bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Как упорядочивали разнообразие: Списки и классификации национальностей в Российской империи и в Советском Союзе (1897–1939 гг.)
Authors: Кадио Жюльетт
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Juliette Cadiot examines Russian censuses in order to understand how the state controlled and organized its multinational population. Looking at the census of 1897, the author surveys the debate around language and nationality, in particular the differences between scholarship and a bureaucracy that paid attention to only the most important languages of the empire. The census of 1926, on the other hand, took place against the background of official korenizatsia policies, as reflected in the recording of not only language, but also nationality as part of the census. Debates surrounding the 1926 census reflected the endless process of singling out dialects and languages and witnessed an increased role for ethnographers and linguists. Conflict emerged between Moscow-based scholars and politicians – searching for traces of ever-smaller nationalities – and local authorities who often represented titular nationalities in the Soviet Union’s constituent republics. The interests of the state prevailed over ethnographic interest in the census of 1939. This census, conducted against the background of the persecution of the organizers of the canceled 1937 census, strictly followed Stalin’s ideas on the number of nationalities in the USSR. In 1939, the list of nationalities was shortened to maximally correspond to the number of titular nationalities in the Soviet Union and its autonomous republics. According to the author, the censuses in a multinational state reflect the desire of the state to understand, control, and bring order to the numerous national and ethnic groups.
Социализм, Постсоциализм и Нормативная Модерность: Размышления об Истории СССР
Authors: Суни Рональд
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
In his article Ronald Suny takes aim at a critical examination of relationship between modernity and the Soviet experiment, ideology and analytical apparatus employed for exploration of Soviet history, placing that examination in the context of historiographic discussions in the US Slavic field. The author takes as a point of departure the recent book by J. Scott and combines the analysis of Scott’s argument with a scrutiny of major interpretative models used in American historiography for Soviet studies, namely the “Totalitarian” and “developmentalist” ones. He differentiates between the modernization trend, which focuses on processes of social change in Soviet society, revises the image of the 1917 revolution and the nature of the soviet political regime, and modernity trend, which emphasizes the legacy of enlightenment and modern rationality in the Soviet experiment, stressing the revisionist impact of both on the historiographic image of the Soviet history. However, the author notes that the collapse of the Soviet Union has reversed the balance between the “Totalitarian” and “developmentalist” interpretations of Soviet history to the advantage of libertarian perspective on modern state and society, which now necessitates a reconstruction of relationship between soviet socialism and European modernity. Identifying modernity as a normative discourse, Suny analyzes the interplay between modernism and antimodernism, asserting that soviet socialism was not an alternative to modernity but rather an alternative within the range of historic variations of modernity. He then reviews in detail two major contributions to Soviet history by US historians of Russia, M. Malia and S. Kotkin. While welcoming their approaches to the Soviet Union as a variant and modification of European modernity, he criticizes their way of reducing the Soviet experience to the Bolshevik ideological blueprints, offering instead an understanding of Soviet ideology (socialism) and politics as a dynamic, contingent, and eventually evolving discursive process.
“Татарская Проблема” во всероссийской переписи населения
Authors: Соколовский Сергей
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
This article, written by a member of the Commission responsible for the composition of the list of nationalities for the recent Russian census, explores the “Tatar problem” that emerged during the process of census preparation and organization. The author gives a historical outline of the Russian censuses, particularly focusing on classification of ethnic groups. His main interest is to follow the historical life of the term “Tatar” in Russian censuses. Citing norms of the constitution that guarantee freedom of ethnic identification as well as scholarly and administrative practices of the past censuses, Sokolovsky argues in favor of the recent census classification, which provides space for such nationalities and ethnic groups as kriashen . This classification, which allegedly undermined the unity of the Tatar nation, was debated by mass media and authorities in Tatarstan. The author sees the interest of ethnocratic politicians behind the attempt to include kriashens and other ethnic groups into the Tatar nation and thus increase the numbers of the titular nationality population. Such an increase would legitimate the overrepresentation of ethnic Tatars in republican institutions.
Новый Русский Национализм Как Реакция На Глобализацию: Источники, Механизмы Распространения и Сценарии Развития
Authors: Понарин Эдуард
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
In his article Eduard Ponarin examines contemporary Russian nationalism as it emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the former Soviet Republics, including the Russian Federation, and suggests possible scenarios for its development. The author starts with a thesis of retarded development of Russian national identity, which was due to the underdevelopment of the Russian empire (viewed from the perspective of modernist theory of nationalism) and the supranational project of the Soviet nation in the USSR. He notes that in the post Soviet period Russians faced the crisis of national identification, which was addressed by numerous concerted efforts to construct the Russian national identity. He contends that historical legacy plays only a part in this process. More importantly, the author argues, the effects of globalization, the process of resettlement of those who identified themselves as Russians from the former Soviet republics to the Russian Federation, and the legacy of Soviet ethnofederalism contribute to the development of contemporary Russian nationalism. Out of these three factors globalization is the main determinant of Russian nationalism, for the latter is primarily a product of activity of intellectual and political elite, which is exposed to the globalized environment and suffers from the loss of social and political status during the current period of transition. Ponarin observes that ressentiment nationalism of the elite has gradually spread across the political spectrum in the 1990s and, though being fixed and shared in its anti-Western part by all self pronounced Russian nationalist, it is still open to different scenarios of development. He argues that post-Soviet Russia could follow the path of nation-state building or it could pursue the imperial tradition. Assessing possible consequences of either of the ways and a combined one (when a modern ethnic project would incorporate the imperial tradition of differentiating the population on the basis of religion), Ponarin evokes the comparative dimension, which includes the cases of Yugoslavia, the French and British empires, and modern Turkey.
