Social Identity In Imperial Russia

How did enlightened Russians of the eighteenth century understand society? And how did they reconcile their professed ideals of equality and justice with the authoritarian political structures in which they lived? Historian Elise Wirtschafter turns to literary plays to reconstruct the social thinking of the past and to discover how Enlightenment Russians understood themselves. Opening with an illuminating discussion of the development of theater in eighteenth-century Russia, Wirtschafter goes on to explore dramatic representations of key social questions. Based on an examination of nearly 300 secular plays written during the last half of the century, she shows how dramas for the stage represented and debated important public issues--such as the nature of the common good, the structure of the patriarchal household, the duty of monarchs, and the role of the individual in society. Wirtschafter presents a striking reconstruction of the way educated Russians conceptualized a society beyond the immediate spheres of household and locality. Seeking to highlight problems of "social consciousness," she asks what Enlightenment Russians thought about social experience--and how their ideas related to actual social relationships in a society organized around serfdom and absolute monarchy. She portrays Russian Enlightenment culture on its own terms, while at the same time shedding light on broader problems of social order and political authority in imperial Russia.

This interdisciplinary collection of essays on the social and cultural life of late imperial Russia describes the struggle of new elites to take up a "middle position" in society--between tsar and people. During this period autonomous social and cultural institutions, pluralistic political life, and a dynamic economy all seemed to be emerging: Russia was experiencing a sense of social possibility akin to that which Gorbachev wishes to reanimate in the Soviet Union. But then, as now, diversity had as its price the potential for political disorder and social dissolution. Analyzing the attempt of educated Russians to forge new identities, this book reveals the social, cultural, and regional fragmentation of the times. The contributors are Harley Balzer, John E. Bowlt, Joseph Bradley, William C. Brumfield, Edith W. Clowes, James M. Curtis, Ben Eklof, Gregory L. Freeze, Abbott Gleason, Samuel D. Kassow, Mary Louise Loe, Louise McReynolds, Sidney Monas, John O. Norman, Daniel T. Orlovsky, Thomas C. Owen, Alfred Rieber, Bernice G. Rosenthal, Christine Ruane, Charles E. Timberlake, William Wagner, and James L. West. Samuel D. Kassow has written a conclusion to the volume.

This volume explores the crisis of identity that faced Russia during and after the Revolution. The essays discuss how a re-evaluation of national identity challenged traditional institutions and ideas, having a direct bearing upon personal identity. Topics include the Stolypin agrarian reform, the fracturing of the Intelligentsia and Church reform. Also included in this volume is Khlebinkov's manifesto An Indo-Russian Union published here in Russian with a new English translation.

"This dissertation investigates the evolution of categories of social identity in the first half of the nineteenth century by exploring the changing ways that three consecutive rivals for the Russian history chair at Moscow University -- M.T. Kachenovskii (1775-1842), M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875) and S.M. Solovʹev (1820-1879) -- defined themselves and each other."--Page iv.

"This book shows how the imperial Russian system of social estates (sosloviia), which derived from the government's need to categorize and rank its subjects, held power over individual identities and life choices in Russia throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Though in part modeled on the orders of old regime Europe, also called estates, the Russian system had its own peculiarities, two of which include the imprecision in the (oft changing) laws of its rules and procedures, allowing for endless interpretations and realignments, and its stamina, not being swept away until the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. For the imperial state, estates were a means of making the population productive; for individuals, they were a source not only of individual identity, but of community, in ways at times demanding and at times supportive"--Provided by publisher.

Every subject of the Russian Empire had an official, legal place in society marked by his or her social estate, or soslovie. These sosloviia (noble, peasant, merchant, and many others) were usually inherited, and defined the rights, opportunities, and duties of those who possessed them. They were also usually associated with membership in a specific geographically defined society in a particular town or village. Moreover, although laws increasingly insisted that every subject of the empire possess a soslovie "for the common good and their own well-being," they also allowed individuals to change their soslovie by following a particular bureaucratic procedure. The process of changing soslovie brought together three sets of actors: the individuals who wished to change their opportunities or duties, or who at times had change forced upon them; local societies, which wished to control who belonged to them; and the central, imperial state, which wished above all to ensure that every one of its subjects had a place, and therefore a status. This book looks at the many ways that soslovie could affect individual lives and have meaning, then traces the legislation and administration of soslovie from the early eighteenth through to the early twentieth century. This period saw a shift from soslovie as above all a means of extracting duties or taxes, to an understanding of soslovie as instead a means of providing services and ensuring security. The book ends with an examination of the way that a change in soslovie could affect not just an individual's biography, but the future of his or her entire family. The result is a new image of soslovie as both a general and a very specific identity, and as one that had persistent meaning, for the Imperial statue, for local authorities, or for individual subjects, even through 1917.

Bringing together leading scholars from Russia and outside experts on Russia, this book looks at the difference between the image Russia has of itself and the way it is viewed in the West. It discusses the historical, cultural and political foundations that these images are built upon, and goes on to analyse how contested these images are, and their impact on Russian identity. The book questions whether differing images explain fractiousness in Western-Russian relations in the new century, or whether distinct 'imaginary solitudes' offer a better platform from which to negotiate differences. Providing an innovative comparative study of contemporary images of the country and their impact, the book is a significant contribution to studies of globalisation and international relations.

A new "peripatetic" approach that discovers the space of the city and at the same time reveals its dynamic as a fin-de siècle east Mediterranean port-metropolis, through the activities of its ethnic groups that contributed to the socio-economic transformations that germinated within the political changes.