bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
ИДЕОЛОГИИ ИМПЕРИИ В РОССИИ ИМПЕРСКОГО ПЕРИОДА
Authors: Схиммелпеннинк ван дер Ойе Дэвид
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
David Schimmelpenninck argues that there were important similarities between Russian and West European territorial expansion in the late nineteenth century and that Russian expansionism was shaped by competing philosophies, each of which represented a particular view of Russia’s imperial destiny. He focuses on the ideas expressed by Nikolai Przhevalskii, Esper Ukhtomskii, Sergei Witte and Aleksei Kuropatkin during the Russian fin-de-siècle infatuation with the Far East. One obvious case for the author is the Tsar himself, whose inconsistent East Asian politics betrayed the contradictory elements of various ideologies. Nicholas’ contempt for the Asians’ martial talents, his faith in the superiority of Russian arms, and his lust for empire in the East were all characteristic of Przhevalskii’s conquistador imperialism. Yet the Tsar’s response to the Boxer rising shows that he also shared Ukhtomskii’s enthusiasm for Russia’s Oriental destiny and the Middle Kingdom. And, very early in his reign, before Nicholas had lost faith in his finance minister, he was intrigued about the economic possibilities the Trans-Siberian Railway might open for his empire.

As with the Tsar, these four ideologies also played a part in the actions of his government. D. Schimmelpenninck concludes that Russian perceptions of its place in the world have never been monopolised by a solitary ideology, be it an “urge to the sea,” “Third-Rome Messianism,” “pacifying the frontier,” or some other notion.
ИСТОКИ ПАРАДИГМЫ ЕДИНСТВА: УКРАИНА И СОЗДАНИЕ РУССКОЙ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОЙ ИСТОРИИ (1620-е – 1860-е гг.)
Authors: Когут Зенон
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Zenon Kohut explores the origins and development of the belief in historical, linguistic, cultural and spiritual unity of Russia and Ukraine. His article attempts to address these questions by tracing Ukraine’s role in the development of the “traditional scheme of Russian history”, a grand narrative of the origins and evolution of the Russian Empire. Although the idea of a unitary Russia was not fully developed until the mid-nineteenth century, its roots can be traced to the seventeenth century, when Ukraine and Russia first encountered each other. By the second half of the nineteenth century, the imperial “grand narrative” or “traditional scheme” of Russian history was fully formed. It began with the establishment of a pedigree for the Muscovite dynasty (the Stepennaia kniga ), evolved into a story of an Orthodox Slavo-Rossian realm (the Sinopsis ), turned into an account of an evolving and territorially shifting Russian state (Karamzin), and was finally transformed into the national history of Russia and the Russian people. Although Ukrainians had developed an alternate narrative, it had little impact on the evolution of the Russian grand narrative. In its fully developed form, the Russian grand narrative became an assertion of historical priority, a claim to privileged possession of territory and statehood, and a justification of a Great Russian ethnolinguistic definition of “Russianness” and Russian identity. It was this paradigm of historical, religious, and ethnic unity that had to be challenged if Ukrainians were to assert their own identity. Although Ukrainians went on to conceptualize a distinct national history, the unity paradigm of the Russian grand narrative continues to overshadow current perceptions of both Russia and Ukraine.
КЕМ И КОГДА БЫЛА “ИЗОБРЕТЕНА” ТЕОРИЯ “МОСКВА – ТРЕТИЙ РИМ”?
Authors: Кореневский Андрей
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Andrei Korenevskii’s article follows up on the article by Marshall Poe “The Invention of ‘Moscow The Third Rome’ Theory”. While agreeing with Poe on the problem of the perception of the doctrine, Korenevskii takes up the question of authorship of the so called “cycle of Filofei”. Arguing that the authorship problem is essential in establishing the contextual conditions for the emergence of the theory, Korenevskii proposes his own interpretations of the problem of texts attribution. Having argued that authorship is established (of Filofei), Korenevskii suggests that the misionary vision that unites different ouevres of the “cycle of Filofei” tends to undermine the interpretation of the doctrine as a responce or a side effect of the polemics against astrologers or latinists. Wide distribution of the references to the doctrine itself signifies the degree of preparedness of the early Muscovite society to embrace it. The unity of the cycle helps to establish the audience (church public) and to explain the reluctance of the Ivan the Terrible’s state to embrace the doctrine since it stressed certain limits to the autocratic powers. Finally, the unity of the cycle and the established authorship opens up the field of research to elaborate on the portrait of one of the most distinguished medieval ideologists of Russia.
The Medieval Nation of Rus’: The Religious Underpinnings of the Russian Nation
Authors: Bouchard Michel
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
В общественных науках принято рассматривать национализм как преимущественно политический феномен. В последние годы возобла-дала тенденция трактовать как государственные конструкты и куль-турные основания нации. Возникновение нации не только описывается как процесс политический, но и безусловно привязывается хронологи-чески к Новому времени. Квинтэссенцией данного подхода является известное утверждение Эрика Хобсбаума: “существует больше госу-дарств, создавших нации, чем наций, создавших государства” (1990).