Создание Социальных Основ Империи в XVIII Веке: Законодательные Практики в Отношении Городского Населения России и их Западноевропейские Источники
Authors: Лавринович Майя
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
This article explores legislative and administrative practices that were meant to create a basis for the Russian estate system. These practices emerged as part of a larger effort to create a “well organized police state,” while estates were simultaneously considered – in the spirit of the 18 th century Enlightenment – important in preventing despotic. In the Russian context, this meant overcoming fluid borders between different social groups as well as inconsistencies in correlation between estate status and economic role. It also meant accommodating serfdom. Beginning in 1775, Catherine II’s government attempted to make rules that made the urban estate more flexible and nuanced. At the same time, decrees providing for new rules to regulate the influx of the peasants into the cities were aimed at improving “the quality” of this immigration, setting up property or fiscal censes. In accordance with agro-centric, physiocratic ideas, the acceptance of peasants into the city or town estate ( meshchane ) was viewed as endangering the fiscal health of the state. Thus, the social structure of empire was programmed to prevent the upward social mobility of peasants, while at the same guaranteeing that “ meshchane ” would not slip down the social ladder (though, indeed, upward social mobility was also made difficult for them). Peasants were only allowed into the merchants’ estate, not that of “ meshchane. ” The latter estate, despite its supposedly urban character, remained identical with the peasantry in terms of its fiscal (and often economic) role.
Культурное Наследие Государственного Социализма: сотворение истории и культурно-политическое предпринимательство в посткоммунистической Польше и России
Authors: Кубик Ян
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Most arguments about the causal import of legacies are often sketchy and incomplete, thus deserving of criticism (Holmes 1996). They are, however, based on obsolete and inadequate conceptualizations of culture and under-theorized models of cultural causation. Recent developments in the theory of culture provide better conceptual tools for examining legacy formation. Building on newer conceptualizations, Jan Kubik considers cultural legacies of state socialism as both “discourses about the past” (accessible through content analysis) proposed by contemporary cultural/political entrepreneurs and “syndromes of attitudes” (accessible through surveys) built upon actors’ past experiences. Significantly, the author examines not only the cultural legacies of communist/socialist cultural formations, but also the legacies of “anti-communism.” A hybrid of socialism-nationalism and the polarization(s) of the public discourse are singled out for closer inspection.
Officium Stratoris и “Шествие на Осляти”: К Вопросу О Сопоставимости Религиозно-Политических Доктрин Западноевропейского и Русского Средневековья
Authors: Кореневский Андрей
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Andrei Korenevskii’s article focuses on the problem of comparison of Western medieval civilization with Eastern one, which is approached through analysis of relationship between the secular authority and Church. A traditional view holds that the difference between the medieval West and East was encapsulated in the autonomous position of the Papal Church and its attempts to subdue the secular authority. The author scrutinizes ideological legitimation of Popes’ claims for supremacy, i.e. the Donatio Constantini and officium stratoris , reconstructing the emergence of the latter as a separate and central ritual with which the Catholic Church overpowered the claims of the Holy Roman Emperors for both religious and secular authority. Korenevskii analyzes the reception of the officium stratoris in the Byzantium, suggesting that this myth and ritual epitomized the heresy of the Catholics in the eyes of the Eastern Church. Though that attitude as well as the Byzantium theocratic doctrine were shared by the Russian Orthodox Church, it too practiced a similar ritual in the 17 th century, which was called “The procession sitting on an ass’s colt.” Korenevskii places the ritual of the procession in a historical context of relationship between the tsar and the patriarch and reconstructs the genealogy of that ritual and the legend behind it. The author argues that despite a different symbolic frame (evoking a biblical story of Christ’s entering Jerusalem) the Russian ritual was a result of importation of officium stratoris to a Russian soil, on which a similar contestation between the secular authority and Church was happening in the 15 th and 17 th centuries.
Национальные и вненациональные измерения экономического развития России, XIX–XX вв.
