Fascinated by culture wars raging around @MarkGaleotti's bear in a crown for several days now. (Great for marketing!) One side says that the bear & the subtitle ("from the pagans to Putin") are a case of orientalism, i.e. essentialization of Russia as savage & auhtoritarian.

The other side draws attention to the use of the bear symbol by the ruling United Russia party and on various regional Russian coats of arms, including that of Yaroslavl oblast, which, sure enough, features a savage bear in a crown.

Mark's detractors argue that the particular combination of symbols and words do point at the othering of Russia as savage, barbarian, and authoritarian. If Mark had chosen a deer to represent Russia, and used a more neutral-sounding subtitle, he would've avoided recriminations.

But here's the elephant in the room. If Mark Galeotti were instead "Mikhail Golunov," he also would have escaped unscathed, because the assumption would be that he is a member of an in-group saying something that the in-group thinks about themselves.

But since we know that Mark is a British scholar, we tend to connect the dots in a way that depicts him as a representative of the mainstream Western narrative that others Russia as savage and barbarian. Curiously, it's as much about the author as it is about the author's work.

It is also about *us* (i.e. members of the in-group), our insecurities and sensibilities. This is a case of in-group / out-group dynamic, with the in-group being allowed a much greater latitude in the use of particular language / symbols compared to the out-group.

It's a familiar issue, e.g. for scholars of feminism, or inter-ethnic relations in the United States. Anyway, I enjoyed following this debate and contributing to it in my small ways.

For what it's worth, I don't think Russia should be depicted as a savage bear, and I do think there's more to Russia than the pagans and Putin. But I will shut up because, after all, I am a member of the in-group, and I know that my views are coloured by that identity.