И все же, несмотря на то, что трактовка нации как модернового го-сударственного конструкта превратилась в научную ортодоксию, раз-даются голоса сторонников “еретической” точки зрения, согласно ко-торой нации начинают складываться в Средние века. В качестве наи-более очевидного примера средневековой нации обычно приводится Англия, но ревизионистская концепция теории нации и национализма, выдвинутая Адрианом Гастингсом (Adrian Hastings) применительно к Англии, вполне приложима и к другим странам. Если Гастингс прав в том, что Библия служила зеркалом для формирующихся наций, приме-ры средневековых наций должны обнаруживаться во всех христиан-ских регионах мира. В предлагаемой статье теория Гастингса тестиру-ется на российском материале. Корни русской нации автор ищет не в политической сфере, а в православных религиозных текстах.

Наиболее ранние следы национального самосознания М. Бушар об-наруживает в XI веке в таких религиозных текстах, как древнеславян-ские Псалтыри и апокрифы. Он демонстрирует, что основная лексика описания национального в современной России восходит к этому ран-нему периоду. Рассмотрение “Повести временных лет” и “Слова ми-трополита Илариона о законе и благодати” позволяет автору утвер-ждать, что в Киевской Руси концепция национального формулирова-лась аналогично тому, как понимают ее в современной России. Ставя проблему средневековых корней нации, М. Бушар призывает пере-смотреть влиятельные сегодня модернистские теории, не позволяю-щие, по его мнению, адекватно исследовать те феномены нации и на-ционального, которые характерны для Российской Федерации и рус-ской диаспоры.
Tools for Revolution: Wartime Mobilization in State-Building, 1914–1921
Authors: Holquist Peter
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
В статье Питера Холквиста исследуется процесс возникновения в России “парагосударственного” комплекса – сети негосударственных общественных учреждений и организаций, работающих для нужд вой-ны параллельно или в сотрудничестве с государством. Согласно основ-ному тезису автора, возникновение этого комплекса в России не было результатом постепенного развития институтов гражданского обще-ства. Сеть негосударственных организаций оформилась в ходе войны как результат военной мобилизации, и в этом автор видит основное от-личие российского варианта от западных “образцов”.

То, что в России формирование техник общественного управления и самоуправления проходило на фоне военной мобилизации, объясняет малую востребованность модели гражданского общества, основанного на законности. Парагосударственный комплекс, с помощью которого поддерживалась жизнедеятельность мобилизованного на войну общества, возник под эгидой государства и в то же время – на фоне обще-ственной критики в адрес самодержавия. Он не опирался на публичную сферу, независимую от государства и самодостаточную вне военного контекста. В итоге получился “военно-гражданский гибрид”, который унаследовали большевики. Механизм формирования и наследования данного “гибрида” показан в статье на примере двух процессов: нала-живания продовольственного снабжения и “социально-политического / революционного просвещения” масс в годы первой мировой и граждан-ской войн.

Холквист делает вывод о том, что в годы гражданской войны как белые, так и красные использовали наследие первой мировой для мобилизации общества на основе собственных лозунгов. Именно в этом смысле возникшее советское государство унаследовало элементы гражданско-военного гибрида, “изобретенного” в 1914–1917 гг.
On The Art of Forgetting: The Siege Story
Authors: Hellberg-Hirn Elena
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Статья Елены Хелберг-Хирн посвящена истории памяти, забвения и манипулирования памятью о ленинградской блокаде. Автор прослежи-вает эту историю с момента создания в 1944 году музея Блокады, через его закрытие в 1951 году и повторное открытие в 1989 г. Но это – лишь внешние вехи, отмечавшие этапы смены официальной версии блокады и образа блокадного Ленинграда. На каждом этапе существовала определенная сумма информации, которую разрешалось помнить, и выраба-тывались нарративные и визуальные формы, в которых эта информация преподносилась. Данные процессы сопровождались вытеснением из индивидуальной и общественной памяти определенных идеологически неудобных и/или психологически трудно воспринимаемых аспектов блокадной истории. На волне постсоветской критики коммунистического прошлого История Октября была вытеснена Историей Блокады в качестве нового ленинградского мифа, к которому теперь возводят истоки городского патриотизма и на котором строится коллективная идентификация старого поколения ленинградцев. Новый миф вновь за-дается “сверху”, но, в силу изменившихся политических условий, ак-тивно корректируется “снизу.” Автор приходит к выводу, что эти два процесса практически не пересекаются и настоящая история Блокады, включая устную историю, – дело будущего.
ДРЕВНЕРУССКАЯ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОСТЬ И “НАРОД РУСЬ”: ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ И ПУТИ КОРРЕКТНОГО ОПИСАНИЯ
Authors: Данилевский Игорь
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
The article addresses the problem of incompatibility of modern analytical categories with comprehension of pre-modern history, posing a particular question of whether the political order of Old Rus’ can qualify as a state. Reviewing the features of what is usually called the “ancient Russian state,” the author concludes that the modern concept of the state can only obscure our understanding of medieval political order. The author observes that the use of the modern concept of the state for conceptualization of medieval Russian history led to an assumption that the populace of this political formation can be described in national terms. A contextual perspective on medieval statehood and culture suggests that the dominant identity of this time was not national but rather religious (confessional) or territorial. In a way of conclusion the author calls for the development of a thesaurus of Russian medieval concepts (similar in character to studies in Early modern European conceptual history).
