Alex Semyonov | Ab Imperio Quarterly (original) (raw)

Uploads

Papers by Alex Semyonov

The World Humanities Report, 2022

The World Humanities Report is a project of the Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes (... more The World Humanities Report is a project of the Consortium of Humanities Centers
and Institutes (CHCI), in collaboration with the International Council for Philosophy
and Human Sciences (CIPSH). The views expressed in the contributions to the World
Humanities Report are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the editors,
scientific committee, or staff of CHCI.

Russian history, 2021

The present intervention makes a mental experiment of thinking about recent histo- riographic “tu... more The present intervention makes a mental experiment of thinking about recent histo- riographic “turns” in terms of “returns.” It takes its point of departure from the recent book by John LeDonne Forging a Unitary State: Russia’s Management of the Eurasian Space, 1650–1850. This book shows how much is needed to be done in terms of return- ing to the institutional, military, and legal history of the Russian imperial state. But there is also a return to the long-term historical perspective that presents the challenge of constructing a coherent historical narrative when the process of imperial expansion produced the growing diversity of the imperial realm. This challenge can be solved and the narrative can be stabilized by projecting nation-centered categories on to the past experience (such as “majority” and “minority”). But the same long-term perspective can also empower historians to align their analytical language with the grammar of the imperial archive and lexicon of the political praxis and register shifts and ruptures in the grand trajectory spanning several centuries.

Ab Imperio , 2019

Sergey Glebov and Alexander Semyonov recall Mark von Hagen as a historian of empires, Ab Imperio’... more Sergey Glebov and Alexander Semyonov recall Mark von Hagen as a historian of empires, Ab Imperio’s supporter and member of its Editorial Board.

Journal of Eurasian Studies, 2020

This article argues that the history of Russian constitutional and parliamentary reform in the ea... more This article argues that the history of Russian constitutional and parliamentary reform in the early 20th century can be cast in a new light in view of the global transformation of political life under the challenge of imperial diversity and mass politics. The article points out that imperial diversity as a challenge to democratic government was not unique to the Russian Empire. The character of the Russian Empire was marked by peculiarities; it was shaped by composite and hybrid imperial space, which placed the challenge of imperial diversity at the center of political practices and imaginaries. The article traces the history of political reform in the Russian Empire in the early 20th century focusing on the reform of the Sejm of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the novel practices and political imaginaries of imperial diversity in the first and second State Duma. The exploration of the history of the constitutional reform in the Russian Empire of early 20th century demonstrates that rather than being absolute antagonists to representative government, Russian imperial politics and traditions of imperial sovereignty nested possibilities of compromise and redefinition of political solidarity in the space of diversity.

Dimensions and Challenges of Russian Liberalism Historical Drama and New Prospects, 2019

The chapter takes the case of the formation of the Constitutional Democratic party (the Kadets) i... more The chapter takes the case of the formation of the Constitutional Democratic party (the Kadets) in the context of emerging mass politics, 1905 revolution, and political reforms. Going against the genealogical approach, the author stresses the contingency and novelty of party liberalism in the early twentieth century. In particular, the chapter explores the heterogeneity of the Kadet ranks, the concept of rupture and pluralism in self-representation of the nascent liberal party, and techniques of compromise and negotiation in the pluralist political setting that allowed the party and its platform to cohere. The author also argues that the pluralism of political and ideological context of the Kadet party formation was also matched by pluralism of mobilized space of imperial diversity, that included national, regionalist, and autonomist voices. The context of mobilized imperial diversity is shown to be not only inhibiting, but aiding the liberal politics in the Russian Empire.

Keywords
Russian liberalism, Russian Parliament, Constitutional Democratic Party, Russian Revolution 1905-1907 and 1917

In this editorial introduction to the thematic forum “Political Imaginaries at the End of Empire,... more In this editorial introduction to the thematic forum “Political Imaginaries at the End of Empire,” Alexander Semyonov, explicates the ambivalently hybrid nature of federalist projects as influential scenarios of the postimperial political order that bridged the seemingly unsurmountable gap between imperial and national principles (with the effect of producing an original form of composite polity). Semyonov also points out problems in the reception of federalism citing the U.S. case, which is often viewed as paradigmatic, but obscures the fact that most of the world population now lives in federations created by the reformatting of formerly imperial spaces. Federal and quasi-federal arrangements of today are thus a direct consequence of imperial diversity, and they often reveal the same challenges of ethnoterritorial nationalism, uneven development, and de facto layered citizenships.

