Towards a Conceptual-Historical Critique of the Essentialist and Teleological Interpretations of Russian History* ** Part 1 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Quaestio Rossica, 2023
Continuing to question some traditional historiographical theses, in this second part, the author discusses the common assertion that "popular" praxis is dependent on naïve belief in the benevolent tsar: on the contrary, the subjects of action adapt their beliefs to their needs. A still very influential historiography considers that illusions, naïve, popular, and false as well as passivity would constitute the plurisecular "mentality" of the Russian peasantry. But mentality is a category that is deficient in the explanation of historical dynamics, especially when it comes to change. Against the verdict "false" applied to the myth of the benevolent tsar, the author explains why a myth is neither true nor false and stresses that it should not be considered as a stage in a history of thought that would lead to a scholarly representation but it is necessary to understand its origin, its logic and the usefulness of its use by human beings, in particular its role in the production of modern political thought. Against the positivist historiography's disdain for popular metaphors, the author highlights the "truth" of the autocratic system that this linguistic figure expresses and the permeability between metaphor and action. The study concludes by tracing, based on the material analyzed, Russian history's own path towards a political modernity that by its reality inhibits the existence of any central modernity and situates the moment at which this Russian modernity appears in the light of day.
This review of Professor Boris Mironov's monograph highlights the discussion in his work of the most important parameters of economic development and social life in Russia in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The book covers the period from Peter the Great to the October 1917 Revolution, when the ripening of individualistic aspirations and the gradual extension of civil rights occurred. Boris Mironov's book examines the social structure of Russian cities and rural areas, means of communication, the evolution of legislation and institutions, demographic changes, etc. Considerable attention is devoted to the discourse of the erosion of the formerly rigid social hierarchy in the post-Reform period. The review noted that the author introduced a considerable array of documents into scientific circulation, mainly from RGIA. The comparative approach, which considers Russian history from the perspective of European and American models of development, is an advantage of the book. The review noted the great contribution of Boris Mironov in the analysis of recent historiography; especially valuable in this regard is his reflection of the most important academic discussions of the last forty years.
Politics and Law. 2012. Vol. 50. № 1. pp. 36-53
In “The Specific Nature of ‘Russian State Power’: Its Mental Structures, Ritual Practices, and Institutions,” Nikolai Rozov develops a dynamic theory of Russian state power as an ideal type and emphasizes the roles played by frames, symbols, and interactive rituals in its creation. He presents these frames as dichotomies, with key frames for Russian power including the concepts of our own versus other and idealism versus profit. He then argues that the specifics of these frames lead to the characteristics of the Russian national character, including such factors as atomization, poor self-discipline, and incapacity for self-organization, which result from the rejection of everything alien. Other characteristics, both positive and negative, result from various combinations of these frames. Rozov then goes on to consider how these frames can explain some of the key attributes of Russian state power. He notes that Russian officials consider the rest of the population to belong to the category of other, rather than considering them to be part of our own. This mentality increases their willingness to sacrifice the people for the goal of achieving and holding on to power. As a result, the rulers have limited legitimacy in the eyes of the population and frequently have to result to violence to maintain control. Rozov concludes that as the international community has evolved, the crises of the Russian authoritarian state have become more frequent. As a result, the cycle of disintegration and restoration may be broken through a peaceful institutional revolution carried out by those social groups that do not accept the traditional cultural frames.
2014
This article is intended as a thought experiment on the meaning of the Russian concept narod, generally translated “people,” during the Time of Troubles (Smutnoe vremia) of the early seventeenth century. The topic is significant, since in this period the Muscovite politico-religious elite propounded a notion of vox populi as a legitimizing and even decisive force in determining the right course of action for the entire realm. Two closely related concepts, the so-called zemskii sobor (Assembly of the Land) and the idea of Holy Russia or Rus’, have been much debated in historiography. I argue that these historiographic discussions could benefit from more emphasis on the fundamental linguistic concepts of the time, as distinct from the later conceptualizations of historians. The present reconsideration of the meaning of narod, or who was included within notions of “the people,” suggests that language as much as anything else played a role in the dramatic historical shifts that have shaped Russian culture to this day. Keywords: Time of Troubles – Russian Orthodox Christianity – zemskii sobor – vox populi – people – narod – Holy Russia
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 2021
The purpose of this article is to analyse world-view and mythological expressions in Russian and Soviet Constitutional acts that implicitly or explicitly refer to any kind of idea legitimising the shape of the state, its political system or the nature of political power. The object of the argument will be exclusively such provisions of fundamental laws which: (1) having neither a purely regulatory nor a purely programmatic character, model mental representations of the world of the legal text by reference to 'situationally transcendent' ideas in Mannheim's sense (i.e. ideas which refer to a reality different from the perceived one; those that sketch visions alternative to it); (2) justify the content of the legal provision by means of such imagery, without being part of the preamble or any different integral part of the Constitution, characterised by a different ontology of the text; (3) justify the content of provisions linked to political power and/or the nature of the state. The materials of the analysis are: Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire of 1906, the Constitutional texts of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of 1924, 1936 and 1977, and the current Constitution of the Russian Federation. Consecutive Constitutions of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic are also referred to. The analysed formulations, legally irrelevant in a conventional reading of a legal text, participate in the semiosis of both the provisions that contain them and the entire texts of the fundamental laws. In this way, the Constitutions incorporate into their complex of meanings either religious expressions, mythologised ideological figures or figures of historical memory associated with collective identity.