When visiting for the first time, I asked my (then-acquaintance) why women never smile at me. She said "if they smile at you, that means they are easy." Basically, they are saying they like me and I should introduce myself. Or, like the article mentioned, maybe I look funny.
You are right in that it is cultural, but the reasons you state aren't the only ones. They are in general pretty unhappy people, as the saying goes "God suffered, so should I." However, the younger generation is stepping beyond the suffering attitude, and yet they still don't smile, so that isn't the only reason.
Your example of the skinheads is just another example of the bystander effect -- definitely not unique to Russia. Also, Russians are pretty crazily racist, so that causes the story to be moot as well.
He was a bit disappointed at the lack of follow-through.
Perhaps he experienced the world with the eyes, and/or followed the news, and thus made a comparative judgement between different countries.
Which, could include stuff like:
"The director of the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Alexander Brod, stated that surveys show xenophobia and other racist expressions are prevalent in 50 percent of Russians."
And:
"In 2006, Amnesty International reported that racism in Russia was “out of control” and estimated the number of Russian neo-Nazis at around 85,000 in 2008."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Russia
Of course a lot of those statements could be the usual NGO BS, that they output because they have to output (keeps the funds coming in, etc), or because they act as agents of foreign interests trying to paint a bad picture etc. This happens more often than not.
But in general, it IS possible to say that a nation is more or less racist than another -- it's not an inherently moot proposition like some people here imply.
There IS after all something like an external reality. I'd, for example, would call a country with 100 racist attacks for every 1000 citizens more racist than one with 30 racist attacks for every 1000 citizens...
Speeking of Xenophobia, So wanting to keep their country to themselves (like every nation and color of people try to) is racist? Would you say the same about the Japanese, Israelis, Kenyans, or Koreans? I ask this because I've noticed Europeans today are being held to extremely high standards while other races and nationalities are not. It's like there's a racist witch trial and whites are under the microscope while everyone else dances around to the same exact tune and escapes criticism.
^sarcasm
We pay a price for living with terrible weather, with no sun light half of the year, where you can't get out of buildings because it is so freezing cold.
I would say what you see in places like Costa Rica(pura vida!!) is genuine happiness because people need much more the Sun and friendships for being happy than a Ferrari or whatever we could buy.
I think there genuinely are different norms for human interaction in different cultures. Why should people in "The South" be so much more famous for being insincerely pleasant than, say, people in Arizona or southern California? The climate in the deep south is absolutely miserable a large portion of the year, with oppressive head and humidity, yet they are infamous for being pleasant on the surface.
Looking at the map on this page, I see no casual correlation between how artificially pleasant a states population stereotypically is, and their suicide rate: http://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures Notice New Jersey and New York beating out any Southern state.
"Climate"<->"is superficially pleasant" is all over the board. Some examples seem to support the theory (allegedly Russia), but plenty of others seem to directly contradict it (Alaska, with a miserable climate, high suicide rate, and very outwardly pleasant people). The South has a miserable climate, have plenty to be miserable about (poverty, literacy, lingering racism, etc) yet are very 'warm' people, New York has a worse climate, yet a lower suicide rate, but yet again rather cold or distant people.
This "Russians don't smile because they are miserable. Americans smile because they are happy" stuff is just pop-psych nonsense. The real world is not that simple.
Why is it difficult to accept that different groups of people, with different heritages, cultures and traditions, might have ever so slightly different ways of presenting themselves to society and interacting with each other? It seems very implausible to me that this might not be the case.
Consider other sort of differences, besides just "smiles or doesn't". For example, consider that cultural differences with hugging, cheek kissing, hand holding, etc are all pretty non-controversial. Nobody is trying to explain that platonic friends in California don't hold hands because Californians don't make close friends like Saudi Arabians do. Anyone trying to say that would be laughed at.
Were did you get the last one from?
>Nobody is trying to explain that platonic friends in California don't hold hands because Californians don't make close friends like Saudi Arabians do. Anyone trying to say that would be laughed at.
That's because holding hands, is not a core human facial expression, unlike smiling.
On the other hand, you carry your face and its' facial expression constantly, and your expression is the most basic form of interaction you have with another person socially, with talking as distant second. Furthermore, there are few expressions, are (almost?) all are universal, like smiling and crying.