Authors: Ананьич Борис , Гетрелл Питер
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
This paper has focused on a large land mass, home to a multiplicity of ethnic groups, whose members have commonly been living in a supranational polity. Here the nation-state, in the sense that Friedrich List would have understood it, has been the exception rather than the rule. Yet nationality mattered. It impinged on those tsarist officials and merchants who espoused a vision of a Russified national economy and who advanced the cause of Russification. It mattered, differently, to Soviet leaders who denounced Russian chauvinism and tolerated the creation of an ethno-territorial state within which “national” loyalties contended with Soviet supremacy. When the legitimacy of the supra-national state was questioned (in 1905, 1917 and after 1985), political opposition was expressed at least in part in national terms. But military catastrophe and socio-economic crisis, not “nationalism” per se , were the decisive motors of change.

In response to Gellner, the authors’ argument is that economic changes formed part of a broader process of transformation, which allowed national claims to be asserted alongside other claims. Under tsarism, economic change contributed to the creation of national sentiment and allegiance. In the Soviet case, the state sought to mobilize the population towards the goal of socialism, but ultimately many citizens became convinced that nationalism, rather than the pursuit of Soviet-style socialism, offered them better prospects of economic improvement. After 1985, many citizens appropriated the rhetoric of nationalism as a powerful device with which to undermine the old regime. The Soviet leadership contributed to its own downfall by promoting national consolidation by territorial-administrative means. When the cupboard was shown to be bare, nationalists promised an escape into sovereignty and freedom from want. But the precise mechanisms for improved growth and welfare, as well as their ideological foundations, remain unresolved.

What is taking place at the end of the twentieth century is the reiteration of national conflict and of the conflicts between different minorities in the borderlands of empire. As in 1917, these are peripheral manifestations of broader calamities, which include a strong element of socio-economic collapse. The demise of the Soviet Union has encouraged ethnic minorities – and ethnic majorities – to rethink their history. In this sense, economic history provides vital clues to the past, present and future of these troubled lands.
The Deadlock of Brotherhood: Politics of Russia-Belarus Integration
Authors: Silitski Vitali
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
В статье анализируются политико-экономические аспекты процесса российско-белорусской интеграции со времени прихода к власти в Беларуси президента Александра Лукашенко (1994 г.). Парадоксальная ситуация, при которой, с одной стороны, сближение поддерживается и обществами, и элитами двух стран, а с другой – само объединение Беларуси и России с течением времени представляется все менее и менее возможным, объясняется противоречивостью мотивов основных политических игроков Беларуси и России в процессе интеграции. В частности, использование интеграционных процессов президентом Лукашенко в качестве инструмента укрепления персональной власти внутри страны и расширения своего политического влияния вне ее привело к конфликту белорусского президента с властными элитами России и выявило диаметральную противоположность ожиданий и представлений об интеграции не только у элит, но и у народов двух стран. Способность Лукашенко манипулировать стереотипами советского мышления, закрепленными в массовом сознании белорусского общества, позволяло ему легитимизировать, казалось бы, полярные политические проекты (независимость и интеграция) и препятствовать инкорпорации Беларуси в Российскую Федерацию. И, несмотря на то, что его политические позиции заметно пошатнулись с приходом к власти в России Владимира Путина, Лукашенко может, в силу исторической случайности, сыграть роль отца белорусской независимости.
The Issue of Russian Colonialism in Ukrainian Thought. Dependency Identity and Development
Authors: Velychenko Stephen
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Стэфен Велыченко реконструирует происхождение интерпретации, в рамках которой история Украины в составе Российской империи и Советского Союза рассматривалась с точки зрения колониальной экономической зависимости, а также в контексте взаимосвязи экономического развития и политического имперского контроля. Автор анализирует развитие концепции колониализма (и империализма), которая была тесно связана с марксисткой и немарксистской экономической мыслью, и оспаривает правомерность применения колониальной модели для объяснения истории Российской империи и Советского Союза. Велыченко указывает на отличное от современного понимания значение термина “колонизация”, которое в российской общественной мысли и правительственной политике соотносилось, скорее, с национальным процессом освоения территории, нежели с процессом строительства империи. Вместе с тем, автор обнаруживает возникновение идеи колониализма в региональном дискурсе авторов Юго-Западного края, которые выступали с критикой централизаторско-модернизационных усилий царского правительства в 1870–1890 гг. В период до революции 1905 года работы по экономическим отношениям между центром и периферией утратили региональный и приобрели национальный аспект, а после 1905 г. эти отношения стали интерпретироваться в терминах колониализма, хотя автор признает, что экономическое измерение оставалось маргинальным по отношению к политическому и культурно-лингвистическому компонентам украинского национализма. Велыченко показывает, что после 1917 года тезис о русском колониализме по отношению к Украине утвердился в официальном советском дискурсе, среди украинских экономистов-марксистов, в работах украинских исследователей, представлявших диаспору, а также в контексте меняющейся национальной политики СССР. Хотя концепция колониализма не стала определяющей в конструировании украинского национализма, наметившаяся тенденция к пониманию украинской нации как “экономического тела” позволяет автору сделать вывод о том, что украинский национализм эволюционировал от традиционного к модерному.