ПЕРВАЯ МИРОВАЯ ВОЙНА В ФИНЛЯНДИИ: ИМПЕРИЯ ПРОТИВ НАЦИИ, РОССИЙСКАЯ АРМИЯ ПРОТИВ ФИНЛЯНДЦЕВ
Authors: Дубровская Елена
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
The article analyzes the role and perception of the imperial army in the Grand Duchy of Finland during the World War I. The author traces the history of Finland’s armed forces back to 1905 when after the first revolution they were reorganized and integrated into the overall imperial army. Since the break up of the world war the military administration coexisted with the former civil imperial administration in the Grand Duchy of Finland. The author documents the changes in government of Finland which were brought mainly by the military authorities. In comparison to the civil administration the military intervened much more ruthlessly and expansively into the process of administration and everyday life of Finland. They were largely unaware of the complexities associated with this region and traditions that were accumulated in the history of administering of the borderland. More importantly new administrative style and practices were conditioned by the novelty of the “total war,” which required the comprehensive internal mobilization of human and material resources. The author reveals a latent conflict between the military and civil imperial authorities in Finland over a proper policy of the empire in this region, in which the civil authorities attempted to mediate intervention and continue the pre-war tradition of imperial government. The author also scrutinizes the everyday life of and day-to-day interaction between the imperial army the population of Finland. Focusing on mutual perception that emerged out of new policy and this interaction, the author concludes that a more direct and unmediated encounter of Finland with the imperial army and military authorities led to a more conflictual relationship underpinned by cultural misunderstanding and brought about the construction of the army into the negative image of the empire as a whole, which in turn contributed to the growth of separatist moods.
ТАТАРСКАЯ ИНТЕЛЛИГЕНЦИЯ САРАТОВА: ОСОБЕННОСТИ ЭТНИЧЕСКОЙ САМОИДЕНТИФИКАЦИИ
Authors: Хабенская Елена
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
The article explores the development of ethnic identity among the Tatar intelligentsia of the city of Saratov (outside of the titular Tatar republic) in the context of post-Soviet political, economic and psychological crisis. The research is based on a deep interview survey. The author conceptualizes the spurt of ethnic Tatar identity in the 1990s as a response to the loss of the soviet identity, social instability of post-Soviet life, and the looming prospect of decline of the Tatar language and ethnic identity among the Tatar people. The interview survey reveals that the Tatar identity of the Saratov intelligentsia centers on language, national traditions, and religion (Islam). Ethnic origin and the titular Tatar republic (Tatarstan) are less central for the identity of Saratov Tatars. Acknowledging the fact of differences among the Tatars, living in different parts of the post-Soviet states, Saratov respondents viewed all the Tatars and sometimes other Turkic people as part of the same nation. The author maintains that the Saratov Tatars supplement their ethnic identity with the political identity of citizens of the Russian Federation. They appear to be divided over the question of the necessity of a national state for the Tatars. Though some viewed Tatarstan as an obstacle on the way of the all-Tatar ethnic identity, some of the respondents viewed the existence of the titular Tatar republic as a condition for survival of the Tatar culture and language. The author concludes that the ethnic identity of the Tatars outside of Tatarstan is bound to culture (historical memory, language, religion, traditions) and much less to factors of ethnopolitics, such as national state and policy of the federal center in regard to nationalities.
ГЕРМАНИЯ И МУСУЛЬМАНЕ РОССИИ В ДВУХ МИРОВЫХ ВОЙНАХ
Authors: Гилязов Искандер
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Iskander Giliazov analyzes the vicissitudes of German policies towards Russian/Soviet Muslim minorities in the course of World War I and World War II. The article explores such issues as propaganda, organization of prisoners of war camps, establishment of specifically Muslim military units.

Giliazov argues that during World War I Germany propagated common struggle against colonialism that would help defeat Great Britain, France and Russia (all of whom could be considered colonial powers). In the second World War German propaganda placed emphasis upon the common struggle against Bolshevism, which suppressed national movements. In both cases, according to the author, leaders of Muslim minorities were not in a position to define the destinies of their peoples. They had to produce conditions, on which they were prepared to join the struggling parties, and request promises of assistance in nation building in the future. These hopes remained unfulfilled.