Heck, you could live in the same room with a person for a month, with all kinds of normal interaction (eating, talking, etc) and never one touch him/her, and much less in any socially meaningful way (like holding hands or hugging). Not at all like avoiding having your face seen.
I don't know if I can fully credit the sun, but there's something going on here.
>> Russians don't smile in business meetings.
What? Russians do smile in business meetings. In fact, it is considered rude to NOT look in the eye during conversation/handshake and not smile. In general, lots of deals are done by drinking together. And trust me, if you are drinking with me and you are not smiling, then there is something wrong and that deal will not go through.
I feel like the person who wrote this article has been watching too many gangster movies showing criminal Russia of the 90's.
Another reason why many Russians of the new generation don't smile is because of their crooked teeth. But this is changing since braces and other dental work are becoming an accepted practice.
It is true that many people don't smile in public places (airports, metro, etc.) in Moscow but that's Moscow. There are just too many factors for this unique place, which might as well be considered a separate country due its mores.
Try going to different places in Russia and you will see a more welcoming atmosphere with tons of smiles.
Which is pretty much what the article quotes Russians as saying. Without agreeing with them, of course.
>I think the real reason Russians don't smile is cultural.
Again, you're agreeing with the article - and contradicting your subsequent explanation, which is mainly economic and judicial.
>It's because [Russians] are genuinely more cynical miserable people.
How is this is any better than some Russians' generalization that smiling Westerners are duplicitous?
The poster to whom you're responding is actually saying that the no smile in Russia is because of an actual underlying difference in the emotions being felt.
I don't see where you got the second sentence as the article's implication. Especially since it's rather contradictory with the first sentence.
Maybe you think that the same concept is being discussed in the two sentences? Really there are multiple concepts at play so calling one of them neutral relative to one another and the other one "fake" isn't a contradiction at all. They're different things.
Just because the emotion being expressed is supposed to be neutral doesn't mean that the facial expression can't be implying something more. The article author's contention is that the facial expression is fake and expressing more of an emotion than is present, given that the "real" underlying emotion is one of neutrality in the smile and no-smile cases.
Yes, it was a summary.
>How is this is any better than some Russians' generalization that smiling Westerners are duplicitous?
The 'duplicitous' generalization assumes that westerners are being dishonest. The 'more miserable' generalization assumes that both are being honest.
It might be more accurate
For all the others. The article is not BS. It's a good attempt to troll on the old myth.
Russians don't smile because any person who smiles to a stranger either wants to sell something or is insane. Smiles are for friends, real friends - whopping 2 or 3 of them.
"And if anything goes wrong you can be... No sense of community..."
This part betrayed you. You don't know anything about Russia or Russians. If an African college student attacked a bunch of skinheads, entire subway station would rush to rescue the skinheads.
But then Perestroyka came and African exchange students somehow managed to become a reliable source of hard drugs. At least in Moscow. And gradually the attitude changed.
That said no one would help a skinhead beaten up in a subway. Whatever the GP is smoking, it's potent.
I'm not Russian and I don't know any Russian persons directly, I'm from just a little bit to the West, Romania, and wanted to say that we're like the people described in the article, too, i.e. we're only smiling if we really, really mean it.
I think it's a cultural thing, even though I'd have to agree we people in Eastern Europe tend to be more cynical compared to others (we have our good reasons, though). Whenever I go to my grand-parents' village close to the Carpathian Mountains I do have to say "good day" to each and every person I might meet in the street, even though I might not know them directly (I'm a city boy, after all). But were I to smile at the passers-by I'm pretty sure they'd get back to my grand-mother and inform her that the "city grandson" has a strange way of behaving. It's just how things are.
1. No one will help you - true. My group of friends would alway be targeted by skinheads and when we had to fight no one would ever help us. Not even the police.
2. People make eye contact a lot, it's a respect and dominance thing. Walking down the streets of Moscow with your head down is a good way to end up dead (seriously, be aware. My sister was picked up physically once and shoved into the trunk of a car - fast action saved her life).
3. Not all Russians are miserable but I agree on the cynical part. They don't trust anyone. (would you if you were lied too for that long.)
4."people are asshole to each other in public" its not so much about being assholes - people just have shit to do. I can't count how many times i was pushed by a sweet old babushka in the metro. They just assume you have no respect but they also realize you get nowhere by being passive.
