Imperial Scholars and Minority Nationalisms in Late Imperial and Early Soviet Russia (original) (raw)
Related papers
The late imperial period in Russia was marked by intense debates about how to achieve social, political, and, in some instances, cultural cohesion within the context of the empire's multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism. To use our contemporary terminology, we can define the challenge that faced Russian politicians and intellectuals as a resolution of tension between the country's imperial structures and the forces of modern nationalism. 1 Among the various actors whose role in developing the new thinking about the management of the empire has recently been attracting increasing attention are imperial scholars. Particularly since the 1880s, some of them began advancing, through their research, various integrationist projects as liberal Moscow anthropologists searched for a definable "imperial race" on the territory of the Russian state, whereas linguists explicitly related their own work on Russian
Focusing on the debates in the First and Second State Duma of the Russian Empire, the article argues that the imperial parliament was the site for articulating and developing multiple approaches to political community. Together with the better studied particularistic discourses, which were based on ethno-national, religious, regional, social estate, class and other differences, many deputies of the State Duma, including those who subscribed to particularistic agendas, appealed to an inclusionary Russian political community. The production of this new, modern political community was part of the global trend of political modernization but often departed from the homogenizing and exclusionary logic of nation-building. It relied on the experience of the composite imperial space, with its fluid and overlapping social categories. Two approaches predominated. The integrative approach foregrounded civil equality. It resembled other cases of modern nation-building but still remained attentive to diversity. The composite approach synthesized particularistic discourses with the broadly circulating ideas of autonomy and federation and, relying on the imperial politics of difference, imagined individual groups as the building blocks of a new differentiated political community. Both approaches stressed loyalty to the Russian state but borrowed from aspirational patriotism, seeking to rebuild it on new principles.
The New Russian Nationalism Imperialism, Ethnicity and Authoritarianism 2000–15
Edinburgh University Press is one of the leading university presses in the UK. We publish academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social sciences, combining cutting-edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website: www. edinburghuniversitypress.com
Oriental Studies in the Russian Empire in the Context of Imperial Politics and Regional Discourse
Science and Empire in Eastern Europe. Imperial Russia and the Habsburg Monarchy in the 19th Century, 2020
In 19th-century Western Europe, science often developed in the context of emerging national states. In Eastern and East Central Europe, however, until World War I science operated in the imperial framework of the Habsburg and Tsarist Empires. The imperial characteristics of these states (such as multinationality, linguistic diversity, and a pronounced polarity between centers and peripheries) created specific conditions for the sciences. Taking this observation as a starting point, this volume addresses the interplay of science and empire in Imperial Russia and the Habsburg Monarchy in a comparative framework.
The Russian elite's imperial nationalism and the Russian society: The emergence of a grand consensus
Sociology Compass, 2018
This article uses various Russian elite and mass survey data to explain, from a post-structuralist perspective, the ongoing confrontation between Russia and the West. It argues that the Russian elite, in the wake of the 2013-2014 Ukrainian crisis, opted for imperial nationalism, different from either ethnic or civic varieties of nationalism, because it best suited its goals. Imperial identification eases ethnic tension within Russia and rallies the nation around its government in the face of perceived external threats. This choice finds an enthusiastic support at the mass level, contributing to rising happiness in spite of economic hardship due to rising national pride. The article also briefly discusses some implications of this momentous shift in identity politics. 1 | INTRODUCTION The annexation of Crimea and Russia's involvement in the East Ukraine conflict are extraordinary events that have changed the nature of the Russian government and, in particular, the source of its legitimacy. Whereas its legitimacy used to come from formal electoral victories in the context of improving well-being, it depends on geopolitical victories now (Petrov, 2015). The Kremlin was facing multiple challenges on the eve of the Ukrainian crisis: to name a few, the need to modernize the economy and society, the ideological void left by the Soviet collapse and the failure of liberal reforms, the West's advancement in the post-Soviet space, ethnic, and religious diversity at home, and the people's alienation created by its own electoral autocracy (Gel'man, 2017). These challenges contributed to the rise of nationalism, which in turn led to a new challenge of its accommodation and adaptation for the government's purposes. The choice in favor of imperial nationalism has consolidated both the Russian elite and the population at large by focusing on the West, and the United States in particular, as the significant other against whom the new Russian identity is defined.
The Tsar, The Empire, and The Nation
This collection of essays addresses the challenge of modern nationalism to the tsarist Russian Empire. First appearing on the empire’s western periphery, this challenge was most prevalent in twelve provinces extending from Ukrainian lands in the south to the Baltic provinces in the north, and to the Kingdom of Poland. At issue is whether the late Russian Empire entered World War I as a multiethnic state with many of its age-old mechanisms run by a multiethnic elite, or as a Russian state predominantly managed by ethnic Russians. The tsarist vision of prioritizing loyalty among all subjects over privileging ethnic Russians and discriminating against non-Russians faced a fundamental problem: as soon as the opportunity presented itself, non-Russians would increase their demands and become increasingly separatist. The authors found that although the imperial government did not really identify with popular Russian nationalism, it sometimes ended up implementing policies promoted by Russi...
This collection of essays addresses the challenge of modern nationalism to the tsarist Russian Empire. First appearing on the empire’s western periphery, this challenge was most prevalent in twelve provinces extending from Ukrainian lands in the south to the Baltic provinces in the north, and to the Kingdom of Poland. At issue is whether the late Russian Empire entered World War I as a multiethnic state with many of its age-old mechanisms run by a multiethnic elite, or as a Russian state predominantly managed by ethnic Russians. The tsarist vision of prioritizing loyalty among all subjects over privileging ethnic Russians and discriminating against non-Russians faced a fundamental problem: as soon as the opportunity presented itself, non-Russians would increase their demands and become increasingly separatist. The authors found that although the imperial government did not really identify with popular Russian nationalism, it sometimes ended up implementing policies promoted by Russi...