Книга рассказывает об одном из наиболее динамично развивающихся направлений в современной историч... more Книга рассказывает об одном из наиболее динамично развивающихся направлений в современной исторической науке -- глобальной истории. В увлекательной и лаконичной форме определяются амбиции и границы этого направления. Каким образом глобальная история помогает понять локальные события и процессы? Что ускользает за пределы анализа, ограничивающегося рамками национальной истории? Как акцент на взаимосвязях, пронизывающих мир задолго до наступления эпохи глобализации, позволяет дать голос тем, что лишился его в ходе колонизации и эпистемологического доминирования европейского взгляда на мир? Каков политический и культурный потенциал глобальной истории и каковы возможные опасности нерефлексивного применения этого подхода? Таков далеко не полный список проблем, затронутых в книге немецкого историка, профессора Свободного университета в Берлине Себастьяна Конрада.

Introduction to a new series Imperial Transformations – Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet History w... more Introduction to a new series Imperial Transformations – Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet History with Routledge

Alexander Semyonov discusses the recently published book Imperial Visions: How Five Imperial Regi... more Alexander Semyonov discusses the recently published book Imperial Visions: How Five Imperial Regimes Shaped the World, by Krishan Kumar, within the broader context of ongoing historiographic debates on global and imperial history, empires as regimes for managing diversity, ruptures and transformations in histories of empire, comparisons between and entangle- ment of imperial histories, methodological nationalism, and nationalism and collapse of empires. Semyonov contends that Imperial Visions relates to recent developments in the eld of global history, provides an impor- tant corrective to the view of global historians that empires are primarily political formations, and strengthens the argument of constructivists in the eld of global history, such as that of Sebastian Conrad on global historyas an approach and the processes of “world making.” The most innovative contribution by Imperial Visions to the growing literature on empires is its systematic development of a constructivist approach to empire through ideas and ideologies of imperial mission and entanglement of imperial and national power claims. The article engages the ndings by Kumar with what Semyonov calls the growing consensus on “imperial pragmatism” (which stresses governing and practices in the experience of empire) and tests Ku- mar’s conclusions against the existing historical studies of subjectivity and functioning of universalist visions in the context of imperial diversity and hybridity. Semyonov also nds a serious tension in the book between the constructivist approach to empire through imperial ideologies and visions and the structuralist and essentialist view of the “imperial people.”

In November 2016, Alexander Semyonov interviewed Sebastian Conrad, the author of the book What Is... more In November 2016, Alexander Semyonov interviewed Sebastian Conrad, the author of the book What Is Global History? that was published by Princeton University Press in late 2016. Conrad is known for his publications on the history of German nationalism and colonialism and on Japanese historiography, as well as for his studies of the emerging field of global history. The interview focused on Conrad’s recent book, which offers an overview of the rapidly evolving field of global history and attempts to avoid equating global history with all-encompassing research. To this end, Conrad explores the specificity of global history as an approach aimed at restoring the context of historical processes. The cognitive or constructivist turn in global history announced by the author allows for meaningful comparisons between the logic of this field’s evolution and the development of New Imperial History. Conrad discusses the intellectual genealogy of the book, the problem of supplementing his “constructivist” orientation with a focus on structures, and he answers questions about the problem of historical subjectivity as perceived by different currents within global history. He also reflects on the first responses to the book by colleagues from different countries.

I f one believed in the existence of an innately liberal national character that ushered into bei... more I f one believed in the existence of an innately liberal national character that ushered into being the British Empire and made it into a progressive force for the spread of the rule of law and democracy throughout the world, in the manner of Niall Ferguson, 1 then it would be virtually impossible to elaborate a comparative framework for the analysis of liberal imperialism. Every other case would lack the necessary organic relationship between liberalism and empire. The inclusion of the case of the Russian Empire in a volume devoted to liberal imperialism might then seem strange, given the traditional association of the Russian Empire with oriental despotism and archaic and/or illiberal political culture. 2 While the condition of empire has been firmly documented as foundational for Russian history in the classical and new historiography, 3 the extent of Russian liberalism had been contested in a historiography that has pondered the question of aborted reforms and the revolution of 1917. It remains similarly contested in new studies charting the impact of empire on Russian history. Yet the inclusion of the Russian case seems justified in view of recent studies of both empire and liberalism. In order to properly situate the Russian case of relations between liberalism and empire, it is necessary to deal with these recent studies of empire and liberalism before moving to consideration of the Russian case. Empire and Liberalism Seen from a New Angle In his ambitious and thought-provoking treatment of empires in comparative perspective, Dominic Lieven claims that all empires were based on the

The World Humanities Report, 2022

Russian history, 2021

Ab Imperio , 2019

Journal of Eurasian Studies, 2020

Dimensions and Challenges of Russian Liberalism Historical Drama and New Prospects, 2019

Keywords
Russian liberalism, Russian Parliament, Constitutional Democratic Party, Russian Revolution 1905-1907 and 1917

Springer, 2019

Liberalism in Russia is one of the most complex, multifaced and, indeed, controversial phenomena ... more Liberalism in Russia is one of the most complex, multifaced and, indeed, controversial phenomena in the history of political thought. Values and practices traditionally associated with Western liberalism—such as individual freedom, property rights, or the rule of law—have often emerged ambiguously in the Russian historical experience through different dimensions and combinations. Economic and political liberalism have often appeared disjointed, and liberal projects have been shaped by local circumstances, evolved in response to secular challenges and developed within often rapidly-changing institutional and international settings.