Практика Местного Правосудия: Государственные Суды для Сельских Обывателей Оренбургской Губернии в Последней Четверти XVIII-Начале XIX вв.
Authors: Воропанов Виталий
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
The article investigates the emergence of the system of local self-government and estate judicial institutions at the gubernia and district levels in the reign of Catherine II in the southeastern Russian empire. Following Jane Burbank, the author argues that local estate institutions that were established for the region’s different nationalities facilitated the emergence of a legal culture among the local population through their participation in these institutions. The author cites Tatar and Bashkir participation in local courts and argues that the combination of family and clan connections with service in the courts added to the authority of judicial institutions. The accessibility of state-organized courts also played a role in the development of legal culture. Seen as a sign of the progressive development of the administrative and legal unification of empire in the framework of Enlightened, absolutist monarchy, the emergence of judicial institutions based on estate structures secured relative social peace in southeastern Russia. The article draws upon many original sources.
Формирование и расцвет автономной Советской Карелии, 1918–1929 гг. Забытый успех раннесоветской национальной политики
Authors: Кауппала Пекка
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Imperial Russia never witnessed any specific positive interest to the formation of “alien” nations and the Karel national movement was no exception. Furthermore, attempts by a part of the White Sea Karels and Finns to incorporate Karels as a component of the developing Finnish nation triggered particular animosity. At the beginning of the 20 th century the authorities promoted an ethnocultural myth according to which Karels were closer to Russians than Finns and, correspondingly, ought to become part of the Russian nation.

In comparison to these developments the conception of Soviet nationalities policy in Karelia, formed in 1920, was indeed revolutionary. The model selected then would have encountered most vicious counteraction in Imperial Russia. The leadership of Soviet Karelia, with Lenin’s full support and at least in the early 1920s with the support of the Soviet leadership as a whole, viewed Karels as a part of the Finnish nation, and it was only the political border between the Reds and the Whites that separated the two. The nationalities policy in Karelia was oriented towards this model and it was most successful exactly where it most corresponded to reality, namely in White Sea Karelia. Here the Russian language was replaced with the classical literary Finnish in all spheres of public life without any adaptation of the latter. In those regions where the conditions were more complicated, namely in Southern Karelia, the replacement of Russian with Finnish went on slower, albeit intensively enough.

In this sense, the processes that took place in Karelia in the 1920s–1930s can hardly be termed as formation of the Karelian nation. But the Soviet empire in this period can easily be called the creator of the united Great Finnish nation, although in practice this nation was divided into two parts by the border. The leadership of the Soviet Union and, in equal degree, that of Finland, showed no interest in this border becoming transparent. In both countries the real policy was aimed at the continued opposition with each other in the hope that the enemy will collapse in the future. The leadership of Soviet Karelia, insofar as it was allowed by available means, attempted to make the border more transparent but failed to achieve this goal.
Nationalist Mobilization and Imperial Collapse: Serbian and Russian Nationalism Compared, 1987–1991
Authors: Abrams Neil A.
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Статья Нейла Абрамса посвящена сравнению распада двух многонациональных государств, Югославии и Советского Союза. Автор анализирует эти процессы сквозь призму национальной мобилизации доминантных народов – сербов и русских. Несмотря на сходство определенных ситуативных черт (например, наследие коммунистической идеологии), степень, в которой национальная мобилизация захватила умы и сердца людей, была различной и привела к различным последствиям. Абрамс обращается к классическим работам по теории национализма и находит их недостаточными для решения поставленной в статье задачи.

Учитывая разнообразные факторы, такие, например, как наличие “своей” традиции мощного имперского государства, историческая актуальность страха, связанного с национальным выживанием и проч., Абрамс исследует протекание процесса социальной мобилизации и становления на его волне национального государства в России и Сербии. По мнению Абрамса, именно различия государственного статуса народа в период социальной мобилизации прежде всего ответственны за различия в националистических дискурсах России и Сербии. Если сербы традиционно ощущали угрозу своему национальному существованию, то русские в течение всей истории Нового Времени являлись империеобразующим народом. В силу этого дискурс жертвы, столь выраженный в Сербии, не имел большого влияния среди русских в СССР. По мнению автора, предложенный им метод анализа механизма и направленности национальной мобилизации позволяет в каждом конкретном случае спрогнозировать не только когда и как, но и против кого конкретно она произойдет.

Статья содержит собственный обширный терминологический аппарат.
