Attitudes toward Ancestors in Space: Povinelli’s Anthropology vs. Russian Cosmism
EDN: UGAFLB
Abstract
Imagining a cosmic future touches on many topics, but typically avoids the topic of death, burial, and attitudes toward deceased ancestors. Most ofthese developments concern life-supportsystems. This article analyzesthe debate between American anthropologist Elizabeth Povinelli and Russian cosmists. The subject of this debate is immortality and attitudes toward ancestors in the context of space exploration. Povinelli analyzes Russian cosmism in the context of her experience researching and living with Australian Aborigines. For the cosmists, space colonization was a high priority. Russian visionary philosopher Nikolai Fedorov believed that it was necessary to leave Earth, firstly, to resurrect ancestors—it was necessary to collect particles from across the universe. Secondly, space exploration was necessary to disperse resurrected ancestorsto other galaxies: there wouldn’t be enough room for everyone on the spaceship Earth. In contrast, Povinelli’s geontological concept suggests “not looking up.” The researcher opposes the colonization of space, as her model of immortality presupposes the localization of descendants. This immortality is based on mutual material exchange between ancestors and descendants. People “feed” their ancestors with their excrement, and in return, receive assistance from the spiritsin theirlocal existence. In thissense, all failures and obstacles are explained by the intervention of ancestors. The article proposesresolving this aporia by reconciling two models ofrelationships with ancestors—that of cosmism and that of Povinelli’s anthropology. Currently and in the near future, space exploration takes place within the closed circuits of space stations, ships, and settlements. In such biospheres, releasing the deceased into outer space would be practically unprofitable. Most likely, ancestors and descendants will feed each other, and funeral rituals and exchanges with ancestors could become part ofthe maintenance ofthe biospheres of space settlements.
About the Author
D. Yu. SivkovRussian Federation
Denis Yr. Sivkov — PhDin Philosophy, Associate Professor atthe Institute of Social Sciences
Moscow
References
1. Bogdanov A. (2015) Immortality day. In: Groys B. (eds.) Russian Cosmism. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, pp. 320‒343. — in Russ.
2. Viveiros de Castro E. (2017) Cannibal metaphysics: for a post-structural anthropology. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press. (in Russ.)
3. Deutsch D. (2015) The Fabric of Reality. Moscow: Alpina Non-fiction Press. (in Russ.)
4. Kohn E. (2018) How forests think: towards an anthropology beyond the human. Moscow: Ad Marginem press. (in Russ.)
5. Povinelli E. (2021) “Only movies are truly public”. Spectate.Interview. Available at: https://spectate.ru/povinelli. (in Russ.)
6. Povinelli E. (2022) Ancestors forever! Anton Vidokle’s Immortal worlds. In: Smirnov N. (eds.) Citizens of the Cosmos: Russian cosmism in Anton Vidokle’s movies. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, pp. 162‒173. (in Russ.)
7. Povinelli E. (2025) Do rocks listen? The cultural politics of apprehending Australian aboriginal labor. Sociology of power, 37(1), pp. 505‒518. (in Russ.)
8. Sahlins M. (1999) Stone Age Economics. Moscow: OGI, 1999. (in Russ.)
9. SetnickyN.A. (2008) Of death and burial. In: Gatcheva A.G., Semenova S.G. (eds.) N.F. Fedorov: pro etcontra. Vol. 2. Saint-Petersburg: RHGA, pp. 392‒396. (in Russ.)
10. Sivkov D. (2020) Scales and places: ontologies of space exploration. Siberian historical studies, (1), pp. 75‒96. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/2312461X/27/5
11. Sivkov D. (2022) The ontological turn in anthropology and technological change in indigenous collective. Logos, 32(20), pp. 193‒225. (in Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2022-2-193-224
12. Fedorov N. F. (1995) “Humans are the creature of burial”. In: Fedorov N. F. Collected works. Vol. 2. Moscow: Progress Press, p. 64. (in Russ.)
13. Fedorov N. F. (2000) Astronomy and architecture. In: Fedorov N. F. Collected works. Vol. 4. Moscow: Tradiciya Press, pp. 5‒7. (in Russ.)
14. Foucault M. (2006) Of other spaсes. In: Foucault M. Intellectuals and power: selected politicalpapers, presentations andinterviews. Vol. 3.Moscow: Praxis, pp. 191‒204. (inRuss.)
15. Tsiolkovsky К.E. (1967) The exploration of cosmic space by means of reaction devices (1911). In: Tsiolkovsky K. E. Papers on astronautics. Moscow: Mashinostroenie, 1967, pp. 59‒100. (in Russ.)