This third volume of the Reset DOC “Russia Workshop” collects a selection of the Dimensions and Challenges of Russian Liberalism conference proceedings, providing a broad set of insights into the Russian liberal experience through a dialogue between past and present, and intellectual and empirical contextualization, involving historians, jurists, political scientists and theorists.

The first part focuses on the Imperial period, analyzing the political philosophy and peculiarities of pre-revolutionary Russian liberalism, its relations with the rule of law (Pravovoe Gosudarstvo), and its institutionalization within the Constitutional Democratic Party (Kadets). The second part focuses on Soviet times, when liberal undercurrents emerged under the surface of the official Marxist-Leninist ideology. After Stalin’s death, the “thaw intelligentsia” of Soviet dissidents and human rights defenders represented a new liberal dimension in late Soviet history, while the reforms of Gorbachev’s “New Thinking” became a substitute for liberalism in the final decade of the USSR.
The third part focuses on the “time of troubles” under the Yeltsin presidency, and assesses the impact of liberal values and ethics, the bureaucratic difficulties in adapting to change, and the paradoxes of liberal reforms during the transition to post-Soviet Russia. Despite Russian liberals having begun to draw lessons from previous failures, their project was severely challenged by the rise of Vladimir Putin. Hence, the fourth part focuses on the 2000s, when the liberal alternative in Russian politics confronted the ascendance of Putin, surviving in parts of Russian culture and in the mindset of technocrats and “system liberals”. Today, however, the Russian liberal project faces the limits of reform cycles of public administration, suffers from a lack of federalist attitude in politics and is externally challenged from an illiberal world order. All this asks us to consider: what is the likelihood of a “reboot” of Russian liberalism?

Ab Imperio, 2019

In the interview to Ab Imperio Journal within the series “Conversation with Author” Pieter Judson... more In the interview to Ab Imperio Journal within the series “Conversation with Author” Pieter Judson shares the research laboratory behind his revisionist account of the history of the Habsburg Empire (The Habsburg Empire: A New History) which was published by Harvard University press in English in 2016. The interview reveals an interesting historiographic situation at the end of the 20th century when historians of the Habsburg Empire felt the need to differentiate its experience from the domineering perspective coming from the history of the Russian Empire, while historians who rediscovered the imperial dimension in Russian history followed the ideal-type of the Habsburg multinational empire. The major thrust of revising the history of Habsburg Empire by Judson is twofold: to explore in the long duree perspective the vitality of the empire-building (“state-building from above” and “state-building from below”) in the Habsburg case through institutions and subjecthood, i.e. to decenter the national narratives about the composite Habsburg space and the idiom of inevitable decline of the Habsburg empire as another “sick man” in Europe; and to advance a systematic and symmetric comparison of modern statehood in Europe, in which the Habsburg case does not look exotic, having the imperial dimension. The interview touches on the question of global and comparative history of empires, the usefulness of comparative taxonomy of colonial-continental empire, the problem of analytical languages and hegemony of nation-centered imaginary in description of the historical experience of empire, the balance between political and social and cultural history approaches to understanding empire, and, finally, on the reception of the book in the region.

В своем интервью журналу Ab Imperio в рамках серии “Разговор с автором” Питер Джадсон делится своим исследовательским опытом по ревизии истории Габсбургской империи, которая нашла свое воплощение в книге “Габсбургская империя: Опыт нового осмысления”, изданной в издательстве Гарвардского университета в 2016 году. Интервью вскрывает интересную и малозамеченную историографическую ситуацию конца XX в., когда историки Габсбургской империи чувствовали острую потребность дистанцировать габсбургский случай от доминирующего (в их глазах) опыта Российской империи, тогда как историки российской истории активно заимствовали модель многонациональной империи для переописания опыта Российской империи. Джадсон раскрывает основные отправные точки и направления своего ревизионистского подхода: необходимость использования долгого исторического времени для понимания процессов сложения империи через политические институты и практики подданства, что позволяет децентрировать господство национальных нарративов “мозаичного” пространства империи и уйти от представления о неизбежности распада империи; центральную роль симметричного исторического сравнения истории модерного государства в Европе, которая приводит к нормализации истории Габсбургской империи. Интервью также освещает вопросы применения глобального и сравнительного подхода к истории империй, полезности сравнительной таксономии “колониальная-континентальная империя”, аналитического языка в исследовании истории империй и гегемонии нацие-центричных представлений о прошлом империи, баланса между подходами политической истории и социальной и культурной истории к пониманию имперского прошлого и, наконец, рецепции данного исследования в интеллектуальной и исторической среде региона.