Бремя Бритого Человека, Или Внутренняя Колонизация России
Authors: Эткинд Александр
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
In his article Alexander Etkind scrutinizes the applicability of Said’s theory of Orientalism to the history of Russia and, critically revising the basic premises of that theory, suggests an array of political, cultural, and intellectual phenomena in Russian history that could be placed in and interpreted within the perspective of Orientalism. Etkind starts with recapitulation of Said’s theory, pointing to the well-known fact that it was based on the specifics of the colonial relationships within the French and British modern empires. He notes that historical Orientalism, alon with postcolonial discourse, tends to reify seemingly discrete entities of the colonizing West and the colonized East, thus obscuring national differences among the modern colonial and semi-colonial powers. Applied to a historical variety of colonial and post colonial situations beyond the realm of typical colonial empires, the thesis of Orientalism reveals its core, which, according to Etkind, is a complex of practices designed to create and manipulate the cultural distance, which can be formulated in geographic, racial, ethnic, religious, and class terms. Marrying Said to Gellner, Etkind states that in a traditional society and on a scarcely populated territory of the Russian empire the colonization and orientalization were directed inward rather than outward; that is, the population of the core of the empire was viewed as culturally different (in case of romanticism, as inferiority or superiority) by the westernized elite and subjected to a civilizing mission of the state. Etkind illustrates this thesis by drawing on an array of examples, including the settlement of foreign colonists, the military colonies during the reign of Alexander I, the historiography of “Russian colonization,” and the relationship between external expansion and internal colonization. Tracing the intellectual origins of the thesis on internal colonization, the author turns to Chaadaev and his radical interpretation of the process of Europeanization of Russia as a colonial one. Emphasizing the centrality of intellectual and cultural production for maintaining and manipulating cultural distance, Etkind analyzes the discourse of “the people” as developed both by Russian intelligentsia of the populist creed and in Russian ethnography, suggesting that beginning with the Slavophiles and ending with the collapse of the Ancien Regime in 1917 the educated and political elite of Russia fell under the influence of a postcolonial attitude toward the colonized people, which contributed to the “internal” decolonization of Russia. In conclusion, Etkind argues that colonialism and the associated practices of cultural distancing returned in a cyclical manner during the Soviet period.
Producing patriots. Heroic Stories and Individual Heroes as the Makers of the Soviet and Russian Identity in History Textbooks (1950–1995)
Authors: Vähä F. M. Eliisa
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Статья Элиизы Ваха посвящена анализу исторических героев и героических историй в советских учебниках. На основе материала учебников, считает Ваха, формировалась советская идентичность и конструировалась избирательная коллективная память. Мифологизация, идеологизация и героизация исторического нарратива учебников представлены в статье хронологически (от учебника по истории СССР 1937 г. до последних учебников 1990-х гг.) и тематически (героиче-ские истории; индивидуальный героизм – революционные герои, защитники отечества; герои “внутреннего фронта”; новая российская героика). Идеального советского человека в сталинских учебниках Ваха описывает как воинствующего патриота. Учебники эпохи Хру-щева популяризировали в качестве образца тип “мирного идеолога” без национальных черт. Нормативные герои учебников брежневской эпохи – защитники отечества, продуктивные, деятельные члены общества, строители социализма. Наконец, учебники перестроечного периода заполнились индивидуальными героями с ярко выраженной национальной принадлежностью. В современных российских учебниках Ваха отмечает превращение советских героев и героических историй в отрицательные символы, по контрасту с которыми выстраивается новая русская идентичность. Традиционная русская культура используется в качестве основания для новой идентичности, положительными героями учебников становятся крестьяне и представители православной церкви …
Does Russia Qualify for Postcolonial Discourse?: A Response to Ekaterina Dyogot’s Article
Authors: Dikovitskaya Margaret
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Эссе московского историка искусства Екатерины Деготь аргументирует необходимость для России “стать пригодной для постколониального дискурса”. Иной , постколониальный, субъект обладает правом голоса в современном мире: например, неоспоримо право африканцев возвышать голос именно в силу своего постколониального статуса. Россия же, несмотря на то, что в ней протекают те же процессы, что и в постколониальном мире, такого права не имеет. Именно поэтому автор предлагает принять на вооружение антиимпериалистическую, маргинальную идентичность “Восточной Европы”, с тем чтобы голос России наконец услышали на международной арене.

Отвечая на эссе Е. Деготь, Маргарита Диковитская утверждает, что Россия может быть “пригодной” для постколониального дискурса только в одном смысле – в качестве Себя/Субъекта , а не Иного/Объекта , поскольку в течение длительного исторического периода Россия и СССР являлись независимыми и имперскими государственными образованиями. В свою очередь, Диковитская считает, что гуманитарные науки в России имеют преимущество в области постсоциалистических исследований, причем вклад в такие исследования могут внести как представители Центральной-Восточной Европы, так и бывших азиатских соцстран. Новый постсоциалистический мир с делением по линии Север/Юг предполагает именно такое развитие.