Концепт Немецкого “Особого Пути”: История, Потенциал, Границы Применимости
Authors: Будде Гунилла-Фридерике , Кока Юрген
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
The interpretative figure of the German Sonderweg has had a varied history. In the nineteenth century, those who spoke of a separate German path to modernity evaluated it as a positive divergence from the “western path”, citing the strong bureaucratic state, reforms initiated from above, the Prussian service ethos, “German culture” and the early development of a social welfare state. However, representatives of the first generation of post-war West German historians recast this reading in a negative frame. They viewed the particularities of German history, its structures and experiences, as preconditions that, while not leading directly to National Socialism, did in the long term hamper the development of a liberal democracy in Germany and facilitate the rise of fascism. In this version, the interpretative figure of the German Sonderweg called for a critical stance, but also for a critical review of its associated hypotheses. The Sonderweg paradigm has provided the impetus for at least three strands of research in German historiography: the “long nineteenth century”, the history of the bourgeoisie, and comparisons with the West. Yet these have also pointed up the limits of the paradigm’s usefulness. Increased attention to cultural dimensions and to comparative and relational history is currently raising different questions – questions concerned less with “separate” paths than with shared and intertwining ones. The growing temporal distance from National Socialism, together with awareness of a multiply interconnected, cross-European history, has diluted the persuasive force of the Sonderweg thesis and, above all, its orientation on the West. This is not to say, however, that its core concern – the causes of National Socialism – has receded into the background.
Общественно-Политические и Экономические Процессы в Период Возникновения, Становления и Развития Третьей Республики в Армении (1988–2001 гг.)
Authors: Мартиросян Тигран
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
This article presents research into the process of transformation from the Soviet Republic of Armenia into the newly independent Republic of Armenia. The author proposes a conception of transformation that explores the role played by the country’s economic elite. The author terms such elite “comprador” based on its economic functions of linking international corporations and the local market. According to the author, much of the economic and political trouble of the Armenian state comes from the elite’s vested interests. At the same time, the author argues that in the specific situation of Armenia, which involves the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh and war with Azerbaijan, the power of the groups connected with the military cannot be underestimated. Based on a range of sources, the article outlines major developments in Armenia since independence and suggests possible scenarios of further development.
Census as a Technology of Empire
Authors: Darrow David W.
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Статья Дэвида Дэрроу посвящена анализу переписи 1897 года как механизма имперского контроля. По мысли автора, при историческом изучении переписи точность и полнота собранных данных не имеют принципиального значения. Перепись дала возможность как ее организаторам, так и переписываемым выразить собственное видение Российской империи и описать свое место в ней. Массовая перепись позволила населению ощутить себя частью одного целого. Для организаторов перепись стала попыткой определить империю как гражданское сообщество и в то же время рационально упорядочить ее население посредством категорий переписи, что должно было повысить эффективность самодержавного государства.

Рассматривая исторический контекст подготовки переписи, автор указывает на характерную для модерной эпохи веру в данные переписи, утверждавшуюся Международным Статистическим Конгрессом. Эту веру в России разделяли “просвещенные бюрократы”, стоявшие за подготовкой Великих Реформ 1860-х годов. Необходимость переписи аргументировалась ее авторами потребностями в более полной информации о крестьянстве (что не противоречило патерналисткой политике самодержавия по отношению к этому слою населения); также она должна была содействовать регулированию рекрутских наборов и поддержанию статуса России как ведущей мировой державы, а также совершенствованию фискальной политики. Перепись планировалась как средство повышения “вертикальной” эффективности имперского династического государства. Тем не менее, поскольку для достижения ее целей требовалось включение “горизонтальных” механизмов – повышение активности граждан (а не пассивных подданных) – перепись явилась и средством активизации гражданского общества.

Описывая социальный облик империи, организаторы переписи пытались использовать такую категорию как “сословие”, несмотря на разложение сословной системы в России. Перепись обращала особое внимание на место жительства переписываемых, что резко отличало перепись в России от ее европейских аналогов. В то же время, категории переписи позволяли манипулировать с этническим и национальным составом империи, обеспечивая численное превосходство православных русских.
Political Economy and Imperial Revival in the Former Soviet Union: Russia’s Special Path
Authors: Miller Eric A. , Toritsyn Arkady
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Статья Аркадия Торицина и Эрика Миллера посвящена проблеме вероятности возрождения империи на постсоветском пространстве. Авторы исследуют влияние внутренней политики в странах СНГ на государственную политику в отношении России. Основное внимание уделяется взаимодействию между лидерами бывших советских республик и ориентации политических элит в рамках прореформенных или антиреформенных коалиций. Авторы показывают, что доминирование антиреформистских сил в окружающих Россию странах открывает дверь для российского “особого пути” воссоздания империи. При этом основными средствами нового империестроительства становятся не военные, а экономические факторы. Если государственный лидер примыкает к реформаторской политической коалиции, вероятность имперского возрождения оказывается невелика, и наоборот: опора на антиреформаторские элементы в правительстве означает высокую вероятность втягивания страны в орбиту обновленной империи.
