamental way from the mentor’s code adopted in the communities of Russian Old Believers of Ust-Tsilma, where, according to the well-known researcher of the Old Believer tradition of the Pechora region T.I. Dronova, spiritual mentors “did not use spells and, thus, were not bearers of “secret” knowledge. Divination was regarded as one of the gravest sins and did not correlate with the mentoring service” [7, p. 73].

An important place in the study of the history and phenomenology of the institution of mentoring is occupied by the research of A.A. Chuvyurov, who revealed the key role of Old Believer mentors in preserving and transmitting the religious and ethno-cultural heritage of the Komi. According to the researcher, mentors acted as intermediaries between the Old Believer book culture and the Komi oral tradition [8, p. 453].

A particularly significant contribution to the study of the Old Orthodox tradition of the Finno-Ugric ethnic groups of the Russian North and Northwest was made by the fundamental works of O.M. Fishman, devoted to the study of a local group of Tikhvin Karelian Old Believers and their spiritual leaders-mentors (“fathers”). The researcher noted the “continuity of spiritual guidance”, which “was carried out according to the Old Believer canon by the oral blessing of the old mentor to the new one” [9, p. 255]. “As intermediaries between believers and God in the surrounding “alien world”, the fathers apparently realized their chosen role, first of all, as servants-executors of the sacraments of baptism and confession, daily and festive divine services and rites” [9, p. 256].

Assessing the research of O.M. Fishman in the field of Karelian Old Believers, I.Yu. Vinokurova particularly highlights those sections of the research that present a typology of social leaders-mentors and their antagonists — characters of the witchcraft periphery of the Karelian ethno-centrum [10, p. 166].

Such a high sacral status of the mentor of the Old Believer community in local and ethnoconfessional communities is due to the symbiosis of the synodic system of Old Believer communities with the sacred tradition of zemstvo self-government in the Russian North, which assumed the election of their spiritual mentors and abbots from among the most worthy zemstvo soborians. The Northern Russian world as an ideal form of people’s self-government, built according to the commandment “as measure and beauty say”, according to the laws of divine dispensation, astonishes with its amazing simplicity, proportionality, laconicism and at the same time symphonicity, conciliarity of its religious and socio-cultural landscape, captured in the elegant Trinitarian formula of S.V. Yushkov — “the world is unified, but is triune in its manifestations”. The trinity of the northern world was manifested in its three hypostases (parish, volost, community), which differently expressed the trialectics of the cathedral or council of laity, which was an inseparable and unmerged assembly of human individuals [11, Terebihin N.M.].

In the church-parish organization of the northern zemstvo-mir, a particularly significant place was occupied by chapel parishes-congregations, headed by spiritual mentors — headmen (clerks). “The chapel headman, elected at a lay meeting, carried out the functions of religious regulation of the life of the northern community. The headman was a person who had certain knowledge of the Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, the sacraments and rites of the Orthodox Church, the church calendar. His duties also included inviting parish priests to conduct prayer services on holidays, storing sacred utensils, collecting donations for the chapel treasury, leading public sacrificial feasts, including the function of a priest performing the sacrifice of an animal (ram) in the ritual meal of “ram resurrection”, collecting money for the use of chapel brewing kettles, etc. Later, in the early Soviet period, the duties of the headman included the performance of the sacrament of Baptism and the funeral rite. The performance of these religious functions endowed the chapel clerk with a high social and sacred status of a spiritual mentor, expert and keeper of tradition — the secret knowledge of the laws of heavenly and earthly world order, embodied in the spatial forms of the sacred semiosphere of the northern world” [12, Melyutina M.N., Terebihin N.M., p. 34].

In the traditional local communities of Poonezhye and Onega Pomorye (the territory of the modern Kenozerskiy National Park), the institution of mentors — keepers of local sanctuaries — is contaminated with the institution of grandmothers — “divine old women” who performed important socio-cultural functions of control (censorship) over the observance of norms, rules, customs and commandments of correct ritual and everyday behavior in the sacred space of the northern zemstvo-world.