Was Russia Its Own Orient?: Reflections on the Contributions of Etkind and Schimmelpenninck to the Debate on Orientalism
Authors: Knight Nathaniel
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Статья Н. Найта “Была ли Россия собственным ‘Востоком’?” является откликом на выступления А. Эткинда и Д. Схиммельпенник ван дер Ойе в настоящем номере AI . Найт в целом принимает тезис Схимельпеннинка ван дер Ойе о неравномерности российского ориентализма, вызванного как внешними, так и внутренними причинами (восприятие России Европой как “Востока”). Гораздо более неодно-значное отношение вызывает у Найта идея внутреннего ориентализма Эткинда, который обнаруживает “ориентализм” (и колониализм) везде, где существует культурная дистанция. Найт критикует столь расширительное толкование концепта Саида, заявляя, что он лишается не только своего оригинального смысла, но и эвристического потенциала. Не принимает Найт и тут часть рассуждений Эткинда, где он сохраняет верность интерпретации Саида и подчеркивает роль интеллектуалов в манипулировании “культурной дистанцией”. Найт видит в такой трактовке подчинение свободной воли человека (исторического деятеля) неким подспудным силам под названием “ориентализм” и “колониализм”. Найт предлагает искать компромисс между представлениями о человеке в истории как об абсолютно свободном и автономном деятеле, и детерминистскими трактовками, в которых человеческая деятельность ограничивается и исчерпывается теми возможностями, которые предоставляют наличные глобальные дискурсивные структуры.

В заключении Найт отметает вопрос о применимости теории Саида к российскому случаю как потерявший актуальность в свете новейшей историографии (что, по мнению Найта, продемонстрировала и дискуссия в AI ). Сегодня задача формулируется следующим образом: учитывая выявленные ограничения саидовской концепции ориентализма, необходимо, тем не менее, решать те исследовательские проблемы, которые эту концепцию породили: взаимоотношения власти и науки; дискурсов, структур и свободной человеческой деятельности; культурного творчества и государственного насилия и др. Решение этих проблем применительно к российской истории возможно, по мнению Найта, только на основе проверки теоретических концептов типа “ориентализма” в ходе тщательного эмпирического изучения конкретных исторических ситуаций.
Империя и Космос. Опыт Интерпретации Средневекового Описания Империи Чингисхана
Authors: Юрченко Александр
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
In his article Alexander Iurchenko analyzes the documents of a papal diplomatic delegation to the Mongol empire of the middle of the thirteenth century, namely Ystoria Mongalorum by John of Plano Carpini and Tatar Relation by C. de Bridia. A textological scrutiny of the documents so rich in fantastic episodes and mysterious symbolism and a comparison of fictitious episodes from those materials with Persian and Arabic cosmographies led the author to conclude that the episodes in question constitute a separate text, which was produced by an unidentified Mongolian author from the educated elite of the empire and recorded by Brother Benedict, who served as an interpreter to the papal mission. This text sheds new light on the level of cultural life and intellectual sophistication of politics in the Mongolian empire, which was regarded before as empire of barbarians. The text itself is a subtle rhetorical game, which draws on official symbols of the Mongolian political tradition and the rich literature of the medieval East in order to subvert the official mythology of the Mongolian empire. The historical episode and literary history of the Mongolian text under analysis raises question as to the traditional views on the creativity of medieval authorship and the cultural cleavage between the Western and Asiatic medieval civilizations.
The Evolution of “Us” and “Them” in Russian Film from Perestroika to Putin
Authors: Rifkin Benjamin
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Статья Б. Рифкина исследует изменения в самоидентификации россиян последнего десятилетия, используя в качестве источника кинофильмы, выпущенные в прокат начиная с 1988 г: “Маленькая Вера”, “Такси-Блюз”, “Окно в Париж”, “Брат-2”. Если в доперестроечное время оппозиция “свой - чужой” определялась прежде всего влиянием официальной советской идеологии, то с началом социальной и политической трансформации бывшие советские граждане стали по-иному определять принадлежность к “своему”. Несмотря на то, что россияне продолжали ценить материальные аспекты “западного” существования, его духовные аспекты казались им менее привлекательными (“Окно в Париж”). Внутренние культурные ориентиры россиян размывались, что демонстрируется, по мнению автора, фильмом П. Лунгина “ТаксиБлюз”, где музыкант Алеша, еврей по национальности, демонстрирует характеристики, ассоциируемые с “русскостью” (алкоголизм, бесшабашность, высокая духовность). Глобализация и взаимопроникновение культур сделало невозможным разделение “своего” и “чужого”, поскольку в “чужом” всегда обнаруживается “свое” и наоборот, а сам культурный контекст становится американизированным (“Брат-2”). Разрушение казавшейся столь прочной идентичности советской поры приводит к сложной и многоплановой картине самоидентификации россиян, на которую в последнее время оказывают влияние путешествия и иммиграция. Для большинства же россиян, которые никогда не выезжали за пределы России, кино остается одним из медиумов, посредством которого формируется их представление о себе и своем месте в большом мире.