Anyway, Russia is a very amazing place and it can be scary. Moscow is very racist and the youth is a big problem (violence).
Would I live there again? In a heartbeat. Never felt more alive.
People are pour, angry, have no sense of life, my friends advice "don't sing and dance outside, it's dangerous". I don't know why they live.
I think there's a difference between a polite smile of acknowledgement and a smile give to someone that you already know well, however.
At least in the States, yes. It's how you show you're not about to go for their throat with a knife.
How does this work on a crowded place?
Those tourists are kind of like piracy (naval piracy, not digital): due to a very particular mix of historical coincidences, a group of incredibly pronounced jerks have gained considerable power and now they're everywhere. Thing is - those tourists you see everywhere are people of VERY PARTICULAR social and financial standing. In short - they are most likely new to that kind of money (vast majority of Russians don't have enough to go on vacation abroad), they are VERY insecure about it (as in - need to prove, mostly to themselves, that it's not temporary), they're under a lot of pressure (because they're not actually sure why it's THEM getting decent money and not everyone around and because there's a lot of competitors) and they don't know how to handle themselves (once again - they're pretty new to this).
Let's just hope that, like pirates, they will soon become extinct. And for now, on behalf of Russian people at large - we're sorry.
please tell! :-)
"Quite often, Russians smile not “at”, but "about" something."
I guess in Russia one must always be aware of hierarchy; one is supposed to be subordinate to the current hierarchy; Smiling is often interpreted as mocking by the higher ups, and as a sign of condescension by peers.
Also Moscow is quite a stressful place; Men have a high chance of dying in their fifties due to heart problems, much higher chance than in other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_ra...
If anything, Russian population always shows preference for a strong leadership (which is often appropriate to rephrase as "borderline or outright dictatorship"). Ivan the Terrible was saved from a coup by public support, several times. There's a much joked-about statement "Сталина на вас нет!" ("Shame there's no Stalin to set you straight!"), attributed to crazy old people.
In general, every time there was a violently harsh leader, some people will remember him (or her, in two cases) as incredibly effective. This goes at least a thousand years back, and probably as far as Rurik (legendary Scandinavian ruler INVITED by Russians of the time because "our land is big and rich, but there's no order in it").
We're also always scoring sky-high on "Uncertainty Avoidance" in Hofstede's cultural scale (google it, it's cool), and believe me, it shows in countless ways in day-to-day lives. So, to summarize: yes, you might very well be right, but you have to shoot MUCH farther then Gulags and Soviets.
Is this some knee-jerk reaction or something? Russia-gulag and all? For a foreigner it is permissible, not so much for a Russian. I think we need to overgrow this if nice things are to be had.
During the civil war and afterwards, how much the fate and life of common people depended on the whim and 'perception of loyalty to X' ? In order to prosper (or even survive) your allegiance would have to be flexible enough to adapt quickly, or you'd get eliminated. As the saying goes, 'the tall poppies get cut first' - no matter if you were for or against the revolution.
1917 was a result of picking a fight with authority, but the aftermath of 1917 was to eliminate anyone else who'd pick a fight with authority - both outside and within the revolution.
This is what I mean by 'keep your head down'. There's a curse "may you live in interesting times". Living in such times teaches you and the whole society to be mindful about what you say, careful if your beliefs are perceived as proper, and not to pick a fight with authority.
I don't think what you are describing is in any way specific to Russian Revolution and Civil War. If reasoning like that is justified, you can 'prove' the same thing about any society that lived through a social calamity.
There were bloody purges after 1905 enforcing 'summary punishment' against, say, everyone living in a specific village, in order to make a warning for others. My local area lists 500 official executions of revolutionaries, but 2000+ 'collateral deaths' happened in the process.
1917 was followed by (1) a civil war, (2) class warfare - reprisals against millions of people where the fact if you were killed or deported was determined in part by wealth, but in part by your connections and local denouncements. (3) internal conflicts such as Tambov rebellion which also meant that you can easily lose everything for something your neighbor did.
Most societies that lived through a social calamity did not endure long periods of internal treachery affecting not a small prosecuted minority but huge parts of population - well, Pol Pot and China Cultural Revolution did, but I'd argue that they had similar effects on their societies.