“ ”Grandmothers” as representatives of the marginal area of “living” ancestors possessed sacred knowledge, which determined their status as keepers of the metaphysical boundaries of human existence, “guardians of the threshold” and embodied “censorship of the collective”. Ke-nozerye and Pomorye grandmothers were leaders and participants in life cycle rituals, occasional and calendar rituals, in which threshold situations of meeting and parting, crossing boundaries and changing ontological status were reproduced. Grandmothers played/play the role of guardians of sacred places – key topoi of the sacred landscape of the northern Russian local society (mir)” [13, Terebihin N.M., Melyutina M.N., p. 322]. In the Old Believer tradition of Poonezhye, serving in the chapel was a male occupation. However, after the Great Patriotic War, the function of clerks-headmen began to be performed by “divine old women” who strictly observed the ancient Russian tradition, dating back to pagan times, of honoring only “their” sacred antiquities, which captured the image of “their”, “home”, “village” (“in bosom” — in the words of N.S. Leskov) “Russian god”: “Quite indicative in this regard is the custom of worshiping only one’s own icons, which goes back to the custom of worshiping one’s own gods (idols) in the pagan cult” [14, Uspenskiy B.A., 182]. A similar idea of the temple and the icon as the dwelling and receptacle of “one’s own god” was also in Kenozerye. “Each village has its own little god”, said the inhabitants of the Ozernyy district.

According to Nina Nikolaevna Artemyeva (Podosenova), “Katerina, an old grandmother, Matrenina in the village, looked after the Nikolskaya Chapel in the village of Bukhalovo. She was a believer, she went to the chapel all the time, prayed, sang prayers, lived in a small hut at the backyard. She lived a long time, walked with a walking stick, kept all the fasts.”

“There was a chapel in the village of Bor and we went there, then they stopped believing in God, but we used to go with our mothers and grandmothers on Easter, on vespers for all night. An old man Timosha served vespers, but now he has long deceased,” recalled the residents of the village, abolished in the 1980s 1. In the 1960–1970s, the caretaker of the chapel of the Apostle John the Theologian was Alexandra Petrovna Shishkina, then Klavdiya Fedorovna Shishkina began to look after the village shrine. In the middle of the 20th century, in the holy grove of the village of Shishkina, local residents built a chapel of the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God. In the 1950s and 1960s, the caretaker of the chapel was Anna Egorovna Zalyazhnaya 2.

Despite the fact that the Church of St. George the Victorious in the village of Porzhenskoe was closed in 1930, “grandmother Anna Kurmina continued to be the church caretaker for a long time,” testifies folklorist Yu. I. Smirnov, who recorded this information in 1958 3.

In 1920s–1930s, Irina Vasilyevna Patrakeeva (1900–1990) was a volunteer assistant of the Pochezersk priests. A native of the village of Filippovskaya, Irina Vasilyevna continued to look after the churchyard even after the churches in Pochesero were closed. According to archival documents from the mid-20th century, “there is a small church or chapel on the territory of the Rya- pusovskiy village council, where believers pray, leave sacrifices with things (kerchiefs, satin, cloths with crosses, towels, etc.), wool, and sometimes — money, etc. Old lady Maximova is in charge of this...” In a letter written in 1951 to representatives of the local government, the following instruction follows: “The church in the Ryapusovskiy village council is operating illegally, since it is not permitted to open. I ask you to warn citizen Maximova to stop performing religious services immediately. If citizen Maximova collected money for herself during a religious service, inform the financial authorities to impose income tax on her. The decision how to use things: towels, kerchiefs, etc., must be made by Maximova together with those persons who brought these things to the church. The church must be immediately locked and the keys must be kept in the village council” 4.

Maremyana Osipovna Maizerova (1893–1972), a resident of Onega Pomorye, information about whom was recorded by folklorist N.I. Rozhdestvenskaya, was also a “keeper” of the Church of the Entrance to the temple of the Most Holy Mother of God in the village of Lopshenga by her own free will 5.