16. Tsiolkovsky К.E. (2017) Aims of astronautics. In: Ciolkovskij K.E. Selected papers. Vol. 1. Moscow: Knizhnyj Klub Knigovеk, pp. 335‒372. (in Russ.)
17. Chekrygin V. (2008) On the Cathedral of Resurrecting Museum. In: Gatcheva A.G., Semenova S.G. (eds.) N. F. Fedorov: pro et contra. Vol. 2. Saint-Petersburg: RHGA, pp. 450‒482. (in Russ.)
18. Chizhevsky A.L. (1924) Physical factors of the historical process. Kaluga: 1-ya Gostipolitografiya. (in Russ.)
19. Anker P. (2005) The ecological colonization of space. Environmental History, 10(2), pp. 239‒268. https://doi.org/10.1093/envhis/10.2.239
20. Aronowsky L.V. (2017) Of astronauts and algae: NASA and the dream of multispecies spaceflight. Environmental Humanities, 9(2), pp. 359‒377. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-4215343
21. Bernstein A. (2019) Thefuture of immortality: remaking life and death in contemporary Russia. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
22. Bird-David N. (1999) “Animism” revisited: personhood, environment, and relational epistemology. Current Anthropology, 40(1), pp. 67‒91. https://doi.org/10.1086/200061
23. Buchli V. (2025) Low earth orbit: a speculative ethnographer’s guide. In: Beasley Murray T., Bracewell W., and Murawski M. (eds.) Anti-Atlas. Critical area studies from the East of the West. London: UCL Press, pp. 87‒94.
24. Burgess C., Doolan K., Vis B. (2003) Fallen astronauts: heroes who died reaching for the Moon. Lincoln; London: University of Nebraska Press.
25. Cutting A. (2009) Ashes in orbit: Celestis spaceflights and the invention of post-cremationist afterlives. Science as Culture, 18(3), pp. 355‒369. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430903122992
26. Damjanov K. (2013) Lunar cemetery: global heterotopia and the biopolitics of death. Leonardo, 46(2), pp. 159–162. https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_00516
27. Damjavov К. (2015) The matter of media in outer space: technologies of cosmobiopolitics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 33(5), pp. 889–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775815604920
28. Dooren van Т., Rose D.B. (2016) Lively ethnography: storying animist worlds. Environmental Humanities, 8(1), pp. 77‒94. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3527731
29. Finney B. (1992) From sea to space. Palmerston North: Massey University Press.
30. Huberman J. Old men, young blood. Transhumanism and the promise and peril of immortality. In: Kneese T., Dawdy Sh.L. (eds.) The new death: mortality and death care in thetwenty-firstcentury. Santa Fe; Albuquerque: School for Advanced Research Press; University of New Mexico Press, 2022, pp. 53‒71.
31. Jane Young М. (1987) “Pity the Indians of outer space’’: Native American views of the space program. Western Folklore, 46(4), pp. 269‒279. https://doi.org/10.2307/1499889
32. Kallipoliti L. (2018) The architecture of closed worlds, or What is the power of shit? Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers.
33. Munns D.P.D., Niekelsen K. (2021) Far beyond the Moon: a history of life support systems in the Space Age. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
34. Povinelli E. Geontologies: a requiem to latelLiberalism. Durham; London: Duke University Press, 2016.
35. Povinelli E. (2021) The inheritance, Durham; London: Duke University Press, 2021. Reider R. (2009) Dreaming the biosphere: thetheater of all possibilities. Albuquerque: University of Mexico Press.
36. Terbish B. (2022) State ideology, science, and pseudoscience in Russia: between the Cosmos and the Earth. London; New York: Lexington Books.
37. Valentine D. (2016) Atmosphere: context, cetachment, and the view from above Earth. American Ethnologist, 43(3), pp. 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12343
38. ValentineD. (2017) Gravity fixes: habituating to the human on Mars and Island Three. HAU: Journal of Ethnographictheory,7(3), pp. 185–209. https://doi.org/10.14318/hau7.3.012
Review
For citations:
Sivkov D.Yu. Attitudes toward Ancestors in Space: Povinelli’s Anthropology vs. Russian Cosmism. Sociology of Power. 2026;38(2):168-186. (In Russ.) EDN: UGAFLB
JATS XML







































