© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2012 DOI 10.1179/1361742713Z.0000000009 slavonica, Vol. 18 No. 2, October 2012, 105–07 Talking about Russian Sex in the Era of Pussy Riot Alexander Etkind University of Cambridge There are important lessons to learn from Alexei Lalo’s engaging essay: lessons about public speech, about Russian sex, and about western studies of Russia. First things first, of course, and that means sex. But is sex the most important concern in Russia? Rest assured, other issues are at least equally important, such as power, money, vio- lence, justice, freedom, religion, alcohol, natural resources, civil society, and finally, oppression. Sex, or rather sexuality, became central in American academia in the 1970s, under the influence of French intellectuals who were defeated in the revolution of 1968. After the defeat of Soviet socialism in the 1990s, talking about ‘sex’ — the Foucauldi- an discourse of sexuality — was relevant for a Russian society that enjoyed plenty of sex, but could not talk about it because of Soviet taboos. This society, and the relevance of certain ideas about it, has however changed dramatically since then. There is nothing surprising about this, and Lalo’s essay in its dissatisfaction goes well beyond sex. The essay critiques the misapplication of ideas that were good and fair in the 1980s to the society of the 2000s. The problem resembles thinking about Weimar Germany in the 1920s in decadent terms that were fashionable in the 1900s, or rather — a sad thought — like discussing Nazi Germany in Weimarian terms. I wonder what ‘Russian’ actually means in a construction like ‘Russian sex’? Is it ethnicity, or citizenship, or place of action? Does an American sex tourist in Russia, for example, have ‘American’ or ‘Russian’ sex? Or a Russian student in America? And how about Russian-American couples? Could it be that the unhappy ones talk about ‘Russian sex’, while the happy couples talk about other things? Although worrying about the ‘Russian soul’ is even more obsolete than discussing ‘Russian sex’, there are those who continue to do it. Do souls have ethnicity? And how about sex: do ethnic categories characterize the indigenous specificities of sexual actions and feelings? In modern cultures, thoughts and stereotypes about sex are to some extent local and to some extent imported, bartered, or plainly shared with other cultures. Yet, in the classroom and the publishing house, clichés and illusions about exotic sex may remain good stories to sell. Does this business constitute legitimate scholarship? These are broader questions that Lalo asks. But there is also a more specific theme in Lalo’s essay. American studies of Russia have always been enriched — or contaminated? — by the Russian natives who succeeded in finding American jobs. From the émigré historians, such as George Vernadsky at Yale and Michael Karpovich at Harvard, who confronted the Bolshevik