The keepers of the chapels were: Alexandra Alexandrovna Kapustina and Anna Alexan-drovna Semenova (the chapel of St. John the Theologian in the village of Zekhnovo), Valentina Fedorovna Sivtseva (the chapel of St. Anthony of Siyskiy in the village of Poromskoe), Anastasia Fedorovna Kulakova, Maria Filippovna Sosnina (the chapel of the Mother of God of Kazan in the village of Minino), Anna Lavrentyevna Glushchevskaya (the chapel of the Cathedral of the Holy Mother of God), Evdokia Gavrilovna Nechaeva and Stepanida Gavrilovna Nechaeva (chapel of the Holy Great Prince Alexander Nevskiy in the Klimovskaya village (Bor)), Pavla Ivanovna Privalikhina (Chapel of the Entry of the Virgin Mary into the Temple in the village of Ryzhkovo) [12, Melutina M.N., Terebikhin N.M.; 15, Melutina M.N., Terebikhin N.M.].

The sources of the second half of the 20th century allow making a conclusion about the continuity of the headman's functions, the transfer of “service from hand to hand” to members of the same family.

The keeper of the chapel of St. John the Theologian in the village of Zekhnovo, Alexandra Alexandrovna Kapustina (1928–2023), told: “Our chapel dates back to the 18th century. John the Theologian, the Apostle of Christ, protects our village. The key to the chapel was kept by my mother-in-law, Marfa Semyonovna (Kapustina), for a long time, and then my mother-in-law became ill, she passed the key to another old woman, and she also became ill. She told me: “Here’s the key to the chapel.” So I have the key.” 6.

Anna Alexandrovna Semenova (1928–2017) became the keeper of the wooden chapel of John the Theologian of the 18th century in the village of Zekhnovo. Her story about how they managed to preserve the “chapel” in the village is an example of the devotion of local residents to the old chapel way of life: “The chapel was supposed to be dismantled and taken away, the plane

REVIEWS AND REPORTS

Nikolay N. Terebikhin, Marina N. Melyutina, Aleksandra V. Yakovleva arrived, the pilots said that the chapel had to be torn down. First, schoolchildren, a teacher with them, then adults, and everyone stood in a circle. We won’t give you the chapel and that’s it!” ⁷

In the 1940s–1960s, several residents of Lopshenga — Vasiliy Oseevich Petrov, Egor Ivanovich Maizerov, Petr Stepanovich Maizerov, Semyon Nikiforovich Fedotov, Anna Egorovna Maizerova — gathered those who wished in their houses and “read out Easter”. They kept images of saints in their homes, and copied prayers by hand. They also christened and buried their fellow countrymen “in a secular manner”. The newborns were christened by Alexandra Timofeevna Petrova (1890–1977), Cleopatra Petrovna Yudina (1904–1993), and Alexandra Mikhailovna Pozdeeva (1892–1967) [16, Kharitonova Ya.E., p. 61]. Largely due to the dedicated service of the old women in the field of preserving and transmitting images and samples of cultural heritage in the Kenozer-skiy National Park, not only the unique natural and cultural landscape was preserved, but also the entire integral traditional order and way of life of the “sacred cosmos of Russian life” (V.N. Toporov).

The living sacral tradition preserved by generations of Kenozerskiy and Pomorskiy keepers of faith and zealots of ancient piety is the value-meaning support and spiritual paradigm of mentoring activities of the Kenozerskiy National Park, reviving the ideology and institutions of the zemstvo world order, instructing and educating a new generation of leaders and figures of local self-government.

In this regard, the Kenozerskiy National Park, professing in its mentoring mission the idea of cooperation and collaboration with local communities, is a reference methodological schoollaboratory and a creative workshop for the socio- and geo-cultural design of processes and technologies for the spatial development and arrangement of local territories of the Northern macroregion.

For almost three decades, a clearly expressed culture of participation of Kenozerye and Lekshmozerye residents in all areas of the Park’s activities has developed. Local communities today are not just “objects” of the Park’s impact, not passive “consumers” of its activities, but active subjects of all socio-cultural and socio-economic processes. Cooperation with local communities is based on the principles of the priority of heritage preservation over its use and co-partnership, solving the following tasks:

• •    maximum information, formation of “open dialogue” and public consensus on the development of the territory of Kenozerskiy National Park and WHA;

• •    assistance in the development of civil initiatives of local communities;

• •    activation of local economy, creation of alternative sources of income, formation of investment attractiveness and development of entrepreneurial culture;

• •    development of professional and personal competencies of the local population;

• •    improvement of the quality of life of people.