Границы в Пограничье: Белорусы и Этнолингвистическая Политика Российской Империи на Западных Окраинах в Период Великих Реформ
Authors: Сталюнас Дариус
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Among the different peoples of the Western borderlands, Belarusians were “latecomers.” This article explores imperial ethno-linguistic policy toward the Belarusians in the context of recent debates on the issue of Russification. The author outlines different perceptions of Russianness (linguistic and confessional) and explores the concept of a three-part Russian nation – Great Russian, Little Russians, Belarusians. The author argues that by the mid-19 th century there was a need for books and press in the Belarusian language, but because Belarusians were considered Russians, the imperial establishment either preferred that they adopt Russian language and customs or, at least, limit the use of Belarusian to folklore. Despite general tendencies toward Russification, imperial policies toward the Belarusians were by no means consequent because the authorities had to tread carefully due to the presence of Poles in Belarusian lands and they occasionally made concessions to the Belarusian language.
One Man Cannot an “Eastern Europe” Make, but He Can Certainly Try: Charles Frederick Henningsen and the Ideological Construction of Eastern Europe
Authors: Baker Mark
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
В контексте исследований конструирования символических границ регионов, таких, как Восточная Европа, автор обращается к работам британского путешественника, солдата и писателя Чарлза Фредерика Хеннингсена. Британец скандинавского происхождения, Хеннингсен воевал в Испании и на Кавказе и участвовал в последней стадии восстания Лайоша Кошута. В своих трудах Хеннингсен впервые на английском языке описал “Восточную Европу”, доводя до сведения широкой публики реориентацию деления европейского континента с оси Север-Юг на ось Запал-Восток, о которой писал Лэрри Вулфф. Хеннингсен осуждал деспотизм восточных монархий в Пруссии, Австрии, Турции и России. В тоже время, Хеннингсен не считал Восточную Европу единым целым и подробно описывал народы, населяющие континентальные империи. Более того, Хеннингсен верил в освобождение этих народов от власти господствовавших над ними государств и даже предлагал политическую программу для Западной Европы, которая должна была принять участие в историческом процессе освобождения этих народов от власти многонациональных империй.
Активизация Этнического Большинства в Постсоветской России: Ресурсы Русского Национализма
Authors: Паин Эмиль
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Emil’ Pain poses the problem of the relationship between liberal democracy and nationhood from a normative liberal perspective. The urgency of this analysis is determined by the fact that Russian post-Soviet reformers paid scant attention to importance of liberal nationalism as an aspect of transition to democracy. Still, issues of nationalities’ policies, positive national self-identification of the Russian population and interethnic relations are in the forefront of public debates. The author devises a stipulate definition of empire, nation, and ethnicity, arguing that Russia’s transition from empire to civic nationalism is far from complete and is still complicated by resurgent traditionalism. Pain focuses on the sequence of Yeltsin’s and Putin’s presidential terms and analyzes mobilization of ethnic minorities and the titular Russian nation as a result of political reforms, modernization, and migrations.
Вдвинуть Россию в Сибирь. Империя и Русская Колонизация Второй Половины XIX – начала XX вв.
Authors: Ремнев Анатолий
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Anatolii Remnev explores in his article the process of incorporation of acquired regions into the space of the Russian empire. He focuses on the Siberian direction of the imperial expansion, tracing the evolution of dominant assumptions about the relationship between “European” and “Asiatic” Russia and the Russianness of Siberia. Remnev notes that although the military conquest was important in acquisition of new territories, peasant colonization was considered by the government and educated public as the main tool for making a new territory Russian in character. In this respect the history of the government sponsored colonization appears to be an important feature of empire and nation-building. Remnev demonstrates how the Russian authorities drew on foreign experience (German and North American) in populating new territories, borrowing techniques and modifying them in the Russian context. He also analyzes governmental discussion about the ethnic composition of colonists, discerning nationalist and racial optics in the official perception of Siberian population. Complex processes of nation-building under the resettlement conditions brought about a more tolerant than in Central Russia governmental policy toward the Siberian population (in respect to confessional and national cultures) but also gave rise to fears about Siberian separatism.
“Кутеж Трех князей в Зеленом Дворике”, Или Рождение “Либеральной Империи”
Authors: Герасимов Илья
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Ilya Gerasimov discusses implications of the project of building “a liberal empire” in Russia, which was recently introduced into the public debate by Anatoly Chubais, a liberal politician and CEO of the Russian state electric company “United Energy Systems”. This vision of a new (liberal) empire by Chubais deliberately ignores complex historical and ideological connotations of this term, particularly in the Russian context. Another peculiar trait of this latest edition of Russian ideology of imperialism consists in virtually ignoring the internal dimension of empire as a system of domestic policies, administrative structures, cultural and ethnoconfessional arrangements, and so on. The initial stage of public discussion of the project of “liberal empire” shows an alarmingly low level of expertise provided by historians and political scientists, specifically invited to comment on the Chubais’ program. The essay is based on the typescript of a recent TV show aired by the First Channel under the title “Empire for the People”.
