The Soviet Passport. Albert Baiburin

special attention is paid to the handwritten entries, which are the ones where forgeries most often occur.

      As mentioned above, a document may be regarded as a vehicle for templates, examples or certain standards, and this stereotypical function is so strong that it is reflected in the language of the document, which is typical for its formal nature, both in its address and in its contents. ‘This document is intended to bring to your attention …’; ‘This is hereby to certify that Mr S.V. Ivanov …’. As is well known, red tape is marked out by a high level of conventionality; one often finds that the initial variants of contemporary forms can be found in bureaucratic writing of the nineteenth century or even earlier.

      Typically, the drawing up of documents involves both their form and their contents. Perhaps this is true above all for documents relating to identity. We find here a somewhat paradoxical situation: a document which is designed to highlight and emphasize the individual’s characteristics is made up of a conventional collection of evidence, deliberately designed to standardize everything. We shall be discussing in detail the way in which the person’s details are stamped onto this.

Unlike other texts, the document always has certain properties that immediately identify it as such. These include the date, the stamp, the signature, the series, the number, the particular quality of the paper to protect against fraud and so on. Besides, the modern document (in contrast to documents from long ago) always has a reference number which indicates where it is filed in a particular database, so that it can be easily located. This means that the origin of the information contained in the document can be established and verified. In reality, though, it is possible to check and confirm only the source of the evidence (that is, the body which checked the evidence) but not the actual evidence itself. For example, can one prove that Mr X was born on 5 May 1922 if the actual record of his birth has not survived? Or that Ms X is Russian if previously no record was kept of nationality? As Galina Orlova wrote in her paper, ‘Inventing the document: the paper trail of the Russian Office’, ‘Geared as it is to the priority of the written word, the document does not so much confirm the existence of the person it describes as provide a sufficient and definite confirmation of the documentary record.’¹⁶ In other words, the document does not definitively demonstrate some kind of correspondence with a previously established fact. Its ‘strength’ lies elsewhere: the fact that it comes from an authoritative source. The true value of the document is indeed magical, rather than an established and verified fact. In this sense we can say that the document is an object enclosed within itself; or, in other words, a self-referencing item.¹⁷

3.

      It is worth examining in more detail the level of trustworthiness attested to by a document, given that its fundamental purpose is to reflect or confirm certain details as ‘true’. Our everyday impression of the world is based on the supposition (and logic) of truth, sufficiency and identity, given that the truth and the lie are always interdependent. It is natural to want to clarify the dividing line between the two, thus making the world a more orderly place. The authorities are forever conducting various projects aimed at bringing about greater order. They do this with an inexhaustible enthusiasm. For them, the creation of a document is not merely symbolic but a genuine attempt to establish such a dividing line. Within this logic, what is ‘true’ is defined by documents. So the truth is not necessarily ‘the correct order of things’ per se, but something which is artificially created, above all with the help of documents. As a result, the document becomes the embodiment of trustworthiness. In its own way it is a conclusive act. There is no need to check the information contained in the document (for the checking of the documents themselves, see chapter 7). A particular ‘truth’ is created with the help of these documents, suitable for one situation or another.

      From this it should be clear that such documents work only when there exist institutions which take upon themselves, if not the place of Almighty God, then at least the position of the ‘bearers of the truth’, since they give themselves the right to define the truth. The history of documents – from the edicts of princes to the certificates of the housing commission – illustrates that first and foremost it is the authorities that take this role upon themselves. Documents always reflect the authorities’ power in any culture (hence the formality and official nature of documents).¹⁸

A document, then, is the transfer of some kind of relationship (or of a person’s details, as in the case of a passport) into a different, documented reality. The document acts as a replacement for a particular object: ‘“Here’s my house”, he said, waving a sheaf of papers’. It is significant that when it comes to documents used for identification, they have become metaphors for the person’s surrogate; they are, as David Levy calls them in Scrolling Forward …, ‘talking things’.¹⁹

      These ideas, which have been added to the document, are borne out in social interaction. A document becomes an actual document only when it is used for its primary purpose: when it certifies, affirms or proves something. Outside these situations, it is, in essence, a worthless piece of paper.²⁰ Its link with what is thought to be ‘trusted’ makes the document a natural target for falsification (the reverse of its ‘truthfulness’).²¹ It is this link which makes the document a focus for mistrust. Nothing is so closely examined as documents. However, it is not the details contained within the document that are carefully checked (it is usually impossible to verify them) but what the details are encased in (its properties and so on), as it is usually assumed that the actual details have already been checked and verified. Documents can be falsified in two ways: the details of the document may be altered; or it may be made out to a totally different person. However, in this case the contents of the document have to be changed (such as inserting a false photograph). Both the ability to check the information contained in the document, and having a method for doing this are inextricably linked to its contents. So the document has to be examined in a much wider way. It is not just a question of how to create the document but, first and foremost, how it is going to be used. We might call this ‘the pragmatism’ of the document (this will be dealt with in the third part of this book).

4.

      Documents that certify who a person is (such as a passport and others) hold a special interest for historical anthropologists, because they demonstrate how the state views the person. Those who created the document certifying who a person is wish that this certificate should bear witness to the fact that this is the person in question (at least in the sense that the person bearing the document is the one whom it claims to represent). This, in turn, presupposes that, before the certificate was issued, a procedure took place that verified who the person was.

      Establishing who a person is, is not the same as identification, although they are related. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to identify a person, because a person can never be defined categorically: their personality is constantly changing.²² All one can say is that at any given moment of existence this personality is what it is, and the only comparison that makes sense is with the previous or the following moment. A person can be identified as a physical object by his or her anthropomorphic (or biometric) characteristics, but even this brings with it serious difficulties, as mistakes are always possible. Paradoxically, such information about a person is always of a secondary nature and is of use only in the much later stages.

Establishing identity should confirm who a person actually is. This procedure is carried out by the person who has to answer for the results. The reasons for having to confirm someone’s identity can be very varied: for example, joining a trade union, registering at a library, issuing a passport, and so on. The process of certifying who a person is, is done on the basis of whatever information is available about a particular individual. The way in which this is done depends to a great extent on what the particular aim is. So to join a trade union a document such as a pass needs to be produced, confirming what work the person does. To register at a library in Russia you have to show your passport; but if the would-be reader is not yet old enough to have their own passport, then they may