К Вопросу Об Ориентализме в России (Во Второй Половине XIX Века – Начале XX Века)
Authors: Кэмпбелл Елена
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
In her response to both the idea of a forum on Orientalism in Russia in the framework of the special issue on Paradoxes of Modernization and the articles by David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye and Alexander Etkind, Elena Campbell engages the problem of the interpretative potential of theory of Orientalism, paying special attention to the discourse of Russian officialdom. She notes that the Orient in the Russian perspective was often disguised in the concept of Islam, which proved to be the unifying and power-laden category for the varying nationalities and regions of the empire’s Asiatic periphery. Focusing on the relationship between the imperial government and science (Oriental studies, and, in particular, studies of Islam), Campbell argues in favor of a Saidian interpretation of the Russian case, at least on the part of the imperial government’s apprehension of the importance of modern and secular knowledge for the administration of Asiatic territories within the borders of the empire and penetration to territories to the empire’s “East.” She also argues in favor of a more interactive perspective on relationship between the imperial “West” and its Orient, pointing to the fact of usage of the orientalist discourse by the representatives of Muslim nationalities, who creatively adopted imperial knowledge about the East to defend and negotiate their interest vis-à-vis the imperial center.
Взгляд на всероссийскую перепись из Татарстана
Authors: Исхаков Дамир
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
This article by a scholar from Tatarstan looks at the recent debates around the “Tatar problem” from the level of the “Federation subject”. Criticizing Sokolovsky’s historical argument, Iskhakov cites a number of sources to prove that by the beginning of the 20 th century the Tatar ethnic group was a reality, rather than a composite made by imperial administrative or scientific authorities. Accordingly, the author argues that a number of “nationalities” separately treated by the recent census list are, in fact, subconfessional or historically formed groups within the Tatar ethnos. The author sees a political entrepreneurship at work in the attempts to promote subethnic groups within the Tatar nation. At the same time, he believes that the separation of certain groups outside the Republic of Tatarstan from the Tatar nation will lead to these groups’ speedy Russification. The author also notes a political will behind the fact that while the Tatars are being divided into a number of nationalities, in the neighboring Bashkortostan these groups disappeared from the list.
Региональное конструирование Карельской Автономии
Authors: Барон Ник
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Russian (eastern) Karelia was for the first time in its history united into a single administrative unit on 7 June 1920. The resolution which the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued the following day stated simply that “to fight for the social emancipation of the Karelian workers,” a “regional unit” to be named the Karelian Labour Commune should be formed in the areas of Olonets and Arkhangelsk gubernii populated by Karelians. The lack of precise directives, as to the new region’s purpose, administrative status and territory, was a measure of the contradictions, conflicting aspirations and countervailing tensions of ideology and exigency inherent in Soviet policy-making in the early 1920’s. This paper considers debates and conflicts over Karelia’s spatial construction in relation to the development of Soviet foreign, national and economic policy in this period.
“Чужаки” в меняющемся социуме: Иркутск, последняя треть XIX – первая треть XX вв.
Authors: Рабинович Владимир
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
This article outlines the scheme for future research into the history of ethnic communities in Irkutsk in the context of economic and social modernization of the Russian empire in the late 19 th – early 20 th century. The author explores major ethnic groups in the region, such as Poles, Jews, Russians, Chinese and Koreans, and a composite group of Caucasians, while examining each group’s economic function. At the same time, the author pays attention to specific governmental policies (or lack thereof) with respect to ethnic communities. The processes of economic modernization, in particular the railroad construction, had drastic effects upon the situation of ethnic entrepreneurs. If prior to the Transsiberian railroad construction markets were dominated by a small number of “kings of the market”, who mostly belonged to the dominant ethnic group, the Russians, the railroad opened up the space for the second tier entrepreneurs, giving a chance to local minorities.
Baltic History and Soviet Empire: Recovering the Past in Soviet and Russian Historical Discourse
Authors: Sherlock Thomas
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
В своей статье Томас Шерлок анализирует роль репрезентаций исторического прошлого и исторической памяти в политических процессах, происходивших в прибалтийском регионе в период перестройки и распада Советского Союза, он прослеживает преемственность и изменения в осмыслении прибалтийской истории в российских учебниках постсовесткого периода. Автор показывает, что в центре общественно-политических дебатов в Прибалтике периода перестройки были темы аннексии СССР и последующих репрессий в прибалтийских республиках в 1940-х гг. Рассматривая прибалтийские дискуссии об истории сталинизма как часть общего процесса либерализации исторической памяти в Советском Союзе (инициированного коммунистическим центром), автор документирует особый характер этих дискуссий в прибалтийском политическом процессе, участниками которого были как политическая оппозиция (народные фронты), так и местное республиканское коммунистическое руководство.

Несмотря на существование политического взаимопонимания (скорее тактического, чем стратегического) между либеральными силами в России и национальной оппозицией в Прибалтике, надеждам российских либералов на выработку новой общей исторической памяти о страданиях периода сталинизма не суждено было сбыться. Автор также отмечает, что провал попыток выработать общественный консенсус и новую идеологию для постсоветской России приводит к возвращению старых, идеологизированных интерпретаций советско–балтийских отношений периода Второй Мировой войны.