The Power of Documentation: Vital Statistics and Jewish Accommodation in Tsarist Russia
Authors: Avrutin Eugene M.
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
В России, как и в Европе, увлечение научными технологиями документирования социального положения возникает в XVIII и XIX вв. по мере того, как государства начинают проявлять интерес не к территориям или целым общинам, а к отдельным индивидам. Правительство и специально обученные профессионалы изобретают новые технологии социальной интервенции не только для изучения населения, но и для создания научной базы знаний об обществе и отдельных индивидах. Бюрократическое увлечение регулированием и сертификацией породило огромную бумажную лавину, которая стала важным инструментом обеспечения государством общественной безопасности и благополучия, но, одновременно – и ограничением личной свободы. В то же время, практика документации не только ограничивала социальную мобильность и усиливала правительственный контроль, но и укрепляла связь отдельных граждан с социальным телом. Паспорта, послужные списки, а также свидетельства о рождении и браке наделяли подданных империи ощущением отмеченности, признания и принадлежности к чему-то большему, без чего они не смогли бы принимать участие в гражданской жизни.

В своей статье Юджин Аврутин отмечает, что, начиная с эпохи Великих реформ (1860-х – 1870-х гг.), конфликт между “интеграционными” и “репрессивными” аспектами документации стал особенно ярко выраженным в результате кардинальной перестройки российской жизни. Великие реформы создавали беспрецедентные возможности для социального продвижения и профессиональной карьеры почти для всех социальных и этнических групп империи, включая евреев. Российское общество стало более открытым и менее зависимым от наследия традиций и институтов, которые управляли культурой и политикой отдельных общин. Несмотря на организованные усилия по отслеживанию и ограничению пространственной мобильности, вторая половина XIX в. также стала свидетелем роста движения населения, которое ставило под угрозу социальный порядок и стабильность. В результате внутренней еврейской миграции по всей империи возникали новые еврейские общины, немедленно создавая сложности для слаборазвитой и малочисленной провинциальной бюрократии. Что касается главных промышленных центров, нелегальная миграция евреев, крестьян и прочих маргинальных групп захлестнула и без того перенаселенное городское пространство. Эти два процесса препятствовали попыткам самодержавия контролировать перемещение между провинцией и промышленными центрами и стимулировали усилия по идентификации и документации населения империи. В статье подробно анализируются имперское законодательство и практики учета еврейского населения.
Место “Киевского Периода” в Общей Системе “Русской Истории”
Authors: Пресняков Александр
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
“Mesto ‘Kievskogo perioda’…” was written by the outstanding Russian historian of the early twentieth century, Aleksandr Evgen’evich Presniakov, who elaborated this text as an introduction to his innovative course of lectures on Russian history (1907–1908). In this introduction Presniakov (undoubtedly under the influence of current political debates on whether Russia is a national or a multinational state) critically addressed the pillar of the Russian imperial historiography known as “the scheme of Russian history”. Presniakov argued that this scheme was conceived by court literati of the 15 th century and survived with little modifications until the beginning of the 20 th century. Given the political intentions of the authors of the grand historical scheme, this concept of Russian past constructed continuity of national history from Kievan Russia to the imperial period. By doing so the scheme of Russian history relegated to the margins alternative paths of Russian history (the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and of South-Western Rus’) and created a homogenous perspective on Russian history. Presniakov gave a short overview of the development of Russian historiography during the imperial period and concluded that innovative studies by P. N. Miliukov and M. K. Liubavskii did not essentially change the scheme and therefore could not serve as an answer to the politicized debate between the Russian (Great Russian) and Ukrainian schools of historiography. Presniakov suggested that the challenge posed by the Ukrainian historiography (M. Grushevskii in particular) was in need of a critical reflection on the concepts of nation, people, and nationality as the key question appeared to be whether the Kievan period belonged to the Russian (Great Russian) or Ukrainian history. In what amounted to a surprisingly modern analysis of concepts for studies of nationalism and history of nation-formation Presniakov contended that it was analytically inappropriate to apply concepts of national history to the early period of Rus’ history. He also suggested to keep the plurality of historical experiences of that period (though still within one common narrative) in order to understand the historical process of nation-formation (and challenges to the Russian nation-building) in later periods. It is this astonishing novelty and critical sophistication and the strive to de-center Russian national narratives and allow for a multiplicity of historical experiences that inticed the editors to reprint the largely forgotten 1938 publication of Presniakov’s lectures.