I agree and it always appalls me how these sweeping-generalizations make it to the front page of HN.
>It's because they are genuinely more cynical miserable people.
Agree because it's somehow wrong? Just 2-3 comments below yours:
"I'm from Prague and I was always baffled by this. How does the smiling thing work? In what situations do you smile? For example, if you're walking on street, do you eye-contact people going in the opposite direction and smile at them?"
Capitalism makes every other person at worst a neutral non-threat and at best a potential trading partner. Resources are plentiful. People feel benevolent towards one another.
This is not an apology for America; America is only semi-capitalist. You can see Americans getting meaner over time as the country shifts more in the socialist direction. There is less everday that makes America distinct from Europe.
You're taking a look at countries that have implemented 'socialism' and ended up with what amounts to dictatorships. Do you really think that Communism as envisioned by Karl Marx included someone like Stalin, or the corrupt officials that inhabited governments in the Eastern Bloc?
For all of the rhetoric that the far-right sling around in the US about the evils of Socialism, even they have Socialist policies. The government regulates, picks winners, keeps companies afloat that are 'too big to fail,' Social Security and other welfare programs, etc.
Don't confuse situations where neighbors reports other neighbors who then 'disappear' as having anything to do with Communism or Socialism (or than that they have historically resided together).
Do you think that people are automata, and any attempt to build a system with X attributes necesarrily also has Y attributes, in the automatic way that eating only sugar leads to diabetes?
Just because there was an attempt to build X (socialism for example), under specific circumstances (e.g less technologically and politically advanced countries such as Russia, Eastern Europe and Asia), under specific forces (20th century colonialism, WWII, cold war etc), and with specific people at the helm influencing things all around (Stalin and Mao basically), doesn't mean any attempt to build X in different circumstance will end up the same.
Putting everything in one communal basket and expecting people to behave is a recipe for disaster. Don't make a system which works only when people do not make mistakes or are only driven by their purest feelings.
[Citation needed]
Because, you know, that's the analogous response to banning all socialism and social-democracy forever just because the Soviet Union didn't turn out well.
tl;dr don't grant it moral credit.
How do you square that with what you've written?
It feels strange to me to call social welfare anything other than socialism. Maybe it's just a case of French socialisme and English socialism being false friends.
Heck, U S S R.
I think that the best people to ask are those that lived under "socialist" regimes (I'm one of them). If I ask almost anybody I know that lived under a socialist regime, they'll probably say the same.
Maybe theoretically socialism is a different thing, but practically it really isn't for a lot of people.
Today increased budget for food stamps, tomorrow the world, that sort of thing.
Only if you use the american dictionary.
Yep. I would even include America in that, just to a slightly lesser extent.
> That some of the countries that enjoy the highest quality of life and happiness are socialist?
Well, who are you comparing to? There aren't really any or many relatively free countries (and there never have been more than 1 or 2 at a time in all of history).
It's not true if you compare it to 19th century America in terms of happiness, nor modern-day Singapore in terms of quality of life.
(In fact, a pet has a better quality of life than a typical American, since they have better access to healthcare.)
> How do you square that with what you've written?
I hope I've answered your question.
For one, Americans don't just smile to be polite. For the most part it's genuinely conveying positive emotions.
Now I know this is going to be unpopular, but I think the real reason Russians don't smile is cultural. It's because they are genuinely more cynical miserable people. This is completely a generalization and there are tons of exceptions on an individual level, but on average life (especially in the cities) is more cut throat, it's cold, the authorities are corrupt, people are asshole to each other in public, and if anything goes wrong you can be darn well be sure that no one will help you[1]. There is no sense of community, or impulse for people to help each other out and being nice to strangers. So naturally you're worried you'll get robbed or whatever - so you keep to yourself, don't make eye-contact, and don't smile.
If you go to the country side, people are a lot more likely to smile at you.
A bit of an aside - I've found it's also a very Slavic thing. Prague had very similar miserable faces, which Budapest was full of smiles (though economically the countries were very similar)
[1] I remember a story my friend told me of how he was on the subway and a bunch of skinheads beat up an African college student. After they left, no one did anything to help the kid, and everyone just pretended like nothing happened. A good ol' "it's non of my business" attitude.