Русификации: Классифицировать и понять
Authors: Миллер Алексей
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
This article explores ambiguities in the historical and contemporary use of the concept of “Russification”. The author looks and different “fields” of Russification. In particular, linguistic, cultural, bureaucratic and territorial fields are distinguished. In each of these fields, the processes of “Russification” have never been unambiguous and the results differed from region to region. Next, the author explores the agents of Russification. These are initially divided into governmental and societal. Traditional divisions between state and society, characteristic of the Russian society, played out in the process of Russification too. Correspondingly, the lack of unity in what concerned strategies of Russification was reflected in attempts to focus on different criteria of Russiannes. Thus, either Orthodoxy, or Russian language and culture were preferred. Even here, different ethnic or national groups faced different criteria of “having become Russian”. What sufficed for a Chuvash, was insufficient for a Pole. An important aspect of Russification was real or perceived competition from non-Russian influential cultures. In the Western borderlands such culture was Polish, in Volga region Tatar, and in the Baltics German. This was reflected in the government’s willingness to provisionally tolerate national movements, as long as they were mainly directed against these competitors (e.g., Latvian against German but not Russian).

The author concludes that traditional approaches to a single Russification policy on the scale of the Empire have become outdated. Instead, the author suggests a situational approach that explores each particular case of Russification in its context. At the same time, even if the scale of the empire does not provide for a single narrative of Russification, it does reveal common features, such as inconsistency and fragmented nature of the process. Moreover, a comparative approach that takes into consideration experiences of the Habsburg, Ottoman and Hohenzollern empires is warranted.
Civil Society, Bürgertum и “Местное Общество”: В Поисках Аналитических Категорий Изучения Общественной и Социальной Модернизации в Позднеимперской России
Authors: Хэфнер Люц
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
The meta-category “civil society” has become an ubiquitous common place both in politics and academics after the demise of the Soviet Union and their satellite states since 1989. However, the article argues that the civil society can be used as a heuristical device. Civil society is understood as a sphere of social interaction between economy and state, composed above all of the intimate sphere (especially the family), the sphere of (voluntary) associations and forms of public communication. Civil society is created through forms of self-constitution and self-mobilization. It is institutionalized and generalized through laws, and especially subjective rights. Moreover independent action and institutionalization are necessary for the reproduction of civil society. The civil society is less ideologized than categories like “Bürgertum” or “middle classes”. Therefore it is very well-suited not only as an analytical category of a comparative approach of European history in order to explain the different paths to modernity in the “long” 19th century. The article argues that civil society is even better suited for regional, local or especially urban studies. With the help of the frame of a “local society” on can show how different social layers became a coherent elitist group and formed a “functional equivalent” to the “Bürgertum”. Their amalgamation took place on the basis of their self-organizing abilities, public activities and sociability in clubs, associations, their participation and publicly voiced critique in the press and finally common shared values. It is obvious that the formation of networks, their linkages and different modes of operating are easier to be analyzed on a local level.
Border Economics versus Border Mentality: The Politics of Russia-China Border Trade
Authors: Lockwood David
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
В статье Дэвида Локвуда рассматривается роль пограничной торговли и экономических взаимоотношений между российским Дальним Востоком и соседним Китаем. Используя исторические сравнения и концепцию “поселенческого государства”, автор рассматривает рост экономических контактов между Китаем и российским Дальним Востоком с точки зрения работы механизмов свободного рынка. В свою очередь, сворачивание этих контактов и антииммигрантская истерия на Дальнем Востоке объясняется через анализ интересов региональной элиты, для которой такие контакты означают ограничение собственной власти. Автор также обращает внимание на противоречивую ситуацию в российской политике, когда “стратегическое партнерство” с Китаем, объявленное Кремлем, на местном уровне вызывает отторжение. Это отторжение автор объясняет влиянием “этоса поселенческого государства”, население которого считает, что именно оно защищает национальную границу и национальные интересы, безразличные для политиков из центра. Автор полагает, что экономическое взаимодействие российского Дальнего Востока и Северо-Восточной Азии неизбежно в силу развития рыночных отношений.
“Цена” империи: Центр и окраины в российском бюджете XIX – Начала ХХ вв.
Authors: Правилова Екатерина
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
During the 18 th and 19 th centuries when the Russian empire was engaged in virtually continuous conflicts over the acquisition of new territory, the question of the political and economic costs and benefits of imperial expansion was always extremely important. In this article E. Pravilova scrutinizes the emergence of discourse of the “economic burden of the empire” in governmental considerations, public and later parliamentary debates, which allows to trace the evolution of governmental perspectives on the nature of the imperial polity and nation-centered thinking about the economic relationship between the Russian ( Rossian ) empire and the Russian and non Russian nations. The author analyzes often contradictory assessments of the balance sheet of economic relationship between the imperial center and Transcaucasia, the Kingdom of Poland (and later Polish gubernias ), Turkestan and the Grand Duchy of Finland. While economic motivations for conquest and maintenance of the empire inevitably took a backseat to geopolitical considerations, the imperial government nonetheless recognized the enormous economic potential of its newly acquired territories and generally aimed to integrate them within the empire’s economic system and its broader processes of economic development. In devising its economic policies in the borderlands, the government’s actions were shaped by two basic concerns: the first was the urge to increase the return gained from these regions in order to make sure that they did not become a financial burden on the center; and the second was the need to respect the particularities of the national economies, revenue structures, and levels of economic development in the borderlands in order to guarantee political stability. Financial relations between center and periphery within the empire ultimately evolved on the basis of these two occasionally contradictory political and economic principles.