Пугачев: Император Между Периферией и Центром. к Постановке Проблемы
Authors: Шарф Клаус
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Non-Marxist historians are convinced that the Pugachev rebellion was not a peasants’ war, but a protest movement on the southeastern steppe-frontier, the periphery of the Russian Empire, against the government’s policy of integration, unification, and modernization. This taken for granted, we are confronted with a peculiar contradiction: the Jaik Cossacks conspired with the Don Cossack Pugachev in September 1773 so that he, in the disguise of the late emperor Peter III, should lead them against the Empress Catherine II, the state, its ruling elite, and its regional strongholds along the border. From its very beginning, the protest movement of the periphery aimed to conquer the “center” of the Russian Empire. For exactly one year, till the end of the movement in September 1774, Pugachev played his role consequently and issued manifestos and orders as he thought a legitimate emperor of the Petrine type would, but not as a Tsar of Moscovy or of the peasants. He and the Cossacks around him had only a vague political or social program for Russia, but tried to win every possible group of combatants in the periphery – Cossacks, peasants, factory workers, inhabitants of the towns and especially the different non-Russian peoples in the Ural and Volga regions – by proclaiming in manifestos what they wanted to hear. It is also important that the Jaik Cossacks, after the rejection of their legitimate claims by the state and after a harsh punishment by the regular military forces in 1772, discussed many ideas about how to make use of the frontier situation: from different emigration projects to an empire of their own on the frontier to an attack on the “center”, by triggering off peasants’ uprisings. At least, the historical realization of a campaign against the state lead by a false emperor was only one of the possibilities offered by the Empire’s periphery.
Sympathy for the Devil: Anatolii Pristavkin and the Chechen Deportation
Authors: Ziolkowski Margaret
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
Среди литературных произведений, ставших символом перестроечного пересмотра советского прошлого, повесть Анатолия Приставкина “Ночевала тучка золотая” занимает особое место. Рассказывая историю депортации чеченцев, Приставкин затрагивает политически и идеологически болезненную тему. Статья Маргарет Циолковски посвящена представленной в повести интерпретации русскочеченских отношений, показывая, как осуждение этнической депортации может быть одновременно свидетельством живучести литературных и идеологических тропов и призывом к их преодолению. Признавая ужасы депортации и сохранение античеченских предрассудков в российском обществе как в ходе, так и после Второй мировой войны, Приставкин предлагает задуматься над пагубной динамикой попыток этнических чисток. Циолковски обращает внимание на то, что аргументы Приставкина в пользу необходимости сочувствия и братского отношения остаются достаточно абстрактными, также как и образы чеченцев, однако роман работает на разрушение образа “злого чечена”.
Русские евреи: “Реальное” или “изобретенное” сообщество?
Authors: Носенко Елена
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
The article by E. Nosenko is a response to the article by N. Yukhneva published in the same section of the journal. Nosenko critically addresses the concept of “Russian Jews” as a special subethnos as put forth by Yukhneva. She also extends her criticism to Iukhneva’s application of the paradigm of civilization to ethnic studies. Nosenko’s response assesses both the heuristic potential of Yu. Bromley’s analytical apparatus, which is used by Yukhneva, and her interpretation of the data of sociological polls and historical facts. As a way of constructive criticism, Nosenko suggests that the category of “ethnolinguistic community” might serve better for the declared analytical purpose. Relying on her own sociological research of Jewish populations in the former Soviet Union, Nosenko puts forward a hypothesis of “situational” or “transitional” identities which better characterizes Jewish life in the Soviet Union than Iukhneva’s concept of Russian-Jewish identity. Analyzing rich historical and sociological empirical data, Nosenko identifies main clusters of problems in respect to the study of identity-formation of Jews in Russia. Those are: classification of ethnic communities in respect to the problem of definition of the group of Jews in Russia, cultural aspects of ethnic communities’ development, issues of ethnic identification and finally the question of whether a new ethnic community of Russian Jews exists. Nosenko contends that those problems ought to be further discussed.
Empire without Imperialism?: Ambiguities of Colonization in Tsarist Russia
Authors: Sunderland Willard
Published: October 2015

SUMMARY:
В своей статье Уиллард Сандерлэнд рассматривает проекты, восприятие и практику процесса колонизации-переселения, который, по его мнению, открывает новую перспективу для анализа истории Российской империи и попыток национализации имперского пространства. Изучение этого аспекта истории Российской империи имеет важный компаративный эффект, так как именно процесс колонизации расценивался современниками и оценивается современными историками как один из важных компонентов западноевропейского империализма и истории западных колониальных империй. Автор начинает свой анализ с рассмотрения концептов бюрократической практики и общественного дискурса, с помощью которых обозначался процесс миграции внутри империи, показывая постепенное замещение нейтральных терминов “заселение” и “переселение” национально и политически нагруженным термином “колонизация”. Далее автор указывает на крестьянский характер миграционных процессов, связанных с понятием колонизации, и анализирует экономическую составляющую политики и мотивации переселения, обращая внимание на проблемы, которые возникали при столкновении имперского проекта аккультурации пространства империи и национального русского проекта национализации территории империи при помощи колонизации с реальностью крестьянского миграционного процесса. В отличие от устоявшихся пердставлений, автор отмечает отсутствие выраженного империалистического, колониального дискурса в восприятии и практике колонизации.