Labor obedience in the farmyard of an Orthodox monastery (using the example of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky women’s monastery in the village of Spas-Kupalishche, Sudogodsky District, Vladimir Region)

The article examines livestock farming in the context of religious economy using the example of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery in the village of Spas-Kupalishche, Sudogodsky District, Vladimir Region. The relevance of the study is determined by the interrelation of a set of issues: doctrinal aspects of the attitude towards animals in Christianity, ethical categories and practical foundations of the monastery economy, the specifics of labor obedience in the farmyard, its role in achieving the goals of the community and the personality of the inhabitant. The research material is based on interviews with the nuns of the monastery, statements by the confessor, builder and rector of the monastery church Archimandrite Peter (Kucher), and included observation. In the context of acquiring the main monastic virtue – obedience, animals are necessary in the monastery in following aspects: they play a role for self-sufficiency in food and transport (economic aspect); they fill monastic life with necessary physical labor, preventing spiritual discouragement (educational aspect); they express the commandment of love for God’s creation (spiritual aspect). Animals act as a marker, highlighting the norm/degree of humanity in people. On the one hand, the distinction “human/animal” can be interpreted as an antithesis, often identified with the distinction “carnal/spiritual” and indicating the divine purpose that people must follow, on the other hand, it can be seen as a “human-animal” connection, actualizing the commandment of love and the fundamental community and interconnectedness of life in the world.

1. Vasilyeva, O.Yu. (2002), “The fates of Russian monasteries in the 20th century”, in Sinitsyna, N.V., ed., Monashestvo i monastyri v Rossii XI–XX vv.: Istoricheskie ocherki [Monasticism and monasteries in Russia in the 11th – 20th centuries: Historical essays]. Nauka, Moscow, Russia.

2. Zabaev, I.V. (2005), “Orthodoxy and economy. Review of Russian-language studies, dissertations, conferences, and debates on the main socio-economic doctrines of the Russian Orthodox Church for the period from the 19th to the beginning of the 21st centuries”, Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 108–144.

3. Zabaev, I.V. (2006), Osnovnye kategorii khozyaistvennoi etiki sovremennogo russkogo pravoslaviya: analiz sotsial’no-ekonomicheskikh doktrin RPTS i khozyaistvennoi praktiki monastyrskikh obshchin [The main categories of economic ethics of Modern Russian Orthodoxy: Analysis of the socio-economic doctrines of the Russian Orthodox Church and the economic practice of monastic communities], Abstract of Ph.D. dissertation [Sociology], Moscow, Russia.

4. Kapinos, R.V. (2006), Monastyrskie khozyaistva: ekonomicheskie otnosheniya i mesto v sovremennoi natsional’noi ekonomike [Monastic farms: economic relations and place in the modern national economy], Institut ekonomiki RAN, Moscow, Russia.

5. Karabykov, A.V. (2024), “The ideology of animal liberation and the ‘guilt’ of Christianity. Part 1: Is speciesism so bad?”, Voprosy filosofii, no. 4, pp. 181–192.

6. Koval, T.B. (1994), “Orthodox labor ethics”, Universe of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 54–96.

7. Medvedeva, K. (2015), “What can sociology say about monasticism?”, Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie, 2015, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 153–160.

8. Rogozin, D.M. (2012), “[Review:] Kniga o monashestve kak svetskii fenomen arkhimandrit Tikhon (Shevkunov): ‘Nesvyatye svyatye’ i drugie rasskazy [Book on monasticism as a secular phenomenon Archimandrite Tikhon (Shevkunov): ‘Unholy Saints’ and other stories], M.: Izdatel’stvo Sretenskogo monastyrya; OLMA media grupp, 2011. 640 s.”, Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal, no. 2, pp. 170–174.

9. Khizhaya, T.I. (2012), “Animals in modern Orthodox discourse”, in Trudy Gosudarstvennogo muzeya istorii religii [Works of the State Museum of the History of Religions], no. 12, pp. 98–108.