Cooperation is carried out in the following areas:

• •    preservation of historical and cultural heritage and revival of traditional folk culture;

• •    nature protection and environmental safety of the territory;

• •    development of sustainable tourism;

• •    socio-economic development and formation of civil society.

Preservation of historical and cultural heritage and revival of traditional folk culture is one of the key tasks of Kenozerskiy National Park. Representatives of the local community, which has been given back its original, primordial role of the main figure in revival, conservation and prudent use of the traditional natural and cultural heritage of the northern Russian world, take an active part in its implementation. Kenozerskiy “fine craftsmen” — carpenters, skilled in wooden art, participate in the noble cause of restoration of the entire sacred architectural ensemble of the protected area of the Park. The restored monuments of wooden architecture are transferred to the local communities, which become bearers of the key socio-cultural mission of creators and custodians of heritage. In the Kenozerskiy National Park, based on the ethno-cultural tradition of local and ethnic communities of the Russian North, productive systematic work is carried out to preserve and revive traditional crafts and trades, a cycle of calendar holidays and rituals, to organize and hold fairs and folklore festivals.

Three Centers of crafts and trades are successfully functioning, four multi-age folklore groups have been organized, pottery, blacksmith, carpentry and other workshops are operating, an effective system of souvenir production by local residents has been created, traditions of nature management are being restored and offered as a “co-product of tourism”.

The leitmotif of tourist activity of the Kenozerskiy National Park has become the development of event tourism. Today, such holidays as Vasiliy’s Day, Christmas, Maslenitsa, Forty Saints’ Day, Peter’s Day, Ivan's Day (Ivan Kupala) have been restored and are being held more and more successfully every year with the direct participation of local residents; the Uspenskaya Fair and the Festival of Traditional Knowledge are becoming increasingly popular among visitors and residents of the Park. It is important that this is not an artificial reconstruction, but a revival based on a thorough study of historical material. Without the awakened interest of local residents in their own traditions, without their gradually increasing active participation in holidays and fairs, it would be impossible to talk about the authenticity of such events and the living culture of the territory.

The museum and exhibition activities of the National Park are aimed not only at visitors, but also at the local population. Residents participate in the creation of museums and exhibitions, donate items, photographs, share their memories and knowledge. The museum fund of the National Park mainly consists of items donated by local residents, reflecting the spiritual and craft and everyday culture of the territory. In addition, as part of the research program “Passportization of villages”, information about the history of villages, their residents, main activities, and interesting events is recorded from the local population. The items are supplemented with digital copies

REVIEWS AND REPORTS

Nikolay N. Terebikhin, Marina N. Melyutina, Aleksandra V. Yakovleva of photographs and other illustrative material from family archives, and serve as a basis for creating museums and exhibitions, ecological trails, ethnographic programs and excursions, publications, etc.

Nature protection and environmental safety

It is impossible to ensure effective nature protection and environmental safety of the territory without the participation of local residents. Therefore, since the formation of the Kenozerskiy National Park, special attention has been paid to this area. Residents are informed about all changes in legislation and protection regime of the territory not by notification, but in the format of a live dialogue. Meetings with hunters and fishermen living in the Park are held at least twice a year. Individual consultations are also held on a regular basis. Explanatory materials and comments are posted on the Park’s information resources, in the Visitor Centers, in the administrations of municipalities. Local residents become valuable informants on the state of flora and fauna, report on rare and endangered species, which creates favorable conditions for scientific research. In the 2000s, raids to protect the territory together with active local residents became possible and proved their effectiveness. Unfortunately, in recent years this practice has not become widespread, but requires rethinking and renewal. An important example of cooperation with local residents to preserve a favorable environment is the work to reduce the littering of territories with solid municipal waste.