Демография как политика. Коренное население сибири в составе Российской империи и СССР: Динамика численности как отражение политики центра
Authors: Скобелев Сергей
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
The article investigates the demographic development of the Siberian indigenous population in the context of the Russian empire and Soviet Union and the web of political and social relationship between the imperial center and the Siberian borderland.. The author criticizes the traditional view, according to which there was a continual decline of indigenous population of Siberia due to the impact of Russian colonialism. The article suggests a more complex explanation of Siberian demographic development, which accounts for various factors, such as assimilation (including the creation of new ethnic groups as a result of interethnic contacts), migration, urbanization, effect of the warfare and epidemic deceases. Examining the processes of assimilation, the author differentiates between assimilation to the Russian population and assimilation to large ethnic indigenous groups, such as the Tatars, Yakuts, and Buryats. Whereas small ethnic groups tended to decline in numbers or became extinct, the Russian, Yakut, Tatar and Buryat population of Siberia continually increased at the expense of small ethnic groups. The author also scrutinizes the impact of the warfare on the size of indigenous population, stating that the decline of the population was due to interethnic combats before the establishment of the imperial rule, conquest by the Russians of certain parts of Siberia (before the 18 th century), foreign invasions of the territory of Siberia, and participation of the indigenous ethnic groups in war efforts during the first and second World Wars. Migration, captivity as a result of foreign invasion, exodus as a borderland practice to escape the imperial rule, epidemic deceases and famines also contributed to the fluctuation of the number of indigenous population. Analyzing the effect of imperial rule on indigenous population of Siberia, the author finds that the tribute (iasak) system of taxation and the principle of communal self-government balanced the perils of Russian colonization. This balance in the imperial manner between the center and the periphery changed as a result of processes of modernization and more interventionist policies of the Russian and then Soviet state. The Soviet state eliminated the isolation of indigenous ethnic groups, leading to a greater assimilation to the Soviet (Russian) nation and the decrease of indigenous population as a result of conscription and wars. However, the Soviet regime provided the institutional ground for consolidation of indigenous ethnic groups and modern system of education and social welfare, which contributed to the steady growth of indigenous population of Siberia.
Ориентализм – Дело Тонкое
Authors: Схиммельпеннинк ван дер Ойе Девид
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
In his article David Schimmelpenninck van der Oye verifies the theory of Said in the light of its theoretical critique and against the historical background of cultural representations within the Russian empire, drawing on both recent research and debates among western historians and analysis of paintings by Vereshchagin and works of Borodin. The author starts with acknowledgment of the ambiguous position of Russian Orientalism, which was due to the fact that Russia itself was subjected to a persistent tradition of Orientalization on the side of Western Europe. He proceeds further by pointing out that an ambivalent attitude of Russians toward their European identity and the heterogeneous character of empire’s Asiatic periphery created a matrix of perception and practice similar to European Orientalism but far more complex and less straightforward. Arguing for an inclusion of artistic representations into the study of cultural perceptions associated with the Orient, Schimmelpenninck van der Oye scrutinizes the Turkestan series of paintings by Vereshchagin and Borodin’s opera “Prince Igor’.” Whereas Vereshchagin represents a typical for Western Europe discourse toward the Orient, which asserts the “Otherness,” inferiority, and need for a civilized intervention, Borodin stands for a more positive attitude toward Asia, which hinges on the fact of close relationship between Russia and its Asian neighbors in the course of their history.
Российский “Долгий XIX Век”: “Особый Путь” Европейской Модернизации?
Authors: Хильдермайер Манфред
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Manfred Hildermeier’s article addresses the problem of interpretation of Russian history of the period which he terms “the long 19 th century.” The author differentiates between the slavophilic view of unique Russian history, the concept of backwardness and a new revisionist perspective, which attempts to stress the legacy of the Enlightenment in the course of Russian history and therefore to situate Russian history within the context of European modernity of “the long 19 th century.” Hildermeier traces the legacy of the Enlightenment in the development of system of justice, noble estate self-government, and self-government of the cities. Though acknowledging the uneven character of those processes until the second half of the 19 th century, the author still views them as basic pillars of reform and rapid development of modern society in the second half of the 19 th century, beginning of the 20 th century. As the problem of modern society’s existence is central for interpretation of “normality” of Russia’s historical path, the author sketches new directions for studies of Russian nascent civil society, which include history of the capitalist (economic) development and the cultural profile of the Russian bourgeoisie (entrepreneurs), studies of a new social elite in Russia’s provinces, exploration of the impact of politics after 1905 on the development of urban middle class society, and the problem of synchronic dynamism of socio-cultural changes in both entrepreneurial and educated elite of Russian society.