Culture 2025: The Interpersonal Is Political in Russia’s New Diaspora

Khoshnaw Rahmani, Jadetimes Staff

K. Rahmani is a Jadetimes news reporter covering culture.

---

Image Source: Shamil Zhumatov

Since 2022 a new wave of Russian emigration has reconfigured the geography of Russian-language culture. Far from being a temporary exodus, this dispersal has produced a diffuse but vibrant cultural ecosystem in which everyday relations, small-scale initiatives, and intimate networks are the primary vehicles of political and artistic life. In this context the phrase “the interpersonal is political” captures a shift: cultural work no longer waits for institutions or mass movements but is produced through kitchens, living rooms, online salons, pop-up galleries, and commuter-stage performances that stitch private life to public meaning.

From displacement to micro-institutions

Many of the migrants who left Russia in recent years carried with them professional skills, social capital, and existing creative practices. Lacking access to established institutional support, they have built micro-institutions: independent publishing houses run from apartments, collective residencies hosted in cooperative flats, informal festivals across cafes and coworking spaces, and artist-run archival projects that preserve banned or endangered work. These ad hoc structures are pragmatic and nimble; they substitute for formal infrastructure while creating durable networks that sustain careers and civic voice.

Cultural forms as survival and resistance

The creative output of the new diaspora resists easy categorization. It blends memoir, documentary, experimental film, pop music, theatre, and visual art into hybrid forms that are both deeply personal and subtly political. Much work foregrounds everyday experience—household conversations, family archives, domestic rituals—transforming private memory into public testimony. This turn inward is strategic: intimate stories bypass state censorship, build empathy in foreign publics, and create communal records of lives disrupted by repression.

Digital intimacy and distributed publics

Digital platforms have been central to the diaspora’s cultural flourishing but not in the monolithic way often assumed. Telegram channels, encrypted group chats, and curated social-media microcommunities serve as rehearsal spaces, funding networks, and distribution channels. Artists and curators use these tools to assemble distributed publics that are both global and intimate: audiences that follow a podcast from exile, subscribe to a zine produced in Riga, or attend a livestreamed theatre piece staged in Vilnius. The result is a cultural sphere that privileges sustained interpersonal ties over mass broadcast.

Language, identity, and generational renewal

Language plays a paradoxical role. Russian remains the connective tissue among emigrés, but the new cultural output frequently interrogates what Russian identity means outside the Russian state. Younger creators often mix languages, reference diasporic literatures, and collaborate across national lines, producing works that are translingual and transnational. This generational renewal reshapes canonical debates about literature, memory, and national belonging, placing the diaspora at the center of contemporary Russian cultural conversation.

Networks of care and cultural labor

Beyond aesthetics, the diaspora’s cultural scene is organized around care: mutual aid funds, mentorship circles, legal and mental-health support for artists at risk, and revenue-sharing cooperatives that protect freelancers. These networks respond to the precarity many émigré creatives face—unstable visas, fragmented incomes, and legal vulnerability—while modeling alternative economies for cultural labor. The ethical commitments embedded in these systems give the diaspora’s cultural production a political edge even when content is formally non-political.

Partnerships and translocal alliances

The new diaspora does not exist in isolation. Cultural actors have forged partnerships with museums, universities, human-rights organizations, and independent publishers across Europe, North America, and Central Asia. These alliances provide platforms, funding, and legitimacy, but they also generate tensions about representation, gatekeeping, and the risk of instrumentalizing émigré voices for institutional agendas. Successful collaborations to date are those that prioritize co-creation, equitable compensation, and long-term institutional commitments.

Challenges and contradictions

The flourishing is uneven. Resource concentration in major hubs, language barriers, and political fragmentation create fissures. Some émigré cultural producers face criticism both from critics in the host societies who expect overt activism and from compatriots who view exile cultural output as unmoored from the realities at home. Additionally, the dependence on short-term grants and festival cycles threatens sustainability. The diaspora’s long-term influence will depend on institutionalizing successes without ossifying the improvisational energy that made them possible.

The cultural life of the new Russian emigration demonstrates that politics has migrated into relational spaces. By transforming kitchens, chat groups, residencies, and collaborative platforms into arenas of cultural production, émigré creators have reimagined how dissent, memory, and creativity can coexist under duress. Their work is a reminder that political transformation often begins not with grand declarations but with persistent, small-scale acts of making, caring, and sharing. If 2025 is the year that codifies this shift, the diaspora’s influence will be measured less by large institutions than by the durability of the networks and practices that have already taken root.