Development of sustainable tourism

The main economic goal of sustainable tourism development in Kenozerskiy National Park is the creation of new jobs and the development of a mechanism for distributing economic benefits from tourism in favor of local communities. Cooperation with local residents in the field of sustainable tourism development is implemented in the following areas:

• •    rural guest tourism;

• •    excursion services, master classes and ethnographic programs;

• •    transport services;

• •    catering services and sale of agricultural products;

• •    production and sale of souvenirs;

• •    the “Model rural farmstead” project.

Tourism on the territory of Kenozerskiy National Park is a leading sector of economy today. In addition to the Park’s full-time employees living in the territory, about 200 local residents are involved in various areas of tourism activities. According to a sociological survey of the local population conducted by the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov in 2014 and in 2019, about 70% of Kenozerye residents have a positive attitude towards the development of tourism in the area of their residence.

Sociocultural development of the local community

Since the beginning of its activity, Kenozerskiy National Park has been following the way of implementing the idea of sustainable life support for local residents. The vector of development is the preservation and support of the indigenous population and their involvement in the Park’s activities. The first Public Councils appeared here in the 1990s, the first TPSs (territorial public selfgovernments) — in the 2000s. The main goal was to establish a dialogue and involve people in joint management of the territory.

The timely transition from attempts to solve all the problems of local residents to building partnerships and involvement in the Park’s activities has brought results. A variety of tools are used: from village meetings to business planning trainings, from total information to individual consultations. One of the most significant events during the year is the traditional “Winter meetings”, which have been held for more than 10 years — a platform for an open dialogue between residents and the Park management, discussing the most significant topics.

Today, four TPSs are actively operating in the Park in the villages of Vershinino, Morsh-chikhinskaya, Pocha and Ust-Pocha. Since the early 2000s, a number of complex projects have been implemented aimed at creating a favorable business climate and developing the economic thinking of the local population. Many initiatives have become sustainable. However, by the mid-2010s, the high pace of cooperation with local residents began to fade somewhat. The TPSs created in the Park ceased to play a prominent role. The task of socio-economic development remained, but other tools were needed to solve it. The seminar “10 steps to a successful project”, which has been held since 2015 in partnership with the Government of the Arkhangelsk Oblast, is among the most effective tools. There, under the guidance of experienced experts, local activists work on their project ideas, learn to set goals and objectives, formulate problems, and plan expenses. The key point is that the best projects receive financial support from the Park, as well as organizational support at the implementation stage. Over the last five years, 16 socio-cultural projects have been implemented, including such significant ones as “Pocha. XX century”, “In style of Soviet modernism” in the village of Ust-Pocha, repair of bridges and cultural centers, creation of museums and public centers, improvement of territories and much more.

The long-awaited “from the bottom up” process of decision-making has begun. The success of rural development projects directly depends on the participation of the local population in their development and implementation. Having mastered the tools of social design, residents began to actively participate in various grant competitions at the regional and federal levels, receiving expert support from Park employees at all stages. Strategic sessions are organized annually, where the results of joint actions of residents, the Park and local authorities are summarized, current and medium-term planning is carried out. In 2020, a new autonomous non-profit organization was registered in the village of Ust-Pocha — “Kenozerskie berega”. Thus, today in the settlements of Ke-nozerye, complex multi-year projects are being implemented, changing life in the villages for the better. People have believed in their powers, TPSs have again become the “driving force” of the territory, but at a new level. The volume of funds attracted by activists to the territory is growing: in 2018-2020, this figure amounted to almost 9 million rubles. Taking into account non-financial contributions and volunteer work, the cost of local residents’ projects over three years reached 15 million rubles. If in 2014, according to a social survey conducted by the NArFU named after M.V. Lomonosov, less than 30% of Kenozerye residents rated the activities of TPSs as good and excellent, then in 2019, more than half gave positive assessments.

The multifaceted activities of the park to preserve, comprehend and transfer samples and standards of the socio- and geo-cultural heritage of local and ethnic communities of the North reveal the high mentoring mission of the Kenozerskiy National Park, which is a spatial icon of the Russian North, its Measure and Beauty imprinted in the sacred natural and cultural ensemble, guiding the inhabitants of the northern Edge of the Earth to build their life world, to improve their fatherland (“zemstvo”) in the image and likeness of their desired heavenly Fatherland —the Promised Land.